University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Online graduate program retention: exploring the impact of community on student retention rates from the perspectives of faculty and alumni

(USC Thesis Other)

Online graduate program retention: exploring the impact of community on student retention rates from the perspectives of faculty and alumni

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Online Graduate Program Retention: Exploring the Impact of Community on Student
Retention Rates from the Perspectives of Faculty and Alumni
by
Cynthia Lorraine McDougal

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Cynthia Lorraine McDougal 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Cynthia Lorraine McDougal certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Eric A. Canny
Dr. Patricia Tobey
Dr. Paula M. Carbone, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The study's purpose was to address the issue of poor retention rates in online graduate programs.
The goal was to learn about the characteristics that influence retention rates in online graduate
programs. Through the perspectives of instructors and alumni of an online Masters of Public
Administration (MPA) program, this research investigated the perception of community within
an online academic environment as it pertained to boosting retention rates. This study used a
qualitative design using semi-structured interviews guided by the research questions. Six faculty
members with governance responsibilities who were teaching in an MPA program at Warner
University (a pseudonym) and four graduates from the same program participated in 45-minute
individual, semi-structured interviews to collect qualitative data on how a community might have
influenced student retention rates. The use of purposive sampling was used as it was the most
effective method for data collection given the limited primary data sources available to the
researcher. The collected data were examined, and recommendations emerging from the findings
and topics for further study were made. The study's most notable finding was the concordance
between alumni's descriptions of student experiences and faculty's views of the sense of
community. Alumni's impressions reflected what the MPA faculty hoped to achieve via
collaborative learning, community development, and tailored education. The expanding
popularity of online graduate programs underlines the need for study into improving retention
rates. The outcomes of this study provide a path for purposeful program design to generally
generate a sense of community in online programs, thereby enhancing retention rates.

v
Dedication
To my son, JohnMichael Allen McDougal, you are the light of my life and my favorite human.
You have taught me so much, and I am honored to be your mother. It is no exaggeration to say
that I started this adventure because of you. Your words of encouragement, support, and
unwavering enthusiasm as I completed each stage of this journey mean more to me than I can
describe. I love you forever kiddo, always, and no matter what.

To my parents, I could write a thousand words to thank you, but none would suffice. Mom, you
gave me wings and taught me how to fly, and you were always there to catch me when I fell. Dad,
you always had my back and showed me what unconditional love is all about. Even now, you
encourage me despite any fears or doubts. While neither of you held my hand on this endeavor,
you did hold my heart and never let go. For that I am exceedingly grateful. I love you to the moon
and back. Always.

To my family, Stacey, Marissa, Uncle Ernie, and Aunt Helen. And to the people I think of as
family, Lisa Joy, Cherylann, Dee, Heather, and Rosie. Thank you for the encouragement; your
support, and understanding over the last ten (oh my gosh, has it really been that long?) years is
deeply appreciated. You have been with me through some of life's most significant trials and
tribulations, I am so glad we are sharing this one too. Thank you for a lifetime of love and
friendship. Love you.

To the Spousal Unit, Scotty, this would not have been possible without your support. Thank you,
I know it was not always easy.

vi

Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge my chair Dr. Paula Carbone; thank you for your guidance and
mentorship. I appreciate your calm nature throughout the process, which at times was anything but
calm. Thank you to Dr. Tobey and Dr. Canny for serving on my committee and sharing your
wisdom with me; your feedback and support were invaluable.
This mission began with a single, small step, yet it was not undertaken alone. It is hard to
name everyone who assisted this endeavor through phone calls, check-ins, and research assistance.
There are some I simply cannot fail to mention because it took a village.
To Nicola Brown, this is all your fault! If it hadn't been for your encouragement and
prodding, I never would have taken the first step and this would still be a distant dream. Thank
you for your love, encouragement, friendship, understanding, and unequivocal support. I am
grateful to, and for, you—much, much love, my friend.
To The Brain Trust. Carla Carrillo, Jorge Hernandez, Adrienne Melton, and Daniel Reitz,
Jr., you people were/are my lifeline. This experience would have been so much less without you.
Each of you talked me off the ledge, offered support, carried me when I was drowning, and brought
me laughter and joy when it was most needed. Most importantly, y'all loved me unconditionally.
A simple "thank you" cannot convey the depth of my gratitude. I am thrilled we finished together.
Thursday nights and Saturday mornings still feel empty without your faces. I love y'all, more than
my luggage, truly. #thankyouforbeingafriend
To the Saturday Warriors of Cohort 14, you each made an impact on my journey. I am
grateful to have learned alongside you and from you on this journey. I miss you and our laughter
on Saturday mornings. #thefilesareinthefiles

vii

To My Ahlstrom Family – John, Yvette, Genevieve, and Jordan thank you for always
making space for me in your home and your hearts. Your love and support were crucial to my
well-being.
To Nikki Halbur, where would I be without the Skloot to my Bloom? I can't remember my
life without you in it – and I am grateful for every moment and every word. I hope you know what
your friendship means to me; I love you. #bloomandsklootforever
To the faculty of the Price MPA online program—Juliet, Tara, Kelly, Matt, John, and
Bill—your support, as a student and as a colleague is invaluable. You really are the very best.
#PriceProud
To Dr. Dora Kingsley Vertenten, how do I thank the person who moved from teacher to
mentor and now, friend? I think I owe you most of all. I would not be here without you. This
degree was never really on my radar but one conversation on a bench six years ago changed
everything. You believed in me when I did not yet believe in myself. I have grown so much in part
because of your tutelage but mostly because of your friendship. Every text and conversation,
especially those that felt like I was being called to the principal's office, are moments for which I
am grateful. Thank you for believing in me, giving me permission to believe in myself, and gifting
me with your friendship. I'd do it all again just for that.
To Dexter, Kiddo, Lola, Gus, and Floyd. I treasure your unconditional love and devotion
through all of life’s journeys. Finally, to Maggie May, for being my most faithful and devoted
companion through ten years of classes, homework, researching, reading, writing, and crying.

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem .................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .......................................................................... 2
Importance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ............................................................ 3
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................................... 4
Organization of the Study ........................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Popularity of Online Programs ................................................................................................. 11
Program Design ........................................................................................................................ 18
Teaching in Online Programs ................................................................................................... 21
Student Retention in Online Programs ..................................................................................... 29
Challenges in Measuring Retention Rates ................................................................................ 40
Creating Community in Online Programs ................................................................................ 41
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 48
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 56
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 58

ix

Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 58
Overview of Design .................................................................................................................. 59
Research Setting........................................................................................................................ 59
The Researcher.......................................................................................................................... 60
Data Sources ............................................................................................................................. 61
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 62
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 62
Data Collection Procedures....................................................................................................... 63
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 65
Creditability and Trustworthiness ............................................................................................. 66
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 68
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 70
Context of the Site and Participants .......................................................................................... 71
Findings for Research Question One ........................................................................................ 75
Discussion for Research Question One..................................................................................... 86
Findings for Research Question Two ....................................................................................... 87
Discussion for Research Question Two .................................................................................... 96
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 98
Chapter Five: Importance and Recommendations ...................................................................... 100
Importance of the Findings ..................................................................................................... 101
Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 102
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................. 106
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 107

x

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 108
References ................................................................................................................................... 110
Appendix A: Faculty Interview Protocol .................................................................................... 146
Appendix B: Alumni Interview Protocol .................................................................................... 151
Appendix C: Sample Residency Agenda .................................................................................... 156
Appendix D: NASPAA Report: Graduation Rates 2019-2020................................................... 157

xi
List of Tables
Table 1 Pedagogical Considerations When Developing Online Programs ................................... 26
Table 2 Faculty Participant Profile................................................................................................ 74
Table 3 Alumni Participant Profile ............................................................................................... 74

xii

List of Figures
Figure 1 Community of Inquiry .................................................................................................... 52
Figure 2 Community of Practice ................................................................................................... 56

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Online programs are not new to the education landscape. The latest national statistics
from 2018 indicated there were 19.7 million students enrolled in online programs, with 3.1
million students taking classes exclusively online (Magda et al., 2020). Snyder et al. (2018)
noted that the percentage of post-graduate students taking entirely online degree programs had
increased by 42.6% since 2012. Shea and Bidjerano (2010) and Yuan and Powell (2013) define
this expansion as beneficial to both students and institutions, with increased offers enabling
students to pursue education and institutions to boost enrolment without raising utility, resource,
or space costs. The expectation is that enrollment in online programs will continue to rise year
after year as university education becomes more accessible to more potential students
(Choudhury & Pattnaik, 2019), making them a fast-growing adult education segment.
This paper addressed the problem of low retention rates in online graduate programs.
There are multiple reasons for low retention rates, including; technology challenges, lack of
support, lack of instructor participation, student feelings of disconnectedness, isolation, and lack
of connection with peers and faculty (Carr, 2000; Palloff & Pratt, 2013; Rovai & Wighting,
2005; Simpson, 2003). A debate about the validity of online education has recently resurfaced
due to increased enrollment in online programs due to lockdown and social distance measures
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The discussion around retention within the context of the
growth of online programs, irrespective of the COVID-19 pandemic, made the topic worthy of
exploration.
Context and Background of the Problem
Magda et al. (2020) note that online programs are growing at an average rate of 16%
annually compared to a growth rate of about 3% for in-person campus programs. Coupled with
2

the high growth rates of online programs are the low retention rates compared to in-person
programs, which has a financial impact on institutions (Moody, 2004). Low retention rates also
negatively impact perceptions of instructional quality, school rankings, student recruitment
efforts, future program offerings, and marketability of graduates of online programs
(Govindarajan & Srivastava, 2020; Moody, 2004; Cook et al., 2000).
Online programs are still regarded with some ambivalence within the higher education
community, with critics citing low return on necessary investments in technology (Burd et al.,
2014), low retention rates among nontraditional students (Stavredes & Herder, 2015; Yasmin,
2013), and minimal student engagement (Clarke, 2011) as concerns that face-to-face learning
will always be more robust with learning more impactful than what can be achieved online. Most
research has focused on the effectiveness of online programs compared to in-person classroom
education. The most recent Digest of Education Statistics (National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], 2016), which tracks retention rates, does not differentiate between online and
in-person delivery methods. Retention rates are determined through anecdotal examples or by
searching individual university retention rates by a program (Berge & Huang, 2004; Lee & Choi,
2014; Lawlor, 2007). The increased interest and popularity of online programs to acquire
knowledge are steadily rising (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Song et al., 2015; Tichavsky et al., 2015),
increasing the value of online teaching research.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study aimed to gather information on what factors may impact retention rates in
online graduate programs. This study examined the sense of community within an online
academic environment related to improving retention rates through the voices of faculty and
alumni of an online Masters of Public Administration (MPA) program. This study explored a
3

top-ranked online graduate degree program (according to the 2020 US News and World Report)
to understand the methods and processes which may have the potential to positively impact
quality and retention rates in online programs. The methods and processes identified by this
study could be put into practice by other institutions, colleges, and programs interested in
offering quality online graduate degrees.
The following research questions framed the study:
1. How do faculty in an online master's program perceive the relationship between
community within an online program and student retention rates?
2. How do alumni describe their sense of community as a factor in degree
completion?
Importance of the Study
The creation of the Internet and the development of pedagogy for online learning have
changed the landscape of online programs, allowing for potential learning to occur at a greater
success rate than previously experienced on a global stage. Enrollment rates for online programs
among post-graduate students are projected to continue rising through 2026 (Allen & Seaman,
2017; NCES, 2020; Tichavsky et al., 2015). As the number of students engaging in online
programs grows, the need for research related to improving retention rates in online programs
becomes increasingly valuable.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The study was structured around two distinct but interconnected theoretical frameworks:
the Community of Inquiry (COI) and the Community of Practice (COP). COI was used to
investigate why students stayed in an online program, while COP was used to investigate how
4

students developed rapport in an online program. Both theories played an essential role in
determining the impact of community on retention rates.
This study employed a qualitative design using semi-structured interviews informed by
the research questions. Seven faculty members with governance responsibilities teaching in an
online graduate degree program at a private, not-for-profit university in an urban location in the
western United States were invited to participate in 60-minute individual semi-structured
interviews to gather qualitative data. Fifteen alumni of the same program were invited to
participate in 60-minute individual semi-structured interviews to gather qualitative data to
ascertain their thoughts on how a sense of community impacted their perseverance. The need for
sampling the population was alleviated through purposive sampling. The collected data was
analyzed, and recommendations for practices to adopt and areas requiring future research were
offered.
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of definitions for terms used in this study:
Asynchronous Instruction
A learning format that allows students and instructors to participate in course activities at
their convenience and does not require course participants to communicate
simultaneously (Simonson & Schlosser, 2003).
Attrition
It was defined as the number of individuals who leave a program of study before degree
completion (Waugh & Su-Searle, 2014).

5

Cohort
A group of learners who begin a program simultaneously, complete assignments
according to a fixed schedule and conclude the program at the same time (Yuan & Kim,
2014).
Community
A cohort of learners who share common academic goals and attitudes and meet semi-
regularly to collaborate on learning activities (Yang et al., 2017).
Course
An online course is an environment for learning. Generally constructed as a directed
learning process and followed sequentially. It consists of educational information,
communication, and assessment (Yuan & Kim, 2014).
Educators
AuBuchon (2010) identifies an educator as anyone whose profession it is to teach others.
For the purpose of this study, the term is related strictly to those educators whose job is to
teach in an online school of higher education.
Faculty
A personnel category operationally defined for this study includes both full-time and
half-time faculty with governance responsibility. (Council of Business Affairs, 2014).
Hybrid Course
A hybrid course combines learning in face-to-face and online classrooms (Mupinga et al.,
2006).

6

In-Person
Courses that followed a traditional curriculum and were taught on campus in a classroom.
These classes are typically referred to as "traditional learning environments," and the
students who take them are typically referred to as "traditional students" (Mupinga et al.,
2006).
Instructional Strategy
An instructional strategy is any method, technique, or procedure used to increase learning
and help the learner reach an instructional goal (Dick et al., 2005)
Learner
A student within a higher education institution. Simanek (1997) said that being a learner
means being one who attends something to learn or study. For the purposes of this
research, the term Learner and Student are used interchangeably and share the exact
definition, which was limited to higher education institutions.
Online Programs
The structured learning environment delivered via the Internet (Dabbagh, 2004). For the
purposes of this study, Keegan's (1986) definition of online programs was used; the result
of the separation of student and teacher via technology wherein the student is not required
to travel to a specific location at a specific time to learn from a specific person (pg. 7).
Pedagogy
As an academic discipline, the study of how knowledge and skills are imparted in an
educational context, considering the interactions during learning (Dabbagh, 2004).

7

Persistence
Persistence is the motivation, tenacity, and actions that students use to progress toward
their degrees (Waugh & Su-Searle, 2014)
Perseverance
Perseverance is a kind of stubbornness fueled by drive and focus, a forward movement,
no matter what obstacles may be encountered (Waugh & Su-Searle, 2014).
Program
A program is made up of required and elective courses that lead to the awarding of a
degree or certificate (Austin & Rust, 2015).
Program Design
The development or redevelopment of multiple courses and how they interact with one
another to form a program. It is usually done with the help of a group of academics and
staff with relevant expertise, such as learning designers and faculty (Austin & Rust,
2015).
Rapport
Rapport is a general feeling shared by two people that includes a mutual, trusting, and
prosocial bond (Frisby & Martin, 2010).
Retention/Retention Rate
Generally defined as remaining enrolled in an academic program through completing a
degree, it may also be considered a measurement of student persistence (Allen &
Seaman, 2007).

8

Synchronous Instruction
The learning format wherein instruction and learning occur simultaneously requires all
class participants to participate simultaneously (Dabbagh, 2004; Simonson & Schlosser,
2003).
Tenure Track
The tenure track, which is usually combined with an assistant professorship, is a six-year
probationary appointment at most institutions. During this time, tenure track faculty are
evaluated on their teaching, research, scholarship, and service to their department and
university (Gillespie, 1998).
Virtual classroom
The online medium through which learners and instructors can meet in real-time.
Examples of virtual classroom software include Zoom, Adobe Connect, and Google
Classroom (Dabbagh, 2004).
Web-Based Course
Utilizing the Internet to deliver all course content, including lectures, readings,
discussions, grades, and examinations, is defined as web-based. (Simonson & Schlosser,
2003).
Web-Enhanced Course
By utilizing the Internet to provide additional course content as an enhancement to a
traditional course (such as a message board) within an otherwise face-to-face delivery
format. (Hoskins, 2010).
9

Organization of the Study
This study is presented in five chapters, the first of which serves as the introduction.
Chapter Two reviews the literature covering online programs, online pedagogy, and best
practices in online programs. Chapter Three describes the methodology, including the use of
semi-structured interviews. Chapter Four addresses the findings of research questions one and
two. Chapter Five addresses results, conclusions, and recommendations.

10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The number of people enrolling in online graduate programs is projected to continue
increasing through 2026 (Allen & Seaman, 2017; NCES, 2020; Tichavsky et al., 2015). As
graduate student enrollment in online programs increases, research on faculty perceptions of how
retention rates can be improved in these programs becomes more relevant. Much of the extant
literature related to online programs discusses the methodology of teaching, classroom
management, administration, and learning modalities to increase student engagement (Simonson
et al., 2012). The problem addressed in this study is low retention rates in online graduate
programs and faculty perspectives on the effect building community in online programs has on
retention rates. This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge regarding community
building in online programs to improve student retention. The salient research studies included
literature on instructional strategies that support the community-building process as well as
suggestions for instructors on how to effectively conduct collaborative learning experiences in
online programs to improve retention.
This literature review covers a brief history of online programs in the context of higher
education, including popularity, benefits, challenges, pedagogy, and the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic on online programs. Later sections discuss student retention in online programs and
creating community in online programs. Finally, this literature review considered the
implications of utilizing Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's Community of Inquiry (COI) and
Wenger's Community of Practice Theory (CPT) theoretical frameworks in building a grounded
theory of perspectives of faculty and students on the impact of community on program retention
rates.
11

Popularity of Online Programs
Advances in information and communication technology are opening up new possibilities
for education delivery, radically altering how education is delivered. For the foreseeable future,
new Internet evolutions are expected to continue transforming the education and knowledge
markets (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). While traditional in-person learning
environments, such as classrooms where students are taught face to face in real-time, remain
relevant, hybrid or entirely online classes are becoming more prevalent (Clinefelter et al., 2019).
One of the primary advantages of online programs is that students are not required to
attend class physically. Students can be anywhere in the world and still virtually participate in an
online classroom (Magda et al., 2020). All that is required of an online student is a computer and
a stable internet connection (Clinefelter et al., 2019), which benefits the university by offering
expansion opportunities without increased real estate costs (Yuan & Powell, 2013). The face of
online programs has shifted dramatically in recent history due to the integration of
telecommunications-based technologies that have enabled many institutions to offer programs
delivered electronically (Simonson et al., 2012).
Allen and Seaman (2017) have studied online enrollment trends beginning in Fall 2002,
noting a steady increase in enrollment in online programs year over year. Their research
indicated a 23% enrollment increase from 1.6 million students enrolled in at least one online
course in 2002 to 7.1 million students enrolled in at least one online course in 2012. According
to Magda et al. (2020), online programs are rising at a rate of 16% each year, compared to
roughly 3 percent for regular campus programs. A 2018 joint report between Boston Consulting
Group and Arizona State University noted that post-secondary student enrollments in online
programs increased by 5% annually, while post-secondary student enrollments in in-person
12

classes declined by 1% to 2% annually. Further, the most recent data collected from NCES
(2020) indicates 933,000 graduate students enrolled in fully online programs, an increase of 23%
from Fall 2018. Of the 933,000 graduate students enrolled solely online, 77% are enrolled in
degree programs, 20% in certificate programs, and 3% in licensure programs (Magda et al.,
2020). Since their inception, distance education programs have continuously developed and
gained recognition among educational institutions.
Distance learning is becoming a more popular course delivery mode in higher education.
With approximately 40% of graduate students aged 25 or older with other life responsibilities
that prevent them from engaging in in-person learning opportunities (Sloate, 2010), scholars
have noted that increased participation in online programs (Magda et al.,2020) has made the
online sector of adult education the most dynamic in terms of growth in the United States
(Choudhury & Pattnaik, 2019; Snyder et al., 2018). The National Center for Education Statistics
anticipates that online education will continue to rise year over year due to improved access to
university education, based on ongoing enrollment growth. (Choudhury & Pattnaik, 2019).
Universities benefit from the opportunity to increase enrollment without increasing utility,
resource, or space costs (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010; Yuan & Powell, 2013). Students benefit from
online education when: the flexibility to attend classes at their convenience is offered (Bocchi et
al., 2004), access to educational institutions situated in remote and rural places exists (Lawrence
& Singhania, 2004), connection with peers from many cultures and locations is available, and
when the cost of online classes is lower (Vamosi et al., 2004). The increasing popularity of online
programs exemplifies the problem of practice and offers both benefits and challenges to be
considered by universities.

13

Benefits of Online Programs
The increased popularity of online programs is not simply attributable to convenience and
affordability but also to a growing belief in the quality of online education programs (Dellana et
al., 2004; Rosenbaum, 2001). The benefits students experience through online learning are
flexibility to attend classes at convenient times (Bocchi et al., 2004), access to educational
institutions from remote and rural areas (Lawrence & Singhania, 2004), connection with
classmates from different cultures and locations, and in some cases, a lower cost of education
(Vamosi et al., 2004).
Online programs are generally student-centric (Yuan & Powell, 2013). Due to the nature
of online conversations, students frequently respond to both the material and the input of other
students, resulting in micro debates occurring concurrently in a larger group (Campos, 2020). As
a result, students' perspectives are prioritized in discussions, making online learning more
student-centered than in-person learning (Magda et al., 2020). A student-centric approach offers a
competitive advantage by increasing the student population and creating a diverse learner
experience (Yuan & Powell, 2013).
Students in online programs generally have access to additional resources and
opportunities beyond instructional resources (Magda et al., 2020). As a result of their virtual
location, students can also benefit from professional guests during online sessions (Yuan &
Powell, 2013). Because these speakers are not required to relocate to attend a class physically
and lead students through a topic, the opportunities for guest lecturers to participate become
greater (Magda et al., 2020). Additionally, online programs provide an environment conducive to
creative learning and the development of students' problem-solving abilities (Yuan & Powell,
2013). Although students can benefit from online programs offering high-quality information and
14

introducing characteristics that promote better instructor-student interaction (Campos, 2020),
online programs are not without challenges.
Challenges of Online Programs
While a community is vital in online programs, researchers agree that community is
typically less consistent in asynchronous learning environments than in face-to-face learning
(DuCharme-Hansen & Dupin-Bryant, 2005; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Hill et al., 2002;
Hill, Wiley, et al., 2004; Laffey, Lin, & Lin, 2006; Morris et al., 2005). Bishop et al. (2007) and
Shin (2002) asserted that the solitude and independence associated with online programs might
have an impact on student retention, whereas Maor (2003) asserted that online students
frequently reported feelings of isolation or disconnect from their instructors and fellow students.
Researchers argue that online courses are simply incapable of supporting interaction and
community building that occurs in in-person classrooms (Ludwing-Hardman & Dunlap, 2003;
Valenta et al., 2001).
Overcoming the potential social isolation associated with online programs is a significant
challenge for many schools (Barbour & Plough, 2009). According to McDonald (2002) and
Weigel (2000), academics should investigate ways to foster and implement a sense of community
among learners to reduce the isolation that undermines student motivation and causes many
students to drop out of online courses. Scholars who have studied the impact of community on
student learning experiences have concluded that because a sense of community ultimately
attracts and retains learners, this single component is at least as necessary, if not more so, than
pedagogical brilliance in online course design (Rovai, 2002).
Many universities have minimized the necessary preparation for a fully-developed online
program favoring the most immediate positive fiscal impact on the bottom line (Clinefelter et al.,
15

2019). Too often, campus administrators or technology advocates have extolled the virtues of
digital forms of higher education by prioritizing cost savings or efficiency over quality (Shea &
Bidjerano, 2010) or by setting instructors up for failure by imposing solutions without consulting
them or providing adequate training (Yuan & Powell, 2013). Additional topics of concern in the
online classroom, according to Clinefelter et al. (2019), are listed below:
• technological constraints and accessibility: To ensure the success of any
online program, faculty should ensure that all students have access to the
technology required to conduct the program. Technological disruptions can
undoubtedly lead to online education being viewed as a substandard
educational environment which contributes to frustration for both students and
faculty and may impact the overall effectiveness and quality of the class.
• loss of human connection: While the lack of personal connection may not
affect everyone, it influences many, particularly in-classroom interaction with
professors and other classmates.
• computer literacy: Students and professors must be proficient with
technology to excel in online classes. Both parties must be conversant with
various software programs, learning management systems (LMS), and search
engines
• faculty acceptance: Despite online education's continued popularity, faculty
frequently lack faith in online programs and view them as inferior to in-person
learning.
Despite these obstacles, online education remains an appealing choice to
universities since it enables institutions to cut utility, resource, and space expenses while
16

increasing the number of students who can enroll in courses (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010;
Yuan & Powell, 2013).
Stigma of Online Programs
Online programs have been met with skepticism from faculty despite continued growth
and popularity among students since their inception as a method for instructors to communicate
with pupils (Damm, 2020). The unfavorable perception of online programs is especially
prevalent in higher education programs (Mandernach et al., 2012). While online programs have
the potential to offer the same opportunities as in-person programs (McDonald, 2002), faculty
critics argue that computer-mediated courses will never be as rich and meaningful, nor will the
learning be as lasting as traditional, face-to-face lessons (Mandernach et al., 2012). As of 2019,
less than 40% of faculty members expressed acceptance of online education's worth and
credibility (Damm, 2020). More than 80% of faculty who dismiss online learning as a viable
education method have no prior experience teaching or developing online courses (Allen &
Seaman, 2011; Seaman, 2009).
In contrast to faculty perceptions, when surveyed, 85% of graduate students enrolled in
online courses, who previously took face-to-face instruction, stated that their online experience
was comparable to or better than their face-to-face instruction (Clinefelter et al., 2019). One
possible explanation for this disconnect is that only 9.3% of the professors polled were currently
working on online courses (Clinefelter et al., 2019). The gap between faculty acceptance and
student satisfaction contradicts the research on learning outcomes, economic feasibility, and
student happiness, all of which favor the adoption of online courses over in-person course
offerings (Allen & Seaman, 2010; Means et al., 2012; Tanner et al., 2009). The need to engage in
emergency remote learning exacerbated the faculty's disdain for online programs, as many
17

faculty and universities were unprepared to move to the online modality (Burke, 2020; Prall,
2020).
Pandemic Learning
Beginning in early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the
delivery of in-person education in the United States, forcing all levels of education to shift to
digital platforms (Burke, 2020). Prall (2020) noted that due to social distancing protocols, in-
person instruction was nearly impossible, necessitating online education with many students and
instructors introduced to the online classroom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many
of these students and instructors were not participating in a well-designed and well-organized
online education experience (Burke, 2020). Instead, the need to quarantine from the virus put
everyone into an emergency remote education setting that needed students and educators to take
a new approach to teaching and learning. The abrupt pivot from taking in-person classes to
participating in online classes is vastly different that engaging in a program what was
intentionally developed to be taught via the online modality (Burke, 2020; McCrea, 2020; Prall,
2020). Because students and faculty needed to avoid being physically present in the same room,
online education became the most viable method of education delivery, thereby exposing many
people to digital learning for the first time and forcing colleges to rethink how to administer
education in an instant (Barshikar, 2020; McCrea, 2020).
However, the rapid conversion of in-person programs to a digital format in higher
education institutions necessitated the total commitment of educators involved in this new
teaching process to increase their knowledge and readiness. (Campos, 2020). Campos further
argued that the complete implementation of online learning and teaching methodologies in
higher education institutions during the pandemic has highlighted the challenges faculty
18

experience with both pedagogy and technology and demonstrated the critical need to strengthen
the educational system's technological infrastructure, teachers' pedagogical expertise, and
students' repertoire of learning (2020).
The primary goal of online courses and programs should be to maximize the educational
experience's value; the primary goal of emergency remote teaching should be to ensure that the
educational experience remains accessible (Burke, 2020). Emergency remote teaching has
become a necessity (Burke, 2020; Newman, 2020; Prall, 2020); therefore, institutions should
keep this distinction in mind when planning and delivering online courses and programs, as well
as when adopting emergency remote teaching processes (Affouneh et al., 2020). Much of the
research on pandemic learning has focused on the effects of K-12 learning; the challenges
encountered in those educational settings have emboldened the chorus of voices from higher
education faculty who are among the critics of online programs. For this reason, this study is
focused on an established online graduate program, not the effect the COVID-19 pandemic had
on online programs.
Program Design
When attempting to increase online course retention, there are many factors to consider
and tactics to implement. Therefore, considering all challenges and techniques could be
counterproductive, for this study, the focus is singularly on program design related to the
intentional building of community. Although this appears to be a simple task, it is pretty
complex. Higher education institutions face the difficulty of designing online programs that
address the dynamic and complicated connection between content, pedagogy, and technology
and the need to engage students in a virtual environment, necessitating the devotion of time and
thought to the online program design ("OPD"). Many have written about the importance of
19

having a vision and a plan for implementing the OPD (Aoki & Pogroszewski, 1998; Berge &
Clark, 2005; Miller, 2007; Moore & Kearsley, 2004, Richart, 2002; Saba, 2000). According to
Berge and Clark (2005), when college academics, staff, and administration begin with a vision, it
must be with the acknowledgment that this new vision will give rise to a cultural shift within the
organization. OPD cannot be molded into the image of existing campus-based programs (Miller,
2007; Saba, 2000), which were designed with administrative and support infrastructure for
traditional on-campus students in mind (Aoki & Pogroszewski, 1998; Moore & Kearsley, 2004).
Administrative support structures, student services, technology support, and faculty training and
support requirements must be examined and altered to implement OPD successfully.
According to research, well-developed adult online programs are intentionally designed
to utilize a range of modalities and include strong instructor and peer engagement (Gruber,
2015). According to research, such programs have similar outcomes to in-person learning
environments (McKeown, 2012).
There is no consensus on the requirements of a successful program design model because
online programs are still relatively new (Clinefelter et al., 2019). The challenge universities face
in the 21
st
century is not if online programs will be offered but how such programs will be
designed and delivered (Campos, 2020). Early research indicated that areas outside of
technology, such as vision and planning, student services, and learning management systems,
should not be left out when developing online programs (Cardon & Rogers, 2002; Cavus, 2015;
Islam & Azad, 2015).
Vision and Planning
Online programs cannot be modeled after existing campus-based programs
(Miller, 2007; Saba, 2000), designed with administrative and support structures geared at
20

the typical on-campus student (Aoki & Pogroszewski, 1998; Moore & Kearsley, 2004).
Berge and Hyuang (2004), Care and Scanlan (2001), Robinson (2000), Tidwell and
Walther (2002), and Willis (1995) all indicate that advanced planning and policy
development are critical to a well-run online learning program. Planning allows for more
efficient use of current resources and time, such as designing technology training courses
for all faculty instead of requiring faculty to engage with technical assistance individually
(Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Berge and Clark (2005) investigated OPD strategic planning
and concluded it is a critical tool for integrating technology into teaching and learning
without compromising academic foundations. Austin and Rust (2015) discovered that
OPD, which is strategically planned, would be more likely to succeed. A systematic
approach to planning is required to provide a quality education for the diverse learning
community of the twenty-first century (Parker et al., 2011; Strickling & Gomez, 2010).
Student Services
Early research in the field indicated that to be successful in online programs, students
must have access to student services (Tinto, 2012; Voorhees, 1987). Student services are defined
as all non-instructional activities a university provides supporting a student's education (Fish &
Wickersham, 2009). Such services include support for admission, course scheduling, registration,
degree requirements, scholarships, counseling, and other educational support resources (Evans &
Campion, 2007). When questioned by Savrock (2001), the National Distance Education Centre
in Dublin, Ireland, Director Dennis Bancroft cited student support as one of three crucial
elements (content and technology were the other two) required to maintain a successful online
program. A much deeper review of this topic follows in later sections related to student retention
in this literature review.
21

Orientation
Orientation courses are often suggested in the literature to help new online students get
off to a good start (Gaytan, 2013; Heyman, 2010; Lee & Choi, 2011; Tung, 2012). The
orientations help students become accustomed to the OLE, program expectations, and faculty
expectations before courses begin (Heyman, 2010; Tung, 2012). Students are expected to ensure
they have adequate technological resources during orientation activities, which often mirror
those required to complete coursework (Gaytan, 2013). Researchers advocated for face-to-face
introduction meetings for students (Gaytan, 2013; Tung, 2012). Students new to online learning
benefit significantly from an orientation event that helps them better grasp the program's
requirements and boost their confidence (Gaytan, 2013). Students who were brand new to online
or hybrid learning, such as those in Jones's (2013) study, saw an increase of 20% in course
completion rates once a required orientation session was included.
Teaching in Online Programs
The essential responsibility of the teacher, according to Rogers' (1969) theory of learning,
is to "enable the pupil to learn, to feed his or her curiosity" (p. 18). "The facilitator has much to
do with defining the first mood or atmosphere of the group or class experience," he said, citing
numerous teaching concepts that emphasize learner agency and are thus of particular importance
for teachers of adults in an online environment (p. 164). The students in the learning community
will mirror and emulate the instructor when he or she shares knowledge from a place of humility
or kindness (Gutiérrez-Santiuste et al., 2015). Faculty requirements will change according to the
coursework delivery mode, synchronous, asynchronous, or hybrid. Some online programs
require little effort from either the teacher or the student, such as simply uploading video-
recorded lectures to a class website as found in fully asynchronous programs. Fully Synchronous
22

and hybrid programs require significantly more effort, such as uploading materials, tests, and
syllabi to the LMS and sophisticated and interactive learning involving faculty and peer
feedback.
Merely converting in-person content-driven curricula into a technology-accessible format
is unlikely to achieve a successful, learner-centered educational experience (Anderson &
Middleton, 2002; Carr-Chellman, 2000; Darnell & Rosenthal, 2000; Edutopia, 2008; McAlister
et al., 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 1999, 2013). Many universities have jumped on the technology
bandwagon in order to become part of the information superhighway, according to Don
Maclntyre, former president of Fielding Graduate University and a pioneer in dispersed learning
programs (Magda et al., 2019). The purpose of many early online programs seems to be to
employ fiber optic cable to broadcast a worn and stale education as if the fiber optic cable will
somehow improve the pedagogy (Anderson & Middleton, 2002; Darnell & Rosenthal, 2000;
Magda et al., 2019; Palloff & Pratt, 2013). While asynchronous online settings provide unique
affordances for sharing knowledge-driven materials and activities among varied users (Magda et
al., 2019), synchronous online environments continue to revolutionize online learning formats
(Clinefelter et al., 2020). Anderson and Swazey (1998) and Van Manen (1999) offered several
keys areas that impact student experiences, and that should be considered in preparation for
teaching online programs: (a) preparation, (b) rigor, (c) feedback, (d) interaction with students,
and (e) continuous evaluation. Certain elements offer significant contributions to student
perceptions of, and satisfaction with, online programs, which can impact retention (Anderson &
Middleton, 2002; Darnell & Rosenthal, 2000; Magda et al., 2019; Van Manen, 1999):
• preparation: The first step in teaching online is meticulous preparation and
planning prior to the start of an online course to reduce student confusion
23

(Almarashdeh, 2016; Li & Irby, 2008), as making adjustments with classes in
progress typically does not work in an online environment (Bailey & Card, 2009).
Early planning and developing objectives offer learners clear directions, which
can be accomplished efficiently by modularizing or structuring course content
into subjects (Bailey & Card, 2009; Zsohar & Smith, 2008).
• rigor: Many inexperienced instructors in an online modality can struggle to create
academically rigorous online programs, which generally overburden students
(Bailey & Card, 2009). According to Dunlap et al. (2007), online programs should
provide a wide range of activities and assignments that require both lower- and
higher-level cognitive functioning, the balance of which fosters a collaborative
setting. Coursework in an online program can and should not only provide a sense
of community, but it should also fit together holistically to support learning
objectives (Zsohar & Smith, 2008).
• feedback: Prompt, meaningful, and consistent feedback to students correlates to
high student satisfaction in online courses (Darrington, 2008; Zsohar & Smith,
2008). Dykman and Davis (2008) underline the importance of early and ongoing
communication, as ongoing meaningful communication between students and
faculty is a fundamental element of online teaching. Furthermore, faculty should
be proactive, diligent, and disciplined in their responsibility to engage with
students online. According to Gallien and Oomen-Early (2008), student comfort
levels are increased through direct communication from faculty, with direct,
personal feedback from faculty increasing student performance.
24

• interaction with students: Interaction between faculty and student improves the
effectiveness of the online learning environment (Garrison, 2017; Muirhead,
2004, as quoted in Dunlap et al., 2007), resulting in enhanced student
engagement, grades, and satisfaction with the course (Appana, 2008; Gallien &
Oomen-Early, 2008). Thurmond (2003, as referenced in Dunlap et al.) contends
that the effectiveness and quality of the faculty contribute more to student
happiness than technology. While quality instructor advice and spoken directives
are frequently lacking in online courses (Evans & Champion, 2007), a learning
community must exist in order for students not to feel detached (Cornelius &
Glasgow, 2007).
• continuous evaluation: Continuous evaluation should include investigating
current practices of institutions that are leaders in providing high-quality online
programs (Almala, 2007). Online courses should be reviewed regularly for
effectiveness (Dykman & Davis, 2008; Stoltenkamp et al., 2007). Stoltenkamp et
al. conclude that continuous planning is essential because technologies and
policies are constantly changing (2007). Frequently upgrading online programs
(Winkler-Prins et al., 2007), gathering student comments (Cornelius & Glasgow,
2007; Li & Irby, 2008), and seeking input from colleagues (Zsohar & Smith,
2008) all help in the development of high-quality online courses.
As demand for courses covering the educational spectrum increases and the student
population diversifies and grows, the interface design will become increasingly vital for
dispensing information and improving knowledge retention (Clinefelter et al., 2020; Magda et
al., 2019).
25

Pedagogy for Online Programs
Typically, online program planning focuses on financial and personnel issues rather than
fundamental pedagogical challenges (Bates, 2000; Bothel, 2001). According to Magda et al.
(2019), administrators believe that courses and students will follow by providing technology.
Nevertheless, Keegan (1986) observed online programs as a distinct and coherent field of
education centered on innovative delivery modalities and pedagogical philosophy rather than a
teaching style or method.
Online learning challenges the established pedagogical practices in higher education
(Berry, 2018; Rovai & Downey, 2010). Unfortunately, university faculty expertise in on-ground
classes does not necessarily translate into practical pedagogical approaches for online learning
(Meyers, 2008). In Table 1, considerations for faculty when developing an online program are
detailed.

26

Table 1
Pedagogical Considerations When Developing Online Programs
Pedagogical Questions
1. Has the climate been considered in terms of welcoming open communication and
discourse?
2. Is it possible for all students to see guidelines or examples of the types of discussions
desired before they are asked to respond to anything?
3. Have online activities been explicitly designed to promote analysis, engagement, and
problem-solving?
4. Is there a system in place to encourage regular interactions with (1) other students, (2)
course material, and (3) faculty? Is it expected of students to make a cordial personal
introduction?
5. Have options been provided at various points throughout the course to allow students to
be in an adaptive environment?
6. Has thought been given to evaluating technical skills (and, if necessary, is a remediation
strategy in place)?

Experts can agree on the best practices for developing effective online learning programs
(Crumpacker, 2001; Chaney et al., 2010; Higgins & Harreveld, 2013); however, there is no
agreement on the best practices for preparing faculty to teach in online learning models. An
27

analysis of the literature revealed eight standard pedagogical practices for effective distance
teaching (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Fink, 2003; Meyers, 2008; Ryan et al., 2004):
• fostering relationships: compassion for students, a passion for the subject matter,
and a deep desire to see students succeed at university and beyond.
• engagement: use e-mails and class discussion boards to post required discussion
question responses and share student biographies and student group projects.
• timeliness: returning graded assignments promptly, frequently checking e-mails
and responding to questions, and assessing the volume of time required for
teaching in online programs.
• communication: foster communication through feedback; faculty should be very
attentive to their communication styles and the words they use to avoid
stereotyping and bias.
• organization: provide effective organization for students by utilizing the course
management software tools, providing links to Web sites and other supplemental
course materials, and having all course materials available to students by the first
day of class.
• technology: developing technical competency in the core areas being taught and
innovations in computer hardware and software programs.
• flexibility: an open mind, adaptability, and patience are key; system delays,
online learning system platform accessibility, e-mail reliability, and
communicating using only the written medium may test the patience of both
faculty and students.
28

• high expectations: defining course goals and learning objectives and clearly
establishing these expectations at the beginning of and throughout the course
With increasing demands for courses covering the educational spectrum and the student
population diversifying and growing in size, the interface design will become increasingly vital
for dispensing information and improving knowledge retention (Clinefelter et al., 2019; Campos,
2020; Magda et al., 2019). The experimentation occurring inside institutions of higher learning to
determine the optimal design for online programs which appear to meet the demands of all
students placed new pressure on course designers (Chen, 2007; Gaytan, 2009).
Collaborative Learning
Henri (1992) discovered that collaborative learning can improve some students'
educational experiences and that active engagement bolsters learning. Collaborative learning is
utilized to foster community through learning activities (McLoughlin, 1999) by organizing
students into teams to investigate and deliver information on a variety of topics. Rovai (2002b)
and Palloff and Pratt (2001) noted that collaborative learning could be utilized to address
students' culturally diverse learning needs.
Through collaborative learning, students develop an awareness of the existence of a
human being on the other side of a computer screen as a result of this online socialization, which
can help alleviate some of the sensations of social isolation. Rovai (2002a) found that online
courses can foster and sustain a sense of community on a par with or better than that achieved in
in-person courses through collaborative learning activities. Additional research is needed to
identify the most effective interactive practices for designing and facilitating online courses to
use collaborative learning to build a community to improve student retention (Rovai, 2002d).
29

Student Retention in Online Programs
The terms "persistence" and "retention" are frequently used synonymously. Nevertheless,
the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of Education, 2009) distinguishes
the terms by referring to "retention" as an institutional metric and "persistence" as a student
metric. In other words, institutions continue to exist, and students continue to study. Although
the term "persistence" is frequently used in the literature, it will not be utilized in this study due
to concerns about equity and negative connotations regarding how students are seen. Another
frequently used phrase (or abused) about retention is "attrition." Attrition is the loss of pupils as a
result of poor retention rates. This study focuses on retention rates as a measure of a program's
ability to keep students enrolled through completion and perseverance as the descriptor of what
makes students remain enrolled in an online program.
There is a wealth of information available in the literature on online course retention;
most of the proffered bits of advice are anecdotal on how to increase retention rates. Miller
(2007), for example, gives a list of key criteria (e.g., "prompt feedback on assignments and
responses to inquiries") as well as guidelines to grow over time (e.g., "assist the student in
establishing institutional identification and connection") for improving student retention.
Prendergrast (2003) examines a range of retention-related topics, including course design, pre-
course student briefing, and online tutoring. O'Brien and Renner (2002) discuss various aspects
that contributed to their online courses' increased retention rate, including increasing students'
comfort with technology, building trust in online instructors, and fostering highly interactive
interactions. Many institutions look to student retention rates to gauge the success of online
programs, which are historically 15-20% lower than on-campus programs (Stover, 2005). When
asked about the difficulties of maintaining online students compared to face-to-face students,
30

44.6% of chief academic officers stated that it is more challenging to retain online students
(Allen & Seaman, 2017).
Student perseverance or "persistence" is a popular research theme among higher
education scholars and researchers (Tillman, 2002) and must be considered in discussing
retention in online learning communities. Perseverance has been characterized as the learner's
determination to remain enrolled, accomplish learning objectives, or continue participating in
educational programs (Müller, 2008; Shin & Maxwell, 2003).
Importance of Student Retention in Online Programs
According to Frankola (2001) and Diaz (2002), the dropout rate for online courses is
more than 20% higher than the dropout rate for in-person courses, and Patterson and McFadden
(2009) found that the problematic condition had not improved significantly until relatively
recently. Patterson and McFadden's study found that online students were more likely to drop out
than campus-based students when comparing attrition in online and face-to-face courses.
Retention rates in online programs are crucial for public higher education institutions, as
the additional revenue earned by online programs is critical for supplementing many public
colleges and universities' diminishing state budgets (Green and Wagner, 2011; Hoyt & Oviatt,
2013; Meyer et al., 2009). Additionally, because online programs are frequently self-sustaining
but costly to maintain, institutions strive to keep their online programs at a low attrition rate
(Green & Wagner, 2011; Hoyt & Oviatt, 2013; Meyer et al., 2009; Miller & Schiffman, 2006).
Higher education has been concerned with increasing student retention rates for many
years. Attempts to ascertain the elements or variables influencing students' decision to leave
college continue. Had Sabtu et al. (2016) found at-risk characteristics such as mental health and
disability concerns, first-year and first-generation college students, part-time versus full-time
31

students, socioeconomic position, and ethnic origin to be the leading causes of student attrition.
Boles et al. (2010) believe online graduate programs' successes are due to students' average age
of 34.
According to reports, retention is influenced by students' feeling of community,
involvement, and interactions with instructors (Lee & Choi, 2011). The point at which students
complete their programs has been linked to retention, as has their student status (lower or higher
level) (Boton & Gregory, 2015). Boles et al. (2010) feel that modest class sizes of 25 or fewer
students can help increase retention rates. Additionally, retention has been linked to goal
commitment, social integration, academic integration, perceptions of external causes, intrinsic
motivation, and students' relationships with their instructors (Mansfield et al., 2011). For this
study, the focus is on the effect of community on retention rates.
Retention of students is critical to the health of students, programs, institutions, and
ultimately society. Current research appears to be shifting away from identifying likely dropouts
based on demographics or program of study and an appreciation for each student, program, and
institution (Willging & Johnson, 2009). According to research, demographic characteristics like
as age, gender, Grade Point Average (GPA), and hours worked may not differ considerably
between students who drop out and those who persist (Boton & Gregory, 2015). As long as
retention is a concern, practical methods for evaluating and enhancing student retention will be
sought.
Dietz-Uhler et al. (2007) have identified three primary reasons students leave a program:
personal, academic, and structural. Personal reasons for dropping out typically revolve around
the inability to manage added demands of school to their existing list of responsibilities at work
and home. In addition to the increased workload, many students struggle with the financial
32

burden of higher education (Tillman, 2002). Students also leave programs for academic reasons.
Poor course design, large class sizes, and inadequate staffing can lead to monotonous courses
perceived as a low return on the student's investment of time and money (Dietz-Uhler, Fisher,
Han, 2007) (Tillman, 2002).
While valid reasons for leaving a program, deeper investigations suggest that poor social
structure often leads to a sense of disconnectedness from other students and contributes to higher
dropout rates in online courses. (Dietz-Uhler et al., 2007, p. 106). Tillman (2002) argued that
something as simple as "the number of friends a student makes in orientation week" can
dramatically impact the development of a peer support system, a critical factor in student
attrition (p. 4).
Factors Influencing Student Retention in Online Programs
Student retention research indicates various factors that influence a student's decision to
persist and their interrelationships. For example, research demonstrates that the internal locus of
control is a significant predictor of not just academic perseverance (Joo et al., 2011; Morris et al.,
2005; Parker, 2003) but also of student satisfaction (Joo et al., 2011; Lee & Choi, 2013; Krause
and Stryker, 1984). That is, students who have a strong internal locus of control are more likely
to be satisfied with their courses and pursue further education. Siebert et al. (2016), Fedynich et
al. (2015), and Budash and Shaw (2017) all emphasized the significance of self-discipline, time
management, and organization as a result of the isolation associated with remote education.
Plank et al. (2014) discovered that student self-efficacy effectively instills resilience and coping
skills in students, which results in their success.
Waugh and Su-Searle (2014) discovered that students left online master's programs when
institutional regulations (such as demanding two courses per term when a student wants one)
33

harmed the online model's convenience. Casstevens et al. (2012) emphasized the importance of
integrating institutional supports within the course structure, which supports research by Yang et
al. (2017), which found that over 95% of students enrolled in master's level distance education
courses believed that having instructions/help embedded in courses was critical or highly
significant. Research conducted by Budash and Shaw (2017) concluded that online students need
direction to succeed academically. Bolliger et al. (2019) found that online students consider
comprehensive discussion requirements and the use of discussions as icebreakers in a favorable
manner. Bolliger et al. (2019) further reported that over 90% of students rated the library,
academic advising, technology support, and registrar as vital or extremely important when
questioned. Institutional support and policies appear critical for guaranteeing student success in
distance education.
Other research explored the relationship between satisfaction and retention and discovered
a statistically significant positive correlation (Johnson et al., 2014, Strayhorn, 2012, Morgan &
Tam, 1999). The primary reasons students fail to complete online courses are personal (Boston &
Ice, 2011; Mann & Henneberry, 2012), a lack of technology readiness/support (Cole et al., 2014;
Marmon et al., 2014; Rodriguez et al., 2008), and poor course design (Aragon & Johnson, 2008;
Chao et al., 2006; Hillman & Corkery, 2010; Meyer et al., 2009; Paul & Cochran, 2013).
As formerly mentioned, solitude is a frequent issue for students enrolled in online
programs (Austin & Rust, 2015). According to several studies, students seek faculty members
who provide timely and high-quality feedback since this alleviates their sense of loneliness
(Budash & Shaw, 2017; Holzweiss et al., 2014; Marmon et al., 2014; Strayhorn, 2012). Parallel to
instructor responsiveness, instructor presence has a beneficial influence on student learning,
comprehension, and engagement (Baker, 2011). According to related studies, having caring
34

faculty is the most frequently cited beneficial aspect of students' master's experiences (Hardre &
Pan, 2017). Studies show that an education that seems personal to them (Hardre & Pan, 2017) and
takes into consideration their specific experiences (Benke & Miller, 2014) is a crucial element in
online course endurance (Bocchi et al., 2004; Fedynich et al., 2015). Students' interactions with
faculty and advisors are critical since these institutional members are responsible for enabling the
processes required to complete a course or degree (Benke & Miller, 2014; Bocchi et al., 2004;
Fedynich et al., 2015; Ross et al., 2013; Siebert et al., 2016).
"Personalized education" has become a catch-all word for various educational claims
made in university recruiting brochures and mission statements created by small, private liberal
arts colleges and major, publicly financed research institutions (Waldeck, 2006). Similarly, Dunn
and Griggs (2000) state that tailored education capitalizes on student strengths and leads to
meaningful learning. According to Waldeck (2006), if customized education is correctly defined,
operationalized, and analyzed over time, it may predict significant characteristics such as student
retention. Despite the many promises of individualized education, little actual research seems to
define or validate its implementation techniques (Waldeck, 2006). Professors may only speculate
on whether particular classroom and extra-curricular activities constitute successful individualized
education and if these behaviors are empirically connected to meaningful student learning
outcomes (Dugg & Griggs, 2000; Waldeck, 2007). Surprisingly, the most substantial
empirical/social scientific study on customized education focuses on the learning medium that
most people regard as the least personal: distance and online education (Del Corso et al., 2005).
Keefe and Jenkins (2000) propose several broad aspects of individualized education: (1) a
growing, more profound connection between teacher and student; (2) a collegial school culture
35

based, in part, on smaller class sizes; (3) the identification of student learning characteristics; (4)
an interactive learning environment; and (5) flexible scheduling and assignments.
A sense of community through connections with faculty is vital for student achievement,
with research indicating peer support is a secondary factor (Hardre & Pan, 2017). According to
Benke and Miller (2014), students desired a high level of contact with their faculty and advisors
but not with other students. Other researchers found that campus-based master's students rarely
took use of offered opportunities to meet with faculty and other students outside of the classroom
(Casstevens et al., 2012). Faculty are effectively the "identity" of the university for students
enrolled in online courses and thus bear the primary duty of fostering a sense of community and
belonging to the university. Despite the seemingly decreased perceived benefit of peer
connections, researchers found that peer support and interaction opportunities contribute to
student performance in some programs (Budash & Shaw, 2017; Hardre & Pan, 2017; Holzweiss
et al., 2014). According to the literature, contact with other students may be less desirable than
contact with faculty but may nevertheless help the development of a sense of community.
Role of Program Leadership in Online Programs
Despite the critical importance of graduate programs, Petersen et al. (2017) pointed out
that the position of program director has not been fully formed or institutionalized, and it is
under-researched. Wiener and Peterson (2019) conducted a long-term study that found that most
program directors were teaching professors, with 93% holding the rank of assistant, associate, or
full professor. A department chair appointed the vast majority (73.7%), and more than half
(52.5%) were appointed for an indefinite term. As graduate program directors, more than 85%
were responsible for administrative tasks and their teaching responsibilities. Such tasks include
responding to program information requests, reviewing student academic performance,
36

coordinating admission decisions, overseeing new student recruitment and admissions decisions,
and liaison between departments, programs, and business units (Wiener & Peterson, 2019).
Program directors also report that these responsibilities tend to interfere with time for teaching
and scholarship, both of which are required for tenure and promotion success (Petersen et al.,
2017). Nonetheless, these duties are inextricably linked to enrollment efforts, particularly
recruitment and retention (Wiener & Peterson, 2019).
Faculty who run online programs play an important role in designing high-quality
programs and enrolling students (Garrett et al., 2020; LaBelle et al., 2020), providing critical
leadership and oversight to the academic quality, enrollment, and retention of students enrolled
in online programs (Downing, 2020; Grawe, 2021). The additional revenue stream from online
enrollment is critical to continuing in-person, on-campus programs at many universities (Bacow
et al., 2012). Maintaining high-quality leadership in charge of these programs is critical to an
institution's strategy for mitigating declining enrollments (Grawe, 2018; 2021). While research
on the administrative practices of universities offering online programs is growing (Wiener &
Peterson, 2019), there is currently a dearth of research on the influence of online academic
program directors; despite the critical role the position plays in developing online programs,
hiring the right faculty members, admitting qualified candidates, creating challenging courses,
nurturing virtual communities, and the direct impact all of the above have on retention rates.
Role of Student Support in an Online Program
Universities in the United States are knowledgeable that just as the demand for post-
secondary education shifts, so will student enrollment and diversity, and many students will
arrive unprepared for academic work due to the absence of technological proficiency (Bruso,
2001), lack of clear goals, and burdened by financial difficulties (Allen & Seaman, 2017;
37

Delahunty et al., 2014). Such challenges are exacerbated in online learning, necessitating a
response that exceeds the resources of the majority of single institutions (Floyd, & Casey-
Powell, 2004; Peters et al., 2018; Shea & Armitage, 2002). To be successful in online learning,
students must know much more than how to use a learning management system (Brindley, 2014;
Bruso, 2001).
Academic advising is essential to any higher education experience, including distance
education (Waldner et al., 2011). Allen and Seaman (2017), Brindley (2014), and Crawley
(2012) agree that intentional attention to academic support is an exceptionally critical component
of online students' success given their greater diversity, increased need for self-management and
technical self-efficacy, information literacy, and the potentially isolating effect of the online
learning environment (Nguyen & R.P. Group, 2017). According to Brindley (2014) and Bruso
(2001), universities should make a concerted effort to understand both the obstacles presented by
online learning and how they can assist students in developing the skills required to overcome
them to assist students in becoming independent, self-regulated learners. For struggling and
isolated students in the OLE, a responsive and helpful distant academic advisor is critical to
success and persistence (Cockrell & Shelley, 2011; Lee & Choi, 2011; Tung, 2012). Effective
advisors answer students' questions about the institution, program, and course work, and they
counsel students on how to balance academic and personal demands (Rajesh, 2011). The
academic advisor acts as a liaison between the needs of students and the university's support
services.
A one-size-fits-all strategy for online services, like a one-size-fits-all strategy for on-
campus services, will fall short of meeting the needs of all students (Allen & Seaman, 2017;
Crawley, 2012). Seaman and Allen (2017), Brindley (2014), and Crawley (2012) agree that
38

online students require online services and that the vast majority of students are used to using
technology on-demand – in both their personal and social lives (Brusso, 2001). Several
academics described the assignment of support personnel roles with the common goal of
successful student completion of an online program. Academic support advisors (Cockrell &
Shelley, 2011; Gravel, 2012; Nichols, 2010) and mentors (Park et al., 2011) are two examples of
support personnel (Brito & Rush, 2013).
Making the assumption that online students require all of the same services as on-campus
students, plus a few more that are unique to the online learning context (Allen & Seaman, 2017),
has forced institutions offering online courses and programs to reconsider the types of support
they provide (Floyd, & Casey-Powell, 2004), the accessibility of services to ensure that all
students, including BIPOC, have access to them, and the best ways to invest in student support
that will have the most significant impact (Nguyen & R.P. Group, 2017; Shea,& Armitage,
2002). A paradigm shift in thought and design is required to take online student services to fully
address the demands of today's and tomorrow's online students (Allen & Seaman, 2017;
Crawley, 2012). Both high-tech and tactile elements must be included in the design (Crawley,
2012). High touch reflects the critical importance of a human element in student support, with
online technology facilitating communication rather than replacing human engagement in
complex interactions like guidance and counseling (Allen & Seaman, 2017). On-campus, student
services experts are available to assist students with their cognitive, psychological, and social
development (Brindley, 2014), and interaction with these specialists is no less important for
online students, who need help developing the competencies, traits, and knowledge required for
academic persistence and success (Allen & Seaman, 2017; Dietz-Uhler et al., 2007). The support
39

students receive from both the institution and faculty enhances their likelihood of completing the
program, boosting retention rates.
The importance of academic advising cannot be overstated, but the advising style can
significantly impact persistence, satisfaction, and outcome. Gravel (2012) investigated the
relationships of 283 online learners with their academic advisors using a mixed-methods study.
The first phase of this study involved completing a survey to categorize the nature of the
advising relationship as prescriptive, a more authoritarian view of the advisor informing students
of what they should do, or developmental, where the advisor problem-solved collaboratively
with learners to help them achieve their goals. In phase two, student interviews about advising
were conducted, supplemented by artifact reviews, primarily of student-advisor e-mails.
According to the findings, these students received and preferred an individualized developmental
relationship with their advisor that was based on a partnership to match program requirements to
the learner's goals. Similar preferences have been identified regarding desired mentoring
relationships with faculty, specifically those that foster the transition from student to scholar and
colleague (Terrell et al., 2012). As a result of the study's findings, recommendations include
using multi-media tools for academic advising, integrating synchronous and asynchronous
interaction, and one-on-one meetings (Gravel, 2012). An online advising portal (Gravel, 2012),
online referral forms (Russo-Gleicher, 2013), and online interfaces for critical services should be
established to increase the efficacy of academic advising efforts (Sullivan & Pagano, 2012).
Academic support services are crucial in every learning environment (Hart, 2012).
Meeting these needs can be difficult in an online learning environment, where students are
frequently physically dispersed from the university (Stevenson, 2013). Academic support
services are usually created separately from one another, resulting in the need for students to
40

navigate a complicated matrix of support to find necessary resources (McCracken, 2008;
Newberry & DeLuca, 2014). Awareness of the specific needs of online students in an integrative
way reduces students' burdens and promotes learner satisfaction, which fosters perseverance
leading to increased retention (Bekele, 2010; Joo et al., 2011; McCracken, 2008; Stevenson,
2013). According to Hagel et al. (2012) and Newberry and DeLuca (2014), academic support is
required throughout the online student's life cycle. Heyman (2010) describes
perseverance/retention as the culmination of a partnership between the student and their
academic program, as well as the cultural contexts of the university.
This section relies heavily on the recommendation that an institution's response to online
students' needs is learner-centered rather than institution-centered and that it blends seamlessly to
facilitate effective and successful resolution of institutional issues by busy online students (Brito
& Rush, 2013; Conceicao & Lehman, 2012; Heyman, 2010; Lee & Choi, 2011; McCracken,
2008; Newberry & DeLuca, 2014; C. L. Park et al., 2011; Stevenson, 2013). To have the best
chance of success, commitment must include proper faculty training and support, ongoing
curriculum development, and learner support structures. This is not a simple process, but the
advantages gained by online learners have proven to be well worth the effort (Sullivan &
Pagano, 2012).
Challenges in Measuring Retention Rates
The required federal reporting for master's programs is substantially less than what is
required for undergraduate programs. As a result, there is no national data on the retention or
graduation rates of distance-learning master's programs. To complicate the issue, there is no
single, universal definition for student retention as each institution and program within it may
have different parameters in which they measure retention. In the broadest sense, one definition
41

of retention is "a college or university's capacity to effectively graduate all students who enroll at
that institution" (Berger & Lyon, 2005, p. 3). Dietz et al. (2007) describe a range of definitions
from the most liberal "percentage of students who do not withdraw from or pass a course,
percentage of students with a grade of C or better" to a much stricter "percentage of students who
initiated the first unit and were still participating in the class at the end of the course" (p. 106).
Creating a standardized set of criteria to calculate student retention rates would be helpful when
comparing programs and institutions of higher education for students, faculty, and the public to
assess retention rates of online programs.
The majority of research on student retention of master's students enrolled in online
programs has concentrated on the student experience and its association with persistence to
determine their effect on retention (Joo et al., 2011). The research literature has identified the
characteristics and supports essential for student success in online programs. These
characteristics and supports include student self-efficacy, social support, institutional support,
and program relevance to the student's future profession (Budash & Shaw, 2017; Fedynich,
Siebert, et al., 2016; Hardre & Pan, 2017; Holzweiss et al., 2014; Milman et al., 2015; Yang,
Baldwin, & Snelson, 2017). However, there are relatively few studies on the impact of
community on retention rates. As a result, structural explanations for causal links between
factors impacting retention are uncommon.
Creating Community in Online Programs
The term "community" refers to a group's sense of belonging and membership (Yuan &
Kim, 2014). Individuals form communities within or outside existing social and political
frameworks. To better understand a community, it is necessary to analyze the fundamental
human needs that motivate individuals to form groups with a common interest or benefit. The
42

establishment of human relationships, networks of interactions, and systems of interconnected
relationships or communities is triggered by basic human needs. Maslow (1968) was one of the
first to discover the desire for connection almost 30 years ago when he described human beings'
needs as ordered in a ladder-like fashion. The most fundamental requirements were physical –
air, water, food, and sex. Then came security and stability demands, followed by psychological
and social wants for belonging, love, and approval. At the very top of the list were self-
actualizing needs – the need to satisfy oneself, to become everything one is capable of becoming.
The tactics for online course delivery have not consistently addressed other aspects of the
student experience in higher education, such as the benefits of community building among
learners. Historically, a sense of belonging and community has been a critical component of the
entire university experience, including establishing support systems and the opportunity to
initiate relationships with other students or faculty that potentially extend beyond the university's
campus and into the world which the student may enter after graduation.
Importance of Community in Online Programs
A key element of distance education is the separation of student and teacher (Simonson et
al., 2012, p. 28). Moreover, it contributes to one of the most significant challenges of distance
education—attrition (Dueber & Misanchuk, 2001, p. 2). Researchers agree that students need a
sense of belonging, both academically and socially, to be satisfied with the learning process,
complete their coursework, and graduate (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983; Moffatt, 1991; Murphy
& Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2012; Tinto, 2012), and faculty members have a critical role in
fostering community (Song et al., 2015; Tinto, 2012; Zhao et al., 2005). According to the
literature on both concepts, a sense of belonging fosters community; a sense of belonging is
created through consistent, frequent, and meaningful connections with other people within a
43

social group (Berry, 2017), whereas community has traditionally been defined as a socially
cohesive group of people who engage with one another or organize around shared beliefs, aims,
or geographical location (DeWall, Deckman, Pond, & Bonser, 2011). Research indicates that
community is vital in online higher education programs to reduce feelings of isolation, build
social and academic competency, increase instructional convergence, and increase student
happiness (Calderwood, 2000; Rovai, 2002c; VanTyron & Bishop, 2009).
According to Rovai (2002c), a sense of community is essential for emotional and social
involvement, cognitive engagement, and learning. Garrison (2017) agreed that community is
essential for developing knowledge and skills to persevere and achieve their academic goals;
students must feel a sense of belonging (Dawson, 2006; Garrison, 2017; Shea et al., 2006; Tinto,
2012). According to Delahunty et al.'s study of the scholarship on online pedagogy, these points
of view are widely held among researchers (2013). The value of community in education may
present a challenge for online students, who appear to be more likely to feel alienated from their
school and peers, putting them at a higher risk of dropping out (Griffiths & Graham, 2010;
Morgan & Tam, 1999; Rovai & Wighting, 2005).
Rubin and Fernandes (2013) identified teacher behaviors as critical in fostering a sense of
community, identifying faculty as leaders of communities of inquiry that set the standards for the
online classroom through their actions. Kuh et al. (2005) also discussed the professor's role in
fostering a sense of belonging and community, emphasizing the importance of clearly defined
goals, easily accessible materials and assistance, welcome programs, early warning systems for
struggling students, and mentorship; in other words, the formation of a caring and supportive
scholarly community.
44

As a result, investigating instructor behaviors in online classes is critical to understanding
students' online experiences (Frisby et al., 2014; Kramer et al., 2016). Wade et al. (2011) also
investigated the relationship between interpersonal encounters (community of practice) and
online group projects (community of inquiry) in order to understand better how the former
influences the latter.
When students' immediate behavior is restricted, and their presence is not felt, the
community suffers, and students' chances of success suffer (Morgan & Tam, 1999; Murphy &
Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2012; Rovai & Wighting, 2005). A growing body of research indicates
that online community-building appears to be difficult (Frisby et al., 2014; Glazier, 2016; Kim &
Thayne, 2015; Song et al., 2015). The increased difficulty in building community and the
potential consequences for student success in online classes make a compelling case for teaching
and learning scholars to better understand community-building (Tichavsky et al., 2015).
Rapport and its Role in Community-Building
According to several sources, rapport is a necessary component of community building
and, by implication, student achievement (Kim & Thayne, 2015; Shea, 2006; Shea et al., 2010;
Song et al., 2015). Frisby and Martin's 2010 study tried to succinctly illustrate the relationship
between rapport and community: "[students'] perceived rapport with instructors and peers as
related to perceptions of classroom connectivity" (p. 146). Glazier (2016) compiled various
published definitions to create a composite definition of rapport as "harmonious exchanges
between faculty and students [in which] conflicts are resolved amicably, ideas are respectfully
exchanged, and discussions are conducted professionally. "A connection with a good rapport is
one that is characterized by mutual understanding and acceptable communication" (Glazier,
2016, p. 5). Wilson et al. (2010) also examined many "popular concepts of rapport," including
45

sentiments of friendship, care, close relationship, and harmony that are critical components of
effective teaching and which also relate to student learning.
Wilson and Ryan discovered that "relationships between professors and students are
associated with significant student outcomes such as student satisfaction, class attendance...study
time... [and] paying attention in class" (2013, p. 130). According to Kim and Thayne (2015), "the
strength of an instructor's rapport with his or her pupils has an effect on each learner's affective
experiences (e.g., attitudes and confidence) and achievements. When interactions between
students and instructors are strong, pupils are more engaged in the work. Their learning is
enhanced" (p. 101). In comparison to demographic or contextual factors, "rapport building is a
straightforward, instructor-led intervention that has been shown to boost online retention and
grades greatly" (Glazier, 2016, p. 1). However, even though "students have indicated that rapport
is a necessary quality of a good teacher [and classroom], there is comparatively little research on
rapport." 147 (Frisby & Martin, 2010).
Wilson and Ryan (2013) stated, "rapport seems to transcend beyond liking of the
instructor to what the instructor does to make the lesson more interesting for students" (p. 132-
133). Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2012) agreed that "rapport is a social construct, not a
personality trait" and that positive or harmonious mutual attention characterizes this situation (p.
168). Kim and Thayne agreed that current research supported a notion of rapport as a spectrum
of exchanges that produce "a welcoming atmosphere and [make] students feel they matter"
(2015, p. 103).
Many of the numerous descriptions of good interpersonal skills and interactions in online
classes tend to closely reflect typical definitions of "rapport" to emphasize the importance of
pleasant connections and bonding behaviors in an online classroom, even if scholars do not use
46

the term directly (Greene & Mitcham, 2012; Kim & Thayne, 2015; Tichavsky et al., 2015).
Greene and Mitcham (2012) detailed a favorable classroom situation in which rapport could be
inferred and established a link between the conditions of this event and student achievement, in
the same way that rapport scholars do (p. 14). According to Tichavsky et al. (2015), "interaction
is at the heart of the most effective learning environments regardless of delivery mode, and
interaction tends to aid student motivation" (p. 2). It is not uncommon for authors to use the term
"interaction" to describe good encounters, such as those that occur when persons have a good
rapport (Frisby & Martin, 2010; Glazier, 2016; Greene & Mitcham, 2012; Kim & Thayne, 2015;
Song et al., 2015).
Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2012) contributed to the rapport literature by
conducting a study to identify rapport-building markers in online and face-to-face classes. The
research indicated that rapport is generated when an individual's posture, actions, and voice style
are coordinated (2012). Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares discovered these signals are less
prevalent in online classes than in face-to-face classes; however, it is unclear whether noticing
posture, voice, and tone markers are more complex in online classes or if rapport was simply
absent. The markers of rapport vary according to context; Jones et al. (2009), for example,
identified shared writing styles (e-mails with the same formality, style, and tone), non-class-
related talks, self-disclosure, and real genuine feelings as signs of rapport. Noticing verbal
markers in an online class could be simpler than detecting nonverbal markers such as posture or
movement, yet the study on how, when, and why the various markers manifest or do not
manifest is still unclear (Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2012).

47

Community
The term "community" refers to a group's sense of belonging and membership (Yuan &
Kim, 2014). Students collaborate with peers, instructors, and staff to achieve academic, social,
and emotional goals in a learning community. A sense of community has been linked to
enhanced levels of student involvement, performance, and retention (Ke, 2010; Stubb et al.,
2011). Instructors are critical in fostering a sense of community among online undergraduate
students (Booker, 2008; Garrison et al., 2010). Despite teachers' critical role in the online
experience, few studies have examined their involvement in online graduate classrooms (Ke &
Hoadley, 2009; Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Yuan & Kim, 2014).
In the context of online programs, quality social interaction is critical to learners' feeling
of community (Dawson, 2006). Developing a solid feeling of community among all online
learners is a critical objective for online instructors (Hill et al., 2002). Irlbeck et al. (2006) argued
that "realizing the full potential of interaction and community networks via online
communications demands a repositioning of instructional design roles and processes" (p. 171).
Haythornthwaite et al. (2002) discovered that the stronger the connection between distance
learners, the more frequent the contacts, and the more diversity of media types employed in the
interactions, the easier it was for learners to accommodate their communication, schedules, work,
or social tasks.
Comprehensive research indicates that a lack of connection with other students in the
course contributed to an online course's high dropout rate (Link and Scholtz, 2000). According to
a study that analyzed both archival and survey data, factors such as a heavy course load,
insufficient expertise in higher education, less experience with online courses, and a busy life
outside of school all contribute to the dropout rate (Parker et al., 2011). Few studies attribute low
48

retention rates specifically to a "lack of community." Nonetheless, based on the current statistics
relating to "learner interaction" or "learner isolation," we can conclude that community plays a
significant role in online retention rates.
Impact of Community on Collaborative Learning in Online Programs
Collaborative learning is a method of teaching and learning that requires students to
collaborate during the learning process and to establish an agreement through negotiation to
complete group activities (Maier, 2012). Several critical characteristics of collaborative learning
include open-ended themes that students investigate to develop their own meaning or
interpretation, with a shared group grade serving as an incentive for group activity.
In a semester-long course, forming a sense of community does not happen by chance. It
must be planned and facilitated by the instructor. Bleazby (2012) defined a community as one
that incorporates a learning culture in which everyone contributes to a communal comprehension
effort. While involvement appears natural to the participants, it becomes a conscious aim chosen
by the instructor (Bleazby, 2012; Maier, 2012). The rising use of technology by many schools,
particularly post-secondary colleges, to deliver courses and programs remotely has highlighted
the question of how to best promote community among learners who are physically separated
from one another and from the school (Pallof & Pratt, 1999).
Conceptual Framework
Most of our educational institutions are built on the notion that learning is a discrete
process with a start and stop, distinct from other activities, and is the result of teaching. These
systems guide students through individual sessions covering vast amounts of content and real-
world experience. As a result, many students dismiss formal education, considering it to be
monotonous and arduous and that they are not made out for it. However, learning is a social
49

phenomenon. It provides a conceptual framework from which general principles and
recommendations for understanding and learning can be derived.
Building community has been considered essential to all collaborative learning,
particularly in higher education, whether on campus or online (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
Online learning inherently creates a potential sense of disconnectedness from students and
colleagues within the learning community. Evidence shows that online communities can not only
be developed (Rovai, 2002) but also contribute significantly to perceived learning (Thompson &
MacDonald, 2005) and overall academic success and persistence in higher education (Shea,
2007).
The research is organized around two distinct but related theoretical frameworks: the
Community of Inquiry and the Community of Practice. The Community of Inquiry theory is used
to examine why students continue in an online program; the Community of Practice theory is
used to examine how students develop community in an online program. Both theories are
critical in determining retention rates.
Community of Inquiry
The Community of Inquiry (COI) concept was developed by Garrison et al. (2000)
"particularly [for] the objective of encouraging epistemic involvement" (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010,
p. 1722). The concept addressed a flaw in previous theories, namely that interaction among
groups of learners increases efficacy and deeper thinking by itself (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010).
Rather than focusing on quantity, as previous researchers had done, Garrison et al. (2000)
focused on quality when examining the links connecting communication behaviors and
collaborative learning results (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). The term "intersection of instructional
presence, cognitive presence, and social presence" was coined to describe the educational
50

experience in the early days of online education (Garrison et al., 2010). Though the authors'
conceptions of instructional, cognitive, and social presences have not varied much over the years,
they have been implemented in creative directions as educational media and research topics have
evolved (Garrison et al., 2010).
The resulting theoretical framework depicts the intersection of three spheres--
engagement with participants (social presence), engagement with content (cognitive presence),
and then added engagement with goals and direction (teaching presence). This theory
incorporates John Dewey's Theory of Inquiry, in which he explains "how organisms interact and
maintain an integrated balance between themselves and their environment" (Dewey, 1938). Over
time, Garrison's Communities of Inquiry (COI) has been mentioned in 252 reports and validated
as a viable framework and methodology for the online learning community (Rourke and Kanuka,
2009).
Early online research suggested that social presence was a key contributing factor to
success (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Cobb (2009) defines social presence as "the degree to
which a person is seen as 'real' in mediated communication" (p.241). According to Lakin (2005),
social presence significantly influences students' level of engagement and perceived satisfaction
with a course. Henri (1992) added the concept of the "cognitive dimension" in which information
is exchanged, and new ideas are connected, improving the efficacy of interaction with students.
Social presence entails the educator revealing his or her personality (Ke, 2010), as when
the instructor selects Skype instead of e-mail to deliver instructions and comments in a more
personal, welcoming manner. Additionally, social presence may examine how instructors use
social media to encourage themselves and their students to share more of themselves to establish
stronger interpersonal relationships. While social presence typically requires more work and
51

time, it has been favorably associated with enhanced student learning results (Tichavsky et al.,
2015).
The term "teaching presence" relates to students' perceptions of being in an educational
setting with a knowing, capable educator (Ke, 2010). This type of presence is generally
established prior to starting a course when teachers develop curriculum, lesson plans, and
evaluations. The process of developing presence continues throughout the course, with the
delivery of lessons, activities, evaluations, and feedback (Ke, 2010). Ke hypothesized that
teaching presence might be more important than cognitive or social presence in establishing a
community of inquiry; the 2010 study discovered that social and cognitive presence might be
contingent on teaching presence. Garrison later discovered support for a more central role for
teaching presence in community development and participation in his subsequent research with a
different team (Garrison et al., 2010).
Shea and Bidjerano (2010) enhanced the representation of equally impacting presences in
the original COI model by including a framework for learning presence. The term "learning
presence" is closely related to the cognitive presence and refers to a student's self-efficacy as
well as the degree to which the learning environment and activities are customized to the
student's abilities and requirements (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). Cognitive presence is defined as
the ability of learners to acquire knowledge, develop critical thinking abilities, and synthesize
and analyze concepts through conversation and engagement with the teacher and peers (Garrison
et al., 2010; Ke, 2010).
The social constructionist perspective of the community of inquiry, wherein learners
work collaboratively to discover purpose, develop skills, and form unified connections (Ke,
2010), also emphasizes the value of relationship-building (otherwise referred to as "rapport")
52

between teachers and students, as well as between peers is depicted in Figure 1. These findings
indicating the additional time and care required to develop an online presence serve to validate
the usage of the community of inquiry theoretical framework for scholarship in online education.
The following section will discuss building a community of practice and the significance of
analyzing its outcomes; belonging and rapport.
Figure 1
Community of Inquiry

Note. This model of COI, adapted from Garrison et al. (2010), depicts the development of three
interdependent aspects – social, cognitive, and instructional presence – to create a deep and
meaningful (collaborative-constructivist) online learning experience.
53

Community of Practice
The concept of community of practice originated with Etienne Wenger and Jean Lave's
(1991) work, which questioned long-held assumptions about learning. They claimed, in
particular, that learning is a social activity that takes place within a cultural and historical
context. The theory was further refined in an empirical examination of a single insurance
company, where Etienne concentrated on theorizing the concept of "community of practice"
(Wenger, 1998). A central tenet of his theoretical work is that communities of practice can
emerge in any domain of human endeavor, for example, in the practice of developing new forms
of artistic expression, in the practice of solving climate problems, or in the practices of school
friends defining a shared identity in their school. In other words, learning occurs as a result of
our engagement in various social practices, which are established through time as a result of
pursuing any type of endeavor.
Communities of practice are most frequently used as a framework for knowledge
exchange in corporate management, communication studies, and education. Consideration of
groups in terms of community has gained popularity in recent years due to research in the fields
of communities of practice. Initially articulated in 1991 by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger,
"communities of practice are groups of individuals who share a concern or a passion for what
they do and learn how to do it better via regular interaction" (Wenger, 1997). A community of
practice comprises three components: a domain of knowledge that identifies a collection of
issues; a community of people who care about this domain; and the shared practice they are
developing to be effective in their domain (Wenger et al., 2002).
Communication helps define a community's boundaries and brings its members together
in a shared domain of knowledge. However, how this communication manifests itself varies
54

slightly. The majority of communities of practice value direct contact with members addressing
the ramifications of their practice in person. The researcher's motivation for studying this
theoretical perspective on the relationship between communities of practice and retention rates in
online graduate MPA programs originates from personal experience with a program that
incorporates an online community. After becoming acquainted with the framework for
communities of practice, it appeared to define the experience.
Despite the wide variety of forms that a community of practice can take and the divergent
professional perspectives on what constitutes a community of practice, one fundamental structure
of three central elements is universally accepted: a domain of knowledge that defines a set of
issues; a community of people who care about this domain; and the shared practice that they are
developing to be effective in their domain (Wenger et al., 2002). Organization around a defined
domain establishes group accountability for the accumulation of knowledge and the development
of a practice; a domain is not a static collection of problems that can be treated and ignored but a
critical issue that changes with the community's progress (Wenger et al., 2002). Similarly, a
community of practice's community element "is not merely a website, a database, or a repository
of best practices. It is a collection of individuals who engage, learn together, form relationships,
and acquire a sense of belonging and mutual commitment (Wenger et al., 2002).
Concerning practice, Wenger et al. (2002) define it as "a collection of socially defined
methods of doing things in a particular domain: a collection of shared approaches and norms that
serve as a foundation for action, communication, problem resolution, performance, and
responsibility." Apart from this fundamental framework, communities of practice generally
progress through five stages of development: potential, coalescing, maturing, active, and
dispersing (Allee, 2000). These stages characterize a community of practice at every point of its
55

development, from its inception as a "loose network of people with comparable challenges and
needs" to its inevitable demise as a function that has "outlived its usefulness" (Allee, 2000).
Naturally, no stage has a fixed duration, which means that it is entirely possible for a community
to stagnate in the potential stage or to idle at its peak in the Active stage, which is defined by the
community's invention of new methods for sustaining community energy, educating novices, and
gaining influence (Allee, 2000).
Not all communities or practices meet the definition of a community of practice—
however broad that definition may be. Additionally, communities of practice are entirely self-
selective, with members joining because they identify personally with the community's business
rather than because they were assigned a duty (Allee, 2000). The Community of Practice theory
is a theoretical framework that can assist us in rethinking education (Overstreet, 2020; Smith et
al., 2019; Vogl, 2016). If, for example, we see identity as an organizing principle in the design of
education from a community of practice perspective, we will avoid developing a curriculum of
objective knowledge and instead focus our efforts on establishing learning environments that
foster identity negotiation (Smith et al., 2019; Wenger et al., 2002). Further, according to Smith
et al. (2019), such a framework should be "nutritious," relevant, and meaningful to young people
as they work through the "complicated equation of identity." Education research may seek to
develop pedagogies and curricula that facilitate expression, to improve social integration in
online programs (Overstreet, 2020; Smith et al., 2019; Vogl, 2016; Wenger et al., 2002). The
convergance of the three domains of a Community of Practice is depicted in Figure 2.

56

Figure 2
Community of Practice

Note. This COP model, adapted from Wenger (1998), represents the intersection of individuals
who have a common interest in what they learn and share a desire to be more proficient by
interacting regularly.

In light of online education's increasing growth, this study expands the theoretical
framework of communities of practice and examines how it might be utilized productively to
boost retention rates in online programs (Overstreet, 2020, Vogl, 2016).
Conclusion
This study focused on the correlation between a sense of community and high retention
rates in an online graduate program. A significant contributor to retention is student
57

perseverance, a complex phenomenon subject to each learner's perception and interpretation
(Conceicao & Lehman, 2012; Hart, 2012; Lee & Choi, 2011; Stevenson, 2013). Retention is also
affected by multiple environmental variables and the cumulative influence of these variables
(Baxter, 2012; Lee & Choi, 2011). To inform this study, this chapter reviewed the literature on
the benefits, challenges, and stigma of online programs and the pedagogy of online programs,
and factors influencing retention rates.
The research revealed that community is critical for the success of online programs.
Researchers have made persuasive arguments that community is critical in higher education
remote learning because it alleviates feelings of isolation, boosts academic and social
accomplishment, promotes curricular integration, and boosts student happiness with learning
(Calderwood, 2000; Rovai, 2002; VanTyron & Bishop, 2009). The rapid growth of online
programs is not simply because it is more convenient, cheaper, or faster; it is also because the
teaching and learning in these programs can be done with high quality (University of Virginia,
2020). Finally, additional benefits of online education include the freedom to pursue education at
a time that is convenient for the student, the ability to compose thoughts before responding to
questions, and the ability to interact with classmates located in different locations via technology.
Chapter Three presents the study's methodological approach.

58

Chapter Three: Methodology
As covered in the literature review in Chapter Two, the popularity of online programs has
increased over the last decade; there are now more in-person universities offering online
programs and universities that are entirely online (Magda et al., 2020). However, student
retention in online programs has remained difficult for any university, public or private, that
provides both in-person and online programs (Allen & Seaman, 2013). The online MPA program
at WU was the focus of this study and has retention rates of 87% (Warner University, 2021)
compared to the average retention rate of 72.9% at private institutions (Clinefelter et al., 2020;
Magda et al., 2020).
As introduced in Chapter One, this study addressed the problem of low retention rates in
online graduate programs. This study aimed to determine the effect of community on retention
rates as viewed by faculty and alumni of an online graduate degree program at a private R1
research university using a qualitative research methodology (Creswell, 2013). This chapter
discusses the qualitative research design method and its applicability to this study. The chapter
discusses sampling techniques, population selection, and ethical considerations in human
research. The methods used to verify validity and reliability are discussed, and the possibility of
researcher bias. The chapter finishes with a discussion of the data analysis techniques, including
data collection, transcription, classification, and coding.
Research Questions
The following research questions (RQs) were addressed in this study on perceptions of
faculty teaching in an online graduate degree program to investigate faculty perceptions of
community on retention rates in online graduate programs.
59

RQ1: How do faculty in an online master's program perceive the relationship between
community within an online program and student retention rates?
RQ2: 2. How do alumni describe their sense of community as a factor in degree
completion?
Overview of Design
Interviews were used as the primary methodology. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) remarked
that interviews should be used to learn about topics that cannot be directly witnessed from people
who can offer credible testimony. According to Creswell & Creswell (2018), the qualitative
approach of interviews entails eliciting participants' perspectives from a group of six to eight
interviewees through the use of semi-structured, generally open-ended questions.
This study was based on two distinct but related theoretical frameworks: the Community
of Inquiry (COI) and the Community of Practice (COP). Anderson et al. (2001) argue that the
confluence of instructional presence, cognitive presence, and social presence results in a holistic
view of the impact of student-faculty and student-student relationship-building. Wenger (1991)
describes a broad conceptual framework that considers social practices, belonging, meaning, and
identity necessary to facilitate learning. Using these frameworks, the importance of community
on the retention rates of an online program will be identified and examined.
Research Setting
At the time of the study, Warner University (a pseudonym) was a private, not-for-profit
university that served more than 45,000 students in the Western United States. Warner University
(WU) offered more than 450 degree-granting programs; nine programs were offered in the online
modality, with six of those nine programs being master's programs and three post-graduate
certificate programs. This study was focused on one online Master of Public Administration
60

(MPA) program. This program was selected due to the program's success in terms of retention
rates over the ten years it had been offered.
The Researcher
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note that encounters between interviewers and responders is
a complex phenomenon, as both parties contribute biases, predispositions, and physical features
to the interaction, all of which influence and shape the interaction and data collected. In
qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument; it is, therefore, incumbent upon the
researcher to be aware of any potential biases when collecting and analyzing data (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher grew up in a mixed-race, middle-class neighborhood with knowledge of
WU as an elite university that was selective in its admissions. It was the dream school of many
peers, including the researcher. The local beliefs, and the belief of this researcher, were that
admission to and attendance at WU was an achievement that brought accolades and
opportunities.
The researcher must have a process for classifying any biases so that they do not
adversely affect the outcome and must maintain neutrality throughout the process (Crewell &
Cresswell, 2018). The researcher is an alumnus of WU and the MPA program in particular and
thus had strong, positive feelings about the program's success, which were further enhanced by
their current employment with the program. Additionally, the researcher was familiar with the
faculty and alumni participants through attendance in the program. Professional relationships
with faculty participants have been enhanced through working together. The researcher did not
hold any positional power over the participants and took steps to scrub identifying participant
information from all notes and transcripts. To represent the researcher's connection to the
61

program ethically, the program's identity being researched was not masked from participants but
is masked in this study. The participants received an Information Sheet for Exempt Research,
which described the study's objectives and confidentiality policies. The Internal Review Board
(IRB) at the researcher's institution approved the study, providing additional protection for the
subjects (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Data Sources
This qualitative research methodology employed a phenomenological approach to elicit
and organize the shared experiences of faculty who taught in an online graduate program and the
experiences of alumni who were graduates of the same online program. Through semi-structured
interviews, critical insight into the impact community had on retention rates in online programs
will be gained.
This study incorporated a total of ten semi-structured interviews. Six interviews were
conducted with faculty who had governance responsibility and taught in the MPA program.
These interviews focused on faculty perceptions of the effect community in online programs had
on student retention rates. Four interviews were conducted with alumni of the MPA program.
Those interviews focused on alumni perceptions of the relationship between a sense of
community and student perseverance in an online program. A purposeful nonprobability
sampling approach was used to determine interview participants to best generalize the responses
of faculty and alumni across the population as a whole (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). The
interviews were semi-structured and followed a consistent question and theme similarity with
room for variance based on interviewee responses and personal experiences (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).

62

Semi-Structured Interview
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), interviews might be highly structured, semi-
structured, or unstructured. Semi-structured interviews mix structured and open-ended questions.
Finally, unstructured interviews are used when the researcher does not know enough about the
situation. This research involved semi-structured interviews. The interviews helped the
researcher understand faculty and alumni perceptions of building a sense of community within
online programs to help improve retention rates so that recommendations could be made.
Participants
In qualitative research, the sample size is frequently planned, small, and nonrandom
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The participants for the interviews were a convenience sample of the
MPA program's faculty and alumni. Invitations to participate in the study were sent via email to
faculty members with governance responsibility in WU's MPA program and alumni of the MPA
program. Faculty members were personally known to the researcher, and their emails were
public on the university website. The alumni invited were personally known to the researcher,
and their emails were available to the researcher through post-graduate work. Six faculty
members and four alumni were invited to participate in 30 to 45-minute interviews. The goal was
to ensure that representative perceptions of faculty and alumni were collected.
Instrumentation
Qualitative questions were developed to elicit faculty and alumni perceptions and
generate themes and experiences shared by both participant groups. The semi-structured
approach offers flexibility during the interview process to delve more deeply into personal
experiences and perceptions. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a series of semi-
structured questions can be asked in any sequence. The technique is highly adaptable in terms of
63

primary and follow-up probing inquiries. The questions were intended to elicit faculty and
alumni impressions of the relationship between a Community of Practice and student retention
rates in online programs.
The interview delved into the stakeholder group's demographics, their belief systems
regarding the validity of online programs, and their perceptions of what makes a flourishing
community in online programs. The first two questions are focused on generating background
data as a means of providing context. The following questions were developed to guide the
conversation to elicit participants' genuine perceptions of the beliefs and experiences with
community and retention in online programs. The interviews questions and protocol for faculty
members are attached in Appendix A; the interview questions and protocol for alumni are
attached in Appendix B. From a holistic approach, the questions served as a jumping-off point
for more in-depth discussions of how faculty and alumni view the development of a community
in an online program that might affect student retention rates.
Data Collection Procedures
Participation in the study was determined by examining the responses to the request for
participation sent via email. Interested individuals received a personal email from the researcher
outlining the purpose and scope of the interview, the assurance of confidentiality, and the context
of what data would be sought and collected. Invitations to participate in the study were sent via
email to seven faculty members with governance responsibility in WU's MPA program and 25
alumni of the MPA program. Faculty members were personally known to the researcher, and
their emails were public on the university website. The 25 alumni invited were personally known
to the researcher, and their emails were available to the researcher through post-graduate work.
While seven faculty members were invited to participate in the study, only six were available to
64

participate in 30 to 45-minute interviews during the time available for interviews. Of the 25
alumni invited to participate, only 15 met the additional qualifying criteria of having graduated at
least two years prior to participating in the interview and had remained engaged with the
program since graduation. Of the 15 potential alumni, only four responded and were available to
participate in 30 to 45-minute interviews during the time available for interviews.
After accepting the invitation, sessions were scheduled at a mutually agreed-upon time,
and a calendar invite with a Zoom link was sent. Due to Covid-19 restrictions and current
research protocol requirements, the individual interviews were conducted and recorded through
the Zoom video conferencing platform. Every effort was made to ensure that video was enabled,
allowing for further opportunity to use observation as an additional tool throughout the interview
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews lasted 45-minutes, and the interviewer moderated the
discussion to ensure that the interview was concluded on time. Three days before the interview,
the interviewer sent a reminder email to the participant with the questions to enable the
interviewee to collect their thoughts and reflect on pertinent past events. Finally, the interviewer
tested the virtual platform the day before the interview to check that it was operationally sound
and prepared pens and notebooks to take notes on relevant observations throughout the interview
process.
Every interview began with an overview of the study's purpose, followed by the
participant's verbal consent to participate and be recorded. The interviewee was reminded of the
code of ethics that governed the interview and the procedures to preserve the confidentiality and
anonymity of the participants. The interviewee was given the option to end the interview if they
no longer felt comfortable and had the opportunity to ask any preliminary questions they may
have had prior to the session's start. After the expectations were established, the researcher asked
65

the interviewee if they were ready to begin the interview. The interviewer started the recording
when the interviewee responded positively and asked the first question.
If time allowed while still recording the interview, the interviewer asked two to three
additional probing questions. Of the ten interviews conducted, six allowed for additional probing
questions. If no time was available, the interviewer allowed the participant to ask any additional
questions they may have had about the interview process. When the interview concluded, and the
interviewee was happy with the process, the interviewer thanked them for their time and
involvement. The interviewer then stopped recording on the Zoom platform and ensured that the
interview and any notes taken during the session were adequately preserved.
Data Analysis
As is the recommended way in qualitative analysis, data will be collected and examined
simultaneously (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). When evaluating the data, the researcher employed a
cumulative data technique to identify links and similarities between interviews and their
relevance to the study objectives. The process allowed for a continuous revisit of the research
questions to ensure that the data collected remained relevant and supported the study's overall
goal (Maxwell, 2015). Member checking and looking for disconfirming evidence improved the
validity of a qualitative study (Creswell & Creswell, 2017), which were features the researcher
intended to include in the study data analysis.
The problem of low retention rates in online programs drove the purpose of this study
and informed the chosen methodological approach. The retention problem demonstrated in the
literature review is highly contextual based on faculty and student experiences. It was essential to
acquire perceptions of the problem from faculty and alumni.
66

It was important to transcribe and code the audio recordings to detect significance in the
interview material. A respected academic transcription service transcribed the digital audio files.
When the transcripts were returned, the documents were compared to the original recordings to
check for transcription problems and become more acquainted with the material. The analysis
began with creating categories based on the practice problem, and a priori codes (codes
established prior to analysis) were generated based on the literature review (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Inductive coding was used to collect and analyze data; the researcher
establishes inductive codes via direct inspection of the data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
While coding line-by-line may appear to be cumbersome or unnecessary, Meriam and
Tisedell (2016) argued that it is valuable for interview data because it requires the researcher to
analyze specific pieces of data that might otherwise be missed using other coding approaches. In
focused coding, the researcher condenses and refines codes constantly, changing the codebook to
highlight what is discovered to be relevant in the emerging study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
In order to generate more conceptual, less descriptive, focused codes, initial codes are studied,
considered, compared, contrasted, and questioned. These targeted codes serve as the foundation
for thematic codes.
Creditability and Trustworthiness
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined credibility as validity. Ensuring qualitative research
has validity and reliability is heavily dependent on investigating ethically. Merriam and Tisdell
assert that the researcher must be explicit in understanding their role and relationship to the study
and the stakeholders. The data obtained in this study is believed to represent each contributing
member's understanding of reality predicated on their values and ideas (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). As a result, the purpose was not to verify the veracity of their ideas and memories but
67

rather to appraise and make conclusions and identify consistency amongst experiences to
illustrate contextual themes and concepts (Maxwell, 2015). With this in mind, Merriam and
Tisdell's (2016) approach to credibility will be used across all sources and data analytics
processes, including member checks and peer reviews, to ensure that the assessment and
reflection of the data stay constant and aligned with its primary sources (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Member Checking
The process involved in member checks is to bring the preliminary assessment back to
participants and ask whether the interpretation "rings true" (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 246).
Member checks were utilized expressly to permit available interview participants to evaluate the
full assessment and confirm it aligned with the participant's intent and had not been incorrectly
interpreted. Participants were invited to assess and alter the study as needed to ensure that their
contribution was not misinterpreted and supported the context or theme for which it was intended
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Peer Reviews
Peer reviews were utilized to ensure that the technique, research, and final analysis were
conceivable in light of the evidence (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These peer reviews were crucial
because they provided an unbiased viewpoint on the facts and analysis presented. Students of the
Rossier School of Education's Doctorate of Organizational Change and Leadership program were
asked to provide feedback on the tools and methodologies utilized and the data and final analysis
to help support the research's credibility and trustworthiness.
Bias Management
68

The interviewer-participant relationship is a complicated phenomenon since both sides
bring biases, predispositions, attitudes, and physical traits that can influence data interpretation
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, to maintain the maximum degree of impartiality possible
as a researcher, it is necessary to have an ongoing awareness of one's positionality, prejudice, and
moral center (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As noted in this study, the researcher was familiar
with Warner University, its MPA program, and its MPA faculty and alumni through their role as
both student and staff members. The researcher attempted to isolate personal thoughts, feelings,
and experiences from the data to ensure that the final analysis output only included data from
participants.
Ethics
Creswell and Creswell (2018) emphasize that ethical difficulties should be anticipated
and accounted for during the research process, including design, data collection, and analysis.
Prior to the research, careful consideration was given to ethical access to data and study results to
ensure that the process complied with USC's institutional review board (IRB) criteria. The data
collection process was subjected to rigorous ethical review to guarantee that the study's process
or goal would not infringe the rights and privacy of those who volunteered to participate. Every
precaution was taken to protect the anonymity of participants. The researcher took the time to
ensure that the study's goal was clear and that all participants were conscious of it before
participating (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). At every point during the process, participants had
the option to change their minds and withdraw their agreement to participate.
Throughout the data gathering process, conscious efforts were made to verify that the
data collected was attributable to the source for validation reasons, and the data was kept safe
and private by using password-protected files (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To preserve the
69

privacy and confidentiality of participants, the paper incorporates coded participant identification
rather than pseudonyms, as recommended by Creswell and Creswell (2018). When the final draft
of this study is released, every effort will have been made to ensure that everyone who
participated was recognized for their contributions. The raw data obtained will be retained for
one year from the date of publication of the study in order to address any queries or concerns
about the data or the study as a whole (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

70

Chapter Four: Findings
Enrollment in online graduate programs is expected to continue rising through 2026
(Allen & Seaman, 2017; NCES, 2020; Tichavsky et al., 2015). Research on faculty perceptions
of how retention rates in these programs might be improved has become increasingly significant.
Much of the existing research on online programs focus on teaching methods, classroom
management, administration, and learning modalities to increase student engagement (Simonson
et al., 2012).
This study aimed to ascertain what effect community within an online academic
environment might have on retention rates based on perceptions of faculty members and alumni
of an online graduate program. As covered in Chapter One, retention rates in online graduate
programs are typically lower than retention rates in face-to-face graduate programs. The
literature reviewed in Chapter Two indicated that community is an essential factor in students'
sense of belonging in an online program. Researchers indicated multiple avenues for building
community in an online program; however, the literature did not directly correlate a sense of
community and retention rates.
The conceptual frameworks bounding this study, as outlined in Chapter Three, were the
Community of Inquiry (COI) theory developed by Garrison et al. (2000) and Etienne Wenger's
(1991) Communities of Practice (COP) theory. The COI concept reflects developing three
interdependent elements—social, cognitive, and instructional presence—to create a purposeful
and lasting collaborative learning experience. COI determines why a community forms, while
COP determines how a community forms. The Community of Practice framework focuses on
three dimensions: a domain that focuses on identity and action; a community that focuses on
71

members and their relationships; and a practice that consists of tools, methods, and skills that
evolve and develop over time.
As described in Chapter Three, interviews were conducted with faculty members having
governance responsibilities in an online program and alumni from an online graduate program
who have remained engaged with the program post-degree conferral. The interviews consisted of
11–13 open-ended questions with clarifying probes to ensure a clear understanding of the
participant's thoughts and perceptions had been achieved.
This study was motivated by the following research questions:
RQ1: How do faculty in an online master's program perceive the relationship between
community within an online program and student retention rates?
RQ2: How do alumni describe their sense of community as a factor in degree
completion?
The following chapter includes a review of the findings of this study organized by
research question and theme.
Context of the Site and Participants
At the time of the study, a strategy employed by WU's MPA program was to host a new
student residency on campus (except during the COVID-19 pandemic when residencies were
virtual) over three days toward the beginning of each period established in the online classroom
during weeks 1-3. Participants of the study described the structure of the residencies and offered
a sample agenda, which is attached as Appendix C. Residency was mandatory for all new
students beginning their first semester and optional for students who were continuing in the
program. The first day of programming was dedicated to faculty introductions and writing and
team-building workshops. Sessions began in the morning with a break for lunch and typically
72

ended with an alumni networking event. Alumni and students who were continuing in the
program were invited to attend. Anecdotally, and in my experience, the MPA program had a
strong alumni network; alumni generally remained personally connected to the program and
faculty. Many alumni who were not local to the WU campus made travel plans to attend the
residencies and networking events. The alumni networking event held on the first night of
Residency offered an opportunity for new students to socialize with faculty and current students
and talk with alumni about career advice and future classes in the program. The second day of
residency programming was aimed at both new and continuing students.
On day two, the MPA program faculty-led sessions on data collection and research tactics
and topics geared toward continuing students, such as resume preparation and career transitions.
Like the day one schedule, these sessions began in the morning, with a break for lunch, and
ended in the early evening. By this time in the Residency, students had typically made
connections with peers and often made evening plans to socialize and work on any class
assignments together. The MPA program did not halt classes during Residency, and regular
coursework was still required to be completed; however, faculty typically did not assign a heavy
load of coursework during the period residency falls.
The third and final day was usually a shorter period. Programming on day three consisted
of sessions on academic integrity, compliance, and a deep dive into how the coaching program
works. In the final session, the cohort of new students meets with their cohort coach to review
the weekend; coaches usually plan a trip to the WU's campus bookstore for students to purchase
university-branded merchandise.

73

Participants
The interview subjects were a convenience sample of instructors and alumni from Warner
University's (WU) Master of Public Administration Program (MPA) program. Faculty members
with governance responsibilities in WU's MPA program and alumni of the MPA program who
remained active with the program in the five years following graduation received invitations to
participate in the study through email. The researcher was familiar with faculty members,
alumni, and email addresses.
The faculty participants for this study were those faculty members with governance
responsibility and who were currently teaching in the online MPA program. All faculty members
had more than 20 years of teaching experience, with an average of 19 years of experience
teaching face-to-face and 11 years of online teaching experience. Seven faculty members were
identified, with six faculty members participating. Each of the six participants was faculty of
WU's Policy school teaching in the online MPA program; five faculty members were full-time,
and one faculty member was part-time. None of the faculty members were considered tenure-
track professors, and two faculty members had administrative responsibilities in addition to their
teaching schedules.
To select alumni participants for this study, the researcher solicited responses from 15
alumni personally known to have graduated from the MPA online program at least two years
before participating in the study. The potential alumni participants remained engaged with the
program as cohort coaches. Only four responded of the 15 alumni invited to participate in the
study. Alumni participants averaged four years post-degree conferral.
74

Table 2 presents the profiles of faculty participants, while Table 3 presents the profiles of
alumni participants. Participants were coded to protect participant identification after the
interviews were conducted.
Table 2
Faculty Participant Profile

Table 3
Alumni Participant Profile

Participant Online Teaching Experience Total Teaching Experience
F1 9 Years 17 Years
F2 14 Years 16 Years
F3 12 Years 20 Years
F4 12 Years 19 Years
F5 9 Years 16 Years
F6 12 Years 26 Years
Participant Years Post Grad Engaged Through
A1 5 Years Coach
A2 8 Years Coach/Lead Coach
A3 2 Years Coach
A4 3 Years Coach
75

The following is a discussion of the themes which emerged from the participant
responses.
Findings for Research Question One
Interviews with faculty aimed to discover how faculty members view the relationship
between student retention and community. The findings discussed in this section echo the
research detailed in Chapter Two. Existing scholarship identifies personalizing the education
experience (Bolliger et al., 2019), coaching and mentorship (Kuh et al., 2005), the value of
orientations (Gaytan, 2013; Heyman, 2010; Lee & Choi, 2011; Tung, 2012), and program and
course design (Aoki & Pogroszewski, 1998; Berge & Clark, 2005; Miller, 2007; Moore &
Kearsley, 2004, Richart, 2002; Saba, 2000) as crucial components of online graduate programs.
The four main themes which emerged from the participant responses are explored in the
following section. The themes presented are: (a) personalized education, (b)
coaching/mentorship, (c) orientation/residencies, and (d) course design.
Personalized Education
The need to know the students individually was a dominant theme for faculty
participants. According to the research, and education that seems personal to students (Waldeck,
2007) and takes into account their individual experiences (Keefe & Jenkins, 2000) is an
important factor in online course perseverance (Dunn & Griggs, 2000). Five of the six
participants were in agreement that their willingness to be authentic and engage with students
had a positive impact on student perseverance with Participant F6 stating, "When I know my
students and their circumstances, it is easier to pick up the phone when I notice a change in their
performance." Participants F2 and F7 also noted that getting to know students and being aware
of their individual experiences made it easier to notice when students begin to struggle.
76

Participant F4 shared their perception that personalizing education for students includes teaching
presence and should permeate all parts of the course, including the syllabus, offering, "I have
added information in my syllabus around my expectations for building community. I find
opening the lines of communication from the beginning sets the foundation for building
community within the class." Teaching presence is one of three crucial factors in the Community
of Inquiry (COI) to build a purposeful and lasting collaborative learning experience. When
describing teaching presence as part of personalized education Participant, F5 offered the
following,
"It means that I am taking an active role in developing them and setting them
up for success. What I find unique about the MPA is that you are dealing with
working professionals in most cases, which means that they are trying to
advance professionally. So, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work for
online graduate students; it is not fair, and it is not appropriate. Certainly, we
have to have academic rigor, but you have to take an active interest in their
professional life as well and make sure that you are keeping in mind that each
student has a unique set of skills and lived experiences they bring to the
classroom which requires a more individualized support approach at times."
According to Participant F2, teaching for online faculty is different due to time
parameters and access via email or text" there is more of a sense of urgency when teaching
online," which places communication outside the usual face-to-face paradigm. As a result,
Participant F2 noted, "I feel like I connect better and know my students better in my online
classes than in my traditional classrooms."
77

Acknowledging what students bring to the classroom as an important piece of building
community was a perception that was common among most faculty participants. Participants F7
and F2 indicated a shared experience was paramount to creating community in the classroom and
stressed their shared perception that community cannot exist without faculty being open and
human, just like the students. Likewise, Participant F6 indicated they expect to learn from their
students as much as they facilitate, stating, "I may be a subject matter expert in a particular
course, but students' lived experiences make them subject matter experts in their fields."
Participant F1 acknowledged the need to be aware of students' individual circumstances and
offer accommodations when appropriate. Participant F5 echoed this perception but pointed out
that it does not all become the responsibility of faculty, stating, "You have to know your
students, but the flip side of that is your students have to want to let you know them." Faculty
participants unanimously agreed on the benefits of online classrooms being global and offering
more diverse perspectives, with Participant F3 explicitly acknowledging there were cultural and
time challenges to address in a global classroom,
"We also have to accept that we have a far larger, more diverse pool of students
from different academic backgrounds and professional experiences in a global
classroom. A global classroom presents its own challenges to building
community."
When asked about building community within their classroom, five of the six Faculty
participants shared the correlation between knowing students and student retention. Participant
F6 shared, "When I know my students, I know what is going on in their lives. It makes it easy to
pick up the phone when I notice a change in their classroom performance."
78

Offering a personalized experience for students does not mean all students will take
advantage of the opportunity. Participant F4 observed, "We provide the opportunity for it to be a
robust, engaging experience, and I think the community piece underlies everything unique about
the program." Personalized education is generally defined as an experience that ensures students
are regarded as more than a student ID number (Waldeck, 2007). Giving opportunities for
students to exhibit their interests and talents is another part of providing a tailored education.
Faculty participants generally agreed about the benefit of personalized education, with only
Participant F1 indicating that personally knowing their students had little impact on improving
student retention. However, the literature argues that a personalized experience described by five
of the six faculty participants can be critical in improving retention rates (Del Corso et al., 2005;
Dunn & Griggs, 2000; Keefe & Jenkins, 2000; Waldeck, 2007)).
Coaching/Mentorship
The influence of coaching and mentorship on the creation of a sense of community
among students was persistently reported by faculty participants. The MPA program offered a
coaching program wherein alumni of the program applied and were selected to guide new
students through their academic program. Participant F4 shared,
"The coaching program is a major aspect of creating community and supporting
student retention. Students have personalized attention from someone who is not a
faculty member but has been in the program to offer support and communicate to
students that the faculty wants to help and we want you to succeed."
Coaching and mentorship are described in the literature as effective support structures to
help students remain engaged in their academic program through completion (Park et al., 2011).
As described by Participant F3, the coaching program "is a good opportunity to enable students
79

to establish a sense of community early on." The majority of Faculty participants were united in
their perception that the MPA coaching program is a unique offering, with only Participant F2
not offering a direct correlation between the coaching program and community within the MPA
program. Participant F3 sharing, "I think the coaching program is pretty innovative. I do not
know of other programs that have that component." Participant F5 described the structure of the
coaching program, "Our coaching program links students with successful alumni who have
completed the program, and who could understand their experience, and could begin establishing
the critical informal networks which lead to student success." Participant F6 noted that student
feedback on the effectiveness of having a coach was generally positive, stating,
"Our coaches work hard to develop relationships with their cohorts of about 20
students each semester. They do an excellent job of mentoring and steering them
through the program, with coaches working to know and mentor cohorts of about
20 students each semester."
While academic support services are essential in every learning environment (Hart,
2012), offering those services in an online learning environment can be more challenging
because students are often geographically separated from the institution (Stevenson, 2013).
Participant F6 described the impact of the MPA coaching program,
"Our coaching program bridges the space between student advisors and
faculty intervention; students often require different types of support at
different times. Coaches tend to be more flexible in their availability and
often have fewer students they are responsible for supporting. When
students are struggling, faculty can engage with coaches to create a
support network to get students back on track."
80

The Community of Practice (COP) framework was used to investigate the benefits of
interpersonal encounters. The majprity of faculty participants were in agreement about the
benefits of the MPA coaching program, with only Participant F2 indicating the coaching
program had little impact on improving student retention.
Orientation/Residencies
Interaction with peers in an online environment was consistently regarded as having an
impact on perseverance by faculty participants. Camaraderie and a sense of community were also
highlighted. According to Participant F6, the MPA program "begins with a mandatory new
student residency offered at the beginning of each semester." The ability to create a foundation
of community begins at this Residency, with Participant F2 sharing,
"For the MPA program, the ability to create a foundation of community begins at
Residency. Residency is part of a one-unit professional development course, a
program requirement to attain degree completion. Offered within the first few
weeks of their first semester, the Residency offers students the opportunity to get
acquainted with program and faculty expectations while also introducing students
to their peers and alumni."
Participant F6 described residency structure as,
"Typically structured over three days and conducted on WU's campus, residencies
are where students typically make their first connection and feel like they are part
of something beyond their individual academic goals. We typically have a
networking event hosted and attended by alumni on the first evening. On the
second day of programming, we offer sessions for our continuing students to
participate if they choose to do so. Many do. While the first and last residencies
81

are mandatory for all students, I find that many continuing students have–at least
pre-pandemic–joined us at residencies even though it is not required."
According to Participant F3, "A benefit of having alumni and continuing students attend
residency weekends is the snapshot of faculty engagement new students witness firsthand." As
described by Participant F4, Residency is a good time for faculty to engage with students on a
more personal level outside the classroom. Participant F5 shared their perception that "Our
residency makes us unique and lays the foundation for a community that continues to grow as
students progress through the program." Participants F2 and F3 shared a perception that alumni
participation in Residency fosters community among new students and reduces attrition.
Participants F2 and F6 both offered their observations on how the COVID-19 pandemic
suspended the ability to conduct residency weekends in person; however, both agreed that
Residency was duplicated virtually in the best possible way so that students still received the
benefits of program expectations. Participant F3 shared that "including residency as part of the
MPA program's professional development curricula and assigning a unit value improved
residency deliverables and student engagement." Mandatory residency attendance simply opens
the door to a robust and engaging learning experience, according to Participants F2.
Preparing students for program expectations and course rigor helps students feel more
comfortable in the academic environment and build self-confidence, increasing retention rates
(Gaytan, 2013; Heyman, 2010; Lee & Choi, 2011; Tung, 2012). Offering these benefits while
building community ensures that students feel less isolated in the online environment (Gaytan,
2013; Lee & Choi, 2011).

82

Course Design
Having participated in online classrooms for an average of 12 years, all faculty
participants agreed that course design must be intentional in the inclusion of elements designed
to create a sense of community required by students to persevere. As reported in Chapter Two,
research indicates that poor course design is one of the numerous retention problems in online
graduate education (Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Chao et al., 2006; Hillman & Corkery, 2010;
Meyer et al., 2009; Paul & Cochran, 2013). While there is no one universal formula for
"excellent" course design, experts have agreed that collaborative learning is one of the best
practices for creating successful online learning programs (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Crumpacker,
2001; Chaney et al., 2010; Henri, 1992; Higgins & Harreveld, 2013; McLoughlin, 1999; Rovai,
2002b). Henri (1992) found that active involvement and collaborative learning may improve
students' educational experiences, while McLoughlin (1999) noted that collaborative learning is
used to develop community through learning activities. Collaboration may be used to build and
preserve a feeling of community, according to Rovai (2002a). Exploring the interaction between
interpersonal contacts (community of practice) and online group initiatives (community of
inquiry) (Wade et al., 2011) is critical in the understanding of faculty perceptions on how
collaborative learning is integrated into course design.
Participant F3 described the overall program design stating, "I think the online program is
reflective of our educational values that are more broadly expressed within our all of our
programs. That is, we teach through applied experiential learning approaches." Participant F6
spoke about community and course design, "Each course in our program follows the same basic
format, which includes weekly discussion boards and various group projects; those activities
help build community." All six faculty participants said discussion-board posts were used to
83

engage students with the material and measure content mastery to guide students' understanding
of the material. Participant F3 offered, "I actually like discussion boards, and some of my
students do not, but I like them. I also think there needs to be a lot of interactive topics and
projects where students are doing problem-based learning together because I think that is how
you build community." Participant F5 noted discussion boards as "a tool that make engagement
easier to foster."
Another piece of course design is the syllabus. The literature noted using a syllabus as
vital to perseverance (Clinefelter et al., 2019; Campos, 2020; Higgins & Harreveld, 2013; Magda
et al., 2019). Participant F5 defined a syllabus as "a guiding document that generally includes a
list of course tasks, deadlines, and expectations, allowing students to organize their work for a
given course." Participant F1 noted, "students generally use the syllabus to organize their
workload, and might adjust their conduct to fulfill the expectations set forth in the syllabus."
Finally, as shared by Participant F6, "all MPA courses had the same design, organizational and
navigational structure, and speed, which encouraged perseverance since students may start a new
course with a basic understanding of how the course will progress. This allowed the student to
concentrate on the material rather than on how to perform in the course." Participant F4 shared
their perception that personalizing education for students should permeate all parts of the course,
including the syllabus, offering,
"They are doing some fascinating work around what you communicate through
your syllabus in the critical digital pedagogy space. I have been trying to move a
little bit more into the personalization of the syllabus rather than make it a cold,
distant document. Rather than create a unidirectional document, I try to be as
84

transparent as possible in sharing what is expected of students and what they can
expect of me."
Participants F3 and F5 shared initial reservations about the potential robustness and rigor
that could be created in an online environment. Course design is an integral part of creating a
rich and robust program that enables students to build networks, create community and persevere
to degree completion.
Dedicated Faculty
The faculty participants were unanimous in their perception that intentionally having
dedicated faculty in the MPA had significant impact on student persevearance and thereby
positively impacting retention rates. The literature reviewed in Chapter Two revealed that
retention rates were attributed to many factors (Anderson & Middleton, 2002; Darnell &
Rosenthal, 2000; Magda et al., 2019; Palloff & Pratt, 2013). According to MPA faculty
participants, one of those factors is having dedicated faculty. This study defines dedicated faculty
as those faculty members contracted to WU's online program specifically and who do not have
teaching responsibilities outside the program. Participant F6 noted,
"I think that is the problem that many programs have. They believe they just need
to build the program and think about it as existing separately from the faculty.
They are not two separate entities; I mean, the program is the faculty. Having a
really top-notch faculty team is very important in keeping the program moving
forward."
According to Participant F3,
"I think the most important thing for a high-quality program with a strong sense
of community is to have a learning model where the community is a function of
85

the teaching method and have faculty who care about students and are going to
practice that learning model because it is a learning model more labor-intensive
actually. You need to have faculty who care about their students, the program, and
who are like deeply committed to education; that is the most important thing, and
it is replicable."
As the demand for online courses rises, so does the significance of teaching effectiveness
(Clinefelter et al., 2019; Campos, 2020; Higgins & Harreveld, 2013; Magda et al., 2019).
Participant F4 shared their perception that "our MPA online faculty has a grasp of the online
world, and what that means, and what that looks like, and who values community as an element
of it." Participants F2, F5, and F6 shared a similar perception that community is ingrained in
every piece of the program. Participant F3 shared that the MPA program's dedicated faculty was
a significant contributing factor to the program's higher-than-average retention rates,
"At the highest level, the decision was made that we needed to have some
dedicated faculty for our online MPA program. I was not sure that we would find
the right people because online learning was pretty new, and we were looking for
nontenure track faculty. They have long-term contracts, but they are not tenure
track faculty. I cannot understate how important it is that we have that team of
teaching faculty. They significantly contribute to our higher-than-average
retention rates, which is at 92% of students persisting to graduation."
In many online programs, faculty may rotate or be assigned to teach online (Shea &
Bidjerano, 2010). In the MPA program, full-time faculty were running the program were devoted
to the subject matter and offered the program in the online modality. As described in this section,
dedicated full-time faculty have an investment in the design of the courses they teach; they are
86

responsible for syllabus structure, assignment development, scheduling synchronous lectures,
and defining group projects, among other tasks. Each of these elements coalesces to create a
sense of community.
Discussion for Research Question One
The issue addressed in this research study was low retention rates in online graduate
programs and whether or not building community in online programs could improve retention
rates. The first research question examined the faculty's perception of the relationship between
community and student retention rates in an online graduate program. The concepts highlighted
in the preceding section–(a) personalized education, (b) coaching/mentorship, (c)
orientation/residencies, and (d) course design–are all factors participants deemed essential in
online programs, which led to a sense of community and student perseverance. The themes and
findings for this question were consistent with previous research on the numerous factors that
contribute to low retention rates, such as a lack of student support, a lack of instructor
involvement, student feelings of disconnectedness, isolation, and a lack of connection with peers
and faculty (Carr, 2000; Palloff & Pratt, 2013; Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Simpson, 2003).
Evans and Champion (2007) indicate that faculty engagement is a factor of greater
importance in student perseverance than satisfaction with coursework and grades. The literature
corresponds with faculty assessments that knowing their students personally improved student
engagement and directly influenced student retention. The literature attributes this to faculty
noticing when student behavior changes (Cornelius & Glasgow, 2007).
According to Dietz-Uhler et al. (2007), a feeling of isolation from other students and
faculty contributes to increased dropout rates in online courses, while Tillman (2002) argues that
the number of friends made at an orientation is an indicator of likely perseverance. Faculty
87

responses indicate strong student outcomes were achieved by creating a sense of community
through mandatory attendance at orientation. These findings were supported by the research of
Dietz-Uhler et al. (2019), Gaytan (2013), and (Tilman, 2002). The faculty were in unanimous
agreement when describing their perceptions of the unique value proposition of MPA's residency
offerings.
The importance of academic support for graduate students in an online program cannot
be overstated (Allen & Seaman, 2017; Brindley, 2014; Crawley, 2012; Waldner et al., 2011).
cite. Casstevens et al. (2012) stress the significance of including institutional supports in course
design. The coaching program MPA paired alumni of the MPA program with a cohort of 20
students prior to beginning the program. The coach offered support and guidance throughout the
cohort's two-year program. The MPA coaching program did not take the place of student
advising but was an additional support structure for students.
According to the research discussed in Chapter Two, poor course design contributes to
student attrition (Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Chao et al., 2006; Hillman & Corkery, 2010; Meyer
et al., 2009; Paul & Cochran, 2013). According to this research, participants shared their
perceptions that purposeful course design that included a basis for developing community and
having devoted staff enhanced retention rates in online graduate programs considerably.
Findings for Research Question Two
Student retention rates in online graduate programs are a complex, sometimes
misunderstood, and understudied phenomenon (Palloff & Pratt, 2013; Rovai & Wighting, 2005).
Interviews with alumni aimed to discover how graduates of an online program defined a sense of
community as a factor in completing their degree program. As detailed in Chapter Two, existing
scholarship identifies a personalized education experience (Bolliger et al., 2019), the offering of
88

orientation opportunities, coaching and mentorship (Gaytan, 2013, and faculty engagement as
critical components of student perseverance (Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Austin & Rust, 2015;
Boston & Ice, 2011; Hillman & Corkery, 2010; Mann & Henneberry, 2012).
Each of the four alumni participants remained engaged with the MPA program through a
mentorship or coaching opportunity wherein the program assigns a "coach" to each incoming
cohort. Given the continued expansion of online learning at the graduate level, their perceptions
of the relationship between a sense of community and student perseverance are important to
consider. The four main themes which emerged from the participant responses are explored in
the following section. The themes presented are: (a) personalized education, (b)
coaching/mentorship, (c) orientation/residencies, and (d) faculty engagement. The themes from
the alumni data are closely aligned to the themes from the faculty data. It was interesting and
unexpected that the data from interviews with alumni would point to four similar themes as the
data from faculty interviews.
Personalized Education
Alumni replies consistently mentioned the supportive and engaging nature of the faculty
that provided a more personalized experience. Participant A2 noted their experience in the MPA
program was markedly different from previous learning experiences saying, "I knew my
professors in this program knew who I was and challenged me to grow." Participant A4 agreed,
noting they had engaged faculty for career advice during and after the program and found all
faculty to have been receptive and willing to assist,
"I needed help considering a career change. I did not hesitate to text Dr. X,
who not only took the call but connected me to people they knew. In a
89

matter of days, I had a new network and career advice from the field. I
have never experienced that in any of my education to date."
All alumni participants noted that their perseverance efforts were significantly assisted by
the faculty's prompt and thorough comments on their work and their openness to inquiries and
discussion. Participant A1 shared,
"If I got stuck or something was challenging, I was able to raise my virtual hand
or email faculty and ask a question or get help. It was a very personal relationship.
My professors knew who I was, why I was in the program and what I wanted to
learn. The professor set up tutoring times during a challenging class and spent as
much time explaining the concept. It kept me from dropping out."
Faculty members' prompt and supportive communication allowed students to reduce
stress, improve performance, and produce their best work. Participant A2 shared their perception
that faculty was invested in students,
"Faculty always responded to my emails, Dr. X and Dr. Y in particular, and I
know it was not just me. Their encouragement pulled me out of my shell a little
bit and helped alleviate stress. Things like that are the little things that allowed me
to make connections. Even though this program was extremely difficult, those
connections made it seem easier."
Encouragement and connection were especially valued, with Participant A4 describing
faculty members as "knowing me, knowing my goals, and guiding me through challenging
situations." Participant A1 explained, "This program was difficult; it was one of the most
challenging things I have ever done in my life. But I also felt very supported by the faculty."
Faculty members were also able to give students unique insights into the background of the
90

course content. Participant A3 offered, "faculty was adept at helping students further their
perceptions and make meaning from the content." Participant A1 noted that learning from
experts in the field was an important aspect of faculty engagement,
"I felt like I was learning from people who were the best in their field. Several
professors have their names on textbooks or somewhere in the textbooks, and they
presented the material in a way that made it easy for me to apply in my life, and
other students could apply it in their lives. It kept me connected and engaged
throughout the two-year program."
Participants A3 and A2 noted they chose the MPA program based on its reputation.
Participant A1 concurred, noting they sought a program to learn from experts, and "several
faculty members' names were on or in textbooks used in the program."
Coaching or Mentoring
All four participants agreed that having a support person to help navigate school-work-
life balance got them acclimated to new technology, managing the course load, and building a
sense of community. As described previously in this chapter by faculty participants, the MPA
program hires alumni of the program who have graduated not more than five years prior to
applying for the role and assigns them to a cohort beginning their first semester of instruction.
Participant A1 shared, "each semester when a new cohort of students begins, and they are
assigned a coach to support them from the beginning of the program through graduation.
Participant A2 noted that having a dedicated coach assigned by the program "is an
underappreciated gift; we are literally handing students a built-in community." Participants A1
and A4 shared a perception that the coach was beneficial during the beginning of the program.
Participant A4 offered,
91

"This program is challenging. As a student, I remember feeling overwhelmed at
the beginning. It felt like drinking from a fire hose. There was new technology,
new processes, and homework. My coach helped me make sense of everything
and offered tips and tools to manage until I found my footing. And my cohort was
all going through the same thing, so we supported each other."
Participant A1 shared their perception that the first semester is a critical one for new
students,
"I remember my first semester; I did not know how to get through all the reading
and simultaneously manage work and family responsibilities. I think our program
somewhat intentionally throws students into the deep end of the pool in the first
semester–it is a little bit of sink or swim–now, as a coach, I help students navigate
those challenges to help them succeed."
Participant A2 described having someone in a support role, "This is a rigorous program.
Having someone who has been through it and understands the challenges can be critical to
student success." Participant A1 shared their experience, "I have coached two cohorts, and every
student wants to quit the program at least once." Participant A3 offered, "As you acclimate to the
program and work with your coach, you realize you are all going through the same thing, and it
builds a bond. Those bonds help you get through the challenges." Participant A4 offered a unique
perspective on having a coach by describing their non-traditional path to degree completion: "I
took a longer path, and my coach was critical to remaining engaged as my cohort moved through
the program without me." Participant A2 shared, "the coaching program helps students feel less
alone. They know there are at least 19 other people sharing this experience at the same time."
92

Additionally, Participant A2 indicated they employ a method that can positively impact retention
rates,
"With each new cohort, either as a group or individually, I ask the students to
write down why they applied to this program. I ask them to email it to me and
keep it close to their desk. When they struggle or have a challenge, I ask them to
remember their "why." It is not scientific, but more than a few students told me
they wanted to quit, and my reminding them of why they began this journey made
them want to stay."
As noted in Chapter Two, quality social contact is vital in online programs to foster a
sense of community (Dawson, 2006). Student engagement, performance, and retention have been
related to a feeling of community (Ke, 2010; Stubb et al., 2011).
Orientation/Residencies
Alumni participants indicated that the MPA's orientation weekends, known as
residencies, were crucial in building community with their peers and faculty. Participant A1
specified the Residency as the vital component from which they built community when noting,
"after attending my first residency it was easier to interact on discussion boards having met my
cohort face-to-face." Participant A3 concurred that meeting face-to-face personalized the cohort
experience, "That kind of engagement allows you to build up and maintain a relationship beyond
a particular group assignment."
As described earlier in this chapter, residencies are mandatory for students just beginning
the program and are offered at the start of each new semester. Each Residency is also open for
continuing (those students not in their first or last term) to attend. All four participants agreed
that the MPA was "unique" in offering residency opportunities to continuing students.
93

Participant A4 offered, "Most programs that I know offer an orientation to new students that is
usually a walk-through video tutorial. I have not found programs that offer opportunities for
continuing students to continue building community. I think that makes us unique." Participant
A1 described the benefit of residencies for students who were not new to the program by sharing,
"it was great to attend different residencies and see faculty and further develop those
relationships." Participant A4 described the residency experience as follows, "Residency is really
beneficial to students who take classes on a part-time basis. They are able to continually meet
new cohorts and build community." Further, participant A2 described residencies as contributing
to a feeling of belonging as a member of WU's student body: "When I attended my first
residency, I really felt like I belonged not just in the program but also at the University."
According to all four participants, WU marketed itself as a university with a family-like
culture among the student body, faculty, and alumni. Participant A2 noted, "the family network
is real and much more than a marketing ploy; faculty appear to believe that as well which
permeates the program." Likewise, Participant A3 shared, "the WU family is a real thing but it
isn't forced on anyone. The opportunity to engage and build community is offered, but not all
students participate." Participants A2 and A4 concurred that students get out of the program what
they put into the program. Participant A2 noted, "Not all of my students got to residencies.
Before they were mandatory, a lot of my students just didn't come to campus." Participant A4
shared,
"I offered an analogy to the cohort I am coaching; the table is set, the food is
served, and it is up to you to pull up a chair and eat. If you do not take a seat at the
table, you cannot complain about being hungry."
94

Participants A1, A3, and A4 were unanimous in their perception that students had a more
challenging time feeling like they were part of a community since the beginning of the COVID-
19 pandemic, which has temporarily halted in-person residencies. Participant A1 summed up the
benefits of the MPA residencies by sharing,
"Residencies offered me the opportunity to spend time with the people one
cohort ahead of or behind me. I really leaned on a few key people I met
during residencies. Those people became my tribe and were instrumental
in my success. But I know plenty of people who didn't come to residencies
and didn't make those connections. Even in the current cohort I am
coaching, students don't engage, don't show up and we never know if
they're having challenges or are just self-sufficient."
As discussed in Chapter Two and previously in this chapter, students new to online
education benefit considerably from an orientation session that clarifies program requirements
and links them to a community of learners (Tung, 2012), which may benefit retention rates
(Jones, 2013).
Faculty Engagement
All four alumni participants agreed that building community and engaging with faculty
happened organically through the faculty's willingness to be authentic and make themselves
available to students. One of the three interconnected spheres in the Community of Inquiry
framework is the social presence (Garrison et al., 2010). Social presence is the degree to which
someone is seen as "real" in mediated discourse (Cobb, 2009). According to Lakin (2005),
students' involvement and happiness in a course are influenced by social presence. The social
presence of faculty members is sharing their personalities with their students (Ke, 2010). The
95

Community of Inquiry framework explains how communities are formed, while the Community
of Practice framework explains why students participate in communities.
Faculty engagement was a theme that emerged from all four alumni participants.
Participant A1 described a sense of community as being an inherent component of the
program,
"At residencies, you get to faculty joking around and laughing together. You can
tell they are enjoying each other personally. And as they engage with students and
each other, you can see they are really passionate about what they teach and how
they teach. It made me really want to learn from these people."
Participant A3 and Participant A4 both noted faculty members' involvement in student
support as a particular point that makes perseverance achievable. Participant A3 described the
support structure by noting, "Dr. X does a great job of ensuring the support structure is in place,
and a group atmosphere is created through the program, not just in their classes." All four alumni
participants agreed that building community and engaging with faculty happened organically
through the faculty's willingness to be authentic and make themselves available to students.
Participant A1 recalled, "The faculty is authentic in presenting themselves. I remember there was
a group project that wasn't going well and I reached out to Dr. Z. She shared they were in the
hospital and helped me anyway." Participant A4 shared a similar perception noting, "When your
faculty at residency that is who they really are and they are that way in the classroom and outside
of class."
Alumni participants agreed that faculty members were invested in their students' success
and contributed to their aspirations making online classes a more dynamic experience.
Participant A1 noted, "when they are teaching, you can see that faculty are passionate about the
96

subject matter, making for a dynamic learning experience." Likewise, Participant A3 shared, "the
faculty enjoy what they teach and they seem to enjoy teaching online. It makes it easy to remain
engaged." The shared consensus among the participants was that faculty engagement was high
because "the faculty create opportunities for student engagement." Creating a dynamic learning
experience was a trademark of the program faculty and led to an increased willingness to
participate, which supported student perseverance. The alumni participants were unanimous in
their perception that faculty were invested in their success collectively and individually, thereby
creating an internal desire not to "let their professors down," as described by Participants A1, A2,
and A4.
Discussion for Research Question Two
The second research question examined alumni's perspectives on community and student
perseverance. As mentioned earlier in this section, the data gathered from alumni interviews
coalesced with the data collected from faculty participants, which resulted in the emergence of
similar themes from both data sets. The concepts highlighted in the preceding section–(a)
personalized instruction, (b) coaching/mentorship, (c) orientation/residency, and (d) faculty
engagement–are all significant components that contribute to a feeling of community and student
perseverance. The themes and results for this question were consistent with previous research on
the many causes responsible for low retention rates, such as a lack of student support, a lack of
instructor involvement, student feelings of disconnectedness, isolation, and a lack of connection
with peers and faculty (Carr, 2000; Palloff & Pratt, 2013; Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Simpson,
2003).
There was very little research on graduate school alumni's opinions on the relationship
between a sense of community and student perseverance. Much of the existing literature focuses
97

on undergraduate student retention. This is likely because there is no comprehensive, nationwide
examination of online graduate retention rates (Allen & Seman, 2014). The participants in this
study provided insight to the relationship between a sense of community and student
perseverance.
According to Appana (2008), Dunlap et al. (2007), and Gallien and Oomen-Early (2008),
the efficacy of online learning was enhanced by the interaction between faculty and students,
which improves the effectiveness of online learning and leads to improved student retention
rates. This coincides with alumni perceptions that their education felt personalized because MPA
faculty that they knew students individually and genuinely cared for them. This student-faculty
relationship most likely led to greater student engagement through an unwillingness to "let
faculty down" by underperforming in the program as reported by alumni participants. Improved
student engagement directly impacts student retention through perseverance and a sense of
shared experience (Cornelius & Glasgow, 2007).
According to Bolliger et al. (2019), institutional assistance and policies–such as the
residencies discussed by alumni–seem to be key for ensuring student success in online education,
with over 90% of students rating academic advising as vital or extremely important. At the same
time, not traditional academic advisors, the coaches in the MPA coaching program provide more
tactical support related to functioning in the program and not the typical role of a student advisor.
The findings of this study support Bolliger's (2019) research as alumni reported having a coach
assigned to them offered a dedicated support person who understood the program challenges
students to face. All of the alumni interviewed have returned to the program as a coach to offer
their expertise to students new to the MPA program. The MPA coaching program did not take
the place of student advising but was an added resource for students.
98

Scholars suggest that orientation courses help students create a positive foundation for
their educational journey (Gaytan, 2013; Heyman, 2010; Lee & Choi, 2011). The alumni were in
unanimous agreement when describing the value received through MPA's residency offerings.
The alumni interviews supported Gaytan's (2013) research indicating that an orientation session
helps students better understand the program's requirements and boosts self-confidence.
According to Gruber (2015), well-developed adult online programs are purposefully
designed to have high staff and student involvement. The alumni participants indicated that
faculty engagement was crucial to their perseverance, which echoed the extant literature. The
alumni responses support the research indicating that over 95% of students enrolled in online
master's level courses thought having engaging faculty members was vital or highly important
for degree completion (Yang et al., 2017.
Summary
This chapter introduced the findings of the interviews, which comprised the data
collection for this study of faculty members' and alumni perceptions of an online graduate
program. The findings provided guidelines for how a sense of community positively impacted
retention rates in this online MPA program. According to the Communities of Practice paradigm,
a feeling of community is formed via shared experiences and relationships. The researcher was
able to analyze the effectiveness of WU's MPA program due to the ways it created community
by using the COP framework in this study. Retention rates can be improved through attendance
at residencies, which helps students better understand the program requirements and boosts their
confidence (Gaytan, 2013). Intentional attention to academic support for new students and those
students who are continuing in the program is a critical component of online students'
perseverance because of their greater diversity, increased need for self-management and
99

technical self-efficacy, information literacy, and the potentially isolating effect of the online
learning environment (Allen & Seaman, 2017; Brindley, 2014; Crawley, 2012). Compassionate
faculty that cares about their students' achievement boosts the efficacy of the online learning
environment (Garrison, 2017; Muirhead, 2004).
There was considerable overlap in the themes from RQ1 and RQ2. Many faculty and
alumni participants expressed similar perceptions on the impact a sense of community has on
retention rates. This suggests that building a sense of community is inherent in course design and
is something that faculty work at creating. The higher-than-average retentions rates reported by
this MPA program suggest a best practice case that could be implemented by other programs to
build community and improve retentions rates.

100

Chapter Five: Importance and Recommendations
As introduced in Chapter One and examined in Chapter Two, online graduate programs
are not a recent addition to the educational environment. Online education has been available in
one form or another for decades and is a learning modality that shows no signs of disappearing.
Therefore, it is vital that faculty and institutions embrace online education as a viable means of
teaching and learning. More than just an increased income stream, online education gives
students meaningful knowledge and experiences that they can instantly utilize to enhance their
lives and society. Snyder et al. (2018) noted that the number of post-graduate students pursuing
online degree programs has risen by 42.6 percent since 2012. The graduate students' likelihood
of completing a graduate program, or student perseverance, has regularly been lower in online
learning experiences than in equivalent face-to-face learning experiences cite. Student
perseverance results from multiple factors, some of which are program-related and some of
which are more personal. Students who perceive a sense of community with their peers and a
connection with their faculty were more likely to achieve degree completion. This research study
aimed to get a better understanding of the influence that a sense of community has on retention
rates in an online graduate program.
As explained in Chapter Three, the use of a qualitative technique, especially a single
case study design, allowed for a detailed investigation of the perspectives of MPA faculty and
alumni. The student and faculty members who took part in the study were interviewed using a
similar set of open-ended questions relating to community and retention rates. The impressions
of students and professors were then confirmed by member verification. A discussion of the
limitations identified as inherent in the methodology of this investigation is discussed later in
this chapter. Actions were taken to mitigate the possible effect of the limitations, and the
101

findings offered valuable insights that are consistent with the literature on the subject. The
following sections examine the results in relation to the literature, identifying parallels and
discrepancies. The relevance of the findings and their practical implications, and future
research suggestions are discussed.
Importance of the Findings
The Community of Inquiry Framework uses three interdependent elements—social,
cognitive, and instructional presence—to offer a collaborative learning environment. That
collaborative learning environment epitomizes the three dimensions of the Community of
Practice framework–an identity domain, a community based on relationships among members,
and a practice of skills that develop over time. As discussed in previous chapters, how the MPA
program builds community is a function of the Community of Inquiry framework, and why
students in the MPA program join the community is determined through the Community of
Practice framework. These frameworks, when applied together, were used to investigate how a
sense of community can be used to increase retention rates in online programs.
The most significant result of this study is the alignment between student experiences as
described by alumni of the program and faculty perceptions of community within the program.
Prior to beginning the study, the expectation was that faculty data would point to pedagogy and
course design as most influential in creating community within an online program. While both
areas were mentioned, pedagogy and course design were not considered the most critical factors.
The data clearly shows that what the MPA program faculty endeavored to create through
collaborative learning, community-building, and personalized education was experienced by the
students. The MPA program was intentionally designed using a problem-based learning
experience through collaborative learning. As an alumna of the program, I can attest to the
102

collaborative nature which builds community and aids in perseverance. Data from the alumni
participants shows that the MPA program does an excellent job of creating an inviting
atmosphere and engaging students, which leads to more students remaining in the program
through degree completion.
The growing interest and popularity of online programs as a way of learning emphasizes
the need for research into boosting retention rates in online graduate programs. Enrollment in
online programs among post-graduate students is expected to continue rising over the next four
years; as the number of students enrolled in online programs expands, so does the need for
research on improving retention rates in online programs.
Technology advancements are dramatically changing the way education is provided.
While conventional in-person learning venues like classrooms with physically present faculty are
still significant, hybrid or totally online programs are becoming increasingly common.
Furthermore, due to the recent COVID-19 outbreak, the move to remote teaching has highlighted
the necessity for universities in the twenty-first century to focus on how such programs will be
designed and delivered, rather than if such programs will be provided at all.
The findings in this study offer online graduate programs in existence and those being
developed a roadmap for the intentional program and course design to build a sense of
community into online programs overall, thereby improving retention rates for the modality.
Recommendations
The main findings, as reported in Chapter Four–(a) personalized education, (b)
coaching/mentorship, (c) orientation/residencies, (d) dedicated faculty, and (e) course design–
were perceived by faculty and alumni as making significant contributions to building a
community which thereby impacts the MPA program's retention rate. When pondering
103

appropriate recommendations, I first considered what would apply to existing programs.
Significant literature exists on course design (Clinefelter et al., 2019; Rovai, 2002), pedagogy
(Anderson & Middleton, 2002; Darnell & Rosenthal, 2000; Magda et al., 2019; Palloff & Pratt,
2013), how to choose and define a Learning Management System (Anderson & Middleton,
2002; Carr-Chellman, 2000; Darnell & Rosenthal, 2000; Edutopia, 2008; McAlister et al.,
2001; Palloff & Pratt, 1999, 2013), whether and how to choose a third-party online program
manager, program design, and faculty engagement (Crumpacker, 2001; Chaney et al., 2010;
Higgins & Harreveld, 2013) and each of those elements are more challenging to alter for
existing programs. However, much of the existing scholarship fails to focus on the human
aspect of program design and execution. For example, the literature indicates faculty should be
engaged (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Fink, 2003; Meyers, 2008; Ryan et al., 2004), but very little
exists on what that engagement looks like and what engagement makes a difference.
From that perspective, while multiple themes emerged in this study, I have made two
recommendations; 1) establish a coaching program and 2) conduct regular mandatory
residencies or orientations. Existing programs could more easily implement the
recommendations, and this study shows that human connection has the most direct impact on
building community, and the two recommendations have not been extensively covered in the
extant literature.
Establish a Coaching Program
Faculty and alumni participants identified the MPA program's coaching program as an
essential factor in student retention. Programs usually include a student advisor to help students
with academics (Allen & Seaman, 2017). The student advisor may represent the whole of an
online graduate student's university experience and may or may not have expertise in the
104

program they assist, leaving students without access to a support person who understands their
journey through the program (Crawley, 2012). A student advisor is often a member of staff
whose purpose is to give academic counseling, answer students' questions about the institution,
and act as a liaison between the needs of students and university services and support programs
(Rajesh, 2011). WU's MPA program employed a strategy to assign a cohort coach to each new
cohort at the beginning of their first semester. Cohort coaches were alumni who had graduated
from the program in the previous five years and were hired as adjunct faculty. Cohort coaches
engaged with students as teaching assistants during their first professional development class in
their first semester of the program. Engaging on this level allows coaches to establish a
relationship with each of their assigned students to build a community that will sustain students
through degree completion. The coaching program did not replace the role of student advisor but
instead is an additional support person. As described by faculty and alumni participants in
Chapter 4, Cohort coaches guided students through such challenges as time management, work-
school-life balance, and networking with other alumni and peers. Faculty participants also
described in Chapter 4 that engaging with coaches when students were struggling or having
challenges formed a network of support to get students back on track.
Cohort coaches in the MPA program typically met with students as a group monthly at
least and were available to students individually as needed. Faculty and Alumni participants in
this study agreed that the personal connections made in the coaching program strongly influence
student retention. Students often get to know their cohort coach before forming connections with
their classmates. The MPA program hired a "lead coach" to onboard and train new cohort
coaches and act as support for the cohort coaches. Such a structure creates a triangle of support
for cohort coaches, faculty, and students.
105

Through the Community of Inquiry (COI) framework, the social constructivist
perspective is that students work collaboratively to discover purpose, develop skills, and form
unified connections (Ke, 2010). COI also emphasizes the value of community-building (also
known as "rapport") between faculty and students and between peers. According to the
perceptions of both faculty and alumni participants, the results of this study indicate a strong
connection between a sense of community and retention rates, which was validated by the use of
the COI framework as an integral part of why students develop community. Creating a coaching
support structure in an online learning environment helped students feel connected, limited
feelings of isolation, and fostered a sense of community which positively impacted retention
rates.
Mandatory Residencies/Orientations
Faculty and alumni participants identified the MPA program's residencies as critical in
creating a sense of community that leads to higher student retention rates. According to the
literature, a sense of community is essential for the success of online programs. Researchers have
shown that community is vital in higher education distance learning because it boosts academic
and social accomplishment and student involvement through degree completion. (Calderwood,
2000; Rovai, 2002; VanTyron & Bishop, 2009). Students who were new to online or hybrid
learning, such as those in Jones' (2013) research, showed a 20% boost in course completion rates
if a mandatory introduction session was incorporated. These same students benefit immensely
from an orientation event that helps them establish a foundation of a community (Gaytan, 2013;
Jones, 2013; Rovai, 2002).
Communities of practice are the most often utilized structure for knowledge sharing and
typically consist of three parts: a domain of knowledge that identifies a set of concerns; a
106

community of individuals who care about this domain; and the shared practice that they are
creating to be successful in their domain (Wenger et al., 2002). According to participants'
perceptions reported in Chapter 4, a residency or orientation can create a domain of knowledge
by providing academic support in information literacy by clearly communicating program
expectations and offering sessions on research and academic integrity; a community that cares
about the domain is created by including faculty, coaches, alumni, new students, and students
who are continuing in the program (see Appendix C). Residencies or orientation sessions not
only establish a community of practice but also create a community network that improves
student engagement and reduces the risk of attrition.
Limitations and Delimitations
The term "research constraints" or limitations refers to circumstances beyond the
researcher's control. While a considerable effort was made to reduce constraints, they could not
be avoided. The researcher had control over the delimitations, such as the types of questions
asked and the approach adopted during data analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
researcher was forthright about what they could control and what was classified as outside their
range of influence.
One potential constraint might have been participants' inclination to respond to the
question with what they believed they should say or what they believed the researcher wanted to
hear. This social desirability is referred to by Creswell & Creswell (2018). Another constraint
might have been the researcher's positionality; the researcher's identity was an unavoidable
component of the research. The researcher possesses broad and in-depth expertise about the
organization and its people, which may be susceptible to unconscious prejudice. The researcher's
desired perception could have infiltrated the investigation if not regulated. The researcher
107

addressed these constraints by conducting triangulation and obtaining participant validation of
their transcripts.
This study had various delimitation factors. The decision to employ qualitative data
exclusively rather than mixed-method or quantitative data impacted the data's presentation. The
research is less quantitatively anchored due to a lack of quantitative data. One of the study's
shortcomings was the limited number of subjects interviewed. While this decision was made to
guarantee that the data remained effective enough to draw conclusions without becoming
overburdened to the point where the analysis became swamped with too many factors, saturation
was not reached.
Another line of demarcation concerns the researcher's relationship with the organization.
As a staff member and alumnus of the MPA program, the researcher's objectivity was
jeopardized. According to Creswell & Creswell (2018), prior experiences can influence the
research. The researcher's relationships with the participants and the organization did not affect
the study process due to attempts to control for researcher bias.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study underscored the benefits of an intentionally designed online graduate program
with dedicated full-time faculty that enjoyed high levels of student engagement and a higher-
than-average retention rate of 92% (Warner University, 2021). This retention rate is compared to
the 86% average retention rate of all accredited online MPA programs as measured by the
Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA), the accrediting
agency that establishes the worldwide standard in public service and education (see Appendix
D). The perspectives of faculty and alumni were consistently positive and often overlapped.
However, this study did not include perspectives of current students who did not experience in-
108

person residencies, which may elicit different findings. The researcher, therefore, suggests that
future research should engage students who did not have the opportunity for in-person
residencies to determine if they experienced the same sense of community expressed by alumni.
Another point that is necessary for future research is the reporting of retention rates for
online programs, by degree level, separate from those of campus-based, face-to-face programs.
This study could have benefited from a clear comparison of online graduate programs. Such
bifurcation of data reporting could benefit future research and offer a more accurate picture of
the successes and challenges of online programs.
As we move into a post-pandemic learning environment, many institutions are
considering an expansion of online presence. This study could apply to developing and
expanding fully-online programs and hybrid programs from K-12 to post-secondary levels.
Therefore, future researchers could address how a sense of community can benefit students at all
grade levels regardless of modality. Having faculty prepared to offer learning interactions in
different modalities determined by student needs would only strengthen the educational fabric of
our society.
Conclusion
As a scholar who has navigated three online programs, each distinct and each with unique
challenges, this topic was one of personal relevance. Despite the rising popularity of online
learning, as stated in the material reviewed in Chapter Two, there is still a broad stigma linked to
the modality. While some of these unfavorable perceptions may have a factual basis, not all
online programs are less effective than on-campus programs. The tendency of those who do not
understand online education to think of the modality as something less than a brick-and-mortar
education does a disservice to students who take advantage of the technological advancements
109

that make education accessible. To negate the validity of a degree earned online is to negate the
experience and teaching expertise of all those from whom I have learned and earned my degrees.
It was critical that I properly examine the issue, minimize bias as much as possible, and
utilize facts to validate my chosen educational modality. I am familiar with this MPA program
and found the courses complex and demanding. My systemic views were tested and, at times,
modified. Furthermore, I felt the professors were invested in my success; they were empathetic
when appropriate but always pushed me (and other students) to do their best work. In this
research, I did not expect to discover the convergence of faculty and alumni perceptions. The
faculty members acknowledged being purposeful in the program and course design; actively
establishing a community in an online learning environment. The alumni participants reported an
atmosphere that was personable, engaging, and imbued with a feeling of community.
Online education often earns a bad reputation, and more so since the pandemic. Much of
the educational community was forced to quickly pivot to offer classes online without
preparation or training. Not all of it went well, especially at the K-12 level, but that does not
mean that online education is terrible. It does mean there is work to be done to improve the
overall quality of online education. The findings in this study may not be generalizable based on
the sample size. However, they are supported by literature, are common sense, and demonstrate
what can happen when a university assembles a perfect storm of personalized education,
coaching and mentorship, student orientations, program, and course design, faculty engagement,
and permanently assigned faculty to an online program. With the increased demand for online
learning opportunities, this study offers an opportunity to rethink how online education is
presented and consider implementing practices that increase student engagement and retention.

110

References
Affouneh, S., Salha, S., N., Khlaif, Z. (2020). Designing quality e-learning environments for
emergency remote teaching in coronavirus crisis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual
Learning in Medical Sciences, 11(2), 1–3.
Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of practice. OD practitioner, 32(4), 4-
13.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning.
Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from
http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010a). Class differences: Online education in the United States,
2010. Babson, MA: Babson Survey Research Group, The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved
from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/class_differences.pdf
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010b). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States,
2009. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from
http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States,
2011. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group.
Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. Retrieved from
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital Learning Compass: Distance Education Enrollment
Report 2017. Retrieved from https://
onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/digtiallearningcompassenrollment2017. pdf
111

Allen, E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and online
education: A joint project of the Babson Survey Research Group and Inside Higher
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/survey/conflicted.html
Almala, A. H. (2007). Review of current issues in quality e-learning environments. Distance
Learning, 4(3), 23-30.
Almarashdeh, I. (2016). Sharing instructors experience of learning management system: A
technology perspective of user satisfaction in distance learning course. Computers in
Human Behavior, 63, 249–255. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.013
Anderson, M.S. & Swazey, J.P. (1998). Reflections on the graduate student experience: An
overview. New Directions for Higher Education, (101), 3-13.
Anderson, S. K., & Middleton, V. (2002). You want me to do what? The cultural and
psychological struggle of putting a course online. The Technology Source, Retrieved
January 7, 2021, from http://ts.mivu.org/defualt.asp?show=article&id=917
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. Assessing teaching presence in a
computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 5 (2): 1–
17, 2001.
Aoki, K., & Pogroszewski, D. (1998). Virtual university reference model: A guide to delivering
education and support services to the distance learner. The Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 1(3). Retrieved from
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/jfall13.html
112

Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the
student, the instructor, and the tenured faculty. International Journal on ELearning, 7(1),
5-22.
Aragaon, S. R. & Johnson, E.S. (2008). Factors influencing completion and non-completion of
community college online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 22,
146- 158.
AuBuchon, D. (2010). The definition of a teacher. Retrieved from http://www
.americanchronicle .com/articles/view/150398
Austin, M., & Rust, D. (2015). Developing an Experiential Learning Program: Milestones and
Challenges. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(1),
143153.
Aversa, E., & MacCall, S. (2013). Profiles in retention part 1: Design characteristics of a
graduate synchronous online program. Journal of Education for Library and Information
Science, 54(2), 147-161.
Bacow, L., Bowen, W., Gutherie, K., Lack, K., & Long, M. (2012). Barriers to adoption of
online learning systems in U.S. higher education. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.22432
Bailey, C., & Card, K. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception of
experienced instructors. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3), 152–155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.002
Barbour, M., & Plough, C. (2009). Helping to make online learning less isolating. TechTrends,
53(4), 57.
113

Barshikar, N. (2020). How COVID-19 is revolutionizing the online education industry. Retrieved
from: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/353106
Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university
leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bekele, T. A. (2010). Motivation and satisfaction in Internet-supported learning environments: A
review. Educational Technology, 13(2), 116-127.
Benke, M., & Miller, G. (2014). Optimizing student support success through student support
services. In G. Miller, M. Benke, B. Chaloux, L. Ragan, R. Schroeder, W. Smutz et al.
(Eds.), Leading the e-Learning transformation of higher education (pp. 132-148).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Berge, Z. (Ed.) (2001). Sustaining distance training: Integrating learning technologies into the
fabric of the enterprise. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Berge, Z. L. and Huang, Y. (2004). A Model for Sustainable Student Retention: A Holistic
Perspective on the Student Dropout Problem with Special Attention to e-Learning,
DEOSNEWS, 13(5), 2004, retrieved March 15, 2021 from
http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews13_5.pdf
Berge, Z., & Clark, T. (2005). Virtual schools: Planning for success. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Berger, J. B., & Lyon, S. C. (2005). Past to present: A historical look at retention. In A. Seidman
(Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 1-29). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Berry, S. (2017). Building community in online doctoral classrooms: Instructor practices that
support community. Online Learning, 21(2), n2.
114

Berry, S. (2018). Professional development for online faculty: instructors' perspectives on
cultivating technical, pedagogical and content knowledge in a distance program. Journal
of Computing in Higher Education, 31(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-
9194-0
Bleazby, J. (2012). How compatible are communities of inquiry and the Internet? Some concerns
about the community of inquiry approach to e-learning. E-Learning and Digital Media,
9(1), 1-12. doi:10.2304/elea.2012.9.1.1
Bocchi, Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2004). Retaining the Online Learner: Profile of Students
in an Online MBA Program and Implications for Teaching Them. Journal of Education
for Business, 79(4), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.4.245-253
Boles, E., Cass, B., Levin, C., Schroeder, R., & Smith, S. (2010). Sustaining students: Retention
strategies in an online program. Educause Quarterly, 33(4).
Bolliger, D., Shepherd, C., & Bryant, H. (2019). Faculty members' perceptions of online
program community and their efforts to sustain it. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 50(6), 3283–3299. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12734
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping
research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A
systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in higher
Education, 17(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Booker, K. C. (2008). The role of instructors and peers in establishing classroom community.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(1), 12-16.
115

Bothel, R. (2001). Bringing it all together. The Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 4(1). Retrieved from
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring41/bothel41.html
Boton, E. C., & Gregory, S. (2015). Minimizing attrition in online degree courses. Journal of
Educators Online, 12(1), n1.
Brindley, J.E. (2014). Learner support in online distance education. In Zawacki-Richter, O. &
Anderson, T. (Eds.). Online distance education – towards a research agenda (pp 287-
310). http://microblogging.infodocs. eu/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Online_Distance_Education.pdf
Brito, M., & Rush, S. (2013). Developing and implementing comprehensive student support
services for online students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 29 - 42.
Bruso, J. L. (2001). A comprehensive orientation to address diverse student needs. In C. Dalziel
& M. Payne (Eds.), Quality Enhancing Practices in Distance Education: Student Services
(pp. 8-18).
Budash, D., & Shaw, M. (2017). Persistence in an online master's degree program: Perceptions
of students and faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 20(3).
Burd, E. L., Smith, S. P., & Reisman, S. (2014). Exploring business models for MOOCs in
higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 37-49. doi: 10.1007/s10755-014-
9297-0
Burke, L. (2020). Fall Comes into View. Inside Higher ED. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/09/colleges-continue-announcing-plans-
fall-amid-pandemic
116

Calderwood, P. (2000). Learning community: Finding common ground in difference. Teachers
College Press.
Campos, I., (2020). Career and leadership development during COVID-19. Psychology Today.
Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/closing-professional-
gaps/202003/career-and-leadership-development-during-covid-19
Cardon, P.L. & Rogers. G.E. (2002). Technology education graduate education: Factors
influencing participation. Columbus, OH: International Technology Education
Association Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED462615).
Care, W. D., & Scanlan, J. M. (2001). Planning and managing the development of courses for
distance delivery: results from qualitative study. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 4(2).
Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2000). The new sciences and systemic change in education. Educational
Technology, 40(1), 29-37.
Carr, S. As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The
Chronicle of Higher Education 46 (23): 39–41, 2000.
Carroll, D., Ng, E., & Birch, D. (2013). Strategies to improve retention of postgraduate business
students in distance education courses: An Australian case. Turkish Online Journal of
Distance Education, 14(1), 140-153.
Casstevens, W. J., Waites, C., & Outlaw, N. (2012). Non-traditional student retention: Exploring
perceptions of support in a social work graduate program. Social Work Education, 31(3),
256-268.
Cavus, N. (2015). Distance learning and learning management systems. Procedia—Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 191, 872–877. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.611
117

Chaney, D., Chaney, E., & Eddy, J. (2010). The context of distance learning programs in higher
education: Five enabling assumptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 13(4), 7.
Chao, T., Saj, T., & Tessler, F. (2006). Establishing a quality review for online courses.
EduCause Quarterly, 3, 32-39.
Chapman, D., Pascarella, E. (1983). Predictors of academic success and social integration of
college students. Research in Higher Education, 19(3), 295-322.
Chaw, L. Y., & Tang, C. M. (2018). What Makes Learning Management Systems Effective for
Learning? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 47(2), 152–169.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239518795828
Chen, S. (2002). A cognitive model for nonlinear learning in hypermedia programmes
[Electronic version]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 449-460.
Chen, S. J. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An objectivist-
constructivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 72-86.
Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v13/n1/3
Chipps, J., Kerr, J., Brysiewicz, P., & Walters, F. (2015). A survey of university students'
perceptions of learning management systems in a low-resource setting using a technology
acceptance model. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 33(2), 71–77.
Clarke, S. (2011). Peer interaction and engagement through online discussion forums: A
cautionary tale. Liverpool Law Review, 32.149-163. doi: 10.1007/s10991-011- 9092-2
Clinefelter, D. L., Aslanian, C. B., & Magda, A. J. (2019). Online college students 2019:
Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: Wiley.
118

Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research
perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3)
Cockrell, C. N., & Shelley, K. (2011). The relationship between academic support systems and
intended persistence in doctoral education. Journal of College Student Retention, 12(4),
469-484. doi:10.2190/CS.12.4.e
Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student
satisfaction: A three-year study. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 15(6), 111-131.
Conceicao, S., & Lehman, R. (2012). Persistence model for online student retention. In Jan
Herrington et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia, and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 1913-1922). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/112230
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or
Internet- based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-836.
doi:10.1177/00131640021970934
Cornelius, F., & Glasgow, M. E. S. (2007). The development and infrastructure needs required
for success—one college's model: Online nursing education at Drexel University.
TechTrends, 51(6), 32-35.
Council of Business Affairs. (2014). Accounting Manual for Florida's College System.
Crawley, A. (2012). Supporting online students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Crawley, A., & Fetzner, M. (2013). Providing service innovations to students inside and outside
of the online classroom: Focusing on student success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 17(1), 7-12.
119

Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J.D. (2018) Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
method approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crumpacker, N. (2001). Faculty pedagogical approach, skill, and motivation in today's distance
education milieu. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(4).
Retrieved from www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter44/crumpacker44.html
Dabbagh, N. (2004). Distance learning: Emerging pedagogical issues and learning designs.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 37.
Damm, D. (2020). Is digital learning still second best? SingularityHub. Retrieved from:
https://singularityhub.com/2020/03/20/is-digital-learning-really-still-second-best/
Darnell, D. R., & Rosenthal, D. M. (2000). Evolution of a virtual campus. Community College
Journal, pp. 21-23.
Darrington, A. (2008). Six lessons in e-learning: Strategies and support for teachers new to
online environments. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 35(4), 416-421.
Dawson, S. (2006). A study of the relationship between student communication interaction and
sense of community. Internet and Higher Education 9, 153-164.
Del Corso, D., Ovcin, E., & Morrone, G. (2005). A teacher-friendly environment to foster
learner-centered customization in the development of interactive educational packages.
IEEE Transactions on Education, 48, 574_579.
Delahunty, J., Verenikina, I., & Jones, P. (2013). Socio-emotional connections: identity,
belonging and learning in online interactions. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 23(2), 243-265.
Dellana, S. A., & Snyder, D. (2004). Student future outlook and counseling quality in a rural
minority high school. The High School Journal, 88(1), 27-41.
120

DeWall, C. N., Deckman, T., Pond Jr, R. S., & Bonser, I. (2011). Belongingness as a core
personality trait: How social exclusion influences social functioning and personality
expression. Journal of Personality, 79(6), 1281-1314.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Diaz, D. P. (2001). Four principles of technology training. Journal of the Faculty Association of
California Community Colleges, pp. 9-10.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction. Boston, MA:
Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Dietz-Uhler, B., Fisher, A., & Han, A. (2007) Designing online courses to promote student
retention. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 36.1 (105-112.)
Dignan, L. (2015). Online education: Higher Ed faculty won't buy in. Between the Lines.
Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/article/online-education-higher-ed-faculty-wont-
buy-in/
Downing, C. E. (2020). Best Practices in Online Education. Business and Management, 12(3).
DuCharme-Hansen, B. A., & Dupin-Bryant, P. A. (2005). Course planning for online adult
learners. TechTrends, 49(2), 31-39. doi:10.1007/BF02773969
Dueber, B., and Misanchuk, M. (2001). Sense of community in a distance education course. Mid-
South Instructional Technology Conference. Retrieved on July 7, 2020 from
http://billdueber.com/dueber-misanchuk.pdf.
Dunlap, J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Supporting students' cognitive processing in
online courses: Designing for deep and meaningful student-to-content interactions.
TechTrends, 51(4), 20-31.
121

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (Eds.). (2000). Practical approaches to using learning styles in higher
education . Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008). Online education forum: Part two—teaching online
versus teaching conventionally. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(2), 157-
164.
Edutopia. (2008) Why integrate technology into the curriculum? The reasons are many.
Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-introduction
Evans, R., & Champion, I. (2007). Enhancing online delivery beyond PowerPoint. The Com-
munity College Enterprise, 13(2), 75-84.
Fedynich, L., Bradley, K. S., & Bradley, J. (2015). Graduate Students' Perceptions of Online
Learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27.
Fink, D. L. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco: Wiley.
Fish, W.W., & Wickersham, L.E. (2009). Best practices for online instructors' reminders. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3), 279-284.
Floyd, D. L., & Casey‐Powell, D. (2004). New roles for student support services in distance
learning. New directions for community colleges, 2004(128), 55-64.
Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. http://www. workforce.
com/feature/00/07/29.
Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the
classroom. Communication Education, 59(2), 146-164. doi:
10.1080/03634520903564362
Frisby, B. N., Berger, E., Burchett, M., Herovic, E., & Strawser, M. G. (2014). Participation
apprehensive students: The influence of face support and instructor- student rapport on
122

classroom participation. Communication Education, 63(2), 105-123. doi:
10.1080/03634523.2014.881516
Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the
online classroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic
performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on
ELearning, 7(3), 463- 476.
Garrett, R., Legon, R. & Fredericksen, E. (2020). CHLOE 4: Navigating the mainstream, the
changing landscape of online education. Retrieved from
https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs pdfs/CHLOE-4-Report-
2020-Navigating-the-Mainstream.pdf
Garrison, D. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A Community of Inquiry framework for
research and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework:
Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-
172. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online
learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3),
133-148. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of
inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5-9. doi:
10.1016/j.heduc.2009.10.003
123

Gaytan, J. (2009). Analyzing online education through the lens of institutional theory and
practice: The need for research-based and -validated frameworks for planning, designing,
delivering, and assessing online instruction. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 51(2), 62-75.
Gaytan, J. (2013). Factors affecting student retention in online courses: Overcoming this critical
problem. Career and Technical Education Research, 38(2), 147-155.
doi:10.5328/cter38.2.147
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Thematic coding and categorizing. Analyzing Qualitative Data, 703, 38-56.
Gillespie, F. (1998). Instructional design for the new technologies. In K. H. Gillespie (Ed.), The
impact of technology on faculty development, life, and work (76), 39-52. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Glazier, R. A. (2016). Building rapport to improve retention and success in online classes.
Journal of Political Science Education, 12(4), 437-456.
Govindarajan, V., Srivastava, A. (2020). What the shift to virtual learning could mean for the
future of higher ed. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2021/03/what-the-shift-to-virtual-
learning-could-mean-for-the-future-of-higher-ed
Gravel, C. A. (2012). Student-advisor interaction in undergraduate online degree programs: A
factor in student retention. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 56-67.
Grawe, N. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. Johns Hopkins
University Press: Baltimore, MD.
Grawe, N. (2021). The agile college. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.
Green, K.C. & Wagner, E. (2011). Online education: Where is it going? What should boards
know? Trusteeship, 2-6.
124

Greene, K., & Mitcham, M. C. (2012). Community in the classroom. English Journal, 101(4),
13-15.
Griffiths, M., & Graham, C. R. (2010). Using asynchronous video to achieve instructor
immediacy and closeness in online classes: Experiences from three cases. International
Journal on E-Learning, 9(3), 325-340.
Gruber, S. (2015). Ideologies in online learning environments: The need for multiple stories.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(4), 39-53.
Had Sabtu, H., Wan Mohd Noor, W. S., & Mohd Isa, M. F. (2016). Revisiting student attrition
studies: a new conceptual perspective. Sains Humanika, 8(4-2), 83-89.
Hagel, P., Horn, A., Owen, S., & Currie, M. (2012). "How can we help?" The contribution of
university libraries to student retention. Australian Academic and Research Libraries,
43(3), 214-229.
Hardré, P. L., & Pan, R. (2017). The best and worst of graduate school: Graduate students' self-
report narratives of what helps and hurts their success. The Journal of Faculty
Development, 31(2), 5-19.
Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A
review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19-42.
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Robins, G., & Shoemaker, S. (2000) Community
development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communications. Online:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html.
Hedberg, J. G., & Brown, I. (2002). Understanding cross-cultural meaning through visual media
[Electronic version]. Education Media International, 39(1), 23-30.
125

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In Collaborative learning
through computer conferencing (pp. 117-136). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Heyman, E. (2010). Overcoming student retention issues in higher education online programs.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter134/heyman134.html
Higgins, K. and Harreveld, R. E. (2013) Professional development and the university causal
academic: Integration and support strategies for distance education. belonging and
learning in online interactions. A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 23(2), 243-265. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2013.813405
Hill, J. R., Raven, A., & Han, S. (2002). Connections in web-based learning environments: A
research-based model for community building. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
3(4), 383-93.
Hill, J. R., Wiley, D., Nelson, L. M., & Han, S. (2004). Exploring research on Internet based
learning: From infrastructure to interactions In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research
for educational communications and technology, 2.
Hillman, S. J. & Corkery, M. G. (2010). University infrastructural needs and decisions in moving
towards online delivery programmes. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Hoffman, M. S. (2011). Online vendor partners: When and how to select one. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 13(3). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall153/hoffman153.html
Holzweiss, P. C., Joyner, S. A., Fuller, M. B., Henderson, S., & Young, R. (2014). Online
graduate students' perceptions of best learning experiences. Distance Education, 35(3),
311-323.
126

Hoskins, B. (2010). The art of e-teaching. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 58(1),
53-56.
Hoyt, J. E. & Oviatt, D. (2013). Governance, faculty incentives, and course ownership in online
education at doctorate-granting universities. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 27(3), 165-178.
Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments.
[Electronic version]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D., & Sims, R. (2006). The phoenix rising: Emergent models of
instructional design. Distance Education, 27(2), 171-185.
Islam, N., & Azad, N. (2015). Satisfaction and continuance with a learning management system:
Comparing perceptions of educators and students. International Journal of Information
and Learning Technology, 32(2), 109–123.
Issa, R., & Cox, R.F. (1999). Impact of multimedia-based instruction on learning and retention
[Electronic version]. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 13(4), 281-291.
Ivory, M. Y., & Megraw, R. (2005). Evolution of web site design patterns. ACM Transactions on
Information Systems (TIOS), 23(4), 463-497.
Jones, J., Warren, S., & Robertson, M. (2009). Increasing student discourse to support rapport
building in web and blended courses using a 3d online learning environment. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 20(3), 269-294.
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students' satisfaction and
persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as
predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57, 1654-1664.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.008
127

Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students.
Computers and Education, 55, 808-820. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013
Ke, F., & Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating online learning communities. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 57(4), 487.
Keefe, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (2000). Personalized instruction: Changing classroom practice.
West Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education. London: Croom Helm.
Kim, Y. & Thayne, J. (2015). Effects of learner-instructor relationship-building strategies in
online video instruction. Distance Education, Distance Education, 36(1), 100-114.
Kramer, N. C., Karacora, B., Lucas, G., Dehghani, M., Ruther, G., & Gratch, J. (2016). Closing
the gender gap in STEM with friendly male instructors? On the effects of rapport
behavior and gender of a virtual agent in an instructional interaction. Computers and
Education, 99, 1-13.
Krause, N., & Stryker, S. (1984), Stress and well-being: The buffering role of locus of control
beliefs. Social Science & Medicine, 18(9), 783-790.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J. (2005) Student success in college: Creating
conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LaBelle, C., Lowenhal, P., & Rice, K. (2020). The administration of online programs in
statewide systems: A case study of the University System of New Hampshire. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, (23)2. Retrieved from
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer232/labelle_lowenthal_rice232.html
Laffey, J., Lin, G. Y., & Lin, Y. (2006). Assessing social ability in online learning environments.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 163-177.
128

Lakin, R. B. (2005). Social presence: The secret behind online collaboration. American Council
on Education.
Lawlor, D. S. (2007). Student retention in online courses: A mixed methods study (Master's
thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Lawrence, J. A., & Singhania, R. P. (2004). A study of teaching and testing strategies for a
required statistics course for undergraduate business students. Journal of Education for
Business, 79(6), 333-338.
Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). Review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice
and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593-618.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9177-y
Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2014). A structural equation model of predictors of online learning retention.
Internet and Higher Education, 16, 36-42. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.01.005
Li, C. & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges,
concerns and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42(2), 449-458.
Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and
effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers &
Education, 51(2), 864–873. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005
Link, D. & Scholtz, S. (2000). Educational technology and faculty role: What you don't know
can hurt you. Nurse Educator, 25(6), 274276.
Ludwig-Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2003). Learner support services for online students:
Scaffolding for success. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 4(1), 1-15.
129

Magda, A. J., Capranos, D., & Aslanian, C. B., (2020). Online college students 2020:
Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: Wiley Education
Services.
Maier, L. (2012). What are online teaching faculty telling us about building community?
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(11), 884-896.
Mandernach, B. J., Mason, T., Forrest, K. D., & Hackathorn, J. (2012). Faculty views on the
appropriateness of teaching undergraduate psychology courses online. Teaching of
Psychology, 39(3), 203-208. doi:10.1177/0098628312450437
Mann, J. T. & Henneberry, S. R. (2012). What characteristics of college students influence their
decisions to select online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
15(5).
Mansfield, M., O'Leary, E., & Webb, S. (2011). Retention in Higher Education: Faculty and
Student Perceptions of Retention Programs and Factors Impacting Attrition Rates. Online
Submission.
Maor, D. (2003). The teacher's role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning
community. Educational Media International, 40(1-2), 127-138.
Marmon, M., Vanscoder, J., & Gordesky, J. (2014). Online satisfaction: An examination of
preference, asynchronous course elements and collaboration among online students.
Current Issues in Education, 17(3).
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed). New York, NY: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Maxwell, M. (2015) Introduction to the Socratic method and its effect of critical thinking.
Retrieved from http://www.socraticmethod.net/
130

McAlister, M. K., Rivera, J. C., & Hallam, S. F. (2001). Twelve important questions to answer
before you offer a web-based curriculum. The Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 4(2).
McCracken, H. (2008). Best practices in supporting persistence of distance education students
through integrated web-based systems. Journal of College Student Retention, 10(1), 65-
91. doi:10.2190/CS.101.f
McCrea, B. (2020). Supply chain executive education in the post-COVID world. Supply Chain
Management Review. Retrieved from:
https://www.scmr.com/article/supply_chain_executive_education_in_the_post_covid_wo
rld
McDonald, J. (2002). Is" as good as face-to-face" as good as it gets. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6(2), 10-23.
McHenry, L. & Bozik, M. (1995). Communicating at a distance: A study of interaction in a
distance education classroom. Communication Education, 44. 362-371.
McKeown, K. (2012). Can online learning reproduce the full college experience? Retrieved
from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/can-online-learning-reproduce-
the-full-college-experience
McLoughlin, C. (1999). The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the
design of instructional materials. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3),
222-241.
Meyer, K. A., Bruwelheide, J., & Poulin, R. (2009). Principles for promoting the financial
sustainability of online programs. Planning for Higher Education, 37(3), 36-55.
131

Meyers, S. A. (2008). Using transformative pedagogy when teaching online. College Teaching,
56(4), 219-224. doi:10.3200/CTCH.56.4.219-224
Miller, G. E. (2009). The administration of online and distance education. In Encyclopedia of
Distance Learning, Second Edition. 40-44. IGI Global.
Miller, G. E. & Schiffman, S. (2006). ALN business models and the transformation of higher
education. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(2), 15-21.
Miller, S. K., (2007) Online, distance learning instructor guidelines to improve student retention,
Maricopa Learning Exchange, retrieved March 15, 2020 from
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/mlx/slip.php?item=1372
Milman, N. B., Posey, L., Pintz, C., Wright, K., & Zhou, P. (2015). Online master's students'
perceptions of institutional supports and resources: Initial survey results. Online
Learning, 19(4), 45-66.
Moffatt, M. (1991) College Life: Undergraduate culture and higher education. The Journal of
Higher Education, 62(1), 44-61.
Moody, J. (2004). Why are the attrition rates so high? The Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 5(3), 205-210.
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2004). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education and
student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), 96-108.
Morris, L. V., Wu, S. S., & Finnegan, C. L. (2005). Predicting retention in online general
education courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 23-36.
132

Müller, T. (2008). Persistence of women in online degree completion programs. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).
Mupinga, D. M. & Maughan, G. R. (2008). Web-based instruction and community college
faculty workload. College Teaching, 56(1), 17- 21.
Mupinga, D. M., Nora, R. T., & Yaw, D. C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs
of online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185-189.
Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and
physical high-school classroom: A third-generation activity theory perspective. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1061-1072. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2007.00776.x
Naidu, S. (2008, July). Situated learning designs for professional development: Fundamental
principles and case studies. In Fifth Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning.
National Center for Education Statistics (2020). Fast facts: educational institutions. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System: Data Center. Washington, DC. Retrieved Mar. 21, 2020, from Web site:
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/
Newberry, R., & DeLuca, C. (2014). Building a foundation for success through student services
for online learners. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(4), 25-39.
Newman, D. (2020). How innovation is driving productivity during and beyond the COVID-19
pandemic. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2020/05/08/how-
innovation-is-driving-productivity-during-and-beyond-the-covid-19-
pandemic/#6c2547af77b2
133

Nguyen, A., and the RP Group. (2017). The online education initiative: access and quality of
online education in California's community colleges, 2015-2016.
Nichols, M. (2010). Student perceptions of support services and the influence of targeted
interventions on retention in distance education. Distance Education, 31(1), 93- 113.
doi:10.1080/01587911003725048
O'Brien, B. S. and Renner, A. L. (2002). Online Student Retention: Can It Be Done?,
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 2002, retrieved March 15,
2020 from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/21/fc/
90.pdf
Overstreet, M. (2020). Strategies for Building Community among Learners in Online Courses.
College Teaching, 68(1), 45-48.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2013). Lessons from the virtual classroom: The realities of online
teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R. M. & Pratt., K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online
learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt., K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom. Paper presented at
the Distance Teaching and Learning Conference.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective
strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Park, C. L., Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2011). Minimizing attrition: Strategies for assisting
students who are at risk of withdrawal. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 48(1), 37-47. doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.543769
134

Parker, A. (2003). Identifying predictors of academic persistence in distanceeducation.USDLA
Journal, 17(1).
Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old- media/Files/Reports/2011/PIP-
Online-Learning.pdf
Patterson, B., & McFadden, C. (2009). Attrition in online and campus degree programs. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(2).
Paul, J. A. & Cochran, J. D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty,
students, technologies and educational institutions: A holistic framework. Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 14(1), 49-62.
Peters, B., Crawley, A., & Brindley, J. E. (2018). Student support services for online learning re-
imagined and re-invigorated: Then, now and what's to come. teachonline. ca.
Petersen, J., Chesak, L., Saunders, R., & Wiener, W. (2017). The central role of the director of
graduate studies: Ten years of data from a mid-sized public university. Council of
Graduate Schools. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/JamesPetersen5/publication/314205595TheCentralR
oleofthe DirectorofGraduateStudiesTenYearsofDataFromaMid SizedPublicUniversity_
/links/58b99895a6fdcc2d14dc5d3c/TheCentralRoleoftheDirectorof GraduateStudiesTen_
YearsofDataFromaMidSizedPublicUniversity.pdf
Plank, C., Dixon, H., & Ward, G. (2014). Student voices about the role feedback plays in the
enhancement of their learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 39(9),
98-110.
135

Poison, C. (2003). Adult graduate students challenge institutions to change. New Directions for
Student Services, 102, 59-68.
Porter, G. W. (2013). Free choice of learning management systems: Do student habits override
inherent system quality? Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 10(2), 84–94.
doi:10.1108/ITSE-07-2012-0019
Poulova, P., Simonova, I., & Manenova, M. (2015). Which one, or another? Comparative
analysis of selected LMS. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 1302–1308.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.052
Prall, D. (2020). A pandemic, remote work and ‘the new normal'. American City & County.
Retrieved from: https://www.americancityandcounty.com/2020/05/27/a-pandemic-
remote-work-and-the-new-normal/
Prendergrast, G. A. (2003) Keeping online student dropout numbers low, GlobalEducator.com,
retrieved March 15, 2020, from
http://www.whirligig.com.au/globaleducator/articles/GerardPrendergrast2003.pdf
Rajesh, M. (2011). Student retention in an era of globalization: A case study of IGNOU regional
center, Mumbai. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 12(2), 128-139.
Richart, V. M. (2002). Considerations for the transformation of community colleges. Bothell,
WA: Cascadia Community College.
Robinson, E. T. (2000). Strategic planning for technological change: The human component.
Syllabus: New Directions in Education Technology, 14(4).
Rodriguez, M. C., Ooms, A., & Montañ ez, M. (2008). Students' perceptions of online-learning
quality given comfort, motivation, satisfaction, and experience. Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, 7(2), 105-125.
136

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Columbus,
Ohio: C.E. Merrill.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (2001). Beyond college for all: Career paths for the forgotten half. Russell
Sage Foundation.
Ross, J., Gallagher, M. S., and MacLeod, H. (2013). Making distance visible: Assembling
nearness in an online distance learning programme. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 51-66.
Rovai, A. P. (2002) Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The
Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197–211.
Rovai, A. P. (2002a). Building and Sustaining Community in Asynchronous Learning Networks.
The Internet and Higher Education., 3(4), 285–297. https://doi.org/info:doi/
Rovai, A. P. (2002b) A preliminary look at structural differences in sense of classroom
community between higher education traditional and ALN courses. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks 6 (1): 41–56.
Rovai, A. P. (2002c). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in
asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 319-332.
Rovai, A. P. (2002d). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/152
Rovai, A. P., & Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others
succeed in a global environment. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 141- 147.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.001
137

Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative
analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274
Rovai, A. P., & Wighting, M. J. (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher
education students in a virtual classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 97-110.
Rubin, B. & Fernandes, R. (2013). The teacher as leader: Effect of teaching behaviors on class
community and agreement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 14(5), 1-26.
Russo-Gleicher, R. J. (2013). Qualitative insights into faculty use of student support services
with online students at risk: Implications for student retention. Journal of Educators
Online, 10(1), 58-90. Retrieved from
http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume10Number1/RussoGleicher.pdf
Ryan, M., Hodson-Carlton, K., & Ali, N. S. (2004). Reflections on the role of faculty in distance
learning and changing pedagogies. Nursing Education Perspectives, 25(2), 73-80.
Saba, F. (2000). Distance education: Year of consolidation? Retrieved: October 14, 2020, from
http://www.distance-educator.com/index2001a.phtml
Savrock, J. T. (2001). Speaking personally with Dennis Bancroft. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 15(3), 70-78.
Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The paradox of faculty
voices: Views and experiences with online learning. Washington, DC: Association of
Public and Land-grant Universities and Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from
http://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=1879
138

Seibert, G. S., May, R. W., Fitzgerald, M. C., & Fincham, F. D. (2016). Understanding school
burnout: Does self-control matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 120-127.
Shea, P. (2006). A study of students' sense of learning community in online environments.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35-44.
Shea, P. (2007). Bridges and barriers to teaching online college courses: A study of experienced
online faculty in thirty-six colleges. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2),
73-128. Retrieved from
http://www.sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/v11n2_shea_0.pdf
Shea, P., & Armitage, S. (2002). Beyond the Administrative Core: Creating Web-Based Student
Services for Online Learners. Boulder, CO: WCETLAAP Project.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536193.pdf
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-
regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended
learning environments. Computers and Education, 55, 1721-1731. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of
learning community in full online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and
Higher Education, 9, 175-190.
Shea, P., Vickers, J., & Hayes, S. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens
of teaching presences in the community of inquiry framework: A re- examination of
measures and approach. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 11(3), 127-154.
139

Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of ‘transactional presence'. Open
Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 17(2), 121-137.
Shin, N., & Maxwell, G. (2003). Factors related to student satisfaction and motivation in distance
science learning: a case study of a foundation course in biology and earth science. Indian
Journal of Open Learning, 12(1), 17-27.
Simanek, D. E. (1997). On being a student. Retrieved May, 19, 2020
Simonson, M., & Schlosser, L. (2003). Association for educational communications &
technology: distance education – towards a definition and glossary of terms: defining
distance education. Bloomington, IN: AECT.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., and Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and Learning at a
Distance: Foundations of Distance Education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Simpson. (2003). Student Retention in Online, Open and Distance Learning. Taylor and Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203416563
Sloate, T. (2010). Students Seeking Online Offerings in Record Numbers. In Focus, A
Newsletter of the University of Continuing Education Association , 14 (8), p. 3.
Smith, S., Kempster, S., & Wenger-Trayner, E. (2019). Developing a program Community of
Practice for leadership development. Journal of Management Education, 43(1), 62-88.
Snigdha Choudhury, Snigdha Pattnaik. (2019) Emerging themes in e-learning: A review from the
stakeholders' perspective. Computers & Education, pages 103657
Snyder, T., Brey, C., & Dillow, S. (2018). National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of
education statistics, 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020009.pdf
Song, H., Kim, J. & Luo, W. (2015). Teacher-student relationship in online classes: A role of
teacher self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 436-443.
140

Stavredes, T. M. & Herder, T. M. (2015). Engaging students in an online environment. In S. J.
Quaye & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education (257- 269). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Stevenson, T. (2013). Online student persistence: What matters is outside the classroom. Journal
of Applied Learning Technology, 3(1), 21-25.
Stoltenkamp, J., Kies, C., & Njenga, J. (2007). Institutionalizing the eLearning division at the
University of the Western Cape (UWC): Lessons learnt. International Journal of
Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 3(4),
143-152.
Stover, C. (2005). Measuring and understanding student retention. Distance Education Report,
9(16), 1-7.
Strickling, L. E., & Gomez, A. (2010). Digital nation: 21st century America's progress toward
universal broadband internet access. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Stubb, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2011). Balancing between inspiration and exhaustion: PhD
students' experienced socio-psychological well-being. Studies in Continuing Education,
33(1), 33-50.
Sullivan, E. B., & Pagano, R. V. (2012). Relevant adult programs, resilient students, and
retention-driven administration. New Directions for Higher Education, 159, 21- 29.
doi:10.1002/he.20023
Tanner, J. R., Noser, J., & Totaro, M. W. (2009). Business faculty and undergraduate students'
perceptions for online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 20(1), 29-40.
141

Terrell, S. R., Snyder, M. M., Dringus, L. P., & Maddrey, E. (2012). A grounded theory of
connectivity and persistence in a limited residency doctoral program. Qualitative Report,
17(62), 1-17. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/terrell.pdf
Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice.
Organization Science, 16(2), 151-164.
Thompson, T. L., & MacDonald, C. J. (2005). Community building, emergent design and
expecting the unexpected: Creating a quality eLearning experience. The Internet and
Higher Education, 8(3), 233-249
Tichavsky, L. P., Hunt, A. N., Driscoll, A., & Jicha, K. (2015). "It's just nice having a real
teacher": Student perceptions of online versus face-to-face instruction. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 1-8.
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on
disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit
at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317-348.
Tillman, C. A. (2002). Barriers to student persistence in higher education. Diadache: Faithful
Teaching, 2(1), 1-16.
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Tung, L. C. (2012). Proactive intervention strategies for improving online student retention in a
Malaysian distance education institution. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 8(4), 312-323.
142

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2020 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016006.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Distance
Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000–2001. Retrieved March
25, 2020, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/2003017/index.asp
Valenta, A., Therriault, D., Dieter, M., & Mrtek, R. (2001). Identifying student attitudes and
learning styles in distance education. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 5(2),
111-127.
Vamosi, A. R., Pierce, B. G., & Slotkin, M. H. (2004). Distance learning in an accounting
principles course—Student satisfaction and perceptions of efficacy. Journal of Education
for Business, 79(6), 360-366.
Van Manen, M. (1999). The language of pedagogy and the primacy of student experience. In J.
Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding
pedagogy (pp. 13-27). London, UK: Falmer Press.
Vogl, C. (2016). The art of community: Seven principles for belonging. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Voorhees, R. A. (1987). Toward building models of community college persistence: A logic
analysis. Research in Higher Education, 26(2), 115-129.
Wade, C. E., Cameron, B. A., Morgan, K., & Williams, K. C. (2011). Are interpersonal
relationships necessary for developing trust in online group projects? Distance
Education, 32(3), 383-396. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.610288
143

Waldeck, J.H. (2007) Answering the question: Student perceptions of personalized education and
the construct's relationship to learning outcomes, Communication Education, 56:4, 409-
432, DOI: 10.1080/03634520701400090
Walker, D. S., Lindner, J. R., Murphrey, T. P., & Dooley, K. (2016). Learning management
system usage: Perspectives from university instructors. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 17(2), 41–50.
Waldner, L., McDaniel, D., & Widener, M. (2011). E-advising excellence: The new frontier in
faculty advising. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 551-561.
Waugh, M., & Su-Searle, J. (2014). Student persistence and attrition in an online MS program:
Implications for program design. International Journal on E-Learning, 13(1), 101-121.
Weigel, V. (2000). E-learning and the tradeoff between richness and reach in higher education.
Change, 33(5), 10-15.
Wenger, E. (1997) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W. M., & Valley, I. S. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice: A guide to managing knowledge-seven principles for cultivating communities of
practice.
Western University. (2021) MPA online graduation rates. Unpublished internal university
document.
Wiener, W. & Peterson, J. (2019). Strengthening the role of graduate program directors.
Innovative Higher Education, (44)6, p. 437-451.
Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students' decision to drop out of
online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 115-127.
144

Williams, C. (2012). Starting from scratch: The evolution of one university's administrative
structure for online programs. New Directions in Higher Education, 159, p. 65-71.
Willis, B. (2000). Instructional development for distance education. Strategies for Learning at a
Distance. Retrieved March 14, 2021, from http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/dist2003.html
Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-
interpretivist theory [Electronic version]. Educational Technology, 35(6), 5-23.
Wilson, J. H., & Ryan, R. G. (2013). Professor-student rapport scale: Six items predict student
outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 40(2), 130-133. doi:10.1177/0098628312475033
Wilson, J. H., Ryan, R. G., & Pugh, J. L. (2010). Professor-student rapport scale predicts student
outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 246-21
Winkler-Prins, A.M., Weisenborn, B.N., Group, R. E., & Arbogast, A. F. (2007). Developing
online geography courses: Experiences from Michigan State University. The Journal of
Geography, 106(4), 163-170.
Yang, D., Baldwin, S., & Snelson, C. (2017). Persistence factors revealed: students' reflections
on completing a fully online program. Distance Education, 38(1), 23–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1299561
Yang, X., Li, G., & Huang, S. S. (2017). Perceived online community support, member relations,
and commitment: Differences between posters and lurkers. Information & Management,
54(2), 154-165.
Yasmin, D. (2013) Application of the classification tree model in predicting learner dropout
behavior in open and distance learning. Distance Education, 34(2), 218- 231. doi:
10.1080/01587919.2013.793642
145

Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities
in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,30(3), 220-232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12042
Yuan, L. & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education.
[White paper]. Retrieved from http://publications.cetis.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.pdf
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical
analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record,
107(8), 1836-1884.
Zsohar, H., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Transition from the classroom to the web: Successful
strategies for teaching online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(1), 23-28.

146

Appendix A: Faculty Interview Protocol
Introduction to the Interview:
Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. As you
know, I am a post-graduate student in the Rossier school's Organizational Change and
Leadership program. My dissertation work focuses on factors which may impact retention rates
in online graduate programs. Through this interview I hope to gain a better understanding of the
sense of community within an online academic environment as it relates to improving retention
rates through the voices of faculty and alumni of an online Masters of Public Administration
(MPA) program. Your support is very much appreciated.

Research Question: My study is attempting to answer the following question:

How do faculty in an online graduate program perceive the link between community and student
retention rates?

Topic Focus Question Interview Question Probe/Follow-Up
Establish Rapport 1.
Tell me a bit about yourself-
why did you become a teacher?

Establish Rapport 1(a).
What is your field of
expertise?
Establish Rapport 1(b).
How long have you been
teaching?
147

Establish Rapport 2.
When and why did you first
begin teaching online?

Establish Rapport 2(a).
What percentage of your
classes are online, in a
typical semester?
Community 3.
What feelings or thoughts come
to mind when you think about
online teaching and learning?

Retention 4.
What does "rapport" with your
students mean to you?

Community 5.
How do you establish rapport
with your students?

Community 5(a).
Have you found any tools
or strategies that help in
establishing rapport?
Community 6.
What does "community" mean
to you in an online learning
program?

Community 6(a).
Explain how you build
community within your
classroom setting.
148

Community 6(b).
Which online tools do you
like to use for building
community with students?
Community 7.
Describe the importance of
community in the online
classroom setting?

Community 8.
What does a successful virtual
community look and feel like?

Community 8(a).
What does a lack of
community look and feel
like?
Community 9.
Define some challenges that
affect the community-building
process?

Community 9(a).
How do you address these
challenges?
Retention 10.
What do you believe are the
factors which most impact
retention rates in an online
program?

Community 11.
Does community or the
community-building process
look different in any way if you

149

are teaching online, versus face-
to-face?
Community 11(a). If so, how?
Community 12.
Do you feel equally prepared
and comfortable establishing
community online and in a
physical classroom? Explain.

Community 13.
Explain what you believe has
the biggest influence in
building community within this
online program?

Retention 13(a).
Explain what you believe
has the biggest influence on
retention rates in this online
program?
Community 14.
Is there anything that would
make you more or less likely to
teach online in the future?

Closing 15.
What do you wish you had
known about community-
building when you began
teaching?

150

Closing 16.
What else do you think it is
important for me to know that
we have not yet discussed?

151

Appendix B: Alumni Interview Protocol
Introduction to the Interview:
Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. As you
may know, I am a post-graduate student in the Rossier school's Organizational Change and
Leadership program. My dissertation work focuses on factors which may impact retention rates
in online graduate programs. Through this interview I hope to gain a better understanding of the
sense of community within an online academic environment as it relates to improving retention
rates through the voices of faculty and alumni of an online Masters of Public Administration
(MPA) program. Your support is very much appreciated.

Research Question: My study is attempting to answer the following question:

How do alumni describe their sense of community as being a factor in degree completion?

Topic Focus Question Interview Question Probe/Follow-Up
Establish
Rapport
1.
Why did you choose the
MPA program?

Establish
Rapport
1(a).
When did you graduate?
Establish
Rapport
1(b).
How have you remained
connected to the
program?
152

Establish
Rapport
2.
What influenced you to
enroll in an online MPA
program?

Establish
Rapport
2(a).
Have you taken other
classes in online or
traditional face-to-face
format?
Establish
Rapport
2(b).
Can you describe your
experience?
Community 3.
What feelings or
thoughts come to mind
when you think about
online learning?

Community 4.
What does "rapport"
with your faculty mean
to you?

Community 5.
How do you establish
rapport with your
faculty?

Community 5(a).
How did you establish
rapport with your peers?
Community 6.
What does
"community" mean to

153

you in an online
learning program?
Community 6(a).
Do you believe you were
part of a community?
Community 6(b). Why or why not?
Retention 7.
Did you have
challenges during your
program that could or
would have prevented
you from completing
the program?

Retention 7(a).
What had the most
influence on your
perseverance?
Retention 8
What do you believe are
the factors which most
impact student
perseverance in an
online program?

Community 9.
Define some challenges
that affect the
community-building
process?

154

Community 9(a).
How do you address
these challenges?

Retention 10.
How do you compare
the quality of your
online education to your
face-to-face learning?

Community 11.
Explain what you
believe has the biggest
influence in building
community within this
online program?

Retention 12.
Is there anything that
would make you more
or less likely to take
online classes in the
future?

Closing 13.
Do you have any plans
to remain connected to
the program?

Closing 13(a). Why or why not?
Closing 14.
What do you wish you
had known about online

155

programs before you
enrolled?
Closing 15.
What else do you think
it is important for me to
know that we have not
yet discussed?

156

Appendix C: Sample Residency Agenda

Western University Online MPA Program
Spring Semester Residency
New and Continuing Students

Time Day One – New Student Residency - Room 1
8:00 AM - 8:30 AM CHECK-IN & Breakfast
8:30 AM - 9:30 AM Session 1 – Introductions with Faculty
9:30 AM - 11:00 AM Session 2 – Digital Literacy and Data Domains
11:00 AM - 11:15 AM BREAK
11:15 AM - 11:45 AM Session 3 – How to Succeed as a Quant
11:45 AM – 12:15 PM Dean ’s Welcome
12:15 PM - 1:15 PM LUNCH
1:15 PM - 3:15 PM Session 4 – Writing Laboratory I
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM BREAK
3:30 PM - 5:00 PM Session 5 – Surviving and Thriving in Teams
5:00 PM - 5:30 PM Session 6 – Campus Tour & Cohort Photo
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Reception – Club with Faculty, Alumni, and Continuing Students
Time Day Two – New Student Residency - Room 1 Day Two – Continuing Student Residency - Room 2
8:30 AM - 9:00 AM CHECK-IN & Breakfast CHECK-IN & Breakfast
9:00 AM - 10:30 AM Session 7 – Mastering Online Learning Skills Session 1 – State of the Public Administration Field Report
10:30 AM - 10:45 AM BREAK BREAK
10:45 AM - 12:15 PM Session 8 – Networking Roundtable for Professional Development Session 2 – Networking Roundtable for Professional Development
12:15 PM - 1:00 PM LUNCH LUNCH
1:00 PM - 3:30 PM Session 9 – Research Skills Workshop Session 3 – A Leadership Challenge: Team Building & Strategy
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM BREAK BREAK
3:45 PM - 5:00 PM Session 10 – Reference Management Seminar Session 4 – The ROI for Certificates with your MPA
5:00 PM ADJOURN ADJOURN
Time Day Three – New Student Residency - Room 1
9:00 AM - 9:30 AM CHECK-IN & Breakfast
9:30 AM - 10:30 AM Session 11 – Writing Laboratory II
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM Session 12 – University Policies & Academic Integrity
12:00 PM- 1:00 PM LUNCH with Cohort Coach and Coaching Session
1:00 PM - 3:00 PM Session 13 – Best Use of a Cohort Coach
3:00 PM ADJOURN
157

Appendix D: NASPAA Report: Graduation Rates 2019-2020

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Black premedical student retention: exploring campus support programming through the eyes of the student

PDF

Attending to the lived experiences of behavior technicians to discover the keys to retention: an exploratory study

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Completion in online learning: graduate students' perspectives

PDF

The influence of technology support on student retention

PDF

Perspectives of diabetes prevention program coordinators in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: implementation optimization

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Scaling online graduate programs: an exploratory study of insourcing versus outsourcing

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness

PDF

Understanding how organizational culture and expectations influence retention of managers

PDF

An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system

PDF

Perceptions of employment nationalization policies in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries

PDF

High rates of suicides among active-duty military population: how exposure to a suicide event affects behaviors

PDF

The antecedents and consequences of low franchisee satisfaction and its effect on retention: an exploration of a critical issue through the lens of Urie Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

Employee satisfaction factors and influences: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator McDougal, Cynthia Lorraine (author)

Core Title Online graduate program retention: exploring the impact of community on student retention rates from the perspectives of faculty and alumni

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/28/2022

Defense Date 04/13/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Community,graduate education,OAI-PMH Harvest,online education,online retention,retention

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula M. (committee chair), Canny, Eric A. (committee member), Tobey, Patricia A. (committee member)

Creator Email clmcdoug@usc.edu,cynthia.mcdougal@zoho.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111136621

Unique identifier UC111136621

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights McDougal, Cynthia Lorraine

Type texts

Source 20220428-usctheses-batch-934 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu