NataliyaIvankova Dissertation CA Mixedmethods Compressed

STUDENTS’ PERSISTENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA - LINCOLN
DISTRIBUTED DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHff IN
HIGHER EDUCATION: A MIXED METHODS STUDY
by
Nataliya V. Ivankova
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of
The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Major: Administration, Curriculum, and Instruction

(Educational Leadership in Higher Education)
Under the Supervision of Professor Sheldon L. Stick
Lincoln, Nebraska
April, 2004
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3131545
Copyright 2004 by
Ivankova, Nataliya V.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3131545
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
DISSERTATION TITLE
S tu d e n ts' P e r s i s t e n c e In The U n i v e r s i t y n f N eh ra sV a -T .in p n ln Pi gf-riKni-pH
D o c t o r a l Program i n E d u c a tin n a l L ea d er s h i p d n Hi g h e r F .d n ca ti'o n :

A M ixed M eth od s S tu d y
BY
N a t a l i y a V. Iv a n k o v a
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE;
Am rg Date
ghature
S h e ld o n L. S t i c k
Typed Name
S ig n atu re
M ile s T. B ry a n t
Typed Name
tvo-;/ •2-/, zooy

Sifoijlture
John W. C r e s w e ll
iName
ignatiire
M a r ilv n L . Gradv
Typed Name
Siffliature
Typed Name
Signature
Typed Name
GRADUATE
COLLEGE
DISTRIBUTED DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN
Nataliya V. Ivankova, PhD.
University of Nebraska, 2004
Advisor; Sheldon L. Stick
The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to
understand what impacted students’ persistence in the in the Distributed Doctoral
Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education offered by the University
Nebraska - Lincoln. In the first, quantitative phase of the study, the research questions
focused on identifying the predictive power of ten composite variables, representing
selected internal and extemal factors to students’ persistence in the program. The data
were collected via a web-based survey (N=278), using a self-developed instrument. The
response rate was 74.5%. First, the participants’ answers to separate items on the survey
scales were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A discriminant function analysis
identified five variables best predicting the group membership: program, online leaming
environment, student support services, faculty, and self-motivation.
In the second, qualitative phase, four case studies, selected on typical response
and maximal variation principle, one from each of the four participant groups (Beginning,
Matriculated, Graduates, and Withdrawn/Inactive), explored the results from the
statistical tests in more depth. The data collection included multiple sources. Four themes
related to the participants’ persistence in the program emerged in the thematic analysis of
each case and across the cases: quality of academic experiences, online leaming
environment, support and assistance, and self-motivation. In each case, the themes
differed in the number and similarity of categories comprising them. There were more
similarities between the participants still in the program, than with the graduated or
withdrawn/inactive members. The quality of the program and students’ academic
experiences leaming in the online environment was the most discussed theme. Quality
and online leaming environment were also the reasons for withdrawal from the program.
The results of the quantitative and qualitative phases were integrated while
interpreting the outcomes of the entire study. Based on the findings from the quantitative
and qualitative phases of the study, a preliminary model of students’ persistence in a
distributed doctoral program was developed.
In memory of my Father
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to acknowledge many people who helped and my family in this five-year
journey towards a doctoral degree in a new country and in a new academic environment.
I would like to start with the US government which let me come over to the United States
to pursue a doctoral degree in the most advanced society and the best higher education
system in the world. It also made possible for my family to join me and stay with me
during all these years.
I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Educational Administration
Department (L. Dlugosh, Chair) for accepting me into the program and granting the
graduate assistantship for two years; to the Department of Distance and Evening
Programs (N. Aden-Fox, Director) for the experience, support and friendship I received
while being a graduate assistant in that unit; and to the Office of Qualitative and Mixed
Methods Research (J. Creswell, Director) where I finally found a nurturing home and a
place to grow intellectually and professionally. I am grateful to the Graduate Studies
Office for recognizing my academic and professional accomplishments and awarding me
the Presidential Fellowship for 2002-2003 Academic Year.
I want to sincerely thank the professors in the ELHE program for their feedback
and help in conducting this study, and the current and former students in the ELHE
program for participating in this study and for providing valuable insights into their
persistence in the distributed leaming environment. I appreciate the insightful feedback
and second opinion from my dissertation committee members, J. Creswell, M. Bryant,
and M. Grady, which helped improve this study and suggested new venues to explore in
future research.
I will be forever indebted to my academic advisor, Dr. Sheldon Stick, for his
constant support, assistance, guidance, motivation, and advising with this study and
throughout the program. His great mind and vision helped me conceptualize this study
and bring it to the accepted scholarly and professional level. Friendship with him and his
wife, Roberta, made it easier for me and my family to adjust in the new environment and
find a second home in Lincoln. Thank you for making the dream come true!
I want to express my deep gratitude to my mentor and director, Dr. John Creswell,
for his teaching, guidance, and role modeling in being a researcher, writer, and educator.
My knowledge of research design and methodology, reflected in this dissertation, is a
consequence of collaborative work with him and my dear colleagues in the Office:
V. Plano Clark, R. Shope, R. McEntarffer, Y. Lu, and S. Trout.
My dear appreciation and love to pastors, A1 and Joyce Burkes, for their consent
support, love and prayers, and for having accepted me, my husband, and son into their
family. My sincere appreciation, gratitude, and love to my parents, Vladimir and Tamara
Ivankova, who always wanted me to be a scholar, and who cultivated in me this drive by
constant support, assistance and encouragement, and investment in my education. My
dear father did not live six months to see his daughter being hooded and graduated with
the terminal degree he had always dreamed about.
No words will ever express my deep gratitude to my husband, Ivan Herbey, and
our son, Igor, who were always loving, proud, and supportive of me in my efforts to earn
the doctoral degree in a foreign language. Their understanding and encouragement helped
me overcome the difficulties and relieve the stress of balancing family, professional, and
academic life.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem............................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Study.................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions.......................................................................................................5
Definitions and Terms.................................................................................................. 6
Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education ..11
Theoretical Perspective.............................................................................................. 14
Tinto’s model.................................................................................................. 14
Bean’s model...................................................................................................15
Kember’s model..............................................................................................16
Principles versus predicting...........................................................................17
Delimitations............................................................................................................... 17
Limitations.................................................................................................................. 18
Significance of the Study........................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE........................................................................ 21

Persistence in Doctoral Programs......................................................................................21
Academic and Social Integration.............................................................................. 21
Departmental factors...................................................................................... 21
Academic advisors......................................................................................... 23
Support and encouragement.......................................................................... 25
Stages in Doctoral Education and Student Persistence............................................27
Dissertation Progress................................................................................................. 29
Motivation and Personal Goals..................................................................................33
Extemal Factors.......................................................................................................... 34
Family and employment.................................................................................34
Finances.......................................................................................................... 36
Relationships...................................................................................................37
Distance Education Student Profile...................................................................................39
Age and gender............................................................................................... 39
Location...........................................................................................................40
Goals......................................................... 40
Characteristics................................................................................................ 41
Persistence in Distance Education.....................................................................................41
Demographic Characteristics.....................................................................................41
Multiple Factors.......................................................................................................... 44
Models of Student Persistence in DE........................................................................ 46
Student Persistence in Distanee Education Doctoral Programs...................................... 50
Summary.............................................................................................................................. 53
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN.................................................................................... 55

Characteristics of Mixed Methods Design................................................................ 55
Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory D esign..................................................... 56
Advantages and Limitations of the Sequential Explanatory D esign..................... 58
Target Population....................................................................................................... 60
Research Permission and Ethical Considerations.................................................... 61
The Role of the Researcher....................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER 4: PHASE I, QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS...................................................66

Methods and Procedure.......................................................................................................... 66
Variables in the Quantitative Analysis.....................................................................66
Instrument................................................................................................................... 68
Pilot Survey Administration..................................................................................... 70
Internal consistency reliability...................................................................... 71
Factor analysis................................................................................................ 72
Quantitative Data Collection..............................................................................................73
Sampling................. 73
Survey Administration............................................................................................... 73
Quantitative Data Analysis................................................................................................ 75
Participant Groups in the Quantitative Analysis...................................................... 75
Univariate Analysis.................................................................................................... 76
Multivariate Analysis................................................................................................. 77
Data Screening........................................................................................................... 77
Missing D ata.................................................................................................. 78
Descriptive statistics..................................................................................... 79
Linearity and homoscedasticity....................................................................80
Multivariate normality.................................................................................. 80
Multivariate outliers.......................................................................................80
Reliability and Validity.......................................................................................................... 82
Reliability Analysis............................................................................................................ 82
Descriptive Statistics and Frequency Distributions................................................. 82
Intemal Consistency Reliability................................................................................ 83
Item-total correlation.................................................................................... 83
Cronbach’s alpha or coefficient alpha.......................................................... 83
Corrected item-total correlation....................................................................84
Alpha-if-item deleted..................................................................................... 85
Validity................................................................................................................................85
Content Validity......................................................................................................... 86
Construct Validity...................................................................................................... 86
Inter-item correlations................................................................................... 87
Factor analysis............................................................................................... 87
Quantitative Results................................................................................................................ 90
Participants Demographic Information.....................................................................90
Age.................................................................................................................. 90
Gender............................................................................................................ 90
Employment................................................................................................... 91
NE residency.................................................................................................. 91
Family status.................................................................................................. 92
Scale Items Frequencies Analysis............................................................................. 92
Intemal factors............................................................................................... 93
Online leaming environment........................................................................ 97
Advising........................................................................................................100
Self-motivation............................................................................................ 102
Extemal factors............................................................................................ 103
Discriminant Function Analysis............................................................................. 106
Summary o f the Quantitative Results............................................................................. 112
CHAPTER 5: PHASE II, QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS.................................................. 117

Methods and Procedure.........................................................................................................117
Connecting Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Mixed Methods Design 117
Case Selection........................................................................................................... 117
Interview Protocol Development............................................................................ 120
Pilot Study..........................................................................................................................122
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis........................................................................... 127
Qualitative Research Design.................................................................................... 127
Data Collection.........................................................................................................128
Qualitative Analysis................................................................................................. 129
Verification Procedures........................................................................................... 133
Qualitative Findings.............................................................................................................. 135
Case Study 1: Gwen.......................................................................................................... 135
Quality........................................................................................................................137
Online Leaming Environment.................................................................................141
Support.......................................................................................................................143
Self-Motivation......................................................................................................... 146
Case Study 2: Lorie........................................................................................................... 149
Quality........................................................................................................................150
Support.......................................................................................................................155
Self-Motivation......................................................................................................... 158
Case Study 3: L arry.......................................................................................................... 160
Quality........................................................................................................................161
Support.......................................................................................................................166
Self-Motivation......................................................................................................... 171
Case Study 4: Susan.......................................................................................................... 174
Quality........................................................................................................................175
Support.......................................................................................................................180
Self-Motivation......................................................................................................... 181
Cross Case Analysis.......................................................................................................... 183
Themes and Categories Across Cases..................................................................... 183
Quality........................................................................................................... 183
Online Leaming Environment.................................................................... 185
Support.......................................................................................................... 186
Self-Motivation............................................................................................ 188
Themes by Cases.......................................................................................................190
Lessons Learned........................................................................................................192
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION............................................................................................... 196

Overview................................................................................................................................ 196
Interpreting Quantitative and Qualitative Results............................................................... 197
Guiding Research Questions.................................................................................... 197
Program-Related Factors......................................................................................... 199
Academic Advisor- and Faculty-Related Factors.................................................. 207
Institution-Related Factors.......................................................................................211
Student-Related Factors...........................................................................................213
Extemal Factors....................................................................................................... 214
Model of Students’ Persistence in the ELHE-DE Program............................................... 216
Implications and Recommendations................................................................................... 219
Future Research.................................................................................................................... 223
CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 225

Study Design.............................................................................................................225
Quantitative P hase............................................................................................................226
Data Collection........................................................................................................ 226
Data Analysis............................................................................................................226
Results....................................................................................................................... 227
Qualitative P hase..............................................................................................................228
Data Collection........................................................................................................ 228
Qualitative Analysis................................................................................................. 228
Findings..................................................................................................................... 229
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 232
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Institutional Research Board Approvals
A-1: Institutional Research Board Approval for the Quantitative Phase

A-2; Institutional Research Board Approval for the Qualitative Phase
Appendix B: Informed Consent Forms
B-1: Informed Consent Form for Survey

B-2: Informed Consent Form for Individual Interviews
Appendix C; UNL Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in

Higher Education Student Survey
Appendix D: Participant Recruitment Letters
D-1: Open Letter to All Distributed Doctoral Students
D-2: Recruitment Email to Eligible Study Participants
D-3: Survey Reminder
D-4: Survey Final Reminder
D-5: Recruitment Email to the Case Study Partieipant
Appendix E: Quantitative Tables
E-1: Missing Data for Selected Scale Items

E-2: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Partieipants
E-3: Descriptive Statisties for Intemal Factors Scale by Group
Appendix F: Students’ Persistence in the University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher
Education: A Mixed Methods Study Interview Protocol
Appendix G: Qualitative Tables
G-1: Case Thematic Analysis Tables

G-2: Themes and Categories Across Cases
G-3; Themes by Cases Perspectives
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Predictor Variables in Quantitative Analysis....................................................... 69
Table 4.2 Survey Response Rate by Participant Group....................................................... 75
Table 4.3 Missing Data for Selected Scale Items.............................................................. E-1
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics for Composite Variables................................................... 79
Table 4.5 Multivariate Outliers.............................................................................................. 81
Table 4.6 Intemal Consistency Reliability for Subscale Items............................................84
Table 4.7 Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants........................................ E-2
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for Intemal Factors Scale by Group............................... E-3
Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics for Online Leaming Environment Scale by Group E-3
Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for Advising Scale by Group........................................ E-3
Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics for Self-Motivation Scale by Group.............................E-3
Table 4.12 Descriptive Statistics for Extemal Factors Scale by Group............................E-3
Table 4.13 Summary o f Canonical Discriminant Functions.............................................. 107
Table 4.14 Wilk’s Lambda Test in Discriminant Fimction Analysis............................... 107
Table 4.15 Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients.........................108
Table 4.16 Stmcture Matrix in Discriminant Function Analysis.......................................110
Table 4.17 Functions at Group Centroids in Discriminant Function Analysis................ I l l
Table 5.1 Participants per Group with Means.................................................................... 118
Table 5.2 Typical ELHE-DE Participant.............................................................................119
Table 5.3 Individuals Selected for Case Study Analysis................................................... 120
Table 5.4 Data Collection Matrix of Information Sources by Factors Selected for
Qualitative Case Study Analysis..........................................................................130
Table 5.5 Themes and Categories in Gwen’s Case.......................................................... G-1
Table 5.6 Themes and Categories in Lorie’s Case........................................................... G-1
Table 5.7 Themes and Categories in Larry’s Case........................................................... G-1
Table 5.8 Themes and Categories in Susan’s Case.......................................................... G-1
Table 5.9 Themes and Categories Across Cases................................................................ G-2
Table 5.10 Themes by Cases Perspectives......................................................................... G-3
Table 5.11 Similar Thematic Categories in Cross-Case Analysis..................... 190
Table 5.12 Themes by Cases with Counts of Text Units................................................... 192
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Visual Model for Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Design................. 59
Procedures
Figure 5.1 Visual Model of Multiple Case Study Qualitative Data Analysis...................131
Figure 6.1 Model o f Student Persistence in the ELHE-DE Program...............................218
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Statement o f the Problem
Graduate education is a major part of American higher education, with more than
1,850 million students enrolled in graduate programs (NCES, 2002). Approximately one
fifth are graduate students pursuing doctoral degrees (NSF, 1998). Out of this number,
from 40 to 60% of students who begin their doctoral studies do not persist to graduation
(Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Geiger, 1997; Nolan, 1999; Tinto, 1993). The high dropout
rate among doctoral students seems incongruous given the importance of doctoral study
to research, education, policy, leadership and professional practice (Bowen &
Rudenstine, 1992; Kerlin, 1995; Mitchell-Keman, 1998).
High failure rate and the ever increasing time to degree is reported as a chronic
problem in doctoral education (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000, NSF, 1998) and results in a loss
of high-level resources (Tinto, 1993). In educational majors, attrition from doctoral
programs is estimated at approximately fifty 50%. Furthermore, of this 50%, about 20%
give up at the dissertation stage (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Cesari, 1990). Failure at
this point is not only painful and expensive for a student, but also discouraging for faculty
involved, and injurious to an institution’s reputation (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Golde,
2000; Johnson, Green, & Kluever, 2000).
Why doctoral students fail to meet their academic goals and leave programs prior
to degree completion has long been a focus of researchers’ attention (Baird, 1993). A
concomitant interest is doctoral student persistence, i. e., the ability and desire of doctoral
students to persist in their academic programs throughout the successful completion of
their degrees (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992). Many studies have been done to understand
aspects of attrition or reasons for persistence of doctoral students in traditional campus-
based programs (Bair & Haworth, 1999; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Golde, 2001;
Haworth, 1996; Kowalik, 1989). However, there is much less research on doctoral
student attrition and persistence in Distance Education (DE), particularly computer-
mediated asynchronous leaming (CMAL) environments (Tinto, 1998). Existing studies
mostly focus on undergraduate DE students, individual courses rather than programs, and
other than CMAL distance leaming delivery means.
Although leaming via distance, with the help of interactive technology is a fairly
new phenomenon, DE has become a pronounced and viable altemative to the traditional
higher education face-to-face classroom mode in selected areas of graduate education. In
many ways, DE using CMAL is different from a conventional educational setting. It
provides participants great flexibility for leaming opportunities because of being location
and time free. Instead of conventional constraints imposed by schedules for classes, it
allows for and facilitates maximum involvement by all participants. Further, it tends to
cultivate a distinctly different student population, course design, and instmctional
techniques (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2000).
The student population is composed of mainly part-time adult students. Generally
they have numerous and demanding commitments to work, family, and social lives, and
seek ‘career-friendly’ courses, locally or at a distance, using distance leaming methods
(Finke, 2000; Holmberg, 1995; Thompson, 1998). These students tend to be more
vulnerable to factors encroaching on their academic progress because their school-related
activities often are not primary life objectives. Their other commitments assume greater
degrees o f obligation and necessity, at least during ineipient stages of DE.
Persistence in DE is a complex phenomenon influenced by a multitude of factors
(Kember, 1990). Academic success in a distance leaming environment using CMAL
depends on many factors: challenges set by the distance leaming environment, personally
related intemal and extemal variables, financial burdens, computer literacy, ability to
access requisite technology, time management, and absent or questionable support from
an employer and/or family. Researchers claim a higher dropout rate among DE students
than commonly found among conventional students (Carr, 2000; Diaz, 2000; Parker,
1999; Verduin & Clark, 1991). Their lack of persistence often is attributed to a failure of
becoming socially and academically integrated, as well as other factors intemal and
extemal to an academic institution (Kember, 1995).
Given the claimed high dropout rate of students from DE and the fact increasing
numbers of postsecondary institutions offer advanced-degree distributed programs, it is
important to know why some students are successful in pursuing doctoral degrees in
CMAL environment and why others fail. Knowledge and understanding of the factors
contributing to and/or impeding students’ persistence may help academic institutions
better meet DE students’ needs and increase their retention and degree completion rate.
This is especially important today when postsecondary institutions have to confront the
growing problems of revenue generation and increasing budget cuts. Knowledge of the
evolving tendencies may also serve as a baseline for higher educational administrators in
elaborating extended education policies, designing and developing DE programs, and
improving distant student support infrastructure.
This dissertation adds to research on persistence of distance learners hy
identifying factors contributing to and/or impeding students’ persistence in the
Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education (further on
refened to as ELHE-DE) offered by the University Nebraska - Lincoln (UNL), using a
mixed methods design. The rationale for combining both quantitative and qualitative
approaches was the quantitative data and results provided a general picture of the
research problem, i. e., what intemal and extemal factors contributed to and/or impeded
students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program, while the qualitative data and its analysis
refined and explained these statistical results by exploring the participants’ views in more
depth (Creswell, 2002; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory investigation was to
study doctoral students’ persistence by obtaining statistical, quantitative results from
survejdng a sample of the distributed leaming ELHE students and then following-up with
four purposefully selected individuals to explore these results in more depth by semi-
stmctured interviews and other elicitation materials. In the first, quantitative phase of the
study, the quantitative research questions addressed how selected intemal and extemal
variables to the ELHE-DE program served as predictors to students’ persistence and/or
non-persistence in the program. In the second, qualitative phase, four case studies,
selected on typical response and maximal variation principle, one from each of the four
groups of participants (withdrawn and inactive, active in the first half of the program,
active in the second half of the program, and graduated) explored in-depth the results
from the statistical tests.
Research Questions
For the first, quantitative phase of this study the guiding research question was:
- What factors (intemal and extemal) predicted students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE
program?
The subquestions for Phase I were:
1. How did the ELHE-DE program-related factors impact students’ persistence in the
program?
2. How did the academic advisor- and faculty-related factors impact ELHE-DE students’
persistence in the program?
3. How did the institution-related (UNL) factors impact ELHE-DE students’ persistence
in the program?
4. How did the student-related factors impact their persistence in the ELHE-DE program?
5. How did the extemal factors impact ELHE-DE students’ persistence in the program?
For the second, qualitative phase of this study the overarching research questions
were:
- How did the selected factors (intemal and extemal) identified in Phase I, contribute to
and/or impede students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program?
- How can the statistical results obtained in the quantitative phase be explained?
The subquestions for Phase II were formulated after the completion of the first,
quantitative phase of the study, and were grounded in the results of the statistical tests
from Phase I:
1. How did the participants describe the ELHE-DE program as related to their
persistence?
2. How did the participants describe their experiences leaming in the CMAL environment
as related to their persistence in the ELHE-DE program?
3. What was the role of the virtual community in students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE
program?
4. What was the role of the university faculty in students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE
program?
5. What was the role o f the institutional support services in students’ persistence in the
ELHE-DE program?
6. How motivated were the students to persist in the ELHE-DE program?
7. What was the role of the academic advisor in students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE
program?
Definitions and Terms
Academic advisor is the person assigned to serve as primary mentor to a student.
Academic program o f studies is the designed sequence of formal and informal
coursework, including research activities, internships, and directed study, prepared for
each doctoral student and approved by the respecting Doctoral Supervisory Committee
and Graduate School Dean.
Administration, Curriculum and Instruction is one of the doctoral programs
offered through UNL College of Education and Human Sciences.
Admitted and active students are those who are admitted into the ELHE-DE
program and have been enrolled in at least one credit hour of academic coursework
and/or dissertation hours during the last three terms (spring, fall, summer). Admitted but
not active students are designated as inactive.
Asynchronous is a type of communication occurring with a time delay between
steps in the dialog, allowing participants to respond at their own convenience. Literally
“not synchronous”; in other words, not at the same time. Asynchronous capabilities give
learners access to course materials, including readings, embedded and streamed
multimedia, and extemal Web sites. They also allow leamers to participate in
facilitated discussions, and complete assignments individually and collaboratively (Web
Based Leaming Resources Library, 2002).
Attrition refers to a student who has been enrolled in a program of studies and
fails to continue or make satisfactory progress (Isaac, 1993).
Blackboard is a Web-based server software platform enabling colleges and
universities to put their academic, administrative, community and other educational
services online. It offers a course management system, an open architecture for
customization and interoperability, and a scalable design. It features; (I) modular
architecture for superior scalability and performance, enabling single-site
implementations to support tens of thousands of users and thousands of courses;
8
(2) an open architecture to support third-party leaming applications, interfaces, and
system services to seamlessly interact with the Blackboard platform (Blackboard Inc.,
2002 ).
Comprehensive examination is a broad examination covering material in several
courses, typically taken at the end of doctoral course work before writing the dissertation
(Glossary of United States Educational Terminology, 2002).
Dissertation is a formal writing requirement —often an original contribution to
knowledge and research —for a doctoral degree (Glossary of United States Educational
Terminology, 2002).
Dissertation proposal is a blueprint of the proposed dissertation study, which
provides the background information for the study topic, states the study aim and
research questions, and discusses the methodological procedures.
Distance education is a formal instmction in which a majority of the teaching
function occurs while an educator and leamer are at a distance from one another (Verduin
& Clark, 1991).
Distributed learning is a general term used to describe a multi-media method of
instructional delivery including a mix of Web-based instmction, streaming video
conferencing, face-to-face classroom time, distance leaming through television or video,
or other combinations of electronic and traditional educational models. Distributed
leaming can be executed in a variety of ways, but is consistent in always accommodating
a separation o f geographical locations for part (or all) of the instmction, and focuses on
leamer-to-leamer as well as instmctor-to-leamer interaction (Whatis?com, 2001).
9
Doctoral degree is the highest academic credential a student can earn for graduate
study. The doctoral degree classification has numerous distinctions, such as Doctor of
Education, Doctor of Juridical Science, Doctor of Public Health, Doctor of Philosophy
degree, etc. For this study, the consideration is on just the Doctor of Philosophy and
Doctor of Education degrees in Educational Leadership and Higher Education (ELHE)
(Common Data Set of U.S. Higher Education Terminology, 2002).
Doctoral Supervisory Committee is comprised of at least four Graduate Faculty
Fellows, at least one being from outside the major department.
Drop-out or withdrawn is a person who enrolled in a program of academic studies
and does not eventually complete it (Kember, 1995).
ELHE-DE is a Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher
Education offered through the Department of Educational Administration at the
University Nebraska - Lincoln. The primary platforms used are Lotus Notes and
Blackboard.
Lotus Notes is a distance leaming platform integrating live, asynchronous and
self-paced content delivery. It provides integrated collaborative environment that
facilitates organized communication among students and professors in distance and
distributed classes (IBM Lotus Notes, 2002).
Matriculated refers to a student enrolled in a program leading to a degree
(Glossary of United States Educational Terminology, 2002).
Oral defense is the process during which a doctoral candidate defends the premise
of the dissertation, methods for analyzing data collected, interpretations and conclusions.
10
The process is done before at least the members of the Doctoral Supervisory Committee,
who then vote on the adequacy of the candidate's work. A positive vote leads to
recommending the candidate be awarded the doctoral degree sought.
Persistence for the ELHE-DE students is defined as successful completion of six
credit hours of course work within two years or being enrolled for dissertation hours and
making demonstrable progress toward completion of the dissertation.
Program o f studies for either the Ph.D. or Ed.D. in ELHE includes seven
components: 1) doctoral seminars, 2) coursework in the area o f emphasis, 3) common
studies, 4) multicultural/global perspectives, 5) teaching or internship requirement, 6)
research requirements, and 7) service requirement. An academic program of studies
addressing these areas varies according to an individual student’s needs, expectations,
and goals. Appointment of the Doctoral Supervisory Committee and approval of a
student’s program of studies by the Dean of Graduate Studies establishes the program of
studies for a doctoral student. Students must complete no less than 45 semester hours of
coursework, including the dissertation, after approval of the program of study. For the
Ph.D. up to one-half may be transferred in as acceptable graduate credit, but a minimum
of 90 semester graduate hours must be completed, excluding research tools. Those
courses usually consist of another 15-18 hours of graduate credit. For the Ed.D. a
minimum of 96 hours of approved semester graduate hours is required, and up to one-half
may be accepted as transfer credit if approved by the Doctoral Supervisory Committee.
Research tools are included in the academic program, a marked distinction from the
Ph.D. (Graduate Studies Bulletin 2000-2002).
11
Residency is a period of time when a doctoral student is in locus. Conventionally
it refers to a doctoral student completing a prescribed number of graduate hours within a
defined period of time. The intent is to ensure continued progress toward completion of a
Program o f Studies. The University of Nebraska - Lincoln requirements for meeting
residency requirements are completion of 27 hours of graduate course work within a
period of 18 months, or if employed in higher education the requirement is 24 hours of
course work within a period of 24 months. At no time is there a stipulation for a student
being physically present on campus, so the term locus refers to satisfying a condition
during a passage of time.
Retention is the process by which a student enters a program of study and remains
until graduated (Gunn & Sanford, 1988).
Virtual - “not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so
from the point of view of the program or the user” (Jewell & Abate, 2001).
Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education
The Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education
is offered through the Department of Educational Administration at the University of
Nebraska Lincoln (Seagren & Stick, 1999; Seagren & Watwood, 1996, 1997; Stick &
Ivankova, in press). The program offers students a choice of the Ph.D. or the Ed.D.
degrees. It is possible for students to complete an entire doctoral degree, meeting
residency requirements, via the distributed mode.
The program was initiated in 1994 as a response to bolster declining student
enrollment. At the time, there were 21 doctoral students in various stages of their
12
programs. Introduction of the ELHE-DE program immediately enlarged the pool from
which students could he selected, because it projected the program onto a world-wide
stage. Previously it had been constrained to a finite, if not consistently decreasing stage,
circumscribed by state boundaries with a small population. In 1997, the first students who
completed at least half o f their programs online were graduated with the doctoral degrees
in Administration, Curriculum, and Instruction with the emphasis in Educational
Leadership in Higher Education (Stick & Ivankova, 2003).
In the summer of 2002, there were 370 students in varying stages of their
programs, and between 180-200 were active during any given semester. Those
participants took some o f their coursework on campus because a program of studies to
best accommodate their needs was not available online, or they wanted the on-campus
experience. August 2002 saw the first doctoral graduate to complete all required work
without any time in physical residence. December 2002 saw two more such graduates,
and it was expected the numbers would increase sharply during 2003 and 2004 (S. L.
Stick, personal communication, December 16, 2002,).
Innovative teaching methodologies and a distributed learning environment
enabled most program participants to complete their Program of Study within a 36 to 60-
month period, with minimal disruption to lifestyle, family responsibilities, and
employment. Most of the coursework necessary for the degree is provided through
distributed learning software using multiple computer systems and platforms, which
utilize the Internet as a connecting link. A majority of the program is delivered to the
students via the UNL adaptation of the Lotus Notes groupware, which provides
13
asynchronous and collaborative learning experiences to participants (Stick & Ivankova,
2003).
Complying with the university residency requirement (27 hours in 18 months, or
24 hours in 24 months if employed in the major field), participants are encouraged to
have some on-campus attendance. Perhaps half to two-thirds of the students attend one or
more campus summer school sessions; configurations for 3, 5, 8, 10, or 13 weeks are
made to accommodate participants regarding the on-campus experience, and to balance
program requirements with participants’ personal, professional, and academic needs. The
on-campus experience enables students to take courses not currently offered online, work
intensively with their academic advisor, meet and work with other students in the ELHE-
DE program, and to concentrate on their studies for a period of time with minimal daily
disruptions (On-Line Graduate Degrees in Higher Education, 2002).
In an effort to create a supportive and integrated leaming environment, students in
the distributed program have access to a virtual student organization, a virtual student
union, UNL library online access, student advising, and technical support (Center for the
Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, 2001). These services are comparable, and
probably better, than those provided to on-campus students and help distant students get
socially and academically integrated into the UNL leaming community. There is a great
deal of sensitivity toward the supporting services needed by DE students by library
personnel, registration offices, graduate office personnel, and, of course, most faculty
working in the DE program.
14
Theoretical Perspective
Three major theories of student persistence —Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) Student
Integration Theory, Bean’s (1980, 1985, 1990) Student Attrition Model, and Kember’s
(1989a, 1990, 1995) model of dropout from distance education courses —served as a
theoretical foundation for this study.
Tinto ’s model. Tinto’s Student Integration Theory (1975) conceptualized
persistence as an outcome o f students’ interactions with their colleges and universities as
organizations. In this model, Tinto described the relationship between student
background characteristics and educational expectations and the characteristics of
academic institutions. Students’ background characteristics were seen as important
predictors of persistence because they helped determine how a student interacted with an
institution’s social and academic systems, and subsequently become integrated into it.
Tinto’s conceptual model represented five variable sets in a causal sequence: (1)
background characteristics; (2) initial goal and institutional commitments; (3) academic
and social integration; (4) subsequent goal and institutional commitments; and (5)
withdrawal decisions.
Tinto (1987, 1993) identified attrition as lack of congruency between students and
academic institutions. Academic performance and social involvement reflected the degree
to which students were integrated into an institution, and determined the degree to which
students established committed goals for being graduated. Dropout was viewed as a
consequence of a multidimensional process involving interactions between an individual
and an institution. Tinto’s model suggested the characteristics of an institution, like its
15
resources, facilities, structural arrangements, and composition of its members, imposed
limits on the development and integration of individuals within an institution and thus led
to development of academic and social climates, with which an individual must contend.
Tinto’s theory, however, did not address external factors, such as the influence of
family, friends and employers, and their role in shaping perceptions, commitments, and
preferences, and sustaining students’ persistence (Bean & Metzner, 1985). Bean
presented the Student Attrition Model (1980, 1985, 1990) to further expand on
undergraduate students’ retention, taking into account the impact of external forces on
students’ persistence.
Bean’s model. Bean’s model (1980) proposed students’ intentions to stay at their
academic institutions were shaped by their beliefs and attitudes, which resulted from
academic and social experiences with an institution. Positive college experiences led to
favorable beliefs and attitudes toward an institution, which fostered an intention to
persist. Factors external to an institution affected both attitudes and decisions of students
and were active while a student was attending a college. A better match between student
and institutional characteristics was presumed to lead to higher persistence rates (Cabrera,
Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992).
These two theoretieal models. Student Integration Theory (Tinto, 1975) and
Student Attrition Model (Bean, 1980) provided a comprehensive framework on college
departure decisions (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993). Both models regarded
persistence as the result of a complex set of interactions over a period of time, and both
argued persistence was affected hy a successful match between student and institution
16
(Hossler, 1984). However, both Tinto’s Student Integration Theory (1975) and Bean’s
Student Attrition Model (1985) focused on undergraduate residential, mostly freshmen,
students. They assumed such students would be attending college as a primary
responsibility and had no other primary commitments (Martin, 1990). In addition, the two
theories did not distinguish between traditional (18-22 years olds) and nontraditional
(older and working) student departure (Ashar & Skenes, 1993), and did not discuss the
applicability of the model to graduate students, or in nontraditional educational settings,
like distance education.
Kember’s model. Kember reformulated (1989a, 1990, 1995) Tinto’s (1975, 1987,
1993) model for adult students in a distance education leaming environment. Kember
(1994) argued if influences extemal to a campus have significant impact on traditional
students’ persistence, they must be important to DE students who also had more
demanding commitments to work, family, and social lives. Kember’s model of dropout
from distance education courses included the entry characteristics, goal commitment,
academic, and social integration components of Tinto’s (1990) model.
The characteristics of Kember’s (1995) model included background variables
related to a student, family and home situation, the work environment, and educational
history o f the student. The variables were chosen because they influenced the succeeding
components of the model instead of any direct statistical relationship to dropout (Kember,
1989a). The goal commitment component considered intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Kember (1990) defined academic integration and social integration as embracing
all facets o f the offering of a distance education course by a higher education institution.
17
including both academic and administrative support systems, the package of study
materials, and all forms of contact between faculty and students. To determine whether a
student was successfully integrated academically required examining each of facets of the
academic environment. Social integration was measured by the degree a distance student
was able to integrate part-time study with family, work, and social demands. Because DE
students normally were employed full-time and most had family commitments, the extent
to which such integration was successful was crucial to their chances for completing a
course (Kember, 1989a). The model also presented a cost/benefits analysis for a student
considering whether to drop out or continue studying. A recycling loop reflected changes
and developments as students proceeded through a course and took account of changes to
variables during this period.
Principles versus predicting. This dissertation study used the principle
components o f the three models (Bean, 1980; Kember, 1994; Tinto, 1975) to test the
predicting power o f selected internal and extemal factors to doctoral students’ persistence
in CMAL environment. None of the models were used as a foundation for testing such
relationships for distributed doctoral students. It bears recognizing, the goal of the current
study was not to test any of the theories or develop a model of doctoral student
persistence in the distributed leaming environment. This will be left for future research.
Delimitations
Delimitations of the study included:
1. The study was confined only to the University o f Nebraska - Lincoln and one
18
graduate program. The uniqueness of the study within a specific context makes it difficult
to replicate exactly in another context (Creswell, 2003).
2. Participants’ responses were reflections of, and confined to their personal
experiences in the UNL Educational Administration Distributed Doctoral Program,
involving the self-assessment component.
3. The study provided only one perspective on persistence in the distributed
doctoral program - that of the students themselves, excluding other constituents, internal
and extemal to the program.
4. Due to the time factor and lack of comprehensive database, the researcher
could not locate all the students who had withdrawn from the ELHE-DE program. This
might skew the results of the statistical analysis in Phase I.
Limitations
Limitations of the study included:
1. Because the convenience sampling was used in the quantitative phase of the
study, the researcher cannot say with confidence the sample was representative of the
population (Creswell, 2002).
2. The 100% response rate from the graduated participants might have introduced
a potential for bias in interpreting the results of the first, quantitative phase.
3. The results of the discriminant function analysis used in the quantitative phase
have limited generalizability. Usually they generalize only to those populations from
which the sample was obtained (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2000), i. e. ELHE-DE students in
this study.
19
4. Due to the nature of qualitative research, the data obtained in Phase II of the
study might be subject to different interpretations by different readers.
5. Because of the interpretative nature of qualitative research, the researcher
might have introduced her bias into the analysis and interpretations of the findings.
6. There is a potential for bias in the qualitative results interpretation, because the
researcher was a student in the ELHE campus-based program, had completed six online
courses herself, personally knew some study participants, and conducted, presented, and
published research on DE students and faculty. This issue is addressed in Chapter 3, Role
o f Researcher.
Significance o f the Study
This study may prove significant in contributing to the underdeveloped area of
research related to the academic persistence of graduate students in distributed doctoral
programs, and in posing numerous pertinent questions to guide future research. The main
significance of this dissertation research lies in the fact no existing studies have explored
doctoral student persistence in programs, like ELHE-DE, delivered in CMAL
environments. Knowledge and understanding of the factors affecting students’
persistence in a distributed doctoral program may provide additional insight into doctoral
student persistence and their motivation “to keep going” while experiencing the double
pressure o f family and employment constraints and leaming at a distance.
The research of this kind is significant to adult learners contemplating such
leaming experiences, and also to institutions of higher education offering graduate and
professional degrees via distributed means (Kowalik, 1989). Knowing the predicting
20
power of selected extemal and internal factors to students’ persistence in the CMAL
environment may assist post-secondary institutions in developing DE programs and
policies, and creating distance learner support systems, which will help enhance doctoral
persistence and degree completion. For the UNL ELHE-DE program the findings of this
study may help to further improve the leaming process and better meet the needs of
distance leamers.
Additionally, this study yielded valuable results due to the mixed methods
research design. The need for both qualitative and quantitative research to determine the
extent to which the variables can predict dropout in DE has been articulated in the
literature (NSF, 1998; Parker, 1999; Tinto, 1993). This study made a step forward by
combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches (Creswell, 2002; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998). This integration provided a deeper insight into the problem of doctoral
students’ persistence in the CMAL environment, first, by identifying the predicting
power of selected intemal and extemal factors contributing to and/or impeding students’
matriculation in the program, and then by exploring the participants’ views regarding the
statistical findings in more depth. Methodologically, this study has added to mixed
methods research by elaborating such procedural issues of the sequential explanatory
design, as connecting the quantitative and qualitative data within a study and integrating
the results of the two sequential phases of the study.
21
CHAPTER 2; REVffiW OF LITERATURE
Graduate student persistence in a program of study seldom is the result from the
influence of one factor. The following review’ of selected studies in the field highlights
findings most influential in doctoral students’ decisions to complete or drop out from a
program of studies. The review is organized according to persistence in doctoral
programs, distance education student profile, persistence in distance education, and
student persistence in distance education doctoral programs.
Persistence in Doctoral Programs
Academic and Social Integration
Departmental factors. Attrition in doctoral education often is reported as not due
to a deficit of academic skills, but as a result of failing with academic and social
integration. Nerad and Miller (1996) studied doctoral students cohorts who had been
enrolled at the University of California - Berkeley for over three decades. They found
doctoral student attrition seldom was the result of academic failure. Instead, it usually
was a result of several factors, including student frustration with academic policies and
procedures, student disappointment with program offerings and faculty advising, and
student experiences with an inhospitable departmental culture.
Other researchers (Golde, 1996, 1998, 2002; Ferrer de Valero, 2001; Lovitts,
2001) also reported causes of attrition in doctoral education were not due to a deficit of
academic skills, but a result of not becoming integrated into a department. In her study of
816 graduate students (511 eompleters and 305 non-completers) at two universities and
’ This review was published elsewhere (Ivankova & Stick, 2003).
22
nine departments, Lovitts (2001) used six data sources to explore the persistently high
rate of attrition and its causes: (1) student survey; (2) interviews with selected non
completers; (3) interviews with graduate study directors from each participating
department; (4) interviews with selected high- and low-Ph.D.-productive faculty; (5)
faculty retention rates; and (6) observations at each site. Among other things, she found
more students left their programs because of integration-related reasons than for any
other reason. Some found the academic environment too competitive; others believed
they had not received adequate support, encouragement, or guidance. Feeling isolated
was among the most fi’equently cited integration-related reasons.
Ferrer de Valero’s study (2001) of 1,438 graduate students at a major mid-
Atlantic region research university identified departmental factors positively or
negatively affecting time to doctoral degree and completion rates. These factors included
departmental orientation, amount of advising, relationship between course work and
research skills, relationships with academic advisor and committee members, attitudes
towards students, student participation, and peer support.
In her qualitative study of doctoral students’ experiences, Golde (1996, 1998)
argued some reasons to leave a doctoral program were rooted in departmental and
disciplinary characteristics. She conducted case studies of four departments at a major
research university. Interviews with 58 doctoral students, who dropped from the
programs, were the primary data source. The analysis of each case described the
problematic features of each department, which contributed to the attrition decision.
23
Based on her examination of departmental contextual factors, Golde (1996) concluded
“departmental context is a central contributor to attrition” (p. 156-157).
Later Golde’s (2000) multiple case studies of three students who withdrew from
their doctoral programs in different disciplinary areas confirmed integration into the
academic systems of a department played a critical role in doctoral student persistence.
Even seemingly integrated students may lose their commitment to complete the degree
because other opportunities surfaced, encroached on time and interest, and subsequently
took precedence.
Academic advisors. Advisors appear to be critical to academic integration.
Positive relations between a student and academic advisor were found to be important for
doctoral student persistence (Campbell, 1992; Ferrer de Valero, 2001; Gell, 1995; Girves
& Wemmerus, 1988; Lovitts, 2001). Academic advisor “serves as a role model and
becomes the primary socializing agent in the department” (Girves & Wemmerus, 1988,
p. 185). In the study described above, Ferrer de Valero (2001) reported student-advisor
relationship was more promoting than impeding time-to-degree and completion rates.
The most common words used by the participants to describe the relations between a
student and an advisor were: “excellent,” “nurturing,” “mentoring,” “caring,” “loving,”
and ’’exceptional.”
In her survey study of 82 completers and 45 non-completers of doctoral
dissertations at the college of education in an eastern state research university, Gell
(1995) correlated doctoral candidate expectations of advisor behavior with their
perceptions of behavior advisors actually exhibited when guiding these candidates
24
through the dissertation process. The differences between non-completers and graduates
were significant at the p. = .05 level with graduates reporting higher congruity than non
completers. In addition, it was determined expectations of the two groups were similar
while observations of advisor behavior differed. A review of qualitative comments
indicated, for both completers and non-completers, advisor availability was important and
the relationship between the student and advisor had a major impact on the success of the
student.
Campbell’s study (1992) examined the students who completed a Doctor of
Education degree in Educational Leadership and those who had never completed their
dissertation study. Unsuccessful candidates reported they perceived a lack of a strong
relationship with their advisor as contributing to their non-completion. Conversely,
successful candidates indicated they perceived a strong relationship with their advisor as
contributing to their completion.
Doctoral students’ departure was reported to be due, in part, to inadequate or
inaccurate advising, lack of interest or attention on the part of an advisor, unavailability
o f an advisor and/or faculty, or a negative relationship or even conflict between a student
and the major advisor or significant faculty (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Golde, 2000;
Lovitts, 2001). Lovitts (2001) found students’ positive and successful graduate school
experience was in large part determined by the quality of the relationship they had with
their advisor. The quality of this relationship was influenced by two main factors; method
of adviser selection and advisor type. Golde’s (2000) multiple case study revealed some
25
of the characteristics of a good advising relationship. The amount of time spent, the
quality of the interactions, and a sense of care from advisor to student were all important.
The style of advising can impede a doctoral student’s progress. In their study of
Ph.D. students at six major research universities (Berkeley, Chicago, Cornell, Princeton,
Stanford, and the University of North Carolina), Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) found the
most common type o f advisors were those who allowed students to work at their own
pace, without establishing any work schedule or timetable. Students too often become
lost at different stages in their research, which created negative psychological states,
inducing students to drop out of a program. At the same time, in two recent nationally
conducted surveys (Golde & Dore, 2001; NAGPS Survey Team, 2001) more than 80% of
the participants reported they were satisfied with their advisors. The first Survey on
Doctoral Education and Career Preparation (Golde & Dore, 2001) intended to provide a
snapshot picture of doctoral students’ experiences and goals. Over 4,000 students from 27
selected universities, representing one cross-institutional program in 11 arts and sciences
disciplines, completed the survey. Over 32,000 students and recent Ph.D. recipients
responded to the second The 2000 National Doctoral Program Survey (NAGPS Survey
Team, 2001). In both surveys, the participants admitted positive mentoring relationships,
including the quality and quantity of time spent together.
Support and encouragement. Lack of persistence in traditional doctoral programs
often has been attributed to lack of support and encouragement. In Hales’ (1998) study of
the relationship between personality type, life events, and completion of the doctoral
degree based on a sample of 98 doctoral students at Texas A&M University-Commerce,
26
students who received support from their faculty were more likely to complete their
degrees than those who did not. Golde (1996) reported students working within a
supportive environment become more integrated, which contributed to their persistence.
Nerad and Cemy (1993) interviewed 40 University of Berkeley graduates and
identified particular departmental practices and policies associated with time to degree.
They found at departments in which students were treated as junior colleagues and
participated in social and academic activities, it took shorter time for them to finish their
degree. At departments providing no professional student support and recognizing only
star students, it was hkely to take longer time to degree or to leave before completing the
doctoral degree. Similar results were reported by Bowen and Rudenstine (1992).
The interest in and support of doctoral students toward each other was reported to
he an important factor in many studies (Brien, 1992; Dorn & Papalewis, 1995; Ferrer de
Valero, 2001; Hagedom, 1993; Hite, 1985), although not as prominent as student/faculty
relationships and student involvement in academic life (Lovitts, 2001). Commitment to
group and commitment to degree were found to be highly interdependent aspects of
membership in a doctoral cohort in Dorn’s and Papalewis’ (1995) study. The researchers
surveyed and interviewed 108 doctoral students. The open-ended responses repeatedly
emphasized group support and peer encouragement as a mechanism for keeping students
on track toward achieving their degrees. In the ethnographic study of a thirty-member
doctoral cohort at Northern Illinois University, Brien (1992) reported the most voiced
reason to persist was because of the support and encouragement shared by the members
27
of the group. As one o f the participants stated, “it is a shared support, affirmation,
knowledge” (p. 106).
Hagedom (1999) studied experiences of 81 female graduate students over age of
30 at a large urban research university. Results of a logistic regression revealed
maintaining a positive relationship with fellow students was one of the few factors most
predictive of persistence. Hite (1985) also found peer relationships were an important
source of support and encouragement, especially for female doctoral students. Hite
surveyed 538 full- and part-time doctoral students at a large, state-supported university in
the Midwest. Analysis o f variance of the Peer Support scale (F = 4.28,;? < .01) revealed
those in nontraditional fields, both men and women, perceived the most peer support, and
male and female students in traditional fields reported the least amount of support from
their peers.
Thus, academic and social integration played an important role in student attrition
in doctoral programs. Factors contributing to doctoral student persistence included
supportive departmental environment, positive relationships with the academic advisor,
committee members and other faculty, including the quality and quantity of interactions,
and peer encouragement. On the other hand, inadequate amount and style of advising,
lack of recognition and professional support, both from faculty and other students, little
involvement into the departmental academic life negatively affected doctoral student
persistence, and led to attrition.
Stages in Doctoral Education and Student Persistence
The first year in a doctoral program was reported to be crucial to the intention to
28
stay and persist (Golde, 1998). Golde interviewed 58 students who had started and left
one of the four Ph.D. programs offered by four different departments. First-year attrition
accounted for about one-third of the overall attrition in three of the four departments.
Common reasons for leaving were the lifestyle of a graduate student and a young faculty,
wrong department, job market, and advisor mismatch.
As noted by Bowen and Rudenstine (1992), attrition during the first year of
graduate school accounted for nearly a third of all doctoral student attrition. Another third
dropped out before getting candidacy and a final third postcandidacy, however, this data
varied considerably by department and discipline. Based on their study of doctoral
cohorts at six major doctoral degree granting universities, Bowen and Rudenstine
identified three stages in doctoral education; (1) before the second year, (2) from the start
o f the second year until the completion of all the requirements besides the dissertation,
and (3) after completion of all requirements but the dissertation (ABD). They found
“more than twice as many students left these Ph.D. programs prior to achieving ABD
status as left after achieving ABD status.” (p. I l l )
In the appendix to his work on undergraduate student attrition. Living College,
entitled Toward a theory o f doctoral persistence Tinto (1993) also identified three stages
of doctoral persistence: (1) the first year of study, which he called the transitional stage,
(2) the period leading to candidacy, and (3) the completion of the dissertation. During the
first stage, students sought to establish membership in the academic and social
communities of the university. During the second stage, interactions within the classroom
and department or program pertaining to issues of academic competence played the
29
central role in students’ persistence. In both the first and second stages, students’
experiences appeared to be dependent on interactions with a wide range of faculty
members. In the third stage, however, the focus shifted to the relationship with the
advisor and the dissertation committee members. At this stage, persistence might be
totally dependant on the behavior of a specific faculty member.
To summarize, most researchers identified three stages in doctoral student
persistence. The first stage, which coincided with the first year in the program, was the
most crucial to the intention to persist.
Dissertation Progress
A number of studies focused on the factors related to dissertation progress.
Failure to complete a dissertation accounted for about 20% of the overall attrition from
doctoral programs in education (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992). The study conducted by
Faghihi, Rakow and Ethington (1999) examined relationships among doctoral candidates’
background characteristics, research preparation, environment and involvement, student-
advisor relationship, research self-efficacy, and dissertation progress. The researchers
surveyed 97 students from three departments within a College of Education at an urban
Southern research university. All had completed their course work and passed
comprehensive examinations during 1987-1997, but had not competed their degrees by
December 1997. The study focused on differences in research self-efficacy and
dissertation progress among the ABDs. Faghihi and colleagues found both students’
research self-efficacy and their relationships with advisors and committee members
30
significantly contributed to dissertation progress. At the same time, none of the student
background characteristics had a significant effect on dissertation progress.
The qualitative study hy Kluever (1997) explored personal and program
experiences presumably affecting dissertation completion. Thirteen interviewed graduates
and nine ABD students believed there was more structure and direction associated with
courses than with the independent activity required to complete a dissertation. They
described the need for self-motivation and self-direction as important attributes for
successful completion o f their progress. In another study, Kluever and Green (1998)
revealed individual differences in responsibility might be observed in a doctoral
candidate’s assumption o f responsibility for completing the doctoral dissertation. One
hundred and 42 doctoral graduates and 97 ABDs completed the Responsibility Scale
survey, developed by the authors. The Responsibility Scale was constructed to investigate
the perceptions o f doctoral candidates in a college of education conceming the
responsibility for 16 different tasks associated with dissertation and degree completion.
Analysis of the responses indicated the differences between the doctoral candidates and
graduates in their responsibility for completing a dissertation. Doctoral candidates’
ratings tended to reflect a belief in more university responsibility for events, whereas the
graduates accepted responsibility for their actions or inactions.
Such particular aspects of the dissertation process as topic selection, time
available to work on dissertation, and changes of advisors and committee members were
found to be important for successful degree completion (Lenz, 1997; Pinson, 1997).
Based on a study of 192 graduates of the Department of Leadership and Policy Studies at
31
Virginia Tech College of Education, Pinson (1997) identified factors impeding rapid
completion o f the dissertation. Results of the regression analysis showed four significant
predictors of time to complete the dissertation: (1) how dissertation writing time was
scheduled; (2) computer skills at the beginning of the dissertation; (3) perceived
difficulties caused by job demands; and (4) changes in advisor or committee membership.
Similar results were revealed in a multiple case study analysis of six non
traditional women doctoral graduates and five students with all the requirements
completed but the dissertation (Lenz, 1997). Inhibiting factors for the non-completers
were the absence of: (1) a strong dissertation topic, a solid advisor-advisee relationship,
and an active support network. Time and money also were cited as constraints.
In most cases, researchers cited multiple factors inhibiting non-completers to
finish their dissertations. Jacks, Chubin, Porter, and Connolly (1983) studied the doctoral
candidates from 18 departments at 15 universities who never completed their
dissertations, but had earned candidacy status (ABDs). Through interviews conducted
with 25 ABD individuals from such fields as psychology, sociology, zoology, physics,
electrical engineering, and biochemistry, the authors identified nine reasons for not
completing dissertations. Listed in the priority order based on the percent of significance
for interviewed ABDs, these included financial difficulties, poor working relationship
with advisor and/or committee, substantive problems with the dissertation research,
personal or emotional problems, receipt of an attractive job offer, interference of paid
work with dissertation work, family demands, lack of peer support, and loss of interest in
earning a doctoral degree.
32
In her multiple regression study of 152 psychology doctoral students and
graduates from Kent State University, Muszynski (1988) identified seven factors aiding
in dissertation completion; (1) supportive, interested, competent, and secure advisor; (2)
accessible, manageable, and interesting topic; (3) intemal strength, including
independence, high motivation, ability to endure frastration; (4) self-imposed deadline or
goal; (5) limited or no employment; (6) delaying internship until completion of
dissertation; and (7) extemally imposed incentives, like future employment. She also
found depression, as well as stressful life events, as hindrances to dissertation
completion. Too often students either did not seek appropriate support for such
difficulties, or failed to recognize their gravity.
Allen (1996) studied 353 graduates of the Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The
criterion variable was defined as the difference in time between initial and final
registration in the doctoral program. A majority of graduates reported longer completion
had been problematic to them. The reasons most often cited for discrepancies between
expected and realized completion times were the need to work and alleviate financial
concerns. Other reasons commonly given were problems related to the thesis supervisor,
committee members and distance from the university.
Thus, persistence at the dissertation completion stage was influenced by a variety
o f extemal and intemal factors. Most prominent were the relationships with the academic
advisor and dissertation committee, self-motivation, financial difficulties, and family
demands.
33
Motivation and Personal Goals
Doctoral student motivation is well explored in the literature on doetoral student
attrition and persistenee (Bauer, 1997; Brien, 1992; Butler, 1995/1996; Ferrer de Valero,
2001; Lees, 1996; Lovitts, 2001; McCabe-Martinez, 1996; Reamer, 1990; Reynolds,
1998; Skudlarek, 1992). Motivation and goal setting were reported to be strongly related
to doctoral degree completion. Being self-motivated was an important factor in obtaining
the doctorate (Reynolds, 1998). Students who bad a “never give up” attitude were more
likely to complete the doctorate than others (Brien, 1992; Reamer, 1990).
In her ethnographic study, described above, Brien (1992) found the belief in what
the doctorate degree could offer for a student’s career aspirations often were strong
enough to encourage many students to diligently continue in a program. Based on the
survey of 297 adult leamers in two professional doctoral programs. Reamer (1990)
reported a determination to succeed against all odds might be a personal quality to help
students persist. Although most participants admitted they had wanted to leave the
program, unwillingness to experience failure had kept them in school. Conversely, Mah
(1986) in his survey study of the proeess of doetoral candidate attrition for 190 doctoral
candidates at the University of Washington College of Education found lack of sustaining
motivation to complete a doctorate as one of the few factors impeding the candidates to
complete the doctorate. ABDs not only did not reach each of the important milestones in
the process, but it took longer for them to graduate.
A dissertation study by Bauer (1997) looked, in particular, at goal setting for 342
Ph.D. candidates in the College of Letters and Science at the University of California,
34
Los Angeles, and whether doctoral candidates who set goals and a time line were more
likely to finish their dissertations within a normative period. Based on ANOVA and
multiple regression analysis, the findings of the study were presented as claiming goal
setting was related to timely completion of the dissertation. The advising practice, which
impacted most on timely dissertation completion, was for advisors to encourage goal
setting with a time schedule as a strategy to help advisees structure the dissertation
process for themselves.
The significance of student self-concept and self-efficacy to doctoral students’
persistence has not been well-studied. Eresley (1995), in the exploratory multiple
regression survey study of 867 first-year African-American doctoral students enrolled in
eight predominantly white universities, however, found students’ positive views of
themselves may relate to the successfixl completion of the doctorate. Conversely,
students’ negative views of themselves may relate to withdrawal or lack of completion.
Students who indicated completing their degree (goal commitment) was extremely
important were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their program of study. No
significant difference was reported between completers and non-completers with respect
to self-confidence. So, being self-motivated, goal oriented, and holding a favorable view
of self were important factors when striving toward eaming a doctoral degree.
External Factors
Family and employment. Reasons for students leaving a program of doctoral
studies are unanticipated events of a personal nature or events extemal to the program
(Dinham & Scott, 1999; Giles, 1983; Girves & Wemmems, 1988; Golde, 1998; McCabe-
35
Martinez, 1996; Wagner, 1986). In Golde’s (1998) qualitative study described above,
family commitments were crucial for some participants who decided to quit the program.
Using 139 responses from e-mail survey of doctoral graduates’ experiences, Dinham and
Scott (1999) identified factors presumably inhibiting and/or facilitating students’ success
in doctoral programs. Factors identified as hindering doctorate completion included
financial difficulties, family lifestyle problems, cultural difficulties and isolation.
Similar results were obtained through the AHA Survey of Doctoral Programs in
History (The American Historical Association, 2002). In the Spring/Summer of 2001, the
Committee on Graduate Education distributed a detailed survey on doctoral education to
every doctorate-granting history program in the United States (total 158). The response
rate was 65.8% (104 programs). One section of the survey asked for a description of
attrition patterns in the various history graduate programs. Financial problems (13%),
personal (21%) and family (4%) reasons were identified as some of the most important
factors causing history major students drop out from doctoral programs.
Employment and financial factors were reported to be an obstacle for some
doctoral students who did not complete their programs (McCabe-Martinez, 1996;
Wagner, 1986). McCabe-Martinez used both survey and interviews to study 55 Hispanic
doctoral degree recipients, doctoral candidates, and doctoral students employed in public
school systems in Southern California. It was found financial resources, responsibilities
to the spouse, and employment were significantly different for those who had completed
the degree. For example, for 51.4% of the respondents who had completed the degree
financial resources had impeded or strongly enhanced their progress. In addition.
36
interviews allowed for identifying job responsibilities as the most signifieant factor
affecting degree progress and program completion. In her study o f 200 randomly selected
completers and non-completers of doctoral degree at the University of Michigan, Wagner
(1986) also found some of the major differences between the two groups were related to
issues external to the program, such as spouse and signifieant other, job schedule, and
finances.
Finances. The financial support offered to doctoral students by colleges and
universities was related to attrition and persistence. Students who held research
assistantships, teaching assistantships, fellowships, or graduate assistantship were more
likely to complete their degrees than students who relied on other sources of funding.
Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) studied minimum completion rates at five universities to
determine whether the financial support for the students came from “institutional” or
from “own support” sources. They found minimum completion rates for one of the
institutions were as low as 14.2% for students relying on their own support. This
contrasted sharply to 41.8% for students receiving institutional support (p. 179). The
same pattern was found at the other four institutions, which led the authors to conclude
“students forced to rely primarily on their own resources have had markedly higher
attrition rates and longer TTD [time to degree - N.I.] than comparable students who
received financial aid” (p. 178).
In her multiple case study of six women, three “completers” and three ABDs
described earlier, Lenz (1994) found time and money constrained ABDs. In Murrell’s
(1987) survey design study of 489 graduates and non-graduates from the College of
37
Education at Texas A & M University, graduates were more affected by financial
problems than non-graduates. For doctoral students, financial assistance was more critical
for degree completion than for master’s level students. Girves and Wemmerus (1988), in
their study of graduate student degree progress involving 948 students from 42
departments across 12 colleges at a major Midwestern university, found having
assistantships or fellowships as a major source of support was positively related to degree
attainment. Similar findings were reported hy Valentine (1986), who surveyed 254 Ed.D.
recipients and 287 nongraduates in the College of Human Resources and Education at
West Virginia University. The EdD. recipients were more likely to have assistantships as
a primary source of financial subsidy.
Relationships. Several researchers studied family relationship as a factor
supporting or impeding doctoral students’ persistence (Dolph, 1983; Frasier, 1993; Giles,
1983; Girves & Wemmerus, 1988). Giles (1983) conducted an ethnographic study of 16
full-time married doctoral students (eight males and eight females) to determine the
effects of the graduate education experience on intra- and inter-family relationships, and
how doctoral students balanced their dual student/spouse roles. Four principal themes
affecting doctoral students’ persistence were identified: (1) support from spouse and
parents (financial, emotional/psychological, and hasic needs); (2) factors affecting marital
stability (financial problems, time pressures, children, communication, sexual concerns,
role conflict, physical and emotional separation); (3) social relationships and interaction
(status change, absence of married peers, fears associated with terminating relationships
after graduation, special needs of the non-student); and (4) status (living arrangements.
38
student-spouse role conflicts, locus of control, and financial conditions). Giles found
relationships, which generally developed while in the degree program, did not serve as
important support roles. Enrollment alone altered a student’s perceived or actual status in
either a positive or negative way.
At the same time, the findings of Dolph (1983), Frasier (1993), Girves and
Wemmerus (1988), and Siegfried and Stock (2001) indicated marital status was not
related to either persistence or attrition. Frasier (1993) surveyed doctoral candidates in
the College of Education within a four-year period. The results of the logistic regression
analysis used to predict doctoral candidacy persistence showed none of the demographic
variables were statistically significant. In Dolph’s (1993) study, which compared survey
responses from 145 doctoral graduates and 121 non-completers in Educational
Administration Doctoral Program at Georgia State University, graduates had been more
successfully academically and socially integrated into the department, while there were
no significant differences in their individual profiles. Siegfried and Stock (2001) also
reported no differences in relation to marital status for 618 graduates who earned Ph.D. in
economics. The number o f children or dependents of doctoral students also was found not
to be a significant predictor of persistence (Dolph, 1983, Frasier, 1993). Thus, among the
factors extemal to the program, financial difficulties and personal and family problems
were found to be most inhibiting to doctoral students’ persistence.
The reported findings related to student attrition in doctoral programs were
interpreted to mean there were meaningful relationships between certain individual,
institutional and extemal factors and doctoral student persistence. In different
39
combinations, often unique to each student, they provided either a supportive and positive
or impeding and negative context for a student’s progress in the doctoral program.
Distance Education Student Profile
Distance education students have become a major focus of study in distance
education research within the last two decades (Gibson, 1992; Holmberg, 1995; Schutze,
1986; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2000; Thompson, 1998). A distance
learner was perceived as a “djmamic individual” whose characteristics often change in
response to both educational and life experiences (Gibson, 1992).
Holmberg (1995) pointed out there was no evidence to indicate distance students
should be regarded as a homogeneous group. However, many distance students “do share
broad demographic and situational similarities that have often provided the basis for
profiles of the typical distance learner in higher education” (Thompson, 1998, p. 12).
Characteristics included in such a profile were varied, but generally reflected some
combination of demographic and situational variables, such as gender, age, ethnic
background, disability, location, and life roles (Thompson, 1998).
Age and gender. The large majority of distant students were reported to be adults
above 25 years of age, most of them employed and with family obligations (Schutze,
1986; Feasley, 1983). Holmberg (1995), citing studies from three decades, stated “the 25-
35 age group seems to be the largest in most organizations” (p. 12). Most studies of
distance learners in North American higher education reported more women than men
were enrolled in courses delivered at a distance (Thompson, 1998). For example, in the
40
study conducted by Hezel and Dirr (1991), women constituted 61% of the students
enrolled in telecourses provided by four universities.
Location. In many institutions a typical distance leamer no longer is place-bound
(Thompson, 1998). Increasingly, students in close geographical proximity to traditional
educational institutions are choosing distance study not because it is the only alternative,
but rather because it is the preferred alternative. For example, Robinson (1992) reported
more than 67% of the distance students in his study lived within 50 miles of the Open
College.
Goals. With regard to the pursued goals, Schutze (1986) singled out four
categories of distance learners; (1) those who enter or re-enter higher education to pursue
mainstream studies leading to a full first degree or diploma; (2) those who re-enter to
update their professional knowledge, or seek to acquire additional qualifications; (3)
those without previous experience in higher education, who enroll for professional
purposes, especially in courses of short duration; (4) those with or without previous
experiences in higher education, who enroll for courses with the explicit purpose of
personal fulfillment.
Since the majority of distance leamers are time-bound adults with multiple roles
and responsibilities, most have educational goals that are instrumental rather than
developmental. Robinson (1992) reported most students at the Open College had
instrumental goals, such as increased knowledge of a specific content area or performing
more effectively in some aspects of their lives. Only three of the 20 students studied by
Eastmond (1995) had goals considered personal or academic.
41
Characteristics. At the same time, Jegede (as cited in Buchanan, 1999) found
distance leamers, among other qualities, were characterized by autonomy, persistence,
independence, self-direction and flexibility. Such qualities as maturity, self-discipline,
and assertiveness have been recognized as qualities inherent to a successful distance
education student (Buchanan, 1999). Motivation was one major difference between
distance leamers and traditional classroom leamers (Office of Technology Assessment,
1989) with the former more aware of personal responsibilities and willing to take charge
o f situations. In the majority of studies, distance leamers were found to be highly
motivated (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2000). When motivated, highly
intelligent students reportedly leam even more under the most adverse circumstances,
provided they have access to satisfactory and appropriate leaming materials (Rumble,
1992).
Thus, the profile of a distance education leamer includes the following
characteristics: older than the typical undergraduate, probably female, likely to be
employed full time, married, self-motivated and self-disciplined, often with instmmental
rather than developmental educational goals. The convenience and flexibility offered by
programs free from the constraints of place and often time, represent major benefits to
leamers attempting to “juggle multiple adult roles and responsibilities” (Thompson, 1998,
p. 15).
Persistence in Distance Education
Demographic Characteristics
Selected demographic characteristics of DE students, as well as pursued
42
educational goals, might have some relation to their academic success and hence,
completion of the course or program of studies. Several studies reported a positive
relationship between success and students’ age (Dille & Mezack, 1991; Fjortoft, 1996;
Gihson & Graff, 1992). Fjortoft (1996) surveyed 395 persisting/enrolled and non
persisting/dropped out adult students in DE post-haccalaureate professional program in
pharmacy. The data from the survey was used to test a predictive model developed to
examine the parameters of adult student persistence in distance leaming programs. Age
together with intrinsic benefits and comfort with individual leaming were significant
factors. Older students were less likely to persist than were younger students.
On the opposite, using a stratified random sample of 210 doctoral students and
multivariate analysis for identifying perceived harriers of completers and non-completers,
Gibson and Graff (1992) found higher levels of success for older students were explained
on the basis of the increased maturity, self-discipline, life experience, and financial
responsibility for their education. In addition, older students were more likely to have
higher levels of education at the time of enrollment.
Dille’s and Mezack’s (1991) study supported Gibson and Graff (1992). The
former investigators focused on identifying predictors of high risk among community
college tele-course students, and determined older students performed better than
younger students. The average age of 43 non-successful students was 25.14 compared to
an average age of 28.46 for 108 successful students. This difference was statistically
significant at the .03 level. The researchers explained this difference in the following
way: (1) Age often brings greater maturity and more self-discipline, which is needed in
43
the telecourse format requiring independent leaming; (2) Older students were likely to
have completed more college credit hours, and the number of hours completed was
shown to be significant to success; (3) Older students put higher value on time and
money, having families and paying their own college tuition, so they would less likely
drop from a telecourse they had paid for.
A number of studies (Ross & Powell, 1990; Powell, Conway, & Ross, 1990)
revealed higher success rates among female than male distance students. Women’s
persistence was attributed to the lower proportion of women working full time outside the
home, the higher rates at which women accessed institutional support stractures, and the
appeal of the distance format to woman who must integrate education into lives
characterized by multiple roles. It was noted women potentially had higher levels of
motivation because they more often worked in occupational sectors where career
advancement was tied closely to academic upgrading. For example, Powell and
colleagues (1990) used stepwise discriminant analysis to assess prediction of membership
of 300 students in two groups (pass group and fail/withdrawn group). In addition to seven
other predicting variables, gender was found to contribute to the significance of the
function. Female students were more likely to succeed than male students.
The number of DE courses previously completed was reported as significantly
related to future success in distance leaming environment. First time students often
lacked the necessary independence and time management skills needed for persistence in
DE. Eisenberg and Dowsett (1990) conducted a study of student attributes and
achievements in previous Open University courses, using multidimensional analysis. The
44
findings, based on a sample of 445 students, were interpreted to mean achievement in the
project course was influenced by students’ performance in some previous courses.
Consequently, selected demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and number of
DE completed were deemed important for student persistence in DE.
Multiple Factors
Though demographic characteristics and prior experience with distance leaming
might be important for completion of a DE course or a program, numerous studies
indicated dropout was a multi-causal phenomenon influenced by a number of factors
(Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Morgan & Tam, 1999). The decision to drop out or to persist
usually was a result of the interaetion between internal psychological variables and the
extemal environment (Boshier, 1973). The situation further was confounded by the
heterogeneity of students. Distance leamers could be of traditional or non-traditional age,
with different marital and employment status. Therefore, there was no single reason for
student dropout, and no single measure, which would “dramatically reduce drop-out at a
stroke” (Kember, 1990, p. 11).
Woodley and Parlett (1983) studied attrition at the Open University between 1971
and 1981. They found sex, age, previous educational qualifications, occupation, and
region of residence all were related to persistence for UK Open University students. The
Open University example was interpreted as an almost linear relationship between DE
students’ dropout and their previous educational level (Simpson, 2000). Students with
higher previous educational qualifications tended to do better than those with poorer
qualifications. Those who found it difficult to reconcile the conflicting demands of their
45
jobs, family, and studies tended to do less well than do those who found it difficult to
direct their own leaming. The Simpson (2000) study allowed for claiming extemal
environmental variables apparently were the most compelling issues affecting a DE
student’s ability to be successful academically and persist.
Kember (1981) in his survey study of the factors affecting attrition and
performance in a distance course of 64 course completers and non-completers found
significant relationship between persistence and age, number of children, housing
conditions, gender, sponsorship, and region of residence. Among the intemal variables
the best-combined predictors were age and number of children. Size of house and number
of occupants combined gave a significant correlation with matriculation points. Non
sponsored students did significantly better than sponsored students while the distinction
in performance between males and females was close to significance. In another study
(Belawati, 1998) of 1,102 Indonesian students enrolled in a DE course, drop-out was
related to student characteristics including age, gender, number of children, previous
education, employment status and course workload. Rekkedal (1972) related age,
previous education, years of school experience, and even month of enrollment with
persistence.
In an ethnographic study of barriers to persistence in five introductory academic
courses in the natural resource sciences offered via DE by the University of British
Columbia, Garland (1993) singled out four barrier categories: situational, institutional,
dispositional, and epistemological. Both 30 persisting students and 17 students who had
withdrawn from a program encountered barriers to persistence in all four categories.
46
Situational barriers included lack of time and poor leaming environment, such as lack of
support from family and peers, resource availability and course load. Institutional barriers
included institutional procedures, cost and course scheduling/pacing. The largest number
of barriers to persistence in DE related to the psychological and social nature of DE
students: uncertainty o f an educational goal, stress of multiple roles, time management,
leaming style differences, overachievement and fear of failure.
Garland’s (1993) study was replicated by Morgan and Tam (1999), who
conducted face-to-face interviews with nine persisting and nine non-persisting students
from the Advanced Diploma of Horticulture course, offered solely by distance leaming at
the University of Sydney. Morgan and Tam concluded the four sets of characteristics,
situational, dispositional, institutional, and epistemological, contributed directly or
indirectly, and interacted to produce outcomes of completing or not completing the
course. Thus, there has been reported evidence persistence in DE is influenced by
multiple factors, including demographic, institutional, epistemological, and personal.
Models o f Student Persistence in DE
A number of researchers developed formal models for predicting student
completion specifically related to DE. In his literature review study o f student attrition
from correspondence courses, Billings (1989) found students who made the most
progress had the intention of completing a course in three months, submitted the first
assignment within forty days, had higher entrance examination scores and high GPAs,
had completed other corresponding courses, had a supportive family, had high goals for
47
completing the program, lived closer to the instructor, and had good college-level
preparation. The single most important variable was students’ intention to complete.
Kennedy and Powell (1976) proposed a “descriptive model” which related the
dropout process to characteristics and circumstances. Characteristics slow to change
included such factors as educational background, motivation, and personality.
Circumstances, which changed faster, included items such as health, finance,
occupational changes, and family relationships. Characteristics and circumstances were
brought together in a two-dimensional model. The pressure of adverse circumstances was
seen as more likely to lead to at-risk situations or drop-out for students with weak
characteristics than it was for those with strong characteristics.
Thompson (1984) discussed dropout from extemal courses in terms of the
cognitive style of field-dependence. She postulated field-independent people would be
better suited to correspondence study because of their greater levels of independence and
autonomy. For field-dependent people to be more successful in DE, she proposed greater
interaction with the instructor by methods such as systematic telephone tutoring.
Fjortoft (1995) developed a model of persistence in DE based on the literature of
adult education. The variables studied included age, gender, GPA, satisfaction with
college experience, intrinsic job satisfaction, ease of leaming on one’s own, intrinsic
benefits of degree completion, and extrinsic benefits of degree completion. Based on a
survey of 395 students, the results were interpreted to mean a positive relationship existed
between perceived intrinsic benefits and persistence, whereas a negative relationship was
found between both age and ease of leaming on one’s own and continued enrollment.
48
Kember (1989a, 1990, 1995) in his longitudinal-process model of dropout from
distance education made an attempt to integrate all available models developed for
conventional higher education (Bean, 1980, 1985, 1990; Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993). The
model integrated findings on DE students’ academic success and attrition, as well as left
room for variations and individual differences within each constituent category.
Kemher’s model, and its significance for research on DE student persistence and attrition,
was discussed earlier in the Theoretical Perspective section of Chapter 1.
Kember’s (1989a, 1990, 1995) model of dropout from DE courses subsequently
was illustrated by student case studies collected in three countries (Kember, 1989b) and
was independently tested using qualitative methods (Roberts, Boyton, Buete, & Dawson,
1991). Kember (1989b) used qualitative data collected from students from Australia,
Papua, New Guinea, and the United Kingdom to explain the model of drop-out from DE
courses. The text data was collected through individual and telephone interviews, case
notes, and open-ended survey questions. A variety of quotations from such diverse
sources fitting to the constructs of the model indicated the ready applicability of the
model. Roberts et al (1991) used an earlier theoretical version of the model (Kember,
1989a) and a similar semi-structured interview protocol to interview 36 DE students at
Charles Sturt University in Australia. They found possible interacting factors likely to
influence distance students to continue or abandon their studies all were encapsulated in
one or more of Kember’s model major components.
A number of quantitative studies have further refined and enhanced the model
(Kember, 1995; Kember, Murphy, Siaw, & Yuen, 1991; Kember, Lai, Murphy, Siaw, &
49
Yuen, 1992; Kember, Lai, Murphy, Siaw, & Yuen, 1994). Based on the quantitative data
collected from 1060 students in Hong Kong, Kember et al (1991) investigated how
students were able to integrate demands of their academic course with those of families,
employers, and friends. The path model analysis confirmed the importance of social
integration, along with academic integration, which act as intervening variables between
the background and outcome variables.
The focus of the Kember et al (1992) study was development of the Distance
Education Students’ Progress inventory and construction of the path analytic model of
student progress based on the Kember (1989a) model. The data was collected through a
questionnaire and administered to 1,060 students enrolled in four distance leaming
courses, and semi-stmctured interviews with 32 randomly selected participants. The
results supported open entry for the courses as the identified constmcts had a higher
correlation than entry qualifications with the grades attained by students. Later this study
was replicated by Kember et al (1994) with minor modifications in the inventory and at a
different set of institutions, courses and students. The study resulted in a similar path
model for student progress. Reliability values for the majority of the subscales identified
in the original study had improved. Both Kember et al (1992) and Kember et al (1994)
revealed the importance of social and academic integration to student progress in DE.
Kember (1995) replicated the initial studies (Kember et al 1991, 1992). The aim
of this study was to determine if a similar path model program for student progress in DE
would be found for three different programs offered by the Open Leaming Institute of
Hong Kong. The total sample consisted of 1,087 enrolled students with the survey
50
response rate of 51%. Principal component and path modeling analyses confirmed the
substantive findings of the initial studies and confirmed a model developed from the
qualitative data. It was concluded the model could be used to make predictions regarding
student progress in open leaming courses. Thus, the numerous models developed to
predict student course and program completion in DE differed in the criteria used for
relating dropout process, and degree of variation from similar conventional higher
education models. Yet they appeared to be capable of accomplishing stated objectives of
identifying predictor variables for DE success and persistence.
Student Persistence in Distance Education Doctoral Programs
Most research on graduate student persistence in DE has been conducted on single
courses (Belawati, 1998; Boyd, 2001; Gee, 1990; Ham, 2002; Morgan & Tam, 1999;
Souder, 1993; Wolford, 2001; Woodley & Parlett, 1983). Research on student persistence
in doctoral programs delivered via DE is limited. For the most part, these have been
dissertation studies (Huston, 1997; Riedling, 1996; Sigafus, 1996; Wilkinson, 2002),
examining various issues related to doctoral student experiences in the distance leaming
environment and how such experiences affected their persistence in a program.
Using a phenomenology approach, Sigafus (1996) studied experiences of adult
students pursuing a distance leaming telecast program in Educational Administration at
the University of Kentucky. Analysis of the interview transcripts with 25 participants
yielded four themes permeating the students’ doctoral experiences: stmcture, pressure,
support, and authority. Stmcture meant personal life role adjustments made to respond to
increased demands on time, energy and the program stmcture itself. Pressure was
51
associated with feelings of stress and strain in situations of increased demands on time
and personal energy. The source of support students found most helpful came from peers
in the program cohort, faculty members, families, friends, and employers. The theme of
authority had two variations: authority or control from faculty members, employers, and
significant others over specific aspects of life, and personal authority, maintained through
structural and individual self-growth.
Huston (1997) studied doctoral student persistence in an interactive compressed
video distance leaming environment using a survey and follow-up telephone interviews.
O f the original 46 students, 33 completed a survey and 26 participated in interviews. The
study reported significant factors of success were spousal and financial support, intrinsic
motivation, and positive interaction with the teachers and institution. The distance
leaming format did not affect the persistence of these graduate students. The findings also
revealed the importance o f group support provided by a cohort, the importance of an
actively involved site coordinator, and the importance of access to e-mail.
Huston’s (1997) findings were consistent with the results of Riedling’s (1996)
study of DE doctoral students in the field of educational policy studies and evaluation at
the University of Kentucky. Student perceptions of the actual impact of social factors on
distance leaming were analyzed based on individual interviews with 17 distance doctoral
students, on-site observations of their classes, and supporting documentation. The
students pointed out comradery as a major motivator in their choice of DE. The students
did not perceive themselves as alone, as the intensity of good dynamics was remarkable.
52
Students reported the joy of leaming as of equal importance. The attitude and skill of site
coordinators was perceived as a key variable.
Leaming style and locus of control also were reported as the factors to be
considered when addressing attrition from a DE program (Wilkinson, 2002). Using
leaming style inventory and locus of control instrument for data collection, Wilkinson
(2002) found, for doctoral students enrolled in the Computing Technology in Education
major at Nova Southeastem University, leaming style proved to be an efficient predictor
of coursework completion while an individual’s locus of control was predictive of their
graduation from the program. This information can be juxtaposed to the work of
Thompson (1984), as reported earlier under Models of Student Persistence in DE, and
interpreted to mean field-independent individuals with an intemal locus of control were
good indicators for being successful in DE programs.
However, none of the studies have explored doctoral student persistence in the
programs delivered in the CMAL environment, like the UNL ELHE-DE program. The
four available studies of the ELHE-DE program are doctoral dissertations focusing on the
analysis o f student experiences in selected computer-mediated classes (Gosmire, 1995;
Scott-Fredericks, 1997; Patterson, 2002) and the process of community-building among
the students taking classes in the ELHE-DE program (Brown, 2001). Though these
studies revealed students’ perceptions of leaming in the CMAL environment, none
provided enough insight regarding the factors contributing to persistence in the
distributed doctoral program.
53
Thus, although limited research on student persistence in DE doctoral programs
highlighted the facilitating and/or inhibiting role of similar intemal and extemal factors,
as in traditional higher education, little is known about student persistence in the doctoral
programs offered via distributed means. This dissertation study was aimed to partially fill
the gap in understanding doctoral students’ persistence in this unique leaming
environment, and in this way to contribute to available research on DE graduate students’
persistence.
Summary
This literature review allowed for identifying several broad factors most likely to
impact persistence o f doctoral students in their program of study. Those were program-,
advisor-, faculty-, and institution-related factors, factors related to a student, and extemal
factors. Program-related factors were program policies, offerings, practices and culture,
sense of academic and social community. Academic advisor and faculty factors
concemed relationships with the academic advisor, course instmctors, and dissertation
committee members. Institution-related factors included support service infrastmcture
and access to requisite materials and/or technology. Student-related factors were self-
motivation and personal goals. And finally extemal factors included family support and
encouragement, finances, employment, and prior experiences with postsecondary
leaming.
Despite variability in how students responded to program- and institution-related
factors, the most prominent appeared to be self-motivation and personal goals. Mature
students, especially those with experience in postsecondary and/or higher education, were
54
better able to accommodate to financial and family-related issues. Furthermore, those
students apparently were able to adjust to unsupportive factors of department program
policies, offerings, practices, and culture. It was most pronounced with the students
engaged in distance leaming.
Program-related factors of academic and social community reportedly also had
much influence on persistence, especially with the doctoral students. Distance leamers
pointed out they were able to cultivate a sense of academic and social community with
peers, despite a lack of geographical proximity. Probably, the most influential of all
factors was the role of advisor. For graduate students it seemed pivotal. Both the style of
advising and type (quantity, access, and responsiveness) were important for students to
persist.
55
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN
Characteristics o f Mixed Methods Design
The study used a mixed methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003) design, which is a
procedure for collecting, analyzing and “mixing” both quantitative and qualitative data at
some stage of the research process within a single study, to understand a research
problem more completely (Creswell, 2002). The rationale for mixing or integrating both
data is neither quantitative nor qualitative methods are sufficient by themselves to capture
the trends and details of situations, such as the complex issue of doctoral students’
persistence in the distributed leaming environment. When used in combination,
quantitative and qualitative methods complement each other and allow for a more
complete analysis (Green, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989, Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
In quantitative research, an investigator relies on numerical data (Charles &
Mertler, 2002). He uses postpositivist claims for developing knowledge, such as cause
and effect thinking, reduction to specific variables, hypotheses and questions, use of
measurement and observation, and the test of theories. A researcher isolates variables and
causally relates them to determine the magnitude and frequency of relationships. In
addition, a researcher himself/herself determines which variables to investigate, and
chooses instraments, intended to yield highly reliable and valid scores.
Altematively, qualitative research is “an inquiry process of understanding” where
the researcher develops a “complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed
views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting” (Creswell, 1998, p. 15).
In this approach, the researcher makes knowledge claims based on the constmctivist
56
(Guba & Lincoln, 1982) or advocacy/participatory (Mertens, 2003,) perspectives. In
qualitative research, data is collected from those immersed in everyday life of the setting
in which the study is framed. Data analysis is based on the values these participants
perceive for their world. Ultimately, it “produces an understanding of the problem based
on multiple contextual factors” (Miller, 2000).
In a mixed methods approach, the researcher builds the knowledge on pragmatic
grounds (Creswell, 2003; Maxey, 2003) asserting truth is “what works” (Howe, 1988).
The investigator chooses approaches, as well as variables and units of analysis, which are
most appropriate for finding an answer to the research question (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
1998). A major tenet of pragmatism is quantitative and qualitative methods are
compatible. Thus, both numerical and text data, colleeted sequentially or concurrently,
can help better understand the research problem.
While designing a mixed methods study, three issues need consideration: priority,
implementation, and integration (Creswell, Plano Clark, Guttman, & Hanson, 2003).
Priority refers to which method, either quantitative or qualitative, is given more emphasis
in the study. Implementation refers to whether the quantitative and qualitative data
collection and analysis comes in sequence or in chronological stages, one following
another, or in parallel or concurrently. Integration is the phase in the research process
where the connecting or mixing of the quantitative and qualitative data occurs.
Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Design
This study used one of the most popular mixed methods designs in educational
research: sequential explanatory design, consisting of two distinct phases (Creswell,
57
2002, 2003; Creswell et al, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). In the first phase, the
quantitative, numeric, data was collected first, using a web-based survey and the data was
subjected to a discriminant function analysis. The goal of the quantitative phase was to
identify potential predictive power of selected variables on the distributed doctoral
students’ persistence and to allow for purposefully selecting informants for the second
phase. In the second phase, a qualitative multiple case study approach was used to collect
text data through individual semi-structured interviews, documents, and elicitation
materials to help explain why certain extemal and intemal factors, tested in the first
phase, were significant predictors of the student persistence in the program. The rationale
for this approach was the quantitative data and results provided a general picture of the
research problem, i. e., what intemal and extemal factors contributed to and/or impeded
students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program, while the qualitative data and its analysis
refined and explained those statistical results by exploring participants’ views in more
depth.^
The priority in this study was given to the qualitative phase, because it focused on
in-depth explanations of the results obtained in the first, quantitative phase of the study.
A multiple case study analysis of four participants representing different matriculation
groups was used to study and interpret the results from the statistical tests. This
qualitative approach implied substantial data collection from different sources, including
the individual semi-stmctured interviews, documents, and other elicitation materials. The
analysis was performed on two levels: individual cases and across cases.
^ The study design was reported elsewhere (Ivankova, 2004; Ivankova & Stick, 2003).
58
The first, quantitative phase of the study focused primarily on revealing the
predictive power of 10 selected extemal and intemal factors on the students’ persistence
in the ELHE-DE program. Although the quantitative phase was robust, the data collection
was limited to one source, a cross-sectional survey, and the data analysis employed two
statistical techniques: descriptive statistics and discriminant function analysis. The
quantitative and qualitative methods were connected in the intermediate phase in the
research process while selecting the participants for case study analysis and developing
the interview questions based on the results of the statistical tests from the first,
quantitative phase. The results of the two phases also were integrated during the
interpretation of the outcomes of the entire study. The visual model of the procedures for
the mixed methods sequential explanatory design of this study is presented in Figure 3.1.
Advantages and Limitations o f the Sequential Explanatory Design
The strengths and weaknesses of mixed methods designs have been widely
discussed in the literature (Creswell, 2002; Creswell, 2003; Creswell, Goodchild, &
Tumer, 1996; Green & Caracelli, 1997; Moghaddam, Walker, & Harre, 2003).
Advantages of the sequential explanatory design used in this study included:
1. It was straightforward as it sequentially proceeded from one stage to another.
2. It was easy to implement for a single researcher, because it had separate stages.
3. It was useful for exploring quantitative results in more detail.
4. It was especially useful when unexpected results arose from the quantitative phase
of the study (Morse, 1991).
The limitations of this design included:
59
Figure 3.1. Visual Model fo r Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Design Procedures
Phase Procedure Product
Quantitative ■Cross-sectional web-based Numeric data

Data Collection survey (N=278)
1r ■Data screening (univariate, • Descriptive statistics,

Quantitative multivariate) missing data, linearity,
Data Analysis bomoscedasticity, normality,
multivariate outliers,
• Factor analysis ■Factor loadings
■Frequencies ■Descriptive statistics
■Discriminant function ■canonical discriminant
analysis functions, standardized and
■SPSS quan. software v.l 1 structure coefficients, functions
at group centroids
Cases Selection;
• Purposefully selecting ■Cases (N=4)
Interview Protocol 1 participant from each
Development group (N=4) based on
typical response and
maximal variation principle
■Developing interview Interview protocol
questions
f
QUALITATIVE • Individual in-deptb ■Text data (interview
Data Collection telephone interviews with transcripts, documents,
4 participants artifact description)
■Email follow-up interviews ■Image data (photographs)
• Elicitation materials
■Documents
■Lotus Notes courses
r
Coding and thematic analysis■Visual model of multiple case
QUALITATIVE ■Within-case and across-case analysis
Data Analysis theme development ■Codes and themes
• Cross-thematic analysis ■Similar and different themes
and categories
■QSR N6 qualitative software ■Cross-thematic matrix
Interpretation of ■Interpretation and explana ' Discussion

Entire Analysis tion of the quantitative and ' Implications
qualitative results ' Future research
60
1. As any mixed methods sequential design, it required lengthy time to complete.
2. It required feasibility of resources to collect and analyze both types of data.
3. Some of the quantitative results of the first phase showed no significant differences,
inconsistent with prior research.
Target Population
The target population in this study were students, both active and inactive, who
were admitted to the ELHE-DE program and taking classes during the Spring 2003
semester. Also part of the target population were students who had been graduated with
an eamed doctoral degree from the program and those who had withdrawn, or had been
terminated from the program prior to Spring 2003. Students were referred to as distance
students if they had taken half of their classes via distributed means. Recruiting of
participants used the database of the available students in the ELHE-DE program
maintained by the College of Education and Human Sciences Graduate Support Unit. The
students’ status varied in terms of progress and/or completion of courses, number of
online courses taken, and doctoral degree pursued.
Criteria for selecting the participants included: (1) being in ELHE-DE vs. other
programs; (2) time period of 1994-Spring 2003; (3) must have taken V2 of course work
via distributed means; (4) be either admitted, both active and inactive, graduated,
withdrawn, or terminated from the program; (5) for those who just started the program,
they must have taken at least one online course in the ELHE-DE program via distributed
means. A total of 278 students met the criteria. The breakdown by their status in the
program was: (1) those admitted and active in the program (n=202); (2) those admitted
61
but were inactive (n=13); (3) those who had been graduated (n=26), and (4) those who
withdrew or were terminated from the program (n=37) since its inception in 1994.
Notably there were major difficulties securing accurate information on all
potential participants. The record keeping in the database was woefully inadequate with
regard to student status within the program even to the point of a person having been
admitted; also listing of individuals who were pursuing doctoral degrees in other
disciplines; and most importantly, information on how to contact them. To compensate
for the inaccuracies, it was necessary to complete an audit on every student listed on
his/her role as being in the program. In a number of instances, the memory of selected
faculty was used to ensure eligible students had not been excluded from the pool.
Research Permission and Ethical Considerations
Ethical issues were addressed at each phase in the study. In compliance with the
regulations of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Institutional Review Board, 2001),
the Request for Review Form was filed, providing information about the principal
investigators, the project title and type, source of funding, type of review requested,
number and type o f subjects. Application for research permission contained the
description of the project and its significance, methods and procedures, participants, and
research status. A survey instrument was appended to the application. The permission for
conducting the research was obtained in March 2003 (see Appendix A-1). The project
was accorded an expedited-middle status, since the interviews with the participants were
to be audio taped, the study was conducted in a normal social setting, its topic did not fall
into the sensitive category, and the subject population was over 19. Due to the nature of
62
the mixed methods sequential explanatory design, a request for a change in the IRB
protocol was submitted after obtaining the results in Phase I and developing the interview
protocol for Phase II of the study. The permission for conducting the qualitative phase of
the study was obtained in October 2003 (see Appendix A-2).
Two separate informed consent forms were developed for Phase I and Phase II of
the study (see Appendices B-I and B-2). The forms stated the participants were
guaranteed certain rights, agreed to be involved in the study, and acknowledged their
rights were protected. The informed consent form for Phase I was posted on the web as
an opening page of the survey. Participants clicked on the button below, saying, “I agree
to complete this survey”, thus expressing their compliance to participate in the study and
complete the survey. Each person selected for the qualitative case study in Phase II
received by mail two copies of the informed consent form prior to the interview. These
persons were asked to read the form and agree to participate of their own free will. If they
chose to participate, they were asked to return the signed form and keep another copy of
the consent form for future references. Only after receiving the signed and dated
informed consent forms were the telephone interviews with the participants scheduled.
For ethical considerations, the name of the second investigator on the project, who
also was the academic advisor of the researcher, was not mentioned on any of the
informed consent forms, as well as the recruitment letters. The professor taught numerous
courses in the ELHE-DE program, advised many students and personally knew most of
the study participants. His presence in the study might positively and/or negatively have
influenced participants and created a potential for bias. A third investigator from another
63
department was introduced into the study and his name and his signature appeared on all
the documents distributed to participants.
The anonjmiity of the participants in Phase I was protected by assigning them
unique numeric passwords to access the survey. Each completed questionnaire was
automatically coded leaving no links to the name of the respondent. While conducting the
case studies with the selected participants in Phase II, they were assigned fictitious names
for use in their description and reporting the results, thus keeping the responses
confidential. In addition, all the names and gender related pronouns were removed from
the quotations used as illustrations in the second qualitative phase of the study. All study
data, including the survey electronic files, interview tapes, and transcripts, was secured in
a locked metal file cabinet in the researcher’s office and will be destroyed after a
reasonable period of time. Participants were informed the summary data would be
disseminated to the professional community, but in no way it would be possible to trace
responses to individuals.
The Role o f the Researcher
The researcher’s involvement with data collection in the two phases of this study
was different. In the first, quantitative phase, the researcher administered the survey and
collected the data using the standardized procedures, including the convenience sampling,
naturally existing groups, and reliability and validity checks of the instrument. The data
analysis was performed using rigorous statistical analysis techniques and the results were
interpreted based on the established values for the statistical significance of the functions.
64
In the second, qualitative phase, the researcher assumed a more participatory role
due to the “sustained and extensive experience with participants” (Creswell, 2003, p.
184) and personal involvement with the research topic. The researcher was a student in
the ELHE campus-based program. She had completed six online courses and had, herself,
experienced some of the challenges of distance learning. It bears noting, she had
developed and was teaching online graduate level research methods course via
Blackboard, and had assisted with teaching courses via the Lotus Notes platform. Also
she conducted, published, and presented studies dealing with different issues of teaching
and learning via DE, including both faculty and students as the participants. The
researcher also knew some of the participants in the study through distance classes and
campus meetings. In addition, during the data collection procedure, she developed cordial
and supportive relations with some participants. All of these experiences introduced a
possibility for subjective interpretations of the phenomenon being studied and created a
potential for bias (Locke, Spirduso & Silverman, 2000).
At the same time, it bears noting the researcher did not belong to the ELHE-DE
student cohort. Even when taking online courses, she was campus-based and used all the
resources residential university study provided, including the library services, and
frequent face-to-face communications with the academic advisor, faculty and fellow-
students. In addition, being a Graduate Assistant and University Presidential Fellow, she
never had to balance full time employment with doctoral studies in the DE environment.
These arguments, although not strong enough to eliminate the possibility for bias,
provide some reasons why the researcher decided to neglect the warning not to conduct a
65
qualitative research “in one’s own backyard” (Creswell, 1998; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992).
Extensive verification procedures, including triangulation of data sources, member
checking, inter-coder agreement, disconfirming evidence, and thick and rich descriptions
of the cases, were used to establish the accuracy of the findings and to control some of
the “backyard” research issues. Furthermore, a careful audit was done by the researcher’s
academic advisor on all research procedures and data analysis in the study.
66
CHAPTER 4: PHASE I, QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Methods and Procedure
Variables in the Quantitative Analysis
The research question in the quantitative phase “What factors (internal and
external) predicted students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program?” predetermined a set
of variables for Phase I of the study. Students’ membership in one of the four
matriculated groups, i. e., withdrawn and inactive, the first half of the program, the
second half o f the program, and graduated groups, was considered a dependent variable,
the outcome or result of the influence of the independent variables (Isaac & Michael,
1981), and was labeled “student persistence”. It was a categorical variable and was used
as a grouping variable in the discriminant function analysis.
Selected factors internal and external to the ELHE-DE program, which
contributed to and/or impeded DE doctoral students’ persistence, were treated as
independent or predictor variables, because they caused, influenced, or affected the
outcomes (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2000). Those variables were identified through analysis
of selected related literature, theories of students’ persistence (Bean, 1980; Kember,
1995; Tinto, 1975), outlined in Chapter 1, and a qualitative thematic analysis study of
seven ELHE-DE active students. The latter was conducted during the Spring 2002 and
reported at the IS**^ International Conference on College Teaching and Learning
(Ivankova & Stick, 2002). The interview questions for the Spring 2002 study were
developed based on the components of the three models of students’ persistence,
discussed in the Theoretical Perspectives section of Chapter 1 of this study (Bean, 1980,
67
1985, 1990; Kember (1989a, 1990, 1995; Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993). Those factors were
built into research questions for Phase I and were the following:
ELHE-DE program related factors: program logistics, distance education
pedagogy; academic workload, comfort level with the computer-mediated asynchronous
learning environment, virtual community;
Academic advisor and faculty related factors: relations with the academic
advisor, with faculty, dissertation committee members; their feedback and involvement;
Institution related factors: support staff, technology assistance,
student support services (library, admissions, registration, financial aid);
Student related factors: personal goals, self-efficacy, self-discipline, time
management, motivation;
Factors external to the ELHE-DE program: family, employer, colleague,
fnend and significant other support; financial issues; family and work load.
Based on these factors 10 predictor variables were identified: “online learning
environment”, “program”, “virtual community”, “faculty”, “student support services”,
“academic advisor”, “family and significant other”, “employment”, “finances”, “self-
motivation”. Demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, academic degree,
emplojmient, previous degree earned, family status, year of enrollment, withdrawal or
graduation from the ELHE-DE program, number of courses taken in the program,
functioned as moderator variables. They affected the direction and/or strength of the
relation between an independent and a dependent variable and accounted for the
68
“interaction effect between an independent variable and some factor that specifies the
appropriate condition for its operation” (Baron & Kenny, 1986, p. 1174).
Instrument
Using 10 predictor variables: “online learning environment”, “program”, “virtual
community”, “faculty”, “student support services”, “academic advisor”, “family and
significant other”, “employment”, “finances”, “self-motivation”, discussed above, the
survey instrument items were developed. The core items formed five 7-point Likert t}ê
scales. For the test to have a statistical power, each variable was represented by at least
three items on the scale. Table 4.1 presents the relationship between the factors and
variables, and lists the survey items measuring each variable. Other items on the survey
were of different formats: multiple choiee, asking either for one option or all that applied,
dichotomous answers like “Yes” and “No”, and open-ended questions. The questionnaire
consisted o f 24 questions, which were organized into six sections (see Appendix C).
The first section of the survey asked questions related to the ELHE-DE program
and participants’ experiences in it. It included the selection questions related to the status
of the participants in the program and within each of the four student categories identified
in the database. It also asked about the factors contributing to a decision to continue or
withdraw from the program, UNL support services, and participants’ experiences in the
program. The latter were measured on a 7-point Likert type seale from “Strongly
disagree” to “Strongly agree” and provided data regarding the impact of the program-,
faculty-, and institution-related factors ELHE-DE on students’ persistence.
69
Table 4.1
Predictor Variables in Quantitative Analysis
Factors Predictor variables Survey items
Related to ELHE-DE program Online learning environment Q14 a-j
Program Q13 a-g
Virtual community Q13 h-1
Related to faculty and academic advisor Academic advisor Q15 a-m
Faculty Q13 m-r
Related to institution Student support services Q13 s-y
Related to student Self-motivation Q16 a-g
External to ELHE-DE program Family and significant other Q17 a-d
Employment Q17 e-h
Finances Q17i-k
The second section measured the participants’ comfort level with the online
learning environment, using a 7-point rating scale from “Very uncomfortable” to “Very
comfortable”. The third section focused on the participants’ experiences with their
academic advisor and measured the role of an advisor to participants’ pursuing the
doctoral degree in CMAL. A 7-point rating scale from “Extrem ely negative” to
“Extremely positive” was used. The fourth section asked participants to self-evaluate on
how motivated they were to pursue the doctoral degree via distributed means. The scale
from 1 to 7, from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”, was used. The fifth section
70
focused on how selected external factors influenced participants’ progress in the program
and provided the data to answer the fifth research question. Participants’ experiences
were measured on a 7-point Likert type scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” to
“Strongly agree”.
Demographic questions constituted the sixth and final section of the
questionnaire. They provided information regarding the participants’ age, gender,
employment and Nebraska residency status, degrees eamed and family structure. Some
questions in the survey had an open-ended “Other (specify)” option to assure one correct
answer for every participant in the study (Thomdike, 1997). Because the participants had
varied experiences, due to their different status in the ELHE-DE program and
demographic characteristics, a choice of “Not applicable” (NA) was included, when
necessary. The last question on the survey was open-ended and asked for additional
information about the participants’ experiences in the ELHE-DE program.
Pilot Survey Administration
The survey instrument was piloted on the 5.0% randomly selected participants
representing the former and current students in the ELHE-DE program. The goal of the
pilot study was to validate the instrument and to test its reliability. All names from the
eligible ELHE-DE participants, identified in the database (N=281), were entered into the
SPSS computer analysis system. A random proportionate by group sample of 15
participants was selected. A recruitment email was sent to the people selected telling
them about the purpose of the study and asking for participation. Thirteen agreed to
participate and they were provided with the login and password to access the survey and
71
complete it on the web. Those participants were excluded from the subsequent major
study.
Internal consistency reliability. After the data was collected the internal
consistency reliability analysis was performed. Examination of the corrected item-total
correlations, coefficient alpha for each subscale, and alpha-if-item deleted for each item
on the subscale yielded the following results. On the Internal Factors scale, four items
had the alpha-if-item deleted indices that were higher than the scale alpha coefficient;
four items had low item-total correlation, and two items had negative correlation with
other items on the subscale. Those items asked about the rigor of online courses, course
textbooks and the admissions processes. To improve the items they were reworded,
keeping the same meaning, but making the wording simpler.
On the Online Learning Environment scale, three items had the alpha-if-item
deleted indices that were higher than the scale alpha coefficient. The same three items
had low and negative item-total correlation with other items on the subscale. Based on
that finding, the wording of the two items related to the interactions with the academic
advisor and dissertation committee members was simplified. After discussing with
experts the reliability analysis results for the third item, asking about experiences with the
Blackboard software, it was decided to keep this item without changes.
On the Academic Advisor scale, only one item had the alpha-if-item deleted
indices that were higher than the scale alpha coefficient. The item asked about academic
advising in general. The item also had low item-total correlation with other items on the
72
subscale. A decision was made to reword it, asking participants to rate advising along
with other aspects of advisor’s involvement.
On the Self-Motivation scale, two items had the alpha-if-item deleted indices that
were higher than the scale alpha coefficient. One item, related to personal responsibility
for learning, also had low item-total correlation with other items on the subscale. This
item was reworded, while another item “I wonder whether all the study and work was or
is worth the effort” was deleted from the scale, as it was found confusing.
On the External Factors scale, three items had the alpha-if-item deleted indices
that were higher than the scale alpha coefficient. One item asked about the work schedule
as related to persistence, and two items were foeused on the financial issues. The same
items also had low item-total correlation with other items on the subscale, and both items
asking about finances had negative item-total correlation. As a result, two items were
reworded, while the last item was substituted by another much simpler item.
Factor analysis. Preliminary factor analysis of 10 subscales of the survey items,
used for creating composite variables, was performed. It needs to be recognized the data
set was extremely small for such analysis and the data was not screened for normality,
homoscedasticity, linearity, and multivariate outliers. However, using the varimax
rotation the analysis produced simple structures for most composite variable, i.e. each
factor had several items with strong loadings, each item had a strong loading for only one
factor, and each item had a large eommunality, i. e. degree of shared variance. In case of
“virtual community”, “academic advisor”, “faculty”, and “motivation”, all the items
73
loaded only on one factor, which was an indication of the construct validity for the
subscales.
Quantitative Data Collection
Sampling
For the purpose of the first, quantitative phase of the study the convenience
sample (Dillman, 2000) was selected, which encompassed 278 students. Active email
addresses for this group were obtained through the UNL Department of Educational
Administration and identified through other sources. The participants were recruited
through the e-mail entitled “Open Letter to All Distributed Doctoral Students” sent to
each person a week before the beginning of the study (see Appendix D-1). The letter
described the study and provided the reasons for selecting the individual as a possible
participant and why his or her feedback was important. It also stated four responding
individuals would be contacted for a follow-up interview.
When the study began, all identified people received an email message, restating
the purpose o f the study and asking them to complete the survey (see Appendix D-2). The
URL for the survey and the unique password were provided. To provide an incentive to
complete the survey, the message informed every fifth respondent would receive a small
“Thank you” gift in the mail.
Survey Administration
For the first, quantitative phase, the cross-sectional survey design, which implied
the data would be collected at one point in time (Creswell, 2002; McMillan, 2000), was
used. The survey questionnaire was web-based and accessed through the URL. One of
74
the advantages of web-based surveys is participants’ responses are automatically stored
in a database and can be easily transformed into numeric data in Excel or SPSS formats.
The data collection took place between April 1 and July 18, 2003. The procedure
was complicated by having to correct 48 inactive email addresses and locate former
students, who bad withdrawn or graduated from the program. Technological glitches in
the system also presented challenges. Twenty-three participants who were willing to
complete the questionnaire, could not access the survey, or failed to complete it in full. A
hard copy of the survey was mailed, faxed, or sent as a Word document attachment to
such participants. Nineteen such participants returned the completed survey, while four
people failed to do so.
To decrease the response rate error and solicit a relatively high response rate of
the survey, a three-phase follow-up sequence was used (Dillman, 2000). To those
participants who had not responded by the set date (1) a week after distributing the
survey URL, an e-mail reminder was sent out; (2) two weeks later, the second e-mail
reminder was sent; (3) another two weeks later, the third e-mail reminder was sent stating
the importance o f the participant’s input for the study and asking them to complete the
survey (Appendices D-3 and D-4). Each email message contained the explanation of the
study goals, the survey URL and the password. After each reminder a number of
participants completed the survey.
The process o f contacting the participants about completing the survey was on
going, as some people were located after the first or second reminder went out. A few
participants who were located after the web survey had been closed, received and
75
completed the questionnaire via attachment as a Word document. On the overall, a
request to complete the survey was sent to 278 former and current ELHE-DE students.
Out of this number, 207 participants responded, which constituted the response rate of
74.5%. The breakdown of responded participants per category registered in the college
database is shown in Table 4.2. The survey software kept track of each fifth completed
questionnaire and stored the numeric code of this participant in the database. After the
completion o f Phase I of the study, 36 participants received a 2004 Calendar designed at
the UNL Instruetional Technology Design Center and a personal “Thank you” note.
Table 4.2
Survey Response Rate by Participant Group
Category Eligible population Completed the Response rate

(N=278) survey (N=207) (74.5%)
Active 202 156 77.2%
Inactive 13 8 61.5%
Withdrawn 37 17 45.9%
Graduated 26 26 100%
Quantitative Data Analysis
Participant Groups in the Quantitative Analysis
To better answer tlie research question for this phase “What factors (internal and
external) predicted students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program?” the participants
were organized into four groups based on their matriculation in the program and the
similarity o f academic experiences: (1) students who were active and were in their first
76
half of the program, i. e. had completed 30 or less credit hours of course work (Beginning
Group) (n=78); (2) students who were active and were in their second half of the
program, i. e. had completed more than 30 credit hours of course work, including the
dissertation hours (Matriculated Group) (n=78); (3) former students who had graduated
from the program with the doctoral degree (Graduated Group) (n=26); and (4) former
students who either had withdrawn from the program, or had been inactive in the
program during the last three terms (spring, fall, summer) prior to the survey
administration (Withdrawn/Inactive Group) (n=25). In addition, such approach to
grouping provided a better balance in numbers of the participants by group and allowed
for more variability within and across the groups.
Univariate Analysis
Cross tabulation and frequencies count were used to analyze the demographic
information completed by the participants on the survey. The participants’ answers to
separate items on the five survey scales were analyzed using the descriptive statistics,
cross tabulation, and frequencies count. For each item on the scale, the mean and the
standard deviation were computed for each participant group separately and for the whole
scale. To get the trends of positive responses rated “Strongly agree” (7) and “Agree” (6)
and negative responses rated “Strongly disagree” (1) and “Disagree” (2) within each
group, valid percent of the combined raw scores per each item rated positively and
negatively was computed. All statistical analysis of the quantitative results was conducted
with the help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS), version 11.0.
77
Multivariate Analysis
The research question “What factors (internal and external) predicted students’
persistence in the ELHE-DE program?” predetermined the choice of the statistical test
and analysis to be used in the quantitative phase of the study. Because the purpose of this
phase of the study was to correctly predict the group membership for the ELHE-DE
students as related to their persistence in the program from a set of 10 predictors, the
predictive discriminant function analysis was used. The primary goal of the analysis was
to find the dimensions along which the four groups differed, as well as to find the
classification functions to predict the group membership (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2000).
The discriminant function analysis seeks to identify which combination of the
quantitative independent variables (e.g., internal and external to the ELHE-DE program
factors) best predict the group membership (e.g., being in one of the four identified above
participant groups) as defined by a single dependent variable (e.g., students’ membership
as related to persistence) that has two or more categories (e.g., four different groups).
This statistical procedure is best used when the groups are formed naturally based on
some characteristic, e.g., the status in the program, and are not selected randomly
(Mertler & Vannatta, 2002).
Data Screening
The underlying assumptions of the discriminant function analysis are multivariate
normality, homogeneity of variances and linearity. If the data does not satisfy these
assumptions, the statistical results will not be a precise reflection of reality. To meet these
assumptions the data screening of the 10 composite predictor variables was conducted at
78
both univariate and multivariate levels prior to the analysis (Kline, 1998; Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2000). Data screening helped identify the multivariate normality, missing data,
multivariate outlying cases, and potential multicollinearity in the data.
Missing Data. There were no system missing data for the survey scale items.
However, because three scales. Internal Factors, Online Learning Environment, and
Advising, provided a NA response option due to the differences in the participants’
experiences in the program and different background characteristics, the NA values were
treated as missing data. The breakdown of each item on these three scales by the number
o f the missing values is presented in Table 4.3 in Appendix E-1.
As it is seen from the table, two items 14d (28.5%) and 14j (43.0%) had the
greatest number o f missing responses. These two items asked ahout the specific
experiences only certain groups of participants could answer. For the rest of the items, the
NA responses did not exceed 15.0%. Actually for 20 out of 31 items the number of the
missing responses did not exceed 5.0%. Using the listwise deletion of the missing data in
the process of analysis would radically reduce the sample size, which, in its turn, would
result in lowering the statistical power of the discriminant function analysis test. To
preserve the sample size, it was decided to exclude items 14d and 14j from the
multivariate analysis, taking into account their specific relevance to certain participants.
For the rest of the items, which NA responses did not exceed 15.0%, the missing values
were substituted by the group mean for each item within each group. This procedure is
recommended in the literature on the multivariate analysis and is considered to be one of
79
the most conservative approaches to handling the missing data (Kline, 1998; Mertler &
Vaimatta, 2002; Tahachnick & Fidell, 2000).
Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics for all composite variables was
obtained. None of the variables had unreasonable means or values (see Table 4.4).
Table 4.4
Descriptive Statistics fo r Composite Variables
Std.
N Mean Skewness Kurtosis
deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. error Statistic Std. error
Online learn 207 5.9349 0.9547 -1.757 0.169 4.143 0.337

ing environ.
Program
207 5.4769 1.1043 -1.207 0.169 1.770 0.337
Virtual
207 4.9923 1.2332 -0.592 0.169 0.027 0.337
community
Academic
207 5.1502 1.6607 -0.717 0.169 -0.440 0.337
advisor
Faculty
207 5.0757 1.3244 -0.903 0.169 0.516 0.337
Services
207 5.4776 1.0770 -1.109 0.169 2.387 0.337
Self-
207 6.0524 1.0272 -1.783 0.169 4.466 0.337
motivation
Family
207 4.9741 1.1747 -0.235 0.169 -0.499 0.337
Emplojmient
207 4.8257 1.1434 -0.380 0.169 -0.112 0.337
Finances
207 4.2403 1.2152 0.009 0.169 0.499 0.337
Valid N
(listwise) 207
Four variables, “online learning environment”, “program”, “student support
services”, and “self-motivation” were not univariate normal, as their skewness and
80
kurtosis values were greater than 2. To reach normality for these variables at the
univariate level, they were transformed. Depending on the shape and the sign of the
distribution, different transformation procedures were used (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2000). After each transformation, the variables were checked for
normality until the best solution was found. Thus, for “online learning environment”,
“student support services”, and “self-motivation” reflect and logarithm transformation
was used. For “program”, reflect and square root transformation was used.
Linearity and homoscedasticity. After the transformation procedures the
researcher checked for the linearity of the data by examining the scatterplots for these 10
variables. The relationships were found to be linear. Collinearity diagnostics also was
performed, but none of the bivariate correlations exceeded .85, which indicated no
variables were redundant (Kline, 1998). Box’s M test for equality of variance-covariance
matrices was performed to access the homoscedasticity of the data, i.e. if the variability
in scores for one continuous variable was roughly the same at all values of another
continuous variable (Stevens, 1996). The test was statistically significant at the p<.05
level, which indicated the homoscedasticity of this data set.
Multivariate normality. The normtest for multivariate normality (DeCarlo, 1997)
was performed, which demonstrated the statistical significance of both multivariate
skewness (57.3794, p=.000) and multivariate kurtosis (132.5216, p=.000). The omnibus
test of multivariate normality also was statistically significant (70.8436, p=.000).
Multivariate outliers. Using the Mahalanobis distances procedure in the
regression analysis to assess the multivariate outliers, three multivariate outliers were
81
identified which significantly exceeded the upper critical value of 29.588 at the
conservative level of significance (p<.001), recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell
(2000 );
Table 4.5
Multivariate Outliers
Case Number Statistic
Mahal. Distance 1 199 31.630

2 117 30.391
3 39 30.284
4 186 26.477
5 92 26.303
6 144 24.013
7 193 22.767
8 139 22.284
9 21 22.137
10 34 21.881
These cases were checked for data entry errors by contacting these individuals
and verifying their responses. In each of the three cases, participants confirmed their
original ratings. It was decided to run the discriminant function analysis with and without
these cases. In both cases, the researcher obtained the same results and chose to keep
these cases in the analysis.
82
Reliability and Validity
In quantitative research, reliability and validity of the instrument are very
important for decreasing errors that might arise from measurement problems in the
research study.
Reliability Analysis
Reliability refers to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure
(Thomdike, 1997). Indices of reliability show the extent to which the numerical data
collected through a particular measument procedure are consistent and reproducible. In
the quantitative phase of this study, the reliability analysis helped assess how well the
various scale survey items appeared to reflect the attribute, ELHE-DE students’
persistence, which was being measured. The reliability analysis of the scale items
included item descriptive statistics and frequency distributions, and intemal consistency
reliability.
Descriptive Statistics and Frequency Distributions
The descriptive statistics values for each item were obtained. Each item mean,
standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis values were examined and the histogram
charts for each item scores were studied. Frequency distributions of each item showed
how spread the responses were and if all the response options were selected. Though the
distributions for most of the items were positively skewed, the standard deviation values
for each item showed there was much variation in the responses, especially between the
most persistent and the least persistent participants.
83
Internal Consistency Reliability
Item-total correlation. All the scale items were tested to ascertain if they were
unidimensional in wording and needed recoding. Two items 13h and 131 from the
Intemal Factors scale and four items 17b, 17c, 17f, and 17j from the External Factors
scale were worded negatively. The item total correlation test for these two scales yielded
negative correlation for these six items with other items on the subscales. To get the
positive correlation, each of these items was recoded one at a time and tested for the
correlation with other items and the subscale. The procedure was repeated until all these
six items were recoded and all the subscales had positive item-total correlations.
Cronbach ’s alpha or coefficient alpha. This measure provided an estimate of the
intemal consistency of the instmment scores from a single administration. For the first
seven subscales, the coefficient alpha was rather high and ranged between .8012 and
.9079 (see Table 4.6), which was an indication of high intemal consistency reliability of
the items on these subscales.
For the last three subscales, aimed to measure the extemal to the program factors,
the alpha coefficient was not high (.5829 and .5289), and for the last subscale was
extremely low (.2045). The low values indicated low intemal consistency between the
items on these subscales, and absence of any intemal consistency for the items on the last
subscale. The reason for such low values, though, might not be the fact the items did not
measure the same construct, but because there were too few items per subscale, and the
wording of some of them might have been confusing for the participants.
84
Table 4.6
Internal Consistency Reliability fo r Subscale Items
Subscales Cronbach’s Inter-item Corrected Alpha-if-

alpha correlation item-total item deleted
mean correlation
Online learning .8503 .3930 .3538 (14d) .8534 (14d)

environment
Program .8344 .4672 .2466 (13d) .8828 (13d)
.8375 (13e)
Virtual community .8012 .4762 .4481 (131) .8016 (13h)
Academic advisor .9818 .8061 .7638 (151) .9826(151)

.7303 (15g) .9832 (15g)
Faculty .9079 .6226 - -
Student support .8243 .4093 - .8281 (13w)

services
Self-motivation .8948 .5802 - -
Family and .5829 .2534 .2001 (17d) .6231 (17d)

“significant other”
Employment .5289 .2228 - -
Finances .2045 .0641 .0213 (17j) .3945 (17j)
Corrected item-total correlation. This measure showed the correlation of an item
with the total o f all the other items on the subscale, except itself. In other words, if an
item is highly correlated with all the other items, it should also be correlated with their
sum. At it is seen from Table 4.6, only six items from five subscales had low corrected
item-total correlation. Their correlation values were lower than the inter-item correlation
mean, which was an indication of the low correlation of this item with other items on the
subscale.
85
Alpha-if-item deleted. This index tells what coefficient alpha would be if an item
were deleted from the scale. The higher the alpha-if-item deleted index than the scale
alpha coefficient, the higher reliability of the scale would be if the item is deleted from
the scale. As it is seen in Table 4.6, only three subscales did not have items needing to be
removed. At the same time, only two subscales, “Program” and “Academic advisor” had
two items needing to he deleted. Among the remaining five subscales, there was only one
such item. On the overall, only six items, 13d, 15f, 14d, 15g, 17d, and 17j had low inter
item correlation with other items on the suhscale. Two other items, 13e and 13w, which
were recommended to he removed from the scale, had high inter-item correlation with
other items on the subscale.
To summarize, reliability was established for the survey instrument. Descriptive
analysis showed there was considerable variation in the responses for each item on the
scales. Six items from two subscales were reworded to reach unidimensionality. All the
scales on the survey, except for the Extemal Factors scale, had high intemal consistency
reliability of the items, as measured by coefficient alpha, corrected item-total correlation,
and alpha-if-item deleted. Seven items had lower corrected item-total correlation than the
inter-item correlation mean, and nine items had high indexes of alpha-if-item deleted.
Validity
Validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the
specific concept or constmct the researcher is attempting to measure (Thomdike, 1997).
In the quantitative phase of this study, the content and constmct validity of the survey
instmment was established. The researcher failed to establish the criterion-related validity
86
of this self-designed instrument, which involved comparing it with another measure or
procedure, which had been demonstrated to be valid (Overview; Reliability and Validity,
2001). Consistent efforts were made to find another instrument measuring the same
construct, i. e. doctoral students’ persistence in the distributed programs. At this date no
instrument like that had been located.
Content Validity
The content validity of the survey instrument was established prior to the survey
administration. The content of the survey questionnaire and the wording of the items
were examined by a group of Educational Administration professors, who taught in the
ELHE-DE program, helped administer the program since its inception in 1994, and were
national and international experts in this area. A debriefing meeting with these professors
was conducted, where they provided the feedback on whether the survey content was
representative of all the possible questions about the doctoral students’ persistence in the
CMAL learning environment, whether the survey items seemed relevant to the issue they
were aimed to collect the information about, and if the instrument was well-designed.
Based on this feedback, the researcher introduced some additional items, made some
changes in the survey format and the wording of selected items.
Construct Validity
Construct validity seeks agreement between a theoretical concept and a specific
measuring device or procedure (Thorndike, 1997). Two procedures were used to test for
the construct validity, inter-item correlations and factor analysis.
87
Inter-item correlations. The items from 10 subscales used for creating composite
variables were checked to determine if they correlated with each other, i. e. if they
measured the same construct. The examination of the correlation matrices for all the
items for each subscale showed on five out of 10 subscales all the items had statistically
significant Pearson correlations with other items. These subscales included “virtual
community,” “faculty,” “student support services,” “academic advisor,” and “self-
motivation.”
On the other five subscales some items did not reach statistical significance when
correlated with other items. Typically they were items not correlating just with selected
other items, but not with all the items on the subscale. The breakdown by subscale is: (1)
on “program”, 13d did not correlate with 13e and 13f; (2) on “online leaming
environment”, 14d did not correlate with 14f-14j and 14c did not correlate with 14h; (3)
on “family and significant other”, 17c did not correlate with 17d: (4) on “employment”,
17e did not correlated with 17f and 17h; (5) on “finances”, 17j did not correlate with 17i
and 17k. Because these composite variables were computed based on three or more items
from the subscale, the low correlation of selected items did not seriously affect the
construct validity of the subscales and, hence, the entire survey instrument.
Factor analysis. Factor analysis of 10 subscales of the survey items, used for
creating composite variables, was performed. The goal of factor analysis was to see, if
the analysis would produce a simple structure, characterized by: (1) each factor should
have several variables with strong loadings, (2) each variable should have a strong
loading for only one factor, and (3) each variable should have a large communality, i. e.
88
degree of shared variance (Kim & Mueller, 1978). The researcher used the varimax
rotation procedure and set the criterion for the significance of factor loadings at .4 cut-off
level, which is considered neither liberal nor conservative and helps reach parsimonious
agreement (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2000).
For the four subscales, “virtual community”, “faculty” “academic advisor”, and
“self-motivation” the factor analysis produced a simple structure. All the items loaded on
only one factor, all had large communality values above .5, and all had factor loadings
significant at .4 cut-off level. So, for those four subseales construct validity was
established. All the items on each suhscale were measuring the same construct. For
“program” subscale, five items out of seven loaded on a separate, third, factor, while one
item, 13e, did not have significant factor loadings on any factor and another item 13d
loaded on a different, sixth factor. All the items, though, had large communalities. For
“online leaming environment” six items out of eight loaded on one factor, while two
items, 14b and 14c loaded on the second factor. All had factor loadings significant at .4
cut-off level. All the items, except for 14e and 14h, had large communalities above .7.
So, for these two subscales the eonstract validity was evident, hut not as strong as for the
four subscales discussed above.
Three out of four items from the “family and significant other” suhscale loaded on
one factor, while item 17d loaded on the same factor as two “employment” subscale
items. All had factor loadings significant at .4 cut-off level. Two out of four
“employment” suhscale items loaded on the same second factor as 17d, and two loaded
on the third factor. All had large communalities and factor loadings were significant at .4
89
cut-off level. Two out of three “finances” items loaded on the fourth factor, while 17j
loaded on the same third factor, as 17f and 17h. However, all had large communality
values and were significant at .4 cut-off level. For the “student support services”
subscale, four out o f seven items loaded on a separate, fourth factor, but two items, 13x
and 13y, loaded on another, fifth factor, and one item, 13w loaded on the six factor
together with item 13d from the “program” subscale. All of the items, though, had very
large communalities and all had factor loadings significant at .4 cut-off level. Thus, for
these four subscales, the construct validity was not completely established.
90
Quantitative Results
Participants Demographic Information
The study participants were compared on the following demographic
characteristics: age, gender, employment while in the ELHE-DE program, Nebraska (NE)
residency status, and family status. This demographic information is presented in Table
4.7 in Appendix E-2.
Age. All the participants, except for one person from the Beginning group
reported their age (N=206). The study participants fell into four age categories: (1) 26-35,
(2) 36-45, (3) 46-54, and (4) over 55. The most typical respondent age was in the 36-45
year range (37.4%) followed by 46-54 (34.0%). The age category of 26-35 (17.0%) was
better presented than age category of over 55(11.7%). In both the Beginning and
Matriculated groups, the typical age was between 36-45 (41.6 % and 44.9% respectively),
while age category of over 55 was the least represented (5.2% and 11.5%). In the
Graduated group, the typical respondent age was between 46-54 (50.0%), and the age
eategory o f over 55 ranked second (23.1%). The least represented category was 26-35
age range (7.7%). In the Withdrawn/Inactive group, the most typical participants were
46-54 years o f age (36.0%), while between 36-45 and the oldest age categories were
equally presented (20.0%), but had fewer participants.
Gender. All but two participants from the Beginning group reported their gender
on the survey (N=205). There were more female participants than male (54.6% versus
45.4%). Female participants also dominated in the Beginning (59.2% versus 40.8%) and
the Matriculated groups (53.9% versus 46.2%) and in the Withdrawn/Inactive group
91
(52.0% versus 48.0%). There were more males in the Graduated group (53.8% versus
46.2%).
Employment. All the partieipants reported their employment status at the time of
being enrolled in the program (N=207). The majority were employed full-time (92.8%),
6.8% of the participants were employed part-time, and only one participant from the
Withdrawn/Inactive group was unemployed. The same proportion of full-time versus
part-time employed was observed in the Beginning (93.6% versus 6.4%), Matriculated
(92.3% versus 7.7%), and Graduated groups (88.5% versus 11.5%). In the
Withdrawn/Inactive group, 96.0% of the participants were employed full-time, while
there was nobody with part-time status and one participant was unemployed.
NE residency. All participants reported their residency status at the time of being
emolled in the program (N=207). More than 66 % of the students were out-of-state, while
30% were NE residents, and only 3.4% of the students were international. Out-of-state
students were the largest number in all the four groups (Beginning - 73.1%, Matriculated
- 65.4%, Graduated - 57.7%, and Withdrawn/Inactive - 60.0%), while international
students were the least represented (Beginning - 2.6%, Matriculated - 5.1%, and
Graduated - 3.8%). There were no international students among the participants, who had
withdrawn from or were inactive in the program. At the same time, there were more
international students in the Matriculated group (5.1%), than in the Beginning (2.6%) and
Graduated groups (3.8%). In-state students were better represented in the Graduated
(38.5%) and Withdrawn/Inactive (40.0%) groups, than in the Beginning (24.4%) and the
Matriculated (29.5%) groups.
92
Family status. All but six participants reported their family status (N-201). Those
who did not reveal their family status were distributed equally across the four groups. A
majority of the participants either were married with children under 18 (59.7%), or
married with children over 18 (21.4%) at the time of being enrolled in the program. They
also represented the majority of members in each of the four groups.
There were more adults classified as single, divorced or separated among those
who responded (6.0%) than those single with children under 18 (4.5%) or single and
never married (4.5%). There was one single widowed former student and seven
participants were married without children (3.5%). Single, divorced or separated
participants were represented more among those who graduated from the program
(12.0%), than among other groups (Beginning - 8.0%, Matriculated - 2.6%, and
Withdrawn/Inactive - 4.2%), At the same time, they were the most represented among all
single students in the Begiiming group (8.0%). In the Withdrawn/Inactive group, single
parents with children under 18 (8.3%) and single never married persons (8.3%) exceeded
single, divorced or separated participants (4.2%).
To summarize, the typical participants were between 36 and 54 years of age. They
were predominantly women; they were employed full-time while in the program, and
were mostly non-residents of Nebraska. They were either married with children under 18,
or married with children over 18.
Scale Items Frequencies Analysis
This section provides the results of the descriptive frequencies analysis of the
items on the five survey scales, measuring the participants’ experiences with selected
93
program-, faculty-, advisor-, institution-, student-related and external factors.
Internalfactors. This scale contained 25 items related to the ELHE-DE program
and the participants’ experiences in it (see Table 4.8 in Appendix E-3). The items were
measured on a 7-point Likert type scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”,
and provided the data about the impact of the program-, faculty-, and institution-related
factors ELHE-DE on the students’ persistence. There were no NA responses for this scale
items.
The first seven items of the scale focused on the academic aspect of the ELHE-
DE program. The majority of participants (62.8%) agreed their expectations of the
program had been met, while 72% of the participants positively rated the program’s
relevance and its usefulness for their career plans. The most satisfied was the Graduated
group (92.3%). There were no negative responses in this group. The satisfaction index
increased from the Beginning group (57.7%) to the Matriculated group (71.8%) and to
the Graduated group (92.3%). Only 20% of the Withdrawn/Inactive group reported the
program met their needs, and 20% more expressed negative feelings about the program.
60% of the participants from the Withdrawn/Inactive group chose options close to the
“Unsure” rating.
The same growing satisfaction pattern for the three matriculated groups
(Beginning - 55.0%, Matriculated - 62.8%, and Graduated - 73.1%) and 20% of
disagreement among the withdrawn/inactive participants was observed regarding the
program’s relevance to students’ interest and needs. At the same time, the responses
about the program relevance and usefulness to one’s career plans were not consistent
94
across the groups. The Matriculated group (82.0%) provided the most positive ratings. It
was followed by the Beginning group (75.6%) and then hy the Graduated group (68.5%).
There were more negative (24.0%) than positive responses (12.0%) among the
Withdrawn/Inactive group.
Responses to other questions related to the academic aspects of the program were
consistent with the matriculation pattern of the four participant groups. The majority of
participants in the three matriculated groups positively rated their involvement with the
online courses, agreeing online courses were more challenging academically, and stating
they had developed good research skills. Only 38.6% of the participants agreed coming to
UNL campus during the summer sessions was a useful component of the program. The
breakdown by respective group for an on-campus experience was: the Beginning group -
18% positive versus 19.2% negative, the Matriculated group - 55.1% versus 12.8%, the
Graduated group - 65.3% versus 7.7%, and the Withdrawn/Inactive group - 24.0% versus
44.0%.
Five items on the scale were related to the online leaming community. More than
50.0% o f the participants rated their experiences of being a part of the virtual learning
community in a positive light. 61.4% of the participants agreed fellow-students helped
create the supportive leaming environment, and 57.5% agreed the CMAL environment
provided favorable conditions for creating leaming communities. Once again, the
graduated participants rated their community related experiences the highest, while the
Withdrawn/Inactive group was the least satisfied. At the same time, only 19.8% of the
participants disagreed with the statement it was difficult to establish long-term social
95
relationship with fellow-students online, while 34.3% agreed, and the rest were unsure.
Among the Withdrawn/Inactive participants 40.0% had difficulties in establishing such
relationship.
Six items on the scale asked participants to rate their experiences with the faculty
teaching online in the program. 65.3% of the participants agreed instructors were easily
accessible via e-mail and/or by phone, 55.5% received prompt instructors’ feedback and
help when they needed it, and 58.5% stated the faculty cared about them as individuals.
There were very few negative responses to these items. Increasing satisfaction was
observed from the Beginning, to the Matriculated, to the Graduated groups.
Considerably fewer participants were satisfied with how actively the instructors
engaged them in course activities (43.5%). There were no negative answers among the
Graduated group (65.4% versus 0.0%), while the split among the Withdrawn/Inactive
group was even (32.0% versus 32.0%). Only 43.0% of the participants indicated
instructors were willing to accommodate the course requirements to their needs as
distance learners. In the Graduated group, 50.0% agreed to this statement. Although there
were not many negative responses to this item (from 3.8% for the matriculated groups to
20.0% for the Withdrawn/Inactive group), about 40.0% of the participants claimed to be
not sure how to rate such experiences. Few participants (29.5%) stated instructors gave
them regular feedback on the quality of their course work. The low numbers were
consistent across the groups (Beginning - 26.9%, Matriculated - 29.5%, Graduated -
42.3%, and Withdrawn/Inactive - 24.0%). The highest negative response was among the
96
Withdrawn/Inactive group (36.0%). The Graduated group did not have negative
responses. Overall, 19.3% of the participants rated such feedback negatively.
The last seven items on the scale asked about the institutional student support
services, as related to the participants’ persistence in the program. Overall, more than
50.0% of the participants positively rated the help and support they had received from
these services. The highest participant satisfaction was with the course registration
process (73.9%), while they were the least satisfied with the admission process to the
UNL Graduate College (50.2%). Of interest is the least satisfied with the admission
process were the graduated participants (46.2%o), while more participants from both the
Beginning (51.3%) and the Matriculated groups (51.3%) and even the
Withdrawn/Inactive group (48.0%) were satisfied. At the same time, 24.0% of the
withdrawn/inactive participants were negative about the admission process to both the
Graduate College and the ELHE-DE program.
Regarding other services, the Matriculated group was the most satisfied with the
computer and the technology assistance they received (71.8%). Even the
Withdrawn/Inactive group was positive (56.0%). The Graduated group was the least
satisfied with the promptness of getting the course materials (53.9%), while the
Beginning group had the most positive ratings (73.0%). There was consistently growing
satisfaction across the matriculated groups with the UNL library services, from 47.4% for
the Beginning group to 80.8% for the Graduated group. Only 44.0% of the
Withdrawn/Inactive group participants were satisfied. Across all the groups, the
97
Withdrawn/Inactive group had the highest number of the negative responses to this item
(from 8.0% in the Beginning group to 24.00% in the Withdrawn/Inactive group).
To summarize, most of the participants were satisfied with their academic
experiences in the ELHE-DE program. The amount of satisfaction was the greatest
among the graduated participants, while the satisfaction level was directly related to the
participants’ matriculation status in the program. The same pattern was observed with the
participants’ experiences in the online leaming community. At the same time, only two-
thirds of the participants could establish long-term social relationship with their fellow-
students online. Across the groups, participants were not satisfied with all aspects of
instmctors’ teaching in the CMAL environment. They gave more positive ratings to
instmctors’ accessibility and promptness of the feedback, than to the quality of their
feedback and their willingness to accommodate to distance learners’ needs. More than
50.0% of the participants were satisfied with the institutional support services. However,
their satisfaction differed depending on the particular service and there was not always
consistency across the matriculated groups, with the exception of the Withdrawn/Inactive
group, which was the least satisfied.
Online learning environment. Ten items of this scale measured the participants’
comfort level with the online leaming environment, using a 7-point Likert tjqie rating
scale from “Very uncomfortable” to “Very comfortable” (see Table 4.9 in Appendix
E-3). Each item on this scale had NA responses, which were counted as missing data.
For each item, except for the item “Using course software (Blackboard)”, NA
responses did not exceed 3% o f the total responses. 28.5% of the participants chose NA
98
mainly because they had not taken classes via Blackboard. Across the groups, in the
Withdrawn/Inactive group (48.0%) and the Graduated group (53.9%) there was the
largest number of participants who did not use Blackboard. In both groups, more
participants negatively rated their experiences with Blackboard than in other groups
(Withdrawn/Inactive - 8.3% and Graduated -14.3% versus Beginning - 3.6% and
Matriculated - 3.0%). In all four groups, a majority of the participants used Lotus Notes.
In each, but the Withdrawn/Inactive group, more than 80% rated their experiences with
Lotus Notes positively, while 13% of those who had withdrawn from the program,
negatively rated Lotus Notes software.
All participants were very comfortable leaming in the CMAL environment
(84.3%, mean=6.28). Across the groups, the graduates expressed the highest comfort
level with leaming online (96.2%, mean=6.81), while the Withdrawn/Inactive group was
the least comfortable (47.8%, mean-4.78). Neither graduates, nor those students who
were in the second half o f the program, rated their comfort level negatively. More than
70% of the participants also rated their computer technical skills positively.
There were fewer consensuses across the groups about the academic workload
associated with studying online. More participants from the Graduated (76.9%) and the
Matriculated (73.7%) groups, than fi'om the Beginning (51.3%) and the
Withdrawn/Inactive (56.5%) groups were comfortable with the workload. They were also
much more comfortable with participating in the online discussions (100.0% in the
Graduated group and 81.3% in the Matriculated group versus 68.8% in the Beginning
group and 39.1% in the Withdrawn/Inactive group). Once again, participants in each
99
group (Beginning - 82.1%, Matriculated - 82.5%, and Graduated - 96.2%) except for
Withdrawn/Inactive group (56.5%) were comfortable understanding course concepts
through online interactions with classmates and instructors. The same pattern of
increasing comfort level from the Beginning group to the Graduated group was observed
when the participants rated their interaction with the academic advisor online and
leaming effectively in the CMAL environment as compared to a face-to-face setting.
Only about 40% of the participants from the Withdrawn/Inactive group rated these
experiences positively.
Actually 30.4% of the withdrawn/inactive participants believed they did not leam
as effectively online as in a traditional classroom. More graduated students (63.6%)
positively rated their interaction with the dissertation committee members in the CMAL
environment, while the Beginning group, who had little exposure to their committees
because they were not yet working on their dissertations, rated their positive and negative
experiences equally (22.6%) and had the least contact with their committees (only 40%).
In the Withdrawn/Inactive group, 50.0% had very low comfort level with those
experiences. This item had 43.5% of NA responses mainly because the participants were
at different stages in their program of studies and did not have equal opportunities to
interact with their committee members.
To summarize, the majority of participants was comfortable leaming in the
CMAL environment. Not all the participants could provide answers to all the questions
due to the different matriculation status in the program. The more matriculated in the
program the participants were, the more positively they rated their experiences. There
100
was a pattern of increasing comfort level with leaming online from the Beginning group
to the Graduated group. The Withdrawn/Inactive group was the least satisfied, had low
comfort level, and was more negative in rating the effectiveness of leaming in the CMAL
environment.
Advising. This scale included 13 items focused on the participants’ experiences
with their academic advisor and measured the role of advisor in the students’ efforts to
pursue the doctoral degree in the CMAL environment (see Table 4.10 in Appendix
E-3). A 7-point Likert type rating scale from “Extremely negative” to “Extremely
positive” was used. Each item on this scale had NA responses, which were counted as
missing data. For all but two items, NA responses did not exceed 4.3% of the total
responses. About 10% of the participants failed to provide an answer to two items asking
about the advisor’s assistance with the dissertation proposal and dissertation study. They
were mostly participants from the Beginning group and the Withdrawn/Inactive group,
who might not have reached the stage in the program.
The Graduated group had more positive experiences with academic advising, than
any other group, which might be the reason for their successful completion of the
program. The mean range for all the items was from 5.73 to 6.35, while more than 76%
of the graduates chose “Extremely positive” and “Positive” for all the items. The only
item just 69.2% graduates rated positively was advisor’s counseling. That item also
caused one o f the highest negative responses among all the groups. Overall only 47.8% of
all the participants rated this experience positively.
101
Across all the items, the Matriculated group participants rated their experiences
more positively than the Beginning group. This might be explained by different degrees
o f advisors’ involvement and different advisors’ role at the two respective stages in
students’ programs of study. The participants from the Matriculated group had more
opportunity to experience a variety of relations with their academic advisor than those
who had completed less than 30 credit hours in the program. The increase in the negative
rating was particularly evident on items related to an advisor’s encouragement, guidance,
advising, and mentoring (the mean range for these items was from 4.29 to 4.88). A
pattern of increased positive ratings for academic advising as a consequence of
participant membership in a group was observed across the Beginning, Matriculated and
the Graduated groups.
In the Withdrawn/Inactive group, fewer participants rated their academic advisor
positively. In case of assistance with the dissertation proposal and dissertation study, they
even rated their advisors more negatively than positively (40.0% versus 30% for
proposal, and 42.1% versus 26.3% for dissertation). They also were not satisfied with the
quality of interactions with an academic advisor (21.7%), with the feedback they received
on their progress in the program (17.4%), and responsiveness to their needs (18.2%).
Only 38% of these participants were satisfied with advising in general.
To summarize, satisfaction with academic advising depended on the stage
participants were in the program. The matriculated students had more positive
experiences with their advisors than those who were beginning the program or those who
were inactive or had withdrawn from the program. Due to their different status in the
102
program, not all the participants had reasonable opportunities to experience different
forms of advising.
Self-Motivation. This scale included seven items measuring student motivation to
pursue the doctoral degree via distributed means (see Table 4.11 in Appendix E-3). A 7-
pont Likert type scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree” was used. There were
no NA answers for these items.
Overall, all the participants were highly motivated, with the exception of
Withdrawn/Inactive group. The participants believed most strongly about responsibility
for their own leaming (94.2%, mean=6.13) and were the least positive in rating their
ability to balance job and studies (56.5%, mean=5.49). They were not highly optimistic
about balancing family and studies (61.8%, mean=5.58). There were more negative
responses to the items “I am motivated to pursue the degree via distance education”
(6.8%) and “I can balance family and studies” (6.8%), than to other items on the scale.
The Graduated group was the most self-motivated. There were no negative ratings
to five out of seven items, and they were 100.0% positive about the first two items,
related to their motivation and responsibility. Participants from both active groups
(Beginning and Matriculated) were reasonably similar in rating their motivation across all
the items. The mean of their responses to these items ranged between 5.40 and 6.77. But,
the Matriculated group showed a little higher motivation across all the items, as
compared to the Beginning group.
In the Withdrawn/Inactive group, there were more negative ratings than in any
other group. In this group, 40.0% of the participants were not motivated to pursue the
103
degree in the online environment, but most of them (56.0%) claimed to have developed
self-discipline to study via DE. At the same time, fewer of these participants could
balance family and studies (44.0%), job and studies (36.0%) or could manage their study
time well (48.0%).
To summarize, all the participants, except for the Withdrawn/Inactive group, were
highly motivated to pursue the doctoral degree via distributed means. The Graduates
were the most motivated group, while the Matriculated group was a little more motivated
than the Beginning group.
External factors. Eleven items on this scale measured how selected external
factors influenced the participants’ progress in the program (see Table 4.12 in Appendix
E-3). A 7-point Likert type scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree” was used.
All the items on this scale had NA responses due to the fact that not all the participants
had families or significant others, were full-time employed, or they decided to choose NA
when asked about the financial issues. However, the NA responses did not exceed 15%
for any item on this scale and in most cases they reached only 8-9%.
Four items on this scale asked participants about their families and significant
others’ support. More than 70% of the participants agreed they had favorable family
conditions to support their efforts to pursue the doctorate degree via distributed means.
Across all the groups, the Graduated group received the most support (80.8%) and the
Withdrawn/Inactive group the least (65.0%). Once again there was more satisfaction for
the Matriculated group (77.6%) than for the Beginning group (77.6%). Only 22.9% of all
104
participants admitted their spouses or significant others had been annoyed because they
had spent so much time studying, while 48.9% disagreed with the statement.
There were fewer consensuses among the participants regarding the distracting
effect of the home duties on their persistence. In the Graduated group, 42.3% of the
participants were sure work at home was not distracting from studying, which strangely
was supported by 40.9% of the participants from the Withdrawn/Inactive group. In both
active groups, there were more students (25.6 and 22.7%) who believed work about the
house interfered with their studies. The standard deviation for this item was large across
the groups (from 1.95 to 2.21). More graduates believed their fiiends encouraged them in
their study efforts (60.0%). Participants from the Withdrawn/Inactive group had more
fiiend support (55.0), than reported from both the Beginning (52.1%) and the
Matriculated (49.3%) groups.
Four items on the scale focused on how employment affected the participants’
persistence in their efforts to get the degree via DE. 65.6% of the participants received
encouragement from their employers to pursue the doctoral degree. The graduated
participants were the most encouraged (76.9%), while the Matriculated group received
the least support (63.0%).
61.1% of the withdrawn/inactive participants positively rated their employer,
despite the fact this group had most of the negative responses (16.7%) to the item. Both
active groups had above 15.0% of the negative ratings, while in the Graduated group the
negative ratings reached only 3.85%. Altogether 46.5% of the participants reported they
received support from their colleagues. The Withdrawn/Inactive group claimed the
105
greatest amount of colleague support (52.6%), while the Matriculated group had the least
(41.4%). This and the Beginning group had the highest number of negative responses to
this item. At the same time, 45.1% of the participants stated their job responsibilities
were too pressing to continue with the studies in the program. The Graduated group was
the most challenged (68.2%). In this group, only 4.6% of the participants disagreed with
the statement, while in other groups, the disagreement was much higher (Beginning -
13.9%, Matriculated -18.8%, and Withdrawn/Inactive - 33.3%). In the same way, 28.0%
o f the graduates and 27.8% of the Matriculated group participants stated their work
schedule had not interfered with their studies.
The last three items on the scale focused on the affordability of the program as
related to the participants’ persistence. For 60.2% of the participants it was more
affordable financially to study via DE than coming on campus. The agreement was
consistently high among the groups, though the most negative responses were among the
withdrawn/inactive participants (33.3%). For 48.5% of the participants, the financial
issues were not an obstacle to their studies in the program, while only 17.3% declared
finances as an obstacle. This number was the highest for the Graduated group (65.4%), a
little lower for both active groups (45.3% and 45.2%), and high for the
Withdrawn/Inactive group (50.0%). However, in this last group, 31.8% of the participants
reported the financial problems had been a barrier to their persistence in the program. At
the same time, 69.7% of all the participants stated they could not afford not to be
employed full time while studying in the program. This number was consistently high
across the groups, including the withdrawn/inactive participants (71.4%).
106
To summarize, two-thirds of the participants were supported by their family,
significant others, and friends in their efforts to study in the CMAL environment. Across
all the groups, though, the graduated participants received the most support. The majority
of the participants were encouraged by their employer in their efforts to pursue the
doctoral degree, but there was less encouragement for Withdrawn/Inactive group. The
pressing job responsibilities, as well as the work schedule challenged the persistence of
the graduates the most. Most o f the participants found it more affordable to study via DE
than on campus. For nearly half o f the participants, the financial issues were not an
obstacle to their persistence in the program. However, two-thirds of the participants could
not afford not to be employed full time. For the withdrawn/inactive participants, the
financial issues had more negative effect on their persistence than for any other
participant group.
Discriminant Function Analysis
To answer the research question for the first, quantitative phase of the study
“What factors (internal and external) predicted students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE
program?” the discriminant function analysis was performed on 10 composite predictor
variables, “online leaming environment”, “program”, “virtual community”, “faculty”,
“student support services”, “academic advisor”, “family and significant other”,
“employment”, “finances”, “self-motivation”. Students’ membership in one of the four
identified above groups with regards to their persistence in the ELHE-DE program was
used as a grouping variable.
107
The analysis yielded three discriminant analysis functions. As it is seen in Table
4.13, the eigenvalue, which shows how much percent of variance is accounted for by
each discriminant function, was high (.540) for the first discriminant function. This meant
the first discriminant function accounted for 88.7% of the variance between the groups.
Two other functions added very little to the explanation of the variance.
Table 4.13
Summary o f Canonical Discriminant Functions
Function Eigenvalue Percent of variance Cumulative Canonical

percent correlation
1 0.540 88.7 88.7 0.592
2 0.039 6.4 95.1 0.194
3
0.030 4.9 100.0 0.170
First 3 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.
The Wilks’ Lambda test produced the Chi-Square value showing the statistical
significance for the three discriminant functions.
Table 4.14
Wilk’s Lambda Test in Discriminant Function Analysis
Test of Wilks' Lambda Chi-square Degrees of Significance

function(s) freedom
1 through 3 0.607 99.369 30 0.000
2 through 3 0.935 13.451 18 0.764
3 0 971
5.830 8 0.666
108
As it is seen in Table 4.14, only the first function was statistically significant
(X^=99.369; df=30; p-.GOG), which indicated only one function might have discriminated
for this set of variables in this analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2GGG).
The standardized coefficients for the first discriminant function indicated all IG
predictor variables provided their relative unique contribution to group differences as
related to their persistence in the program (see Table 4.15).
Table 4.15
Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients
Function
1 2 3
Program 1.194 0.459 0.165
Online leaming environment -G.G83 G.591 0.043
Faculty G.2GG G.387 -0.634
Self-motivation G.2G4 -G.391 0.213
Student support services -G.347 G.213 0.010
Employment G.115 G.636 0.124
Virtual community G.1G4 G.786 0.128
Finances -G.G99 G.125 0.087
Academic advisor -G.176 -G.IGG 1.071
Family 0.108 -0.070 0.452
Those values were used to define the discriminant variate that best discriminated
the four groups. It was represented by the following linear relationship equation:
109
V = 1.194*program - 0.083*online leaming environment + 0.104*virtual
community + 0.200*faculty - 0.347*student support services - 0.176* academic
advisor + 0.204* self-motivation + 0.108*family and significant other +
0.115*employment - 0.099* finances
The variable “program” (1.194) contributed the most to the participants’ being in
a particular matriculated group. No other variable had similarly high coefficient. The
variable “student support services” (-0.347), had the second largest contribution to the
group differences. It was followed by “self-motivation” (0.204), “faculty” (0.200),
“academic advisor” (- 0.176). The rest o f the variables had low coefficients and
contributed very little. So, “program” was the primary variable responsible for
discriminating between the participants as related to their persistence in the ELHE-DE
program.
The stmcture coefficients for the three discriminant functions presented in Table
4.16 show the correlation between the response variable and the discriminant function.
Five variables “program”, “online leaming environment”, “faculty”, “self-motivation”,
and “student support services” had statistically significant correlation with the
discriminant function, and hence, contributed to discriminating the participants as related
to their membership in one of the matriculated groups. “Program” (r=0.901) and “online
leaming environment” (r=0.524) had the highest correlation and made the most
contribution to discriminating the four groups as related to their persistence.
110
Table 4.16
Structure Matrix in Discriminant Function Analysis
Function
1 2 3
Program
0.901* -0.054 0.040
Online leaming environment 0.524* 0.038 -0.157
Faculty -0.484* 0.235 -0.100
Self-motivation 0.480* -0.323 0.024
Student support services 0.201* 0.097 -0.049
Employment -0.111 0.545* 0.229
Virtual community -0.436 0.515* 0.080
Finances -0.202 0.207* 0.125
Academic advisor -0.445 -0.017 0.685*
Family -0.041 0.199 0.329*
Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized

canonical discriminant functions variables ordered by absolute size of correlation within
function.
* Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function
Variable correlations with the function also indicated “program” (r=.901) had the
strongest relationship, followed by “online leaming environment” (r=.524), “faculty”
(r =-.484), “self-motivation” (r=.480), and “student support services” (r= 201). Those
differences in function and correlation coefficients made it somewhat difficult to interpret
the discriminating function, especially since only one function was generated. However,
both statistics indicated the top variable was “program”. So, the researcher named that
Ill
function “ELHE-DE program” and concluded that the nature and the context of the
program contributed to discriminating the participants as related to their membership in
one of the matriculated groups. Based on this discriminant function, it was concluded
88.7% of the participants were classified correctly. The variables making no significant
contribution to the significant function for these participants included “virtual
community”, “academic advisor”, “family and significant other”, “employment”, and
“finances”.
Functions at group centroids (see Table 4.17) showed how the four groups
differed in their persistence in the ELHE-DE program.
Table 4.17
Functions at Group Centroids in Discriminant Function Analysis
Function
Membership in the group 1 2 3
Group 1: Beginning 0.201 0.131 -0.182
Group 2; Matriculated -0.409 -0.226 0.012
Group 3: Graduated -0.971 0.316 0.274
Group 4: Withdrawn/Inactive 1.660 -0.031 0.244
Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at group means
Thus, on the discriminant function, the Withdrawn/Inactive group (1.660) differed
from the other three groups the most. The Graduate group (-.971) differed from both the
Beginning and the Matriculated groups, though less from the Matriculated group and the
most from the Withdrawn/Inactive group. The Matriculated group (-.409) differed
notably from the Beginning group (.201).
112
Summary o f the Quantitative Results
Guiding Research Question
What factors (internal and external) predicted students’ persistence in the ELHE-
DE program?
Based on the discriminant function analysis, only five variahles, “program”,
“online learning environment”, “student support services”, “faculty”, and “self-
motivation” significantly contributed to the function discriminating the participants with
regard to their persistence in the ELHE-DE program. Out of the five variables, “program”
and “online learning environment” had the highest correlation with the function and made
the most contribution to discriminating the four groups. Five variables, “virtual
“finances”, made no significant contribution to discriminating the four participant groups.
The Withdrawn/Inactive group differed from the other three groups the most, while the
Graduated group differed from both the Beginning and the Matriculated groups, though
less from the Matriculated group. The Matriculated group differed notably from the
Beginning group.
Research Subquestion One
How did the ELHE-DE program-related factors impact students’ persistence in
the program?
Three predictor variables, “program”, “online learning environment”, and “virtual
community” were used to measure the effect of the ELHE-DE program-related factors on
students’ persistence. Based on suhscale item frequencies analysis, most of the
113
participants were satisfied with their academic experiences in the ELHE-DE program.
The amount o f satisfaction was the greatest among the graduated participants, and the
least among the Withdrawn/Inactive group. Satisfaction level was related directly to the
participants’ matriculation status in the program.
The same pattern was observed with the participants’ experiences in the virtual
learning community. Overall, half of the participants were satisfied with the community
experiences, but only two-thirds of the participants established long-term social
relationships with their fellow-students online.
The majority of participants were comfortable learning in the CMAL
environment, however, not all of them had the same experiences due to their different
matriculation status in the program. The more advanced in the program the participants
were, the more positively they rated their experiences. The Withdrawn/Inactive group
was the least satisfied, had low comfort level, and was more negative in rating the
effectiveness of learning in the CMAL environment. The discriminant function analysis
demonstrated only two ELHE-DE program related variahles, “program” and “online
learning environment”, had statistically significant correlation with the function
discriminating the four groups with regard to their persistence in the program.
Research Subquestion Two
How did the academic advisor- and faculty-related factors impact ELHE-DE
students’ persistence in the program?
Two predictor variables, “academic advisor” and “faculty”, were used to measure
the effect of the academic advisor- and faculty-related factors on students’ persistence.
114
Based on subscale item frequencies analysis, about two-thirds of the participants were
satisfied with their relationships with the academic advisor. The matriculated students
had more positive experiences than those who were beginning the program or those who
were inactive or had withdrawn from the program. Due to their different stages in the
program, not all participants had opportunities to experience different forms of advising.
Across the groups, the participants were not satisfied with all the aspects of
instructors’ teaching in the CMAL environment. They more positively rated the
instructors’ accessibility and promptness of the feedback, than the quality of their
feedback and their willingness to be accommodating to distance learners’ needs. The
discriminant function analysis demonstrated only one variable, “faculty” had a
statistically significant correlation with the function discriminating the four groups as
related to their persistence in the program.
Research Subquestion Three
How did the institution-related (UNL) factors impact ELHE-DE students’
One predictor variable “student support services” was used to measure the effect
of the institution-related factors on students’ persistence. Based on subscale item
frequencies analysis, more than 50.0% of the participants were satisfied with the
institutional support services. However, their satisfaction differed depending on the
particular service and there was not always consistency across the three matriculated
groups. The Withdrawn/Inactive group consistently was the least satisfied. The
discriminant function analysis demonstrated this variable had a statistically significant
115
correlation with the function discriminating the four groups as related to their persistence
in the program.
Research Subquestion Four
How did the student-related factors impact their persistence in the ELHE-DE
program?
One predictor variable “self-motivation” was used to measure the effect of the
student-related factors on students’ persistence. Based on subscale item frequencies
analysis, all participants, except for the Withdrawn/Inactive group, were highly motivated
to pursue the doctoral degree via distributed means. The graduates were the most
motivated group, while the Matriculated group was a little more motivated than the
Beginning group. The discriminant function analysis demonstrated this variable had a
statistically significant correlation with the function discriminating the four groups as
related to their persistence in the program.
Research Subquestion Five
How did the external factors impact ELHE-DE students’ persistence in the
program?
Three predictor variables, “family and significant other”, “employment”, and
“finances” were used to measure the effect of the external factors on students’
persistence. Based on subscale item frequencies analysis, two-thirds of the participants
were supported by their family, significant others, and fiiends in their efforts to study in
the CMAL environment. The graduated participants received the most support. The
majority of the participants were encouraged by their employer in their efforts to pursue
116
the doctoral degree, although there was less apparent encouragement for the
Withdrawn/Inactive group. The pressing job responsibilities, as well as the work schedule
challenged the persistence of the graduates the most. Most of the participants found it
more affordable to study via DE, and for half of the participants, the financial issues were
not an obstacle to their persistence. For the withdrawn/inactive participants, the financial
issues had more negative effect on their persistence than for any other participant group.
The discriminant function analysis demonstrated these three variables had no statistically
significant correlation with the function discriminating the four groups as related to their
persistence in the program.
117
CHAPTER 5; PHASE II, QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
Methods and Procedure
Connecting Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Mixed Methods Design
The second, qualitative, phase in the study focused on explaining the results from
the statistical tests, obtained in the first, quantitative, phase. In the mixed methods
sequential explanatory design, two sets of data is typically mixed between the two phases
while selecting the participants for the qualitative follow-up analysis based on the
quantitative results of the first phase (Creswel et al, 2003). In this study, the quantitative
and qualitative methods were connected during the intermediate phase in the research
process while selecting the participants for multiple case study analysis and developing
the interview questions for qualitative data collection based on the results of the statistical
tests from the first, quantitative phase. The results of the two phases were also integrated
during the interpretation of the outcomes of the whole study.
Case Selection
Case selection is the first connecting point between the quantitative and the
qualitative phases of the study in the mixed methods sequential explanatory design
(Hanson, Creswell, Plano Clark, & Petska, 2004). In this study, a two-stage case selection
procedure was used. Due to the explanatory nature of the second phase of this mixed
methods study, the researcher decided first to focus on the typical case for each group
(Beginning, Matriculated, Graduated, and Withdrawn/Inactive), purposefully selected
based on the typical response in the quantitative phase (Creswell, 2002). To identify a
typical respondent from each group the following systematic procedure was used.
118
Based on 10 composite variables scores computed during the first quantitative
phase, the summed mean scores for all the participants and their respective group means,
for the four groups, were calculated. The standard error of the mean was used to establish
the lower and upper boundaries for the scores clustered around each group mean and to
limit the number of the participants eligible for consideration as a prototypical
representative. Using the cross tabulation procedure in SPSS, the participants from each
group with the mean scores within one standard error of the mean were identified. This
numeric information is presented in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Participants per Group with Means
Group Total of Group mean Standard error of

participants the mean
1. Begirming 11 3.13 0.05
2. Matriculated 6 3.20 0.04
3. Graduated 8 3.45 0.06
4. Withdrawn/Inactive 5 2.91 0.09
Within each of the four groups, participants were compared on the following
seven variables, used in the sequence of relevance for the research problem: number of
credit hours completed, number of online courses taken, age, gender, residence,
employment, and family structure. Table 5.2 depicts a typical respondent for this ELHE-
DE participant sample:
119
Table 5.2
Typical ELHE-DE Participant
Group 1: Group 2: Group 3: Group 4:

Begiiming Matriculated Graduated Withdrawn/
Inactive
Credit hours 10-30 more than 45 N/A 3-9

completed
Online courses more than 5 more than 6 more than 6 1-2

taken
Age 36-54 36-54 46-54 more than 46
Gender female female male female
Nebraska out-of-state out-of-state out-of-state out-of-state

residency
Employment full-time full-time full-time full-time
Family married with married with married with married with

structure children under children under children under children under
age 18 age 18 age 18 age 18
Using these criteria, two participants from each group were identified. In the
second stage of the case selection procedure, one participant from each group was
purposefully selected using a maximal variation sampling strategy (Creswell, 2002). This
procedure involved, first, identifying some characteristics, e.g., age, gender, residency,
and family status, and then selecting the participants displaying different dimensions of
each characteristic. As a result, one male and three female participants were selected
differing on demographic characteristics, such as age, residency, and family status, which
allowed for preserving the multiple perspectives (see Table 5.3).
120
Table 5.3
Individuals Selected fo r Case Study Analysis
Group 1: Group 2: Group 3: Group 4:

Beginning Matriculated Graduated Withdrawn/
(Gwen) (Lorie) (Larry) Inactive (Susan)
Age 36-54 36-45 46-54 more than 55
Gender female female male female
Residency in-state out-of-state out-of-state out-of-state
Family single married with married with single

status children over 18 children under 18
A package, including the recruiting letter, two copies of the informed consent
form, and the interview protocol were mailed to these four participants. The letter
described the goals of the second phase of the study, and listed the reasons for selecting
these individuals as possible participants (see Appendix D-5). All agreed to participate.
After the study was completed, the participants received a summary of the findings, a
“Thank you” note, and a 2004 Calendar designed at the UNL Instructional Technology
Design Center.
Interview Protocol Development
The interview protocol was developed to explore in depth and elaborate on the
results of the first, quantitative, phase. Due to the nature of the mixed methods sequential
explanatory design (Creswell et al, 2003), the content of the interview questions were
grounded in the results o f the statistical tests of the relationships between the participants’
121
group membership and the predictor factors as related to students’ persistence and non
persistence in the ELHE-DE program.
The protocol consisted of nine open-ended questions (see Appendix F). The first
asked participants to talk about themselves, their occupation, education, and family. The
aim of this question was two-fold: to serve as an ice-breaker (Hatch, 2002) and to obtain
details of the case. Five questions focused on the five factors found to have a statistically
significant predicting power for the sample of the ELHE-DE students: online learning
environment, ELHE-DE program, faculty, services, and self-motivation. Two additional
questions related to academic advisor and virtual learning community. Although these
two factors did not significantly contributed to the function discriminating the four
participant groups, their important role in doctoral students’ persistence was reported in
numerous studies (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Brown, 2001; Golde, 2000; Lovitts,
2001). A number of probing questions were added to each open-ended question to ensure
all aspects of the complex phenomena were discussed during the interview.
The last question in the protocol asked participants for any additional information
they believed might have impacted their persistence or non-persistence in the ELHE-DE
program and had not been discussed during the interview. The interview protocol was
pilot tested on one participant, purposefully selected from those who had completed the
survey in the first, quantitative phase of the study. Based on the pilot interview analysis
the protocol was revised slightly. Those changes are discussed in the next section of the
study, following the pilot study description.
122
Pilot Study
The interview protocol was piloted on one participant, Don, selected from the
respondents who fell into the most typical response category from the first. Beginning
group. Don was 33 and lived on the Eastem coast. He was married with two small
children. He worked full time as Director of Residence Life in a small private college.
Don had an undergraduate double major degree in English and Communications, a
Master’s Degree in Education, and was pursuing the Ph.D. in Educational Leadership in
Higher Education.
Don started the ELHE-DE program during the Fall o f 2002. He successfully
completed 30 credit hours in the program, all via distributed means, had not been on the
UNL campus, but had met the residency requirement. Typically he took six credit hours,
two online courses, per semester. He had one incomplete (an independent study,
addressing his expected dissertation) and no withdrawals. Don planned to be graduated in
May 2005. His wife was also enrolled in the program and taking many of the same
classes as Don, but her specialization was different.
Don chose to pursue the doctorate degree via DE for reasons of convenience; “It’s
easy for my family, better for time and space limitations, it gives more flexibility.” He
learned about the program from a former student who worked at the same institution: “He
kind of shared with me the outline and the structure and we loved it.” It was a good fit.
They considered two other institutions, both local, but neither program met their needs.
Besides flexibility and convenience, the relationship with his academic advisor
123
was the biggest attraction for Don. He viewed his advisor as an advocate and someone
who could personalize the program to fit his interests. There were no reported
disappointments about his program. The difficulties and challenges were expected and
Don viewed them as reflective of a strong program. Relationships created with virtual
fellow-students were a pleasant surprise: “I had a perception of distance ed. that it would
be more disconnected, and it’s as connected as I want it to be. And I can have great and
intimate relationships with people that are in my class and I do in many ways.” He was
sure the online learning community had been established among the students and their
support and encouragement helped him in his matriculation in the program: “We
exchanged some stories about our experiences and support one another in our challenges
and that’s a great role for that community to play because it keeps me motivated.” Other
factors, like personal motivation, work schedule, and finances positively influenced
Don’s persistence, but in different ways. Finances had been a struggle, particularly since
he and his wife were in the program. But they had made a commitment to persevere
because of the knowledge it would be an outstanding investment.
Don was very comfortable learning in the CMAL environment, because it gave
him time for thinking and shaping ideas: “It’s helpful for me to have to sit down and put
into writing my thoughts and it helps me to make sure they’re accurate and appropriate
for what the environment needs.” He preferred Lotus Notes to Blackboard because of its
speed and mobility. Don was comfortable interacting with classmates and welcomed
ehallenging conversations. However, he normally interacted with four or five people in a
virtual class, because “styles mesh together.” Don liked the group setting and the level of
124
engagement CMAL environment offered; “Engagement in my opinion is what you make
of it and what the environment chooses to make of it.” On the doctoral level students
reportedly were mature enough to create well-formed ideas in the written format. Don
noted he picked students’ personalities through their writings and sometimes was
disinclined to interact with peers because their work lacked substance.
Instructors’ presence in the virtual classroom was important. Seeing the instructor
participating in the online discussion created a sense of control and stability: “... if I see
them participating periodically, once here and there, that continues to let us know their
hand is in the program.” Getting feedback from the faculty depended on the individual
instructor and how structured the online course was. In the CMAL environment, with no
nonverbal cues, students had to rely more on the instructor telling them about their
progress. Don received good faculty feedback with regard to a specific assignment or a
posting most of the time. Detailed and timely comments were especially helpful: “1
would send a document in and receive a full one-page typed document correcting errors I
had made or challenging a philosophy that 1 had stated. And that’s the kind of stuff 1
really appreciated.” Class etiquette was important too. Not every faculty was sensitive
enough to provide individual feedback, which discouraged the students: “... the old
adage of praising publicly and criticizing privately I think really came into play.” At the
same time, the faculty was willing to accommodate to distance learners’ needs.
Don was satisfied with the ELHE-DE program quality and claimed it helped him
persist. The course information was practical and broad based, and each class added to
the knowledge he was seeking through the program:
125
That makes sense that I’m taking that class. And so if it makes sense, it gives me
more motivation to say, I’m doing this. There’s a purpose to it. It keeps me on
task. And I feel good ahout that.
The fact the program was so well-structured was also beneficial. Knowing the
semester each class was offered helped him see the perspective and plan ahead: “... as
long as there‘s a next class, then I can see that I need to keep moving.” Don highly
appreciated the fact the program of studies was tailored to his needs: “I feel like I’ve
gained some personal attention in this way that maybe I wouldn’t have elsewhere.” The
four supportive factors about the program were technology help, individual program of
studies, academic advisor, and business and finance offices. The only barrier to Don’s
persistence in the program was the course schedule, especially for research methods
classes: “I wanted to take some research classes earlier and I haven’t been able to do that
because they’re not all offered at a time that I want to take them.”
Don had no problems getting assistance from institutional student support
services. He believed prompt technology support with online courses plus the ease of
admissions and registration contributed to his matriculation in the program: “... without
that I could not have persisted, so that’s big at that moment.” The process was well
structured, convenient, and smooth. Don had not used the electronic access to the UNL
library at the time of interviewing.
Don listed his academic advisor as one of the major factors influencing his
persistence: “If he were not motivated to keep me moving and to be focused and to help
structure my experience, I don’t believe I would be nearly as engaged and as far along as
126
I am so quickly.” Good relationship with the academic advisor was established from the
very begirming, “first phone call.” The academic advisor was easily accessible by phone
or email, and would initiate communication, if needed. Extensive conversations were
related equally to academic and student personal issues. The advisor was receptive to
adjusting Don’s program of studies as needed, ensure requisite forms were completed and
filed, and expressed personal support. His personal attitude was very human and caring
about students;
He’s interested in their success and that he wants us to feel good about the
statements and the things that we’re doing. He doesn’t want us to get a degree at
the expense of our personal lives. He doesn’t want us to work too hard on our
degree that we forfeit time with our wives or our children, family.
Don was very motivated to earn his doctoral degree via DE. He tried to balance
his family, work, and studies at the expense of reducing sleep and curtailing social
engagements. His attitude to never give up on what was reasonable and appropriate, as
well as seeing the goal becoming closer, sustained his motivation: “I think my number
one motivation is to keep looking at the end and to press on as strongly as I can.” The
desire to have a doctorate was one of the major motivating faetors for Don: “I want the
degree. I want it real bad. I’ve always wanted it to gain my doctorate so I’m going to do
that.” He agreed that was not an easy process, but was ready to comply with it, because it
was worth it, and “... because I know it has value I’m sticking with it.”
The pilot interview with Don helped imderstand why factors related to the
ELHE-DE program, the CMAL environment, faculty, institutional support services, and
127
personal motivation significantly differentiated among the four groups of the participants.
The human nature of Don’s academic advisor and close relationship they established,
clarified the importance of the advisor to Don’s matriculation in the program.
As a result of this interview minor changes were made in the interview protocol.
More probes were added to the first question, asking an interviewee to tell about
herself/himself, so a rich description of the case, a participant, could be developed.
Because Question 4 “What is the role of the online learning community in your effort to
pursue the doctorate degree via DE?” implied the online community had been developed,
which might not have been true, it was changed to “What relations have you established
with your distance classmates?” For Question 5, “What is it about the program that made
you pursue/not to pursue the degree?” some probes were reworded adding more detail.
Questions ahout the institutional support services were added as probes here, instead of
making the topic a separate Question 9, as in the original Interview Protocol. It was found
more logical to ask about institutional support services together, at the same time as
discussing the program. The probe “Describe how your advisor helped or hindered your
pursuit of the degree” was deleted from Question 7, asking about the academic advisor,
because it was found to be a leading question.
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
Qualitative Research Design
A multiple case study design (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003) was used for collecting and
analyzing the qualitative data. A case study is a type of ethnographic design (Creswell,
2002; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999) and is an exploration of a “bounded system” or a
128
case over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of
information and rich in context (Merriam, 1988; Creswell & Maitta, 2002). In this study,
the instrumental multiple cases (Stake, 1995) served the purpose of “illuminating a
particular issue” (Creswell, 2002, p. 485), such as persistence in the ELHE-DE program.
The cases were described and compared to provide insight into an issue. The unit of
analysis was a former or current ELHE-DE student selected on a typical response and
maximal variation principle. Each case study was bounded by one individual and by the
time he or she matriculated in the ELHE-DE program.
Data Collection
The primary data collection technique were in-depth semi-structured telephone
interviews with four purposefully selected participants, conducted during November -
December of 2003. The interviews were recorded via conference call recording system
and saved as audio files on separate CD-ROMs. The participants received the interview
questions prior to the scheduled calling time, and were informed the interview would he
tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Immediately after the interview, the researcher
wrote down reflections on what had been leamed from the interview ahout the selected
factors affecting a participant’s persistence in the ELHE-DE program. The shorter
follow-up interviews were conducted electronically, via email, to obtain additional and/or
clarifying information on the emerging themes. Three of the four participants responded
to the follow-up interview as requested. Despite multiple and valued attempts to secure
such information from the fourth participant (Lorie), there was no further contact.
Apparently family and health-related issues took precedence over responding.
129
In addition, academic transcripts and students’ files were used to validate the information
obtained during the interviews and to provide a rich description of the cases. The
participants were asked beforehand for consent to access their transcripts and files, and
all responded affirmatively. The participants also provided some elicitation materials,
including letters, copies o f email messages, and physical artifacts, such as photos, that
were related to their persistence in the ELHE-DE program. The researcher also studied
the selected archival Lotus Notes classes to get additional insight into those students’
matriculation in the program. Triangulation of different data sources in case study
analysis is very important, as it helps provide the richness and the depth of the case
description (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995). The participants’ responses to the open-ended
and multiple choice questions on the survey, collected in the first phase of the study were
also used to augment the text data collected for case study analysis. Table 5.4 represents
the information sources by factors selected for the qualitative case study analysis.
Qualitative Analysis
In the qualitative analysis, data collection and analysis proceed simultaneously
(Merriam, 1998). Each interview was audiotaped and transcribed verbatim (Creswell,
2002). The transcriptions were checked for accuracy by listening to the audio and
comparing it with the transcribed text. The open-coding and analysis of the text data was
performed using the Qualitative Software and Research (QSR) version 6.0, a qualitative
analysis software package (International Pty Limited).
130
Table 5.4
Data Collection Matrix o f Information Sources by Factors Selected fo r Qualitative
Case Study Analysis
Factors/ Indivi E-mail Resear Elicita Lotus Student Survey

Information dual in inter cher’s tion ma Notes trans ques
Source terviews views notes terials courses cripts tions
and files
Program yes yes yes yes yes
Online learning yes yes yes yes yes yes

environment
Faculty yes yes yes yes
Student sup yes yes yes yes

port services
Self-motivation yes yes yes yes yes yes
Academic yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

advisor
Virtual yes yes yes yes yes

community
The steps in qualitative analysis included: (1) preliminary exploration of the data
by reading through the transcripts and writing memos; (2) coding the data by segmenting
and labeling the text (Creswell, 1998); (3) verifying the codes through inter-coder
agreement check (N ease, Ivankova, Klinkman, A ikens, Creswell & K elly, 2004); (4)
using codes to develop themes by aggregating similar codes together (Creswell, 1998);
(5) connecting and interrelating themes (Creswell, 2002); (6) constructing a case study
131
narrative composed o f descriptions and themes; and (7) cross-case thematic analysis
(Creswell, 1998).
During this analysis, each case was situated within its context so the case
description and themes were related to the specific activities and situations involved in
the case (Creswell & Maitta, 2002). Such analysis is rich in the context or setting in
which the case presents itself (Merriam, 1998). Based on this analysis, a researcher
provided a detailed narration of the case, using descriptions to present and situate the
case, the thematic analysis of the initial codes, and illustrative quotes to augment the
discussion and provide the participants’ perspectives.
This study used a multiple case study design. In such designs, the analysis is
performed at two levels: within each case and across the cases (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003).
After each individual case was analyzed for themes, the cross case comparison of the
themes and their categories was performed. The matrix and vector features of the QSR
N6 software were used to relate the themes to each case and compare the themes across
cases, based on the count of the text units (sentences) coded to each theme. This showed
the extent to which selected internal and external factors had similar or different effect on
the study participants as related to their academic persistence. In the final phase, the
researcher interpreted the meaning of the cases and reported the “lessons leamed”
(Lincoln, & Guba, 1985). Figure 5.1 represents the visual model of qualitative analysis
for this study (developed from Creswell, 2002; Lu, 2003).
CD
■D
—i
O
o.
c
oCD
Q.
132
■D
CD
C/)
(/) Figure 5.1
Visual Model o f Multiple Case Study Qualitative Data Analysis
oo Initially read Dividing text Labeling Creating a tree Collapsing Interrelating Comparing Comparing
■D ing through into segments segments display using codes into themes within themes and text units for
cq' text data o f information with codes Q SRN6 categories each case categories each case for
and themes across cases each theme
3-
3"
CD
—i
CD
T3
—i
O
Q. pages o f text
C
ao
3 segments o f text
T3
—i
O
30-40codes
CD
Q. tree display
5-7 themes
T3 a case study
CD
narrative
(/)
(/)
similar or different
themes
matrix o f themes
by cases
133
Verification Procedures
The criteria forjudging a qualitative study differ from quantitative research. In
qualitative research design, a researcher seeks believability, based on coherence, insight,
and instrumental utility (Eisner, 1991), credibility (Merriam, 1988), and trustworthiness
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of the inquiry through a process of verification, rather than
through traditional validity and reliability measures. The uniqueness of the qualitative
study within a specific context precludes its being exactly replicated in another context.
However, statements about a researcher’s positions - the central assumptions, the
selection of informants, the biases and values of the researcher - enhance a study’s
chances of being replicated in another setting (Creswell, 2003).
In this study, six primary verification procedures were used to determine the
credibility of the information and whether it matched reality:
1. Using triangulation - converging different sources of information (Creswell,
1998; Hatch, 2002; Stake, 1995). Academic transcripts, students’ files, selected survey
responses, and other elicitation materials, such as copies of electronic and mail
correspondence and personal photos, professional development portfolios, and archival
Lotus Notes courses augmented the information obtained from the interviews.
2. Using member checking - getting the feedback from the participants on the
accuracy of the identified categories and themes in the analysis (Creswell, 2002; Lincoln
& Guba, 1985). After each case study narrative was written, a respective participant was
asked to review the description of the case and the emerged themes. All participants
reported the analysis accurately reflected their experiences in the ELHE-DE program and
134
provided some additional information, which was included into the case description.
3. Establishing inter-coder agreement (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Nease,
Ivankova, Klinkman, Aikens, Creswell & Kelly, 2004). Inter-coder agreement involved
two phases. During the first phase, two researchers independently coded and analyzed all
the interview transcripts for themes. They compared five pages of each transcript for
consensus in codes and the segmented text data. During the second phase, the researchers
compared the themes across the transcripts. In both cases, the consensus was
approximately 90%, which provided substantial degree of trustworthiness of the data;
above the 80% recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994).
4. Providing rich, thick descriptions to convey the findings (Creswell & Miller,
2002). Situating the case in the context of the ELHE-DE program and providing details
of what the participants experienced while matriculating in the program helped “transport
the reader to the setting” (Creswell, 2003,196) and added an element of shared
experience to the discussion.
5. Providing disconfirming evidence (Creswell & Miller, 2002; Miles &
Huberman, 1994). This procedure involved establishing the preliminary themes and then
searching through the text data for evidence that was consistent with or disconfirmed the
themes. Discussing contrary information added to the credibility of findings because
reality is “multiple and complex” (Creswell & Miller, 2002, p. 127).
6. Auditing (Creswell & Miller, 2002). The researcher’s academic advisor
conducted a constant and careful auditing on all research procedures and data analysis in
the study.
135
Qualitative Findings
Analysis of the interviews with each participant, elicitation materials and other
text data yielded four themes related to a participant’s persistence in the ELHE-DE
program: quality of academic experiences, online learning environment, support and
assistance, and self-motivation. These themes and related categories from this analysis
for each case study participant are presented in Tables 5.5 - 5.8 (see Appendix G-1)
Case Study 1: Gwen
“I would see m yself... the one who’s responsible. I know
it’s nobody else’s ... It’s not my advisor’s job. It’s not my
mom’s job. It’s up to me and that’s the way it should be. I
just know that it’s up to me to make it happen... my biggest
drive is my personal desire.”
(From the interview with Gwen)
Gwen was 40 years old and in her third year in the ELHE-DE program. She was
Dean of Students in a small private college in the Midwest. She started the job in January
2003 and was very excited about it: “[It] has been something I always wanted to do.”
Previously, she had been the coordinator of a graduate center at another small state
college in the Midwest. Gwen was bom in the Midwest and graduated from a Midwestern
college with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English and Speech Communication. At that
time she decided to pursue a career in higher education administration and be involved
with the student campus life. Gwen was graduated from Syracuse University with a
Master of Science degree in Higher Education focusing on college student personnel. She
136
also earned a Certificate of Advanced Study from the University of Maine at Orono, with
concentrations in Edueational Leadership and Higher Education. Gwen chose New
England as the place for professional employment, because she wanted to he “where
higher education got its beginnings.” For 11 years she stayed in Maine working at
different colleges and universities, and finally decided to move to the Midwest to be close
to her parents and to her four sisters. She was single and had a cat Sam, who was her
close friend.
Gwen was admitted into the ELHE-DE program in the Summer of 2001 and took
her first course in the Fall 2001 semester. At the time of the interview, she had
successfully completed 30 credit hours, of which 12 were eampus based. She had one
withdrawal and one incomplete. Gwen was taking six credit hours (two courses) per
semester and did not take any summer breaks. For several of the early semesters, she took
one campus based and one online course. After the Fall of 2002 all her course work was
done via distance. She planned to start working on her dissertation during 2004 and he
graduated with the Ph.D. degree in Educational Leadership in Higher Education by
December 2005 or May 2006.
Gwen reported always having wanted to go to Boston College for her doctoral
program, hut the decision to reunite with her family changed her plans. She chose the
ELHE-DE program mainly for reasons of convenience and location. At that time, Gwen
did not have any specific program in mind, but wanted to pursue an area “really
applicable” to her prior studies and to her work in higher education. She planned on
driving 50 miles to the campus a few times a week. When she learned about the DE
137
component o f the program she gradually switched to it and found it eonvenient and
rewarding.
Quality
Although Gwen was not very critical when ehoosing initially her doctoral
program, the fact it held a good reputation and many administrators she knew had been
graduated from it, was important for her. She decided to give it a try and see if the
program would meet her needs: “Once I knew I wanted to he in Nebraska, I resigned
myself to the faet that I know it’s a good program... And obviously that has turned out to
he a good fit.” Later she found the program was of exeeptionally high quality and was
surprised, beeause she was not ready to he involved in such a demanding experienee: “I
just didn’t know what to expeet. When teehnology first started being used in these ways
... there were more people who were not positive about it, than those who were eager to
explore it.” She was pleasantly surprised the eourses were offered smoothly and there
were no delivery problems.
Gwen’s persistenee in the program was positively affected by the tight structure
o f the program and an ability to plan her coursework: “I ean look at an old schedule and
kind of know what to anticipate for the next few semesters, and it has worked out well.”
The eoursework reportedly challenged Gwen’s eritieal thinking and gave her the
opportunity to learn from others: “I t ... helped me to think differently, because I have to
put that all in writing and share it with everyone.” She also believed the academie
standards were exeeptionally high, exeept for the first class she took online, in which
there was no interaction. The eourse work was relevant to Gwen’s professional life:
138
. especially with my new job the things I’m leaming are so applicable to what I do
every day at work.” For Gwen it was the reinforcement of concepts, issues and topics that
she, as an administrator, had to deal with at work. She also found it applicable while
presenting at conferences and other professional meetings, as well as sharing her DE
experiences. She believed it added to the scholarly character of the program and gave
credibility to the credentials she was eaming and needed.
The quality of the coursework was directly related to an instructor’s
involvement with the course and the feedback he/she provided. Gwen reported
instructors’ involvement with a course ranging from practically no involvement to active
participation in a course: “I found that some instructors are not as involved as others.”
Gwen was highly disappointed with her first online course. It was a research course and
the instructor’s involvement with the course was minimal: “... the professor had virtually
no presence. I think [the instructor] wrote me maybe a little phrase during the whole
semester.” Gwen considered that class “almost a waste”, because there was no exchange
of ideas and no discussion. Next semester Gwen took a class where if the students didn’t
check in every day or twice a day, it was almost impossible to catch up on all the
conversation. The instructor would regularly check in with the course and provide his/her
feedback on the students’ work. This helped Gwen stayed focused and positively
influenced her persistence. Although Gwen benefited most from such a course, she said
that level of quality was seldom repeated in the courses she had taken: “... that hasn’t
been the norm.”
Gwen admitted the quality of feedback affected her persistence in the program:
139
“I always value what the feedback is or if they can critique my work in some way. So
that’s helped in persistence.” She was pleasantly surprised with the rigor and promptness
of the faculty feedback: “ ... for the exception of one professor, everyone that I ask
questions to or put a question out there for, I hear back within an hour or at least 24
hours.” Most feedback from the instructors was directly related to a course and Gwen’s
performance within it and it was the type of feedback she would expect. Getting positive
reactions to her writing and/or presentation of information from the “professionals ... and
experts in the field” was stimulating for Gwen. Typically the feedback would take a form
o f a critique on the assignment posted in the course for everyone to see or a personal e-
mail. The student feedback to Gwen’s posting also was important. She remembered how
she could not sleep the night after she posted her first assignment. Student feedback
rarely was negative. There was not much critique, and usually it was very professional.
Such feedback helped her learn and was considered a good motivating factor:
You know, if the feedback’s great, then that’s really a motivator to keep
going, and to know that I may be doing all right but if that’s not good, then I
might get a little down about it for a while, then realize, well, here’s the feedback.
So take it and learn.
On the other hand, Gwen did not receive any quality feedback from her academic
advisor: “I haven’t found my advisor to be fulfilling in that role.” In the follow up
interview, she actually described her advisor’s feedback as “useless.” On the survey, she
also rated advising negatively. Initially Gwen wanted some guidance regarding her
program o f studies, the sequence of courses, or relevance of selected courses to her
140
dissertation topic. But the only feedback she received was impersonal agreement to
whatever Gwen was doing; “The most the advisor provided is if I decide to take a few
classes and I’ll ask [the advisor], you know, is this okay, or, what do you think of this,
because I understand I can’t just be out there doing my own thing. So, I ’ll nm it by [the
advisor] just for documentation, or to know that it is okay, and [the advisor]’11 say,
sounds good, or. I’ll check back with you.” So, Gwen ended building up her own
program and addressing her advisor for formal approval.
Communication with the advisor was rare, from occasional e-mail messages
initiated by Gwen and to which she often did not get any response, to the meetings the
advisor either forgot to attend, or attended in passing: “I would be there for meetings with
[the advisor], but [the advisor] might stop in for literally three or four minutes, or forget
that we were meeting, or have to reschedule. ... It just continued that way.” Reading
through the e-mail messages to her advisor that Gwen provided the researcher, it became
evident approximately 70% of Gwen’s messages were left answered. Many addressed
Gwen’s program of studies, inquiries about a particular course and its relevance to her
major.
Gwen decided to request another academic advisor and was about to initiate the
procedure, but decided to give her advisor another attempt: “I know that’s politically
charged and then I felt so badly about asking [the advisor] that I told [the advisor] I’d
give [the advisor] ... I ’d give it another try.” The situation did not improve with the
exception that Gwen received from her advisor a last minute telephone call on the eve of
the new semester placed from an airport: “And it hasn’t been much better. So I really
141
regret not jumping at that chance.” Although low quality advising was frustrating for
Gwen, she was determined to continue with her efforts to pursue the degree via DE: “I’m
not going to let [the advisor] stop my persistence or stop my progress in the program.” At
the time o f the interview, Gwen decided to initiate another attempt to switch the
academic advisor. The request was heing honored.
Online Learning Environment
Leaming via distance was convenient for Gwen and provided a lot of flexibility
for leaming. On the survey, from the factors affecting her persistence in the ELHE-DE
program, she chose work schedule, convenience, flexibility, and online leaming
environment. Studying online did not affect her work schedule, which was important in
her first year at the new position: “The fact that I can take classes online has been really
great, so I don’t have to leave a new job this year.” An intensive work schedule did not
allow Gwen to leave work during the day, so the ability to study at her own pace and time
positively affected her matriculation in the program: “You have the opportunity to do
things ... when they work for you.” Technically it did not cause any problems, as Gwen
had a good knowledge of computers and had a good computer at home. She appreciated
the idea of being involved with distance leaming and considered it very beneficial: “...
knowing that technology is so prevalent in our society, I feel fortunate for the chance to
have this experience.”
Leaming online fit Gwen’s leaming style preferences. She liked to write and was
cognizant enough to participate extensively in written communications with other
students. However, sometimes it would take her a long time to formulate her thoughts or
142
to get a statement right: “So it’s kind of been a twofold experience.” At the same time, it
was a good leaming experience for Gwen, as she gradually leamed how to quickly put
her thoughts together. The CMAL environment also gave the opportunity to see other
students’ work and to leam from it. At the beginning, Gwen was concemed with the
quality of her own work. Seeing other students’ postings and getting their feedback to her
assignments was stimulating: .. getting feedback on my work and ideas. And being able
to see what others are producing.” She also was comfortable not seeing the students and
not receiving non-verbal cues as part of their response. Gwen commented on the fact a
virtual environment created a “missing piece,” but it did not affect her persistence. She
created the mental images of the classmates and professors whom she had not met on
campus, based on the background information provided at the begiiming of the course: “I
get these images o f what people look like.” But in most cases, she would create the
images based on the written work of the students: “Fd be getting an idea of a person’s
looks or image by their work. It’s more about what they tell in their stories.”
For Gwen, one of the main attractions of the program was meeting other doctoral
students and measuring herself against the academic level of other Ph.D. students. She
believed a virtual community was established among the students, but it depended on the
nature of a course and was limited to a course: “I think it definitely varies within each
class.” The community was more evident in courses where the discussion was an
essential element, while it was minimal in research tools courses, where students were
pretty much on their own doing the problems, checking in for aimouncements and
watching the CD with the instructor’s lectures. Gwen believed summer residency
143
probably was an integral component of the community building. She regretted not being
able to take part in campus summer sessions and believed she did not belong to the
community: . because I haven’t been on campus, but even in the courses I’ve taken in
the last year, I don’t feel like I ’m really part of any group.” Not being part of the group,
though, did not discourage or affect her persistence: “But again, it won’t stop me.”
Support
Support and encouragement from faculty and students stimulated Gwen.
When Gwen began the program, she was very concemed with how her work would be
accepted by other doctoral students. It was important for her to receive encouraging
feedback to her postings: “I’ve been pleasantly surprised that sometimes what I put out
there people think is great or they say it is.” She was impressed with the fact students
were polite in their responses and sensitive to her ideas: “They politely disagree or are
politically correct if they think that someone’s angle isn’t what they believe.”
Support from the peers ranged from encouragement on a particularly challenging
assignment to sharing personal stories and school related experiences. Gwen especially
benefited from meeting other doctoral students online and leaming they had the same
problems and concems (i.e. balancing work, classes, family, pets): “It’s been neat to just
cormect with other students in the program and leam that they’re having similar
experiences or, they’re just as busy in trying to make everything happen.” Students
exchanged sympathies and congratulations on issues unrelated to a course and that helped
establish a supportive environment. She recalled during one class some students were
going through hard times related to a death in a family or problems at work: “A lot of
144
people at the end of class commented on how a strong sense of support existed in that
class.”
Gwen also appreciated support and advice coming from the faculty. The faculty
varied in terms of the levels of support they provided, but overall they were very
supportive: “There are a handful of professors who have been very supportive. A few
people ... have been just more conversive. They have been a little more supportive than
others.” It was particularly important for Gwen to get support from other faculty because
she did not receive any assistance from her academic advisor: “Received zero from [the
advisor]. Nothing.” Other faculty members were more open and responsive to Gwen’s
needs: “They’ve always been so good about saying, you can call us, write us, whatever
questions you have we can answer.” They were also quick in responding to Gwen’s
emails and phone calls, within one to 24 hours, unless they were out of town. Gwen
appreciate that accommodation, so she did not have to drive to Lincoln each time she had
a question.
In some cases, the advice from the faculty was class and assignment specific.
Other times it was related more to the program. Having been left without an active
advisor, Gwen welcomed any advice and feedback from other professors. She was
comfortable asking them academic and dissertation related questions, “bits and pieces
that I don’t find my advisor helping me with.” Instructors reportedly were receptive to
many o f her requests, such as selecting a narrower focus for a class paper because it was
related to her work or professional interests: “They’ve been very open.”
145
Institutional support services played an important role in Gwen’s persistence in
the CMAL environment. She highly rated those services on the survey. She described the
technology assistance as prompt and helpful, and she had only one connectivity problem:
“I had enrolled for a class, but the system hadn’t allowed me to get in yet.” One email to
the technology support person at the department solved this problem. Gwen did not have
any problems with being admitted into the Graduate College, or the ELHE-DE program
either. The course registration process was convenient and it became more beneficial
when the online option was introduced. The electronic access to the UNL library “always
worked”, and the staff at the financial aid office was very fnendly. Gwen also was
grateful to the financial aid office for having approved her loan application, which
enabled her to start taking classes in the program. She believed the student support
services infrastructure was very helpful for distance learners and all the problems could
easily be solved with one telephone call: “They’ve always been really helpful.”
Support from sources external to the program also was important for Gwen. She
received constant support from her new employer: “My employer is very supportive of
lifelong leaming and in particular, the pursuit of advanced degrees.” While Gwen had not
requested time off from work to travel to Lincoln for a class, she knew such requests
would be honored. Another important source of encouragement came from lunch time
discussions with several colleagues who also were pursuing a doctorate.
Gwen received considerable encouragement and support from her parents and
three sisters. The photos she provided to the researcher reflected a loving and caring
family, attentive to each other’s needs. Gwen was the only person in the family who had
146
graduated from college and was pursuing a terminal degree. But her family was always
encouraging her and sustained her efforts in her academic endeavors: “My parents didn’t
go to college, even some of i t ... I try to simplify, hecause it may not even make sense to
them, hut at least my mom is always, you know, just go for it, keep trying, fight for
yourself.” None of her sisters had postsecondary education, but constantly expressed
pride in her accomplishments and encouraged her to keep going. Gwen’s pet, a beautiful
“brown, black, and white” cat, named Sam, was another source of support. Gwen
admitted both taking care of Sam and his calm attitude kept her “sane and balanced.”
Gwen would describe how he would patiently sit through her studies, watching her doing
the work and silently encouraging her in her efforts: “He’s always right there, just
watching me, whatever I’m doing.” Jokingly she suggested, he was going through the
doctoral studies and deserving of a share of the success: “Just today I told Sam as I sat
down to do some statistics. I said, you know, when this is done, you get a Ph.D., too.”
Self-Motivation
Gwen was highly motivated to earn a doctoral degree and it positively influenced
her persistence in the program. She planned on applying to a doctoral program since she
had been in New England and did an advanced degree at the University of Maine. For
Gwen securing the terminal degree was both a dream and a personal challenge. Her GRE
scores were low and she was told it was never going to work for her: “I wanted to prove
to myself I could do this.” For three years she worked to improve her GRE scores. She
even took a Princeton review course: “1 know I’m capable. 1just don’t do well on those
tests. And so I kept persisting.” Being admitted into a Ph.D. program was a personal
147
achievement for Gwen. She did not think of any extrinsic values the degree could give
her: “I don’t really think about when I get my Ph.D. I’m going to have a bigger salary or
maybe I’ll get a different jo b ... For me I think it‘s the personal challenge.” Besides, she
enjoyed leaming. However, Gwen admitted the recognition that the degree would offer
would he appreciated: “Someday writing Ph.D. behind my name is kind of exciting... I
just want the little letters after my [name].” With reflection she said, eaming the degree
was particularly important for her at the new position, which was announced for a Ph.D.
holder and at the institution where many administrators and faculty had doctorates.
Getting the Ph.D. became a personal drive for Gwen. She was aware that the
process was not smooth and there could be a lot of challenges: “I had just known upfront
that it takes a lot of initiative and self thrive to make things happen.” She admitted even
negative experiences with academic advising would not impact her desire to persist and
finish the program: “None of that will stop me. I guess there has to he some bump on the
road.”
Balancing work and studies had been challenging, because her new job was
demanding and often Gwen had been exhausted by the time she got home late in the
evening. Sometimes she had to put extra effort to make herself concentrate on her
studies: “I don’t think you could get by, if you don’t put out the efforts.” She had the
worst experience with one of her summer courses, when she logged into the course a day
after the session started and was overwhelmed with “pages of conversation” that was
going on. Gwen really had to pull herself together to catch up with the course: “1 thought
I needed to drop the class, there is no way I can catch up. But then I gathered my senses
148
and just plowed into it and got through it, but that was probably the time I was most
uncomfortable.” Recently balancing work, studies and health added to her challenges.
Gwen’s personal drive to get a doctorate degree was supported by a strong sense
of responsibility for the process. She knew she was personally responsible and the
successful completion of the program depended on her, and not anyone else; “I just know
that it’s up to me to make it happen.” Responsibility was sustained by the fact everybody
in the online classes evaluated and judged her course work. It made her produce better
papers and add more thought to her responses to other students’ postings: “There’s also
that piece about knowing that once I send this, it’s out there for everyone to see. So i t ...
better be good.”
The very idea of moving through the program and being close to completion of
her course work was stimulating. She loved the structured process of taking classes and
was excited at comprehending and applying the new information, but she was ready to
begin working on the dissertation: “Knowing th a t... almost within the next year I’ll be
staring a new phase of the program ... keeps me motivated.” No matter how tired, or
finstrated, or pressed for time, Gwen tried to stay positive and focused on her dream of
eaming the doctorate. Telling herself she was really getting close and the dream was
coming trae kept her motivated and helped her persist in her efforts:
I think if I just stop and tell m yself... you’re really doing this. At least you’re
progressing ... and because it’s been such a goal of mine to be in this experience
and earn that credential. If I just stop and ... think about the fact that, oh, it’s
really happening. That has helped me keep going.
149
Case Study 2: Lorie
“I was just so driven to do this. It was such a perfect
match for me. I knew I was going to get a doctorate and this
was perfect so if there were any little glitches I just worked
around them and I don't think there were any barriers. There
was never a point in time where I was ready to withdraw. “
(From the interview with Lorie)
Lorie was 43 years old and in her fourth year in the program. She worked as
Academic Dean at a private business school on the Eastern Coast and was a distance
education program evaluator with the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and
Schools. She had a master’s degree in business administration and a bachelor’s degree
with a double major of Psychology and Associate Management. Lorie had been married
for 23 years and had a 23-year old son, who was a college senior.
Lorie was admitted to the ELHE-DE program during the Fall of 1999 and took
her first course the same semester. She successfully completed 45 credit hours of course
work, had three incompletes, and all was done online in the CMAL environment. On
average, Lorie took six credit hours, two online courses, per semester including summer.
One semester she took three courses. One summer, near the end of her program, when no
courses required for her program of studies were offered, she did not enroll. At the time
of the interview she was working on her dissertation and writing the comprehensive
examination. Lorrie expected to be graduated with the Ph.D. degree in Educational
Leadership in Higher Education in the Spring of 2005.
150
Lorie worked in higher education 10 years when she decided to focus on
educational administration for advanced graduate study, because she needed a doctorate
for career advancement. She chose the ELHE-DE program mainly because of location:
“There are no doctoral programs near .. . probably the closest one to me is over 100
miles away.” She admitted DE was not popular at that time, but was her only “option.”
She leamed about the program from an ELHE-DE student, whom she met at the
conference. For a year Lorie had heen considering other programs before she applied to
the ELHE-DE program.
Quality
Lorrie’s persistence in the ELHE-DE program was affected by her belief it was
high quality and the reputation o f the University and the program. On the survey,
program quality, prestige, and offerings were also selected by Lorie as factors
contributing to her persistence: “So, the biggest attraction for me was the reputation of
the University of Nebraska and actually the program, the DE program there.”
Lorrie found the program to be more scholarly and demanding than expected: “It
was much more scholarly than I thought it might be. It demanded a lot more ...
intellectually than I anticipated.” However, she was very satisfied with its challenging
character. The quality of the program was “terrific” and Lorie claimed to be leaming
more than if she were in a conventional classroom: “I anticipated that maybe I wouldn't
leam the depth that I was accustomed to being in the classroom... that I wouldn't have
the discipline, or the substance wouldn't be there. But much to my surprise, I found that it
was better.” She also benefited from the opportunity to leam from other students and
151
tried to read and respond not only to everybody in her work group, but also to other group
members: “I always try to read everybody's questions and offer some sort of response.”
The program content was broad and Lorie found it applicable. Because at the
beginning of the program she did not know exactly what she wanted to focus on, she
appreciated its broad offerings: “I want to be able to have some options and I really feel
well-prepared in a lot of different areas.” This helped her find a particular area to
concentrate on by the time she reached a dissertation stage. She also found the course
work relevant to what she was doing in her professional life. Reportedly, it helped her
organize in-service training for her faculty, and also improve their teaching and
relationships with students. Courses were cited as well-structured, well-thought of and
well-presented. Being a DE program evaluator, Lorie found those features among the
strongest aspects of the ELHE-DE program. “They're not classroom courses that were put
online.” She saw that as a reflection of the UNL investment in the faculty training to
teach online.
The quality of faculty feedback Lorie received was important for continued
persistence. With few exceptions positive feedback was both emotional and constructive,
and it fulfilled her expectations: “It was exactly what I needed to hear. Like, if I did a
terrific job, ‘Hey, you know, that was good’.” She also appreciated other ideas and
references to continue to leam on the topic. Most communication with faculty was
electronically via e-mail or online through the course platform. Frequency and quality of
communication depended on the level of instructor’s involvement with a course: “That
really was course by course. There were some courses where it was two, three, or four
152
times a week. Either he or she would respond to your essays or, your assignments. I had
one course that I took. I don't think I probably interacted with him or her three times.”
Lorie benefited most from a course when an instructor was acting as a facilitator,
encouraging the students to seek knowledge and find the answers themselves: “They
would facilitate the leaming process, not necessarily teach it, but point me in the right
direction so you could gather the information that you needed and leam the stuff.” The
quality of leaming depended on the instmctor’s readiness to teach in the CMAL
environment. Some courses that she took were not designed well and the instmctors did
not use proper strategies. Staying on task in such courses was difficult and demanded
additional efforts: “One or two were ... more challenging. I'm not sure that the instmctor
was probably technologically ready to teach online. It worked out fine but it became
more challenging. Everything was through e-mail.”
The quality of advising evolved along with Lorie’s matriculation in the ELHE-DE
program. Her academic advisor retired and she was left without an advisor for a few
years. Interestingly, she had no need for academic advising at that stage in the program.
She addressed whatever questions she had either to the department chair or a faculty
member: “It wasn’t that important to me. ... I just kind of answered my own questions. I
knew what I was going to take.” She expected someone would be assigned to take the
retired advisor’s place, but it did not happen. When Lorie reached the dissertation stage
and believed she needed more guidance in the program, a request for a new academic
advisor was submitted and granted.
153
Initially, it took nearly a month to get the new advisor responding to her e-mail
messages. Subsequently, the advisor became more responsive and attentive to her needs;
“It's been kind of scattered but now that I'm getting really down into it, and I really need
it, the feedback is much better than it was.” The pattern of communication also had
changed. From once in a month e-mail it evolved to two or three times a week: “We
e-mail quite often and we talk on the phone.” Lorie claimed her advisor had a crucial role
in the dissertation stage of her program, because she believed in the advisor’s knowledge
of the process and experience in successfully advising other doctoral students: “I've never
done this before and [advisor] has probably advised dozens and dozens of doctoral
students, and [advisor] knows the process, and exactly what is the committee looking for,
and what works, and what doesn't.”
The CMAL environment offered Lorie convenience and flexibility of leaming.
Both were critical because she had a family, was employed full-time and traveled
extensively as an evaluator. Flexibility of leaming positively enhanced Lorie’s
persistence: “Just a lot of flexibility. I guess that's probably the thing that supported me,
that allowed me to stay in the program because I travel a lot. And if I had to he ... on this
day, in the classroom, on this particular time, it would not have worked for me.” Online
leaming environment, convenience, work schedule, and flexibility were some of the
factors contributing to persistence Lorie checked on the survey.
A high comfort level with technology made it easy for Lorie to leam in the
CMAL environment. She taught the computer programming: “I have a heavy
154
understanding of the technology. ... So that was a benefit to me.” On the survey, she
indicated good computer skills and adequate computer equipment were factors important
for her persistence. Also she enjoyed writing, was comfortable developing essay-type
responses to course assignments and participating in the online discussions. “I'm
perfectly fine with that.” Thus, her leaming style was compatible to the CMAL
environment, but she stated class size was important, hecause 40 or more students made it
cumbersome to navigate through a discussion board and read all postings. On the survey,
she also indicated leaming style as one of the contributing to persistence factors.
Familiarity with peers was important for Lorie, and she purposefully involved
herself in discussions with students she had taken classes with, hecause she knew their
“mannerisms, behavior and responsiveness.” At the beginning of each course, she would
check the class roster to see who was in the class and was glad when she saw some
students from other courses: “Oh, that's cool, hecause I've taken classes with him, I know
he responds quickly and he has good things to say.” Examination of selected archival
Lotus Notes classes Lorie had taken showed she typically interacted with the same group
o f students.
Not seeing her virtual classmates did not affect Lorie’s persistence in the CMAL
environment. “It didn't matter to me what they looked like or how they spoke, if they are
tall, short or smart.” She knew her classmates by “what they wrote” and picked up their
personalities through their writing styles and whatever background information she was
getting about them during the course discussions. Lorie was not distracted either by not
receiving the non-verbal cues typical of the face-to-face interactions: “1 didn't miss that. 1
155
guess I just adapted to the medium and just went with that.” She felt satisfied with
whatever the students and instructors had expressed in words.
Lorie believed the leaming community was established among the virtual
students, but for the most part it was limited to a particular course: “ ... while the course is
going on.” Community was built around some course issues, “it was a community of
learners that had a particular interest in a particular subject matter,” and depended on the
level of participation in the online discussion: “Some students are more driven ... When
the assignment comes, they read it and they start to participate. And others, they wait till
the very end or they don't participate at all.” This community was more evident on the
work group or project group level: “... especially those that you put into groups and give
them projects.” With some students the relationship extended beyond online interactions
and working in virtual groups. Lorie was able to meet with two students when she
traveled to the states they lived in. They had dinner together and those personal meetings
added to the feeling of community that she already developed: “They were more than just
words on a computer screen.”
Support
Lorie’s efforts to pursue the degree via DE were supported at different levels, and
it positively affected Lorie’s persistence. Because she had to travel a lot for her work, it
was difficult to keep up with the course schedules. Despite taking her computer, it was
not easy to begin working on a course until 11 P.M.: “I always take my computer with
me. I'm working.” At the beginning of each course, she would inform the instructor she
might be late with assignments due to her travels and each time an instructor was
156
responsive and willing to accommodate to Lorie’s needs: “I might be the last one in the
class to post my response because I happen to be traveling. And they were fine with that,
very receptive. I never ran into a problem.”
Support from the academic advisor came in the form of guidance with “how-to
kinds of things.” Lorrie referred to her advisor with questions related to submitting an
IRB protocol, presenting her dissertation proposal to the committee, formatting her
answers to the comprehensive examination questions, using references, and the like. She
claimed to be very focused on doing the things the right way and not losing the time
because there was not enough guidance. She rated advisor’s support highly on the survey.
At the same time, Lorie did not ask for any advisor’s assistance except for the
comprehensive examination and dissertation: “I haven't really pushed for that.” However,
she was sure when there was a need, the advisor would help her: “I haven't really needed
anything yet, but hopefully, when it comes down to it, when I really get into the throes of
the dissertation, I think he'll be there.”
Support from other students in the program was essential, but limited. Lorie
admitted she had good relationships with other students and rated peer support high on
the survey. She recalled several examples of how students had supported and encouraged
each other beyond the course activities. Sometimes students would use each other for
references, but would not continue the relationship when a course was over: “Now I
haven't really kept in touch with anyone, because I have been, actually, done with the
coursework for probably a year and a half or two years now.”
157
Lorie pointed out student support services played an important role in her
persistence in the program, despite not being highly visible. She rated most as important
and very important on the survey. Admission into both the graduate college and the
ELHE-DE program were uneventful. The process was quick, there were no complications
and it was “smooth as a glass.” Registration for courses was simple: “It was easy as
anjdhing.” At the beginning, when Lorie used N-Roll system and had to call during the
specific time to register for the course she often got disconnected or the time span was
not convenient for her: “It was never convenient for me. It was closed by the time I got
home from work or on weekends.” But it did not affect Lorie’s persistence: “And that
was one little glitch, b u t ... on a scale from 1 to 10,1 don't think it really bothered me
more than maybe a 3.” That problem was fixed within a semester when online
registration option was introduced: “After that I had no problem whatsoever.” She did not
have any problems with tuition statements or payments either.
Lorie reported having considerable problems with technology despite her
computer sophistication, especially at the beginning of the program: “I had plenty of
problems.” Some problems were related to the software, others were the connectivity
issues: “There were a couple of incidences where I was ready to pull my hair out”, but the
problems were quickly solved through a telephone call or e-mail message. Lorie did not
use the online access to the UNL library much, because she did not find it particularly
helpful. She even rated this service as non-applicable on the survey. She could not find
the necessary resources at UNL and switched to the institution her son was enrolled at:
158
“Most of the things that I was looking for, they weren't full text documents online. So, I
ended up going to other resources.”
Self-Motivation
Motivation played an important role in Lorie’s persistence in the program. She
admitted she had always dreamed of having a doctorate: “I've always known I wanted a
doctorate.” Her intrinsic motivation was supported by a sense of responsibility for the
process. She viewed herself as responsible for eaming the degree and assigned herself the
major role in the endeavor: “It's my responsibility, and I can be resourceful, and ask for
help, but I'm not going to say, I can't do that because I travel too much.” She organized
and balanced work, family, and studies, tr3dng to put her family first and build the studies
around it and work. It was not always successful, but she tried to plan her weeks: “But it's
a balance. I try to do some planning.”
Lorie’s feeling of responsibility was sustained by the very nature of the CMAL
environment, where one’s work was exposed to everybody and was judged and evaluated
by all the students in the course:
When you're sitting in the classroom ... you do the project, the papers, and you
tum them in to the professor. You take the test, you tum them in to the professor.
Nobody knows what's going on except for you and the instmctor. With distance
education ... everyone in your class sees everything you do.
The exposure to the peer judgment became a very high intrinsic motivation for
Lorie and drove her to do to the best she could, “instead of just skate by and get an A.”
When working on her assignments and responses to other students, she was meticulous
159
about her grammar, punctuation, the references, and the substance of her postings. She
pushed herself to do the best she could, “better than I ever did, like at the masters level or
undergraduate.” Lorie also knew her classmates depended on her participation in the
online discussion or her involvement in the virtual group project and she did not want to
fail them: “I knew my classmates were depending on my piece of the puzzle and
without it we were all going down.” That helped her stay motivated and focused.
The fact Lorie enjoyed what she was doing in the program added to her
intrinsic motivation. She found the process of leaming exciting and fascinating, adding to
the joy o f life: “I enjoyed it. It was like almost my entertainment and my recreation in a
twisted way, I guess.” Reportedly, she could not wait to get home after work and tum on
the computer to find new postings. However, Lorie said sometimes she was fiustrated
because it was difficult to work at the pace she wanted to due to her work and traveling.
Her motivation also was challenged after finishing the courses, which provided a lot of
stmcture to the process: “ ... my motivation waned. Everything else got put first.”
Getting extrinsic motivation in the form of a dissertation fellowship with the
Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges and Schools helped Lorie matriculate
through the program and start working on her dissertation: “But now, since I was given
this fellowship, I have a deadline. I'm motivated again.” Although she was only at the
beginning stage and was working on her dissertation proposal, she intended to finish by
May 2005.
160
Case Study 3: Larry
.. It was a stimulating program. ... I knew exactly what 1
needed to do. ... It played to my strengths. I enjoyed
writing the responses. I enjoyed the kind of communication
that was able to take place in writing. I enjoyed my
relationship with my advisor. . . . It was not drudgery, it
was not a chore. It was something that I very much enjoyed
doing.”
(From the interview with Larry)
Larry was 45 years old when he graduated with the Ph.D. degree from the ELHE-
DE program in the Spring of 2001. He had a Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism and
Master of Arts in Media Management. He worked as a journalism coordinator and
advisor of the student newspaper in a private religious university with enrollment of
about 12 thousand students in a northwestern state. Larry had been in the position for
three months prior to the interview. Larry had heen married for more than 25 years, and
had four children, two graduated from college and one son still in high school.
Before becoming a faculty and advisor, for two and a half years, Larry was Chair
of the Department of Communication and for the five prior years he was Dean of
Language and Letters at the same institution. He decided seven years in administration
was enough and it was time to go back to students and his academic and professional
career: “I ’m just kind o f going back to teaching ... and advising newspapers which I . ..
161
love doing after seven and a half years in administration.” In addition, the frustrations of
administration were beginning “to take a toll” on him.
When Larry was Dean of Language and Letters, he decided to pursue a doctoral
degree: “... at the time I was in administration and it kind of looked like for a while that
that might he my new career.” He learned ahout the ELHE-DE program through a
conference presentation, made a trip to Lincoln, met with his future academic advisor,
and made his choice: “Everything from there just fell into place.” He started the program
in the Summer of 1996 with the Leadership Institute and was admitted into the program
in Summer 1997. Larry successfully completed the program in four years. While doing
his course work, he took, on average, six credit hours (two online courses) per semester,
but during one summer he completed 12 hours. He never took a semester or summer off.
In the Summer of 1999 during the first 5-week session, Larry stayed on the UNL campus
fulfilling his residency requirement. During that time, he took two courses and conducted
library search for his dissertation.
Quality
Larry’s persistence in the ELHE-DE program was affected by the quality of his
academic experiences. Program quality was one of the factors Larry chose when
answering the survey. The high quality of the Research One University itself was
stimulating. The program was structured and well laid out. There were no uncertainties,
unpleasant changes, or unnecessary additions: “It was well-structured. ... I knew exactly
what I needed to do.” The course work was relevant and related to Larry’s job as a
college administrator: “The things I was learning ... were just as current... issues that we
162
were facing on our campus.” The content covered distinct dimensions of an
administrator’s work and issues. This knowledge raised Larry’s self-esteem and earned
him recognition at his institution: “At least two or three times our academic vice
president said, T am sure am glad you're in [this program] because you hring a lot of
perspective and background to our meetings.” The applicability of the program added to
its relevance and usefulness. Larry was a pragmatist by nature, and the fact that he was
allowed to write a practical dissertation made the program more beneficial for him.
The emphasis of the program on engaged learning and written communication
added to its quality and made it even more appealing to Larry: “That may be something
that you don't see in a regular setting in a graduate seminar where it's a lot more
spontaneous ... but when people engage to each other. It was a good quality dialogue
going hack and forth. Written dialogue.” Larry was not always satisfied with the quality
of students’ postings, but there were enough to choose from to address and it played to
his advantage. Sometimes he would limit conversations to four-five students he knew.
The idea of learning from colleagues from all over the country and other nations in
addition to books and other data sources was beneficial to Larry and added quality to his
learning experiences: “And your interaction with other people and the benefits that you
get in learning from other people. I was surprised how high quality that was.” This idea is
also reflected in the professional performance portfolio he submitted to his advisor.
Interactions with the faculty also added to the quality of learning. Faculty
feedback varied in its quality, but it did not affect Larry’s matriculation in the program.
He expected and readily adapted to it: “Whenever you're involved in an organization that
163
has a lot of people, the quality isn't always going to be uniform. There are always going
to be people who care more than others. You just work through it. It's just a natural part
of the process.” However, Larry admitted that sometimes lack of faculty commitment to
online students was rather disappointing.
The quality of feedback Larry received depended on the individual faculty and his
or her level o f involvement with and commitment to teaching online courses. It varied
from the high engagement and interest in the student of Larry’s academic advisor and a
few other instructors, to practically no involvement from some: “It really varied widely
from [Dr...’s] level where he is very much involved with the classes, very prompt in
responding to your work and to your communication, to teachers that you would never
g e t... answers from.” The high quality feedback was encouraging for Larry and included
“every dimension that a student would need to complete a very demanding project.”
Larry assigned big role to his advisor in his successful matriculation in the
program. The academic advisor provided high quality professional advice and was an
instructor in a third of Larry’s courses: “Very good personal encouragement and advice
... on many dimensions.” As an instructor, Larry’s advisor was very much involved with
the classes, was very prompt in responding to his work and was diligent in every way. He
was also involved in research that Larry was doing, championed his dissertation and
advised him through the whole process.
Larry also received quality feedback from his dissertation committee members.
He believed their role was central, alongside with his advisor, when he was working on
his proposal and dissertation in the final stages of his program. They provided him with a
164
“second opinion” and substantive comments; “It was really good advice.” When the
dissertation was written, a few committee members revised it thoroughly and offered
constructive feedback to improve the study: “There were some good changes that showed
that they had really read it closely.”
The asynchronous computer-mediated learning environment of the ELHE-DE
program positively affected Larry’s persistence. When asked, on the survey, what factors
were important for his decision to persist in the program, Larry indicated family, work
schedule, convenience and flexibility of the program offerings.
Absence o f time and place constraints typical of the campus programs gave Larry
the convenience of adhering to a work routine and the opportunity to be with his family
even while taking classes: “I was able to work during the day, come home and have
dirmer with my family, and then sit in my office during the evening at my home and do
my course work.” Being physically present at home provided Larry with an opportunity
to maintain close contacts with his teenaged children: “Teenagers ... they need attention.
If you want them to be heading in the right direction it’s a very important time in their
lives to be giving time to them ... so being able to be right there at home was very
important.” Being available to the family and the children while matriculating in the
program was an emotional relief for Larry: “... if it comes down to sacrificing my
children's activities or my relationship with them or with my wife it wasn't worth it.” The
convenience of the program offerings made it possible for Larry to remain a college
administrator while at the same time continuing his studies: “ ... my work situation being
165
a dean at a very important time in the history of our university and being able to continue
on with the program without having to take a leave of absence was very important as
well.” This ability to continue with his family and job responsibilities was very important
and gave him emotional freedom to pursue the degree.
The flexibility of learning at his own pace and time in the CMAL environment
fit Larry’s learning style well. He liked to be independent and considered himself a “self
starter.” He could choose among the course activities and decide on the amount of time to
allocate to each. Even when he was experiencing problems with the course software and
the technological assistance was not immediately available, he switched to other course
related activities and could benefit: “... but the great thing about the courses is I would
just say, well, I can’t get online. I’ll just read for a couple of days and get ahead on my
reading and it always worked out okay.” The natural flexibility built into the
asynchronous format allowed Larry to study at the time of his convenience: “I could read
and write and respond at any time of day and night, and on any day of the week.”
Larry’s comfort level with the CMAL environment was very high. Because he
was trained as a journalist and liked writing, he never experienced any problems with
developing essay-type responses to the course assignments, interacting with his
classmates in the discussion threads, or communicating with instructors and students via
electronic means: “ ... but being someone who likes to write and somebody who feels
comfortable doing it and putting written responses together as opposed to formulating
oral responses in a seminar I thought worked very well for me.” Not seeing other students
and not being in the same physical environment with them was not a factor for Larry: “I
166
was surprised how little o f a factor that was.” On the survey Larry indicated that learning
style preferences was a strong factor influencing his persistence. The structure of the
program and the delivery method provided a nice fit to his background, talents, and skills,
making it easier to be successful in the program: “ ... if I were in another program, I think
it would have been very difficult.”
Due to the program structure, Larry was taking online courses in a cohort with
other distance leamers. The students leamed about each other and developed good
relationship: “We kind of all went through classes together and we got to know each
other pretty well.” Larry met some students on campus when he was doing his summer
residency. He even believed a community of virtual leamers had been established, though
it was not sustained over the time: “It was really interesting our first semester together,
how much time we spent in the cafeteria talking to each other and getting to know each
other a little bit better, and how that over time seemed to fade away.” The students
recognized how demanding it was for everybody to have a full-time position and to
pursue a doctoral degree, so the role of the community was not strong: “.. .that dimension
of it didn't seem to be as important over time. In fact, there were times when I would go
an entire semester and not even go into the little coffee shop, where students get together
to do social interaction. I pretty well just stayed on task.”
Support
Larry’s persistence in the ELHE-DE program was well sustained by the support
and encouragement he received at different levels. When he was inquiring about the
program and going through the application process, the department, his future academic
167
advisor and the graduate college were all very cooperative: “I took a quick trip ... drove
to Lincoln and met with Dr. ... and everything just fell right into place. Their
cooperation...”
Since the initial meeting, Larry and his academic advisor had maintained a
friendly relationship. This personal friendship and high quality advising created a
supporting niche and helped Larry complete the program; “.. .that was kind of the tie
breaker because I clicked with him so well and felt like, here is a person who really looks
out for a student.” In some of the letters to his academic advisor, accompanying the
monthly submissions to the course journals and professional performance portfolio, Larry
expressed his appreciation of the advisor’s commitment and service to students. He also
commented on how lucky he was with the “advisor assignment” and the good personal
match between the advisor and himself. In addition to the professional interest in the
research papers and the dissertation, the advisor expressed personal interest in Larry’s
family, children, and work. Advisor was one of the important factors affecting his
persistence in the program Larry checked on the survey.
The advisor’s assistance on different levels was constant and invaluable:
“Everything from going to bat for me to get requirements waived, to a personal
encouragement, to professional encouragement, to championing my dissertation and
helping to carry that all the way through the process.” When Larry was considering
whether to continue the program after receiving the ABD status, the advisor was
encouraging and supportive: “And he also provided a lot of personal encouragement at a
time when I was thinking, do I really want to finish this off?”
168
Both the advisor and the faculty were highly accommodating to Larry’s needs.
When Larry had to come to campus for his residency requirement, the advisor planned
the course work and the session time to best fit Larry’s family and employment situation:
“That right there saved me several thousand dollars and it showed a real sensitivity to
people's individual needs.” DE faculty also was willing to provide an accommodating and
supporting environment for Larry. They understood the challenges of online learning and
were always ready to waiver the assignment due date requirement: “I remember
occasions when I had a particularly pressing work deadline and the faculty member
would say, ‘Hey, don't worry about it. Just e-mail it to me when you can’.” At the same
time, Larry failed to develop personal relationship with the college faculty, “other than on
a limited basis.” Actually, the instructor with whom he had developed “the best
relationship” besides his academic advisor was a faculty person from a different college
who Larry took a class from.
Support and encouragement came from the virtual student cohort with whom
Larry was taking classes. It ranged from “get well” wishes for students having health
problems to congratulations on being promoted. Sometimes the load of doing a full-time
daily job, family and other responsibilities, in addition to taking two courses per
semester, caused fhistration. Sharing those concerns with the classmates helped Larry
stay focused:
Every once in a while, we just talked about how frustrated we were, or how we
just didn't have enough time to do all the things that we needed to do and I always
169
felt like they were very encouraging and just like, ‘Hey, hang in there. We've only
got four more weeks.’ And we were always very willing to do that for each other.
Peer support was very important for Larry’s efforts to pursue the degree in the
CMAL environment. Relations with classmates were built on mutual respect and
recognition: “People were really pretty professional and pretty polite to each other ... and
they were very respectful.’’ The students in distance courses were sensitive to Larry’s
religious background and respected his viewpoints. They appreciated and even
encouraged Larry’s second opinion on course issues:
I think they were pretty sensitive to my religious background and they also were
very interested. You know, a lot of times in discussion all the state folks would
say, ‘Well, this is the way it is at our institution’, and somebody else would say,
‘Yeah, it's the same way. Well, let's see what Larry has got to say because his is
no doubt different’. And many times it was different.
Larry, in his turn, welcomed his classmates’ interest in himself and his institution
and respected their views and attitudes: “I have a lot of respect for the people I went
through the program with and really, really liked them.’’
Continuous assistance from different university support services also helped Larry
move through the program. Technology help with the course software and platform
problems was for the most part “timely”, library resources were “invaluable” when Larry
was writing the literature review chapter for his dissertation, and the registration and
records department staff was always “beyond helpful.” Any hilling questions were easily
solved “with one telephone call” to the Bursar Office. At every level, Larry received
170
immediate attention, prompt response and qualified assistance: .. the people in the
continuing education and the people in the educational department, the people in the
bookstore, uniformly were second mile kind of people in terms of helping.” Larry also
highly rated institutional support services on the survey.
Support also came from sources external to the program, such as family and work.
Larry’s family had created a supportive environment for him to encourage his efforts in
pursuing the doctorate degree via DE: “I was getting real encouraging feedback ... from
my wife, of course, my children, my mother.” Larry indicated that without their support
he “wouldn’t have been able to do it.” Larry assigned his mother one of the major roles in
his getting the doctorate. Being a first terminal degree holder in the family met his
mother’s expectations: “ ... she's probably my number one supporter in terms of ‘I'm so
proud of you. Nobody in our family has ever earned a doctorate’.”
The academic vice president and the president of the university where Larry was
employed also provided constant encouragement and assistance: “Both our president and
academic vice president were interested in my progress through the program and offered
encouragement and advice.” The institutional administration underwrote Larry’s
participation in the Chair Institute Leadership Program at the beginning of his doctoral
studies, for which he earned academic credit. When Larry was taking his comprehensive
examination and began his work on the dissertation, he was allowed to work some
afternoons at home, staying in contact with the office by telephone and email. When
Larry was about to quit the program before the dissertation stage, they were insistent on
his finishing the program: “Even our university president was saying, ‘Well, just take a
171
month or two ... off and then if you still feel the same way, then ... but if not, we're
supporting you.”
Self-Motivation
Several issues related to eaming a doctoral degree in the ELHE-DE program
constituted specific value for Larry and raised his motivation. At that time he viewed
educational administration as a possible new career and found the program a nice fit to
his interests and needs. On the survey, Larry picked career advancement alongside with
other factors impacting his persistence in the program. The fact of having a doctorate
degree at the institution that did not have a doctoral requirement and where quite a few
faculty members in the academic council had a doctorate and in a different area added to
Larry’s recognition and self-esteem: “I think it made me a much, much more valuable
member of the academic council here.” In addition, eaming the doctorate put Larry on the
top tier o f the university compensation system. Even financially, getting a doctorate was
“a very good investment” for Larry.
The innovative character of the program was attractive and the notion of pursuing
advanced graduate studies via DE was intriguing and exciting: “And so, I would see a
combination of definitely the convenience, the need that I had at that time and just the
interest in being one of the ones involved in a new program like that.” Being an
educational administrator, Larry wanted to have a personal experience with a program
like ELHE-DE and a new way of learning: “I really believed in the idea of new forms of
education and I thought this, you know, in my administrative work here on campus it
would have given me great firsthand opportunity to see how a program like that works.”
172
Larry assigned a big role to himself and his personal motivation in his efforts to
pursue a doctorate via DE. He considered only himself to be responsible for his progress:
“It was my responsibility. It was not somebody else's responsibility.” This feeling of
responsibility was constantly sustained by the fact in the CMAL environment every
student or faculty could be a judge of the work produced and it elevated his efforts: “The
one thing, when you knew that both the quality of your responses and the volume of your
responses was being evaluated, how many people you're responding to.” On this level the
“give and take” between the students was excellent.
Only one time, after successfully finishing all the course work and passing his
comprehensive examination, did Larry considered quitting the program. The
comprehensive examination took him a month to complete and he was tired and
exhausted after all the course work: “I was getting weary of the grind for the two solid
years, year round. 1 didn't take a break during the summer. Just to finish my coursework
and my comps. And then you look at that mountain of a dissertation and you're thinking,
do 1 have it in me to even complete that?” The very nature of the doctoral work was a
challenge to motivation and persistence, “which is common wherever you go for a
program.” It took Larry some “real internal motivation to get going again” in addition to
the encouragement from the academic advisor, his family and his university president.
At the same time, Larry enjoyed the program and all the course activities. He
enjoyed asynchronous written communication with his fellow-students and the
relationships with his academic advisor. Larry’s excitement with the program was
reflected in his professional performance portfolio and the letters to his advisor
173
accompanying the monthly submissions to the portfolio. All this positively affected his
motivation to finish the program successfully: “It was not drudgery, it was not a chore. It
was something that 1 very much enjoyed doing.”
174
Case Study 4: Susan
“I don’t remember really being frustrated at all with the
university. So the problem was not with them, and it wasn’t
really with the program. It was with the method. And that
would be my primary concern and my primary reasons for
leaving the program.”
(From the interview with Susan)
Susan was 54 years old when she decided to withdraw from the ELHE-DE
program. She worked as a registrar at a small private religious college in one of the
northern states. Previously, she taught at the same college from 1977 to 1986 in the
Department of Education. Between 1986 and 1996, she spent 10 years in Africa working
as a missionary. For two years Susan taught in the Bible College in Liberia, West Africa.
After that she worked for seven years as a director and registrar in the Bible Institute in
Zambia, Southern Afiica. She helped “plant” Baptist churches in those countries,
teaching Sunday school to children and teens and conducting Bible studies with women
and teens. She returned to the United States in 1999. Susan had a Bachelor of Science
Degree in Psychology, another Bachelor’s Degree in Bible, and a Master of Science
Degree in Educational Administration.
Susan was admitted into the ELHE-DE program in the Fall of 2000 and took her
first course the same semester. She successfully completed two courses in the program.
Both courses were offered in the CMAL environment and related to her major. She never
came on campus, and stopped taking courses after May 2001, and officially withdrew
175
from the ELHE-DE program in the Fall of 2001. At the time of the interview she had
completed two years of a three year doctoral program at a small private university within
40 miles of her home. She was a single person with no children.
When Susan chose the ELHE-DE program she was not aware of any other options
within commuting distance. In addition, the flexibility of getting the degree at her own
pace was attractive to her; “I thought it would be nice because I’d have the freedom to do
it when I chose to do it.” She did not remember how she leamed about the program,
either from the Intemet or a magazine, but she was sure she had found it through some
intensive search. She also considered other programs advertised in the higher education
joumals, but was attracted by the ELHE-DE online component.
Quality
Though Susan took only two courses in the program she believed its quality was
high and it was tailored to meet students’ needs. “When I looked at the list of the courses
that were going to be included in the program, [they] looked pretty good.” She liked the
two courses she completed and leamed from them: “The two that I took I thought were
quality.” Susan appreciated the broad content of the program and the opportunity to
choose the area of concentration later. She even planned on selecting either the higher
education or the curriculum and instraction.
Susan was mostly satisfied with the feedback she was getting from the faculty
regarding her course work and the promptness of their responses: “I didn’t really have
any problem ... when I did send in some questions ... I did get answers and they were in
a timely fashion.” At the same time, there was not much interaction and it was mostly
176
limited to asking and answering the course related questions. The instructors’
involvement with the course differed in the two classes Susan took. One professor was
more attentive to the students and provided more personal feedback than the other: “That
particular professor was good about writing a little personal note in regards to my
postings. But the other class I don’t remember getting much in the way of a personal note
from him except for when I asked a specific question.” The feedback was mostly related
to some specific writing, “whether something was well-stated, or whether it was not
correct”, but it was helpful to Susan and she benefited from it: “It would help me to refine
what I was thinking.”
Susan benefited from her interactions with her academic advisor. Though she did
not get far into the program and did not have an opportunity to discuss the future
dissertation or the topics for her independent study courses, she received good and quick
advice from her academic advisor: “When I wrote a couple of times about different
things, [the advisor] was quick to answer and gave me good advice.” The questions were
mostly related to such important for someone just beginning the program things, as how
Susan should go about doing something, who she should contact when encountering
technical problems, and what courses would he the proper to take. On the survey, Susan
highly rated advising.
At the same time, Susan was not satisfied with the quality of other doctoral
students’ postings and feedback: “I was a little bit disappointed in the quality of some of
the things I was reading ... on the online program.” She believed those were not scholarly
responses and did not reach the doctoral level. The students did not possess the
Ill
appropriate writing skills so important in the program with the focus on written
interaction: “It was finstrating to try to respond to those people... They really didn’t write
very well. They didn’t express themselves that well.” So, Susan limited herself to
communicating with a few students, who could produce quality responses and “had their
answers.” She also did not like the nature of the discussion going online. She thought it
was primarily academic and more focused on the exchange of facts, but not the opinion:
“Because you’re not doing it in real time, it’s real hard to get a good conversation based
on opinion going.”
Susan chose the ELHE-DE program mainly for the reasons of convenience:
“Initially there was motivation to do it by distance education because of the convenience
factor.” Freedom of time was one of the biggest attractions for Susan in the ELHE-DE
program. She was looking for a flexible format, in which she could balance her studies
and work schedule, and do the course work in her own time: “I thought, this might be a
way to do it, because then I could do it in my own time because of work responsibilities
and so on.”
In spite of flexibility the CMAL format offered, Susan had a conflict of balancing
the studies and her busy work schedule. While answering the survey, she indicated work
was a barrier for her as a distance learner. Later, during the interview, she explained
because of her work, it was difficult for her to meet the course requirements: “My work
load sometimes comes in spurts, so I would have to work late or be very tired, but would
have to meet the deadlines of the online course.” She admitted having some of the same
178
problems with her current cohort program, but claimed being able to make requisite
adjustments.
The focus on writing in the CMAL environment did not bother Susan: “That
writing component was okay.” She was comfortable developing essay-type responses to
assignments and responding to other students’ postings, and preferred the Lotus Notes
platform to Blackboard. However, the asynchronous format of the program did not match
Susan’s learning style. She missed the real time component of the face-to-face
interactions in the traditional setting and could not comply with it: “The whole format of
posting my response and then reading other people’s responses and responding to them...
So, basically you were having a conversation, but it was not in real time. .. .that was very
finstrating to me.” She did not like waiting for a few days to get answers from the
students to her questions and believed it was taking too long for the real conversation to
occur. Such an approach to learning was not appealing to Susan, because it did not
provide an opportunity for real involvement with the course: “Maybe that kind of
distance education really appealed to [other students] because they didn’t have to get
involved. But personally, I wanted to he able to be involved.” When answering the study
survey, Susan indicated that online leaming environment was the primary factor
influencing her decision to withdraw from the program.
Susan was also concerned with not seeing other students and instructors and not
observing their body language. She believed body language was a large part of wbat one
bad to say: “You’re responding to the academic content, but you’re also responding a
179
lot to opinion and to that body language.” In her new campus-based program Susan said
the component was present and positively affected her persistence.
Susan also believed there was not much community building in the courses she
took. On the survey, she indicated lack of personal contact with fellow students as the
biggest barrier for her as a distance learner. Only a couple of students made attempts to
establish some communication beyond discussing the course issues, and these efforts
were not sustained by many students: “It seemed to me that there wasn’t a lot of effort
made by very many in the group to have more of a personal relationship.” Exploration of
the two Lotus Notes archival courses she had taken showed little social interaction in the
course Virtual Cafeteria. Susan herself did not invest a lot of effort into establishing the
online community. She posted a few things, did not get many responses, and decided to
focus on the academic part of the process: “I didn’t really see a lot of it but maybe it’s
because I wasn’t making a grand effort either.” Susan claimed to have experienced a lot
of community relations with her “real-time cohort” in the new program.
Susan believed the CMAL format could be effective for other leamers, who could
overcome the non-real time constraints and ignore the personal component: “Had I been
the type who didn’t have a problem not seeing my other students, or having more real life
interaction, it would’ve been fine.” Those two components, online leaming environment
and lack of personal interaction, were the only reasons for Susan cited for not to continue
with the program: “The problem was not with [the university] and it wasn’t really with
the program. It was with the method. And that would be my primary concem and my
primary reasons for leaving the program.”
180
Support
Although Susan took only two classes in the program, she sensed the supportive
atmosphere created by the faculty, students, and institutional support services. The
feedback she received from the faculty, especially personal encouraging notes in one
class, was helpful to stay focused on the task. Both instructors were willing to
accommodate to her needs, but she could not remember any specific examples. The
students supported each other by including some encouraging words in their scholarly
responses to other students’ postings: “When they would respond to my postings, they
would say things ... other than just academically; they might say that was a really good
thought or something like that.” Susan did not ask her academic advisor for any sort of
assistance, because she did not have any apparent need.
The student support services, for the most part, were helpful too. Susan received
quick assistance with the technological problems: “When I contacted them, I did get
answers pretty quickly.” When she was getting set up to take her first course in Lotus
Notes, she had some technology problems and got all the help she needed and in a timely
fashion. That created a positive atmosphere for her to begin the program. The admission
process was straightforward and did not course any trouble: “I just filled out the
paperwork and sent it in and they responded.” Registration for courses was smooth. For
both courses Susan used the NRoll telephone line and never experienced any difficulties.
She did not have any problems with paying her student fees either. Her tuition was
covered by the institution Susan was employed at and she “paid for the rest.” On the
survey, Susan highly rated these support services. However, she did not stay long
181
enough in the program to experience other support services. For example, Susan did not
use the online access to the library, because the courses she was enrolled in had all
required materials posted in the Lotus Notes course library.
Self-Motivation
In spite o f the fact Susan withdrew from the ELHE-DE program, she was highly
motivated to earn a doctoral degree because she enjoyed leaming and acquiring new
information. She decided to pursue the terminal degree in Educational Administration
after retuming from Africa and starting administrative work at her institution: “Being
gone in Africa for so many years, I felt I needed exposure to current educational content
and trends.” In addition, the college she worked at was striving for accreditation and they
needed more earned doctorates from accredited universities.
When Susan realized pursuing the degree in the CMAL environment did not fit
her leaming style, she hegan looking for an altemative doctoral program; one where she
could have real time communication and meet other doctoral students in person: “As I
began to realize that I wasn’t enjoying the asynchronous, non-real time, then my
motivation to pursue the degree through Nebraska waned, but my motivation to pursue
the degree was still there.”
At the time o f the interview Susan was working on her Ed.D. in Leadership at
another university. The students matriculated through the program as a cohort and met for
classes once a week. She drove 40 miles one way to be able to meet with the group and
apparently enjoyed the real time interactions. She believed a community had been
established among the cohort; the part that was missing in the online leaming
182
environment: “I am finding that during my classes now in real time with a cohort, there’s
a lot of that. W e’re e-mailing each other back and forth about stuff that we know. And,
we get together a couple times a year just for a party type of thing and the classmates
bring their spouses.”
In addition to enjoying the format of her new program, Susan claimed she had a
strong personal responsibility for eaming the degree. This sense of responsibility and a
long-term wish to have a doctorate apparently acted as a driving force for Susan as she
commuted weekly to the class and complied with whatever other difficulties she had to
face: “It’s me, or it ain’t going to get done.”
183
Cross Case Analysis
Themes and Categories Across Cases
Comparison of the themes across the four cases revealed emergence of the same
four themes, quality of academic experiences, online leaming environment, support and
assistance, and self-motivation. But the themes differed in the number and similarity of
categories comprising them (see Table 5.9 in Appendix G-2). The illustrative quotes to
the themes by cases perspectives are presented in Table 5.10 (Appendix G-3).
Quality. All the participants talked about the quality of the program, as positively
affecting their persistence. The main attractions for those who successfully matriculated
were its scholarly character, relevance, good stracture and the opportunity to leam from
the others. Gwen and Lorie also indicated the challenging character of the program, other
participants talked about its broad applicability. Other positive characteristics mentioned
by different participants included its good reputation, high standards, clarity of
expectations, focus on engaged leaming and written dialog, meeting the students’ needs,
and good delivery. Lorie and Larry pointed out the quality of the UNL as a Research One
University and the fact it was well-known for its distance education.
Quality o f faculty and student feedback were important issues for the four
participants. Quality of faculty feedback was directly related to involvement with an
online course. Lorie, who was a DE program evaluator, noticed that quality feedback
depended on the readiness of faculty to teach online. For Gwen and Susan, promptness of
the feedback also was important. Lorie benefited most when instmctors acted as
facilitators in the online courses, while Larry was more concemed with the faculty
184
commitment to students. Quality of interactions with students and their feedback
differently affected the participants’ persistence. Those who successfully matriculated in
the program received more meaningful and constructive peer feedback than did Susan,
who was disappointed with the poor level of some doctoral students’ writing skills.
The quality of advising differed across the four participants. In Larry’s case, who
graduated from the program, the academic advisor involvement was very high. Larry
received good professional advice, diligent feedback, and guidance with the dissertation.
For Lorie, who was approaching the dissertation stage in her program of studies and was
working on her dissertation proposal, the advising was related to getting the knowledge
of the process. Susan, who withdrew from the program, did not have much opportunity to
experience full scope academic advising, but what she experienced was described as
helpful and prompt. Gwen was on the other end in her experiences with academic
advising. Her advisor did not fulfill the role according to her expectations. There was lack
of guidance, poor communication, and whatever feedback she received was of
questionable value. At the time of the interview, she had sought a different academic
advisor.
Only Larry talked about the role of the dissertation committee members as a
positive factor in his persistence. For him it was a good chance to get a second opinion
and receive good quality feedback on his dissertation. Due to the nature of the program,
doctoral students tjqiically got involved with their dissertation committee members in the
later stages of the program, starting with presenting their dissertation proposal to the
185
committee. Presumably, that’s why the other participants did not provide information on
their committee members’ involvement.
Online learning environment. The four participants pointed out the attractiveness
of the CMAL environment was enhanced by the convenience of keeping both work and
personal schedules intact because classes were location and time free. Susan, however,
reported difficulties balancing her work schedule and meeting the online course
requirements. All participants talked about how the format differently fit their leaming
styles preferences and thus affected their persistence. For Gwen, Lorie, and Larry, who
successfully matriculated in the program, the asynchronous format positively affected
their progress. They all agreed the format matched their leaming styles and they were not
bothered by absent classmates and not receiving non-verbal cues. Also these three
reportedly had high comfort levels with technology. For Susan, the CMAL environment
was the primary reason for quitting the program, because she did not like the non-real
time format o f the course discussions and class related interactions. She claimed it was
difficult to comply with the focus on written versus oral communication and she believed
the lack o f spontaneity and non-verhal cues impaired efforts to be creative when
exchanging opinions.
All four participants talked about the online community that had been developed
among the virtual students. They agreed it varied with the course, was mostly limited to a
particular course, and depended on one’s willingness to participate. No participant
indicated a strong relationship between the community development and his/her
persistence in the program. They claimed it helpful, but not cmcial. Susan, who had
186
withdrawn from the program, believed there was more community in her new (face-to-
face) cohort program. Interestingly, she expressed concerns about being able to comply
with all demands, but was accommodating to the best of her abilities.
The participants also highlighted other different aspects of the online learning
environment that helped them persist in the program. For example, Gwen appreciated the
fact o f being involved in distance learning and experiencing the new learning format. She
created mental images of the students she was taking classes with, while Lorie managed
to meet with some students in person, and established friendly relationships. For Lorie, it
was important to have familiar students in each new class. She used them to initiate
discussions. Reasonable class size was also important for her, and she made a point of
mentioning large classes inhibited effective interactions. For Larry, it was emotionally
relieving to stay at home with his family and his teenaged children, and be involved with
the family and other activities.
Support. A supportive environment assisted the four participants to persist in the
program. All indicated instructors were very accommodating to their needs as distance
learners, and Larry managed to develop personal relationships with some of the
instructors. Susan appreciated the personal notes from an instructor in one of her classes,
while Lorie believed, in her case, the faculty was very receptive. For Gwen, the openness
and responsiveness of the faculty to her needs was especially important for her continued
matriculation, because she was not able to secure requisite guidance from her advisor.
Everybody, except for Lorie who did not talk about student support at all, agreed
fellow-students were supportive and encouraged each other throughout courses. Both
187
Gwen and Larry commented on the fact students were sensitive to their religious beliefs
and philosophical views, and pleasantly polite and respectful with their responses. Gwen,
Lorie, and Larry provided different instances of peer support and encouragement: sharing
personal experiences, exchanging sympathies and best wishes, congratulating each other
on different occasions and using each other for references. In Lorie’s case, however, the
student support and encouragement was limited to a course activities. Susan failed to give
any specific examples of student support, other than general statements of their
encouragement.
Assistance and support from the academic advisor ranged from no support in
Gwen’s case to fiiendliness and ensuring forms were processed in Larry’s case. Larry’s
advisor was interested in his family and work, provided constant personal and
professional encouragement, and was highly accommodating. Larry made a point of
emphasizing cooperation from the university and the advisor had been pivotal when he
was exploring and then applying to the program. Lorie reported her new advisor was
helpful in providing guidance with the dissertation proposal and the comprehensive
examination, by answering numerous “how-to” questions. Susan’s tenure in the program
was limited to two courses over two semesters, and she did not seek assistance from her
advisor.
All participants said the student support services were helpful in their efforts to
earn the doctorate via DE. Everybody talked about prompt responding to their
technological needs, and smooth admission and registration processes. Larry and Gwen
were highly appreciative of the online access to the UNL library, but Lorie was not
188
enamored and switched to another university library. Institutional support infrastructure
was described as friendly, convenient, simple, timely, easily solved, qualified, and
straightforward.
Some participants cited support form their families, employment, and even pets.
In both Gwen’s and Larry’s cases, their families provided support and encouragement in
their efforts to pursue the degree. For Gwen, the progenitors were her parents and sisters.
For Larry, it was his wife, mother, and four children. Both families expressed pride in the
respective students and reportedly worked hard to foster the supportive environment. For
Gwen and Larry, their universities provided them with the time off from work,
encouragement toward earning the advanced degree, and advice from colleagues. Neither
Lorie, nor Susan talked about the support from their employers. Gwen found support
from her cat, who would sit through all her studies silently watching her working on the
course assignments.
Self-motivation. The four participants were highly motivated to cam the doctoral
degree. They liked leaming and enjoyed acquiring new information and had a high sense
of responsibility for the process and outcome. In addition, for all the women getting the
doctorate was a long life dream. For Gwen, Lorie, and Larry, who successfully
matriculated in the program, motivation was sustained by the fact their work was being
judged and evaluated by everybody in a class. It made them work harder and be more
responsible for the quality of what they produced. Gwen and Lorie also talked about
balancing work and studies. Both Lorie, who was begirming her dissertation study and
Larry, who had already graduated, described how their motivation was negatively
189
affected by the necessity to face the dissertation and how difficult it was to remain
focused.
Each o f the four participants also had different sources for their motivation. Gwen
viewed the doctoral work as a personal challenge. She did not mind extending herself
when tired after work and tried to stay positive. She need the credentials for her new
position and was very excited at the perspective of finishing the coursework and
beginning the work on the dissertation. Lorie talked about the frustration of finishing the
structured coursework and facing the dissertation. Her motivation was generated by a
dissertation fellowship she recently had won. Larry was partially extrinsically motivated,
because the doctorate degree gave him career advancement, recognition at work, and an
increase in pay. He also found motivation in leaming in the new format, but was a little
fioistrated by some o f the questionable applicability associated with doctoral study. For
Susan, the need for the doctorate was reinforced by the fact more doctoral degrees would
help her institution gain necessary accreditation.
Table 5.11 summarizes common thematic categories across the four cases within
the four themes, differently affecting students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program.
These categories are related to the sub-themes of the program, faculty, students, academic
advising, online leaming environment, student support services, and self-motivation. The
participants listed the same reasons for staying or quitting the program. The reasons that
prompted Susan to withdraw from the ELHE-DE program included leaming from others,
leaming style preferences, and non-physical presence. In Table 5.11 they were
highlighted using the bold print.
190
Table 5.11
Similar Thematic Categories in Cross-Case Analysis
Sub-themes Thematic categories
Program well-stmctured
relevant, scholarly
learning from others
Faculty feedback
involvement
willing to accommodate
Students feedback
encouragement
Academic advising assistance
Online leaming environment convenience

flexibility
learning style preferences
non-physical presence
online community
comfort with technology
Student support services helpful

prompt
Self-motivation responsibility
enjoyed
Themes by Cases
A nalysis o f the number o f text units (sentences) per each them e across the four
cases, using the matrix feature of the QSR N6 showed the most frequent theme the
participants discussed was the quality of academic experiences as related to their
persistence (n=494) (see Table 5.12). They also discussed support to their efforts (n=432)
191
more than the online leaming format (n=379). Interestingly, they talked less about their
motivation (n=235), than any other themes.
Examination of the text unit counts per each participant/case showed for Gwen
and Lorie, who were at different stages in the program, the quality o f academic
experiences was more important for their matriculation than support and motivation
(32.8% and 35.5% of text units). For Gwen, support and assistance was second in
importance (29.9%), while for Lorie, the advantages of the CMAL environment (24.7%o)
was more important than support she was getting (22.5%). For Gwen, the online learning
format was the least important issue affecting her persistence (18.1%), while Lorie talked
the least about her motivation (17.3%).
For Larry, who graduated from the program, the support he was receiving while
working on his doctorate was the most important (36.1%). His persistence was almost
equally influenced by the quality of his academic experiences (25.7%) and the
advantages o f leaming online (22.8%o). Similar to Gwen and Lorie, he talked less about
his motivation (15.3%).
Susan, who withdrew from the ELHE-DE program mainly for the reasons of the
asynchronous format of the program, discussed the CMAL environment the most
(39.9%). She expressed about the same concem with quality of leaming online (36.6%).
Supporting infrastmcture was less important for her (19.3%), and she talked the least
about her motivation (4.2%).
To summarize, the quality of online leaming as related to the participants’
persistence in the ELHE-DE program was the most discussed theme. The participants
192
were less eager to talk about their motivation. Instead they focused more on the
advantages and/or disadvantages of the CMAL environment and the support
infrastructure. Individually, there were more similarities between the participants still in
the program, than those who had graduated or withdrawn from the program.
Table 5.12
Themes by Cases with Counts o f Text Units*
Count Gwen Lorie Larry Susan Total

Row Pet
Column Pet
Themes
Quality 145 148 114 87 494

29.4 30.0 23.1 17.6 100.0
32.8 35.5 25.7 36.6
Online 80 103 101 95 379

leaming 21.1 27.2 26.6 25.1 100.0
environment 18.1 24.7 22.8 39.9
Support 132 94 160 46 432

30.6 21.8 37.0 10.7 100.0
29.9 22.5 36.1 19.3
Motivation 85 72 68 10 235
36.2 30.6 28.9 4.3 100.0
19.2 17.3 15.3 4.2
Total 442 417 443 238

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
*A text unit is a sentence coded b y the researcher to a theme.
Lessons Learned
The following factors were important for these four participants as related to their
persistence in the ELHE-DE program:
193
The quality o f academic experiences. This included the quality of the program as
it related to structure, delivery, and content. The course work was relevant to the
students’ professional activities and had wide applicability. The participants benefited
from the program, because it was scholarly and reasonably challenging, it had high
standards and clarity of expectations. The program provided the opportunity to learn from
the others, focused on engaged leaming, and met the students’ needs.
The quality of faculty and student feedback was very important. For the most part,
the feedback was professional, prompt, and useful. The faculty feedback was directly
related to their involvement with the online courses they were teaching, their readiness to
teach in the CMAL environment, and their commitment to students. The students
benefited most when the professors acted as course facilitators rather than instmctors.
The quality of academic advising varied for all four participants. It depended on
the level of advisor’s commitment to students, communication pattems, readiness and
ability to provide the necessary guidance, and professional knowledge of the process. The
dissertation committee members typically were involved during the final stages of the
program.
The online learning environment. The CMAL environment offered students the
convenience and flexibility of leaming, and opportunity to keep their work schedules and
stay with their families. However, for the students to successfully matriculate in such an
environment, the asynchronous format should be in concert with their leaming styles. The
CMAL format was the only reason for withdrawal from the program for one of the
participants. Students who persisted were not bothered by not seeing other students and
194
instructors and not receiving non-verbal cues. They had high comfort levels with
technology, good writing skills and were comfortable interacting with other students via
written dialog. The virtual community was an integral component of the CMAL
environment, but its role was not important to those students’ persistence, because it
often was limited to a particular course and the course related activities, and varied with
each class.
Support and assistance. Supporting and encouraging environments, created by
sources internal and external to the program, positively affected the students’ persistence
in DE. The faculty was responsive and willing to be accommodating to special needs of
those distance learners. Instructors were receptive and open. Other students in the
program provided support and encouragement to eaeh other. They were polite, respectful
and sensitive to religious beliefs and different philosophical views of their peers, as
reflected in their postings. They also encouraged each other through social interactions.
Support from an academic advisor came in the form of personal encouragement,
assistance with personal issues, guidance and caring. In such cases, an advisor’s help
positively affected the participants’ persistence in the program. In one case, a student did
not reeeive any support or assistance from an advisor and applied for a change in advisor.
Institutional student support services infrastructure was important for those
students, especially assistance with different CMAL formats. When problems arose, they
received useful, timely, and prompt help. Procedures reportedly were convenient,
smooth, and simple, and the staff was friendly and attentive.
195
Some participants also received support and encouragement from sources extemal
to the program, such as their families, employment, and pets. However, different
participants had different sources of extemal support. This created a positive environment
for them to be able to continue with their efforts of pursuing the doctoral degree in the
CMAL environment.
Student motivation. This included intrinsic motivation to pursue the doctoral
degree in the CMAL environment, such as personal challenge, responsibility, love for
leaming, and experiencing the new leaming format. Some extrinsic factors were
important for sustaining the participants’ motivation: career advancement, eaming the
credentials, recognition, and an increase in pay. For some participants, their motivation
was challenged by the nature of doctoral work, particularly the unstmctured process of
dissertation work. However, for three of the participants, they found the increasingly
difficult challenges to be maturing aspects in the persistence toward program completion.
196
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION
Overview
The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to
understand what impacted students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program. In the first,
quantitative phase of the study, the quantitative research questions addressed how 10
selected internal and extemal variables to the ELHE-DE program served as predictors to
students’ persistence in the program. The data was collected via web-based survey. The
discriminant function analysis identified five factors significantly discriminating among
the four matriculation groups. Based on the results of the first, quantitative phase, the
interview protocol was developed and the participants for the qualitative multiple case
study analysis were selected.
In the second, qualitative phase, four case studies, one from each of the four
participant groups, explored the results from the statistical tests in more depth. Four
themes emerged during the within- and cross-case analysis. No other known study
conducted on doctoral students’ persistence either in the traditional programs, or in the
distributed leaming environment used such a design, where both quantitative and
qualitative data were combined to help answer the research questions in a more complete
way. Based on the findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study, a
preliminary model of student persistence in the ELHE-DE program was developed,
which included both intemal and extemal factors affecting students’ persistence.
197
Interpreting Quantitative and Qualitative Results
This section integrates the results of the quantitative and qualitative phases of the
entire study using the following procedure. First, the results that helped answer the study
major quantitative research question were interpreted. Then, the results that answered the
guiding research question in the qualitative phase of the study were explained. This
process allowed for the findings from the second, qualitative phase to further clarify and
explain the statistical results from the first, quantitative phase. The study results then
were discussed in detail by grouping the findings to the corresponding quantitative and
qualitative subquestions related to each of the explored factors affecting students’
persistence in the ELHE-DE program: program-related factors, academic advisor- and
faculty-related factors, institution-related factors, student-related factors, and extemal
factors. The interpretations were augmented by citing related literature, reflecting both
quantitative and qualitative published studies on the topic.
Guiding Research Questions
Quantitative: What factors (intemal and extemal) predicted students’ persistence
in the ELHE-DE program?
Only five out of selected 10 factors, “program”, “online leaming environment”,
“student support services”, “faculty”, and “self-motivation”, contributed to the function
discriminating four groups of the participants as related to their persistence in the ELHE-
DE program. From these five factors, “program” and “online leaming environment”, had
the most effect on the students’ matriculation process. Five other variables, “virtual
198
“finances”, made little contribution to discriminating among the four participant groups.
With regard to persistence, the Withdrawn/Inactive group differed from the other three
groups the most. The Graduated group differed from both the Beginning and the
Matriculated groups, hut it was more similar to the Matriculated group. The Matriculated
group differed from the Beginning group.
Qualitative: How did the selected factors (intemal and extemal) identified in
Phase I, contribute to and/or impede students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program?
How can the statistical results obtained in the quantitative phase he explained?
The qualitative multiple case study analysis provided an explanation to these
quantitative findings. Four reasons were pivotal, hut differentially affected the
participants’ persistence in the program, as reflected by the four major themes that
emerged from within- and cross-case analysis: (1) the quality of the program and other
related academic experiences; (2) the very nature of the CMAL environment; (3) support
and assistance from different sources in students’ efforts to pursue the degree in DE; and
(4) student self-motivation to get the degree by whatever means possible. The quality of
the academic experiences had the most favorable affect on the participants’ persistence in
the program, though less for the withdrawn participant. Support and assistance they
received also contributed to the participants’ matriculation, while the online leaming
format was actually the cause for quitting the program for one participant. Self-
motivation was the least represented theme, however all the matriculated participants
were equally motivated to get the degree via distributed means.
199
The way quantitative and qualitative findings highlighted the quality of the
program and participants’ academic experiences in it, the importance of student support
infrastructure, and self-motivation to pursue the doctoral degree in the CMAL
environment were consistent with the basic ideas of Tinto’s Student Integration Theory
(1993). At the same time, relative importance of the extemal factors to doctoral students’
persistence did not fully support Bean’s Student Attrition Model (1990), which claimed
factors extemal to an institution equally affected students’ matriculation in college.
However, Bean’s model was specifically tailored to the undergraduate student
population. For doctoral students’ pursuing the degree in the ELHE-DE program,
extemal factors might have played a secondary role to intemal factors related to the
program and the CMAL environment.
The qualitative and the quantitative findings in this study supported the principle
components o f Kember’s (1990) Model of Drop Out from Distance Education Courses.
Though Kember’s model was limited to mostly undergraduate non-traditional students
and individual DE courses, the idea of academic and social integration as embracing all
facets of a DE course offerings found reflection in this study, The quality o f the program
and the academic experiences leaming in the CMAL environment, the importance of the
student support infrastmcture, and student goal commitment were integral components of
students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program.
Program-Related Factors
The ELHE-DE program-related factors, such as “program”, “online leaming
environment”, and “virtual community” differentially affected the students’ persistence.
200
The first two factors significantly contributed to or impeded the students’ progress, while
“virtual community” had no significant effect.
Program. Most of the participants were satisfied with their academic experiences,
the relevance and usefulness o f the program, and how the program met their needs. The
satisfaction level was directly related to their matriculation status in the program; the
amount o f satisfaction was the greatest among the graduated participants, and the lowest
among the Withdrawn/Inactive group.
A multiple case study analysis demonstrated all participants had high quality
experiences in the program. The quality of the ELHE-DE program was reflected in its
scholarly character, relevance, good structure and the opportunity to learn from others.
The challenging character of the program and its broad content also was recognized.
Other positive characteristics of the program included its good reputation, high standards,
clarity o f expectations, focus on engaged leaming and written dialog, meeting the
students’ need, and good delivery.
Quality of interactions with students and their feedback differentially affected the
participants’ persistence. Those who successfully matriculated in the program received
more meaningful and constructive peer feedback. Poor level of some doctoral students’
postings was cited as one of the reasons for withdrawal from the program. That comment
was expanded by explaining not all students, in the relevant courses taken, displayed
comparable levels of scholarship, nor did they appear equally invested in leaming.
Apparently the variability in students’ competence and dedication was interpreted as an
unfavorable index and extrapolated to the entire program. It was conceivable the person
201
who made that observation either had an unusual group of students with whom to interact
or sought to justify the decision to withdraw by emphasizing issues other than the one
most germane. Regardless of the impetus behind the accusation it was important and an
issue instructors need to watch in all such courses. Overall, the participants were
academically well integrated into the program and all claimed quality o f the program was
very high.
These findings were consistent with the limited research on the structure and
content o f a doctoral program and its impact on students’ persistence. Usually students’
academic experiences in the program were combined with other academic or institutional
related factors. For example, Ferrer de Valero’s study (2001) of 1,438 graduate students
at a major mid-Atlantic region research university claimed some departmental factors
positively or negatively affected time to doctoral degree and completion rates. Some of
those factors included departmental orientation, relationship between course work and
research skills, attitudes towards students, and student participation. In her qualitative
study of doctoral students’ experiences, Golde (1996, 1998) argued some reasons to leave
a doctoral program were rooted in departmental and disciplinary characteristics, and
oftentimes there were unwritten rules or protocols. Distance students usually are at a loss
for recognizing and copying with such ambiguity, and must rely upon guidance from a
concemed academic advisor or other students. Understandably the nexus between and
among distance students tends to be temporally limited by the length of courses and
presence of familiar virtual colleagues.
202
Fewer studies were devoted to the quality of doctoral student experiences in DE
programs. In the phenomenological study of doctoral students’ experiences in a distance
leaming telecast program in Educational Administration (Sigafus, 1996), the program
stmcture was found to be one of the contributing factors that positively affected the
students’ experiences. Being able to anticipate or know the “roadmap” provided students
with a sense of control, because they had beginning and ending points. In a qualitative
study of the community-building in one course offered in the ELHE-DE program
(Ivankova, & Stick, in press), the focus of the program on engaged leaming was cited as
one of its quality indices. The participants believed they contributed more and benefited
more than in a regular face-to-face classroom due to meaningful interactions and
discussion of the course materials. Their positive experiences were enhanced by high
quality interactions between and among the students and between the students and
instmctors. Securing diverse, positive, and provocative feedback was cited as important
because it gave value to their contributions.
Online learning environment. The quantitative results were viewed as meaning a
majority of the participants were comfortable leaming in the CMAL environment, were
satisfied with their online leaming experiences, and believed leaming was at least as
effective as in a face-to-face classroom. The more matriculated in the program the
participants were, the more positively they rated their online leaming experiences. The
Withdrawn/Inactive group was the least satisfied, had low comfort level, and was more
negative in rating the effectiveness of leaming in the CMAL environment.
203
The qualitative findings indicated the participants were attracted by such CMAL
environment characteristic as location and time free, which allowed keeping both work
and family schedules intact while taking classes. A second important characteristic was
the relative flexibility of leaming at one’s pace and time within the prescribed parameters
of the course. However, the format differentially affected the participants’ persistence.
For those who successfully matriculated in the program, the asynchronous format
positively affected their progress, because, reportedly, it matched their leaming style
preferences. Those participants were comfortable with technology and not bothered by
the non-physical presence of other students and instmctors.
Factors impeding persistence included the non-real time format of the course
discussions and class related interactions, as well as the focus on written versus oral
communication. Parenthetically it should be recognized that effective written
communication is the highest form of cognitive development because it requires a
progenitor to engage in a two-tier symbol substitution process (idea=word; word=graphic
representation) while being sensitive to an audience’s needs.
There is considerable research on the advantages and disadvantages of online
leaming, though not directly related to the issue of persistence. Flexibility to pursue
education at personally convenient times was reported as a great advantage of leaming at
a distance (Quintana, 1996; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2000). Individuals
who otherwise would not be able to attend campus classes due to conflicting family and
work schedules, or because locally there was no program of interest, were provided with
the opportunity to pursue the doctoral degree.
204
Online leaming is leamer-centered and affords students more control of the
pacing, sequencing, and style of interaction of the leaming experience (Chute,
Thompson, & Hancock, 1999). A particular emphasis is on “leamer-leamer interaction”
(Moore, 1989) leading to increased interaction and more active involvement. The
capacity to support interaction in an asynchronous format provided an opportunity for
reflection and deliberation not found in any synchronous leaming environment -
including face-to-face classrooms (Anderson & Garrison, 1998; Berge & Collins, 1995;
Hart & Mason, 1999).
In a virtual classroom, dialogue was enhanced, for not only did the students leam
from writing their responses to the questions in each module, but when a classmate
responded there was a chance to step outside of one’s own perspective and leam
something new from someone else’s point of view. Supporting this idea, Simonson et al
(2000) wrote, “students can benefit from a wider range of cognitive, linguistic, cultural,
and affective styles they would not encounter in a self-contained classroom” (p. 117). In
addition, as reported by Harasim (1990), text-based communication contributed to a
social “equalizing” effect with less stereotyping and more equitable participation.
These findings support the results of this dissertation study, as all the matriculated
participants were comfortable leaming in the CMAL environment and benefited from the
advantages it offered them. The withdrawn and inactive participants were less
comfortable leaming via distributed means, as it did not match their leaming styles. Some
other studies conducted on leaming in the asynchronous environment also reported
student leaming style or preferences could be a factor impeding persistence (Aragon,
205
Johnson, & Shaik, 2002; Scott-Fredericks, 1997; Wilkinson, 2002). For example, in the
grounded theory study of graduate student experiences in two courses offered in the
ELHE-DE program (Scott-Fredericks, 1997), leaming style preferences were classified as
an intervening condition negatively or positively affecting success in those courses. In
another study o f doctoral students enrolled in the Computing Technology in Education
major at Nova Southeastem University leaming style proved to be an efficient predictor
o f coursework completion (Wilkinson, 2002).
Virtual community. Statistically, “virtual community” did not contribute to the
function discriminating among the participant groups. Overall, half of the participants
were satisfied with the online community, and two-thirds of the participants believed they
were able to establish long-term social relationship with their fellow-students online.
Those who had withdrawn or were inactive in the program, more negatively rated their
community experiences.
The qualitative analysis allowed for saying although participants found the
virtual community helpful, it was not a very important part of their academic experiences.
No participant interviewed indicated a strong relationship between the community and
his/her persistence in the program, because the community varied with each course, was
limited to the course activities, and depended on one’s willingness to participate in it.
However, within some courses the students managed to create a supportive and
encouraging environment, both at the academic and personal level. Thus, the social
integration for those students was bounded by a particular course and the particular
course activity.
206
These findings, to some extent, contradicted extensive research on the topic of
community building in the CMAL environment. Hiltz (1998) argued it was possible for
people with shared interests to form and sustain relationships and communities through
the use of computer-mediated communication. The idea of commimity building in the
CMAL environment was based on collaborative leaming and cooperation between and
among the participants. It was observed that computer-mediated asynchronous instruction
had all the characteristics to support collaborative leaming (Curtis & Lawson, 2001;
Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995; Palloff & Pratt, 2003). The data from the current
study was interpreted as meaning community was a transitory phenomenon. Sometimes it
grew roots but most o f the time participants were consumed with balancing their
responsibilities and regarded the notion of a community of leamers as one of many
“communities” they functioned in. Even participants who availed themselves of an on-
campus experience viewed the notion of commimity as a temporal convenience but also
fragile.
Getting support and encouragement from an instmctor and other students, thus
showing their ideas and opinions were valued and respected, also was deemed important.
Verduin and Clark (1991) found adult distance leamers suffered low self-concept, which
instmctors needed to bolster through praise and positive acknowledgement of their
achievements. In Brown’s (2001) study of the process of community building in distance
leaming classes, community-minded participants were interested in and provided positive
207
reactions to each other’s cafeteria and classroom input. Receiving such messages
bolstered participants’ self-confidence and raised their comfort level. The long-term
implications of such interactions were not divulged.
Two studies (Brown, 2001; Ivankova, & Stick, in press) were conducted on
community building in different courses within the ELHE-DE program. It was found in
the process of a course, in spite of time and place differences, the online leaming
community emerged with its system of relations, liaisons, and bonds. However, these and
other studies looked only at separate courses. They did not explore the community-
building relationships across an entire program. Although the established virtual
community, reportedly, helped keep students in an academic program (Brown, 2001;
Eastmond, 1995; Garrison, 1997; Hiltz, 1998; Palloff & Pratt, 2003; Powers & Michell,
1997), community development was not studied from the angle of students’ persistence
in the entire program, and specifically a doctoral program. Different phases of doctoral
study might reveal interesting facts; beginning students who work as a tight cohort,
advanced students matriculating in different courses, and, of course, the dissertation
phase.
Academic Advisor- and Faculty-Related Factors
“Academic advisor” and “faculty” variously affected participants’ persistence in
the program.
Academic advisor. Although an academic advisor did not have any significant
effect on the participants’ persistence in the program, about two-thirds of the participants
reportedly were satisfied with the relationships they had with an academic advisor. The
208
matriculated students had more positive experiences than those who were beginning the
program and those who were inactive or had withdrawn from the program. However,
depending on their status in the program, the participants articulated different experiences
with an aeademic advisor.
Case study analysis provided additional insight into the participants’ experiences
with academic advising. The quality of advising differed across the four participants. In
the case o f the graduated participant, the academic advisor’s involvement was very high.
It was reflected in good professional adviee, diligent feedback, and guidance with the
dissertation. For another participant, who was approaching the dissertation stage in the
program, the advising was limited to providing knowledge of the process. The one, who
had withdrawn from the program, had little exposure to advising, hut found it helpful and
prompt. For the fourth participant, who was in the first half of the program, the academic
advising experience was negative. Reportedly, there was lack of guidance,
eommunication, and whatever little feedback was provided turned out to he of
questionable value. Efficient academic advising also was associated with support and
assistance in academic and personal problems, and encouragement toward eaming the
degree.
The fact an academic advisor did not significantly affect students’ persistence in
this study was not consistent with other researeh on doctoral students’ persistence.
Campbell (1992), Ferrer de Valero (2001), Cell (1995), Girves and Wemmems (1988),
Golde and Dore (2001), and Lovitts (2001) found positive relations between a student
and academic advisor were important for doctoral students’ persistence in traditional
209
campus-based programs. For example, in Gell’s (1995) correlational study of 82
completers and 45 non-completers of doctoral dissertations, the differences between non
completers and graduates were significant as related to advisors’ guiding candidates
through the dissertation process. In other studies, doctoral students’ withdrawal from a
program was reported to he due, in part, to inadequate or inaccurate advising, lack of
interest or attention on the part of an advisor, and unavailability of an advisor (Bowen &
Rudenstine, 1992; Golde, 2000). In another qualitative study on female doctoral
graduates and non-completers, Lenz (1997) found the absence of a solid advisor-advisee
relationship was one of the main reasons five ABDs quit the program.
Such inconsistencies with prior research might be explained by the fact those
studies focused on campus-based doctoral students, while this dissertation studied non-
traditional students pursuing the doctorate in the distributed environment. Presumably,
these students were more self-sufficient and more focused on eaming their degree. Being
educational administrators in their professional lives, they might have been more
organized and disciplined to persist in their efforts, and for many eaming a doctoral
degree was a necessary credential for keeping a job or getting promoted. In addition, as
the researcher leamed from Gwen’s case, there were other faculty in the program always
ready to provide the necessary guidance and assistance when an assigned academic
advisor was inadequate for the task.
Faculty. In the quantitative analysis, “faculty” was found significantly
contributing to the function discriminating among the four groups as related to their
persistence in the program. The degree of satisfaction with different aspects of
210
instructors’ teaching in the CMAL environment varied. The participants were more
satisfied with the instructors’ accessibility and promptness of the feedback, than the
quality of their feedback and their willingness to accommodate to their distance learners’
needs.
The qualitative findings were interpreted to mean satisfaction with the faculty was
related to the quality and promptness of the feedback they provided to students. The
quality of feedback depended on the readiness of the faculty to teach online, their
involvement with a course, and commitment to students. Students’ persistence was
positively affected by the support and encouragement they received from the faculty,
their willingness to accommodate to distance learners’ needs, and the ability to provide
personal assistance. Such responsiveness was especially important in the absence of any
assistance or guidance from an advisor.
These quantitative and qualitative findings were supported by other studies of
doctoral students’ persistence. Lack of persistence in traditional doctoral programs often
was attributed to lack of support and encouragement from a department and departmental
faculty (Ferrer de Valero, 2001; Golde, 2000; Hales, 1998; Lovitts, 2001; Nerad &
Cemy, 1993). Students who perceived support from their faculty were more likely to
complete their degrees than those who did not. For example, in her study of 816 doctoral
students at two universities, Lovitts (2001) found one of the major causes of attrition was
lack of adequate support, encouragement, and guidance from the faculty. Nerad and
Cemy (1993) reported at departments in which students were treated as junior colleagues
211
and participated in social and academic activities, it took a shorter time for them to finish
their degrees.
All these studies, however, focused on the traditional campus-based students.
Little research has been conducted on the role of faculty in DE doctoral students’
persistence. For example, in Sigafus’ (1996) study of experiences of adult students
pursuing a distance learning telecast program in Educational Administration at the
University o f Kentucky, faculty was cited as the most helpful source of support for those
students.
Institution-Related Factors
The quantitative analysis was interpreted to mean institutional “student support
services” significantly affected the participants’ matriculation in the program. Although
more than half of the participants were satisfied with the institutional support services,
their satisfaction differed depending on the particular service. The degree of satisfaction
was not always consistent across the three matriculated groups, with the exception of the
Withdrawn/Inactive group which always was the least satisfied.
The qualitative analysis provided additional insight as to why support services
were important with regard to participants’ persistence in the program. The support
infrastructure was friendly, convenient, simple, timely, easily solved, qualified, and
straightforward. The assistance with different CMAL format problems was helpful,
timely, and prompt. The procedures were convenient, smooth, and simple, and the staff
was friendly and attentive. However, the participants differed in the type and number of
the services they used and this need depended on a participant’s status in the program.
212
The importance of having a good support infrastructure for DE students was well
established in the literature (King, Seward, & Gough, 1980; Moore & Kearsley, 1996;
Rumble, 1992; Simpson, 2000). In the study conducted by Biner, Dean, and Mellinger
(1994) student support was chosen as one of the predictor variables for distance students’
academic success, while Tinto (1993) and Voorhees (1987) reported access to student
support services was a critical factor in the DE leamer success.
Moore and Kearsley (1996) pointed out three categories of support especially
critical to DE student learning and development: guidance/counseling, administrative
assistance, and interaction with students and instructors/tutors. Kovel-Jarboe (1997) listed
libraries, financial aid, advising, counseling, mentoring, and opportunities for social
interaction with other leamers and faculty as among the most important support
mechanisms, while Frieden (1999) pointed out scheduling, registration process,
orientation and training as the key administrative tasks with regard to DE. In Aoki and
Pogroszewski’s (1998) virtual university reference model, DE administrative services
included admissions, course catalog, course schedule, registration, transcript, payment,
financial aid, grades, biographic-demographic, degree auditing, arbitration, bookstore,
and scholarship. However, there was no indication as to how those student support
services contributed to or impeded the doctoral students’ persistence in the CMAL
environment. More research is needed on the relationship between the institutional
support infrastructure and the student successful matriculation in distributed programs
like ELHE-DE.
213
Student-Related Factors
“Self-motivation” had a significant affect on students’ persistence in the program.
The quantitative findings were interpreted to mean all participants, except for the
Withdrawn/Inactive group, were highly motivated to pursue the doctoral degree via
distributed means. The Graduates were the most motivated group (not surprising), while
the Matriculated group was more motivated than the Beginning group.
The case study analysis revealed motivation was a strong factor for matriculating
in the CMAL environment. The four participants were highly motivated to cam the
doctoral degree. Intrinsic motivation included love for learning, personal challenge, a
high sense o f responsibility, a life long dream to achieve the doctoral degree, and
experiencing the new learning format. Responsibility was sustained by the fact
everybody’s work was being judged and evaluated by everybody in a class. Balancing
work and studies was a challenge to motivation, but the unstructured process of
dissertation work, perhaps, was the most daunting. Such extrinsic factors, as career
advancement, earning the credentials, recognition, and increase in pay also were
important for staying on task.
These findings were supported by other studies of doctoral students’ persistence
with regards to their motivation to complete the degree. Studies by Ferrer de Valero,
(2001), Lovitts (2001), Reynolds (1998), Brien (1992), and Reamer (1990) demonstrated
self-motivation was an important factor in obtaining the doctorate. Students who had a
“never give up” attitude were more likely to complete the doctorate than others. Presley
(1995) found students’ positive views of themselves might relate to successful
214
completion of the doctorate, especially during the tenuous time between course
completion and dissertation work. Career aspiration also was cited as an important factor
(Brien, 1992).
Motivation and assumption of the responsibility for the learning process were
especially important for doctoral students pursuing the degree via distance education. In
Huston’s (1997) study of doctoral students’ persistence in an interactive compressed
video distance learning environment, intrinsic motivation was reported as one of the
significant factors o f success for those students. Scott-Fredericks (1997), in her grounded
theory study of graduate student experiences in two courses offered in the ELHE-DE
program, found personal responsibility was one of the contextual factors helping students
matriculate successfully in the online environment.
External Factors
The external factors, “family and significant other”, “employment”, and
“finances”, did not affect the students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program, although
two-thirds of the participants reported being supported by family, significant others,
friends, and employers in their efforts to study in the CMAL environment. The graduated
participants received the most support among the four groups, however, they also claimed
to he the most challenged by pressing job responsibilities and work schedule. It was not
apparent why they responded as such, but it was speculated they recalled the difficulties
of completing their dissertations while assuming increasing work-related obligations. For
half of the participants, financial issues were not an obstacle to their persistence, but
reportedly negatively affected the persistence of the withdrawn/inactive participants. The
215
qualitative findings revealed different participants had different sources of external
support: for some it was family and employment, for others family and pets, and for some
there was no apparent support from extemal sources.
Those quantitative and qualitative findings were consistent with some previous
research, but contradicted others. For example, Dolph (1983), Frasier (1993), Girves and
Wemmerus (1988), and Siegfned and Stock (2001) also indicated marital status did not
affect doctoral students’ persistence or attrition. In the AHA Survey of Doctoral
Programs in History (The American Historical Association, 2002), only 4% of the history
major students indicated family reasons were some of the most important factors causing
them drop out from doctoral programs. In this study, about 13% of respondents indicated
financial problems and 21% claimed personal problems affected their persistence. It was
not known to what degree or even the nature of such personal problems.
In her qualitative study, Golde (1998) found family commitments were crucial
barriers leading some participants to quit the program. Wagner (1986) also found some of
the major differences between the completers and non-completers of doctoral degree
were related to spouse and significant other support, job schedule and finances. McCabe-
Martinez (1996) reported employment and financial factors were an obstacle for some
doctoral students who did not complete their programs. In Bowen and Rudenstine’s
(1992) study minimum completion rates for one of the studied institutions were as low as
14.2% for students relying on their own financial support. Limited research on the affect
of extemal factors on doctoral students’ persistence in the distributed environment
suggested families, friends, and employers as one of the most helpful sources of support
216
(Huston, 1997; Riedling, 1996; Sigafus, 1996), while finances were cited as an impeding
factor (Huston, 1997).
Inconsistencies in the findings with regard to the influence of extemal factors on
doctoral students’ persistence might be explained by a different angle for each study,
different teaming formats, and different study populations. Most of the research focused
on the traditional campus based doctoral students, having family and financial constraints
o f being either full-time students, or trying to balance work and family while attending
classes. For such students keeping priorities straight could be difficult and might result in
procrastination or withdrawal from the program. This dissertation studied doctoral
students who were pursuing the degrees in the CMAL environment, which offered
convenience, flexibility of teaming, and the opportunity to keep regular work and family
schedules. Free from the constraints of the traditional classroom, they could establish
priorities, chose suitable time for studies, and enjoy full-time employment. In addition,
being employed in high professional ranks many of them received partial reimbursement
o f their tuition from employers, which relieved financial pressures on their families.
Model of Students’ Persistence in the ELHE-DE Program
Based on the findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study, a
preliminary model of students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program was developed (see
Figure 6.1). This model includes both intemal and extemal factors affecting students’
persistence. The solid arrow-lines represent the affect of five factors found to have
significantly contributed to the function discriminating among the participant groups as
related to their persistence in the program. Those included program-related factors, such
217
as program itself and online learning environment, institution-related factors, represented
by student support services, faculty-related factors, and student-related factors, including
self-motivation.
The broken arrow-lines represent the affect of the other five factors, which were
found to have little disciminating power among the four matriculated groups. Those
included such program-related factors, as virtual community, advisor-related factors, and
extemal factors, such as family, employment, and finances. Two other external factors
were added to the model from the qualitative multiple case study analysis: fellow-
students and pets. Dotted arrow-lines represent the affect of these two factors on students’
persistence in the ELHE-DE program.
This model is a first attempt to understand what intemal and extemal factors
contributed to and/or impeded students’ persistence in a doctoral program offered in the
CMAL environment. It was limited to one particular program offered from one particular
institution, and included a limited number of factors. More research is needed to test and
extend those findings to develop a reliable model of students’ persistence in doctoral
programs offered via distributed means.
218
Figure 6.1
Model o f Students ’ Persistence in the ELHE-DE Program
Intemal Factors Extemal Factors
Program-Related Student-Related
Program
Self-
Motivation
Online
Leaming Env Fellow-
Students
Virtual
Community Family
PERSISTENCE Employment
Institutional-Related
Support Finances
Services
Pets
Faculty and
Advisor-Related
Faculty
Advisor
219
Implications and Recommendations
This study has provided insight into the issue of doctoral students’ persistence in
the ELHE-DE program offered via distributed means. The major contribution of this
study stems from the fact there is no research on students’ persistence in doctoral
programs delivered in CMAL environments. This study has explored some important
factors affecting students’ matriculation in such environments and demonstrated what the
knowledge o f such factors could provide with regard to helping doctoral students
complete their degrees via DE. The use of the mixed methods design for this study,
which combined the quantitative and qualitative approaches to data collection and
analysis, allowed for a more complete understanding of the research problem and added
value to the study results and their interpretations.
Recognizing that more institutions of post-secondary and higher education are
offering graduate and professional degrees via distributed means, the results of this study
are aimed at numerous stakeholders: policy makers and higher education administrators,
graduate program developers and instructional designers, institutional faculty and staff,
and students, who currently are pursuing their doctoral degrees in the distributed leaming
environment or are considering doing so. Knowing the potential predictive power of
selected extemal and intemal factors to students’ persistence in the CMAL environment
may assist programs in development of strategies to enhance doctoral persistence and
degree completion. Specifically, the implications of this study include:
1. The quality of the program itself and the quality of the students’ academic
experiences in it have the greatest effect on students’ persistence. Securing the scholarly
220
and challenging character of the program, its relevance and applicability to students’
professional activities, high standards and focus on an individual, may lead to lower
attrition and higher graduation rates for DE doctoral students. The asynchronous online
leaming format of the program dictated the need for a leamer-centered approach, which
included engaged leaming, high quality interactions, and the ability to leam from others.
A distributed program meeting such requirements may have a greater potential for
attracting promising applicants, nurturing their scholastic development, and ultimately
improve graduation rates.
2. The CMAL format has an equally significant affect on students’ persistence.
For the students to benefit from leaming in such an environment, they need to be
comfortable with technology and have good writing skills. Text-based leaming should
match their leaming style preferences and they should be comfortable interacting with
students and instmctors online. Students considering or applying to a distributed program
should be informed upfront of the program format and what the expectations are in terms
of performance. Some kind of inventory to assess readiness to study in the CMAL
environment might be developed and used for the potential students to self-evaluate
themselves.
3. Institutional and departmental faculty affect students’ persistence in the
distributed environments. Students benefit the most from online courses when an
instmctor acts as a facilitator of the leaming, is actively involved with the course, and
provides the necessary encouragement and assistance. To fulfill this role, faculty should
be prepared to teach online, should design the courses specifically tailored to the CMAL
221
environment, and be ready to provide constant and timely quality feedback to distance
students. They also should show their commitment to distance students and be flexible
when necessary to accommodate to the needs of distance leamers.
Importantly, it needs to be recognized most distance leamers are mature but bring
with them an abundance of reservations about their ability to perform acceptably. Also,
by virtue o f their chronological maturity many have family and/or work situations not
typical for people o f their age. Such situations are a part of life and more apt to encroach
upon a distance student than over a yoimger or traditionally-aged student. Again, it needs
to be emphasized that instmctors of DE courses should be aware their students are highly
heterogeneous in terms of needs, pressures, motivation, and even ability.
4. Institutional DE student support inffastmcture should be in place to assist
distance leamers with all their needs, problems and concems. Its role in doctoral
students’ persistence is paramount. Such inffastmcture should include all the possible
services distance leamers might encounter during their matriculation process, beginning
with the admission process to the graduate college and the program, and ending with
applying for graduation and scheduling the oral examinations. O f particular importance is
prompt and qualified assistance with possible technology problems, obtaining the course
materials, and gaining access to the library reserves and other resources.
5. Student motivation is extremely important for students who pursue their
doctorate degrees via DE. Students who want to succeed in such circumstances need be
highly motivated, disciplined and organized to successfully balance studies, work, and
possibly families. Students’ intrinsic motivation should be supported and encouraged by
222
the program quality, user-friendly online format, and favorable leaming environment.
Extrinsic motivation also is important, however, it could be different in each particular
case. Support and encouragement should be expected from extemal sources, such as
families, friends, and employment.
6. In this study, the role of academic advisor was not very important for students’
persistence in the program. This finding contradicted the entire idea of academic advising
as an essential component of the doctoral degree pursuing process. Although for ELHE-
DE doctoral students advising was not of paramount importance to all participants, it was
for some. The quality and responsiveness of academic advising in a ELHE-DE program
should be elevated to a higher level. Students should receive professional advising and
guidance from their academic advisor throughout the entire program. Assistance with
academic problems and personal encouragement should be part of advisor-advisee
relationship too. Rapidity of advisor responding is of paramount importance.
7. In this study, the existence of online leaming community did not significantly
affect the students’ persistence. For this highly motivated participant group, the virtual
community was not a factor influencing their matriculation in the program. However, the
online community may enhance students’ progress, if it is established and supported
throughout the entire program. The faculty may take a lead in launching and facilitating
informal interactions with the class alongside with other academic activities. The
department also should reflect upon more strategies to virtually bring the distance
students together, besides the summer residency and the listserv, because neither had long
term benefits for most students.
223
Future Research
Being the only research on students’ persistence in the distributed doctoral
program, this study leaves some unanswered questions and opens a door for future
research on students’ persistence in the CMAL environment. Some questions remaining
unanswered in this study include: Would the study results be different if
a) more, if not all the former students who had withdrawn or had been terminated
from the ELHE-DE program would have participated in the study?
b) a random sampling instead of convenience sampling procedure were used?
c) a step-wise discriminate function analysis procedure were used instead of
entering all the predictor variables in the analysis simultaneously, as was done in this
study?
d) another similar program offered in the CMAL environment were studied using
the same quantitative and qualitative approaches?
These and other questions lead to some future studies on students’ persistence in
the distributed doctoral programs:
a) Replicating the study on another similar program, using another student
population;
b) Exploring the role of advisor, faculty, and virtual community in students’
persistence in distributed doctoral programs;
c) Comparing doctoral students’ experiences as related to their persistence in
similar programs nationwide, using a qualitative phenomenological study approach;
224
d) Developing a survey instrument grounded in the participants’ views on their
persistence in distributed doctoral programs, using a mixed methods sequential
exploratory design;
e) Using the survey instrument (item d) above), surveying current and former
students’ persistence in similar distributed doctoral programs nationwide, and following
up with the qualitative explanations of the study results, using a mixed methods
sequential explanatory design;
f) Using a mixed methods concurrent triangulation design, developing a structural
equation model of factors contributing to students’ persistence in distributed doctoral
programs based on the quantitative results, and a grounded theory model of these
students’ persistence based on the qualitative data. Comparing the two models in the final
stage o f the study might enhance understanding of doctoral students’ persistence in the
CMAL environment.
g) Based on the outlined proposed research, developing a model of students’
persistence in doctoral and/or graduate level degree program offered via distributed
means.
The examples of future studies outlined are some possibilities research on
doctoral students’ matriculation while pursuing the degree via distributed means should
address. These and other potential studies might provide insight into the problem of
doctoral students’ persistence and thus help their journey be less stressful and more
efficient. The results would be productive for students, institutions, and society.
225
CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY
Study Design
This mixed methods sequential explanatory study was conducted to identify
factors contributing to and/or impeding students’ persistence in the Distributed Doctoral
Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education (ELHE-DE) offered by the
University Nebraska - Lincoln (UNL). Three major theories of student persistence,
Tinto’s (1975) Student Integration Theory, Bean’s (1980) Student Attrition Model, and
Kember’s (1995) model of dropout from distance education courses, served as a
theoretical foxmdation for this study.
In the first, quantitative phase of the study, the quantitative research questions
focused on how selected intemal and extemal variables to the ELHE-DE program served
as predictors to students’ persistence in the program. In the second, qualitative phase,
four case studies, selected on typical response and the maximal variation principle, one
from each of the four groups of participants (withdrawn and inactive, active in the first
half of the program, active in the second half of the program, and graduated) explored in-
depth the results from the statistical tests.
The major emphasis was given to the qualitative phase, because it focused on in-
depth explanations of the results obtained in the first, quantitative phase of the study, and
implied substantial data collection from different sources. The quantitative and qualitative
methods were connected during the intermediate phase in the research process while
selecting the participants for the multiple case study analysis and developing the interview
questions for the qualitative data collection based on the results of the statistical tests from
226
the first, quantitative, phase. The results of the two phases also were integrated during the
discussion o f the outcomes of the entire study.
Quantitative Phase
Data Collection
In the first, quantitative phase, the data was collected via the web-based survey
(N=278). The survey instrument was self-developed and carefully pilot tested. Overall,
207 participants responded, which constituted a response rate of 74.5%. Reliability and
validity o f the survey scale items was established twice (pilot and current study). All
respondents were organized into four groups based on their matriculation in the program
and similarity o f academic experiences: (1) students who had completed 30 or fewer
credit hours o f course work (Beginning Group) (n=78); (2) students who had completed
more than 30 credit hours of course work, including dissertation hours (Matriculated
Group) (n=78); (3) former students who had graduated from the program with the
doctorate degree (Graduated Group) (n=26); and (4) former students who either had
withdrawn from the program, or had been inactive in the program during the last three
terms (spring, fall, summer) prior to the survey administration (Withdrawn/Inactive
Group) (n=25).
Data Analysis
Univariate Analysis. Cross tabulation and frequencies count were used to analyze
the survey demographic information. The participants’ answers to separate items on each
of the five survey scales were studied using descriptive statistics, cross tabulation, and
frequency counts.
Ill
Multivariate Analysis. The discriminant function analysis was used to identify the
predictive power of 10 selected factors as related to students’ persistence in the ELHE-
DE program. Prior to the analysis, data screening was conducted at both univariate and
multivariate levels.
Results
Demographic Information. The study participants were compared on the
following demographic characteristics: age, gender, and employment while in the ELHE-
DE program, Nebraska (NE) residency status, and family status. They were
predominantly women; employed full-time while in the program, and mostly non
residents of Nebraska. They were married with children.
Scale Items Frequencies Analysis. Most of the participants were satisfied with
their academic experiences in the program claiming they received all the needed support
from both the institution and extemal entities. They were comfortable leaming in the
CMAL environment, differentially benefited from the virtual community, and had
different experiences with academic advising. They were highly motivated to eam the
doctoral degree, but for some participants sufficient and consistent finances was an issue.
Discriminant Function Analysis. Only five variables, “program”, “online leaming
environment”, “student support services”, “faculty”, and “self-motivation” significantly
contributed to the discriminating function as related to the participants’ persistence in the
ELHE-DE program. From these five variables, “program” and “online leaming
environment” had the highest correlation with the function and made the greatest
contribution to discriminating among the four groups. Other variables, “virtual
228
cornmunity”, “academic advisor”, “family and significant other”, “employment”, and
“finances”, made no significant contribution to discriminating among the four participant
groups. The Withdrawn/Inactive group differed from the other three groups the most,
while the Graduate group differed from both the Beginning and the Matriculated groups,
though less from the Matriculated group. The Matriculated group differed notably from
the Beginning group.
Qualitative Phase
Data Collection
In the second, qualitative phase, the data collection was secured via multiple
sources; (1) in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews with the four participants; (2)
the researcher’s reflection notes, taken immediately after the interview, on what was
learned from each interview about the participant’s persistence in the program; (3)
electronic follow-up interviews with each participant to secure additional information on
the emerging themes; (4) academic transcripts and students’ files to validate the
information obtained during the interviews and to get additional details related to the
cases; (5) elicitation materials, provided by each of the participants related to their
respective persistence in the program; (6) participants’ responses to the open-ended and
multiple choice questions on the survey in the first, quantitative phase; and (7) selected
archival Lotus Notes classes.
Qualitative Analysis
The analysis was performed at two levels: within each case and across the cases
229
using the QSR N 6. The steps in the qualitative analysis included: (1) preliminary
exploration of the data by reading through the transcripts and writing memos; (2) coding
the data by segmenting and labeling the text; (3) verifying the codes through inter-coder
agreement check; (4) using codes to develop themes by aggregating similar codes
together; (5) connecting and interrelating themes; (6) constructing a case study narrative
composed of descriptions and themes; and (7) cross-case thematic analysis. The
verification procedures included triangulating different sources of information, member
checking, inter-coder agreement, rich and thick descriptions of the cases, disconfirming
evidence, and academic advisor’s auditing.
Findings
Four themes related to the participants’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program
emerged in the analysis o f each case and across cases: quality of academic experiences,
online leaming environment, support and assistance, and self-motivation. However, they
differed in the number o f and similarity of categories comprising them. The quality of
academic experiences, as related to the participants’ persistence in the ELHE-DE
program, was the most discussed theme. Participants were less inclined to talk about
personal motivation, but willing to focus more on the advantages and/or disadvantages of
the CMAL environment and the supporting infrastmcture. There were more similarities
between the participants still in the program, than with the graduated or withdrawn or
inactive members. Factors deemed important for these four participants as related to their
persistenee in the ELHE-DE program were:
230
The quality o f academic experiences. This included the quality of the program
and relevance of the course work, the focus on engaged leaming, quality of faculty and
student feedback and their involvement in online courses, the quality of academic
advising and an advisor’s commitment to students.
The online learning environment. The CMAL environment offered students the
convenience and flexibility of leaming, although it differentially affected students’
persistence. The students who persisted had a high comfort level with technology, good
writing skills and were comfortable interacting with other students online. The virtual
community was not very important because it varied with each class and often was
limited to a particular course.
Support and assistance. A supporting and encouraging environment, created by
entities both intemal and extemal to the program, positively affected students’ persistence
in the program. The intemal sources of support included: faculty responsiveness and
willingness to accommodate to distance leamers’ needs; peer support and encouragement
of each other; academic advisor’s assistance and guidance; the institutional student
support services infrastmcture. Support and encouragement from sources extemal to the
program included families, employment, and pets.
Student motivation. This included intrinsic motivation to pursue the doctoral
degree in the CMAL environment, such as personal challenge, responsibility, love for
leaming, and experiencing the new leaming format. Extrinsic factors cited were: career
advancement, eaming the credentials, recognition, and increase in pay.
231
Model o f Students ’ Persistence in the ELHE-DE Program
Based on the findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study, a
preliminary model of students’ persistence in the ELHE-DE program was developed,
which included both intemal and extemal factors affecting students’ persistenee.
232
REFERENCES
Allen, C. M. (1996). Time to completion of doctorate: Implications for Ph.D. and Ed.D.
programs in education (Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Education) (Doctoral
dissertation. University of Toronto, Canada, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 57, 3411.
Anderson, D., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Leaming in a networked world: New roles and
responsibilities. In: C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education:
Institutional response fo r quality outcomes. Madison, Wl: Atwood Publishing.
Aoki, K., & Pogroszewski, D. (1998, Fall). Virtual university reference model: A guide
to delivering education and support services to the distance leamer. Online
Journal o f Distance Learning Administration, I (3). Retrieved May 22, 2002,
from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/aokil3.html
Ashar, H., & Skenes, R. (1993). Can Tinto’s student departure model be applied to
nontraditional staderAsl Adult Education Quarterly, 43 (2), 101-109.
Aragon, S. R., Johnson, S, D., & Shaik, N. (2002). The influence of leaming style
preferences on student success in online versus face-to-face environments.
American Journal o f Distance Education, 16 (4), 227-245.
Bair, C. R., & Haworth, J. G. (1999, November). Doctoral student attrition and
persistence: A meta-synthesis o f research. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 437 008)
Baird, L. L. (1993). Using research and theoretical models of graduate student progress.
233
In L. Baird (Ed.), Increasing graduate student retention and degree attainment, pp.
Z-W. New Directions fo r Institutional Research, 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bauer, W. C. (1997). Pursuing the Ph.D.: Importance of strueture, goal-setting and
advising practices in the completion of the doctoral dissertation (Doctoral
dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a eausal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an exploratory model of
college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22,
35-64.
Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler (Ed.), The
strategic management o f college enrollments, pp. 147-169. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate
student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55 (4), 485-540.
Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (Eds.). (1995). Computer mediated communication and the
online classroom: Overview and perspectives, 1. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
234
Billings, D. M. (1989). A conceptual model of correspondence course completion. In M.
G. Moore, & G. C. Clark (Eds.), Readings in distance learning and instruction, 2.
University Park, PA: ACSDE.
Biner, P. M., Dean, R. S., and Mellinger, A. E. (1994). Factors underlying distance
leamer satisfaction with televised college-level courses. The American Journal o f
Distance Education, 9 (I), 60-71.
Blackboard Inc. (2002). Blackboard learning and community portal system. Retrieved
December 3, 2002, from http://products.blackboard.com/cp/bb5/index.cgi
Boshier, R. (1973). Educational participation and dropout: A theoretical model. Adult
Education, 23, 255-282.
Bowen, W. G., & Rudenstine, N. L. (1992). In pursuit o f the PhD. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Boyd, E. F. (2001). Academic self regulation, task persistence, and completion of
assignments in an email-supported distance leaming environment (Doctoral
dissertation. University of Southem Califomia, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts
Brien, S. J. (1992). The adult professional as graduate student: A case study in
recmitment, persistence, and perceived quality (Doctoral dissertation, Northem
Illinois University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2203.
Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance leaming classes.
Journal o f Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2), 18-35.
Buchanan, E. A. (1999). Assessment measures: Pre-test for successful distance teaching
235
and leaming? Online Journal o f Distance Learning Administration, 2 (4). Retrieved
March 28, 2001, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/buchanan24.html
Butler, J. N., Jr. (1996). Individual and institutional factors related to successful
completion of a doctoral degree in agricultural education (Doctoral dissertation,
Mississippi State University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56,
3821.
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence
between two theories of college persistence. Journal o f Higher Education, 63,
143-164.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural
equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal o f
Higher Education, 64 (2), 123-139.
Campbell, R. B. (1992). A study of the completion and non-completion of the Doctor of
Education degree in Educational Leadership at the University of Delaware
(Doctoral dissertation. University of Delaware, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts
Carr, S. (2000, Feb 11). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the
students. The Chronicle o f Higher Education, 23, A l. Retrieved May 25, 2002,
from http://chronicle.eom/free/v46/i23/23a00101.htm
Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. (2001). On-line distributed
graduate degrees in higher education. [Brochure]. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska.
236
Cesari, J. P. (1990). Thesis and dissertation support groups: A unique service for graduate
students. Journal o f College Student Development, 31, 375-376.
Charles, C. M. & Mertler, C. A. (2002). Introduction to educational research (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Chute, A. G., Thompson, M. M., & Hancock, B. W. (1999). The McGraw-Hill handbook
o f distance learning. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Common Data Set o f U.S. Higher Education Terminology. (2002). World Education
Services, New York. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from
httr>://www.uta.fi/FAST/US5/REF/dataset.html
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Pearson Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2"‘êd.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., Goodchild, L. F., & Turner, P. P. (1996). Integrated qualitative
and quantitative research: Epistemology, history, and designs. In Higher
Education: Handbook o f Theory and Research, I I , pp. 90-136. New York, NY:
Agathon Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Maitta, R. (2002). Qualitative research. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Handbook
237
o f research design and social measurement, pp. 143-184. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. (2002). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory
into Practice, 39 (3), 124-130.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Guttman, M., Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed
methods research designs. In: A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook on
mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences, pp. 209-240. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. L. (2001). Exploring collaborative online leaming. Journal
o f Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (1), 12-34.
DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2,
292-307.
Diaz, D. P. (2000). Comparison o f student characteristics, and evaluation o f student
success, in an online health education course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Retrieved May 22, 2002,
from http://www.LTSeries.com/LTS/pdf docs/dissertn.pdf
Dille, B., & Mezack, M. (1991). Identifying predictors of high risk among community
college telecourse students. The American Journal o f Distance Education, 5 (1),
24-35.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2"*^ ed.).
New York, NY: John Wiley.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1999). The doctorate: Talking about the degree. Westem
238
Sydney University, Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
435 305)
Dolph, R. F. (1983). Factors relating to success or failure in obtaining the doctorate
(Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1983). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 44, 3298.
Dorn, S. M., & Papalewis, R. (1995). Educators earning their doctorates: Doctoral
student perceptions regarding cohesiveness and persistence. Education, 116 (2),
305-314.
Eastmond, D. V. (1995). Alone but together: Adult distance study through computer
conferencing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Eisenberg, E., & Dowsett, T. (1990). Student dropout from a distance education project
course: A new method analysis. Distance Education, 11 (2), 231-253.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Faghihi, F., Rakow, E. A., & Ethington, C. (1999, April). A study o f factors related to
dissertation progress among doctoral candidates: Focus on students ’ research
self-efficacy as a result o f their research training and experiences. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Ontario, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 430 491)
Feasley, C. E. (1983). Serving leamers at a distance: A guide to program practices.
239
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research (Report No. 5). Washington, DC:
Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Ferrer de Valero, Y. (2001). Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree and
completion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution. The
Journal o f Higher Education, 72 (3), 341-367.
Finke, W. F. (2000). Lifelong learning in the information age: Organizing net-based
learning and teaching systems. Bueren, Germany: Fachbibliothek-Verlag.
Fjortofl, N. F. (1995, October). Predicting persistence in distance learning programs.
Paper presented at the Mid-Western Educational Research Meeting, Chicago, IE.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233 283)
Fjortoft, N. F. (1996). Persistence in a distance leaming program: A case in
pharmaceutical education. The American Journal o f Distance Education, 10(3),
49-58.
Frasier, E. R. M. (1993). Persistence of doctoral candidates in the college of education.
University of Missouri-Columbia (Missouri) (Doctoral dissertation. University of
Missouri, Columbia, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 4001.
Frieden, S. (1999). Support services for distance education. Educational Technology and
Society, 2 (3). Retrieved April 14 , 2002, from
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol 3 99.html
Garland, M. R. (1993). Student perceptions of the situational, institutional, dispositional,
and epistomological barriers to persistence. Distance Education, 14 (2), 181-198.
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-industrial age of distance
240
education. Open Learning, 12 (2), 3-11.
Gee, D. B. (1990). The effects of preferred leaming style variables on student motivation,
academic achievement, and course completion rates in distance education
(Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts
Geiger, R. (1997). Doctoral education: The short-term crisis vs. long-term challenge. The
Review o f Higher Education, 20 (3), 239-251.
Gell, S. K. (1995). Factors associated with completion or non-completion of doctoral
dissertations; Self-direction and advisor/advisee congruity (Doctoral dissertation.
University of Maryland, College Park, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts
Gibson, C. C. (1992). Changing perceptions of leamers and leaming at a distance: A
review of selected recent research. Distance Education Symposium: Selected
Papers, Part 1 (ACSDE Research Monograph No. 4), pp. 34-42. University Park,
PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education, The Pennsylvania
State University.
Gibson, C. C., & Graff, A. O. (1992). Impact of adults’ preferred leaming styles and
perception of barriers on completions of extemal baccalaureate degree programs.
Journal o f Distance Education, 7 (1), 39-51.
Giles, F. (1983, March). The effects o f doctoral study on marriage and family: An
ethnographic study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
College Personnel Association, Houston, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction
241
Service No. ED 233 283)
Girves, J. E. & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree
-progress. Journal o f Higher Education, 59 (2), 163-189.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Glossary o f United States Educational Terminology. (2002). World Education Services,
New York. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from
http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US5/REF/glossarv.html
Golde, C. M. (1996). How departmental contextual factors shape doctoral student
attrition (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts
Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition.
In M. S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: An
exploration, pp. 55-64. New Directions fo r Higher Education, 101. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral
attrition process. The Review o f Higher Education, 23 (2), 199-227.
Golde, C. M. (2001). Overview o f doctoral education studies and reports: 1990-present.
Retrieved November 15, 2002, from http://www.camegiefoundation.org
Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences o f doctoral
students reveal about doctoral education. A report for The Pew Charitable
242
Trusts. Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved November 15, 2002, from http://www.phd-
survev.org
Gosmire, D. K. (1995). The analysis of distance leaming graduate program (interactivity)
(Doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 1995). Dissertation
Graduate Studies Bulletin 2000-2002. University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Office of
Publications and Photography.
Green, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation:
The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse programs. New Directions for
Evaluation (74), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Green, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 11 (3), 255-274.
Grissom, M. A. (1985). Attrition after successful completion of doctoral qualifying
examinations: An analysis of characteristics and attitudes of doctoral graduates
and non-graduates (Doctoral dissertation. University of North Texas, 1,985).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2580.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1982, Winter). Epistemological and methodological bases of
naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, T il-
252.
Gunn, C. S. & Sanford, T. R. (1988). Doctoral student retention. College and University,
63 (4), 374-382.
243
Hagedom, L. S. (1999). Factors related to the retention; Research, theory and practice of
female graduate students over 30. Journal o f College Student Retention, I (2), 99-
114.
Hales, K. S. (1998). The relationship between personality type, life events, and
completion of the doctorate degree (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University-Commerce, \99S). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 1077.
Ham, M. K. (2002). Students’ perceptions of Web-based distance leaming courses
(Doctoral dissertation. The University of Arizona, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts
Hanson, W.E., Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., & Petska, K. S. (2004). Mixed
methods research in counseling psychology. (Accepted with revisions at Journal
Counseling Psychology)
Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual
amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new
environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Hart, G., & Mason, J. (1999). Computer-facilitated communications in transition. In: C.
M. Feyten, & J. W. Nutta (Eds.), Virtual instruction. Issues and insights from an
international perspective (pp. 147-171). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited,
Inc.
Hatch, J. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, New York:
244
State University of New York Press.
Haworth, J. G. (1996). Assessment in graduate and professional education: Present
realities, future prospects. In J. G. Haworth (Ed.), Assessing graduate and
professional education: Current realities, future prospects, pp. 89-97. New
Directions fo r Institutional Research, 92. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Hezel, R., & Dirr, P. (1991). Understanding television-based distance education:
Identifying barriers to university attendance. Research in Distance Education, 3
(1), 2-5.
Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative leaming in asynchronous leaming networks: Building
leaming communities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 705)
Hite, L. M. (1985). Female doctoral students: Their perceptions and concems. Journal o f
College Student Personnel, 26, 18-22.
Holmberg, B. (1995). Theory and practice o f distance education. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hossler, D. (1984). Enrollment management. New York, NY: College Entrance
Examination Board.
Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas
diohaxd. Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16.
Huston, J. L. (1997). Factors of success for adult leamers in an interactive compressed
video distance leaming environment (Doctoral dissertation. University of
Kentucky, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 1199.
245
IBM Lotus Notes. (2002). Lotus Notes Learning Space. Retrieved December 4, 2002,
from http://www.lotus.com/products/leamspace.nsf/wdocs/homepage
Institutional Review Board. (2001). Institutional Review Board Protocol. Retrieved
November 30, 2001, from http://www.unl.edu/research/ReComp/IRB/irbtoc.htm
Isaac, P. D. (1993). Measuring graduate student retention. In L. Baird (Ed.), Increasing
graduate student retention and degree attainment, pp. 13-25. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection
of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and
evaluation o f studies in education and the behavioral sciences (2"‘^ ed.). San
Diego, CA: EdITS.
Ivankova, N. (2004, April). Using a mixed methods sequential explanatory design to
study doctoral students’persistence in the computer-mediated asynchronous
leaming environment. In J.W. Creswell (Chair), Alternative Mixed Methods
Designs. Symposium conducted at the American Educational Research
Association Annual Meeting, San-Diego, CA.
Ivankova, N., & Stick, S. (2003, April). Doctoral students ’persistence in the
asynchronous computer-mediated environment: Mixed methods study. Paper
presented at the 14 Intemational Conference on College Teaching and Leaming,
Jacksonville, Florida.
Ivankova, N. L, & Stick, S. L. (2002, April). Students ’persistence in the Distributed
Doctoral Program in Educational Administration: A mixed methods study. Paper
246
th
presented at the 13 Intemational Conference on College Teaching and Leaming,
Jacksonville, FL.
Ivankova, N., & Stick, S. (in press). Community-building in asynchronous computer-
mediated leaming environments. InternationalJournal o f Innovations in Higher
Education.
Ivankova, N., & Stick, S. (2003). Distance education doctoral students: Delineating
persistence variables through a comprehensive literature review. The Journal o f
College Orientation and Transition, 10 (2), 5-21.
Jacks, P., Chubin, D. E., Porter, A. L., & Connolly, T. (1983). The ABCs of ABDs: A
study of incomplete doctorates. Improving College and University Teaching,
31 (2), 74-81.
Jewell, E. J., & Abate, F. (Eds.) (2001). The New Oxford American Dictionary. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, E. M., Green, K. E., & Kluever, R. C. (2000). Psychometric characteristics of
the revised procrastination inventory. Research in Higher Education, 41 (2), 269-
279.
Kember, D. (1981, Sep). Some factors affecting attrition and performance in a distance
education course at the university of Papua and New Guinea. Distance Education,
2(2), 164-188.
Kember, D. (1989a). A longitudinal-process model of drop-out from distance education.
Journal o f Higher Education, 60 (3), 278-301.
Kember, D. (1989b). An illustration, with case-studies, of a linear process model of drop
247
out from distance education. Distance Education, 10(2), 196-211.
Kember, D. (1990). The use of a model to derive interventions which might reduce drop
out from distance education courses. Higher Education, 20, 11-24.
Kember, D. (1995). Open leaming courses for adults: A model of student progress.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Kember D., Lai, T., Murphy, D., Siaw, I., & Yuen, K. S., (1992). Student progress in
distance education: Identification of explanatory constmcts. British Journal o f
Educational Psychology, 62, 285-298.
Kember D., Lai, T., Murphy, D., Siaw, L, & Yuen, K. S., (1994). Student progress in
distance education courses: A replication study. Adult Education Quarterly, 45
(1), 286-301.
Kember D., Murphy, D., Siaw, I., & Yuen, K. S., (1991). Towards a causal model of
student progress in distance education. American Journal o f Distance Education,
5 (2), 3-15.
Kermedy, D., & Powell, R. (1976). Student progress and withdrawal in the Open
University. Teaching at a Distance, 7, 61-75.
Kerlin, S. P. (1995). Pursuit of the Ph.D.: "Survival of the fittest," or is it time for a new
approach? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3 (16), Retrieved November 3,
2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n 16 .html
Kim, J.O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical
issues. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (14). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
248
King, B., Sewart, D., & Gough, J. E. (1980). Support systems in distance education.
Open Campus, 3, 13-38.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice o f structural equation modeling. NY:
Guilford.
Kluever, R. C. (1997, March). Dissertation completers and non-completers: An analysis
o f psycho-social variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IE. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Kluever, R. C., & Green, K. E. (1998, June). The Responsibility Scale: A research note
on dissertation completion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58 (3),
520-531.
Kovel-Jarboe, P. (1997, Fall). From the margin to the mainstream : State level policy and
planning for distance education. New Directions fo r Community Colleges, 99.
Kowalik, T. F. (1989). What do we know about doctoral student persistence. Innovative
Higher Education, 12 (2), 163-171.
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic
research. Ethnographer’s Toolkit, 1. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Lees, K. A. (1996). Understanding how female doctoral students’ interactions with their
chairpersons during the dissertation process affect doctoral persistence (women
students) (Doctoral dissertation. University of Northem Colorado, 1996).
Lenz, K. S. (1997, Fall). Nontraditional-aged women and the dissertation: A case study
249
approach. New Directions fo r Higher Education, 25 (3), 65-74.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2000). Proposals that work: A guide
fo r planning dissertations and grant proposals (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences o f
departure from doctoral study. New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Lovitts, & Nelson, C. (2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from
Ph.D. programs. Academe, 86 (6), 44-50.
Lu, Y. (2003). Different perceptions on AIDS among Beijing residents o f China: A mixed
methods approach. Dissertation proposal. Unpublished manuscript.
Mah, D. M. (1986). The process of doctoral candidate attrition: A study of the ABD
phenomenon (Doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, 1986).
Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences:
The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of
formalism. In: A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook on mixed methods
in the behavioral and social sciences, pp. 51-89. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
McCabe-Martinez, M. C. (1996). A study of perceptions of factors that enhanced and
impeded progress toward the completion of the doctoral degree in education for
250
Hispanic students employed in the public school systems (Doctoral dissertation,
Boston College, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 2900.
McMillan, J. H. (2000). Educational research: Fundamentals fo r the consumer (3'^'^ ed.).
New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1994). Research in education: A conceptual
introduction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:
Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The
transformative-emancipatory perspective. In: A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences, pp. 135-164.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods:
Practical application and interpretation ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak
Publishing.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook (2"‘*
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, D. (2000, Fall). Qualitative Research Course Packet. University of Nebraska -
Lincoln.
Mitchell-Keman, C. (1998). Is attrition important, and why? Key note address to
251
Workshop on Graduate Student Attrition, National Science Foundation, Division
of Science Resources Studies. Arlington, VA.
Moghaddam F. M., Walker, B. R., & Harre, R. (2003). Cultural distance, levels of
abstraction, and the advantages of mixed methods. In: A. Tashakkori & C.
Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social
sciences, pp. 51-89. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Effects o f distance learning: A summary o f the literature. Report
prepared for the Office o f Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.
Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view.
Belmont. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education
student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), 96-108.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation.
Nursing Research, 40, 120-123.
Murrell, J. P. (1987). A study of barriers perceived as having impact on degree attainment
by doctoral students (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1987).
Muszynski, S. Y. (1988). The relationship between demographic/situational factors,
cognitive/affective variables, and needs and time to completion of the doctoral
program in psychology (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1988).
252
NAGPS Survey Team, (2001). National Doctoral Program Survey. Retrieved October
23, 2002, from http://survey.nagps.org
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics), (2002). Digest o f Education Statistics,
2002. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of
Education. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/ch 3.asp# 1
NSF (National Science Foundation. Division of Science Resources Studies), (1998).
Summary o f workshop on graduate student attrition, NSF 99-314. Arlington, VA.
Nease, D. E., Ivankova, N. V., Klinkman, M. S., Aikens, J. E., Creswell, J. W., & Kelly,
K. M. (2004). Integrating a depression monitoring form into primary care: A
qualitative case analysis. Manuscript in preparation.
Nerad, M., & Cemy, J. (1993). From facts to action: Expanding the graduate division’s
educational role. In L. Baird (Ed.), Increasing graduate student retention and
degree attainment, pp. 27-39. New Directions fo r Institutional Research, 80. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nerad, M., & Miller, D. S. (1996). Increasing student retention in graduate and
professional programs. In J. G. Haworth (Ed.), Assessing graduate and
professional education: Current realities, future prospects, pp. 61-76. New
Directions fo r Institutional Research, 92. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Nolan, R. E. (1999). Helping the doctoral student navigate the maze from beginning to
end. Journal o f Continuing Higher Education, 48 (3), 27-32.
253
Office o f Technology Assessment. (1989). Linking fo r learning: A new course for
education. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.
On-Line Graduate Degrees in Higher Education. (2002). Retrieved October 1, 2002,
from http://hou-edadone.unl.edu
Overview: Reliability and validity. (2001). Retrieved July 10, 2001, from
http ://writin g. colostate.edu/references/research/relval/index.htm
Parker, A. (1999). A study of variables that predict dropout from distance education.
Lnternational Journal o f Educational Technology, 1 (2). Retrieved June 23, 2002,
from http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/iiet/v 1n2/parker/index.html
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working
with online learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Patterson, N. J. H. (2002). Lnteraction in face-to-face and asynchronous groupware
experiences: A collective case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Pinson, C. G. (1997). Academic speed humps: Time to completion of the dissertation
(retention) (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3386.
Powell, R., Conway, C., & Ross, L. (1990). Effects of student predisposing
characteristics on student success. Journal o f Distance Education, 5 (1), 5-19.
Powers, S. M., & Mitchell, J. (1997). Student perceptions and performance in a virtual
254
classroom environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Presley, C. L. (1995). Individual and institutional factors that affect the success of
African-American graduate and professional school students (Doctoral
dissertation. University of Michigan, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International,
56, 2971.
Quintana, Y. (1996). Evaluating the value and effectiveness o f Internet-based learning.
Retrieved July 25,2001 from:
http://www.isoc.org/inet96/proceedings/cI/cI_4.htm
Reamer, S. B. (1990). Persistence of adult leamers in an extemal degree program
(Doctoral dissertation. The Fielding Institute, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts
Rekkedal, T. (1972). Correspondence studies - recmitment, achievement, and
discontinuation. Epistolodidaktika, 2, 3-38.
Reynolds, K. A. (1998). Factors related to graduation of doctoral students in the higher
education program at Southem Illinois University - Carbondale (Southem Illinois
University at Carbondale) (Doctoral dissertation, Southem Illinois University at
Carbondale, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 0673.
Riedling, A. M. (1996). An exploratory study: Distance education doctoral students in the
field of educational policy studies and evaluation at the University of Kentucky
255
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts
Roberts, D., Boyton, B., Buete, S. & Dawson, D. (1991). Applying Kember’s linear-
process model to distance education at Charles Sturt University-Riverina.
Distance Education, 12 (1), 54-84.
Robinson, R. (1992). Andragogy applied to the Open College learner. Research in
Distance Education, 4 (1), 10-13.
Ross, L., & Powell, R. (1990). Relationships between gender and success in distance
education courses: A preliminary investigation. Research in Distance Education,
2 ( 2), 10- 11.
Rumble, G. (1992). The management o f distance learning systems. Paris: UNESCO:
Intemational Institute for Educational Planning.
Schutze, H. G. (1986). Adults in higher education: Lowering the barriers by teaching and
leaming at a distance. In G. van Enckevort, K. Harry, P. Morin, & H. G. Schutze
(Eds.), Innovations in distance education: Occasional papers o f the Dutch Open
university, 1, pp. 21-39. Heerlen, the Netherlands: Open universities.
Scott-Fredericks, G. L. (1997). The graduate student experience in computer-mediated
classes: A grounded theory study (Lotus Notes, distance education) (Doctoral
dissertation. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts
Seagren, A., & Stick, S. (1999, June). Enhancing quality through distributed education.
Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (10), 793-794.
256
Seagren, A. & Watwood, B. (1996). The virtual classroom; Great expeetations.
Delivering graduate education by computer: A success story. In: The Olympics of
leadership: Overcoming obstacles, balancing skills, taking risks. Proceedings o f
the Annual International Conference o f the National Community College Chair
Academy. University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Seagren, A. & Watwood, B. (1997). The virtual classroom: What works? In: Walking the
Tightrope: The Balance between innovation and leadership. Proceedings o f the
Annual International Conference o f the Chair Academy. University of Nebraska -
Lineoln.
Siegfiied, J. J., & Stock, W. A. (2001, Spr). So you want to earn a Ph.D. in economics?
How long do you think it will take? Journal o f Human Resources, 36 (2), 364-
378.
Sigafus, B. M. (1996). The complexities of professional life: Experiences of adult
students pursuing a distance leaming doctoral program in educational
administration (Doctoral dissertation. University of Kentucky, 1996). Dissertation
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and learning
at a distance: Foundations o f distance education. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Ine.
Simpson, O. (2000). Supporting students in open and distance learning. London, UK:
Kogan Page Limited.
Skudlarek, L. J. (1992). An examination of selected variables associated with completion
257
of requirements for a doctorate in education (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Texas at Austin, \992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1386.
Souder, W. E. (1993). The effectiveness of traditional vs. satellite delivery in three
Management of Technology Master’s Degree programs. The American Journal o f
Distance Education, 7(1), 37-53.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art o f case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics fo r the social sciences (2”‘*
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stick, S. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (in press). Virtual leaming: The success of a world-wide
asynchronous program of distributed doctoral studies. International Journal o f
Innovations in Higher Education.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY:
Allyn & Bacon.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 46. Thousand
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook on mixed methods in the
behavioral and social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
The American Historical Association. (2002). Preliminary results o f the ANA survey o f
doctoral programs in history. Retrieved on August 15, 2003, from
http://www.theaha.org/proiects/grad-survev/Preliminarv4.htm
Thomdike, R. M. (1997). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (6*'’
258
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Thompson, G. (1984). The cognitive style of filed-dependence as an explanatory
construct in distance education drop-out. Distance Education, 5, 286-293.
Thompson, M. M. (1998). Distance learners in higher education. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.),
Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses fo r quality
outcomes (pp. 11-23). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education; A theoretical sjmthesis of recent
research. Review o f Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures o f student attrition
(U‘ ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures o f student attrition
(2"^* ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review o f Higher Education, 21 (2), 167-177.
Valentine, N. L. (1986). Factors related to attrition from doctor of education programs in
the college of human recourses and education at West Virginia University
(Nongraduates, dropouts, students) (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia
Verduin, J. R., Jr., & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations o f
effective practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Voorhees, R. A. (1987). Toward building models of community college persistence: A
logic analysis. Research in Higher Education, 26(2), 115-129.
259
Wagner, D. V. (1986). Selected personality characteristics and situational factors as
correlates of completion and non-completion of the doctoral dissertation
(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1986). Dissertation
Wolford, L. H. (2001). Graduate students’ attitudes and associated variables and their
relationships to college level online course performance (Doctoral dissertation.
North Carolina State University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62,
3319.
Woodley, A., & Parlett, M. (1983). Student drop-out. Teaching at a Distance, 24, 2-23.
Web Based Learning Resources Library. (2002). Retrieved October 24, 2002,
from http://www.knowledgeabilitv.biz/webleaming/
Whatis?com (2002). Retrieved October 24, 2002, from
http://whatis.techtarget.com/whome/0„sid9.00.html
Wilkinson, C. E. (2002). A study to determine the predictors of success in a distance
education doctoral program (Doctoral dissertation. Nova Southeastern
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3‘*ed.). Thousand
Appendix A
Institutional Research Board Approvals
A-1: Institutional Research Board Approval for the Quantitative Phase
A-2: Institutional Research Board Approval for the Qualitative Phase
Lincoln
RESEARCH C O M PLIA N C E SERVICES
M arch 21, 20 0 3 Institutional Review Board
Ms. Nataliya Ivankova

Dr. Sheldon Stick
Ed Admin
213 H enzlik 0356
IIL B #: 2 0 0 3 -0 2 -1 6 5 EP
TITLE OF PROPOSAL: Stu dents' P ersistence in the U n iversity o f N eb rask a-L in coln D istrib u ted -D octoral
Pi ograni in E d u cation al A d m in istration: A M ixed M eth o d s S tu d y
Dear M s. Ivankova:
This letter is to officially notify you o f the approval o f your project by the Institutional R eview Board (IR B) for the
Protection o f Human Subjects. It is the Board’s opinion that you have provided adequate safeguards for the rights
and welfare o f the participants in this study. Your proposal seem s to be in com pliance with this institution’s Federal
W ide Assurance 00002258 and the D H H S Regulations for the Protection o f Human Subjects (45 CFR 46).
Date o f EP R eview 3/3/03
You are authorized to implement this study as o f the Date o f Final Approval: 3/21/03.
This approval is Valid U ntil: 3/21/04.
1. E nclosed is the IRB approved Infoim ed Consent form for this project. P lease use this form when making
copies to distribute to your participants. I f it is necessary to create a new inform ed consent form, please
send us your original so that we may approve and stamp it before it is distributed to participants.
2. P lease submit the interview protocol as a Request for Change in Protocol before you begm the second
phase o f the study.
W e w ish to remind you that the principal investigator is responsible for keeping this Board informed o f any changes
involved with the procedures or m ethodology in this study. Y ou should report any imanticipated problems involving
risks to the pailicipants or others to the Board. For projects wliich continue beyond one year from the starting date,
the IRB w ill request continuing review and update o f the research project. Your study w ill be due for continuing
review as indicated above. The investigator must also advise the Board when this study is finished or discontinued
by com pleting the enclosed Protocol Final Report fom i and returning it to the Institutional R eview Board.
I f you have any questions, please contact Shirley Horstman, Research Compliance Coordinator, at
472-9417.
Sincerely, v
Marcela Raffaelli, Chair

f o r th e IRB
cc: F acu lty A dvisor

Unit R eview Committee
103 W h ittier Building / 2 2 5 5 'W 'S tr e e t / P.O. Box 8 3 0 8 4 9 / Lincoln, NE 6 8 5 8 3 -0 8 4 9 / ( 4 0 2 )4 7 2 -6 9 6 5 / FAX (402 ) 4 7 2 -9 3 2 3
Lincoln
RESEARCH C O M PLIA N CE SERVICES
In stitu tion al R eview B oard
October 24, 2003
Ms. Nataliya Ivankova

Dr. Sheldon Stick
Educational Administration
213 Henzlik 0356
TER # 2003-02-165 EP
TITLE OF PROPOSAL: Students’ Persistence in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln

D is t r ib u te d D o c to r a l P r o g r a m in E d u c a tio n a l
Administration; A Mixed Methods Study
Dear Ms. Ivankova:
The Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects has completed its review of
the Request for Change in Protocol submitted to the IRB.
1. The interview protocol for the second phase o f your study has been approved.
This letter constitutes official notification o f the approval of the protocol change. You are
therefore authorized to implement this change accordingly.
If you have any questions, please contact Shirley Horstman, IRB Administrator, at 472-9417 or
email shorstman 1@unl.edu.
Sincerely,
s.
SAfJcutt'
Marcela Raffaelli, Cllair Shirley Horstman
for the IRB IRB Administrator
cc: Faculty Advisor
103 W h ittier Building / 2 2 5 5 'W 'S tr e e t / P.O. Box 8 3 0 8 4 9 / Lincoln, NE 6 8 5 8 3 -0 8 4 9 / (4 0 2 )4 7 2 -6 9 6 5 / FAX (402) 4 7 2 -9 3 2 3
Appendix B
Informed Consent Forms
B-1: Informed Consent Form for Survey
B-2: Informed Consent Form for Individual Interviews
I R B # 2 0 0 3 - 0 2 - 1 6 5 EP
Lincoln
DEPARTM ENT O F ED UC A TIO NA L ADM IN ISTR A TIO N
Informed Consent Form

(Survey Questionnaire)
I am conducting a study o f students’ persistence in the University o f Nebraska - Lincoln

Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Administration. This study will identify factors
contributing to and/or impeding doctoral students’ persistence in the distance learning environment.
This information is very important given a high dropout rate of students from distance education
and the fact increasing numbers of postsecondary institutions offer advanced-degree distributed
programs. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study, as your input will help me
understand what it is like to pursue a doctoral degree via distributed means. The results o f the study
will help to further improve the quality o f the UNL Educational Administration Distributed
Doctoral Program and better meet the needs of distance learners.
Please complete this web survey. It should take about fifteen minutes. There are six sections,
covering twenty-four questions, and an open-ended final question, asking for additional
information. The sixth section asks for the demographic information and includes questions related
to your age, gender, Nebraska residency and employment status, academic degrees earned and
family structure. Four individuals will be asked to participate in follow up interviews based on the
statistical results from the survey analysis. You are free to decide not to participate in this study or
to withdraw at any time without adversely affecting your relationship with the investigator or the
University o f Nebraska. Your decision will not result in any loss o f benefits to which you are
otherwise entitled, and your responses will not affect your standing with the program.
There are no known risks or discomforts associated with this research. The anonymity will
be protected by numerically coding completed questionnaires and your responses will be
confidential. Your responses will be combined with all the others and only group responses will be
reported. All data will be held in a locked metal file cabinet in the researcher’s office, and will be
destroyed two years after the end o f the study. It is anticipated that the results will be shared in
professional meetings and journals.
You may ask questions about this study and have those questions answered before agreeing
to participate or anytime during the study by contacting Nataliya Ivankova, the principal
investigator, telephone (402) 472-9108, or David Brooks, telephone (402) 472-2018. If you have
any questions about your rights as a research participant that have not been answered by the
investigator or to report any concerns about the study, you may contact the University o f Nebraska
- Lincoln Institutional Review Board, telephone (402) 472-6965 and refer to IRB#___________.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I agree to complete this survey.
141 T each ers C ollege Hall / P.O. Box 8 8 0 3 6 0 / Lincoln, NE 6 8 5 8 8 -0 3 6 0 / (4 0 2 )4 7 2 -3 7 2 6 / FAX (402) 4 7 2 -4 3 0 0
I R B # 2 0 0 3 - 0 2 - 1 6 5 EP
Lincoln
DEPARTM ENT OF ED UC A TIO NA L ADM IN ISTR A TIO N
Informed Consent Form
(Individual Interview)
I am conducting a study o f students’ persistence in the University o f Nebraska -

Lincoln Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Administration. This study will
identify factors contributing to and/or impeding doctoral students’ persistence in the
distance learning environment. This information is very important given a high dropout
rate o f students from distance education and the fact increasing numbers o f postsecondary
institutions offer advanced-degree distributed programs. You have been selected as a
possible participant in this study, as your input will help me understand what it is like to
pursue a doctoral degree via distributed means. The results of the study will help to
further improve the quality of the UNL Educational Administration Distributed Doctoral
Program and better meet the needs of distance learners.
I am asking you to participate in the telephone interview. The interview will last
approximately 45 minutes and will be conducted at the time most convenient for you.
The interview will be audiotape recorded. You are free to decide not to participate in this
study or to withdraw at any time without adversely affecting your relationship with the
investigator or the University o f Nebraska. Your decision will not result in any loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled, and your responses will not affect your
standing with the program.
There are no known risks or discomforts associated with this research. The
audiotapes will be only used for data collection and analysis. Your responses will be
confidential. To protect confidentiality, you will be assigned fictitious name for use in
description and reporting the results. All data, including the audiotapes, will be held in a
locked metal file cabinet in the researcher’s office, and will be destroyed two years after
the end of the study. Your name will not appear in any o f the data, audiotapes, or
transcripts. In any publication based on the study, all potentially identifying information
will be omitted or changed.
You may ask questions about this study and have those questions answered before
agreeing to participate or anytime during the study by contacting Nataliya Ivankova, the
principal investigator, telephone (402) 472-9108, or David Brooks, telephone (402) 472-
2018. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant that have not
been answered by the investigator or to report any concerns about the study, you may
contact the University o f Nebraska - Lincoln Institutional Review Board, telephone (402)
472-6965 and refer to IRB#__________ .
Please write your initials to indicate that you have read this page _______ __
and proceed to the next page.
141 T each ers C ollege Hall / P.O. Box 8 8 0 3 6 0 / Lincoln, NE 6 8 5 8 8 -0 3 6 0 / (4 0 2 )4 7 2 -3 7 2 6 / FAX (402) 4 7 2 -4 3 0 0
IR B # 2 0 0 3 -0 2 -1 6 5 EP
Please, return the signed copy of the informed consent form in the attached
stamped envelop to the address provided. Keep the second copy of the consent
information for your records.
Participant’s signature_________________ Date____________
Nataliya V. Iv^ôva, Primary Investigator. 402-472-9108
David W. Brooks, Third Investigator. 402-472-2018
Appendix C
UNL Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education
Student Survey
UNL DISTRIBUTED DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN
HIGHER EDUCATION (ELHE-DE) STUDENT SURVEY
Section I. ELHE-DE Program
Ql. When did you take your first class in the ELHE-DE program?
O Semester____________ O Year_____
Q2. When were you admitted into the ELHE-DE program?
O Semester____________ O Year_____
Q3. What is your current status in the ELHE-DE program?
O Admitted (year)______
O Graduated with doctorate degree (year) _ _ _ _ _
O Withdrawn from the program (year)______
Q4. How many credit hours did you complete in the ELHE-DE program?
0 3 -9 0 31 -45 O More than 61
O 10-30 O 4 6 -6 0 O Graduated
Q5. How many online courses have you taken in the ELHE-DE program?
O 1 O 3-4 O more than 6

0 2 O 5-6 O none
I f you were graduatedfrom the program, please proceed to Question 10.
Q6. Have you successfully passed the comprehensive examination in the ELHE-DE program?
O Yes O No O Not applicable
I f you are enrolled in the program, please proceed to Question 9.
Q 7. A t w h a t stage d id y o u w ith d ra w fro m th e program ?
O Taking classes
O Working on the dissertation proposal
O Preparing for the comprehensive examination
O Working on the dissertation
Q8. If you withdrew from the ELHE-DE program, please mark all factors listed below
influencing your decision to not continue.
O Program quality O Lack of adequate computer equipment

O Program offerings O Lack of adequate technological skills
O Cost O Inadequate technology support
O Admissions problems 0 Intemet access
O Registration problems 0 Employment opportunities
0 Online learning environment 0 Work schedule
O Class design O Family schedule
O Academic workload O Health problems
O Instructor(s) O Personal problems
O Quality of advising O Other (please specify)
Please proceed to Question 11.
Q9. What stage are you currently in the program? (Choose all that apply)
O Taking classes
O Preparing for the comprehensive examination
O Writing the dissertation proposal
O Submitting the proposal to the dissertation committee
O Doing the pilot study for the dissertation study
O Collecting the data for the dissertation study
O Analyzing the data for the dissertation study
O Writing a preliminary draft of the entire dissertation study
O Writing the final draft of the dissertation study
O Preparing for the oral defense
QIO. What factors are or were important in your decision to persist in the ELHE-DE program?
(Choose all that apply.)
O Work schedule O Program quality O Online learning environment

O Family schedule O Program offerings O
O Convenience O Program prestige O
O Flexibility O Advisor O
O Cost O Career advancement O
Q ll. What was or has been your biggest barrier as a distance learner? (Please explain).
Q12. Please rate support from the following sources related to the ELHE-DE program.
(Please use the scale belowfrom one through seven, with “1 ” indicating not important and “7 ”
indicating very important.)
Not Neutral Very N/A
important important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Technology assistance O o o O o o 0 O
Advising O o o O o o O O
Mentoring o o o o o o o o
Instructional support o o o o o o o o
Registration o o o o o o o o
Financial Aid o 0 o o o o o o
Library 0 o o o o o o o
Bookstore o o o o o o o o
Family and friend support o 0 o o o o o o
Employer support o o o o o o o o
Fellow-student support o o o o o o o o
Q13. What are or were your experiences in the ELHE-DE program? (Please use the scale below
from one through seven, with “1" indicating you strongly disagree with the statement and "1”
indicating you strongly agree.)
Strongly Unsure Strongly
agree disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. My expectations of the program were met. o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o
my career plans.
c. My program of studies has been tailored to o o o o o o o

my interests and needs.
o o o o o o o
advisor, faculty, and fellow-students during
summer sessions is a useful component of
the program.
e. Academically, online courses were more o o o o o o o

challenging.
f. My involvement in online courses was a o o o o o o o

positive experience.
g. I have developed good research skills. o o o o o o o

h. I feel isolated studying in virtual classroom. o o 0 o o o o
i. An online learning environment provides 0 O o o o o o
favorable conditions for creating teaming
communities.
j- My fellow-students helped create a O O 0 o o o o

supportive learning environment.
k. I experienced a sense of community in the O O 0 o 0 o o

program.
1. It is difficult to establish long-term social 0 0 0 0 o o o

relationships with fellow-students in the
online teaming environment.
m. Instmctors actively engaged me in class O O o o o o o

activities.
n. Instmctors were easily accessible through 0 O 0 o 0 o o

courses via e-mail, and/or by phone.
0. I received prompt feedback and help from O O 0 o o o o

instmctors when I needed it.
P- Instmctors gave me regular feedback on the 0 O 0 o o o o

quality of my course work.
q- The instmctors were or are willing to O O 0 o o o o

accommodate the course requirements to
my needs.
r. The faculty in the program cared about me O O o o o o o

as individual.
s. I received computer assistance and O o 0 o o o o

technology help when I needed it.
t. I promptly received course materials. O o 0 o o o o

u. Course textbooks were easy to obtain. 0 o o 0 o o o
V. The registration process is or was O o 0 o o o o
convenient, efficient, and responsive.
w. I have or had access to UNL library services. O o o o o o o

X. The admission process into UNL Graduate O o 0 o o o o
College was easy.
y- The admission process into the ELHE-DE O o 0 o o o o

program was easy.
Section II. Online Learning Environment
Q14. Please indicate how comfortable you are or were with the following components of the
online learning environment. (Please use the scale belowfrom one through seven, with "I ”
indicating you are very uncomfortable and “7” indicating you are very comfortable.)
Very Neither/Nor Very N/A

comfortable uncomfortable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a. Learning in the online environment. O o 0 0 o o 0 o

b. My computer technical skills. O o 0 0 o o 0 0
c. Using course software (Lotus Notes). O o o 0 o o o o

d. Using course software (Blackboard). O o o 0 o o o o
e. Academic workload associated with o o o o o o o o
studying online.
f. Participation in online discussions. o o o 0 o o o o

g- Understanding course concepts o o o 0 o o 0 o
through online interactions with
classmates and instructors.
h. Interacting with academic advisor. o o o o o o o o

i. Interacting with dissertation o o o o o o o o
committee members.
j- Learning effectively in the online o o o 0 o o o o

environment as compared to
face-to-face classroom.
Section III. Advising
Q15. How did or do you rate your experiences with your academic advisor? (Please use the scale
belowfrom one through seven, with “1 ” indicating extremely negative and “7” indicating
extremely positive.)
Extremely Neutral Extremely

negative positive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. Relationships with my academic advisor. O O o o o o o

b. Accessibility to my academic advisor. O O 0 o o o o
c. The amount of interactions with my O o 0 o o o o
academic advisor.
d. The quality of interactions with my 0 0 0 o o 0 o

academic advisor.
e. Feedback on my progress in the program O o o o o o o

from my academic advisor.
f. Assistance with my dissertation study O o 0 o o 0 o

proposal.
g- Assistance with my dissertation study. O o o o o o o

h. Responsiveness to my needs. O o 0 o o o o
i. Advising while in the program. O o 0 o o o o
j- Encouragement while in the program. O o o o o o o
k. Counseling while in the program. O o o o 0 o o
1. Mentoring while in the program. O o 0 o o o o
m. Guidance while in the program. O o o o o o o
Section IV. Self-Motivation
Ql 6. How motivated are you to pursue doctoral degree via distributed means? (Please use the
scale belowfrom one through five, with “1 ” indicating you strongly disagree with the statement
and “7”indicating you strongly agree.)
Strongly Unsure Strongly
disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. I am motivated to pursue the degree via o 0 0 0 o 0 o

distance education.
b. I feel responsible for my own learning. o o 0 o o O o

c. I have a strong feeling of self-efficacy. o o o o o O o
d. I have developed self-discipline to study o o 0 o o o o
via distance education.
e. I can balance family and studies. o o o o o o o

f. I can balance job and studies. o o o o o o o
g. I can manage my study time well. o o 0 0 o o o
Section V. External Factors
Q17. Please indicate how the following selected external factors have influenced your progress
in the program? (Please use the scale belowfrom one through five, with “I ” indicating you
strongly disagree with the statement and “7” indicating you strongly agree.)
Strongly Unsure Strongly N/A

disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a. I had or have favorable family conditions O O O O O O O
to support my efforts to pursue the degree
in the online learning environment.
b. My spouse or “significant other” was or O O O O O O O

has become annoyed because I spent so
much time studying.
c. My duties about the house have distracted O O O O O O O O

me from my studies.
d. My friends encouraged me in my study O O O O O O O O
efforts.
e. My employer did or has encouraged m e t o O O O O O O O O

pursue the doctoral degree.
f. My job responsibilities were or are too O O O O O O O O

pressing to continue with my studies in the
program.
g. My colleagues have or are providing a O O O O O O O O

supportive environment at work.
h. My work schedule did or does not interfere O O O O O O O O

with my studies in the program.
i. Financial issues were or are an obstacle O O O O O O O O

to my studies in the program.
j. I could or can afford not to be employed O O O O O O O O

full time to be able to study in the program.
k. It is easier to afford studying online as O O O O O O O O

opposed to studying on-campus.
Section VI. Demographics
Q18. What is your age?
O Under25 O 2 6 -3 5 O 36-45 O 4 6 -5 4 O Over55
Q19. Please indicateyour gender.
O Male O Female
Q20. What was your employment status when you were enrolled in the program?
O Full-time O Part-time O Unemployed
Q21. Which best describes your Nebraska residency status when you were enrolled in the
program?
O In-state O Out-of-state O International
Q22. Please indicate all the degrees earned. (Circle all that apply.)
O Associate (year) O Bachelor (year)___
O Master’s (year) O Doctoral (year)__________
Q23. Which best describes your family structure when you were enrolled in the program?
O Married with children under 18

O Married with children over 18
O Single parent family with children under 18
O Single person, never married
O Single person, divorced or separated
O Single person, widowed
Q24. What additional information can you provide about your experiences in the UNL
Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Administration?
This concludes the survey. Thank you for your time and effort.
Appendix D
Participant Recruitment Letters
D-1: Open Letter to All Distributed Doctoral Students
D-2: Recruitment Email to Eligible Study Participants
D-3: Survey Reminder
D-4: Survey Final Reminder
D-5: Recruitment Email to the Case Study Participant
ELHE-DE STUDY RECRUITMENT LETTER D -1
Open Letter to All Distributed Doctoral Students
During the past several years you might have received one or more surveys from
either the Department of Educational Administration [Center for the Study of Higher and
Postsecondary Education] and/or the Division of Extended Education. Another request
for your participation might appear redundant, but we assure you the request being made
by this letter is important. The information you provide likely will have far-reaching
implications on what is made available via extended education: the nature of the
platforms used; the degree of support services sought; and the kind(s) of advising
provided to students.
The issue of student persistence in a program of graduate study is multi-faceted.

Students making commitments to seek further education by extended learning venues are
somewhat like pioneers. They know what it is they want to accomplish but are not always
certain about how to reach their objective. We know students have difficulties just getting
past the administrative parts [i.e., registering for a course, being admitted into the desired
Program of Graduate Studies, securing requisite texts, technology difficulties, balancing
personal demands with course expectations, working with an Academic Advisor, getting
courses as needed, etc.]
Oftentimes difficulties associated with an online environment can influence the

desire to continue learning to the extent a person decides to not continue in the program.
When a student decides to not persist in a Program of Graduate Studies, it can become a
loss for both the participant and the institution. We are trying to learn what factors most
influence student persistence and then consider possible adjustments to better
accommodate student needs.
The online survey you will receive next week likely will take only 15 minutes to
complete. It is not related to any prior survey requests you might have received, and has
been approved by the University of Nebraska’s Institutional Research Review Board. All
responses to the survey will be treated as aggregate information so anonymity of
respondents will be preserved. The survey is preceded by an informed consent form
explaining the survey and pointing out participation is voluntary. Certainly we hope you
will elect to respond. At any point, either prior to or even during your responding process,
it will be permissible to withdraw without ever having any adverse results.
Following the analysis of the survey results, four of you will be contacted for a
telephone follow-up interview. The interview will last approximately 45 minutes and will
be conducted at the time most convenient for you. The interview will be audiotape
recorded. The audiotapes will be only used for data collection and analysis. Your
responses will be confidential. To protect confidentiality, you will be assigned fictitious
name for use in description and reporting the results. All data, including the audiotapes,
will be held in a locked metal file cabinet in the researcher’s office, and will be destroyed
two years after the end of the study. Your name will not appear in any of the data.
audiotapes, or transcripts. In any publication based on the study, all potentially
identifying information will be omitted or changed.
If you have any questions about the material you will receive next week and the
study details feel free to contact one or more of the people indicated below, or the UNL
Institutional Research Review Board [402-472-6965].
Nataliya V. Ivankova David W. Brooks Larry L. Dlugosh

Principal Investigator Secondary Investigator Department Chair
402-472-9108 402-472-2018 402-472-0975
RECRUITMENT EMAIL TO ELIGIBLE STUDY PARTICIPANTS D-2
Dear [Name],
During the past several years you might have received one or more surveys from either
the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education and/or the Division of
Extended Education at UNL. Another request for your participation might appear
redundant, but we assure you the request being made by this letter is important. The
information you provide likely will have far-reaching implications.
We are conducting the study that will identify factors contributing to and/or impeding
doctoral students’ persistence in the distance learning environment. This information is
very important given a high dropout rate of students from distance education and the fact
increasing numbers o f postsecondary institutions offer advanced-degree distributed
programs. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study, as your input
will help us understand what it is like to pursue a doctoral degree via distributed means.
The results o f the study will help to further improve the quality of the UNL Distributed
Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education and better meet the
needs of distance learners.
Please complete this web survey. It should take about fifteen minutes. It is not related to
any prior survey requests you might have received, and has been approved by the
University of Nebraska’s Institutional Research Review Board. All responses to the
survey will be treated as aggregate information so anonymity of respondents will be
preserved. The survey is preceded by an informed consent form explaining the survey
and pointing out participation is voluntary. The survey can be accessed through the
following URL:
http ://tc.unl. edu/survevs/elhe
You will have to use a password to access the survey. The password is used to ensure that
no one outside the sample has access to the survey. Your responses are completely
confidential and cannot be tied to your password.
Your password is: XXXX
The survey will be available until April 15, 2003. Certainly we hope you will elect to
respond. Every fifth respondent will get a small “thank you” gift in the mail. At any
point, either prior to or even during your responding process, it will be permissible to
withdraw without ever having any adverse results. If you have any questions about this
letter, the survey, and the study details feel free to contact one or more of the people
indicated below, or the UNL Institutional Research Review Board [402-472-6965].
Nataliya V. Ivankova David W. Brooks Larry L. Dlugosh

Principal Investigator Secondary Investigator Department Chair
402-472-9108 402-472-2018 402-472-0975
SURVET REMINDER D-3
Dear [Name],
Last week you received a request to complete a doctoral student survey. This survey is a
part of my dissertation study and is aimed at identifying the factors, which contribute
and/or impede doctoral student persistence in the distance education environment.
If you haven’t had a chance to complete the survey, please choose to do so today. Your
input is very important and might help improve the program’s quality. Every fifth
respondent will get a small “thank you” gift in the mail. The survey can be accessed
through the following URL:
http ://tc.unl. edu/ survevs/elhe
You will have to use a password to access the survey. The password is used to ensure that
no one outside the sample has access to the survey. Your responses are completely
confidential.
If you have any questions about this letter, the survey, and the study details feel free to
call me at 402-472-9108 or email me at nivankov@unlserve.unl.edu, or contact the UNL
Institutional Research Review Board [402-472-6965].
Thank you,
Principal Investigator
SURVEY FINAL REMINDER D-4
Dear [Name],
Last week you received a request to complete a doctoral student survey. This
survey is a part o f my dissertation study and is aimed at identifying the
factors, which contribute and/or impede doctoral student persistence in the
distance education environment.
If you haven't had a chance to complete the survey, please choose to do so

today. Your input is very important and might help improve the program's
quality. Every fifth respondent will get a small thank you gift in the mail.
The survey can be accessed through the following URL:
http://tc.unl.edu/survevs/elhe
You will have to use a password to access the survey. The password is used
to ensure that no one outside the sample has access to the survey. Your
responses are completely confidential.
If you have any trouble accessing the survey, please try using an alternate
browser. We have found that the newer versions of Netscape and Intemet
Explorer work best with these types of web pages.
If you have any questions about the survey or the study details feel free to
call me at 402-472-9108 or email me at nivankov@unlserve.unl.edu, or contact
the UNL Institutional Research Review Board [402-472-6965].
Thank you,
Principal Investigator
RECRUITMENT EMAIL TO THE CASE STUDY PARTICIPANTS D-5
October 25, 2004
Address
Dear [Name];
I am conducting a study of students’ persistence in the University of Nebraska -

Lincoln Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education.
This study will identify factors contributing to and/or impeding students’ persistence in
the distance learning environment and help understand what it is like to pursue a doctoral
degree via distributed means. This is a mixed methods study, which involves two phases,
survey and individual interviewing.
Last spring you were asked to complete the UNL Distributed Doctoral Program in
Educational Leadership in Higher Education (ELHE-DE) student survey as a part of this
study. I appreciate your cooperation and want to let you know that I got interesting
results. But the numbers won’t tell much besides that they are statistically significant.
Now I need your insight to understand in more depth why certain factors have such an
impact on doctoral student persistence in distance education.
Based on the typical response approach, you have been selected as a possible
participant in the second qualitative part of the study. I am asking you to participate in a
few telephone interviews. Each interview will last approximately 45 minutes and will be
conducted at the time most convenient for you. The interview questions are enclosed. I
hope that you will choose to participate in the study as your input is very important.
Nataliya V. Ivankova,
Principal Investigator,
402-472-9108
Appendix E
Quantitative Tables
E-1: Missing Data for Selected Scale Items
E-2: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants
E-3; Descriptive Statistics for Internal Factors Scale by Group
Table 4.3 E-1
Missing Data fo r Selected Scale Items
Scale items Number Total Percent Total

of missing valid
14a. Learning in the online environment. 3 204 1.4 207
14b. My computer technical skills. 3 204 1.4 207
14e. Using course software (Lotus 4 203 1.9 207

Notes).
14d. Using course software (Blackboard). 59 148 28.5 207
14e. Academic workload associated with 4 203 1.9 207

studying online.
14f. Participation in online discussions. 6 201 2.9 207
14g. Understanding course concepts 4 203 1.9 207

through online interactions with
classmates and instructors.
14h. Interacting with academic advisor. 12 195 5.8 207
14i. Interacting with dissertation 90 117 43.0 207

committee members.
14j. Learning effectively in the online 7 200 3.4 207
environment as compared to face-to-face
classroom.
15a. Relationships with my academic 2 205 1.0 207
advisor.
15b. Accessibility to my academic 2 205 1.0 207
advisor.
15c. The amount of interactions with my 3 203 1.4 207
academic advisor.
15d. The quality o f interactions with my 2 205 1.0 207
academic advisor.
15e. Feedback on my progress in the 2 205 1.0 207
program from my academic advisor.
15f. Assistance with my dissertation 21 186 10.1 207
study proposal.
15g. Assistance with my dissertation 24 183 11.6 207
study.
15h. Responsiveness to my needs. 4 203 1.9 207
15i. Advising while in the program. 5 202 2.4 207
15j. Encouragement while in the 4 203 1.9 207

program.
15k. Counseling while in the program. 8 199 3.9 207
151. Mentoring while in the program. 9 198 4.3 207
15m. Guidance while in the program. 3 204 1.4 207
17a. I had or have favorable family 8 199 3.9 207

conditions to support my efforts to pursue
the degree in the online leaming
environment.
17b. My spouse or “significant other” 19 188 9.2 207
was or has become annoyed because I
spent so much time studying.
17c. My duties about the house have 6 201 2.9 207
distracted me from my studies.
17d. My friends encouraged me in my 20 187 9.7 207
study efforts.
17e. My employer did or has encouraged 18 189 8.7 207
me to pursue the doctoral degree.
17f. My job responsibilities were or are 23 184 11.1 207
too pressing to continue with my studies
in the program.
17g. My colleagues have or are providing 20 187 9.7 207
a supportive environment at work.
17h. My work schedule did or does not 15 192 7.2 207
interfere with my studies in the program.
17i. Financial issues were or are an 11 196 5.3 207
obstacle to my studies in the program.
17J. I could or can afford not to be 12 195 5.8 207
employed full time to be able to study in
the program.
17k. It is easier to afford studying online 31 176 15.0 207
as opposed to studying on-campus.
Table 4.7 E-2
Demographic Characteristics o f Survey Participants
Count Group 1: Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: Total

Row Pot Beginning Matriculated Graduated Withdrawn
Column Pet (n=78) (n=78) (n=26) /Inactive
Total (n-25)
Age
26-35 16 11 2 6 35
45.7 31.4 5.7 17.1 100.0
20.8 14.1 7.7 24.0 17.0
36-45 32 35 5 5 77
41.6 45.5 6.5 6.5 100.0
41.6 44.9 19.2 20.0 37.4
46-54 25 23 13 9 70
35.7 32.9 18.6 12.9 100.0
32.5 29.5 50.0 36.0 34.0
over 55 4 9 6 5 24
16.7 37.5 25.0 20.8 100.0
5.2 11.5 23.1 20.0 11.7
Total 77 78 26 25 206
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Gender
male 31 36 14 12 93
33.3 38.7 15.1 12.9 100.0
40.8 46.2 53.8 48.0 45.4
female 45 42 12 13 112
40.2 37.5 10.7 11.6 100.0
59.2 53.9 46.2 52.0 54.6
Total 76 78 26 25 205
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Employment
full-time 73 72 23 24 192
38.0 37.5 12.0 12.5 100.0
93.6 92.3 88.5 96.0 92.8
part-time 5 6 3 0 14
35.7 42.9 21.4 0 100.0
6.4 7.7 11.5 0 6.8
unemployed 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 100.0 100.0
0 0 0 4.0 0.5
Total 78 78 26 25 207
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
NE Residency
in-state 19 23 10 10 62
30.6 37.1 16.1 16.1 100.0
24.4 29.5 38.5 40.0 30.0
out-of-state 57 51 15 15 138
41.3 37.0 10.9 10.9 100.0
73.1 65.4 57.7 60.0 66.7
international 2 4 1 0 7
28.6 57.1 14.3 0 100.0
2.6 5.1 3.8 0 3.4
Total 78 78 26 25 207
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Family Status
Married with 47 44 15 14 120
kids under 18
39.2 36.7 12.5 11.7 100.0
62.7 57.1 60.0 58.3 59.7
Married with 15 19 5 4 43
kids over 18
34.9 44.2 11.6 9.3 100.0
20.0 24.7 20.0 16.7 21.4
Single with kids 4 3 0 2 9
under 18
44.4 33.3 0 22.2 100.0
5.3 3.9 0 8.3 4.5
Single, never 2 4 1 2 9
married
22.2 44.5 11.1 22.2 100.0
2.7 5.2 4.0 8.3 4.5
Single, divorced 6 2 3 1 12
or separated
50.0 16.7 25.0 8.3 100.0
8.0 2.6 12.0 4.2 6.0
Single person. 0 1 0 0 1
widowed
0 100.0 0 0 100.0
0 1.3 0 0 0.5
Married without 1 4 1 1 7
children
14.3 57.1 14.3 14.3 100.0
1.3 5.2 4.0 4.2 3.5
Total 75 77 25 24 201
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 4.8 E-3
Descriptive Statistics fo r Internal Factors Scale by Group
Positive Pet Group 1: Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: Total

Negative Pet Beginning Matricul. Graduated Withdrawn
Mean (n=78) (n=78) (n=26) /Inactive
Standard Deviation (n=25)
Total
My expectations of the 57.7 71.8 92.3 20.0 62.8

program were met. 3.8 1.3 - 20.0 4.3
5.58 5.90 6.58 4.04 5.64
1.39 1.18 .64 1.77 1.45
78 78 26 25 207
The program has been 75.6 82.0 68.5 12.0 72.0

relevant and useful to 5.1 1.3 3.8 24.0 4.3
my career plans. 5.95 6.21 6.42 3.88 5.86
1.15 .96 1.10 1.79 1.39
78 78 26 25 207
My program of studies 55.2 62.8 73.1 20.0 56.1

has been tailored to my 9.0 1.3 - 16.0 5.8
interests and needs. 5.28 5.78 6.15 4.04 5.43
1.56 1.21 .93 1.74 1.51
78 78 26 25 207
Coming to UNL campus 18.0 55.1 65.3 24.0 38.6

to interact with the 19.2 12.8 7.7 44.0 18.4
advisor, faculty, and 3.95 5.10 5.65 3.36 4.53
fellow-students during 1.66 2.02 1.83 2.36 2.05
summer sessions is a 78 78 26 25 207
useful component of the
program.
Academically, online 56.4 60.3 73.1 36.0 57.5

courses were more 2.6 3.8 3.8 24.0 5.8
challenging. 5.56 5.69 5.96 4.40 5.52
1.34 1.34 1.40 2.26 1.54
78 78 26 25 207
My involvement in 75.7 85.9 92.3 24.0 75.4

online courses was a 5.1 2.6 - 24.0 5.8
positive experience. 5.87 6.22 6.62 4.16 5.89
1.38 1.14 .64 1.99 1.48
78 78 26 25 207
I have developed good 47.5 70.5 80.8 24.0 57.5
research skills. 2.6 - - 24.0 3.9
5.29 5.83 6.35 4.04 5.48
1.35 1.01 .89 1.90 1.41
78 78 26 25 207
I feel isolated studying 51.3 51.2 80.7 40.0 53.6

in virtual classroom. 16.7 9.0 - 28.0 13.0
4.90 5.10 6.42 4.12 5.07
2.06 1.82 1.03 2.30 1.98
78 78 26 25 207
An online leaming 61.6 57.7 80.8 20.0 57.5

environment provides 2.6 3.8 - 28.0 5.8
favorable conditions for 5.56 5.59 6.08 4.00 5.45
creating leaming 1.27 1.36 1.09 1.89 1.47
communities. 78 78 26 25 207
My fellow-students 61.5 65.4 73.1 36.0 61.4

helped create a 5.1 1.3 - 16.0 4.3
supportive leaming 5.56 5.72 5.88 4.64 5.55
environment. 1.40 1.23 .95 1.82 1.39
78 78 26 25 207
I experienced a sense of 53.9 53.9 70.5 24.0 51.2

community in the 6.4 3.8 - 16.0 5.8
program. 5.31 5.37 5.77 4.32 5.27
1.51 1.44 .99 1.82 1.51
78 78 26 25 207
It is difficult to establish 15.4 16.7 34.6 28.0 19.8

long-term social 33.3 37.2 23.1 40.0 34.3
relationships with 3.42 3.55 4.38 3.64 3.62
fellow-students in the 1.68 1.86 2.0 2.08 1.84
online leaming 78 78 26 25 207
environment.
Instructors actively 38.5 44.8 65.4 32.0 43.5

engaged me in class 10.3 3.8 - 32.0 9.2
activities. 4.74 5.09 5.81 3.96 4.91
1.62 1.49 .90 2.15 1.64
78 78 26 25 207
Instructors were easily 64.1 69.2 84.6 36.0 65.3
accessible through 6.4 2.6 - 24.0 6.3
courses via e-mail, 5.54 5.79 6.08 4.40 5.57
and/or by phone. 1.47 1.41 .98 1.92 1.52
78 78 26 25 207
I received prompt 53.9 56.4 73.1 40.0 55.5

feedback and help from 10.3 6.4 - 28.0 9.7
instructors when I 5.21 5.40 5.88 4.36 5.26
needed it. 1.69 1.52 .95 2.16 1.65
78 78 26 25 207
Instructors gave me 26.9 29.5 42.3 24.0 29.5

regular feedback on the 21.8 17.9 - 36.0 19.3
quality of my course 4.22 4.31 5.08 3.60 4.29
work. 1.77 1.68 1.26 2.18 1.76
78 78 26 25 207
The instructors were or 51.3 42.3 50.0 12.0 43.0

are willing to 3.8 3.8 3.8 20.0 5.8
accommodate the course 5.26 5.10 5.38 3.88 5.05
requirements to my 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.48 1.44
needs. 78 78 26 25 207
The faculty in the 47.4 69.2 84.7 32.0 58.5

program cared about me 7.7 1.3 - 24.0 6.3
as individual. 5.13 5.85 6.12 3.96 5.38
1.61 1.23 .95 1.88 1.57
78 78 26 25 207
I received computer 52.6 71.8 57.7 56.0 60.9

assistance and 5.1 2.6 - 20.0 5.3
technology help when I 5.37 5.86 5.77 4.88 5.55
needed it. 1.45 1.34 1.18 2.15 1.51
78 78 26 25 207
I promptly received 73.0 69.2 53.9 56.0 67.1

course materials. 3.8 2.6 3.8 16.0 4.8
5.85 5.78 5.62 5.00 5.69
1.24 1.33 1.42 1.89 1.40
78 78 26 25 207
Course textbooks were 73.1 56.4 53.8 48.0 61.4
easy to obtain. 3.8 7.7 - 16.0 6.3
5.76 5.37 5.46 4.92 5.47
1.28 1.68 1.48 1.91 1.56
78 78 26 25 207
The registration process 80.0 75.7 61.6 60.0 73.9

is or was convenient, 2.6 2.6 3.8 8.0 3.4
efficient, and 6.15 6.00 5.69 5.48 5.96
responsive. 1.20 1.28 1.64 1.76 1.37
78 78 26 25 207
I have or had access to 47.4 70.5 80.8 44.0 59.9

UNL library services. 15.4 7.7 - 20.0 11.1
4.79 5.65 6.15 4.72 5.28
1.95 1.62 1.05 2.05 1.82
78 78 26 25 207
The admission process 51.3 51.3 46.2 48.0 50.2

into UNL Graduate 9.0 5.1 11.5 24.0 9.7
College was easy. 5.17 5.24 5.23 4.68 5.14
1.47 1.47 1.70 2.17 1.60
78 78 26 25 207
The admission process 46.7 53.9 53.8 44.0 50.8

into the ELHE-DE 9.0 2.6 3.8 24.0 7.7
program was easy. 5.14 5.42 5.65 4.64 5.25
1.44 1.35 1.29 2.16 1.51
78 78 26 25 207
Table 4.9
Descriptive Statistics fo r Online Learning Environment Scale by Group
Positive Pet Group 1: Group 2: Group 3; Group 4: Total

Total
Leaming in the online 84.6 90.9 96.2 47.8 84.3

environment. 2.6 - - 26.1 3.9
6.24 6.58 6.81 4.78 6.28
1.15 .82 .49 2.41 1.32
78 77 26 23 204
My computer technical 78.2 76.6 76.9 73.9 77.0

skills. 1.3 1.3 - 8.7 2.0
6.17 6.16 6.04 6.00 6.13
1.10 .97 1.43 1.81 1.19
78 77 26 23 204
Using course software 83.3 88.2 84.6 65.2 83.3

(Lotus Notes). 6.4 1.3 - 13.0 3.9
6.06 6.36 6.35 5.52 6.15
1.44 .98 .94 2.00 1.33
78 76 26 23 203
Using course software 76.8 74.2 50.0 66.7 72.3

(Blackboard). 3.6 3.0 14.3 8.3 4.7
6.00 6.05 5.14 5.92 5.93
1.40 1.25 1.88 1.88 1.44
56 66 14 12 148
Academic workload 51.3 73.7 76.9 56.5 63.5

associated with studying 9.0 - 3.8 17.4 5.9
online. 5.05 5.95 6.00 5.13 5.52
1.63 .98 1.10 1.89 1.45
78 76 26 23 203
Participation in online 68.8 81.3 100.0 39.1 74.1

discussions. 2.6 1.3 - 13.0 3.00
5.91 6.19 6.62 5.04 6.00
1.14 1.07 .50 1.80 1.21
77 75 26 23 201
Understanding course 82.1 85.5 96.2 56.5 82.3
concepts through online 2.6 2.6 - 21.7 4.4
interactions with 6.00 6.II 6.50 5.00 5.99
classmates and 1.17 1.15 .58 2.20 1.32
instructors. 78 76 26 23 203
Interacting with 56.6 73.0 91.2 36.8 64.1

academic advisor. 19.7 9.5 - 21.1 13.3
5.22 5.77 6.31 4.63 5.52
1.98 1.74 1.19 1.98 1.85
76 74 26 19 195
Interacting with 22.6 42.9 63.6 12.5 39.3

dissertation committee 22.6 10.7 4.6 50.0 15.4
members. 4.06 4.89 5.45 3.13 4.66
1.88 1.77 1.53 2.10 1.87
31 56 22 8 117
Leaming effectively in 77.0 80.8 92.3 47.8 77.0

the online environment 3.9 1.4 - 30.4 5.5
as compared to face-to- 5.99 6.18 6.58 4.48 5.96
face classroom. 1.43 1.12 .76 2.43 1.51
78 73 26 23 200
Table 4.10
Descriptive Statistics fo r Advising Scale by Group

Total
Relationships with my 55.1 73.1 84.6 30.4 62.9

academic advisor. 10.3 5.1 3.9 17.4 8.3
5.35 5.92 6.27 4.48 5.59
1.73 1.54 1.40 1.97 1.72
78 78 26 23 205
Accessibility to my 50.0 71.8 80.7 34.8 60.5

5.00 5.73 6.15 4.65 5.39
1.94 1.74 1.62 2.01 1.89
78 78 26 23 205
The amount of 38.4 55.2 80.8 31.8 49.5

interactions with my 20.5 11.5 7.7 22.7 15.7
1.88 1.79 1.64 2.06 1.91
78 78 26 22 204
The quality of 52.5 70.5 80.8 30.4 60.5

interactions with my 11.5 6.4 3.8 21.7 9.8
1.80 1.64 1.29 1.98 1.77
78 78 26 23 205
Feedback on my 39.7 50.0 80.7 39.1 48.8

progress in the program 15.4 11.5 7.7 17.4 13.2
from my academic 4.71 5.21 6.08 4.52 5.05
advisor. 1.87 1.79 1.70 2.02 1.88
78 78 26 23 205
Assistance with my 29.7 54.0 80.7 30.0 46.8

dissertation study 15.6 7.9 - 40.0 12.9
proposal. 4.53 5.33 6.31 3.85 5.03
1.73 1.63 1.26 2.43 1.85
64 76 26 20 186
Assistance with my 30.2 48.0 76.9 26.3 43.7
dissertation study. 11.1 9.3 - 42.1 12.0
4.63 5.11 6.23 3.68 4.96
1.65 1.71 1.24 2.38 1.83
63 75 26 19 183
Responsiveness to my 52.0 64.1 80.7 27.3 57.6

needs. 16.9 5.1 7.7 18.2 11.3
5.06 5.59 6.23 4.36 5.34
1.85 1.65 1.48 1.87 1.79
77 78 26 22 203
Advising while in the 41.6 69.3 76.9 38.0 56.4

program. 19.5 7.7 7.7 19.0 13.4
4.79 5.65 6.04 4.57 5.26
1.92 1.75 1.59 1.96 1.88
77 78 26 21 202
Encouragement while in 40.8 64.1 84.6 21.7 53.2

the program. 15.8 7.7 11.5 21.7 12.8
4.88 5.62 6.12 4.04 5.23
1.88 1.76 1.84 1.94 1.92
76 78 26 23 203
Counseling while in the 39.2 54.6 69.2 27.3 47.8

program. 17.6 10.4 11.5 22.7 14.6
4.66 5.31 5.73 4.00 4.98
1.92 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.95
74 77 26 22 199
Mentoring while in the 27.4 48.1 76.9 22.7 41.4

program. 17.8 14.3 11.5 18.2 15.7
4.29 4.94 5.92 4.14 4.74
1.81 2.02 1.77 1.83 1.96
73 77 26 22 198
Guidance w h ile in the 37.7 58.9 80.7 26.1 50.0

program. 16.9 11.5 11.5 17.4 14.2
4.69 5.40 6.00 4.09 5.06
1.91 1.82 1.72 1.91 1.92
77 78 26 23 204
Table 4.11
Descriptive Statistics fo r Self-Motivation Scale by Group
Positive Pet Group 1: Group 2: Group 3; Group 4: Total

Total
I am motivated to 76.9 93.6 100.0 32.0 80.7

pursue the degree via 5.1 2.6 - 40.0 6.8
distanee education. 6.14 6.63 6.85 3.76 6.13
1.51 .74 .37 2.52 1.63
78 78 26 25 207
I feel responsible for 94.9 98.7 100.0 72.0 94.2

my own learning. - - - 8.0 1.0
6.73 6.77 6.88 5.88 6.66
.55 .45 .33 1.69 .79
78 78 26 25 207
I have a strong feeling 88.5 92.3 96.2 64.0 88.0

of self-efficacy. 1.3 - - 8.0 1.5
6.47 6.50 6.77 5.68 6.43
.95 .68 .51 1.75 .99
78 78 26 25 207
I have developed self- 80.8 89.7 92.3 56.0 82.6

discipline to study via 5.1 - - - 2.9
distance education. 6.17 6.51 6.62 5.16 6.23
1.25 .72 .90 2.08 1.25
78 78 26 25 207
I can balance family 57.7 66.7 77.0 44.0 61.8

and studies. 6.4 3.9 3.9 20.0 6.8
5.50 5.71 6.12 4.92 5.58
1.57 1.39 1.21 2.04 1.55
78 78 26 25 207
I can balance job and 53.9 59.0 77.0 36.0 56.5

studies. 6.4 5.1 3.9 12.0 6.3
5.40 5.56 6.12 4.92 5.49
1.60 1.42 1.21 1.71 1.52
78 78 26 25 207
I can manage my study 60.3 73.1 92.3 48.0 67.6
time well. 1.3 - - 12.0 1.9
5.71 5.95 6.50 5.28 5.85
1.25 1.04 .65 1.74 1.23
78 78 26 25 207
Table 4.12
Descriptive Statistics fo r External Factors Scale by Group

Total
I had or have favorable 72.7 77.6 80.8 65.0 74.9

family conditions to 1.3 6.6 7.7 5.0 4.5
support my efforts to 5.97 5.96 6.00 .60 5.93
pursue the degree in the 1.31 1.51 1.55 1.57 1.44
online leaming 77 76 26 20 199
enviromnent.
My spouse or 48.0 51.4 54.2 36.8 48.9

“significant other” was 27.4 18.1 20.8 26.3 22.9
or has become annoyed 4.58 4.93 4.79 4.32 4.71
because I spent so much 2.15 2.13 2.25 2.16 2.15
time studying. 73 72 24 19 188
My duties about the 25.6 22.7 42.3 40.9 28.4

house have distracted 28.2 34.7 19.2 27.3 29.4
me from my studies. 4.06 3.69 4.62 4.41 4.03
1.95 1.97 2.21 2.02 2.0
78 75 26 22 201
My friends encouraged 52.1 49.3 60.0 55.0 52.4

me in my study efforts. 8.5 5.6 8.0 - 6.4
5.08 5.20 5.40 5.60 5.22
1.67 1.63 1.61 1.50 1.62
71 71 25 20 187
My employer did or has 65.3 63.0 76.9 61.1 65.6

encouraged me to pursue 15.3 15.1 3.85 16.7 12.7
the doctoral degree. 5.25 5.41 6.08 5.17 5.42
2.12 1.99 1.41 2.28 2.0
72 73 26 18 189
My job responsibilities 45.8 39.1 68.2 38.1 45.1

were or are too pressing 13.9 18.8 4.6 33.3 16.8
to continue with my 4.88 4.62 5.64 4.05 4.78
studies in the program. 1.87 1.92 1.53 2.29 1.93
72 69 22 21 184
My colleagues have or 48.6 41.4 50.0 52.6 46.5
are providing a 15.3 14.3 3.9 5.3 12.3
supportive environment 4.92 4.89 5.19 5.47 5.00
at work. 1.94 1.76 1.42 1.50 1.76
72 70 26 19 187
My work schedule did 36.0 30.6 24.0 30.0 31.8

or does not interfere 26.7 27.8 28.0 25.0 27.1
with my studies in the 4.29 4.04 3.96 3.95 4.12
program. 2.07 2.06 1.81 2.04 2.02
75 72 25 20 192
Financial issues were or 17.3 15.1 11.5 31.8 17.3

are an obstacle to my 45.3 45.2 65.4 50.0 48.5
studies in the program. 4.65 4.93 5.54 4.73 4.88
2.10 1.98 1.70 2.35 2.04
75 73 26 22 196
I could or can afford not 64.9 71.6 78.3 71.4 69.7

to be employed full time 19.5 17.6 21.7 19.1 19.0
to be able to study in the 5.36 5.64 5.61 5.52 5.51
program. 2.34 2.18 2.21 2.38 2.26
77 74 23 21 195
It is easier to afford 58.6 65.2 63.6 44.4 60.2

studying online as 12.9 12.1 4.6 33.3 13.6
opposed to studying on- 5.30 5.56 5.86 4.39 5.38
campus. 1.96 1.94 1.58 2.59 2.00
70 66 22 18 176
Appendix F
Students’ Persistence in the University of Nebraska - Lincoln Distributed Doctoral
Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education: A Mixed Methods Study
Interview Protocol
DISTRIBUTED DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN
Interview Protocol
Interview #:
Interviewee:
Date:
Time:
Length of Interview:
1. Please tell me about yourself.

• Where do you work?
• What is your education?
• Tell me about your family.
2. Why did you choose to pursue the doctorate degree via DE?
• How did you learn about the program?
• What other programs and institutions did you consider?
• What was the biggest attraction for you to enroll in the ELHE-DE program?
• What were any major surprises or disappointments, if any, about the program?
• Why did you decide not to continue in the program (for “withdrawn” group)?
3. Tell about your experiences studying in the online asynchronous environment. How
comfortable are/were you
• taking classes in the online asynchronous environment?
• interacting with instructors and students?
• developing essay-like responses?
• participating in online discussions?
• reading and writing reactions to other students’ postings?
• not seeing your classm ates and the instructor?
• not receiving non-verbal cues?
4. What relations have you established with your distance classmates?

• Has a leaming community been established among the students with whom you
are/were taking distanee courses? What kind of community is it?
What are your experiences with online leaming community?
What kind of support and encouragement do/did get from such community?
Please provide examples.
5. What is it about the program that made you pursue/not to pursue the degree?
• What do you think of the program quality?
• What do you think of the program offerings?
• How does/did the program meet your needs?
• What are/were some supportive factors related to the program?
• How much support do/did you receive with
o assistance with technology problems?
o online access to the library?
o admissions to the graduate eollege?
o admissions to the ELHE program?
o registration for courses?
o paying the bills?
o financial aid?
• What are/were some barriers to your persistence related to the program?
6. What is/was the role of the department and college faculty in your efforts to pursue the
doctorate degree via DE?
• How do/did you typically interact with the faculty?
• How much do/did you interact with the faculty over the course duration?
• What kind of feedback do/did you receive from the faculty?
• How open is/was the faculty to accommodate to your needs?
• What advice do/did you receive from the faculty?
• What is the role of your dissertation committee in your getting the doetorate? (for
groups 2 and 3)
7. What is/was the role of your academic advisor in your pursuing the doctorate degree
via DE?
• How do/did you typically communicate with your advisor?
• How much do/did you interact with your advisor?
• Who and how initiates/initiated the eommunication?
• W hat do/did you discuss with your advisor?
• What kind of feedback do/did you get from your advisor?
• What assistance do/did you get from your advisor to pursuit the degree via DE?
8. How motivated are/were to pursue the doctorate degree via DE?

• How do/did you balance your family, work, and studies?
• What role do you assign to yourself in your efforts to get the doctorate via DE?
• What helps/helped you stay motivated?
• What things positively affected your desire to persist?
• What things negatively affected your desire to persist?
9. What else would you like to tell me about your persistence in the ELHE-DE program
that we have not talked about?
Are there any documents or written materials that could help me understand your
persistence in the program (diaries, journaling, letters, emails, etc.)?
Are there any pictures, photos, or artifacts that could help understand your
Appendix G
Qualitative Tables
G-1: Case Thematic Analysis Tables
G-2: Themes and Categories Across Cases
G-3: Themes by Cases Perspectives
Table 5.5 G-1
Themes and Categories in Gwen’s Case
Themes Categories
Quality
~ program reputation
good fit
delivery
well-stmctured
challenging
leaming from others
high standards
relevant
scholarly
—faculty involvement
feedback
prompt
—students professional
feedback
positive
—advising negative
useless
lack of guidance
communication
switching advisor
Online Leaming Environment convenience

flexibility
leaming via distance
leaming style preferences
mental images
online community
Support
—academic advisor none
—faculty varied
responsive
advice
open
- students encouragement
polite
sensitive
personal experiences
sympathies
congratulations
- student support services prompt

convenient
always worked
friendly
helpful
—family attention
encouragement
care
pride
—employment life leaming

time off
sharing experiences
—pet watching silently
Self-motivation dream
personal challenge
enjoyed
credentials
personal drive
balancing
putting extra effort
responsibility
exposure
finishing coursework
staying positive
Table 5.6
Themes and Categories in Lorie ’s Case
Themes Categories
Quality
—university distance education
—program well-known
scholarly
challenging
depth
leaming from others
broad content
relevant
well-stmctured
—faculty feedback
involvement
facilitating
readiness to teach online
—advising need
varied
knowledge of the process
Online Leaming Environment flexihility

convenience
work schedule
class size
familiar students
online community
m eeting in person
Support
—academic advisor guidance
“how-to”
assistance
—faculty willing to accommodate
receptive
—students using for references

limited to course activities
—student support services smooth

simple
prompt
not helpful
Self-motivation dream
responsibility
balancing
exposure
dependability
enjoyed
fimstration
dissertation
fellowship
Table 5.7
Themes and Categories in Larry’s Case
Themes Categories
Quality
—university research one
—program well-stmctured
laid out
clarity o f expectations
relevant
engaged leaming
written dialog
leaming form others
—faculty interactions
feedback
commitment
involvement
—students interactions
feedback
varied
—advising professional
involvement
diligent
champion dissertation
—dissertation committee members second opinion
Online Leaming Environment convenience

stay with family
work schedule
emotional relief
flexibility
online community
Support
—university cooperation
—academic advisor friendly

encouragement
assistance
personal interest
accommodating
" faculty personal relationship

—students encouragement
respect
recognition
best wishes
sensitive
—student support services timely

helpful
easily solved
attention
prompt
qualified
—family supportive environment

encouragement
pride
—employment encouragement
advice
extra credit
time off
pushing
Self-motivation career advancement

recognition
compensation
experience distance teaming
responsibility
exposure
dissertation
doctoral work
enjoyed
Table 5.8
Themes and Categories in Susan’s Case
Themes Categories
Quality
-- program good
students’ needs
broad content
—faculty feedback
prompt
involvement
—students writing skills

feedback
fact based discussion
—advising helpful
prompt
Online Learning Environment convenience

flexibility
work schedule
writing component
learning style preferences
non-real time
involvement
online community
Support
—academic advisor no need for assistance
—faculty personal notes

—students encouragement
—student support services prompt

helpful
straightforward
smooth
Self-motivation wish
enjoyed
accreditation
responsibility
CD
■D
O
Q.
C
o
CD
Q.
■CDD Table 5.9 G-2

((/)
/>
Themes and Categories Across Cases
CD Themes Gwen Lorie Larry Susan

O
O
"D
cq'
Quality:
o
3
- University - distance education - research one
CD
"n —Program - well-structured - well-structured - well-structured

c
3- - relevant - relevant - relevant
CD
- scholarly - scholarly - scholarly
CD
■D
- learning from others - learning from others - learning from others
O
Q.
- challenging - challenging
C
a
- broad content - broad content
3
■D - delivery - depth - clarity of expectations - good
O
3" - good fit - well-known - engaged learning - student’ needs
CD
- reputation - written dialog
Q.
§
- high standards - laid out
3
O
c —Faculty - feedback - feedback - feedback - feedback
■D
CD - involvement - involvement - involvement - involvement
i. - prompt - prompt
C/)
W - facilitating - interactions
o
3 - readiness to teach - commitment
online
—Students - feedback - feedback - feedback
- professional - interactions - writing skills

- positive - varied - fact based discussion
CD
■D
O—i
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■CDD
C/)
(/) —Advising - need
- varied professional - helpful
negative - knowledge of the involvement - prompt
useless process diligent
O
O lack o f guidance champion dissertation
■D communication
cq ' —Dissertation switching advisor
Committee - second opinion
Members
Online - convenience - convenience - convenience convenience

3-
O ’
CD
Learning - flexibility - flexibility - flexibility flexibility
—i Environment - learning style - learning style - learning style learning style
■CD—
Di - non-physical presence - non-physical presence - non-physical presence non-physical presence
O
o.
c - online community - online community - online community online community
a - comfort with - comfort with - comfort with
o
technology technology technology
■—
D
Oi - work schedule - work schedule - work schedule
CD
Q. - mental images - class size - emotional relief writing component
- learning via distance - familiar students - staying with family non-real time
- meeting in person involvement
T3
CD
Support:
(/) —University - cooperation
(/)
—Faculty - willing to accommodate - willing to accommodate - willing to accommodate willing to accommodate
- varied - receptive - personal relationship personal notes

- responsive
- advice
- open
7J
CD
■—
Di
O
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■D
CD
(/)
(/) —Students encouragement encouragement encouragement
sensitive sensitive
polite - using for references respect
CD
personal experiences - limited to course recognition
O
O sympathies activities best wishes
■D congratulations
- Academic - none - assistance - guidance assistance - no need for assistance

Advisor
- “how-to” friendly
encouragement
3-
CD
personal interest
—i accommodating
CD
■—
Di
O
o.
c • Student prompt prompt prompt - prompt
a Support helpful not helpful ■helpful - helpful
o
Services smooth - smooth
■—
D
Oi
convenient simple - timely - straightforward
CD
Q. always worked - easily solved
friendly - attention
- qualified
"D
CD
“ Family encouragement - encouragement
C/) pride - pride
(/)
care - supportive environment

attention
- Employment time off time off
life learning encouragement

CD
■o
o
Q.
C
o
CD
Q.
■CDo
C/) - sharing experiences - advice

o' - extra credit
o
- pushing
o —Pet - watching silently

o
■a
cq ' Self-motivation - responsibility responsibility - responsibility - responsibility
- enjoyed enjoyed - enjoyed - enjoyed
Q - exposure exposure - exposure
CD
- dream dream - wish
C
- balancing balancing
p.
O ’ dissertation - dissertation
CD
CD
■o - personal challenge dependability - career advancement - accreditation
o
Q. - credentials frustration - recognition
C
a - personal drive fellowship - compensation
o
Q - extra effort - experience distance
■o
o - finishing coursework learning
- staying positive - doctoral work
CD
Q.
O
C
■o
CD
(/)
o'
3
■CD—
Di
O
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■CDD
Table 5.10 G-3
C/)
(/)
Themes by Cases Perspectives
O
O Gwen Lorie Larry Susan
■D
cq '
Quality:
—University - University o f Nebraska
is a high quality
institution;
3-
O ’
CD
CD
—Program - it’s a good program; - the quality is terrific; - it was a stimulating - 1 liked the concentration
■D - a really positive - 1 really feel well-prepared program; that you could choose;
O
Q.
C experience; in a lot of different areas; - it was well structured; - I did learn from the
a - it’s very high quality; - most of the courses were - the UNL program to be course;
o
■D - the standards are high very, very good; much more practically - the two [courses] I took
O except for that first class; - they're not classroom oriented and useful; were quality;
- it’s certainly leading to courses that were put - the benefits that you get - it is tailored to meet the
CD
Q. earning the credential; online; in teaming from other needs of students who
- the things I’m learning - there’s a lot of thought, a people; want a program that
are so applicable to what I lot o f structure; - the courses covered works around their work
■CDD do every day at work; - 1 was satisfied because it distinct dimensions of an schedules and they don’t
- academically challenging; was so challenging; administrator's work and care they don’t get
C/)
C/)
issues; personally involved with
the other students;
—Faculty - for the exception of one - it was exactly what I - not all teachers had the - and the professors,
professor, 1 hear back needed to hear; same commitment to when I did write in, that
within an hour or at least - UNL must do an awful their students or to their was good;
24 hours; lot of training with their classes; - 1 did get answers and
- professor had virtually no faculty that teach online; - some of the teachers they were in a timely
CD
■—
oi
o
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■D
CD
C/)
(/) presence; - a lot of e-mail and some didn't come in very fashion;
- some instructors are not telephone; often;
as involved as others; - the role is more of
facilitating;
O
■oD — Students - that’s more professional; - we all knew we brought - because you’re not
(O '
- it’s been great to see the something different to doing it in real time, it’s
work o f other students; the group; real hard to get a good
- high quality the conversation based on
experience of opinion going;
communicating with - 1 was a little bit
CD
other people; disappointed in the
—i
CD
- it was good quality quality of some things I
■—
Di dialogue going back and was reading on the online
O
o. forth; program;
c
a
o
- Advising - not be fulfilling in that - the feedback is much - [feedback] on every - when I wrote a couple
■—
Di
O role; better than it was; dimension that a student o f times about different
- I tried to switch; - 1 didn't really need an needs to complete a very things he was quick to
CD
Q. advisor. I just kind of demanding project; answer and gave me
answered my own good advice;
questions; - 1 got answers to the
"D questions I had, so I felt
CD
satisfied with that;
(/)
(/)
Dissertation - was very helpful;
Committee - it was really good
Members advice;
- 1 was pleased with my
committee;
CD
■—
oi
o
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■CDo
C/)
(/)
Online - the main reason was - 1 always looked to see if - I was able to work - two things made me to
Learning convenience; there was anyone familiar; during the day, come leave the program; one,
Environment - you can work on your - it was better for me to do home and have dinner the whole format of
O class anytime you want; it by distance; with my family and then posting my response and
o
■o - I feel fortunate for the - there was enough sit in my office during then reading other
cq ' chance to have this flexibility the way the the evening at my home people’s responses and
experience; whole program is set up; and do my work; responding to them.
- community definitely - 1 have a heavy - In this environment it Basically you were
varies within each class; understanding of the was the writers I think having a conversation but
- I’d be getting an idea of a technology; who did a little bit it was not in real time;
3-
O’ person’s looks or image by - 1 love to write; better and I'm a writer; - the problem was with
CD
—i their work; - some of the classes I was - 1 could read and write the method;
CD
■—
oi - being able to see what in were pretty big; and respond at any time - there wasn’t a lot of ef
o
o.
c others are producing; - the reputation of the DE o f day or night, and on fort made by many in the
a - I really like to write so program there; any group to have more of a
o
that has worked for me; - the substance was better; day o f the week; personal relationship;
■o - you can go at your own - [online community]
o - it was a community of - initially there was
pace; learners that had an didn't seem to be as motivation to do it by
CD
Q.
particular interest in important over time; distance education
a particular subject matter; because o f the
convenience factor;
■CDo
Support:
(/) —University - I drove to Lincoln, met
(/)
with D r...., and
everything just fell right
into place; their
cooperation;
—Academic - received zero from - 1 haven't really pushed for - very good personal - 1 didn’t really have
Advisor advisor; that; encouragement and problem for that kind of
7J
■CD—
Di
O
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■CDD
(/)
(/) - useless feedback; - when I really get into the advice and on many help;
throes of the dissertation, I dimensions;
think he'll be there; - everything from going
- 1 use him right now for to bat for me to get
O
O like a lot of guidance; requirements waived, to a
■D - so, I think the role is personal eneouragement,
paramount; to professional encoura
gement, to championing
CD
my dissertation and
helping to carry that all
the way through the
CD
process.
—i
CD
■—
Di —Faculty - they’ve always been so very accommodating; - in terms o f personal
O
o. good about saying, you can very receptive; advice, or even having
c
a call us, write us, much of a personal
o
■D whatever, questions you relationship ... not too
O have we can answer; much;
- there are a handful of
CD
Q. professors who have been
very supportive;
- they’ve been very open;
■CDD
—Students - people with the same - we used eaeh other for - I always felt like they - when they would
C/) experience or in the same references; were very encouraging; respond to my postings,
(/)
place express their - they were respectful; they would say things
support for each other; - we all respected each about other than just
- student feedback has other and their points of academically; they might
included reactions to my view; say that was a really
postings that exemplify a - they were pretty good thought or
supportive on-line sensitive to my religious something like that; but
environment; background; not a lot;
7J
a>
■D
—
o
i
o.
c
o
CD
Q.
■CDD
(/) ■Student - they’ve been very - they were resolved fairly - the people in the - [registration] seemed to
o' Support helpful; quickly; continuing education, go smoothly enough;
3
Services - so beneficial to do - 1 didn't find [online and the people in the - [admission process]
registration online; library] to be particularly educational department, was pretty
O - very friendly; helpful; the people in the straightforward;
O
■D - smooth as glass; bookstore, uniformly - 1 had a little technical
- it was easy as anything; were second mile kind of problem and I got ans
people in terms of wers pretty quick and got
helping. help, so that was good;
—Family - my family is supportive; - from my wife, my

3-
3" - they’re encouraging, too; children, my mother;
CD
—i - we’re proud of you and - without their support, I
CD
■—
Di keep going; wouldn't have been able
O
o.
c to do it;
a
o
3
■—
Di
O —Employment - time off to travel to - both our president and
Lincoln for class; academic vice president
CD
Q.
were interested in my
progress through the
program and offered
encouragement and
■CDD
advice;
C/)
(/)
—Pet - he’s a good buddy;
- keeps me sane and
balanced;
7J
■CD—
Di
O
o.
co
CD
Q.
■CDD
(/)
(/)
Self- - knowing within the next - I've always known I - 1 hit the wall when I - it’s me or it ain’t going
Motivation year I’ll be staring a new wanted a doctorate; finished my comps. It to get done;
o
o
T3
phase of the program keeps - everyone in your class took some real internal - my motivation to
me motivated: sees everything you do. motivation to get going pursue the degree was
- you couldn’t get by if you That drove me to do the again; still there, that’s why T
don’t put out the efforts; best I could; - 1 am ultimately sought another place to
CD
- 1 would see myself - 1 didn't want to be the one responsible for my work do it through;
definitely the one who’s to drag the class down; and my progress; - there’s motivation to
3-
CD
responsible; - when I finished all the - eaming the doctorate pursue the degree;
—i - it takes a lot of initiative coursework and I knew I put me on the top tier of
■CD—
Di and self thrive to make had to work on this the compensation system
O
o,
c things happen.; dissertation, my motivation here;
a - I’ve always enjoyed waned; - it made me a much
o
learning; - since I was given this more valuable member of
■D
—
Oi - someday writing Ph.D. fellowship, I have a the academic council
behind my name is kind of deadline. I'm motivated here;
CD
Q.
exciting; again.; - the whole notion of the
- 1 try to do some planning; distance education and
- I'm the one responsible; wanting to be involved
■CDD - it was like my with a brand new, very
entertainment and my exciting form of
C/) recreation; education;
(/)

NataliyaIvankova Dissertation CA Mixedmethods Compressed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NataliyaIvankova Dissertation CA Mixedmethods Compressed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDENTS’ PERSISTENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA - LINCOLN

DISTRIBUTED DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHff IN

HIGHER EDUCATION: A MIXED METHODS STUDY

Presented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Administration, Curriculum, and Instruction

Under the Supervision of Professor Sheldon L. Stick

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

S tu d e n ts' P e r s i s t e n c e In The U n i v e r s i t y n f N eh ra sV a -T .in p n ln Pi gf-riKni-pH

D o c t o r a l Program i n E d u c a tin n a l L ea d er s h i p d n Hi g h e r F .d n ca ti'o n :

tvo-;/ •2-/, zooy

DISTRIBUTED DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN

HIGHER EDUCATION: A MIXED METHODS STUDY

Nataliya V. Ivankova, PhD.

University of Nebraska, 2004

Advisor; Sheldon L. Stick

The purpose of this mixed methods sequential explanatory study was to

understand what impacted students’ persistence in the in the Distributed Doctoral

Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education offered by the University

focused on identifying the predictive power of ten composite variables, representing

scales were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A discriminant function analysis

environment, student support services, faculty, and self-motivation.

Matriculated, Graduates, and Withdrawn/Inactive), explored the results from the

withdrawn/inactive members. The quality of the program and students’ academic

and qualitative phases of the study, a preliminary model of students’ persistence in a

distributed doctoral program was developed.

during all these years.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Educational Administration

place to grow intellectually and professionally. I am grateful to the Graduate Studies

Office for recognizing my academic and professional accomplishments and awarding me

the Presidential Fellowship for 2002-2003 Academic Year.

persistence in the distributed leaming environment. I appreciate the insightful feedback

and second opinion from my dissertation committee members, J. Creswell, M. Bryant,

My knowledge of research design and methodology, reflected in this dissertation, is a

V. Plano Clark, R. Shope, R. McEntarffer, Y. Lu, and S. Trout.

constant support, assistance and encouragement, and investment in my education. My

the terminal degree he had always dreamed about.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE........................................................................ 21

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN.................................................................................... 55

CHAPTER 4: PHASE I, QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS...................................................66

CHAPTER 5: PHASE II, QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS.................................................. 117

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION............................................................................................... 196

CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 225

Appendix A: Institutional Research Board Approvals

A-1: Institutional Research Board Approval for the Quantitative Phase

Appendix B: Informed Consent Forms

B-1: Informed Consent Form for Survey

Appendix C; UNL Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in

Appendix D: Participant Recruitment Letters

D-1: Open Letter to All Distributed Doctoral Students

Appendix E: Quantitative Tables

E-1: Missing Data for Selected Scale Items

Appendix F: Students’ Persistence in the University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Appendix G: Qualitative Tables

G-1: Case Thematic Analysis Tables

Table 4.1 Predictor Variables in Quantitative Analysis....................................................... 69

Table 4.2 Survey Response Rate by Participant Group....................................................... 75

Table 4.3 Missing Data for Selected Scale Items.............................................................. E-1

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics for Composite Variables................................................... 79

Table 4.5 Multivariate Outliers.............................................................................................. 81

Table 4.6 Intemal Consistency Reliability for Subscale Items............................................84