University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

(USC Thesis Other)

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 1

Validation Matters – Student Experiences in Online Courses:
A Mixed-Methods Study

by

Sherry Denise Davis

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Sherry Denise Davis

Running head: VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 2

Acknowledgements
Many thanks are in order. I am grateful for my God who has seen me through this
process and gifted me with the spirit of perseverance. I am grateful to my ancestors whose fire-
drenched long-suffering sacrifices fortified me as I stood firmly in my own space during this
journey. To my family: the spirit of my courageous parents, Elsie and Jesse; the love and
support of Simoura and LeAndre -- always, in season and out, my gratitude will remain forever.

With sincere appreciation to the following individuals:
 Dr. Calvin Bonds who believed in me so faithfully and encouraged me to apply to the
program. I know you were sent to deliver the message and I will be forever grateful
to you.
 Dr. Victoria Ruffin whose reflective insight and intelligence, prophetic feedback and
unwavering support guided and girded me throughout this process and program.

My Chairs: Dr. Tobey, Dr. Crispen and Dr. Seli -- thank you for your validation and
guidance. I am deeply appreciative for your help, professionalism and scholarship – priceless
gems I will endeavor to use as I embark on my new academic career.

Lastly, with homage and appreciation to the educators, mentors and supporters who
encouraged, cared and validated me at every opportunity and who, to this day, influence my
positive actions to help others and to offer my contributions to the world: Fannie Butler, Momma
Dorsie Weston, Julia Simon, Dr. Anne S. Williams, Dr. Henry Ealey, Sandra Smallwood, Mayor
Henry Brown and Linda Miles – Thank you!

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 3

Table of Contents
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Introduction 11
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 15
Significance of the Study 16
Assumption 17
Limitations 17
Delimitations 17
Glossary of Terms 18
Chapter Two: Literature Review 20
Community Colleges 20
Historical Context 20
Summary 23
Expansion Eras 23
Development Era (1901-1940) 24
The Access Era (1940 - 1980) 24
The Accountability Era (1980 - 2000) 25
The Millennial Era (2000-present) 26
Summary 27
The 1960 California Master Plan 27
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 4

The Call 28
California Leadership 29
The Tripartite System 29
Summary 31
Distance Education 31
Definitions 32
Historical Context 33
From Distance Education to Online Education 34
Online Feedback 34
Summary 35
Nontraditional Students 36
Definitions 36
Summary 39
Theoretical Frameworks 39
Affective Domain 39
Mattering 41
Validation 41
Validation Experiences and Intent to Persist 45
Summary 48
Chapter Three: Methodology 51
Research Questions 53
Population and Sample 53
California Community College Research Sites 54
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 5

Community College #1 54
Community College #2 55
Interview Participant Profiles 55
Instrumentation 60
Phase I 61
Phase II 62
Data Collection 62
Phase II 63
Phase III 64
Data Analysis 65
Limitations of the Study 66
Ethical Considerations 66
Chapter Summary 67
Chapter Four: Results 68
Preliminary Analysis 68
Research Questions 1 and 1a 75
Summary 78
Research Question 2 79
Summary 82
Research Question 3 82
Summary 89
Research Question 4 90
Summary 93
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 6

Chapter Summary 94
Chapter Five: Findings, Conclusions and Implications 96
Summary of the Study 96
Findings 98
Conclusions 99
Implications 103
Future Research 105
Summary 108
References 110
Appendices 120
Appendix A - USC IRB Approval Letter 120
Appendix B - Community College #1 – Approval Email 122
Appendix C - Community College #2 – Approval Letter 123
Appendix D - Barnett – Approval Email for Survey and Conceptual
Framework
124
Appendix E Barnett – College Experience Survey 126
Appendix F Instructor Email and Flyer Information Sheet 131
Appendix G Online Student Recruitment Email and Flyer
Information Sheet

133
Appendix H Validating Experiences in Online Courses Information
Sheet

134
Appendix I Validation Experiences in Online Courses - Survey 135
Appendix J Validation Experiences Interview Questions 141
Appendix K Student Experiences and Online Validation KEY 143
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 7

Appendix L Correlations and Descriptive Statistics 144
Appendix M Correlations - Gender 145
Appendix N Correlations - Age 146
Appendix O Correlations - Ethnicity 151
Appendix P Cronbach’s Alpa Calculations 155
Appendix Q ANOVA Results Predicting Question 4 158
Appendix R Conceptual Framework 160

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 8

List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Variables for All Participants 70
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables
For All Participants 71
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variables
For All Participants 72
Table 4: Student Experiences and Validation Items for All Participants 74
Table 5: Correlations of Independent Variables and Dependent
Variables for All Participants 78
Table 6: T-Test for Males/Females and Student Experiences of Validation 80
Table 7: Correlations Results Predicting Question 3 87
Table 8: ANOVA Results Predicting Question 4 90

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 9

List of Figures
Figure A: Barnett’s Conceptual Framework 48
Figure B: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Research Design 52

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 10

ABSTRACT
This study applied the Validation Theory, the Affective Domain and Mattering from the
academic literature to understand the relationship of validation to student experiences for online
students at the community college level. The purpose of this study was to determine the degree
of validation on student experiences for demographic groups of gender, age and ethnicity. Using
the mixed-methods approach and applying the sequential explanatory design, the survey data of
48 online students enrolled in a transferrable English course was used to correlate the Validation
Theory to student experiences. A subset of these students was interviewed to gain additional
insight into their survey responses. Cronbach Alpa and the Normality test were calculated.
Pearson’s Correlations was calculated for Question 1 and 1a (To what degree do nontraditional
online students experience validation? If so, how?) A T-test was calculated for Question 2 (Is
there a difference between the degree to which males vs. females experience validation?)
Correlations were calculated for Question 3 (Is there a relationship between the students’ age and
the degree to which they experience validation?) ANOVA was generated for Question 4 (Do
students from different ethnic backgrounds experience different degrees of validation?) Findings
from this study indicated that the Validation Theory had a significant and strong linear
relationship to students’ online experiences. Instructor Shows was the dominant independent
variable of Validation. There was not a significant difference of Validation experiences between
males vs. females. There was a strong relationship between Instructor Cares and Instructor
Shows with Student feels Encouraged for all age groups. There were no significant differences
of Validation experiences for students from different ethnic backgrounds. This study begins to
highlight the online pedagogical value of Validation on student experiences in online courses and
its impact on online course completion and student success.

Running head: VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 11

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Enrollment growth in online courses at community colleges has increased significantly in
the last decade. Community colleges continue to emerge as a major provider of public higher
education, enrolling nearly as many students in their programs as public four-year universities
(Jacobs, 2012). The fastest growing segment of higher education is distance education carried
out through online learning (Allen and Seaman, 2011). Online education has become a primary
modality of instruction at most community colleges nationwide as students embrace online
learning and the flexibility and convenience it offers. Allen and Seaman (2013) estimated that
between 25% and 33% of college students in the United States (U.S.) enrolled in at least one
online course. Rightly, between 5.5 and 7 million college students nationwide decided to deter
from the traditional classroom structure and learn content in an online format (Allen & Seaman,
2013). King (2001) posited that students who have taken an online course were “more likely to
recommend distance education, and that “successful completion of other distance education
courses is a good predictor of students who are likely to complete subsequent courses (p. 414).
All educational levels have benefited from offering online education; the online enrollment
expansion has been most pronounced at the associate level which has been made up of more than
50% of the total online student population (Allen and Seaman, 2008). Over half of community
colleges in California offer at least one degree or certificate that can be earned solely through
distance education, mostly through online instruction (Johnson and Mejia, 2014). In 2011-2012,
one fifth of college students in California community colleges were enrolled in at least one
online course for credit - seven times higher than the share enrolled in 2002-2003 (Johnson &
Mejia, 2014). Community college students continue to enroll in online courses and as they
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 12

continually embrace technology, this upward momentum in online enrollment at the community
college level is expected to continue. Inasmuch as online enrollment has surged, low persistence
rates in online course completion plague community college accessibility strides.
As more students are becoming more acclimated to online learning and are enrolling in
online courses, research involving large datasets reveals that half of the students enrolled in a
typical community college online course drop out or fail. Tyler-Smith (2006) reported that
online course drop-out rates ranged from 30% to 50%. Jaggars and Xu (2010) of the Community
College Research Center at Columbia University in New York concluded in their study of nearly
24,000 students in 23 institutions in the Virginia County College system that online learners have
a greater probability of failing or withdrawing from online courses than from face-to-face
courses. In 2011-2012, 79.4% of all students enrolled in online courses completed their online
courses, versus 85.9% of students who enrolled in traditional courses (Allen and Seaman, 2014).
Additionally, Johnson & Mejia (2014) found that on average, students in online courses are at
least eleven percentage points and as much as fourteen percentage points less likely to
successfully complete an online course than otherwise similar students in traditional classes.
Additional research points to the negative impact of online education for community college
students in introductory Math and English courses regarding retention and course performance
when compared to face-to-face classes (Xu and Jaggars, 2013). Other researchers have also
found lower persistence rates in online courses than in traditional classrooms varying between
seven and twenty percentage points (Hachey, Wladis and Conway, 2013; Morris and Finnegan,
2008; Patterson and McFadden, 2009). Many community colleges students enroll in online
courses because traditional class times are incompatible to their work schedules and outside
obligations. Part-time enrollment status is one of the components of being classified as a
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 13

nontraditional student; the majority of online students at community colleges are nontraditional
students whose persistence rates are low.
Nontraditional students have historically comprised the majority of enrollment at
community colleges; however, nontraditional students have not fared well in online course
completions. First-generation college students, low-income students, female students and
students of color are at a greater risk of dropping out of online courses (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009; Zamani-Gallaher, 2007). Johnson & Mejia (2014) reported that community
college students in California are less successful in online courses than in traditional courses —
for all kinds of students, in all subject areas, at almost all colleges around the state. Jaggars &
Wu (2010) reported in their study that students who enrolled in online coursework in early
semesters were somewhat less likely to return to school in following semesters, and students who
enrolled in a higher proportion of credits online were slightly less likely to attain a credential or
transfer to a four-year institution. A year later, the same researchers studied the Washington
State Community College system (51,000 students; 34 institutions) and determined that the
conclusions were similar to the study results of the Virginia County College system (Xu and
Jaggars, 2011). Many students enroll in online courses because it is convenient but across the
board, persistence rates are low for online learners, particularly at the community college level
and even more so for nontraditional students.
Statement of the Problem
The growth of online education has prompted institutions to reexamine how to best assist
students in their successful completion of online courses. With almost four million students
enrolled in online courses in the U.S. and with a 12.9% rate of increase in online enrollment,
program growth is considered a priority at over 80% of major U.S. institutions of higher
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 14

education (Allen & Seaman, 2014). Hachey, Conway and Wladis (2013) state that with
increasing enrollments and online program growth imminent, distance education administrators
at community colleges across the country are making policy decisions about online course
offerings and enrollment requirements without clear data driven evidence. Moreover, with the
push for federal and state funding based on performance metrics, distance education
administrators will also need to know how to assist students in their persistence in online settings
while maximizing resources and advancing efficiency policies. These factors are institutional
dynamics present at both two-year colleges and four-year institutions alike. Although there is
extensive research on retention in online courses, few models of persistence in online courses at
the community college level have been tested and exclude important factors (Ruth, Sammons
and Poulin, 2007). Moreover, there is a scarcity of research examining nontraditional students
and their experiences with validation in online courses. The researcher of this study argues that
there is a connection between the validating experiences of nontraditional students in online
courses and their positive educational experiences and outcomes. Further, validation by an
institutional agent such as faculty, staff or administrators, in the form of an affirming comment
or concerned question can have a deciding, if not motivating element to encourage nontraditional
students to internally affirm, “I can do it. I can complete this course and I can graduate.” Being
aware of an additional support factor that can contribute to students persisting in online courses
can be the beginning of a conversation shift for distance education administrators about what
institutional factors encourage students to persist in online courses and thus improve online
course completion and retention rates.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 15

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the mixed-method study is to investigate the validating experiences of
nontraditional students in online courses in the community college setting. The College Student
Experience Survey (CES) will be administered online to online students at community colleges
in California in the Fall 2015 and Spring 2016. Results of the study will be analyzed using
descriptive and inferential statistics. The CES will be analyzed by calculating the Cronbach
Alpha Coefficient to determine internal consistency of the survey items. In addition, optional
follow-up telephone interviews will be conducted with online students to glean any additional
information regarding their responses to the CES and on their perception of validation.
Responses will be transcribed and coded for any patterns or themes.
The research questions for this exploration are:
1. To what degree do nontraditional online students experience validation?
1a. If so, how?
2. Is there a difference between the degree to which males vs. females experience
validation? If so, how strong is that difference?
3. Is there a relationship between the students’ age and the degree to which they
experience validation? If so, how strong is that relationship?
4. Do students from different ethnic backgrounds experience different degrees of
validation? If so, how strong are these differences?

H
0
: There is no correlation between the degree of nontraditional students’ experiences in online
courses at the community college level and validation.

H
1
: There is a correlation between the degree of nontraditional students’ experiences in online
courses at the community college level and validation.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 16

The conceptual framework for this study will be the Validation Theory as conceptualized
by Rendon (1994). The Validation Theory conceptualizes institutional agents (faculty, support
staff, administration) as initiators who reach out to students first and take an active interest in
students on a personal level. Validation is shown by the role of faculty who particularly: 1) takes
an active interest in the student as an individual and 2) structures activities that would elicit (or
require) students full participation in learning (Rendon, 1994). Barnett (2011) expounded upon
the Validation Theory in her quantitative study of nontraditional students and provided a lens
into student validating experiences as they navigate the community college environment. Lastly,
Schlossberg’s Mattering will be explored to supplement the premise of Validation as a viable and
useful consideration when applying Validation in the online context. This study will examine
students’ perception of validation and their validating experiences. In addition, this study will
explore the degree students experience validation in their online course.
Significance of the Study
As more students elect to enroll in online courses at the postsecondary level, it is the
mission of institutions to assist students in their persistence in online courses and ultimately to
graduation. Moreover, President Obama has called for 50,000 additional graduates by 2020 in
order to respond to the growing need of a skilled labor force (Obama, 2012). Many of these
skilled laborers will traverse the educational programs offered by community colleges. The
significance of this study is to provide online faculty at community colleges with a additional
pedagogical tool in which to help students be successful in completing their online courses.
Lastly, this research will highlight validation as a subject for distance education administrators to
consider when advancing professional development opportunities for their online faculty.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 17

Assumptions
The research will assume that all participants will complete each survey item truthfully.
While the validity of the instrument will be verified through analysis of the Cronbach Alpha
Coefficient to determine internal consistency, the researcher assumes that these measures
accurately reflect the latent constructs they purport to describe.
Limitations
The researcher acknowledges that the methodology of this study and the scope pose
limitations. For example, the generalizability of the findings may be limited to the population of
community college students and not to that of 4-year university students. This study will
examine online students at community colleges in California; the findings of this study may not
be valid with other students who do not enroll in online courses and students who enroll in
community colleges in other states. This study is limited to examining online students’
experiences with validation; this study does not examine how online faculty implement
validation in their online courses. The CES instrument as a self-report instrument in this study
will also present limitations as it requires a level of self-awareness and understanding that may
not be possible from all participants. The self-report instrument is subject to potential
misinterpretation by participants, additional bias, and unintended responses (Salkind, 2012).
Additional discussion of these and other limitations will be provided in Chapter 5.
Delimitations
The scope of the current study is limited to online students at community colleges in
California. The study does not examine curriculum which is an integral element of online course
pedagogy. This study does not include students enrolled in developmental courses or adults in
non-credit bearing courses. This study does not examine the perception of online adjunct faculty
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 18

as a majority of this teaching population are responsible for teaching online courses at the
community college level. As described above, the scope of methodology in this study will
include both quantitative and qualitative analysis to form a mixed-method approach.
Glossary of Terms
Affective Domain
Affective Domain refers to components of affective development focusing on internal
changes or processes, or to categories of behavior within affective education as a product or end-
product. Affective development as a process refers to individual growth or internal changes to
serve the “best” interest of individuals and society, while affective development as an end-
product addresses the result(s) of that process: a well-adjusted or “affectively developed” person
(Education for Affective Development: A Guidebook on Programmes and Practices, 1992).
Distance Education
Distance education is defined by the National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) as education that uses one or more technologies
to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and
substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously.
Synchronously is learning that occurs when the instructor and students are present at the same
time whereas asynchronously is learning without the instructor and students being present at the
same time (Hoxby, 2014).
Mattering
Schlossberg (1989) extended her work on addressing life transitions to describe mattering
as “the beliefs people have, whether right or wrong, that they matter to someone else, that they
are the object of someone else’s attention, and that others care about them and appreciate them”
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 19

because of her perception that people in transition often feel marginalized, particularly college
students (p. 21).
Online Education
The history of student learning using the Internet has generated multiple terms for the
phenomenon. Online learning has been referred to as a type of distance education and as web-
based learning, e-learning, and online education. The definition is further confused by referring
to discrete portions of a traditional, face-to-face, or on-campus class conducted online; a hybrid
or blended class that uses both face-to-face and online learning techniques; and an all-online
course. Things are made more confusing when online learning is an online program, wherein a
full degree program is offered through online courses. Unfortunately, writers often use the term
they are most familiar with or that their campus prefers, so terms used in specific studies may be
different although they refer to similar instructional structures. For purposes of this study,
“online education” refers to the fully online course that has been designed to be offered over the
Internet and uses web-based materials and activities (grading, discussions) made possible by
various course management systems or other software packages (Meyer, 2014).
Validation Theory
Rendon (1994) indicates that “validation is an enabling, confirming and supportive
process initiated by in- and out-of-class agents that fosters academic and interpersonal
development” (p. 44).

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 20

CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Community Colleges
This section focuses on the origins and expansion of the community college in the United States
(U.S.). Societal factors that influenced the expansion and enrollment surges are highlighted.
The societal factors are the interconnectivity of opportunity and education, the German system of
education, the industrial market needs and autonomous and localized educational practices. To
understand how community colleges have responded to student demands for increased
educational opportunities, four community college eras will be explored. The four Expansion
Eras are the Development Era (1900-1940), the Access Era (1940-1980), the Accountability Era
(1980-2000) and the Millennial Era (2000-present). Finally, the scope and ramifications of the
1960 California Master Plan will be investigated. To understand how California community
colleges were historically structured, this section begins with the historical context, explores the
expansion eras, the creation and implementation of the 1960 CA Master Plan and ends with a
summary.
Historical Context
At the turn of the twentieth century, societal factors provided an avenue for the
development and expansion of junior colleges. Nevarez and Wood (2010) proposed four
primary societal forces that led to the development of junior colleges: 1) interconnectivity of
opportunity and education; 2) the German system of education; 3) industrial market needs; and
4) autonomous and localized educational practices.
The first social factor that contributed to the growth of community colleges in the U.S.
was the interconnectivity of opportunity (Nevarez & Wood, 2010). The interconnectivity of
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 21

opportunity consisted of the interest of students who desired to continue their education past the
standard high school term. Cohen, Brawer and Kisker (2013) posited that access to college
depended upon proximity. Large numbers of students completed their secondary education and
connected to their local junior college for two additional years of instruction within their local
communities. Nevarez & Wood (2010) proposed that the enrollment was so great that additional
space was needed to accommodate the growing number of students. Student demand and
proximity served as societal factors which motivated educational leaders to physically separate
the junior college from the high school. The structure of junior colleges was the next issue faced
by postsecondary educational leaders.
The second societal factor which contributed to the growth of junior colleges was the
influence of the German system of education. Nevarez & Wood (2010) stated the German
system of education advocated a separation of the first two years of general education courses
from the last two years of university study. In anticipation of a growing economy, educational
leadership adopted the German system of education as a structural element which served as a
buffer between the local junior college for underprivileged students and the highly selective 4-
year university which typically served wealthy, academically-prepared students. This
educational division between the working class and the upper class was embraced by educational
leaders as the division paved the way for junior colleges to respond to the societal market needs
of an oncoming, bustling new economy.
The third societal factor which contributed to the growth of junior colleges was the
institutional market needs of the country. The industrial market needs influenced the
development of junior colleges as society experienced the beginning of an agricultural and
mechanical industrialization era (Nevarez & Wood, 2010). The federal government assisted in
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 22

the development of a skilled labor force and provided land to build more colleges and
universities. The Morrill Act of 1862 was passed so federal land could be sold and state
governments could reap the monies derived from the sales for the establishment of colleges that
focused on agricultural and mechanical studies (Cohen and Brawer, 2008; Nevarez & Wood,
2010). The passage of the Morrill Act of 1890 allowed the sale of additional federal land to
ensure colleges could be established with programs and additional facilities for research (Cohen
& Brawer, 2008; Nevarez & Wood, 2010). These two acts called for a more complex
educational system that focused on both vocational training and classical education (Nevarez &
Wood, 2010). The federal government provided the lands for the building of the physical
structures and the local community donated monies and the physical labor in which to build and
operate the colleges.
The fourth societal force that influenced the development of junior colleges was
autonomous and localized educational practices (Nevarez & Wood, 2010). Educational leaders
adopted the German education system for the American junior college structure; however, it was
the independent American spirit that physically established junior colleges within the local
communities. Nevarez & Wood (2010) advanced that at the local level, individuals in a local
community, raised the funds and constructed the buildings. To enhance the economic standing
of its local municipality, educational leaders collectively invested in its local students and to a
wider context, donated to society an educated citizenry.
The societal factors that contributed to the development of junior colleges at the turn of
the twentieth century centered on the need for a skilled workforce educated within a structure
funded by local citizens. The local proximity of junior colleges spurred enrollment growth and
provided a means for students to acquire two additional years of educational instruction at a
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 23

much lower cost. Access expanded and junior colleges thrived as they increased in numbers
(Cohen, Brawer & Kisker, 2013). The societal factors laid the foundation for the growth of
junior colleges and began a dynamism that assisted junior colleges in fulfilling their mission of
inclusiveness and accessibility.
Summary. Community colleges were developed to service a demand for additional
educational choices. The number of colleges flourished to accommodate the growing demand
for skilled labor and to satisfy the local needs of the communities for educational choices beyond
the traditional high school curriculum. Federal lands were earmarked for the erection of
facilities and legislation was passed to ensure a more complex educational system would be in
place to serve students in vocational training as well as in classical education. Through
community colleges, access was expanded thereby providing opportunities for anyone to enroll
and pursue their educational goals.
Expansion Eras
Each era provided junior colleges with opportunities to respond to societal needs as well
as to establish itself within the American higher education landscape. This section focuses on
how junior colleges responded to societal demands while expanding educational access. The
Development Era highlights the early formulation of core colleges in the U.S. The Access Era
focuses on how the community college implemented its open policy mission by advocating an
open-door policy to nontraditional student populations. The Accountability Era highlights the
accountability efforts by lawmakers to focus higher education, particularly community colleges,
on the educational success of students. Lastly, the high points of the Millennial Era captures
where community colleges are now in the arena of higher education. This section ends with a
summary.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 24

Development Era (1901 - 1940). The Development Era provided a foundation for the
beginning of the institutional structure for junior colleges. In 1901, Joliet College was the first
public two year college (AACC, 2009). Vaughan (2006) deemed Joliet a “junior college” and
claimed it as the nation’s first major facility constructed specifically for use by a public junior
college (p. 39). California demonstrated its support of junior colleges and authorized post-high
school graduate courses to high schools in 1907, provided public funding and sanctioned
accountability standards through boards, budgets, and procedures (AACC, 2009). As
community colleges were erected across the nation, accreditation became an avenue for junior
colleges to establish standards and thus in 1917 the American Association of Junior Colleges was
formed (AACC, 2009). Nevarez & Wood (2010) asserted community colleges separated from
school districts and built new buildings, facilities and structures. As enrollments grew,
community colleges expanded. With the increase of sites nationwide, community colleges
garnered independence through structure and obtained a national voice which advocated on its
collective behalf.
The Access Era (1940 - 1980). A number of movements played pivotal roles for
community colleges in the Access Era. The U.S. Congress passed the Servicemen’s
Readjustment Act, popularly referred to as the GI Bill which provided financial assistance to
returning veterans of World War II. The GI Bill represented the federal government’s first
measure to provide student aid on a national scale (Vaughan, 2006). Under the GI Bill, more
than 2.2 million returning veterans attended college as did 60,000 women, and 70,000 Blacks
(AACC, 2009). Additional federal measures, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 and
the first Higher Education Act of 1965 were adopted between 1963-1965 which directed aid to
community colleges and their enrolled students (Vaughan, 2006). Community colleges upheld
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 25

the belief that everyone in the community was a student and sought to extend access to all; the
federal government supported this philosophy and thus passed legislation accordingly. In
California, the 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education was a legislative movement
that eliminated competition between the three segments of California’s public higher education
colleges and universities (Callan, 2009). In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13 which
decreased property taxes and signaled the movement away from excessive taxing. Proposition
13 began a shift in the mindset of Californians toward fiscal accountability and student outcomes
at both the K-12 level and the postsecondary level.
These movements in the Access Era enabled community colleges to fully encapsulate
their collective mission of open access and open admission. As veterans used their GI Bill
benefits to enter higher education, other types of students were offered the same invitation.
Nevarez & Wood (2010) posited that nontraditional student populations (e.g., adult students,
low-income student, immigrants, and mothers) enrolled in community colleges as did students of
color during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Baby boomers enrolled and students with
low academic skill levels enrolled. The nation’s economy expanded and community colleges
witnessed an increase in public support for the educational opportunities that community
colleges extended to everyone (Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Vaughan, 2006). While the number of
community colleges increased to 1,058 during this era, lawmakers and taxpaying citizens began
to question the structure, alignment and cohesiveness of community colleges (Vaughan, 2006).
The discussion began with access as the cornerstone to fulfilling the mission of community
colleges; however, the discourse extended to include accountability as student success became a
priority.
The Accountability Era (1980 - 2000). Funding issues marked the Accountability Era
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 26

best as student success (e.g., graduation, persistence) was tied to how well community colleges
were performing. Community colleges refocused their attention and expanded course offerings
to accommodate the growing numbers of nontraditional students. Community colleges began
offering “evening and weekend colleges, special programs, on-site instruction, and credit for
experience” (Easton, 1994, p. 33 as cited in Nevarez & Wood, 2010). Community colleges also
spearheaded efforts to include transfer, lifelong learning, economic improvement and student
services (Nevarez & Wood, 2010). Students who needed remediation contributed to the
discussion of student completion as an accountability issue. As community colleges expanded
access and attempted to accommodate the needs of the citizens in their communities, public
scrutiny criticized community colleges for not serving underrepresented students and ridiculed
community colleges for focusing too much attention on social support and services. This public
scrutiny motivated lawmakers to tie success rates to funding. Vaughan (2006) noted in his
exploration of the history of community colleges that lawmakers reduced funding and eliminated
programs just as federal reductions to student aid programs took effect. The efficiency in which
community colleges adjusted during this era included extended access and a realignment that
promoted accountability. Community colleges also embraced the incoming shift toward new
technological advances and the use of the computer, the Internet and distance education as new
instructional delivery modalities — marked by changing and increasing social demands toward
accountability and access.
The Millennial Era (2000 – present). As community colleges evolved in the twenty-
first century, it positioned itself as a dominant, integral and relevant force in the nation’s higher
education educational system. Enrollment demands increased but instead of community colleges
building more buildings and structures, they instead capitalized on the maturation of the Internet
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 27

and provided access en masse via online and hybrid courses (Hachey, Wladis & Conway, 2013).
At the hallmark of distance education, online education provided community colleges with low
cost and convenient means to expand (Boston and Ice, 2011). In eras past, students lived within
25 miles or less of their local community college; however, community colleges were no longer
defined by their geographical location. Cohen, Brawer & Kisker (2013) asserted in their
exposition of how community colleges had progressed, explained simply that “… community
colleges are everywhere with branches in inner cities and rural districts and with programs in
prisons and on military bases. Further, classes are offered through online instruction, twenty-
four hours a day, every day” (p. 37). The Millennial Era ushered in an opportunity for
community colleges to reach more students and offer more courses. In this era, more students
have been provided access to educational opportunities, whether they choose to take a class on
campus or as millions of other students are doing, taking a class online.
Summary. Community colleges experienced four eras that helped to establish the
educational landscape of the United States. Educational access expanded opportunities to new
student groups, missions were created to guide the policies and campus structure. Accountability
became the cornerstone in which stakeholders measured success by completion, policies and
efficiencies.
The 1960 California Master Plan
A true innovator, California led the nation in universal access post-World War II.
A robust population expansion, upsurges in student enrollments and the building of new
campuses statewide made California an educational success story following the war. This
section is comprised of three topics: The Call, California Leadership and the Tripartite System.
The Call focuses on the primary reasons for the population expansion in California and the
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 28

impact that expansion had on higher education. The next section, California Leadership, focuses
on the leaders within the California Legislature who shepherded the historical document, its
codification and its mission. The third section, The Tripartite System, focuses on the 3
categories of colleges and universities the Master Plan outlined.
The Call. Post-World War II transformed the economy and the educational landscape,
particularly in California. In every state, veterans utilized their GI Bill benefits after war to
enroll in higher education. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as
the GI Bill, broke financial and social barriers for millions of Americans who had served in
World War II (Vaughan, 2006). The public junior college, along with the rest of higher
education, received boosts in enrollment as a result of the federally funded bill. Douglass (2010)
affirmed that the huge enrollment by veterans in community colleges caused “tremendous
increases in student-to-faculty ratios, the construction of temporary structures, and a series of
important higher education planning studies that led to new campuses” (p. 5). After World War
II, California’s dramatic growth and the state’s response to its population increases provided the
context and the impetus for higher education policy. In the early 1960s, California became the
nation’s most populous state with 17.5 million residents (Finney, Riso, Orosz and Boland, 2014).
The pressure to accommodate the rapidly growing population and the public demand for
educational access fueled a political environment amongst California lawmakers that began a
series of actions that directly affected students statewide.
As college enrollment swelled, California lawmakers were concerned about the policies
and organizations that governed colleges and universities. In 1932, the Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching evaluated the policies and organization in higher education. The
report highlighted the overlapped functions, waste and inefficiency, lack of unified policy and
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 29

the inequitable distribution of state funds. In California, the “problems of policy and
organization” found in the 1932 report were also evident in California’s 1960 higher education
landscape and which was further exacerbated by the GI Bill due to increased enrollment (Finney,
et al., 2014). Callan (2009) recalled that Clark Kerr, President of the University of California in
1957, took the initiative to spearhead a team to address the inefficiencies and overlapping
functions. What California needed at this time of uncertainty and political disorder was clear,
decisive but collaborative leadership.
California Leadership. California lawmakers and educational leadership worked
together in an unprecedented manner to ensure legislative measures were mandated to extend
access and opportunity. The Master Plan was a product of stark necessity, of political
calculations, and of pragmatic transactions (Johnson, 2010). Finney, et al. (2014) stated
Assemblywoman Dorothy Donohue introduced The Master Plan resolution in the 1959
California Legislature session. Callan (2009) reported that Clark Kerr assembled his team to
create a political compromise between lawmakers and educational leaders with the goal to ensure
Californians would have the educational opportunities at the postsecondary level regardless of
their financial means. The California Legislature passed the Master Plan resolution and its
provisions as well as codified the resolution into law with the adoption of the Donohue Act of
1960 (Douglass, 2010). The 1960 Master Plan helped to integrate a heterogeneous group of
colleges and universities into a cohesive system with each segment focused on a different
segment to serve California’s diverse student population as well as its research and teaching
needs. The message California lawmakers signified was that it valued its citizenry and their
educational contributions to the state.
The Tripartite System. The Master Plan was organized in a straightforward manner but
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 30

as a precise instrument for specific purposes. Callan (2009) reported in his investigation of
California education history that lawmakers viewed college opportunity as a three statewide
“systems” organized according to their missions, each with designated enrollment pools.
Community colleges would offer instruction up to the 14th grade level and would allow students
to transfer to baccalaureate-granting institutions as well as vocational and technical programs.
These colleges were opened to all Californians capable of benefiting from attendance (Callan,
2009). Kerr and his team of lawmakers and educational leaders agreed that the mandate would
operate under a three-tier system (Callan, 2009; Douglass, 2010; Finney, et al., 2014). The state
colleges - the California State University system offered undergraduate education and graduate
programs through the master’s degree and joint doctoral degree programs with the University of
California. The University was to have sole authority to offer doctoral degrees (except for joint
doctoral programs offered with the state colleges), as well as professional degrees in medicine,
law, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. The University was also designated the state’s primary
agency for state-supported academic research.
Most students in California enrolled in the community colleges as the admissions at the
state colleges and the University was selective in order to restrict the growth of four-year
institutions (Callan, 2009; Doulgass, 2010; Finney, et al., 2014). Douglass (2010) asserted that
by lowering the eligibility pool of students who could enroll in the University and the state
colleges as freshmen, operating costs would be significantly reduced. The three-tier educational
system seemed ideal to the lawmakers and to California citizens. Access was universal so
anyone who had the desire to attend college now had the opportunity to do so. A system was in
place to accommodate the population growth while the esteemed research University remained
intact, untouched and elite.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 31

Summary. Under the great 1960 Master Plan, California community colleges benefited
tremendously. Community colleges were sanctioned to educate citizens 2 years past high school
and thereafter, provided a pathway to 4-year universities. The historical document was unique in
that it segmented mission differentiation amongst the three categories of colleges and universities
within the state. For California community colleges, the mission statements that set them apart
today have been as sacrosanct as they were 50 years ago. Clark Kerr, the great educational
pioneer, understood it would take understanding and cooperation by everyone to shepherd such a
document through to enactment. Callan (2009) asserted it was largely Clark’s intent to regulate
institutional capacity but instead described his universal access through public policy as an
“egalitarian and meritocratic imperative” (p. 62). The Master Plan has been maintained as an
enduring document that has held the three-tier system in check.
Distance Education
With the explosive growth of distance education in community colleges, it is important to
establish a definition for context. Allen & Seaman (2011) reported that the fastest growing
segment of higher education continued to be distance education carried out through online
learning. Community colleges have adapted with 21st century technological developments and
provided educational access to students in an online delivery modality. Community colleges in
California have offered more online credit courses than any other public higher education
institution in the country (Johnson & Mejia, 2014). This section highlights the broad definitions
of distance education. The phrase ‘distance education’ has been used interchangeably with
‘online education’ in the growing body of literature, therefore, definitions of distance education
and online education will be explored. A brief historical context of online education follows the
definition differentiation. Lastly, the transition from distance education to online education
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 32

based on educational technology will be explored, followed by the summary.
Definitions. The proliferation of research regarding online education in the past decade
has yielded numerous definitions of distance education and online education due to the numerous
ways in which educational technology has been used to deliver instruction. The National Center
for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) has defined
distance education as education that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to
students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction
between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously (Hoxby, 2014).
Synchronous is learning that occurs when the instructor and students are present at the same time
whereas asynchronous is learning without the instructor and students being present at the same
time (Grajek and Arroway, 2012). Schlosser and Simonson (2009) defined distance education as
“institution-based formal education where the learning group is separated, and where interactive
communications systems are used to connect learners, resources and instructions” (p. 1). Other
sources have identified working definitions of online course and online programs.
Leading online education organizations have used various definitions that have defined
percentages of uses. The Sloan Consortium classified an online course as one with 80% or more
of its content delivered online and, typically, having no face-to-face meetings (Allen and
Seaman, 2006). Conversely, Cedja (2010) declared 25% of public community colleges do not
use the 80% criterion established in the Sloan Consortium typology, which may have led to
discrepancies in reporting about online classes. There have also been inconsistencies as to what
has constituted as an online program. The Sloan Consortium provided a definition of an online
program as one where “at least 70% of coursework needed to complete the degree is available
online” (p. 5). Part of the difficulty of defining distance education, online education, online
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 33

programs and online courses is that community colleges have used definitions to suit the needs
of the institution and whether they have ascribed to either the IPEDS definition or the definitions
offered by the Sloan Consortium. For purposes of this study, the researcher has accepted the
more popularly and widely accepted following definition of distance education as: “Teaching
and planned learning in which teaching normally occurs in a different place from learning,
requiring communication through technologies as well as special institutional organization”
(Moore, Dickson-Deane and Galyen, 2011, p. 2).
Historical Context. Educational technology and the interaction format has evolved from
being a non-interactional correspondence course to engagement using adaptive technology.
Distance education in its earliest form was correspondence study in which students received self-
directed, paper-based materials using the postal system (Anderson, 2008; Holmberg, 2005). This
mail delivery system was slow and failed to provide interaction amongst students as the
communication involved one-on-one directly and solely with the instructor. Media later became
a widely used delivery format in the 1960s. Broadcasting provided a faster way in which to
deliver learning material (Keegan, 2005). Audio-conferencing was made available to a broader
audience but it provided limited student-student interaction (Anderson and Dron, 2010).
Videoconferencing was also used as a mechanism to deliver distance education but its high cost
was prohibitive to wide audiences and did not have a two-way communication channel as audio-
conferencing (Garrison, 1985). The early stages of distance education was primarily one-way
with the instructor mailing or transmitting instructional material to the student and the student
returning or responding to the instructor. As technology transformed the landscape of American
society in general, the maturation of educational technology on distance education transformed
the formats of learning and teaching in higher education.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 34

From Distance Education to Online Education. Online education is a part of and
different from traditional distance education due to its interacting format. Online and traditional
distance education utilized similar approaches as instructional modalities including the emphasis
on access being “any time — any place” (Moore, 1993). Educational technology, through the
combination of hardware and software, provided the access to course materials that supported
both online education and traditional distance education (Garrison, 2011; Harasim, 2000).
However, online education “is very different from traditional distance education with its
historical focus on content delivery and independent learning which has evolved from a different
field of theory and practice” (Garrison, 2011, p. 42). Traditional distance education has drawn
from social-constructivist views of learning as a process of knowledge construction by students
through social interactions rather than from an instructor passively distributing and depositing
facts (Anderson & Dron, 2010). Conversely, online education has been driven from a
constructivist approach to learning wherein students actively engage in the meaning and
knowledge process by building upon prior knowledge to form new knowledge. One of the ways
in which online education has transcended distance education has been the presence of
interactions which have been facilitated in that space.
Online Feedback. For students who have enrolled in an online course, assignments are
submitted online, posts are written in discussion forums and students respond to each other,
known as peer-to-peer collaboration. In the traditional classroom, assignments are turned in and
usually, the instructor returns the assignment back to the student with comments or what is
known as feedback. Feedback has been defined as “information communicated to the learner
that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving
learning” (Shute, 2008, p. 1). Hattie and Temperly (2007) posited that written feedback on
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 35

course activities was the primary means of instruction in online settings. Effective feedback
helps students to navigate how they are progressing on the course assignments and within the
context of the online course. Effective feedback also increases student satisfaction, which is
linked to improved retention rates (Hattie & Temperly, 2007). In online courses, students have
perceived effective instructor feedback to be feedback provided in a timely manner with specific,
constructive guidance to make changes and apply to future assignments (Getzlaf, Perry, Toffner,
Lamarche & Edwards, 2009). Failure to provide timely feedback has been shown to decrease
motivation to make changes and decrease deeper learning (Stein, Wanstreet, Slagle, Trinko, &
Lutz, 2013). Teacher presence in the Community of Inquiry (CoI) has also established instructor
feedback as a premium element for faculty-student engagement and showing that the online
instructor cares. Getzlaf, Perry, Toffner, Lamarche, and Edwards (2009) found in their study
that student perceptions of effective instructor feedback as gentle guidance, positive, constructive
comments, timeliness, and future orientation as important feedback considerations. Research is
limited regarding feedback and the online student. Much of the literature has focused on Teacher
Presence with presence indicating more administrative tasks online instructors execute versus
how an instructor provides feedback in this modality.
Summary. The definitions of distance education and online education have varied in the
literature. The constant feature in all of the definitions offered have been the common elements
of teaching and learning. As distance education has progressed past correspondence courses and
to online education, millions of students have enrolled in online courses with the goal of
persisting through to completion. Online education is anytime, anywhere allowing institutions to
reach a greater number of students with courses that fit their preferences. The limited research
on online feedback has indicated that feedback is the primary mode of communication between
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 36

an online instructor and her students as well as the primary mode of instruction.
Nontraditional Students
In this section, the definition of a nontraditional student will be explored as well as the
outcomes these students have experienced in online courses. Lastly, this section will close with
the projected growth of nontraditional students and the educational requirements they will need
in the coming future. A summary captures the elements of these highlights.
Definitions. A certain population of students have been categorized as “nontraditional”
in a variety of ways. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) defined a
nontraditional student as meeting one of seven criteria: has delayed enrollment into
postsecondary education; attends college part-time; works full-time; is financially independent
for financial aid purposes; has dependents other than a spouse; is a single parent; and/or does not
have a high school diploma. Further, the definition of nontraditional students was expanded to
include: (a) the fact that nontraditional students most often delay enrollment at a postsecondary
institution for one or more years after high school, (b) are usually enrolled part time, (c) are
employed full time, (d) are not financially dependent on their parents, (e) may have a spouse and
dependents but may just as easily be a single parent, and (f) in some cases, nontraditional
students may not possess a high school diploma and attend college after obtaining a General
Education Development test (GED) (Aud, Wilkinson-Flicker, Kristapovich, Rathbun, Wang and
Zhang, 2013).
Nontraditional students have attended a variety of institutions but often have chosen
community colleges to begin their pursuit of higher education. Community colleges have been
deemed to be less expensive, located in urban and rural communities and have served as a
pipeline to 4-year institutions. Urban colleges tend to have more nontraditional students. For
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 37

example, Taylor-Smith and Miller (2009) reported that in 2008, the Los Angeles Community
College District Office of Institutional Research collected data on students attending ten
community colleges in Los Angeles. Hispanic enrollment exceeded 40% in 7 out of the 10
colleges surveyed and, depending on location, a significant number of African American and
Asian students also attended these institutions. Two campuses had over 70% Hispanic students
and a third campus over 70% African American students. The remaining colleges had 50%
student populations that were a combination of Hispanic, African Americans, and Asians. These
statistics prevailed in urban colleges throughout the country which have had high populations of
students of color.
Nontraditional students have not fared well in online courses. Xu and Jaggars (2013)
studied the adaptability of online learning and different types of students and academic subject
areas at the community college level. The quantitative investigation examined a large
administrative dataset that included nearly 500,000 online and face-to-face courses taken by
40,000 students enrolled in community colleges in Washington State. The student population
consisted of first-time college students who were tracked for five years. Approximately 10% of
the course enrollment sample were taken online. Xiong, Allen and Wood (2015) found that
affirming students’ capability of academic success was meaningful as one of the eight themes
that emerged from their qualitative study of thirteen counselors from seven community colleges.
Other themes were affirming students’ voices, validating students as equal contributors to the
counseling experience, providing proactive academic support, and providing positive
reinforcement of academic successes (Xiong, Allen & Wood, 2015). The results revealed that
males, African American students and students with lower levels of academic readiness showed
strong negative coefficients for online learning compared with their counterparts in course
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 38

persistence and course grades. Additional results showed that older students adapted better to
online courses than younger students. The results showed the performance gap between key
demographic groups previously observed in face-to-face classrooms were worse in online
courses.
Other studies have been conducted to compare the successful outcomes for nontraditional
students in online courses versus face-to-face courses. Results have been mixed across studies
with findings being both positive and negative (Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart and Wisher, 2006;
Aud, Hussar, Planty, Snyder, Bianco, Fox and Drake, 2010; Zhao, Lei, Yan, Lai and Tan, 2005).
Some studies have found no difference in outcomes in online courses between males and females
(Astleitner and Steinberg, 2005; Yukselturk and Bulut, 2007). Yet, other studies posited that
females are stronger performers in online courses (Price, 2006; Rovai and Baker, 2005). Further,
African American and Hispanic students tend to perform poorly in online courses than White
students (Newell, 2007).
This research will inform the body of research as it is focused on nontraditional students
at the community college level and links validation by online instructors to students feeling
capable, accepted and encouraged -- elements of the Validation Theory as posited by Rendon
(1994, 2002). Non-traditional students have been slated as the next largest group for skilled
labor. Aud, et. al (2013) reported that college enrollment will slow dramatically over the next
decade, with most growth in traditionally underserved, minority populations. Further, the NCES
projected a 25% increase in African-American students and 42% increase in Hispanic students
by 2021 and a 4% increase in White students. The rise in enrollment of students 25 and older is
projected to be nearly double that of younger students through 2020. Furthermore, it is estimated
that by 2020, 65% of jobs will require workers with at least some college education. Responding
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 39

to rising enrollment demands, over 97% of community colleges have turned to online learning to
increase student access (Parsad, Lewis and Tice, 2008). Yet there are limited studies specific to
nontraditional students at the community college level. Additionally, there have been limited
studies on nontraditional students and their validating experiences in online courses; this study
will serve as a contribution to the literature.
Summary. Distance education and online education have been used interchangeably to
indicate instruction offered through the Internet between the student and the instructor either
synchronously or asynchronously or a combination of both. Some institutions have defined
online learning as the amount of time dedicated to either content delivered online or the time
spent online and face-to-face. Distance education began with correspondence courses but has
evolved into an intricate network of hardware and software wherein education and learning can
occur anytime, anywhere. Online feedback has become the primary system in which students
receive instruction in the online environment. As more community colleges have offered online
courses to accommodate the demand for transferrable courses, more nontraditional students have
enrolled in their pursuit of additional education.

Theoretical Frameworks
This section will briefly review the conceptual framework that governs this mixed-
methods research. Validation and its impact on community college students will be explored as
well as the significance of Mattering as a critical element to students’ college experiences.
This section will end with a summary.
Affective Domain. Affective Domain refers to components of affective development
focusing on internal changes or processes, or to categories of behavior within affective education
as a product or end-product. Affective development as a process refers to individual growth or
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 40

internal changes to serve the “best” interest of individuals and society, while affective
development as an end-product addresses the result(s) of that process: a well-adjusted or
“affectively developed” person (Education for Affective Development: A Guidebook on
Programmes and Practices, 1992). There is a connection between the affective domain and
online learning. As online learning began to take shape within the higher educational landscape,
one prevailing sentiment was evident: students felt isolated within the online environment. The
online environment seemed cold, distant and unsocial; a space wherein ideas and experiences are
not valued and where online instructors fail to show they care. However, adjustments have been
made with the integration of introductory videos, instructional videos and real time instruction
incorporated in a limited number of learning management systems (LMSs). The affective
domain of teaching and learning – the way in which online instructors are able to create an
online environment that is inviting, welcoming and safe – has created great strides in making
students feel comfortable. Within the last 5 years, research has solidified online learning as
being comparable to the traditional classroom, capable of fostering interaction, feedback and a
sense of belonging or connectedness for students learning in this modified modality.
Facilitating an affective domain in the online course is paramount to helping first time
online learners navigate the new learning terrain. Piorkowski and Scheurer (2000) advocated
that creating a context of care in the classroom promotes a ‘robust environment for student
learning, facilities better dialogue and helps instructors help their students achieve their
potential’ (p. 75). Foster (1996) argued that online learning communities are held together by ‘a
subjective criterion of together, a feeling of connectedness that confers a sense of belonging” (p.
29). For online instructors, fostering an affective domain wherein a context of care is evident for
online students is the beginning of creating a fertile ground for mattering and validation to take
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 41

root.
Mattering. Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) first introduced the subject of Mattering
as an individual component that informs individuals’ self-concept, and further that ‘mattering
refers to the individual’s feeling that he or she counts, makes a difference….” (p. 163).
Schlossberg (1989) furthered the research on Mattering to include a study of 25 year old students
at the college level during the 1980s. Schlossberg’s theory on mattering and marginality
captured the experience of others depending on us, being interested in us, and being concerned
with our fate; while the experience of marginality results in opposite feelings – the feelings of
not fitting in and not being needed or accepted (Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981; Schlossberg,
1989). Schlossberg found that students transitioning from high school to college felt marginal,
believing they did not make a difference and that they did not matter to their colleges. Further,
students, in their first year of college, felt ill-equipped to handle the academic rigors of the
college curriculum. This resulting self-consciousness affected students’ ability to academically
perform to their capabilities thus resulting in lower academic success and stress. However,
Schlossberg’s research also identified students who excelled once they felt they mattered and the
marginality diminished. Further, when students feel appreciated and receive positive affirmation
and encouragement, it affects their perception positively thereby influencing their academic
success. Creating a safe space online wherein students’ ideas and experiences are valued and
respected and where students believe their instructor cares is an institutional approach that can
lead to an opening for instructor validation and effective learning.
Validation. Validation has been described as an out-class activity that happens as a
result of student-faculty interaction. Rendon (1994) observed that some students, especially
those in the community college, found integration or "validation" outside the classroom. She
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 42

argued that experiences outside the classroom influenced subsequent experiences in college and,
in turn, influenced students’ persistence. Rendon (1994) defined validation as interactions with
students, initiated by faculty and others in the campus community, which engendered feelings of
self-worth and a belief in the students' ability to succeed in the college environment (p. 12). She
further asserted that, for nontraditional and underserved students as well as for those in
community college settings, validation may be more important for their success and persistence.
Rendon described validation as involving demonstrations of recognition, respect, and
appreciation for students and their families and communities. She further argued that students
who did not grow up assuming they would go to college could have insufficient ease with, and
knowledge about, college environments to become readily integrated without additional
assistance. Validation as defined by Rendon (1994) presupposes the following elements:
Validation is an enabling, confirming and supportive process initiated by in- and out-of-
class agents that foster academic and interpersonal development;
When validation is present, students feel capable of learning; they experience a feeling of
self-worth and feel that they, and everything that they bring to the college experience, are
accepted and recognized as valuable. Lacking validation, students feel crippled, silenced,
subordinate, and/or mistrusted;
Like involvement, validation is prerequisite to student development. It is not an end into
itself. The students get validated, with rich academic and interpersonal experiences;
Validation can occur both in- and out-of-class. In-class validating agents include faculty,
classmates, lab instructors, and teaching assistants. Out-of-class validating agents can be
1) significant other, such as a spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend; 2) family members, such as
parents, siblings, relatives, and children; 3) friends, such as classmates and friends
attending and not attending college; and, 4) college staff, including faculty who meet
with students out-of-class, counselors/advisors, coaches, tutors, teaching assistants, and
resident advisors; and
Validation is most effective when offered early on in the student’s college experience,
during the first year of college and during the first weeks of class. (pp. 43-45)

There are two types of validation: academic validation and interpersonal validation
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 43

(Linares, Rendon and Munoz, 2011). Academic validation occurs when out-of-class agents take
action to assist students to “trust their innate capacity to learn and to acquire confidence in being
a college student” (Rendon, 1994, p. 40). Interpersonal validation occurs when interactions with
in- and out-of-class agents foster “personal and social adjustment” (p. 42). It is important to note
that validation was not offered as a mechanism to coddle students or lessen the expectations for
the course, rather, validating environments empowered students to feel good about themselves,
their ability to persist and to graduate (Linares, Rendon & Munoz, 2011).
Rendon began to investigate validation when she noticed that the demographics in
institutions were beginning to change. Nontraditional students - primarily women and minorities
- were beginning to enroll in colleges in large numbers. Although the enrollment of
nontraditional students was increasing, institutions were not addressing the needs of this new
student population. Linares Rendon & Munoz (2011) asserted that Validation Theory could be
used as academic tools to help nontraditional students better acclimate to the college
environment. Validation Theory encourages faculty and staff to reach out to students directly
versus offering student supports services indirectly and in a passive manner. Rendon (1994)
encapsulated her findings as follows:
Traditional students expressed few, if any concerns about succeeding in college, while
nontraditional students, particularly those in community college and predominately
African American students in four-year colleges communicated some doubts about their
ability to succeed.
Some students are quite independent and can function within academic and social
infrastructures quite easily, but many nontraditional students need active intervention
from significant others to help them negotiate institutional life.
Success during the critical first year of college appears contingent upon whether students
can get involved in institutional life on their own or whether external agents can validate
students, in academic and/or interpersonal ways.
Even the most vulnerable nontraditional students can be transformed into powerful
learners through in- and out-of-class academic and/or interpersonal validation.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 44

Involvement in college is not easy for nontraditional students. Validation may be the
missing link to involvement, and may be a prerequisite for involvement to occur. (p. 37)

Rendon (1994) discovered that “external agents” offered their students reassurance to help build
confidence in their abilities to succeed in the classroom and in outside classroom activities. In
Rendon’s investigation, she also discovered that validation helped to build the faculty-student
relationship which also helped students to feel less anxious and more secure in their abilities to
cope and integrate within the classroom context. Therefore, “external agents” are essential to
nontraditional students as they navigate the college environment and class context (Rendon,
1994, pp. 39-40). Rendon detailed external agents as faculty members who exhibited the
following:
Faculty who demonstrate genuine concern for teaching students;
Faculty who were personable and approachable toward students;
Faculty who treated students equally;
Faculty who structured learning experiences that allowed students to experience
themselves as capable of learning;
Faculty who worked individually with those students needing extra help; and
Faculty who provided meaningful feedback to students. (Rendon, 1994, p. 40)

Although faculty members were an instrumental element in validating students in the traditional
classroom, another validating agent was evidenced: student peers. “Many times, low-income
students are reluctant to ask questions because they have been treated as incompetent in the past
and because they are unfamiliar with how the higher education system works” (Rendon, 2002, p.
644). Nontraditional students consult with peers to obtain needed information about assignments
and standard classroom procedures. Within this context, nontraditional students can feel more
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 45

comfortable approaching their peers coupled with being able to share with them any anxieties,
confusion and/or apprehensions. Validation thus can become a shared experience that transcends
the faculty-student relationship. Rendon (1994) found that peers were able to communicate
outside the classroom, create study groups, support each other, and use each other as resources
(p. 42). Rendon (1994) discovered that peer-to-peer relationships were also an element in the
reinforcement of validation for nontraditional students’ success in the traditional classroom.
Validating Experiences and Intent to Persist. Research on validating experiences by
faculty at community colleges has been limited to a single study. Barnett (2011) utilized
Rendon’s (1994, 2002) theory of validation as a springboard to test two propositions in Tinto’s
(1993) model: the proposition that faculty-student interactions influenced academic integration,
and the proposition that academic integration influenced students’ intent to persist at their
college. Barnett (2011) hypothesized that faculty and others may reach out to students in
validating ways that lead them to feel more academically integrated in college, and in turn this
feeling would contribute to their intent to persist in college. Through principal components
analysis, the quantitative study investigated five research hypotheses and two sub-hypotheses: 1)
Faculty validation has discernible subcontracts; 2) Among community college students, higher
levels of faculty validation predict a stronger sense of academic integration in the college; 2a)
Sub-hypothesis: Among community college students, higher levels of faculty validation
subcontracts predict a stronger sense of academic integration in the college; 3) Among
community college students, higher levels of validation from faculty predict a stronger intent to
persist in college; 3a) Sub-hypothesis: Among community college students, higher levels of
faculty validation subcontracts predict a stronger intent to persist in college; 4) Among
community college students, higher levels of academic integration in the college predict a
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 46

stronger intent to persist in college; and 5) The effect of faculty validation on intent to persist is
indirect and mediated by students’ sense of academic integration in the college (See Figure A).
A population of 333 diverse community college students at a Midwest community college served
as the sample population.
Barnett developed the College Experience Survey (CES) to measure faculty validation by
using methods proposed by Dawis (1987), Devellis (2003), Dillman (2000), Ebel and Frisbee
(1991), Kuh (2001), Messick (1995), and Pope and Mueller (2000). To operationalize and
measure instructor validation, Barnett (2011) undertook several steps to deem her newly created
College Experience Survey as valid and reliable. First, Barnett used four items from a scale for
belonging that yielded an alpha of .76 in the original study (Roeser, Midgley, and Urdan (1996).
In Barnett’s pilot test of these items, the calculated alpha was .71. Barnett (2011) used two
additional scales as foundational scales to compare against her newly developed scale. The first
scale that was used as a foundational comparable scale was that of Latino college students’ sense
of belonging and the relationships to college transition and campus racial climate (Hurtado and
Carter (1997). The original calculated alpha was .94. Barnett (2011) also used a second,
different scale of student-faculty interaction which had an original calculated alpha of .73 (Marti,
2005). From the items from the second scale of student-faculty interaction, Pearson’s Product
Moment Correlation was calculated to determine the strength of the relationships between the
second scale and Barnett’s developed scale. The two scales yielded an r value of .53 (p < .01)
indicating a moderate correlation. Lastly, from the final 27 item survey developed to measure
faculty validation, an item-to-total score correlation was calculated which did not produce any
item with less than .5 with the overall scale indicating that all 27 items were to be retained
(Barnett, 2011).
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 47

The CES consisted of 27 Likert scale items with responses ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Student demographics, college experiences and educational
goals were also included in the CES. To assess content and construct validity and reliability, the
full instrument was pilot tested. Barnett (2011) found that after controlling for students’ age,
gender, race/ethnicity, mother’s education, number of credits taken in the semester and college
GPA, faculty validation strongly predicted students’ sense of academic integration in college.
The following subcontructs of faculty validation emerged: students known and valued, caring
instruction, appreciation for diversity, and mentoring. Barnett performed exploratory principal
components analysis that revealed four subcontracts related to faculty validation (1) students
feeling known and valued (23.2% variance); (2) caring instruction (14.8% variance); (3)
appreciation for diversity (11.4% variance); and (4) mentoring (10.1% variance) for a total of
59.5% variance. Barnett’s quantitative study provided empirical support that validation
influenced students’ academic integration and their intent to persist.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 48

Figure A

Figure A. Barnett (2011) - Conceptual Framework including significant relationships found. Note: Solid
arrows indicate direct relationships; dashed arrows indicate indirect relationships.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Source: Barnett, E. A. (2011). Validation experiences and persistence among community college students. The
Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 193-230. Reprinted with permission.

Summary. Validation has been conceptualized as how students obtain additional
confidence from institutional agents to be successful academically and within the college
experience context. The Validation Theory has been particularly applicable to nontraditional
students who may not feel as confident as other students in their abilities to be academically
successful. Rendon (1994, 2002) found that validating agents - particularly faculty and staff -
who reaffirmed to nontraditional students that they were capable of being academically
successful - were a deciding factor that helped nontraditional students to succeed. Validation in
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 49

the form of reassurance extended by faculty and staff to nontraditional students is not to be
mistaken with ‘coddling’ but instead, opportunities to offer supportive, caring verbal
affirmations in a direct way that builds, strengthens and guides nontraditional students toward
recognizing their own capabilities and academic integration. Barnett (2011) posited that Rendon
(1994) presented validation as an alternative to integration and offered that validation may
instead be considered as a precondition for integration. Barnett (2011) further advanced
Validation Theory as faculty and others as those institutional agents who have reached out to
students in validating ways that lead students to feel more integrated which included talking with
students about their personal goals, showing an appreciation of their personal and cultural
history, or taking extra time to help students learn class material. Active institutional efforts to
increase the validation of students by faculty may contribute to increased student persistence
(Barnett, 2011). As more nontraditional students return to college, enroll in community colleges
and navigate convenient online courses, institutional agents who utilize the Validation Theory
not only help nontraditional students succeed in college but also help to bridge the college
experience to that of life-long learning. In 2006, Estela Bensimon of the University of Southern
California’s Center for Urban Education (CUE), presented her findings from a study of the
transfer of low-income students from community colleges to prestigious institutions to the New
England Resource Center for Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
One of the salient points Bensimon made was the correlation between practitioners and
postsecondary student success. Bensimon highlighted Ubach and Wawrzynski (2005) study
which concluded that “faculty members may play the single most important role in student
learning” (p. 176). She expounded on the topic further, signaling that if student success is to be
improved, scholarship needs to be broadened on “…what makes the difference in the lives of
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 50

students whom higher education has been least successful in educating (e.g., racially
marginalized groups and the poor), we have to expand the scholarship on student success and
take into account the influence of practitioners - positively and negatively.” (Bensimon, 2007,
p. 445). Exploring the concept of how nontraditional students experience validation in their
online courses will add to the body of literature on how the Validation Theory is applicable to
nontraditional students in community colleges and in online courses.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 51

CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
This chapter describes the mixed-method methodology and research design of the study,
which examined the validation experiences of nontraditional students enrolled in online courses
at the community college level. Research questions to guide the exploration are presented. The
description of mixed-method methodology addresses the sampling procedure and population,
instrumentation, data collection and data analysis.
Mixed method methodology is a procedure for collecting, analyzing, and “mixing” or
integrating both quantitative and qualitative data at some state of the research process within a
single study for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of the research problem (Creswell
and Creswell, 2005; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003). Historically, research has been conducted
either from a quantitative approach or from a qualitative approach. The purpose for mixing both
kinds of data within one study is to allow for a more robust analysis given neither quantitative
nor qualitative methods are sufficient by themselves to capture the trends and details of a
situation (Ivankova, Creswell and Stick, 2006). By using both methods and analyzing the data,
the researcher can take advantage of the strengths of each (Greene and Caracelli, 1997; Miles
and Huberman, 1994; Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998). Within the mixed-method design matrixes,
there are six most often used and include three concurrent and three sequential designs
(Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann and Hanson, 2003). Of the sequential designs, the researcher
applied the mixed-methods sequential explanatory design for this study as it calls for collecting
and analyzing first quantitative (numeric) data. The qualitative data (text) are collected and
analyzed second in the sequence. After both quantitative and qualitative data have been
collected and analyzed, the two phases are connected in the intermediate state in the study.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 52

Creswell & Creswell (2005) identified the rationale for this sequence in that the quantitative data
and their subsequent analysis provide a general understanding of the research problem. The
qualitative data and their analysis refine and explain those statistical results by exploring
participants’ views in more depth (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Researchers have expounded
upon the mixed-methods sequential explanatory design as being an exorbitant amount of time for
implementation and feasibility of resources to collect and analyze both types of data. The
advantages of implementing this design include its straightforwardness and opportunities for the
exploration of the quantitative results in more details (Creswell & Creswell, 2005; Creswell,
Plano Clark, Gutmann and Hanson, 2003).
For purposes of this study, the researcher used the mixed-methods sequential explanatory
design to first collect and analyze the quantitative data through an online survey and then
secondly, collect qualitative data with follow-up interviews from a subset of participants who
completed the online survey. Creswell & Creswell (2005) explained that integration is the stage
or stages in the research process where the mixing of the quantitative and qualitative data
methods occur (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). The researcher determined the point of
connection or mixing at the intermediate phase of the research study. Figure B provides a
diagram of the procedures in the two-phase explanatory sequential design.
Figure B
Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Research Design

Phase I

Phase II

Quantitative Data
Collection and
Analysis
Explained
by
Inferences
Drawn
Qualitative Data
Collection and
Analysis
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 53

Research Questions
1. To what degree do nontraditional online students experience validation?
1a. If so, how?
2. Is there a difference between the degree to which males versus females experience
validation? If so, how strong is that difference?
3. Is there a relationship between the students’ age and the degree to which they
experience validation? If so, how strong is that relationship?
4. Do students from different ethnic backgrounds experience different degrees of
validation? If so, how strong are these differences?

H
o
: There is no correlation between the degree of nontraditional students’ experiences in online
courses at the community college level and validation.

H
1
: There is a correlation between the degree of nontraditional students’ experiences in online
courses at the community college level and validation.

Population and Sample
After submitting Institutional Review Board (IRB) applications and receiving approval
from University of Southern California (USC) (See Appendix A) and from both Community
College #1 (See Appendix B) and Community College #2 (See Appendix C), random sampling
was used as it allowed for a representative sample that can be generalized from a population as a
whole (Creswell, 2014). Students must have 30 units of general education units in order to
transfer to a public four-year university in California. English, English Composition and/or
English Literature are courses included in the general education requirements. Most students
take one of these English courses in their first semester providing space is available. Oftentimes,
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 54

a required course such as English closes quickly because the demand is high, particularly for
evening courses. Because nontraditional students enroll part-time, enrolling in an online course
is convenient for their schedules and allows them the opportunity to experience learning in a
different format. For colleges, offering required courses in an online format allows for more
students to earn credit-bearing hours as they move progressively toward completion and
graduation. In this context, online courses were classified as online only and hybrid (a
combination of online and on-campus face-to-face). Most California community colleges have
less than 20% of students enrolled in online courses (Johnson & Mejia, 2014). This study is
relevant to the body of literature regarding online learning as more community college students
are enrolling in online courses. Johnson & Mejia (2014) reported that in 2010-2011, California
community colleges enrolled close to one million students in online courses. Online faculty and
community college distance education administrators can examine the results of this study to
gain a better understanding of how students’ experiences with online faculty validation
contributes to students’ successful outcomes in online course settings.
California Community College Research Sites
In this section I will provide institutional information regarding the two community
colleges that participated in this research. Both colleges were selected because of the student
participation in online courses and their willingness to participate in this research.
Community College #1. Located in southern California, Community College #2 is a
large, public 2-year college and offers Associates degrees and certificates. Based on the National
Center for Education Statistics, Fall 2014, the enrollment was 21,774 with 67% of the students
enrolled part-time (33% full time) and who are 24 years and under. The student population is
primarily female (55%; male 45%) and Hispanic (68%; 9% Asian; 7% Caucasian; 5% African
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 55

American/Black). The retention rate for first time students on a part-time basis is 51% and 63%
full time. The overall graduation rate is 15% and for Hispanics/Latinos, the graduation rate is
14% (23% Asian; 22% Caucasian and 11% African American/Black). For distance education,
45% of the students are enrolled in some distance education and 12% are enrolled in courses
offered exclusively in an online setting. The remainder of the student population (45%) are not
enrolled in any distance education courses (Aud, et. al, 2013).
Community College #2. Community College #2 is also located in southern California.
It is a large 2-year public college offering Associates degrees and certificates. Based on the
National Center for Education Statistics, Fall 2014, the enrollment was 16,263 with
77% of the students enrolled part-time (23% full time) and 67% who are 24 years and under.
The student population is 53% male and 47% female. Community College #2 has a high
Hispanic/Latino student population (81%; 8% Caucasian; 7% Asian and 1% African American
/Black). The retention rate for first time students on a part-time basis is 46%; 79% full time.
The overall graduation rate is 20% and for Hispanics/Latinos, the graduation rate is 16% (49%
Asian; 44% two or more races; 7% Caucasian and 0% African American/Black). For distance
education, 13% of the students are enrolled in some distance education and 9% are enrolled in
courses offered exclusively in an online setting. The remainder of the student population (78%)
are not enrolled in any distance education courses (Aud, et. al, 2013).
Interview Participant Profiles. Of the forty-eight survey participants, 9 participants
agreed to a follow-up telephone interview. There were 5 female participants and 4 male
participants; 4 African Americans, 2 Caucasians and 3 Hispanic/Latino/a participants. All age
groups were represented with 1 participant aged 18 – 24; 2 participants aged 25 – 34, 3
participants aged 35 – 44 and 2 participants aged 55 – 64. Participant #1 is an African American
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 56

male aged 35 – 44 with a bubbly personality who immediately responded to the request for an
interview. In his online course, Participant #1 had an engaging experience with his instructor as
well as with his online peers. He particularly appreciated the attention he received from his
online instructor and readily noticed the care his instructor showed to him on several occasions.
Unlike the other African American males, Participant #1 indicated that he received a lot of
feedback on his assignments. Participant #2 is a Caucasian male aged 55 – 64. He is an
employee in the fire service who has taken several online courses primarily for the purpose of
continuing education for his line of work. The responses Participant #2 provided were solely
based on his experience with his current online course and instructor. He mentioned repeatedly
that prior online courses were ‘opaque’ in nature but that his current online instructor talked with
him at length about the class assignments to ensure he understood the requirements. Participant
#2 stated that he was a little nervous at the beginning of the course but that the online instructor
told him, “You’re going to be fine, take a deep breath and relax” which he translated to mean, “If
you need some help, reach out to me and I will help you.” Overall, he has assessed online
courses as impersonal and prefers the traditional classroom setting wherein social interaction is
better facilitated.
Participant #3 is an African American female, aged 55 – 64. At the beginning of the
interview, Participant #3 answered in short, one to two sentences and was not forthcoming with
any form of elaboration on her answers. What was significant about Participant #3’s interview
was that the interaction she has had with her online instructor embodies validation in its truest
form. Participant #3’s online instructor petitioned her first, asking Participant #3 if she
understood the assignment, if she needed any help, if she was aware of additional resources and
instructing her where she could find those resources. All of these actions shown by the online
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 57

instructor indicated to Participant #3 that she cared whether Participant #3 was learning the
material. As this was Participant #3’s first online course, she was a little apprehensive about
what to expect and what would be required but as she indicated, she is learning along the way
and it is because she is constantly encouraged by her online instructor that she ‘can do it.’
Participant #4 is a Hispanic/Latino male, aged 45 – 54. He has taken over 10 online
courses. He reads his material, completes his assignments, doesn’t care if the online instructor
knows him personally and checks the dashboard several times to stay abreast of any new
announcements. Participant #4 would be considered a veteran online learner given the number
of online courses he has taken. He does not need validation but recognizes it when it is shown to
other students. One of the major features of his interview was that he indicated feedback as a
way his online instructors has shown they care and regarded him as a capable student.
Participant #4 is the classic type of student institutions want enrolled in online courses: self-
motivating, self-learning, independent resource finder, capable of handling the coursework and a
student who completes every assignment.
Participant #5 is an African American male, aged 35 – 44. Encouragement and support
are very important to this student. He expected feedback to help him on future assignments and
he wanted to know how he was progressing in the course. Participant #5 appreciated being
called by his name and being able to share his personal experiences to enhance his assignments
and course discussions. It is important to this student to have an accessible online instructor who
provides positive comments and constructive criticisms because he desperately wants to do well
in the course. If he needs help, he expects to receive direction in order to “grow in order to grow
in the class.”
Participant #6 is a Hispanic/Latina female aged 18 – 24. It was interesting interviewing
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 58

Participant #6 because in this interview, Mattering was very telling. This student is adjusting to
the transition from high school to college, from the traditional classroom to the online
environment and from teacher-centered learning to student-centered learning. This is her first
online course and in this third week of the course, she really hasn’t connected directly with her
online instructor. She wasn’t aware of whether feedback was good or bad because at this stage
of the course, she had not received any feedback. Further, she maintains that she still prefers the
traditional classroom setting but is only taking the online course due to convenience as she is a
single mother who works full-time.
Participant #7 is a Caucasian female aged 25 – 34. She has taken a number of online
courses but less than 10. She elaborated on every question, provided good stories of how she felt
about instructor feedback, interpreting instructor care and the dynamics of community in an
online course. Participant #7 believes she has benefited from indirect support rather than direct
support from her online instructors. For example, Participant #7 is cognizant of how the online
instructor responds to other students and what those online instructors do to encourage her peers.
She is aware that feedback comes in several forms – that is, feedback can be provided on a per-
assignment basis, at midterm or at the end of the course. Feedback is generalized in discussion
forums and provided in follow-up questions to responses/posts made by students. One incident
she shared regarding care was knowing when an online instructor is not ‘blowing you off’ but
instead being available and flexible.
Participant #8 is a Hispanic/Latina female aged 25 – 34. She has taken 3 online courses
in the past and is very pragmatic about taking online courses. She believes students should just
do the work and get it done. Her interpretation of instructor care is the timing of feedback,
meaning, if she sends an email to the online instructor, she expects an immediate response. To
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 59

not hear back from an online instructor within a day or two indicates to her that the instructor
does not care that much. Participant #8 is also transitioning into college and feels somewhat that
she doesn’t matter much. She said, “It would take forever for them to respond and they would
always be like online courses like the program staff and you would have to call. And they were
like, just call the people that are in charge of that website and your problem will be solved. But
they didn’t and my problem wasn’t solved.” In her last 2 online courses, Participant #8 did not
feel as though her online instructors cared but in this current online course, she feels that her
online instructor does care. When prompted to provide an example of how her current online
instructor cares, Participant #8 said, “Stuff like how I can improve on my papers or if I am doing
something, I can do better. Like on the papers she will provide little comments and provide links
that are helpful.” Although Participant #8 is balancing between whether she matters or not, she
is accomplishing the goal of being a proficient self-learner. She can see the differences in
teaching styles and understands her role and responsibilities as a college student in an online
course.
Lastly, Participant #9 is an African American female aged 35 – 44. This was a tough
interview because Participant #9 has only taken one online course and she did not have a good
experience. There was no personal connection between Participant #9 and her online instructor.
She did not receive written feedback on her assignments and did not receive responses to
questions posed in emails. Although she successfully completed the online course, she believes
it was her own will and self-discipline that helped her to navigate the new learning environment.
Participant #9 did not like the online learning environment and felt her voiced experiences were
not valued and further, believes the online instructor was not truly connected to the course or the
material.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 60

Instrumentation
Barnett (2011) investigated the relationship between students’ validating experiences and
their sense of academic integration and intent to persist in college. The study was based on the
proposition that when students are validated (recognized, respected, and seen as valued), they are
more likely to remain in college. Five research hypotheses and two sub-hypotheses were
quantitatively tested using correlational methods and based on the construct of validation as a
framing mechanism. Barnett (2011) developed the College Experience Survey (CES) to measure
faculty validation by using methods proposed by Dawis (1987), Devellis (2003), Dillman (2000),
Ebel and Frisbee (1991), Kuh (2001), Messick (1995), and Pope and Mueller (2000). The CES
consisted of twenty-seven Likert scale items with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). Student demographics, college experiences and educational goals were
also included in the CES. To assess content and construct validity and reliability, the full
instrument was pilot tested. The findings from the study revealed that there was a strong
relationship between faculty validation and students’ academic integration and intent to persist.
Exploratory principal components analysis was performed which resulted in four subcontracts
related to faculty validation (1) students feeling known and valued (23.2% variance); (2) caring
instruction (14.8% variance); (3) appreciation for diversity (11.4% variance); and (4) mentoring
(10.1% variance) for a total of 59.5% variance. The CES is located in Appendix E.
Barnett (2011) mentioned the difficulties in finding scales that measured faculty
validation. Because of the nonexistence of such a scale, Barnett developed the CES based on
scales that measured belonging and student-faculty interactions, input and feedback from
numerous validation experts and calculated correlations that yielded moderated relationships. It
was important for the researcher to use Cronbach alpha to calculate the validity and reliability of
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 61

the CES developed by Barnett to determine the internal consistency of her scale. The Cronbach
alpha measures whether the items of a scale ‘hang together’ and measures the same underlying
construct (Pallant, 2013). DeVellis (2016) recommends that the Cronbach alpha coefficient of a
scale should be above .7.
Phase I. The researcher of this study utilized the base of the CES as the survey for this
research. The justification for using the CES for this present study was its strength of
adaptability as it can be administered to online students enrolled in online courses. A second
strength for using the CES as a base was that it has demonstrated in past research to be valid and
reliable. Moreover, the CES registers to the same type of faculty validation that is used, and can
be used by faculty in any institution, course or educational setting. The twenty-seven questions
contained in the CES were not modified. Demographic information was added to the survey
which included age, gender, ethnicity and number of online courses completed. The researcher
sought permission and received approval from Barnett to use the CES for this research. (See
Appendix D).
The online survey for this study consisted of thirty-four questions. Of the thirty-four
questions, 4 questions were demographic questions about gender, ethnicity, age and the number
of online courses taken, 3 questions regarding consent and interview information and the
remaining 27 question were taken from the CES. The survey was administered on the Qualtrics
software. The first question of the CES asked the online student if they are 18 years or older and
if they consent to taking the survey. If the student answered yes to Question #1, consent was
granted. Question #33 asked the online student if they would be interested in elaborating on
their survey answers via a follow-up telephone interview. If they consented to the follow-up
interview, the online student was asked for their contact information so the researcher could
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 62

contact them either by phone, email or mail.
Phase II. The interview questions were based on the four subconstructs related to faculty
validation in the CES (See Appendix J). Barnett’s (2011) four subconstructs were: Value
Feelings, Caring Instructions, Appreciation for Diversity and Mentoring. In Value Feelings,
online students were asked about their experiences regarding support, instructor assistance,
recognition of them by name and acceptance by the instructor. In Caring Instructions, online
students were asked about their experiences regarding whether the instructor showed any forms
of care, encouragement and written feedback. In Appreciation for Diversity, online students
were asked about their experiences regarding whether they felt treated equally or not to other
online students. In the Mentoring area, students were asked about their experiences about
whether they felt inclusive in the online community. In each of these areas, the researcher asked
the online students to describe their experiences and when needed, the researcher asked the
online students to elaborate on the responses they provided.
Data Collection
Approval was sought from The Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of both Community
College #1 and Community College #2 to conduct research at their sites. The data collection
process was conducted in Phase II and Phase III. Phase I initially consisted of contacting online
students at the beginning of the Fall 2015 semester but due to IRB delays and procedures, the
researcher deadline became obsolete and she proceeded with Phase II immediately after all
approvals were obtained. After approval from both sites were provided, the researcher sought
approval from the instructors to administer the survey to their online students. The researcher
forwarded the Instructor Email and Flyer (See Appendix F), Online Student Recruitment Email
and Flyer Information Sheet (See Appendix G), Validating Experiences in Online Courses
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 63

Information Sheet (See Appendix H), and Validating Experiences in Online Courses-Survey (See
Appendix I) to the instructors for their review.
Phase II. Upon IRB approval from Community College #1, one instructor from a credit
bearing online-only English course agreed to allow her students to be surveyed for this study.
For this online course, there were a total of twenty-seven students enrolled in Fall 2015. This
instructor first asked her students if they wanted to be surveyed for this study. If a student
consented to be surveyed, the instructor then forwarded the student’s email address to me. After
connecting directly with the student via email, the researcher forwarded the Validation
Experiences in Online Courses Information Sheet and the survey link to the student, after which
the student completed the survey. There were a total of seven students who consented and
completed the survey. For the follow-up interview, none of the seven students consented.
IRB approval was also provided from Community College #2. The Distance Education
Department was tasked with providing me with the email list of students in three online blended
transferrable English courses taught by 2 instructors (one instructor taught 2 courses; one
instructor taught 1 course). However, the researcher sought approval from both instructors first
before sending the survey link to their students. One instructor who taught two online courses
agreed to allow her students to be surveyed for this study; the other instructor did not agree to
allow me to survey her students. For the courses in which the researcher was granted approval to
survey online students, the total number of online students solicited to participate in the research
was sixty. After one week of nonresponse from any of these students, the researcher emailed the
instructor to ask if she would be willing to offer her online students extra credit for taking the
survey. The instructor consented and the link was resent to the students via email. A total of
twenty-three students consented and completed the survey. Of the twenty-three students who
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 64

completed the survey, twenty students agreed to the follow-up interview. From this subset of
online students, 5 students agreed to be interviewed for the follow-up interview.
A total of eighteen nontraditional students who were previously enrolled in an online
English course at the community college level were randomly recruited to complete the survey.
Although these students were no longer enrolled at the community college level, their
experiences with validation in an online course provided an elevated context and added depth to
their interviews. Of this subset of nontraditional students who had taken an online English
course at the community college level, 4 students agreed to be interviewed.
Lastly, to incentivize survey participation, the researcher offered online students the
opportunity to win one $50 Amazon gift certificate for completing the survey and one $60
Amazon gift certificate for completing the follow-up interview. Based on raffle procedures, the
two winners were notified and emailed their certificates.
Phase III. Phase III consisted of collecting data via follow-up interviews from a subset
of students who completed the online survey. In Phase II, the researcher forwarded the
Validation Experiences in Online Courses Information Sheet and the survey link to the online
students. Completed surveys by online students were recorded with results generated in
Qualtrics. Question #33 asked participants if they would be willing to elaborate on their survey
answers. If they consented to the follow-up interview, they were asked to provide contact
information so the researcher could contact them directly. None of the online students from
Community College #1 participated in the follow-up interview. There were 5 online students
who participated from Community College #2. Four of the eighteen nontraditional students who
completed an online English course at the community college level participated in the follow-up
interview totaling 9 follow-up interviews for this research.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 65

Data Analysis
The CES used for this study contained twenty-seven survey questions. The researcher
grouped all twenty-seven questions into 3 groups: Group 1: Student related questions; Group 2:
Instructor related questions and Group 3: Demographic Data. Correlations were calculated for
Group 1 and Group 2. The researcher then arranged the two highest items from Group 1 and
Group 2 and added Instructor Feedback into a 3 x 3 matrix for a more manageable study in
Figure C:
Figure C
3 x 3 Matrix
Validation (TVal) Student Experiences (TStudExp)
Student feels Capable Student feels Encouraged Student feels Accepted
Instructor Shows Data Data Data
Instructor Cares Data Data Data
Instructor Feedback Data Data Data

Percentages and numbers for demographic information and participant quantity of online
courses completed, descriptive statistics for the independent variables of Validation (i.e.,
Instructor Shows, Instructor Cares and Instructor Feedback) and (c) descriptive statistics for the
dependent variables of Student Experiences (i.e., Student feels Capable, Student feels
Encouraged, Student feels Accepted) were also calculated. Prior to calculating correlations, a
scatterplot was generated to determine if a linear relationship existed between the total scores for
Student Experiences (TStudExp) and the total scores for Validation (TVal). To answer the four
research questions, correlations were then calculated for (a) the independent variables and the
dependent variables; (b) T-test was calculated for the independent variables and Gender; (c)
correlations for dependent variables and independent variables and Age; (d) ANOVA for the
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 66

independent variables and Ethnicity. Cronbach alpha was calculated to determine internal
consistency of the items. A test for Normality was generated to assess the normality of the
distribution of scores for validation for the sample as a whole. Lastly, reversed scores were
executed for Items #3 (Rsbelieve), #5 (Rsgoals), #8 (Riinterested), #20 (Rsjob), #21 (Rslifeexp),
#23 (Rifeedback), #28 (Rscomm) and #29 (Rswork) (See Appendix K).
Follow-up interviews were conducted with 9 online students. The interviews were
recorded with a standard recording device. Following each interview, the recording of online
students’ validation experiences were transcribed and coded under themes.
Limitations of the Study
This study has several limitations. First, the response rate for this mixed-methods study
was too low to make a generalization about how nontraditional students at the community level
experience validation in their online courses. Second, the study was administered during the
third week of class. Participants may not have known how validation is manifested in the online
context and may not have experienced validation in its truest form because the survey was
administered at the beginning of the course. Third, this study surveyed online students at two
community colleges in southern California and a random sample of students who had previously
taken an online English course at the community college level. With a wider scope of
community colleges that include sites in other parts of California, the outcome would have made
for a more robust study.
Ethical Consideration
Ethical considerations in any study are important and the researcher sought to keep the
identities of community college sites, instructors and online students as general as possible.
Participants were assured that their identities would be held confidential and that the information
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 67

they provided would not be associated with their online course or their college site. Further,
online instructors were assured their identities and the online courses they teach would not be
identified. The researcher complied with the rules and regulations of both of the community
colleges’ Institutional Review Board policies to ensure that ethical standards were met
throughout the study. The researcher also recognized her own personal experiences as an online
student and online instructor relative to her perceptions about online pedagogy to minimize any
bias.
Chapter Summary
The research design and methodology of this study support exploration of community
college students’ validation experiences in online courses. The instruments included a survey to
quantitatively measure the degree to which online students experience validation and a follow-up
interview to discover additional insights into how validation experiences were perceived,
interpreted and/or acknowledged.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 68

CHAPTER FOUR
Results
This chapter presents the mixed-methods results to address the research questions:
1. To what degree do nontraditional online students experience validation?
1a. If so, how?
2. Is there a difference between the degree to which males vs. females experience
validation? If so, how strong is that difference?
3. Is there a relationship between the students’ age and the degree to which they
experience validation? If so, how strong is that relationship?
4. Do students from different ethnic backgrounds experience different degrees of
validation? If so, how strong are these differences?
H
o
: There is no correlation between the degree of nontraditional students’ experiences in
online courses at the community college level and validation.

H
1
: There is a correlation between the degree of nontraditional students’ experiences in
online courses at the community college level and validation.

Preliminary Analysis
This section presents the results of descriptive analyses: (a) percentages and numbers for
demographic information and participant quantity of online courses completed, (b) descriptive
statistics for the independent variables of Validation (i.e., Instructor Shows, Instructor Cares and
Instructor Feedback) and (c) descriptive statistics for the dependent variables of Student
Experiences (i.e., Student feels Capable, Student feels Encouraged, Student feels Accepted).
Reversed scores were executed for Items #3 (Rsbelieve), #5 (Rsgoals), #8 (Riinterested),
#20 (Rsjob), #21 (Rslifeexp), #23 (Rifeedback), #28 (Rscomm) and #29 (Rswork) (See
Appendix K). Prior to calculating correlations, a scatterplot was generated to determine if a
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 69

linear relationship existed between the total scores for Student Experiences (TStudExp) and the
total scores for Validation (TVal). Correlations were calculated for (a) the independent variables
and the dependent variables; (b) T-tests for the independent variables and Gender; (c)
correlations for dependent and independent variables and Age; (d) ANOVA for the independent
variables and Ethnicity. Cronbach alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency of the
items. In this current study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .925. Lastly, a test for
Normality was generated to assess the normality of the distribution of scores for validation for
the sample as a whole. The tests of Normality had a significance of .200* indicating that the
scores were reasonably normal.
The population of this study was community college online students enrolled in a credit-
bearing English course. There were forty-eight participants (42% male, 58% female) for a 55%
response rate. The ages of the participants were primarily concentrated in two groups: 18 – 24
and 25 – 34 with 31% in each of the groups. Additional age groups included: 35 – 44 (19%); 45
– 54 (13%); and 55 – 64 (6%). The majority (56%) of the online students surveyed were
Hispanic/Latino/a; other ethnicities included African American (33%), Caucasian (6%) and
Asian (4%). Approximately 40% have taken 1 - 3 online courses. Participants who have taken
between 4 – 9 or 10 or more online courses registered both at 27%. There were 3 participants
(6%) who were currently taking their first online course and thus had not yet completed their
online course. These results are presented in Table 1.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 70

Table 1
Demographic Variables for All Participants

Variable

n

%

Gender
Male
Female

28
20

58
42

Age
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 - 44
45 – 54
55 - 64

15
15
9
6
3

31
31
19
13
6

Ethnicity
African American
Asian
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino/a

16
2
3
27

33
4
56
6

Online Courses Completed
0
1 – 3
4 – 9
10+

3
19
13
13

6
40
27
27

Descriptive statistics, including numbers, means and standard deviations for the
independent variables are summarized in Table 2. Rendon (1994) defined validation as
interactions with students, initiated by faculty and others in the campus community, which
engendered feelings of self-worth and a belief in the students’ ability to succeed in the college
environment (p. 12). When an instructor demonstrates that he/she cares for their students, the
students see this action as showing. Rendon (1994) and Barrett’s (2011) research was based on
student experiences as contextualized within the traditional classroom. Seeing the transferability
of Rendon and Barrett’s studies to the online setting, the researcher applied the same validation
principles accordingly for this study. As such, the mean for Instructor Shows was 4.13 with a
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 71

standard deviation of .703. The mean for Instructor Cares was 3.83 and the standard deviation
was .930. Many students complain about the lack of feedback from instructors in online courses.
The standard deviation for Instructor Feedback on assignments was 1.184 with a mean of 3.79.
Students perceive effective instructor feedback to be feedback provided in a timely manner with
specific, constructive guidance to make changes and apply to future assignments (Getzlaf, Perry,
Toffner, Lamarche and Edwards, 2009).

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables for All Participants

How Instructor Demonstrates Validation

n

m

sd

Instructor Shows that he/she believes in
their students’ abilities to do the classwork

48 4.13 .703
Instructor seems to genuinely Care how
their students are doing

48 3.83 .930
Instructor provides lots of written Feedback
on the assignments students turn in
48 3.79 1.184

Descriptive statistics, including numbers, means and standard deviations for the
dependent variables representing Student Experiences are summarized in Table 3. Student
Experiences can include how students interact with the various manifestations of college while
simultaneously forming and shaping a thinking and/or knowing mindset. The mean for Student
feels Accepted as a person by instructors was 4.21 and the standard deviation was .713.
Participant #1, an African American Male, 25 – 34 years old commented on an experience that
could be representative of a Student feels Accepted, thinking/knowing mindset:
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 72

“I would say that first and foremost it (validation) came from the
validation from the instructor and again my instructor validated me.
That encouraged my peers and myself to begin to validate each other.
So it started with my instructor. And because she set such a great
example, we began to do it. So it was a domino effect. So now I can
say that confidently, because of the combination of my instructor and
my peers, it started with my instructor.”

The standard deviation for Student feels Capable by their instructors was .714 and the
mean was 4.15. Encouragement from the instructor is a tremendous need for students who may
be enrolled in their first online course. The mean for Student feels Encouraged was 4.10 when
instructors encourage their students to openly share their views in class; the standard deviation
was .751.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variables for All Participants

How Student Feels When Instructor
Demonstrates Validation
n m sd

I feel Accepted as a person by my
instructors
48 4.21 .713

I feel accepted as a Capable student by my
instructors
48 4.15 .714

I am Encouraged by my instructors to
openly share my views in class
48 4.10 .751

Frequencies and percentages for Student Experiences and Validation Items for All
Participants chart are summarized in Table 4. The Student Experiences items were (a) I feel
accepted as a person by my instructors, (b) I feel accepted as a capable student by my instructors,
and (c) I am encouraged by my instructors to openly share my views in class. The Validation
items were (a) My Instructors Show that they believe in my ability to do the classwork, (b) My
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 73

Instructors seem to genuinely Care how I am doing and (c) My Instructors provide lots of written
Feedback on the assignments I turn in. There were two strong indicators that students want their
instructors to exhibit while instructing online. For the dependent variables, a clear majority of
the students had student experiences of Student feels Capable (54%), Student feels Accepted
(52%) and Student feels Encouraged (50%). For the independent variables, a little more than
half (56%) of the participants indicated that it is important for instructors to show their students
that they (instructors) believe in the students’ ability to do the classwork. Participant #8, a
Hispanic/Latino/a Female, 25 – 34 shared her version of an example of Instructor Shows:
“She responds to my emails right away. She responds to my
questions. If I have a question, she will answer it. It doesn’t take
longer than a day for her to respond and she will tell us like heads
up on a deadline and for like opportunities for us to get extra
credit. She understands and she cares for us to pass the class.”

The other strong indicator was for Instructor Cares (54%) as students want to know that
their online instructors genuinely care how they are doing in their classes. Overall, feedback as a
variable for validation was shown to have relevancy. As students continue to enroll in online
courses and become better acclimated to the conditions of learning online, students still desire to
receive lots of feedback on their written assignments (47%). It is important to provide online
students with feedback in a timely manner but sometimes, feedback comes in different formats --
other than in a traditional written mode. Participant #2 (a Caucasian Male, aged 55 – 64)
elaborated on the type of feedback he has received:
“Well, it would be like I go to Blackboard and you can tell whether or not
it has been graded and if it is graded, there might be little teardrop icon
and maybe there may be a “Nicely done. I would have liked to have seen
more substantive examples or statements” or “I gave you 20 extra points
for such and such.”

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 74

Table 4
Student Experiences and Validation Items for All Participants
Question Response ƒ

%

ACCEPTED
I feel accepted as a person by my
instructors
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

17
25
5
1
0
5
52
10
2
0
CAPABLE
I feel accepted as a capable student by my
instructors
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

15
26
6
1
0
31
54
13
2
0

ENCOURAGED
I am encouraged by my instructors to
openly share my views in class
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

15
24
8
1
0
31
50
17
2
0

SHOW
My instructors show that they believe in
my ability to do the classwork
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

14
27
6
1
0
29
56
13
2
0

CARE
My instructors seem to genuinely care
how I am doing

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

10
26
7
4
1
21
54
15
8
2

FEEDBACK
My instructors provide lots of written
feedback on the assignments I turn in
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
8
22
11
6
0
17
47
23
13
0
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 75

Research Question 1 and 1a
Research Question 1 asked, To what degree do nontraditional online students experience
validation? If so, how? Pearson correlations were calculated to examine how the dependent
variables (i.e., Student Experiences) changed when any independent variable changed and other
independent variables were held fixed. The independent variables in the correlation analysis
were Instructor Shows, Instructor Cares, and Instructor Feedback. Their relationships to the
items representing Student Experiences (i.e., Student feels Accepted, Student feels Capable, and
Student feels Encouraged) were examined. Table 3 summarizes the numbers, means and
standard deviations of the dependent variables that composed of the Total Student Experiences
(TStudExp). The means for all dependent variables were moderate with Student feels Accepted
(4.21) and a standard deviation of .713. The standard deviation for Student feels Capable was
.714 with a mean of 4.15. The mean for Student feels Encouraged was 4.10 and the standard
deviation was .751. Participant #1 (African American Male, aged 35 – 44) provided an overall
capstone of the power of validation and its effect on Student feels Accepted:
“She made me feel like what I said mattered and that went back to
her, you know, saying, “Ok that’s a good point that you brought
out.” She made me feel like what I said mattered. She affirmed
what I said.”

The means, standard deviations and numbers for the independent variables comprised of
the Total Validation (TVal) are included in Table 2. Instructor Shows had a standard deviation
of .703 with a mean of 4.13. Instructor Cares had a mean of 3.83 and a standard deviation of
.930. The third independent variable was Instructor Feedback and it had a mean of 3.79 and a
standard deviation of 1.184.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 76

Table 5 summarizes the results of the correlations for relationships between the
independent variables comprised of Instructor Cares, Instructor Shows and Instructor Feedback
with the dependent variables consisting of the variables of Student feels Capable, Student feels
Encouraged and Student feels Accepted. The correlations yielded strong associations for the
relationships of independent variables of Instructor Cares and Instructor Shows with all three
dependent variables of Student feels Capable, Student feels Encouraged and Student feels
Accepted. Results indicated that Instructor Cares had a strong relationship with Student feels
Capable (r = .710**, p = .000), Student feels Accepted (r = .566**, p = .000) and Student feels
Encouraged (r = .543**, p = .000). Many of the participants interviewed have a need for their
online instructors to know they are capable of handling the coursework but had not formally
verbalized this position. Participant #2 (Caucasian Male, aged 55 – 64) pondered on being asked
how he thought his online instructor believed he was capable of handling the coursework.
Participant #2’s response was:
“I don’t think she makes me believe in myself but well, the first
week of class, it is daunting to take an online course. But she said,
“You’re going to be fine, take a deep breath and relax.” Which
means to me that if you need some help, reach out to me and I will
help you.”

Results indicated that Instructor Shows had a strong relationship with all three dependent
variables. Instructor Shows strongly correlated with Student feels Capable (r = .852**, p =
.000), Student feels Encouraged (r = .700**, p = .000) and Student feels Accepted (r = .626**, p
= .000). It is equally important for the instructor to show their students that they care in order for
the online student to feel capable, encouraged, accepted. An example of how one student
believed her online instructor shows caring was explained as follows:

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 77

Participant #3 African American Female, aged 55 – 64:
Researcher Do you think your instructor cares?
Participant #3 Yes. I really think she do. I talked to her
yesterday and I think she do.
Researcher How often do you talk to her, like every
week, or 2 times a week?...
Participant #3 Every week or anytime I have a question.
Researcher Do you have a set time?
Participant #3 No, she felt that I would be needing some
time, me and another student, so she sent us
her cell phone number so I thought that was
really thoughtful of her.
Researcher So she reached out to you first?
Participant #3 Yes. Yes, she did so I will give her that. I
sometime stress because I want everything to
be perfect and she just tries to calm me down
and take one thing at a time.
Researcher She calls and shows that she cares. Does that
make for a good experience for you as an
online student?
Participant #3 Yes it does.

Instructor Feedback had a small to medium relationship relative to the dependent
variables of Student feels Capable, Student feels Accepted and Student feels Encouraged. The
results were medium but significant for Student feels Capable (r = .339*, p = .019). There was a
medium and significant relationship also with Instructor Feedback and Student feels Encouraged
(r = .312*, p = .031). Results indicated that Instructor Feedback had a small relationship to
Student feels Accepted (r = 2.79, p = .055).

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 78

Table 5
Correlations of independent variables and dependent variables for All Participants

Instructor
Cares
Instructor
Shows
Instructor/
Feedback

Student feels Capable Pearson Correlation .710** .852** .339*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .019
N 48 48 48

Student feels Encouraged Pearson Correlation .543** .700** .312*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .031
N 48 48 48

Student feels Accepted Pearson Correlation .566** .626** .279
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .055
N 48 48 48

Note. Independent variables = Instructor Cares, Instructor Shows and Instructor provides Feedback;
Dependent variables = Student feels Capable, Student feels Encouraged and Student feels Accepted.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Summary. The research question asked to what degree do nontraditional students
experience validation, and if so, how? There was a relationship between validation and student
experiences in the online environment and that relationship was strong. To be exact, Instructor
Shows was the dominant independent variable of Validation. The strength of the relationship of
Validation to Student feels Capable was significantly strong (r =.852**, p = .000). When asked
how an online instructor actually shows that they believe in their students’ ability to do the
classwork, Participant #5, African American Male aged 35 – 44 commented:

“Through support and support whereby they are able to engage
with me and help me when I really need help, and helping me
revise my work and leading me in the right direction.”

In this regard, an Instructor who shows that they believe in their students’ abilities to do the
classwork is sending a powerful message to their students. It is the message of the theme
‘Show/Send/Support’ that translates to students positively that they matter, their ideas and
experiences are valued and that support is available. Online instructors show validation by Show
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 79

– showing that they care; Send – sending the message that students matter; and Support – helping
and directing as needed.

Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, Is there a difference between the degree to which males vs.
females experience validation? A t-test was calculated to compare the mean scores of the two
different groups of males and females for the dependent variable (TStudExp). Table 6
summarizes the results from the t-test analysis on the dependent variables of Student Experiences
(Student feels Accepted, Student feels Encouraged and Student feels Capable).
Using an alpha level of .05, independent-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate
whether males and females differed significantly on the degree to which they experience
validation. The test did not reflect a significant degree to which males and females experience
validation, t(46) = -.925, p <.05, d = .01. The 95% Confidence internal of the difference test
mean ranged from -2.59 to .957. An examination of the group means indicated that males
(m = 19.6, sd = 3.70) did not differ significantly on the degree of validation experienced than did
females (m = 20.7, sd = 2.42), therefore the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 80

Table 6
T-test for Males/Females and Student Experiences of Validation

The t-test for the degree to which males vs. females experience validation indicated the
groups were not equal. The difference between the males and females was so small that it did
not prove to be substantial statistically. However, in the qualitative analysis, there was a slight
difference between males and females on the Validation variable of Instructor Feedback.
Participant #8 (Hispanic/Latina Female, aged 25 – 34) expounded on her experience with
feedback and her online instructor:
“I just felt like, you just have to meet the deadlines, if you don’t
understand anything I just felt like I couldn’t just reach out and
say like ‘Oh hey, I don’t understand this topic. It would take
forever for them to respond and they would always be like online
courses like the –program staff and you would have to call. And
they were like, just call the people that are in charge of that
website and your problem will be solved. But they didn’t.”

Group Statistics
Gender n m sd Std. Error Mean
Total Stud Exp Male 20 19.6500 3.67459 .82166
Female 28 20.4643 2.42643 .45855

Independent Samples Test
Leverne’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-tailed)

Mean
Diff
Std.
Error
Diff
Lower Upper
Total
Stud Exp
Equal
variances
assumed
5.373 .025 -.925 46 .360 -.81429 .87991 -2.58546 .95689
Equal
variances
not
assumed

-.865 30.590 .394 -.81429 .94096 -2.73442 1.10585

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 81

Another student, Participant #7 (Caucasian Female aged 25 – 34) talked about false expectations
regarding Instructor Feedback:
“Yes. The tall tell sign which I have never seen interpreted is if
an email comes across and says, ‘I would like to spend a little bit
more time discussing this or can you explain this to me,’ such as
they care if you are learning. I had one professor so clear on
expectations that he would actually respond back with “I would
love to chat with you but I am out of time.” Fully disclosing
about his schedule. Just realistic in the transparency so we would
not have false expectations. We knew that our professors are
busy. But to have that level of not just blowing you off makes
such a difference. All 100% of my instructors have had weird
office hours. Many of us are working professionals. It directly
shows how much they care about your learning.”

Another student, Participant #9 (African American Female, aged 35 – 44) commented on the
instructor’s inability to deliver effective feedback:
“I did [receive feedback]. It wasn’t very thorough but I
remember having to ask questions online for clarity and deal with
the information that was provided online and it still wasn’t very
clear. So again I don’t know if it was, you know, this was a first
time teacher so I’m not sure if that hasn’t been reviewed with her
– her lack of comfort or her ability to deliver in that regard.”

The quantitative analysis did not yield a significant difference on the degree of difference
of validation experienced by males and females. However, female participants were slight more
elaborative regarding Instructor Feedback. The female participants in this study viewed
Instructor Feedback in both positive and negative forms including an Instructor’s inaccessibility,
un-relatability, disclosure, non-expressiveness and distant manner. The intersection in the
qualitative analysis is where male and female participants merge in terms of Instructor Feedback
and the environment is which the feedback is provided. Online students consistently emphasized
that they felt more comfortable knowing their instructor would not ‘but them down’, that they
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 82

felt their opinions mattered and where other students affirmed each other in a safe space. In
essence, both males and females desire more and better feedback so they will be better equipped
academically to complete the next assignment and the requirement of a neutral, nurturing setting
in which to learn.
Summary. The research question asked if there was a difference between the degree to
which males vs. females experience validation. There is a difference as indicated by the results
of the t-test but the difference is not significant. The qualitative data also indicates that there is a
slight difference relative to Instructor Shows and Instructor Cares. In this regard, an Instructor
who shows that they genuinely care how their students are doing in the course, is sending a
second powerful message. It is the message of the theme ‘Context of Care’ that translates to
students positively that their online course is a safe space to share their thoughts, ideas and
experience without judgment, ridicule or mockery. The Context of Care is embracing,
encouraging, helpful, and accessible and most importantly, a strong belief in the student.

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, Is there a relationship between the students’ age and the
degree to which they experience validation? A correlation analysis was conducted to investigate
the association among the demographic variable of Age and its influence on the relationships
between the dependent variables of Student Experiences (Student feels Capable, Student feels
Encouraged and Student feels Accepted) and the independent variables of Validation (Instructor
Shows, Instructor Cares and Instructor Feedback). Table 7 summarizes the results from the
correlation analysis on the influence of Age and the relationships between the dependent
variables of Student Experiences (Student feels Accepted, Student feels Encouraged and Student
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 83

feels Capable) and the independent variables of Validation (Instructor Shows, Instructor Cares
and Instructor Feedback).
According to the results of the correlation analysis for 18 – 24 year old online students
(n = 15), Student feels Encouraged and Instructor Shows had a significant, positive and strong
association (r = .634*, p = 0.011), as well as with Instructor Cares (r = .617*, p = 0.014),
however, Instructor Feedback was strong but not significant (r = .518, p = 0.048). The results
for Student feels Capable also had a strong relationship with Instructor Cares (r = .692**,
p = 0.004) and with Instructor Shows (r = .642*, p = 0.010), but not with Instructor Feedback
(r = 0.161, p = 0.566). The results for Student feels Accepted and Instructor Cares had a strong
and positive relationship (r = .577*, p = 0.024) but the association was weak for Instructor
Shows (r = 0.262, p = .346) and Instructor Feedback (r = 0.148, p = 0.599). The main focus for
18 – 24 year old online students is that the more the Instructor Cares, the more this demographic
group feels encouraged to persist in their successful completion of their online course. The
cultural iconic Rosie the Riveter, in her symbolic blue workshirt, red and white polka dot headtie
and arm bent to reveal a fist, represents the American women who worked in factories and
shipyards during World War I. Above Rosie’s head are four words every student loves to hear,
“You can do it.” One student, Participant #3 (African American Female aged 55 – 64) had the
following comments about her perception of Instructor Cares:
Researcher How has your instructor shown you that they
accept you as a capable student?
Participant #3 She does all the time. She encourages me that I
can do it. Encouraging me not to drop the class
and that I can do it.
Researcher Has any of your online instructions shown you that
they care whether you are learning?
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 84

Participant #3 Yes, because she will ask me when I am talking
with her, is there anything else she can help me
with. Is there any additional information that she
can refer to me. With her help, I know I can do
it.”
Researcher Do what?
Participant #3 Do the work so I can pass the class.

Instructor Shows has a strong presence for 25 – 34 year old online students (n = 15). The
results revealed a strong, positive association for Instructor Shows and Student feels Capable
(r = .796**, p = 0.000), Student feels Accepted (r = .745, p = 0.002) and Student feels
Encouraged (r = .741*, p = 0.002). Other results for 25 – 34 year old online students were
modestly average with Instructor Cares and Student feels Capable (r = 0.465, p = 0.081), Student
feels Encouraged (r = 0.134, p = 0.633), and Student feels Accepted (r = 0.308, p = 0.263).
Instructor Feedback was tempered as well with Student feels Encouraged (r = 0.464, p = 0.082),
Student feels Accepted (r = 0.309, p = 0.262) and Student feels Capable (r = 0.201, p = 0.473).
The results revealed that there is a significant positive relationship between Student feels
Accepted and Instructor Shows and all of the dependent variables of Student Experiences
(Student feels Capable, Student feels Encouraged, Student feels Accepted).
For online students classified in the 35 – 44 years old group (n = 9), Student feels
Capable was the primary positive student experience. The results for Student feels Capable and
Instructor Shows was statistically significant, strong and direct (r = .949**, p = 0.000) as well as
with Instructor Cares (r = .919**, p = 0.000) and Instructor Feedback (r = .809**, p = 0.008).
Students also felt strongly regarding Student feels Accepted with Instructor Cares (r = .816,
p = 0.007), Instructor Shows (r = .672, p = 0.047) and with Instructor Feedback (r = 0.573,
p = 0.107). The results for Student feels Encouraged and Instructor Cares was significantly
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 85

positive (r = .775*, p = 0.014), strong with Instructor Shows (r = 0.663, p = 0.052) and strong
with Instructor Feedback (r = 0.533, p = 0.140). Feeling accepted as capable students by their
instructors is an influence that is robust. Participant #5 (African American Male aged 35 – 44)
elaborated on feeling capable based on an example of Instructor Shows:
“By positive comments and making constructive criticisms about
my work. Again, pushing me to do good and looking at my
work and really sharing what they think, and I really think it is
up to me to grow in order to grow in this class.”

The results were extremely strong and direct for the 45 – 54 years old group (n = 6). The
results for Student feels Encouraged with Instructor Shows was significant, positive and very
strong (r = .926**, p = 0.008), Instructor Cares (r = .919**, p = 0.010) and Instructor Feedback
(r = 0.000, p = 1.000). The results for Student feels Accepted with Instructor Shows was also
strong and direct (r = .926, p = 0.008), Instructor Cares (r = .919**, p = 0.010) and Instructor
Feedback (r = 0.000, p = 1.000). The results for Student feels Capable with Instructor Feedback
yielded a small and indirect relationship (r = -0.218, p = 0.678), but with more positive positions
with Instructor Shows (r = 1.000, p = 0.000) and Instructor Cares (r = 0.756, p = 0.082). This
age group of 45 - 54 year old online students value feeling encouraged to openly share their
views in class and want to feel accepted as a person by their instructor. To help demonstrate
how a student feels encouraged, Participant #4 (Hispanic/Latino Male aged 45 – 54) shared the
following example of how he was encouraged:
“They want to make sure you are reading your assignments, your
materials. They also put a lot into the discussion questions and
they want us to do peer reviews, they want us to write a lot
otherwise we are not going to be helpful to the other students and
we are not going to learn ourselves what we need to work on.”

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 86

The results for the 55 – 64 year old group (n = 3) were limited due to the small number of
survey participants and the associations yielded both direct and indirect positions. The
associations were strong between Student feels Capable when Instructor Shows (r = 1.000**,
p = 0.000), Instructor Cares (r = 0.866, p = 0.500) and Instructor Feedback (r = 0.500,
p = 0.667). The relationship was also strong for Student feels Encouraged and Instructor Shows
(r = 0.866, p = 0.333) Instructor Feedback (r = 0.866, p = 0.333) and Instructor Cares (r = 0.500,
p = 0.667). The result for Student feels Accepted and Instructor Feedback was indirect
(r = -1.000, p = 0.000). Participant #2 (Caucasian Male aged 55 – 64) commented on the lack of
feedback and its impact on him personally:
“Well, it’s a little bit discouraging and also, and sometimes it’s a
little bit bothersome because it takes time and effort in your day --
whatever the work is, and with some of the classes that I have
taken, I would like to have some honesty because I am actually
trying to learn something. And some of the classes, they have
been a pain in the butt and it has been a waste of my time and in
those classes, I didn’t care because again, of where I am in my
career, it seems more appropriate for the kid who is taking classes
to confirm their degree.”

Overall, online students aged 55 – 64 feel capable when the instructor shows that they believe in
the students’ ability to do the classwork; however, the more Instructor Feedback provided, the
less 55 - 64 year old students feel Accepted.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 87

Table 7
Correlation Results Predicting Question 3
Age

Instructor
Shows
Instructor
Cares
Instructor/
Feedback

18 - 24 Student feels
Capable
Pearson Correlation .642** .692** 0.161
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.010 0.004 0.566
N 15 15 15

Student feels
Encouraged
Pearson Correlation .634* .617* .518
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.011 0.014 0.048
N 15 15 15

Student feels
Accepted
Pearson Correlation .0262 .577* 0.148
Sig. (2-tailed) .346 0.024 0.599
N 15 15 15

25 - 34 Student feels
Capable
Pearson Correlation .796** 0.465 0.201
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.081 0.473
N 15 15 15

Student feels
Encouraged
Pearson Correlation .741* 0.134 0.464
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.633 0.082
N 15 15 15

Student feels
Accepted
Pearson Correlation .745** 0.308 0.309
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.263 0.262
N 15 15 15

35 - 44 Student feels
Capable
Pearson Correlation .949** .919** .809**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.008
N 9 9 9

Student feels
Accepted
Pearson Correlation .672 .816 0.573
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.047 0.007 0.107
N 9 9 9

Student feels
Encouraged
Pearson Correlation 0.663 .775* 0.533
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.052 0.014 0.140
N 9 9 9

45 - 54 Student feels
Capable
Pearson Correlation 1.000 0.756 -0.218
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.082 0.678
N 6 6 6

Student feels
Encouraged
Pearson Correlation .926** .919** 0.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.008 0.010 1.000
N 6 6 6

Student feels
Accepted
Pearson Correlation .926 .919** 0.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.008 0.010 1.000
N 6 6 6

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 88

55 - 64 Student feels
Capable
Pearson Correlation 1.000** 0.866 0.500
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.500 0.667
N 3 3 3

Student feels
Encouraged
Pearson Correlation 0.866 0.500 0.866
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.333 0.667 0.333
N 3 3 3

Student feels
Accepted
Pearson Correlation 0.500 0.000 -1.000**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.667 1.000 0.000
N 3 3 3

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

When asked how an online instructor actually shows that they care enough wherein students are
themselves encouraged, the following responses were offered:
Participant #6 (Hispanic/Latina Female aged 18 – 24):
“It gives me more confidence knowing that she is there. So
whenever I have a question, I know she is there.”

Participant #8 (Hispanic/Latina Female aged 25 – 34):
“Yeah. I just know that I have a really big input just like
everyone else does. I am not going to be put down by what I
have to say or whatever my opinion.”

Participant #1 (African American Male, aged 35 – 44):
“She included me and she never put what I said down. She never
made me feel like I didn’t know what I was talking about. Even
when I was a little off in what I was discussing or off on my
answer, she had a compassionate way of getting me back on track
and that meant a lot to me.”

Participant #4 (Hispanic/Latino Male aged 45 – 54):
“I can tell by the feedback from the assignment and its all been
positive. If I make a mistake they tell me how to work on it.”

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 89

Participant #3 (African American Female, aged 55 – 64):
“She is pulling it out of me… The answer and how to go about
getting the answers…”

Summary. The research question asked if there was a relationship between the students’
age and the degree to which they experience validation. There was a relationship among the age
groups and the independent variables of Validation in the online environment and that
relationship was strong. To be exact, Instructor Cares and Instructor Shows were dual dominant
variables. The strength of the relationship of Instructor Cares to Student feels Encouraged for
the age group 18 – 24 was r =.617*, p = .014. For the age group 25 – 34, the relationship was
strong for Instructor Shows and Student feels Encouraged (r = .741*, p = 0.002); for the age
group 35 – 44, the relationship was significantly strong for Instructor Cares and Student feels
Encouraged (r = .775*, p = 0.014) and the same with the age group of 45 – 54 with Instructor
Shows and Student Feels Encouraged (r = .926**, p = 0.008).
In this regard, an Instructor who shows and an instructor who shows that they care
enough wherein students feel encouraged is sending a third powerful message to their students.
It is the message of the theme ‘Generational Courtesies’ that translates to students positively that
whatever age group they are in, care will be taken, courtesies will be extended and regardless of
your age, students will be respected. The goal of the online instructor is to facilitate a platform
for student learning. Acknowledging students at whatever age they are in their academic cycle is
important because students live their lives differently and come equipped with a multitude of
experiences. Extending common courtesies by being aware of the age differences can lead to
positive interactions between the online instructor and her students and in peer-to-peer
relationships as well.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 90

Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, Do students from different ethnic backgrounds experience
different degrees of validation? A one-way between-groups ANOVA was calculated to
investigate the different degrees of validation for participants from different ethnic backgrounds.
ANOVA tells whether there are significant differences in the mean scores on the dependent
variable across the groups. Post-hoc tests can then be used to find out where these differences lie
(Pallant, 2013). The analysis was on the independent variable of Ethnicity and the dependent
variables of Student Experiences (consisted of Student feels Capable, Student feels Encouraged
and Student feels Accepted). Table 8 summarizes the results from the ANOVA calculation on
the degree of difference between and within the groups of ethnicities. According to the results of
the ANOVA calculation, there was no significant degree of difference between groups or within
groups, F(3, 44) = .714, p = .549 (see also Appendix Q).
Table 8
ANOVA Results Predicting Question 4
Dependent Variable: Total StudExp

Sum of Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 19.646 3 6.549 .714 .549
Within Groups 403.604 44 9.173
Total 423.250 47

The quantitative test indicated that students from different ethnic backgrounds do not
experience different degrees of validation. However, this is a mixed-methods study focused on
students in the online environment wherein ethnicity is not important, not emphasized nor is it an
automatic grouping mechanism. All students, regardless of their ethnicity and whether online or
in a traditional classroom, want to feel valued by their instructor for bringing valuable ideas to
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 91

the class. A student can feel valued by receiving feedback from the instructor or conversely, feel
alienated by limited or virtually no feedback. Feeling valued is a student experience.
The Instructor Feedback variable of the dependent variable Validation was correlated to
Student feels Value of the independent variable Student Experiences (r = .425**, p = .003).
Although this was a moderate association, the relationship was significant nonetheless. The
more Instructor Feedback, the more the Student feels Valued. From the qualitative data, value
experienced by online students, regardless of their ethnicity, can come in many forms. For
Participant #1, (African American Male aged 25 – 34), feeling valued is provided by an
instructor’s affirmation:
“Yes, yes, yes. So, it was almost like she had a formula. She started
off with an affirmation, great job, great job. This is what we need to
work on and then after affirming, she let me know what areas I
needed to improve upon and then after that, she affirmed again. The
last thing she said was an affirmation so she kind of left it on a
high.”

Research is extremely limited relative to students of color and validation, and even more
limited to validation in the online setting, however, there is a single study which focuses on men
of color and validation. Xiong, Allen and Wood (2016) examined the role of community college
counselors as validating agents on men of color student success and concluded there were five
themes surrounding academic validation. The five themes were affirming students’ capability of
academic success, (b) affirming students’ voices, (c) validating students as equal contributors to
the counseling experience, (d) providing proactive academic support and (e) providing positive
reinforcement of academic successes. Although this research pertained to men of color, the
findings could just as well be applied to all students, regardless of their ethnicity. All online
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 92

students desire acknowledgement for their academic success; validation and feedback could have
a positive influence on completing online assignments and ultimately on course completion.
Receiving Instructor Feedback can have a direct influence on online students’ overall
student experience, particularly as it relates to feeling valued. Some students feel valued by the
type of feedback they receive from their online instructors – as well as from their peers. In the
instance of Participant #4 (Hispanic/Latino Male, aged 45 – 54), feeling valued is connected to
the numerous ways he is able to access feedback:
“I feel because the processor will acknowledge my work and give
me feedback and other students will respond to my posts as well.
So I have other students reaching out to me and I do that for other
students. And the professors have conference calls too and we can
email them and we can even use skype so they offer too and they
have the open door policy where you can go on campus and talk to
a person.”

In the course of a community college student’s academic journey, there will be times
when on-campus classes are unavailable and online classes are offered as alternatives. The
online experiences will be different for all students -- regardless of their ethnicity. The
experience will be based largely on the variety of ways in which online instructors provide
validation through feedback. Being acknowledged for the ideas that they bring to the online
class helps students feel valued. Barnett (2011) posited that for community college students in
the traditional classroom, one of the subconstructs of faculty validation was that of ‘students
known and valued.’ In the online course, an easy way to be known by the instructor (and other
students) is through the posting responsibilities and activities. Instructor feedback and peer
feedback can both nurture valued feelings for students, as Participant #7 (Caucasian Female,
aged 25 – 34) elaborated:
Researcher Do you feel as though you are treated equally to
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 93

other students in your online course discussions?

Participant #7 In short yes. Examples, I don’t know. It’s a
typical standard. If an instructor responds to a
majority every rarely it seems that they are
missing any one person, its either that they are
running through the forum too quickly or it has
happened to all of us at one point or another and
it is the exception to the rule not necessarily the
norm. And you do have some instructors that
very rarely make a presence which nobody, you
can’t really predict who they will respond to.

Researcher So it’s not so much in terms of diversity as it is
ethnicity but a diversity in terms of who
responds and posts?

Participant #7 Right. And I can use that same lens with gender,
religious beliefs, it’s fairly seamless in my eyes,
I think in an online environment.

Summary. The research question asked if students from different ethnic backgrounds
experience different degrees of validation. A significant difference did not exist for students
from different ethnic background and how they experience different degrees of validation in their
online courses. In this regard, an Instructor who does not provide a lot of feedback to their
students risks alienating some students. It is imperative to respond back to students in a timely
manner but it is equally important to provide additional information that will help students on
subsequent assignments. This last powerful message to online students is the message of the
theme ‘Feedback Values.’ Online instructors need more than an introductory video to signify
teacher presence. Students want their voices heard and they want to be accepted, respected and
acknowledged for having the courage to share their experiences in an online platform. Online
instructors can provide Feedback Value by ensuring each online students’ posts are read and
acknowledged in some format, that general discussions are furthered by follow-up questions and
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 94

that each email sent, a response is provided. When online instructors provide Feedback Value,
students notice and they appreciate it immensely.
Chapter Summary
Results of the correlation analysis indicated that Student feels Capable had very strong
direct relationships with both independent variables Instructor Shows and Instructor Cares.
Online students for this study want to feel accepted as capable students by their online
instructors. Specifically, online students between the ages of 35 – 44 (n = 9) want to feel their
instructors regard them as capable and academically prepared to handle the requirements and
rigor of the online course. With a significant correlation (r = 1.000**, p = 0.000) at the 0.01
significant level, online students aged 55 – 64 (n = 3) also highly value being viewed as capable
by their online instructor when that online instructor shows the student that they believe in their
ability to do the coursework. The only age group to have an indirect (and weak) relationship
with Student feels Capable was the 45 – 54 age group (n = 6). The more Instructor Feedback this
age group received, the less the student feels their instructor accepts them as a capable student.
While many of the correlations represented strong relationships and can easily be
interpreted as outliers, one of the independent variables was predominate in its representation of
strong association. The independent variable of Instructor Shows had a consistently strong and
significant association evident in all age groups, with the exception of one age group (18-24 year
olds) - (r = .0262, p = .346). The consistency of the presence of Instructor Shows indicated that
online students want their online instructors to believe in their abilities to do the coursework and
to be successful online course completers.
The results from another independent variable were notable for this study. The
independent variable Instructor Feedback provided both direct and indirect influences, strong,
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 95

medium and weak relationships, and significant positions at both the p = 0.01 level and the
p = 0.05 level. Students aged 35 – 44 (n = 9) valued the feedback they have received from their
online instructors but other groups view the lack of feedback from their online instructors
differently. There was not a clear significant difference in the way males and females experience
validation; however, more females in the study voiced their disapproval of the manner in which
feedback was provided. Conversely, for students aged 45 – 54 (n = 6), there was a small,
indirect association. For students aged 55 – 64 (n = 3), there was a significant, indirect
association. Lastly, although males and females measured similar with strong associations with
Instructor Shows, the results for Instructor Feedback was strong only for the males, particularly,
the association was significant at the p= 0.01 level in comparison to females who had overall
small associations.
No identified studies have examined the relationship between validation and student
experiences at the community college level in online courses.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 96

CHAPTER FIVE
Findings, Conclusions and Implications
This study quantitatively and qualitatively examined the degree of student experiences
for nontraditional community college students who experienced validation in their online
courses. This chapter illustrates an overview of the study, findings, and conclusions based on the
findings, implications regarding the issues raised in the research, and recommendations for future
research.
Summary of the Study
In 2011-2012, one fifth of college students in California community colleges were
enrolled in at least one online course for credit – seven times higher than the share enrolled in
2002-2003 (Johnson & Mejia, 2014). Community college students in California are less
successful in online courses than in traditional courses – for all kinds of students, in all subject
areas, at almost all colleges around the state (Johnson & Mejia, 2014). First generation college
students, low-income students, female students and students of color are at a greater risk of
dropping out of online courses (U.S. Department of Education, 2009; Zamani-Gallagher, 2007).
Students who have taken an online course were “more likely to recommend distance education,
and that “successful completion of other distance education courses is a good predictor of
students who are likely to complete subsequent courses” (King, 2001, p. 414).
While online course retention can be attributed to several factors, research has
highlighted the role of instructor feedback as an influencing factor. The Validation Theory has
shown to positively affect college students (Rendon, 1994). While extensive qualitative research
has focused on the tenants of Validation Theory in numerous teaching modalities, very few
studies have examined the Validation Theory in a mixed-methods context and even fewer that
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 97

have studied Validation Theory within the online environment, highlighting the relevancy and
importance for this exploration.
These efforts are constructive, given the growing preference and acclimation of online
learning by nontraditional community college students, but much remains unknown about the
relationship of Validation Theory and Student Experiences in online courses. The majority of
studies that highlight the relationship between nontraditional community college students and
online learning focus on predictors of success such as test scores, high school GPA, proximity to
college, family responsibilities and life obligations. Also, little is known about the degree of
experiences students have when one form of validation is displayed by their online instructor
while other forms of validation are held fixed.
In an effort to identify to what degree validation variables are related to student
experiences based on gender, age and ethnicity, the present study was an attempt to identify
experiences that were most related to these outcomes. A survey was administered online to
establish participants’ perceptions of online instructor validation and their accompanying student
experiences. A t-test was administered to capture any differences between male and female
student experiences with validation. Correlations were calculated between Student Experiences
and Validation as well as with the various age groups. ANOVA was calculated to determine if
there were any differences of degrees that exist for students of different ethnic backgrounds.
Cronbach alpha was calculated to determine the internal consistency of the items; Normality was
assessed to obtain normality of scores. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted to glean
additional experiential information regarding survey results.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 98

Findings
Results of the correlation analyses demonstrated that Student feels Capable had an overall
significant predictor in all variable categories of Instructor Shows, Instructor Cares, Instructor
Feedback. African American and Hispanic/Latino/a students reported a particularly statistically
significant predictor to Student feels Capable than did Caucasian and Asians/Pacific Islander
students. Student feels Capable encompasses students feeling accepted as capable students by
their instructors, indicating students want their instructors to know that despite the obstacles of
being part-time students, with all of the family and life responsibilities, they are capable of
completing the coursework and being successful at completing the course.
Regarding Student Experiences, results of the correlation analyses demonstrated that
Student feels Capable, Student feels Encouraged and Student feels Accepted were significantly
impacted by the variables of Validation (Question 1). Also, the most concentrated Validation
variable that impacted Student Experiences was Instructor Shows (Question 1a). There was no
significant degree of difference between males and females and their student experiences with
validation (Question 2). Results of the correlation analyses on age of students who experienced
validation indicated that for the age group of 45 – 54 (n = 6) there was a weak and indirect
association to Instructor Feedback (Item 3). There were statistically significant results for
Student feels Encouraged and Student feels Accepted in response to Instructor Shows and
Instructor Cares (Item 3). There was no significant degree of difference among the ethnicities
and their student experiences with validation. There was also no interaction of any of these
ethnicities and their degree of difference relative to validation (Question 4).

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 99

Conclusions
This exploratory study found that Student feels Capable was a significant predictor of
Validation and that Instructor Shows was a significant predictor for Student Experiences. There
was no degree of difference between males and females and no significant difference among the
student from different ethnic backgrounds. There was however, a strong and significant
association between the 18-24 age group and Instructor Shows.
As discussed in Chapter 2, Validation refers to interactions with students, initiated by
faculty and others in the campus community, which engenders feelings of self-worth and a belief
in the students’ ability to succeed in the college environment (Rendon, 1994). Considering the
increase of nontraditional students who have enrolled in community colleges, it is not surprising
that these students value the feeling of capability as measured by their abilities to coordinate
family and life responsibilities while pursuing their educational goals. There is some research
which points to the negative impact of online education for community college students in
introductory Math and English courses (Xu & Jaggars, 2013). Xiong, Allen and Wood (2015)
found that affirming students’ capability of academic success was meaningful as one of the eight
themes that emerged from their qualitative study of thirteen counselors from seven community
colleges. Other themes of this research were affirming students’ voices, validating students as
equal contributors to the counseling experience, providing proactive academic support, and
providing positive reinforcement of academic successes (Xiong, Allen & Wood, 2015). For
marginalized, ‘at-risk’ community college students, having instructors believe that they are
capable of succeeding in online courses can have a tremendous impact on retention rates and
students’ college completion.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 100

Student experiences in online courses vary considerably. Some students are new to the
new instruction modality and must navigate learning how to use and access the tools and
resources on the school’s learning management system. Some students do not realize the time
commitment involved in maintaining a presence within the online community by writing posts
and responding to other students’ post within a given time period. There are students who feel
less secure about their writing skills and do not know how to adequately respond in a written
discourse environment. Some students experience anxiety and frustration because the online
course is a new experience altogether. The physical structures of a classroom and a teacher at
the front of the room has been replaced by the digital parameters of an online environment and
the teacher available through Skype or telephone. And then there are students who have
successfully completed at least one prior online course and have become acclimated to the
process of posting, navigating resources and accessing the online community for answers,
clarification and support. For participants of this study, the student experiences were measured
by Student feels Capable, Student feels Encouraged and Student feels Accepted. Students have
these experiences because of the actions of the institutional agent, or in this instance, the online
instructor. In order for students to have these experiences, the online instructor must do some
form of action. For this study, the results indicated highly that Instructor Shows is a weighty
predictor to these three positive student experiences. Wood and Turner (2010) posited that
faculty-student engagement can be shown in the forms of being friendly, reassurance, checking-
in, listening to issues and concerns, and periodically checking student performance. Validation
occurs when students have an institutional agent – an online instructor – actively reach out to
encourage and support them (Rendon, 1994). Students are affected by validation and how it is
shown. As students feel online instructors care and provide support and encouragement, students
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 101

feel more confident and feel recognized as capable learners (Linares, Rendon, Munoz, 2011).
For the online instructor, it is a matter of paying attention to all students, their concerns and
issues and addressing students in a format that signifies encouragement, concern, care and
support. Barnett (2011) revealed in her study of validation and community college students that
when faculty show validation, students are more likely to demonstrate their intent to persist.
As community colleges continue to offer more online courses to relieve the bottleneck
issues of required, transferrable courses, it is imperative to consider feedback as a relevant input
of intervention. Feedback is defined as “information communicated to the learner that is
intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving learning”
(Shute, 2008, p. 1). Students perceive effective instructor feedback to be feedback provided in a
timely manner with specific, constructive guidance to make changes and apply to future
assignments (Getzlaf, Perry, Toffner, Lamarche & Edwards, 2009). Failure to provide timely
feedback may decrease motivation to make changes and decreases deeper learning (Stein,
Wanstreet, Slagle, Trinko, & Lutz, 2013). Teacher presence in the Community of Inquiry (CoI)
also established instructor feedback as a premium input for faculty-student engagement.
Feedback from online instructors can be identified as a form of Mattering wherein “the beliefs
people have, whether right or wrong, that they matter to someone else, that they are the object of
someone else’s attention, and that others care about them and appreciate them” (Schlossberg,
Lynch & Chickering, 1989). For all students, Mattering is extremely important. Being enrolled
in an online course that provides a supportive, welcoming environment wherein students
perceive that they matter will enhance the opportunities they have for involvement and online
course success. Positive student experiences with the learning environment, with institutional
agents such as online instructors, will help increase Mattering. As Schlossberg (1989) posited:
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 102

Institutions that focus on mattering and greater student
involvement will be more successful in creating campuses where
students are motivated to learn, where their retention is high, and
ultimately, where their institutional loyalty for the short- and long-
term future is ensured. (p. 14).

Hattie and Temperly (2007) posited that written feedback on course activities was the
primary means of instruction in online settings. Effective feedback helps students to navigate
how they are progressing on the course assignments and within the context of the online course.
Effective feedback also increases student satisfaction, which is linked to improved retention rates
(Hattie & Temperly, 2007). Among the findings of this study, Instructor Feedback was found to
be significantly critical to online students feeling Validation from their instructors. The
definition of ‘lots of feedback’ is not defined in this study so the researcher cannot determine if
students perceive ‘lots of feedback’ as occasional feedback, feedback with limited explanation,
feedback that is simply a grade or as suggestions for students to improve performance and
increase their knowledge and skills. Getzlaf, Perry, Toffner, Lamarche & Edwards (2009) found
in their study that student perceptions of effective instructor feedback as gentle guidance,
positive, constructive comments, timeliness, and future orientation as important feedback
considerations. Sanchez and Gunawardena (1998) have suggested that “reflecting on the
maintenance of motivation, the Hispanic learning style profile shows a strong preference for
feedback. Faculty teaching at a distance need to be mindful of providing frequent and adequate
feedback to support these learners” (p. 9).
An additional element of Instructor Feedback and Validation was the indirect association
of the age groups of 45 – 54 (n = 6) and 55 – 64 (n = 3). The more Instructor Feedback these
two age groups received, the less they felt validated. This result mirrors the claim and
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 103

assumptions that older adult students tend to be more intrinsically motivated and self-directed –
tenants of andragogy and the two prominent learner features in the online learning environment
(Dabbagh, 2007; Knowles, 1989). The research is limited regarding the older adult student
population and online learning. There is even less research on these two variables and what
factors and strategies could be best utilized regarding instructor feedback. Online courses are
now a central frame for most colleges and universities and are particularly prevalent at
community colleges. It stands to reason that enrollment trends of nontraditional students who
are classified as older adult students will continue to be a significant portion of students enrolling
in online courses. The type and quality of instructor feedback for this student demographic is
important and warrants additional research.
Implications
Four implications arise from this study. First, Instructor Shows is key to demonstrating
validation in online instruction for nontraditional students at the community college level.
Instruction in the online environment is very different than in the traditional classroom. In the
traditional classroom, students have the opportunity to physically see their instructor and fellow
classmates face-to-face. Likewise, students have the opportunity to ask questions immediately to
gain a more enhanced understanding of the tasks required or clarification on any activity that
may require additional information. In the online course, it is imperative that the online
instructor understands the importance of showing they believe their students are capable learners,
equipped to handle the rigors of the coursework. Online instructors should show nontraditional
students that they care about whether or not they are learning, care about their concerns for
approaching new material and care when students are having difficulties in meeting deadlines.
When online instructors show this type of care, it is a part of validating nontraditional students,
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 104

acknowledging and accepting them, and thus showing students that they matter. Institutional
efforts to facilitate online instructor validation in online courses may contribute to nontraditional
students successfully completing their online courses.
Validation can be utilized as a pedagogical tool that encourages, supports and affirms.
Validation can serve as a intervention of students’ academic success and contribute to their
persistence. The results of this study overwhelmingly indicated that nontraditional students want
their online instructors to view them as capable learners. Validation can positively shape a
student’s college experience and influence successful academic outcomes. Lastly, validation
bridges the faculty-student relationship by creating a safe space for students to seek additional
information, answers and academic support. Rendon’s (1994) academic validation builds
confidence in students, particularly for nontraditional students and students of color. Although
Rendon’s study was conducted over twenty years ago, the tenants of validation are just as
relevant today as they were in 1994. Online students want their voices heard, they want to feel
as though they matter, that they are valued and that they can be successful not only in their
online courses but ultimately, in completing their graduation requirements. Institutional efforts
to facilitate the exposure to predictive analytics and how it can determine time sequences and
select periods in which instructor validation in online courses works best may increase the use of
validation by instructors in online education. An examination of how and when validation is
used in an online course with pre- and post-surveys should be conducted.
The third implication is that of Instructor Feedback. Feedback needs to be more than just
timely, it needs to be positive, personalized, encouraging and helpful. Feedback is so critical to
online students feeling encouraged that it is a prominent factor in their decisions to continue an
online course and their persistence. Given the nature of how generic the term feedback can be,
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 105

an examination of how students perceive feedback is pertinent. Because students of color may
have different interpretations of effective feedback, an examination of the triangulation of
Validation, Cultural Teaching Theory and Instructor Feedback should be conducted.
The fourth implication is for program implementation. Teaching graduate students how
to build and incorporate validation within their curriculum should be considered for teacher
training programs and how validation impacts nontraditional students and particularly, students
of color. Further, the development of rubrics that incorporate validation strategies should be
standardized within each department ultimately to become a given standard intervention in every
program within all departments.
A fifth implication, how online Validation influences subsequent course completions and
graduation for nontraditional students, should be researched from a longitudinal time frame. As
more nontraditional and students of color become more acclimated to online learning, research
on the degree of influence of online validation on subsequent online course completions -- not
just one course but an entire program -- could prove valuable in determining the impact of
validation on persistence to graduation.
Lastly, the sixth implication is that of online validation and online pedagogy. Awareness,
acknowledgement and recognition of Mattering, the affective domain and Validation as a
teaching unit that is usable, actionable and quantifying as a pedagogical tool intervention, should
be reviewed for purpose, implementation and subsequent assessment.
Future Research
The present study provided a beginning point of integrating Validation in the online
environment with nontraditional students at the community college level. In response to this
study, there are several areas that were not addressed. The findings of this study present an
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 106

opportunity to explore online pedagogy and how nontraditional students can benefit from
validation to become successful online learners.
First, to determine how nontraditional students, particularly students of color determine
effective feedback, several variables were not considered, such as which words or which sets of
words engender validation, what types of language is used by online instructors when
constructing feedback and whether this language is clear and familiar or unclear and unfamiliar.
A discourse analysis examination could be conducted to determine which words or sets of words
are most often used when online instructors are implementing validation in their online courses.
Second, students completed the survey during the third week of their online courses.
Three of the students were enrolled in their first online course. Factors that were not taken into
consideration were whether students truly understood the meaning of validation and how
validation was demonstrated in an online context. Future research could be conducted by survey
at three intervals of time: at the beginning of the online course, during the online course and after
the completion of the online course.
Third, there were 5 age groups who completed the survey and three age groups who were
interviewed. For each of the age groups there were different dynamics present: Students aged 35
– 44 and 55 – 64 had strong associations to Instructor Feedback; students in age group 45 – 54
had a weak association. Students in age groups 45-54 and 55 – 64 had indirect relationships.
For the students in 18-24, there was a weak association to Instructor Shows. This study did not
explore why these associations were either strong, weak, direct or indirect. Determining how
Validation associates with the various generational groups in the online environment is worthy of
research. This exploration can also determine the types of feedback these various age groups
prefer in order to feel capable, encouraged and accepted.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 107

Fourth, how online instructors demonstrate validation was not covered in this study.
Sample language of validation in the online course was not used to show students what
validation looks like nor were there any interviews of online instructors and how they
demonstrate validation in their online courses. Research that examines online instructors’ use of
validation and the language they use should be explored. Additionally, distance education
administrator could offer professional development courses that 1) teaches how to validate
students in online courses; 2) what generational strategies to use for the various age groups; and
3) how to implement Cultural Learning Theory for students of color.
Lastly, two specific variables, both independent (Instructor Shows and Instructor Cares)
presented extremely strong and significant associations to the dependent variable Student feels
Capable (i.e., .949** and .919** for Question #3 when the overall average mean was .308 -
.415). These particularly strong numbers could possibly be interpreted as outliers – those
extreme observations that are distant from other observations or scores. Outliers in statistics can
mean several things. For instance, having the presence of outliers in a correlation calculation
could indicate variability in measurement, experimental error, human input error or a heavy-
tailed distribution. For this research, several tests were generated and regenerated after carefully
checking and reviewing inputted data, the effect of reversed scores on output, the viewing of
scatterplots, histograms, inter-item reliability from Cronbach’s alpha and generating a Normality
test. The researcher of this study concluded that the ‘outliers’ were in fact valid and did not
indicate any abnormality or violation and thus decided to retain all outliers in the study. The
researcher of this study has embraced these outliers, seeing instead that they serve as possibilities
for future benchmarks. All of the scatterplots indicated a positive linear association. Outliers,
although extreme and distant, are what online instructors can strive toward – more showing,
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 108

more caring. For online instructors, these outlier positions indicate there is room for
improvement – for them -- not for the online students. Outliers show the future of where the
point of position should be, not as an outlier but as the Mean and therefore, outliers serve as
immediate destination points to keep the focus on growth and continual improvement.
Summary
In an effort to identify to what degree nontraditional online students experience validation
and how, this study conducted a mixed-method exploration analyses of the dependent variables
of Validation and the Independent variables of Student Experiences. Results indicated that
Student feels Capable was a significant predictor of Instructor Shows, Instructor Cares and
Instructor Feedback. Specifically, Student feels Capable is when a student feels accepted as a
capable student by their instructor. This student experience was demonstrated in the results for
both genders, all age groups and all ethnicities. Another significant association was Instructor
Shows with four of the five age groups identifying with this independent variable along with
both genders and all ethnicities. Third, Instructor Feedback was strong for the age groups of 35
– 44 and 55 – 64. There was an indirect relationship with Instructor Feedback with 2 age groups:
45 – 54 and 55 – 64 and a weak association for students aged 45 – 54.
This study contributes to an existing body of research for Validation and generates new
frontiers for Validation for nontraditional community college students in their online courses.
Online instructors who show validation by accepting their students as capable learners provide a
safe space for students to share their views online and to be successful in the completion of their
assignments. Moreover, online instructors who show their students they care by providing
quality feedback that is encouraging, corrective and helpful for future assignments as a positive
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 109

and supportive tool to help students overcome academic barriers and become successful in their
completion of their online courses.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 110

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States,
2005. Sloan Consortium (NJ1).
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008.
The Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States,
2011. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in
the United States. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States.
Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2009). Principles and plans: A voluntary
framework of accountability for community colleges. Washington DC: AACC.
Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2010). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97.
Asia and the Pacific Programmes of Educational Innovation for Development (1995). Education
for affective development: A guidebook on programmes and practices. UNESCO,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Astleitner, H., & Steinberg, R. (2005). Are there gender differences in web-based learning? An
integrated model and related effect sizes. AACE Journal, 13(1), 47-63.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M., & Drake, L. (2010). The
Condition of Education 2010. NCES 2010-028. National Center for Education Statistics.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 111

Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013).
The Condition of Education 2013. NCES 2013-037, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Barnett, E. A. (2011). Validation experiences and persistence among community college
students. The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 193-230.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469.
Boston, W. E., Ice, P., & Gibson, A. M. (2011). Comprehensive assessment of student retention
in online learning environments. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
14(1).
Callan, P. M. (2009). California Higher Education, the Master Plan, and the Erosion of College
Opportunity. National Center Report# 09-1. National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education.
Cejda, B. (2010). Online education in community colleges. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2010(150), 7-16.
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2013). The American community college (6th ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research: Developments, debates, and
dilemmas. Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry, 315-326.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 112

methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research, 209-240.
Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 7(3), 217-226.
Dawis, R. V. (1987). Scale construction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 481.
Devellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage Publications.
Devellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications Second Edition (Applied
Social Research Methods).
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (Vol. 2). New
York: Wiley.
Douglass, J. A. (2010). From chaos to order and back? A revisionist reflection on the California
Master Plan for Higher Education@ 50 and thoughts about its future. Center for Studies
in Higher Education.
Ebel, R. L. & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essential of educational measurement (5th ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Finney, J. E., Riso, C., Orosz, K., & Boland, W. C. (2014). From master plan to mediocrity:
higher education performance & policy in California. University of Pennsylvania,
Graduate School of Education.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice.
Taylor & Francis.
Garrison, D. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovations in distance education.
Distance Education, 6(2), 235-241.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 113

Getzlaf, B., Perry, B., Toffner, G., Lamrarche, K. & Edwards, M. (2009). Effective Instructor
Feedback: Perceptions of Online Graduate Students. Journal of Educators Online, 6(2),
n2.
Grajek, S., & Arroway, P. (2012). The EDUCAUSE 2011 core data service report: Highlights
and insights into higher education information technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE,
January.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: the challenges
and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (No. 658.4032 A244). Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Hachey, A. C., Conway, K. M., & Wladis, C. W. (2013). Community colleges and
underappreciated assets: Using institutional data to promote success in online learning.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 16(1).
Hachey, A. C., Wladis, C. W., & Conway, K. M. (2013). Balancing Retention and Access in
Online Courses: Restricting Enrollment… is it Worth the Cost?. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 15(1), 9-36.
Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet
and higher education, 3(1), 41-61.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research
77(1), 81-112.
Holmberg, B. (2005). Theory and practice of distance education. Routledge.
Hoxby, C. M. (2014). The economics of online postsecondary education: MOOCs, nonselective
education, and highly selective education (No. w19816). National Bureau of Economic
Research.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 114

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students' sense of belonging. Sociology of education,
324-345.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field methods, 18(1), 3-20.
Jacobs, J. (2012). The essential role of community colleges in rebuilding the nation’s
communities and economies. Universities and Colleges as Economic Drivers: Measuring
Higher Education’s Role in Economic Development, 191.
Jaggars, S., & Xu, D. (2010). Online learning in the Virginia community college system.
Johnson, H. (2010). Higher education in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
Johnson, H. P., & Mejia, M. C. (2014). Online learning and student outcomes in California's
Community Colleges. Public Policy Institute.
Keegan, D. (Ed.). (2005). Theoretical principles of distance education. Routledge.
King, F. B. (2001). Perceptions of technology: A factor in distance education course
achievement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(4), 407-418.
Knowles, M. S. (1989). The making of an adult educator: An autobiographical journey. Jossey-
Bass Inc. Pub.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the national survey
of student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10-17.
Linares, L., Rendon, I., & Munoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical
foundations, applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 2(1), 12-33.
Marti, C. N. (2005). Dimensions of Student Engagement in American Community Colleges.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons'
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 115

responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American
psychologist, 50(9), 741.
Meyer, K. A. (2014). Quality in Distance Education: Focus on On-Line Learning. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Sage.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance
learning environments: Are they the same?. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2),
129-135.
Moore, M. G. (1993). Is teaching like flying? A total systems view of distance education.
American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 1-10.
Morris, L. V., & Finnegan, C. L. (2008). Best practices in predicting and encouraging student
persistence and achievement online. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 10(1), 55-64.
Nevarez, C., & Wood, J. L. (2010). Community college leadership and administration: Theory,
practice, and change (Vol. 3). Peter Lang.
Newell, C. C. (2007). Learner characteristics as predictors of online course completion among
nontraditional technical college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Obama. (2012). Remarks by the President in state of the union address on January 25, 2012.
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-
president-state-union-address.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 116

Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Tice, P. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2006–07. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics Institute
of Education Sciences.
Patterson, B., & McFadden, C. (2009). Attrition in online and campus degree programs. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(2).
Pope, R. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2000). Development and initial validation of the multicultural
competence in student affairs-preliminary 2 scale. Journal of College Student
Development, 41(6), 599-608.
Price, L. (2006). Gender differences and similarities in online courses: challenging stereotypical
views of women. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 349-359.
Rendón, L. I. (2002). Community college Puente: A validating model of education. Educational
Policy, 16(4), 642-667.
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative higher education, 19(1), 33-51.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in school:
The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of educational psychology, 88(3),
408.
Rovai, A. P., & Baker, J. D. (2005). Gender differences in online learning: Sense of community,
perceived learning, and interpersonal interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 6(1), 31.
Ruth, S., Sammons, M., Poulin, L. (2007). E-Learning at a crossroads – What price quality?
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(2), 32-39.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 117

Sanchez, I., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1998). Understanding and supporting the culturally diverse
distance learner. Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for
quality outcomes, 47 – 64.
Salkind, N. J. (2012). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Excel 2010 edition.
Sage.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New
directions for student services, 1989(48), 5-15.
Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1989). Improving higher education for
adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
Schlosser, L. A., & Simonson, M. R. (2009). Distance education: definitions and glossary of
terms. IAP.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-
189.
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of
web‐ based and classroom instruction: A meta‐ analysis. Personnel psychology, 59(3),
623-664.
Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Slagle, P., Trinko, L. A., & Lutz, M. (2013). From ‘hello’ to
higher-order thinking: The effect of coaching and feedback on online chats. The Internet
and Higher Education, 16, 78-84.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses
in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 6(1), 61-77.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 118

quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). Sage.
Taylor-Smith, C., Miller, A., & Bermeo, S.A. (2009). Bridging the gaps to success.
Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time eLearners: A review of factors that
contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking
eLearning programmes. Journal of Online learning and Teaching, 2(2), 73-85.
US Department of Education, N. C. F. E. S. (2009). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dr09_
Vaughan, G. B. (2006). The community college story. American Association of Community
Colleges.
Wood, J. L., & Turner, C. S. (2010). Black males and the community college: Student
perspectives on faculty and academic success. Community College Journal of Research
& Practice, 35(1-2), 135-151.
Xiong, S., Allen, C., & Wood, J. L. (2015). The role of community college counselors as
validating agents on men of color student success. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 1 – 4.
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Adaptability to Online Learning: Differences across Types of
Students and Academic Subject Areas. CCRC Working Paper No. 54. Community
College Research Center, Columbia University.
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2011). Online and Hybrid Course Enrollment and Performance in
Washington State Community and Technical Colleges. CCRC Working Paper No. 31.
Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 71-83.
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 119

Zamani-Gallaher, E. M. (2007). The confluence of race, gender, and class among community
college students: Assessing attitudes toward affirmative action in college admissions.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(3), 241-251.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical
analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. The Teachers College
Record, 107(8), 1836-1884.

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 120

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 121

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 122

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 123

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 124

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 125

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 126

APPENDIX E
Barnett
College Experience Survey
VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 127

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 128

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 129

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 130

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 131

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 132

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 133

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 134

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 135

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 136

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 137

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 138

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 139

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 140

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 141

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 142

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 143

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 144

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 145

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 146

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 147

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 148

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 149

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 150

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 151

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 152

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 153

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 154

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 155

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 156

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 157

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 158

APPENDIX Q
ANOVA Results Predicting Question 4

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 159

VALIDATION AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE COURSES 160

APPENDIX R
Conceptual Framework

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied the Validation Theory, the Affective Domain and Mattering from the academic literature to understand the relationship of validation to student experiences for online students at the community college level. The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of validation on student experiences for demographic groups of gender, age and ethnicity. Using the mixed-methods approach and applying the sequential explanatory design, the survey data of 48 online students enrolled in a transferrable English course was used to correlate the Validation Theory to student experiences. A subset of these students was interviewed to gain additional insight into their survey responses. Cronbach Alpa and the Normality test were calculated. Pearson’s Correlations was calculated for Question 1 and 1a (To what degree do nontraditional online students experience validation? If so, how?) A T-test was calculated for Question 2 (Is there a difference between the degree to which males vs. females experience validation?) Correlations were calculated for Question 3 (Is there a relationship between the students’ age and the degree to which they experience validation?) ANOVA was generated for Question 4 (Do students from different ethnic backgrounds experience different degrees of validation?) Findings from this study indicated that the Validation Theory had a significant and strong linear relationship to students’ online experiences. Instructor Shows was the dominant independent variable of Validation. There was not a significant difference of Validation experiences between males vs. females. There was a strong relationship between Instructor Cares and Instructor Shows with Student feels Encouraged for all age groups. There were no significant differences of Validation experiences for students from different ethnic backgrounds. This study begins to highlight the online pedagogical value of Validation on student experiences in online courses and its impact on online course completion and student success.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

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

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

The perceived barriers of nursing faculty presence in an asynchronous online learning environment: a case study

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college

PDF

Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

Understanding student persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCs): an evaluation study

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Examining student beliefs and behaviors in online and on-campus courses: measuring openness to diversity, voluntary peer collaboration, and help seeking

PDF

Online, flipped, and traditional instruction: a comparison of student performance in higher education

PDF

The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats

PDF

What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?

PDF

Investigating differences in online & traditional student perceptions of value and satisfaction with five key educational elements

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Davis, Sherry Denise (author)

Core Title Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/02/2016

Defense Date 07/29/2016

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

Tag affective domain,community college,Distance education,mattering,minorities,mixed methods,nontraditional students,OAI-PMH Harvest,online courses,online education,online learning,online pedagogy,online students,online teaching,student experience,student motivation,teacher presence,validation,validation theory

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Crispen, Patrick (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email sdavis9167@sbcglobal.net,sherryda@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-292827

Unique identifier UC11280700

Identifier etd-DavisSherr-4715.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-292827 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DavisSherr-4715.pdf

Dmrecord 292827

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Davis, Sherry Denise

Type texts

Source 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 a...

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