Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors
(USC Thesis Other)
Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT: A PROMISING PRACTICES STUDY OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
by
Josh Williams
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
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost I would like to thank my mother and father who took a leap of faith
and chose to adopt me from an orphanage in Vietnam during the war. I was a small sick child
who was most likely destined for a short and unpromising life. My parents’ love, dedication and
thankless generosity have given me opportunities that I know I can never repay. I’m thankful
that they believed in causes bigger than themselves and that we are a family. I want to recognize
that their choice to adopt four children has always inspired me to help and support others. I have
never forgotten where I came from and how my parent’s changed my life. I would also like to
recognize my birth parents and their families, who I have always kept in my heart. I want to tell
them thank you, I’m okay and I hope they are proud of me.
Throughout this process I’ve worked full-time and have been a single father of two
teenage boys. Being the father of Elijah and Matthew has challenged me to work harder and
strive for more so that I can be the parent who I want them to see me as. It’s been quite a
journey and although I’m far from a finished product, hopefully this process modeled the
importance of hard work, perseverance and believing in oneself.
I’d like to thank Brandy who has always offered her assistance since I’ve been in school,
whether it be to make a meal or snack, and help with the kids. Brandy has always understood
and supported that school has been a priority.
I would like to thank my writing partners April and Adam for their help and support
throughout this process. No matter the time of day, through phone calls, text messages or in
person, they’ve always been helpful, kind and insightful. I would also like to thank my other
little writing partner, Kitty the stray cat who wandered into our house thirteen years ago. He
basically sat on my homework and books every night and weekend while I typed away next to
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 3
him. He’s not the smartest guy, but nonetheless, he loves us and we love him. I would also like
to recognize my classmates and especially my cohort classmates who inspired, challenged, and
shared their stories and their lives with me for the past three years.
Lastly, I’d like to Dr. Melora Sundt, Dr. Ronni Ephraim and especially Dr. Rob Filback
for leading the way and chairing our dissertation. Rob has been instrumental in working with me
over these many months. He’s been thoughtful, respectful and professional and it’s been a
privilege to have his support.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT… .......................................................................................................... 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 4
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 12
Organizational Context and Mission ................................................................................ 13
Organizational Performance Status ................................................................................... 14
Related Literature ...............................................................................................................14
Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance ........................................... 16
Organizational Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 16
Stakeholder for the Study ................................................................................................... 17
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 17
Definitions..........................................................................................................................18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 19
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 19
Effective Co-Curricula in Online Education ......................................................................19
Factors from Learning and Motivation Theory................................................................. 20
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................... 20
Motivation ............................................................................................................. 22
Organization .......................................................................................................... 23
Factors that Facilitate or Inhibit an Effective Co-Curricula in Online Education ............ 24
Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 25
Contribute ............................................................................................................. 25
Declarative Factual ................................................................................... 25
Declarative Conceptual ............................................................................. 26
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 5
Procedural ................................................................................................. 27
Metacognitive ........................................................................................... 27
Inhibit .................................................................................................................... 28
Declarative Factual ................................................................................... 28
Declarative Conceptual ............................................................................. 29
Procedural ................................................................................................. 29
Metacognitive ........................................................................................... 30
Motivation ............................................................................................................. 31
Contribute ............................................................................................................. 31
Intrinsic ..................................................................................................... 30
Extrinsic .................................................................................................... 32
Attainment Value ...................................................................................... 32
Self-Efficacy ............................................................................................. 33
Attributions ............................................................................................... 33
Inhibit .................................................................................................................... 33
Intrinsic ..................................................................................................... 33
Extrinsic .................................................................................................... 34
Cost Value ................................................................................................. 34
Self-Efficacy ............................................................................................. 35
Organization .......................................................................................................... 35
Contribute ............................................................................................................. 36
Cultural Models ........................................................................................ 36
Cultural Setting ......................................................................................... 36
Inhibit .................................................................................................................... 36
Cultural Models ........................................................................................ 37
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 6
Cultural Setting ......................................................................................... 37
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 39
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 39
Study Questions ................................................................................................................ 39
Methodological Framework .............................................................................................. 40
Presumed Performance Needs/Issues/Assets .................................................................... 42
Knowledge and Skills and Causes ........................................................................ 42
Motivation Causes ................................................................................................ 43
Organization Causes ............................................................................................. 43
Summary ............................................................................................................... 44
Validation of the Performance Assets: Knowledge .......................................................... 45
Validation of Factual Knowledge Assets .............................................................. 46
Validation of Conceptual Knowledge Assets ....................................................... 46
Validation of Procedural Knowledge Assets ........................................................ 47
Validation of Metacognitive Knowledge Assets .................................................. 47
Validation of the Performance Assets: Motivation ........................................................... 49
Validation of the Performance Assets: Organization/Culture/Context ............................. 52
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 54
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 55
Surveys… .............................................................................................................. 55
Interviews .............................................................................................................. 56
Trustworthiness of Data .................................................................................................... 57
Role of Investigator ............................................................................................................57
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 58
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 7
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................ 59
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes .....................................................................59
Common Factual Knowledge Emerged from Diverse Co-Curricular
Programming..........................................................................................................59
Administrators Understood Student Needs ........................................................... 62
Sufficient Factual Knowledge to Communicate to Students ................................ 63
Lack of Theoretical Knowledge to Support the Co-Curriculum ........................... 64
Co-Curriculum is Important for Students and Institutions .................................... 66
Desired Outcomes Focused on Career Services, Alumni Affiliations and
GPA.......................................................................................................................68
Lack of Procedural Knowledge in Co-Curricular Design ......................................70
Sufficient Procedural Knowledge to Create Diverse Co-Curriculums ................. 72
Partial Meta-Cognitive Knowledge to Continuously Improve the Co-
Curriculum ............................................................................................................ 76
Results and Findings for Motivational Causes ................................................................. 80
More Motivated to Increase Student Interaction than Institutional Quality ......... 80
Social Networking Websites Increase Extrinsic Value ......................................... 83
Administrators Seek to Improve Student and Institutional Performance .............. 83
Administrators are Extrinsically Motivated to Engage Students Outside of the
Classroom ............................................................................................................. 85
Technology is Not a Motivational Obstacle ......................................................... 90
Administrators Motivated to Improve Services for Student Learning ..................92
Synthesis of Survey Results and Findings for Motivation Causes ....................... 97
Results and Findings for Organizational Causes .............................................................. 99
Cultural Setting Supports the Co-Curriculum ........................................................99
Cultural Model Supports Student Needs more than Innovation and
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 8
Development ...................................................................................................... 100
Synthesis of Survey Results and Findings for Organizational Causes ........................... 107
CHAPTER FIVE: PROMISING PRACTICES, IMPLEMENTATION AND
EVALUATION............................................................................................................................110
Validated Causes Selection and Rationale ...................................................................... 110
Requisite Knowledge about an Online Co-Curriculum .................................................. 112
Administrators Must Know the Co-Curriculum and Understand Student Needs to
Create a Successful Online Co-Curriculum ........................................................ 112
Navigating Procedures ........................................................................................ 113
Motivational Promising Practices of an Online Co-Curriculum ......................................115
Seeing the Value of their Work .......................................................................... 115
Maintaining a Long Term Interest… .................................................................. 116
Building Self-Efficacy for Independent Work is Important ............................... 117
Organizational Promising Practices for an Online Co-Curriculum ................................ 118
Organization Strives to Solve Online Student Learning Challenges .................. 118
Culture Setting Should Support Creativity and Experimentation ....................... 119
Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................... 120
Evaluation Plan… ........................................................................................................... 126
Level 1: Reactions ................................................................................................126
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................ 127
Level 3: Transfer ................................................................................................. 127
Level 4: Impact… ............................................................................................... 128
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 128
Researcher’s Speculation and Recommendations .......................................................... 130
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 133
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 9
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 134
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 136
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of assumed assets for knowledge, motivation, and organizational Issues…….44
2. Summary of assumed knowledge assets and their validation ........................................... 48
3. Summary of assumed motivation assets and their validation ........................................... 51
4. Summary of assumed organizational/culture/context assets and their validation ............. 54
5. Summary of the Assumed Motivation Causes and Validation Findings .......................... 96
6. Summary of Assumed Organization Causes and Validation Findings ........................... 107
7. Summary of Validated Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization ............................... 111
8. Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Solution Implementation ........................................ 125
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Gap analysis process… ..................................................................................................... 41
2. I create opportunities for our online students to engage with our on-ground students…..82
3. Our online students use social networking sites (Facebook, Instagram…) for co-curricular
activities ............................................................................................................................ 83
4. The online co-curriculum improves student performance ................................................ 84
5. The online co-curriculum improves institutional performance ......................................... 85
6. There are online opportunities for students to form clubs and organizations ................... 87
7. There are opportunities for online students to engage with their community................... 87
8. Our online students participate in student government ...................................................... 88
9. Our online students are satisfied with the co-curricular opportunities that are provided to
them outside of the classroom ............................................................................................ 88
10. Our online students have different co-curricular needs than our on-ground students ...... 89
11. Our online students utilize co-curricular services frequently ........................................... 89
12. My technology has inhibited the development of a co-curriculum................................... 91
13. My technology has adequately supported the development of an online co-curriculum..91
14. I have adequate technology training to create a co-curriculum ........................................ 92
15. I have adequate fiscal resources to improve an online co-curriculum .............................. 94
16. I conduct regular assessments for our online co-curriculum ............................................ 94
17. An online co-curriculum is important to our online student’s growth… ........................... 95
18. Our online students need an online co-curriculum ........................................................... 95
19. Organizational polices support the building of a co-curriculum ..................................... 100
20. I am encouraged to talk about online student needs ....................................................... 102
21. My institution discusses the importance of an online co-curriculum from a student’s point
of view ............................................................................................................................ 103
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 8
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 8
22. We actively benchmark our co-curriculum program against other institution's online co-
curriculums ..................................................................................................................... 104
23. We are providing innovative ways to meet online co-curricular needs for students in our
online programs .............................................................................................................. 104
24. I am current in my knowledge of online co-curriculums ................................................ 105
25. As an administrator, I am involved in discussions of co-curriculum development for our
students ........................................................................................................................... 106
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 148
Survey Protocol ............................................................................................................... 149
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 151
Interview Protocol… ....................................................................................................... 152
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................. 153
Administrator’s Document Analysis Report… ............................................................... 154
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................. 155
Consent Form… .............................................................................................................. 156
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................. 157
Administrator Information Form… ................................................................................ 158
APPENDIX F.............................................................................................................................. 159
Administrator Introduction Form… ................................................................................ 160
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 9
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 9
Abstract
This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to investigate the
knowledge, motivation and organizational promising practices that higher education
administrators have found in their development of a co-curriculum. According to Tinto (1993) a
co-curriculum is the set of non-academic student experiences that are supported by a college or
university. Assumed causes of knowledge, motivation and organizational promising practices
were created from related literature, motivation theories and personal knowledge. The study
involved data collection from seven different higher education administrators who oversaw the
online co-curriculum on their respective campuses. The analysis of this qualitative study
validated twelve causes that lead to nine recommended practices for other campuses wishing to
strengthen the online co-curriculum. Essential knowledge recommendations are to identify gaps
in co-curricular services, create a standardized student assessment process and continuously
improve programs through benchmarking. Motivational recommendations include creating
multiple pathways for students to build connections including opportunities for online and on-
ground students to interact, maintaining knowledge of emerging technology and creating a
learning network for administrators who facilitate online co-curriculums. Organizational
promising practices include continual conversations about the importance of student needs and
advocating for online students through continued co-curricular discussions. Chapter Five
concludes with a detailed implementation plan and an evaluation framework for monitoring the
effectiveness of the development of an online co-curriculum.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 1
0
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 10
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem
A co-curriculum provides an integral part of a student’s college learning experience. A
co-curriculum is the set of non-academic student experiences that are supported by a college or
university (Tinto, 1993). Examples of a co-curriculum are student support groups, peer
counseling, mentoring programs, faith-based groups, and other activities that instill a sense of
belonging within students to their college environment (Braxton & Mundy, 2001).
Co-curricular experiences augment academic programs and enhance student learning
because they increase student engagement (Kuh, 2009). Student engagement is one of the
strongest predictors of student learning and personal development (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006).
In addition, an effective co-curriculum improves student retention and graduation rates by
incorporating students into the social culture of the college or university (Tan & Pope, 2007). A
co-curriculum is a central component in supporting the persistence of most higher education
students (Evans, 2009).
According to The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, an on-
ground program should include both a curriculum as well as a co-curriculum to promote student
learning and development (Mable, 2007). A co-curriculum fosters rich conversations and
interactions that create collaborative student learning experiences that extend beyond the
limitations of the architectural design of a curriculum by integrating students together across
courses (Lardner, 2005). Dare, Zapata and Thomas (2005) concluded that every higher
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 1
1
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 11
education institution ensure that it provides equitable services to all students who are part of their
respective educational institution whether they are an on-ground student or a distance education
student.
While there have been a multitude of studies on the benefits and the features of a co-
curricular experience in on-ground classes, we do not know enough about how to establish a
successful co-curriculum in the online learning environment (Tinto, 1993, Tan & Pope, 2007).
According to Dare, Zapata, & Thomas (2005), educational technology has focused on the
delivery of classroom education to students and has not focused on how to deliver a student
affair’s education (co-curriculum) to students. While there is a strong link between a distance
learner and technology, there is an under-developed link between student affairs and the distance
learner. As such, there is a knowledge gap in the literature that informs an administrator who is
creating an online program about how to bridge the gap between distance learners and student
affair’s co-curricular resources (Dare, Zapata, & Thomas, 2005).
While we know how a co-curriculum influences the success of students in an on-ground
program, we have yet to fully understand the different aspects of the virtual world that make
supporting an online co-curriculum unique. This dissertation will study the promising practices
that contribute or inhibit the creation of an effective co-curriculum in an online graduate
professional program.
Organizational Context and Mission
This paper researched seven online graduate education programs from different
institutions that shared a similar cloud-based learning management system (LMS). The programs
used a similar system to offer their online graduate programs globally. The graduate programs
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 14
included master’s degrees in business administration, international relations, public
administration, public health, and social work. All seven school programs that were studied
were ranked in the top 100 in the United States (US News and World Report, 2015). While the
missions of the schools vary in specifics, all graduate school’s missions shared common
language that stated their institutional dedication to a student’s holistic growth.
Organizational Performance
Six of the seven schools were considered highly selective institutions. Four out of the six
schools ranked in the top twenty in their respective programs in the United States (US News and
World Report, 2015). All seven of the higher education institutions that were researched shared
common language that articulates the importance and value of student learning. Because all of
the universities involved in the study stated that they valued the student experience, this study
evaluated their promising practices for providing an effective co-curriculum for an online
student’s experience.
Background of the Issue: Related Literature
Historically, student affairs departments have used a co-curriculum to create experiential
and practical experiences for students to increase student learning, retention and satisfaction
(Frost, Strom, Downey, Schultz, & Holland 2010). In higher education, an on-ground
administrator from the student affairs department oversees many smaller departments that
support the student learning experience within a higher education institution. Student Affairs can
include such campus functions as Student Organizations and Groups, Financial Aid, Counseling,
Residential Life and Housing, Health Services and Judicial Programs (Sandeen, 2004). Various
student affairs departments create a co-curriculum to enhance the student learning experience by
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 15
providing opportunities for students to apply their classroom knowledge through activities and
events that focus on collaboration and shared learning principles. But for online education, the
development of a co-curriculum is less understood in comparison to the co-curriculum that exists
for on-ground students (Dare, Zapata, & Thomas, 2005). For instance, no studies could be
found that demonstrated where an online institution offered the full array of student services,
such as student government, counseling center, fitness, online leadership development, health
and orientation that are traditionally available to on-ground students (Dare, Zapata, & Thomas,
2005).
Dare, Zapata and Thomas (2005) theorized that while much literature has focused on the
importance of engagement (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) for on-ground student retention and
persistence, similar benefits may extend to distance learners. Therefore, regardless of an
institution’s chosen delivery of education, online versus on-ground, the need for a co-curriculum
that contributes to stronger learning communities is not only expected from students but it is also
expected to be created by administrators and schools because of the presumed positive retention
benefits (DiRamio & Wolverton (2006).
Lastly, establishing a co-curriculum in distance education indirectly addresses a need for
equitable services for distance learners as are provided for on-ground students. An online
student’s needs should be viewed similarly to any on-ground student, and thus, services that are
available to an on-ground student should be equally available to an online student (Lezberg,
2003). Equity is defined as the fair distribution of resources and services (Willems, & Bossu,
2012). While it is understood that distance learners have different needs than on-ground learners
because of their differences in geographical location (Dare, Zapata, & Thomas, 2005), research
has shown that institutions provide unequal co-curricular services to online students because they
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 16
operate under the assumption that online students don’t want similar services as on-ground
students (Dare, Zapata, & Thomas, 2005). While distance learners are unique from on-ground
students because they are not centrally located on a campus, this does not mean that online
students are exempt from wanting services similar to on-ground students, it merely means that
they don’t have an option to have access to such services (Dare, Zapata, & Thomas, 2005).
Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance
The higher education institutions are all high ranking universities in their respective fields
(US News and World Report, 2015). Through the same online service provider the universities
expect to deliver quality education to students beyond their regional geographical location. All
six schools involved in this study share the belief that it is important to develop graduate students
who are well prepared as professionals and as members of their respective community. As a
collective group, these universities represent institutions that are dedicated to enhancing student
learning and their student’s communities through high quality education. As a result, the six
schools will serve as a promising example for how to enhance student learning through an online
co-curriculum in higher education.
Organizational Stakeholders
The organizational stakeholders for this study included administrators, students, and their
institutions. Administrators are typically student affairs professionals who are responsible for
implementing a co-curriculum on their respective campus. Students are participants in a co-
curriculum and are responsible for providing input to improve the quality of service. Higher
education institutions are the overall benefactor of a co-curriculum because a strong co-
curriculum will enhance student learning, retention, and success (Kuh, 2009).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 17
Stakeholder for the Study
The stakeholder group for the study were the administrators who were responsible for
coordinating a co-curriculum online. While there were many stakeholders who could have been
involved in a co-curriculum, the most important stakeholder group was the administrators who
implemented a co-curriculum at their institution. The administrators for this study were those
who served as the key coordinator of the co-curriculum. They were responsible for identifying
the purpose of a co-curriculum, potentially creating the co-curriculum, and moving it forward
from the abstract to reality. In addition, the administrators were responsible for the assessment
as well as the improvement of a co-curriculum. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the
administrator was the most significant stakeholder because this stakeholder wielded the most
responsibility and influence of a co-curriculum.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The following questions were used to guide this study:
1. What knowledge, skills, motivational and organizational factors do administrators
perceive as facilitating or inhibiting an online co-curriculum in these institutions?
2. For those factors perceived to be facilitating an online co-curriculum, what promising
practices could be adapted to and utilized by other units in the same agency?
3. For those factors perceived as inhibitors, what promising practices may be helpful for
improving an online co-curriculum within the organization?
4. How might those interventions, whether promising practices or promising practices, be
evaluated for effectiveness?
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 18
Definitions
Co-curriculum - A co-curriculum is the set of non-academic student experiences that are
supported by a college or university (Tinto, 1993).
Asynchronous learning - Asynchronous interaction provides opportunities for active
input from all members of the online classroom and supports learner-centered (Miltiadou
& Savenye, 2003).
Synchronous learning - Synchronous interaction allows students and instructors to
exchange ideas and discuss course topics at the same time through a virtual discussion
area (Miltiadou & Savenye, 2003).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 19
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Participation in online learning programs in higher education has significantly increased
since the late 1990s. In 1998, from a study conducted of 2500 schools with online programs, too
few students were enrolled in online classes to count the number of online students (Blackmon &
Major, 2012). In 2009 more than 5.6 million students were taking online classes (Blackmon &
Major, 2012). The growth rate for online education has exceeded the growth rate of on-ground
education. But while a multitude of research has been conducted on the benefits of a co-
curriculum in on-ground education little research has focused on the benefits of a co-curriculum
in an online course (Coates, 2007). Research has shown that an on-ground co-curriculum
benefits student retention, student engagement and retention (Coates, 2007). It is important to
study an online co-curriculum because little is known about the knowledge, motivation and
organization administrators have regarding a co-curricular experience in distance education.
Effective Co-Curricula in Online Education
In higher education, a co-curriculum intentionally creates conditions that enhance student
learning and personal development (Calhoun, 1996). Central to the purpose of a co-curriculum
is that student learning and personal development are linked through interactions with faculty,
peers, physical spaces and cultural milieus and it is the purpose of student affairs staff to create
such opportunities (Calhoun, 1996). The underlying belief of a co-curriculum is that student
learning, personal development and student development are all inextricably linked and are
therefore inseparable (Calhoun, 1996). In addition, as higher education institutions prepare
students for real world experiences in the profession and in their communities, Yorke (2004)
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 20
stated that a co-curriculum provides students with the social interaction that is imperative to
understanding the procedural knowledge of a working environment.
According to Nesheim, Guentzel, Kellogg, McDonald, Wells, & Whitt (2007) student
affair’s administrators can improve online education by implementing the co-curricular out-of-
classroom experience when academic affairs (curriculum) and students affairs (co-curriculum)
share a common purpose (Frost, Strom, Downey, Schultz, & Holland 2010).
Factors from Learning and Motivation Theory
For administrators to develop an effective co-curriculum for online students,
administrators must identify and process basic factors related to learning and motivation theory.
The following section will explore administrator’s knowledge, motivational and organizational
theories that contribute to the successful implementation of an online co-curriculum and the
required assets necessary for human performance (Clark and Estes, 2008). The sections will
look at inhibiting and contributing factors within each learning and motivational theory and the
role of cultural models and settings within organizations.
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge and skills are the first area of focus in Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
model. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that in order to determine the knowledge skills of
constituents, it is imperative to understand how they are to achieve the desired performance
goal. Krathwohl (2002) provides a framework for analyzing the various levels of
knowledge. The author proposes a three-tiered level of knowledge and describes the various
components of each level (Krathwohl, 2002). The three levels of knowledge proposed by
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 21
Krathwohl (2002) are declarative, procedural, and metacognitive. Declarative knowledge is
often divided into two components, factual and conceptual knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002).
Factual knowledge can be assessed by determining whether constituents have the basic
information and necessary knowledge to complete the task (Krathwohl, 2002). A comprehensive
understanding of Krathwohl (2002) will enable administrators to assess the knowledge necessary
to develop an online co-curriculum. Administrators need to have a fundamental understanding
of the content and components of a co-curriculum (factual) so they can construct (Cross, 1998) a
co-curriculum that contributes to desirable student outcomes (Zhao & Khu, 2004).
Conceptual knowledge can be assessed by determining whether constituents have an
understanding of the theories and principles needed (Krathwohl, 2002). An administrator, or
leader, in an online setting, for this dissertation is defined as a person who has a set of skills and
behaviors that foster innovative individual and organizational change by sharing a vision and
moving the vision from concept to actualization (Beaudoin, 2005). Therefore, conceptual
knowledge guides an administrator by providing the core conceptual knowledge that is necessary
to create a co-curriculum.
After knowing what to include in a co-curriculum, an administrator needs to understand
how to implement their ideas. Procedural knowledge can be defined as having an understanding
of how to accomplish the desired outcomes and includes the order of operations that must be
followed in order to achieve the desired results (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge is
central to the success of an online co-curriculum because it outlines a framework for the
administrator that will guide the design of a co-curriculum.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 22
Finally metacognitive knowledge requires an individual to reflect on their approach,
modify processes that need improvement and tailor their work as necessary to achieve the
desired outcomes (Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognitive knowledge of an online co-curriculum is
gained from assessment (Cooper & Saunders, 2000). Administrators should have an
understanding of the assessment tools that can be effective resources for gaining metacognitive
knowledge to study, critique and improve a co-curriculum.
Motivation
Motivation is the second component of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
model. Motivation is the study of what causes people to engage in certain activities or efforts
(Mayer, 2011). Many researchers including Clark and Estes (2008), Rueda (2011) and Mayer
(2011) have studied motivation and the reasons people might participate in certain activities or
endeavors. According to Clark and Estes (2008), choice, persistence, and mental effort are three
indicators that affect motivation. Choice refers to a person’s decision to pursue a goal (Clark &
Estes, 2008). In the case of an administrator who is creating a co-curriculum, an administrator
can choose to pursue, avoid, procrastinate, and delay a goal. Persistence refers to a person’s
ability to stay on track to complete a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). As administrators persist
towards obtaining a goal they can be distracted by other goals over time. An administrator’s
choice to continue and to finish a goal is measured by their ability to persist.
Lastly, achieving goals requires the application of mental effort. Mental effort is an
index that is driven by an administrator’s confidence: lack of confidence or overconfidence
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Administrators who have little confidence may place little mental effort
in completing a task because they do not believe that they have the ability to succeed. Likewise,
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 23
overconfidence is a misjudgment of abilities where an administrator does not take responsibility
for completing goals. The ideal administrator is neither under confident or overconfident
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The indicators inform if motivation is an issue. As such, we will analyze
the underlying factors of an administrator’s task value, attainment value, self-efficacy, and
attribution in constructing an online co-curriculum to understand where the problems and
promising practices lie.
Organization
In order to effectively determine best practices as they relate to crisis intervention
protocols for online graduate programs, one must also analyze the organizational barriers that
might be contributing to or impacting performance. When analyzing an organization it is
important to consider both the cultural models and cultural settings that affect the specific
organization to determine both the visible and invisible structures in place (Rueda,
2011). According to Rueda (2011) cultural models are the shared beliefs and understandings and
are evident in the practices of the constituents in the organization while cultural settings are the
social contexts in which the cultural models (beliefs) are enacted. Cultural models are the
values, beliefs and attitudes of an organization that are generally invisible to insiders and are
often automated (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001). Some examples of cultural models might be
a lack of trust, a culture of competition, or negative attitudes. Cultural models contribute to the
structure and policies of an organization (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models
are the invisible aspects of the organization and the cultural settings are apparent. An
administrator’s ideal cultural model for developing a co-curriculum is one where emphasis and
value is placed on seeing the overall picture of an institution so they can incorporate multiple
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 24
school and student facets into a model that will build a comprehensive learning community
(Kretovics, 2003).
Cultural settings are manifestations of the cultural models in daily life (Gallimore and
Goldenberg, 2001). Examples of cultural settings for an administrator who is designing and
implementing a co-curriculum are the need for strong policies to provide administrative support
(Simonson and Bauck, 2003) conversely lack of financial and human resources can hinder an
administrator (Hirt, Cain,Bryant, & Williams, 2003).
Factors that Facilitate or Inhibit an Effective Co-Curricula in Online Education
A lot is known about why administrators should build a co-curriculum for on-ground
students. Many promising practices are supported through literature and research that discuss the
benefits and impact a co-curriculum has on student retention, success and satisfaction (Tan &
Pope, 2007). Promising practices lead by theorists such as Tinto, Kuh, Astin, have guided
administrators in their co-curriculum efforts for years (Tan & Pope, 2007). However, given the
relative newness of online education, not a lot of research has been conducted about the
promising practices of a co-curriculum in an online setting. As a result, in this section, and
throughout the paper, references to knowledge, motivation, and organization factors that appear
to be necessary in order for administrators to produce promising practices of on-ground co-
curriculum will serve to inform what could be knowledge, motivation, and organization of an
online co-curriculum. Because of the lack of available research, online knowledge, motivation,
and organization inferences will be made based on assumptions of on-ground practices and
supported by available research of online practices.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 25
Knowledge
In this section, administrators’ knowledge of an online co-curriculum will be described
using the taxonomy developed by Krathwohl (2002) which examines four dimensions: factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. This
section will discuss contributing and inhibiting knowledge factors that impact an online co-
curriculum.
Contribute. The following section will discuss the underlying contributing factual, conceptual,
procedural and metacognitive knowledge factors that were found in a review of the literature and
contribute to an online co-curriculum.
Declarative (factual). Administrators should have a fundamental understanding that a co-
curriculum promotes student involvement in academic and social activities beyond the classroom
to complement student intellectual and personal growth (Zhao & Khu, 2004). As such,
administrators should know that participation in co-curricular learning processes is linked to
positive student behaviors such as increased academic effort, gaining a better understanding to
diversity, leadership, and social tolerance as well as personal and interpersonal development
(Zhao & Kuh, 2004).
In online education a co-curriculum constructs a platform for students to interact with one
another. As such, an administrator who is designing an online co-curriculum would adhere to a
constructivist approach (Cross, 1998). A constructivist approach states that social interaction can
be constructed and is not simply discovered (Cross, 1998). Constructed social interaction can
contribute to students’ higher thought and personal development (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Student
interaction in an online setting occurs in student constructed groups, chat rooms and non-school
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 26
sponsored sites such as Facebook, Flickr, Google Apps, Youtube, Linkedin, Delicious, blogs,
wikis, and Second Life (a virtual world) (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012).
Despite research that has proven the benefits of a co-curriculum, little research has
demonstrated that administrators have constructed online opportunities for students to engage
with one another beyond classrooms and institutional departments. Instead, most schools provide
administrative support for online students but not social support. According to Dare, Zapata, &
Thomas (2005), the most popular online support system is a an enrollment-management–plus
model that provides basic resources for online students such as online interaction with key
departments such as admissions, financial aid, and registration, and secondary departments such
as advising, library and technology support are secondary (Dare, Zapata, & Thomas, 2005).
Declarative (conceptual). There are a lack of conceptual models and a lack of research to guide
the effective use of online educational technology to promote student development that is
essential for a co-curriculum’s development (Weigel, 2002). The lack of declarative conceptual
knowledge can be attributed to the newness of online education, the lack of cohesion with
institutions with online service providers and lack of declarative factual knowledge (Weigel,
2002).
What is known is that as online education continues to emerge it is essential that
administrators, who are the gate keepers to student life, activities, organizations, and clubs,
participate in conversation to promote a co-curriculum in online education (Dalton, 2007).
Administrators should be aware that efforts to create an online co-curriculum will be met by
skeptics who would state that anything created online would pale in comparison to on-ground
services (Komives & Woodward, Jr., 2003). But administrators cannot ignore that research has
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 27
shown that co-curricular learning creates some of the strongest and most valuable learning
experiences for many college students (Dalton, 2007).
Procedural. LaPadula (2003) found that distance education shares a triangulated relationship
between student affairs and technology. And, while technology assists in advancing the delivery
of distance classroom education, student affairs’ components have remained largely neglected
(LaPadula, 2003). To date, the majority of effort put forth to support distance education’s
growth has been placed in developing knowledge about technology and not in the knowledge
that would guide administrators’ support of students through traditional student affairs’ services
(Dare, Zapata, & Thomas, 2005). Due to the emphasis institutions have placed on building
classroom technology, there is a gap of procedural knowledge because of the lack of historically
successful models. Therefore, to establish procedural knowledge, administrators should agree
upon the student learning outcomes of an online student in the context of the school’s mission
and vision (Meszaros, 2007). Administrators should also agree upon a model for teaching
students that encapsulates a theoretical context for how they will create the developmental
transformation for online students (Meszaros, 2007). A model provides a map for administrators
that guide the building of a co-curriculum (Meszaros, 2007). The model provides an
administrator a design of learning partnerships between student affairs (affect) and faculty
(cognition) or a co-curriculum and a curriculum with measurable goals that can assess
accountability in the future (Meszaros, 2007).
Metacognitive. Administrators should use assessment to gauge and quantify the effectiveness of
their efforts to engage student to effectively understand the student experience (Cooper &
Saunders, 2000). One such example of an assessment tool is the College Student Experiences
Questionnaire (CSEQ) that is an instrument that measures “quality of effort” of a student’s
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 28
engagement with their campus resources and the impact that it has had on their learning and
personal development (Kuh, 2003). In addition, administrators can refer to the Handbook of
Student Affairs’ Administrators (HSAA3) created by NASPA which has a chapter (Chapter 15)
that details how administrators should engage online students (McClellan & Stringer, 2011).
Administrators must have an understanding of outcomes assessment and how to apply such
principles to their distance students in order to effectively assess student programming. Student
affairs administrators must take into account that distance students have unique developmental
issues and needs separate to their on-ground counter-parts (Hrastinski, 2009).
Inhibit. The following section will discuss the underlying inhibiting factual, conceptual,
procedural and metacognitive knowledge factors that were found in a review of the literature and
contribute to an online co-curriculum.
Declarative (factual). An administrator who does not have a strong understanding of the
financial resources that they have access to may not be able to build a comprehensive online
program because they either over or underestimate the necessary resources to build and maintain
a proper infrastructure (Hirt, Cain,Bryant, & Williams (2003).
An administrator may never accurately assess if the services that are offered are actually
sought after by students. An administrator’s vision for a co-curriculum should be aligned
with current technology and consumer demands. For instance, current students expect
that an online co-curriculum will be available twenty-four hours a day so that they have
access to services throughout the day and night (Lowery, 2004). An incorrect assumption
from administrators about co-curricular services could lead to the creation of an
unnecessary and frivolous resource (Cooper & Saunders, 2000).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 29
Declarative (conceptual). LaPadula (2003) suggests that administrators who are familiar with
traditional theorists and studies that support the importance of providing co-curriculum for on-
ground students such as student groups, student government, and forums for collaboration and
discussion, are unfamiliar with an online co-curriculum because they assume that an on-ground
co-curriculum is unilaterally best for all students. Creating similar co-curricular services for an
online student, as for an on-ground student, are often erroneous assumptions because no
comparable online co-curriculum has been established for benchmarking. As, a result of the lack
of literature that supports how to facilitate student services for online students, administrators
need to understand that their knowledge set is already lacking despite their best efforts because
there is not a wealth of information readily available to provide guidance. Despite their best
intentions, administrators are not acutely knowledgeable about the needs of an online student
because of the lack of literature or research that is available to guide and inform how to develop
an online co-curriculum successfully (Dare, Zapata, & Thomas, 2005).
Procedural. Administrators lack the procedural knowledge to facilitate an effective co-
curriculum in online education because the majority of effort placed in online education has
focused on supporting advances in technology in the classroom as opposed to technology that
would support a co-curriculum (Cain, Marrara, Pitre, & Armour, 2007). While large governing
organizations have supported the need for online programs to support a co-curriculum, they have
failed to provide a procedural map on how to actually build a comprehensive co-curricular online
program. For example, the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions in 2001 stated that a
co-curriculum in online education is important. Specifically, the council stated that the
involvement of students in student government, invitations to on-campus events, and the building
of student groups were valuable to student learning. However, the Commission’s report did not
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 30
inform best practices that would guide an administrator in the creation and facilitation of a co-
curriculum (Exter, Korkmaz, Harlin & Bichelmeyer, 2009). As another example of misleading
literature, Beyond the Administrative Core: Creating Web-Based Student Services for Online
Learners, a three year project funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the
Improvement for Online Learners, stated that services that are typically found for online students
were found to be financial aid, admissions and registration (LaPadula, 2003). While these
services are indeed essential for students, the services omitted similar traditional on-ground
services such as tutoring, career counseling and library services that would be found in a co-
curriculum (LaPadula, 2003).
Another procedural pitfall is if an administrator creates a co-curriculum but neglects to
inform students of its purpose and benefits. According to Cain, Marrara, Pitre, & Armour
(2007), an online student might not be aware of the services that are available to them and more
specifically, the student might not need the services that are offered to them.
Lastly, an administrator could develop a co-curriculum without carefully understanding
their role in relationship to technology. Confusion occurs when the administrator believes that
the technology is dictating learning whereas the actual thought should be that the technology
supports the administrators’ design (Anderson, 2008).
Metacognitive. According to Irwin and Berge (2006), socialization is about the opportunity for
people to meet with one another and to establish connections. In an online setting,
administrators can confuse interaction with socialization (Irwin & Berge, 2006). In an online
setting, examples of interaction might be when students introduce themselves, share information
about their work or personal life, or exchange phone numbers. However, such actions do not
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 31
constitute socialization. Therefore, administrators when assessing their practices should not rely
on counting the frequencies of interactions of students within a student group or in their use of a
service as a method for measuring interaction and equate their miscalculations to believing they
have designed strong co-curriculum.
Motivation
The majority of the literature focuses on motivation for an online student learner in a
classroom setting. For the purpose of this study it is inaccurate to infer too much from literature
pertaining to motivation in an online student’s academic setting because an online student is a
different type of learner than a traditional on-ground student. While inferences will be made to
an on-ground student’s motivation, it is only generally assumed that an administrator can apply
those motivational practices to an online student’s co-curriculum.
Contribute. The following section will discuss the underlying motivational factors that were
found in a review of the literature and contribute to an online co-curriculum. The section will
address contributing intrinsic, extrinsic, attainment value, self-efficacy and attributions indexes.
Intrinsic. Administrators create a co-curriculum to provide unique opportunities for students to
learn outside of the classroom. According to Beeny (2003), students who participate in co-
curricular activities are more engaged with their school and the learning process because of the
personal connections they form with fellow students outside of the classroom. Administrators
understand that a student who has more personal connections is engaged and is therefore more
likely to be encouraged in student learning (Beeny, 2003). Most institutions offer co-curricular
opportunities as a way to encourage student learning and student engagement (Whitt, 2005).
Most high performing schools demonstrate a commitment to diversity by encouraging students to
experience diversity through a co-curriculum (Whitt, 2005).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 32
Extrinsic. Administrators who are motivated to increase the value and the ranking of their school
are extrinsically motivated to create a strong co-curriculum. According to Whitt (2005), the
separation between “educationally-effective” institutions and those that are not, are the degree to
which policies and practices developed by students affairs are implemented in a seamless fashion
for outside of class learning. Whitt (2005) also stated that an “educationally effective”
institution is one where student affairs policies, programs and services are reflected and sustained
in achieving an institution’s mission (Page 4). It can be inferred that schools that have
emphasized their intent to develop or prepare students for the “real world” in their mission or
purpose statement should have successful co-curricular opportunities for their students.
Diversity is central to the value of many institutions and administration. Students who
are exposed and interact in a diverse school setting through their co-curriculum are better
prepared for a diverse world (Hurtado, 2001). As such, administrators are extrinsically
motivated to create an online co-curriculum to produce the outcome of a stronger culture and a
higher performing school.
Attainment value. At “educationally effective” institutions, faculty and staff know that educating
students is central to their job function (Whitt, 2005). A co-curriculum is central to an
administrator’s job function because it creates opportunities for students to engage with one
another. An engaged student is more likely to persist in school (Leithwood & Jantz, 2000).
According to Leithwood and Jantz (2000), a key indicator of a student who is going to drop out
of school is disengagement from a school’s co-curriculum and the more informal social life of an
institution. Reversing disengagement is important for an administrator because retention rates
are central to educational institution’s initiatives and missions (Leithwood &Jantz, 2000).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 33
Self-Efficacy. Most schools have an understanding of the value of co-curriculum and more
importantly have established a student affairs department that provides a co-curriculum for on-
ground students. As such, an administrator should be confident in knowing that an online co-
curriculum has value and should be established online (McClellan & Stringer, 2011).
Attributions. While much research discusses the benefits of a co-curriculum for students in an
on-ground setting, little to no research was found that discussed the benefits for an institution to
create a co-curriculum in distance education. While it can be inferred that best practices from
on-ground translate for an administrator into distance education, it might be better concluded,
that because of the absence of literature, there is motivation for administrators to create a co-
curriculum online (Bayless, 2001).
Inhibit. The following section will discuss the underlying motivational factors that were found
in a review of the literature and contribute to an online co-curriculum. The section will address
inhibiting intrinsic, extrinsic, cost value, and self-efficacy indexes.
Intrinsic. Online students have shown less interest in on-ground services because of their status as a
distance student prohibits their access to traditional services where student would interact with one
another. Examples of such services are dining, housing, student centers and student organizations (Dare,
Zapata, & Thomas, 2005). Administrators may not be motivated to create a co-curriculum because they
assume distance education student’s location prohibits their involvement and therefore interest.
According to Ludwig-Harman and Dunlap (2003), it’s assumed that online learners live in more remote
geographic areas than on-ground learners. In addition, because a lot of distance education students are
considered non-traditional students, their work schedules conflict with their academic schedules because
of travel, working off-hours, working long hours, family obligations, or service in the military,
administrators don’t believe that a co-curriculum will be utilized. While online education is attractive to
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 34
non-traditional students (Ludwig-Harman & Dunlap, 2003), it may be that administrators are less
motivated to assist online student needs because they believe that those students don’t need traditional co-
curricular services.
Extrinsic. The lack of motivation for an administrator may be tied with lack of utility of an
online co-curriculum because of the amount of online social networking sites readily available in
today’s technological world. According to Bosch (2009) students rely more on Facebook for
social connectivity than their course chat rooms. Facebook is easily accessible, most students
have it, and it allows students to connect with students on their campus beyond just their
classroom (Bosch, 2009). Facebook provides opportunities for students to connect in specific
entertainment, political, and social groups; something a co-curriculum would attempt to do.
According to Bosch (2009), when it came to socializing, school forums were secondary to
established social networking sites such as Facebook. Given the proliferation of social
networking sites such as Facebook, Snap Chat, Twitter, Instagram, and Vine, administrators may
also view an online co-curriculum as a secondary resource similarly as students (Bosch, 2009).
Cost value. Available resources for administrators are a prohibitive factor for the development of
a co-curriculum. Thompson and Irele (2003) found that although distance education co-
curriculums are often less expensive to provide than on-ground support, justifying the monetary
support for new training and staffing for online services is challenging and must be done by
being effective in measuring quality and effectiveness. In addition, administrators may not have
recognized the need for a co-curriculum for online students because of lack of proper
assessment. Dare, Zapata, and Thomas, (2005) found that online students are more interested in
receiving services that are pertinent to their success, such as registrar’s services, financial aid
information, advising and libraries. However contrary to Dare, Zapata and Thomas (2005),
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 35
research has also focused on the speculation that the quality of distance education is dependent
on the interaction and participation of the learners, and therefore there is an evolving discussion
on the need for online learning to cater to the psychosocial needs through a co-curriculum so that
a school can assist students academically (Cain, Marrara, Pitre, & Armour, 2007). Because of
the variance in the findings, it is inferred that more accurate assessments of student needs are
required to probe further into cost value. As a result, lack of proper assessment is a cost value
for administrators.
Self-Efficacy. Administrating an online co-curriculum poses challenges for administrators
because of the newness and unfamiliarity with online education because of the format, as well as
the unique needs of a distance learner. According to Miller and Lu (2003), transforming higher
education from an on-ground to an online format requires collaborative efforts from
administrators, staff and faculty as well as external constituents who have a vested interest in
higher education. The task for administrators can be daunting because of the magnitude of a
project of creating an online co-curriculum because of the number of stakeholders and the
amount of knowledge needed to integrate information into a workable system (Miller and Lu,
2003). In addition, leadership is a key asset for driving one such endeavor (Miller & Lu, 2003),
and if there is any doubt amongst administration that leadership is not well tasked to take on such
a large challenge self-confidence will suffer.
Organization (Cultural Models & Cultural Setting) Organizational factors will be addressed
based on the framework described by Scheins’s (2004) model and discussed as either
contributing or inhibiting factors.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 36
Contribute. The following section will discuss the underlying organizational factors that were
found in a review of the literature and contribute to an online co-curriculum. The section will
address contributing cultural models and cultural settings.
Cultural models (invisible). According to Kretovics (2003), administrators should implement
services using a big-picture framework so that they can ensure that the services are connected
with the institution’s other delivery systems and not operationalized on an individual basis. For
instance, administrators should position themselves as community building experts so that they
can share their knowledge of how to build on-ground communities with other administrators
responsible for building content (Kretovics, 2003).
Holmberg (2003) recommended that administrators and staff use problem-oriented and
conversation-like interactions that are friendly to mitigate feelings of isolation. Communication
from administrators should involve a short turn-round to help solidify personal relationships.
Cultural setting (visible). According to Simonson and Bauck (2003), policies at a school that
supports distance learning should reflect online student needs so that the functions of the school
are integrated. For instance, if online education is offered in a synchronous format then school
policies should reflect that student services should also be synchronous so that the services are
aligned (Simonson & Bauck, 2003). Policies should be flexible and widely understood by both
staff and faculty (Simonson & Bauck, 2003).
Inhibit. The following section will discuss the underlying organizational factors that were found
in a review of the literature and inhibit an online co-curriculum. The section will address
inhibiting cultural models and cultural settings.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 37
Cultural models. Institutions that have formed limited committees to build and assess their
online educational needs ignore the needs of developing a holistic student because the designers
approach the development of a co-curriculum with tunnel vision. To create an effective co-
curriculum, an administrator should have a voice on the design committee so that they are able to
speak to the needs of the whole student and to ensure that their perspective is incorporated in
with the discussion (Kretovics, 2003).
Cultural setting. An infrastructure should be built with intent. Designers who have a done their
research and have a strong understanding of literature can support their endeavors with purpose.
Co-curriculum creation without understanding of prior literary knowledge is problematic in
design. According to Sherry (2003) there is a lack of literature to support student services in an
online realm. Most empirical studies address student services for distance learners anecdotally
and few studies address student support issues, therefore institutions lack empirical data to
support their student services initiatives and designs (Sherry, 2003). It is imperative that
administrators are challenged with deciding the structure of a network, how it will be funded and
governed. In addition, the coordinating and delivery of student services is also often challenging
(Dalziel, 2003).
An administrators lack of resources, technology, or planning impact the development of
an effective co-curriculum. According to Hirt, Cain, Bryant, & Williams (2003) lack of
successful online student services models can be attributed to the lack of finances or human
resources available to create and support comprehensive models for online programs.
Conclusion
This literature review supports the concept that knowledge, motivational theories and
organizational models contribute and/or inhibit an online co-curriculum (Clark & Estes, 2008;
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 38
Krathwohl 2002). Administrators use factual, conceptual, procedural and meta-cognitive
knowledge to guide their construct of an online co-curriculum (Krathwhol, 2002). Various
motivational theories contribute and inhibit administrator’s design, coordination and
implementation of co-curriculum (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational cultural models and
cultural settings impact the performance for administrator’s online co-curriculums (Clark &
Estes, 2008). While the literature pointed to the fact that research in an online co-curriculum is
scarce due to the newness of online education (Dare, Zapata & Thomas, 2005), the literature
firmly established that there is a need for continuing research on co-curricular best practices in
order to further develop distance education. While the three categories of knowledge, motivation
and organization are one their own informative, combined they provide guidance for
administrators to establish an effective online co-curriculum (Clark & Estes, 2008).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to investigate the promising practices of university
administrators in implementing a co-curriculum in their online graduate programs.
Administrators were staff members who were responsible for the implementation and
coordination of their institutions’ online co-curriculum. The analysis focused on presumed
causes for successful outcomes that were identified in the literature in the areas of knowledge
and skill, motivation, and organizational assets. Attention was also given to factors that may
have inhibited or provided challenges to administrators. The analysis began with a generated list
of possible or assumed causes that were examined systematically to identify the actual or
validated root causes. While a complete study would have focused on all stakeholders, for
practical purposes the stakeholders that were focused on in this analysis were administrators who
were responsible for implementing a co-curriculum in their respective online learning programs.
Study Questions
The questions that guided this analysis of promising practices were:
1. What knowledge, skills, motivational and organizational factors are facilitating or
inhibiting administrators in developing and maintaining an effective online co-curriculum
in these institutions?
2. For those factors perceived to be facilitating an online co-curriculum, what promising
practices could be adapted to and utilized by other units in the same agency? For those
factors perceived as inhibitors, what promising practices may be helpful for improving an
online co-curriculum within the organization?
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 40
3. How might those interventions, whether promising practices or promising practices, be
evaluated for effectiveness?
Methodological Framework
To solve problems it was essential to have validated causes before creating recommended
promising practice. When people have presumed causes but failed to have validated those
causes, they implemented solutions that were inappropriate and therefore, they came to the
wrong conclusions when they addressed performance gaps. Clark and Estes (2008) pointed to
the importance of having comprehensively understood the root causes of institutional problems
by using combined learning, motivational, socio-cultural and organizational theories in order to
avoid the proposed solutions that were not relevant. Leveraged learning and motivation theories
allowed a researcher to gain a more complete grasp of underlying issues or concerns to avoid the
fragmentation of understanding that could have lead to incorrect solutions and conclusions
(Clark and Estes, 2008).
The approach that was used to identify promising practices in developing an online co-
curriculum was the problem-solving framework known as a Gap Analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011) as illustrated in Figure 1. The five steps of this process were defining goals,
determining the assets, hypothesizing about possible causes or facilitators, validating and
prioritizing root causes, and developing recommendations and solutions through analysis of
promising practices.
After identifying the study goal, a literature review was conducted in Chapter 2 to
identify current achievements of administrators in building an effective co-curriculum in online
education. From an analysis of the literature, I identified the assets of an online co-curriculum.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 41
The assets were deconstructed into groups identified as facilitators or inhibitors in the process of
developing a co-curriculum and categorized into three subsets: knowledge, motivation, and
organization (KMO). The model used to determine possible assets in the knowledge area was
the taxonomy developed by Krathwohl (2002) which examined four dimensions of knowledge
that were necessary for effective performance: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge,
procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Possible motivational issues were
identified based on the framework described by Clark & Estes (2008) and by Rueda (2011) and
organizational factors were addressed based on framework described by Schein (2004).
From the literature review, it was determined that there were linkages between presumed
KMO facilitators and inhibitors and the performance of administrators in developing an effective
co-curriculum. The remainder of this chapter will describe the presumed assets and how they
were validated.
Figure 1. Gap analysis process.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 42
Presumed Performance Needs/Issues/Assets
The first part of the gap analysis process involved coming up with possible or assumed
causes that may have been at the root of the performance gap. Causes were hypothesized at this
juncture because they were going to be validated in the next steps of the process. Assumed or
possible causes of performance gaps for this project were derived from two different sources: the
review of (1) existing literature on the specific topic or stakeholder in question and (2) learning,
organizational, and motivation theories. The causes that were generated from this review appear
in Chapter 2 and will be included in the tables throughout this chapter.
Knowledge and Skills Causes
A co-curriculum that used a constructivist approach, generated student interaction that
lead to a multitude of student benefits that included increased academic effort, diversity,
leadership, social tolerance, and personal and interpersonal growth. Most co-curriculums have
taken an enrollment management design where the majority of student interaction has been
funneled to major institutional departments such as admissions, financial aid, and registration,
and consequently, there has been a lack of conceptual and procedural models that guided
administrators when they built a co-curriculum that promoted student development. Building a
co-curriculum required an administrator to have a plethora of resources (human, fiscal, and
technological) as well as institutional support that understood the long term benefits of a
comprehensive endeavor. Despite theories and common practices that have supported on-ground
co-curriculums, there was neither a wealth of literature or practical knowledge that supported
administrators in how they should have built an on-line co-curriculum.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 43
Motivation Causes
Administrators had a fundamental motivational need to construct a co-curriculum
because of the proven benefits of a co-curriculum to institutional and student needs and to
institutional missions. But, despite a co-curriculum’s centrality to an administrator’s motivation
little to no research demonstrated the need for an administrator to create a co-curriculum for
online students. In part, administrators erroneously assumed that online students did not have a
need for similar services that on-ground students have had access to. The misconception was
attributed to the non-traditional make-up of an online student. In addition, the lack of a co-
curriculum was linked to an administrator’s lack of resources, cost, knowledge, self-efficacy and
proper assessment of online student’s needs.
Organization Causes.
Little literature supported an administrator to build a co-curriculum. But, what was found
was that an effective co-curriculum was a large effort that required institutional support for
online students. Institutional support included an administration that saw the overall picture of a
co-curriculum, encouraged cross-departmental collaboration and had a well funded and governed
infrastructure. In addition, it was found that institutional polices encouraged the building of a
co-curriculum and provided equitable support for online students. Lastly, it was imperative that
there was institutional internal support because there was not a lot of empirical data that
supported administrator’s co-curriculum endeavors.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 44
Summary
A summary of the sources of assumed assets categorized as Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization is found in Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of assumed assets for knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues.
Assets
Sources
Knowledge
(F)actual, (C)onceptual,
(P)rocedural, or
(M)etacognitive
Motivation Organizational
Processes
Review of literature and
learning and motivation
theory
(F) Administrator has
the knowledge of the
basic components of an
effective online co-
curriculum.
(F) Administrator has
the knowledge of co-
curricular needs of
online student.
(C) Administrator has
basic knowledge of the
theories and principles
(culture of inquiry…) to
facilitate an effective co-
curricula.
(P) Administrator has
procedural knowledge of
the processes necessary
to create an online co-
curriculum.
(P) Administrator knows
how to create a multi-
purpose online co-
Administrator sees the
co-curriculum as an
important component in
improving the quality or
achieving the mission of
the institution (Task
Value - Attainment
Value)
Administrator views the
co-curriculum as
necessary in order to
engage student
interaction outside of the
classroom environment.
(Task Value - Extrinsic)
Administrator provides
online students an
opportunity to interact
with on-ground students
to encourage student
learning and student
engagement. (Task
Organization supports
administrators creating a
co-curriculum for online
students. (Cultural
Setting)
Organization encourages
administrator support of
online student needs.
(Cultural Model)
The organization values
the student experience
by providing new and
innovative ways for
students to engage with
their faculty, classmates,
and community.
(Cultural Model)
Organization supports
administrator
development to
understand online
students. (Cultural
Model)
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 45
curriculum that extends
beyond administrative
needs (financial aid,
registration…).
(M) Administrator
continuously modifies
their co-curriculum to
make improvements.
Value – Attainment
Value)
Administrator creates
co-curriculum so
students can interact and
feel connected with their
fellow students,
staff/faculty and
community. (Task Value
– Extrinsic)
Administrator sees the
co-curriculum as a factor
in improving student
academic performance.
(Task Value -Extrinsic)
Administrator is
motivated to overcome
lack of resources to
address technological
issues to create an online
co-curriculum (Task
Value – Cost Value)
Administrator is
motivated to improve
co-curricular services to
enhance student
learning. (Task Value –
Self-Efficacy)
Organization supports
Administrator co-
curricular efforts.
(Cultural Model)
Validation of the Performance Assets
Validation of the Performance Assets: Knowledge
Validation involved assessment of administrators’ knowledge and cognitive processes
that were determined necessary for successful performance when they developed a co-
curriculum in an online program. A survey and interview was conducted that determined the
level of knowledge assets amongst the administrators who participated in the study. The
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 46
questions in the survey and interview addressed assets/causes that were outlined in the table
above. The questions were intended to address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
causes that were identified.
Validation of factual knowledge assets. Literature supported the benefits of a co-curriculum.
As such, an administrator should have had knowledge of online student’s co-curricular needs and
services. To assess promising practices, administrators were interviewed to discuss their
institutional co-curricular services and how it supported student learning outcomes. Learning
was increased when administrators identified various aspects of their co-curriculum and tied their
practices to desired outcomes.
Online student needs extend beyond main campus functions such as admissions,
registration and financial aid. As such, an administrator should have had the factual knowledge
of individual co-curricular needs of online students. To assess the promising practice,
administrators were interviewed to better understand if and how hey actively sought information
on their online student co-curricular needs. Learning was increased when administrators verified
how they ascertained online student needs and how they address those needs in an online co-
curriculum.
Validation of conceptual knowledge assets. Despite traditional on-ground research in favor of
co-curricular benefits, there was a deficiency in conceptual models that guided the building of a
co-curriculum online. As such, interview questions assisted in identifying known or unknown
theories and principles that administrators relied on to facilitate an effective co-curriculum. To
assess the promising practice, administrators were interviewed to understand their conceptual
knowledge of online learning and how it applied to their online co-curriculum. Because there
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 47
was not a lot of literature to support an administrator’s creation of an online co-curriculum,
learning was increased when administrators identified the theories as well as the desired learning
outcomes for their students and their institution they used to support the pathways for online co-
curriculums.
Validation of procedural knowledge assets. Most technological advancements in online
education focused on learning in the online classroom. There was a lack of procedural
knowledge in both cultural models and cultural settings in how learning opportunities for
students were created outside of the online classroom. Administrator interviews identified the
internal and external processes within their organization that supported online student co-
curricular needs. Learning was increased when administrators articulated the support services
that existed within their institution.
Research showed that most online services focused on students’ administrative needs and
not student to student needs. Therefore, administrators should have created a multi-purpose
online co-curriculum that extended beyond administrative needs. To assess the promising
practice, administrators were surveyed to see how they engaged online students through their use
of technology. Learning was increased when administrators were made aware of their various
standardized technological services and practices that engaged students.
Validation of metacognitive knowledge assets. As with all endeavors, practices are improved
through assessment. For an online co-curriculum, administrators should continuously modify
their co-curriculum to make improvements. To assess the promising practice, administrators
were asked to provide examples of their assessment tools. In addition, they were interviewed to
understand, how their assessment tools and methods impacted the modification of their co-
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 48
curriculum. Learning was increased when administrators articulated how their metacognitive
process improved an online co-curriculum.
Table 2. Summary of assumed knowledge assets and their validation.
Assumed Knowledge Asset* How Will It Be Validated?
Remember that to validate knowledge, the participants have to actually
demonstrate the knowledge. You cannot validate a knowledge cause via
Likert-scale survey items.
(F) Administrator has factual knowledge of an online
co-curriculum.
Administrator will provide examples of their co-curriculum through
websites and portal links to chat rooms, group discussions.
How does your co-curriculum enhance online student interaction?
Describe how your co-curriculum provide support to students above
and beyond registration, admissions, and financial aid services?
(F) Administrator has factual knowledge of co-
curricular needs of online students
Administrator provides examples of surveys or questionnaires where
they have solicited student feedback on online co-curricular needs and
interests
How did you identify online student co-curricular needs?
How did you decide how to address student co-curricular needs?
How did you communicate to students that the administration is
meeting their co-curricular needs?
(C) Administrator has basic conceptual knowledge of
the theories and principles (or lack of) to facilitate an
effective co-curriculum.
Administrator will provide examples through websites and other
possible documented examples and explain how and why they
developed their co-curriculum by connecting their practices to theory.
What theories did you lean on when you constructed your co-
curriculum?
How is your theoretical approach to an online co-curriculum different
from your on-ground co-curriculum?
Why is it important to your organization that a co-curriculum exists?
What student learning outcomes did you want to achieve by each of the
examples of a co-curriculum that you have provided?
(P) Administrator has procedural knowledge of the
organizational resources that are dedicated to support
online students’ co-curriculum
Administrator will share a listing of online student services and the staff
that support the co-curriculum. Other data such as an organizational
chart and co-curricular budgets should be provided.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 49
Describe the model that you used to create an online co-curriculum?
How did you identify the model and why?
How did you inform your students (through advertising) that a co-
curriculum existed?
(P) Administrator is able to create a diverse online co-
curriculum that extends beyond administrative needs
(financial aid, registration…).
Administrator will provide examples of how their institution provides
technological student support beyond fundamental student needs
(registration, admissions…) that connect online students with peers,
community, and faculty.
How did you advocate for a co-curriculum amongst your colleagues?
Did you encounter technological issues in creating a co-curriculum and
if so, how were you able to meet overcome those obstacles?
(M) Administrator continuously modifies their co-
curriculum to make improvements.
Administrator will provide samples of their online student assessment
of co-curricular services and discuss how they have improved their
curriculum over time.
Describe your assessment process of a co-curriculum.
What other materials, resources, or other institutions have you used to
benchmark the effectiveness of your co-curriculum?
How do you gauge socialization in a co-curriculum?
*Indicate knowledge type for each assumed cause listed using these abbreviations: (F)actual;
(C)onceptual; (P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive
Validation of the Performance Assets: Motivation
Choice, persistence, and mental effort are three indexes or processes that affect
motivation. Choice refers to a person’s decision to pursue a goal. A person can choose to
pursue, avoid, procrastinate, and delay a goal. Persistence refers to a person’s ability to stay on
track to complete a goal. As a person persists towards obtaining a goal they can be distracted by
other goals over time. A person’s choice to continue and to finish a goal is measured by their
ability to persist. Lastly, achieving goals requires the application of mental effort. Mental effort
is an index that is driven by a person’s confidence: lack of confidence or overconfidence. A
person who has little confidence may place little mental effort in completing a task because they
do not believe that they have the ability to succeed. Likewise, overconfidence is a misjudgment
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 50
of abilities where people do not take responsibility for completing their goals. The ideal is a
person who is neither under confident or over-confident (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Validation involved assessing the administrators’ motivational assets that were
determined as necessary for successful performance in developing a co-curriculum in an online
program. To determine the level of motivational assets among the participating administrators in
the study, a survey using a Likert Scale was conducted. The questions in the survey addressed
assets/causes that had been outlined in the table below. The questions were intended to address
the motivational causes that were identified.
These surveys questions validated the motivational causes that impacted an
administrator’s development of a co-curriculum. Much of the literature detailed causes as to
why administrators would not be motivated to create a co-curriculum. Examples such as poor
assumptions about online student needs to schools lacking resources to create a co-curriculum
were detailed as inhibitors of an online co-curriculum. This survey section not only validated
inhibitors but also validated contributing causes to motivational assets.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 51
Table 3. Summary of assumed motivation assets and their validation.
Motivational Asset Possible Cause(s)*
(identify which underlying
construct it is based on
motivation theory)
How Will It Be Validated? Indicate the survey
item, interview question and/or document
analysis focus.
Administrator seeks to improve
the quality of the institution
(L) - Task Value – Attainment
Value
In a measurable way, how has your co-curricular
impacted institutional effectiveness? For instance,
has school ranking increased, has learning
improved…
Administrator provides online
students an opportunity to
interact with on-ground
students to encourage student
learning and student
engagement.
(L) – Task Value – Attainment Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree”).
“I create opportunities for online students to engage
with on-ground students.”
Administrator creates co-
curriculum so students can
interact and feel connected with
their fellow students,
staff/faculty and community.
(L) – Task Value – Extrinsic Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree”).
“Online students use social networking sites
(Facebook, Instagram…) for co-curricular
activities.”
Administrator seeks to improve
student and institutional
performance.
(L) – Task Value – Extrinsic Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree”).
“The online co-curriculum improves student
performance.”
“The online co-curriculum improves institutional
performance.”
Administrator seeks to engage
student interaction outside of
the classroom environment.
For example, online clubs,
organizations, student
government.
(L) – Task Value – Extrinsic Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree”).
“There are online opportunities for students to form
clubs and organizations.”
“There are opportunities for online students to
engage with their community.”
“Online students participate in student
government.”
“Online students are satisfied with the co-curricular
opportunities that are provided to them outside of
the classroom.”
“Online students have different co-curricular needs
than on-ground students.”
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 52
“Online students utilize co-curricular services
frequently.”
Administrator is motivated to
overcome lack of resources to
address technological issues to
create an online co-curriculum
(L) Task Value – Cost Value Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree”).
“Technology has inhibited the development of a co-
curriculum.”
“Technology has adequately supported the
development of an online co-curriculum.”
“I have adequate technology training to create a co-
curriculum.”
Administrator is motivated to
improve co-curricular services
to enhance student learning.
(L) – Self-Efficacy Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree”).
“I have adequate fiscal resources to improve an
online co-curriculum.”
“I conduct regular assessments for an online co-
curriculum.”
“An online co-curriculum is important to an online
student’s growth.”
“Online students need an online co-curriculum.”
* Also indicate if the source is Personal Knowledge or Scanning Interviews (P), Related
Literature (L) or Motivation Theories (T)
Validation of the Performance Assets: Organization/Culture/Context
Culture describes values, goals, beliefs, emotions and processes that have been developed
overtime to create an organization (Clark and Estes, 2008). A cultural setting is the strict
guideline or protocol which is adopted by the organization to operate by. Cultural model is what
takes place culturally in the workplace and it is not always visible (Rueda, 2011). From an
observational point of view, the daily policies and procedures of an organization inform what
and how an organization values within their culture (Schein, 2004). What leaders pay attention to
in an organization dictates the organizational culture (Schein, 2004). This study assumes that
stakeholders, regardless of institutional employment, place value on student engagement and
learning by providing a co-curriculum that complements a classroom curriculum thereby
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 53
enhancing the student experience. The stakeholder’s daily practices of supporting online
student’s co-curriculum should be engrained and supported within the cultural setting and model.
Organizational performance assets will be validated through the use of surveys, interview
questions and document analysis.
Below I will describe how I planned to validate the administrator’s assets in the area of
organization. Validation involved assessing the administrators’ organizational assets that were
determined as necessary for successful performance in developing a co-curriculum in an online
program. To determine the level of organizational assets among the participating administrators
in the study, a survey using a Likert Scale was conducted. The questions in the survey addressed
assets/causes that were outlined in the table below. The questions were intended to address the
organizational causes that were identified.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 54
Table 4. Summary of assumed organizational/culture/context assets and their validation.
Organizational Asset (describe what
the performance is by stating what the
stakeholder is doing)
How Will it be Validated?
Indicate the survey item, interview question and/or document analysis focus.
Organization supports administrators’
creating a co-curriculum for online
students. (Cultural Setting)
Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”).
“Organizational policies support the building of a co-curriculum.”
Organization encourages administrator
support of online student needs.
(Cultural Model)
Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”).
“I am encouraged to talk about online student needs.”
“My institution discusses the importance of an online co-curriculum from a
student’s point of view.”
The organization values the student
experience by providing new and
innovative ways for students to engage
with their faculty, classmates, and
community. (Cultural Model)
Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”).
“We actively benchmark our co-curriculum against other online co-curriculums.”
“We are providing innovative ways to meet online co-curricular needs.”
Organization supports administrator
development to understand online
students. (Cultural Model)
Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”).
“I am current in my knowledge of online co-curriculums.”
Organization supports Administrator
co-curricular efforts. (Cultural Model)
Written Likert-scale survey items (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”).
“As an administrator, I am involved in discussions of curriculum development for
students.”
* Indicate in this column if the source is Personal Knowledge /Scanning Interviews (P) or Related
Literature (L) or Theories related to culture/context (T)
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population for the promising practices analysis was administrators who
were responsible for implementing and maintaining co-curriculums for online students at their
respective institutions. Administrators were defined as any employee who was responsible for
overseeing a co-curriculum for an online student program. It was possible that an administrator
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 55
may have had a dual function of maintaining a co-curriculum for both on-ground and online
student at their organization. Administrators who met those criteria were surveyed for
completion. The participants for the interview component of this study were selected based on
their agreement to be interviewed as indicated as the survey. Administrators were selected based
on convenience sampling and were contacted for survey, interviews and observations.
Data Collection
This study was conducted when permission from University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) had been obtained. Knowledge, motivation and organizational
assumed causes were validated through an electronic survey, in-person interviews and document
review. Qualitative methods were used to collect data through surveys, interviews and document
analysis. The data collection process took place between December 17, 2015 and February 18,
2016. Data collection process from each participant began with survey distribution and was
followed by interviews. A participant completed a survey before they were interviewed. The
process occurred over a two month period. Specific documents were collected after the
interview process was completed to complete the comprehensive process. Each was discussed in
the section following.
Surveys
Surveys were distributed through online software, once approval from the University of
Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) was received. The survey was
administered in English and was distributed to institutional administrators at the participating
programs. The survey consisted of twenty four questions. Seventeen questions in the survey
pertained to motivation. The survey questions used a Likert scale of five. Eight surveys were
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 56
distributed and all survey questions were answered by all participants. Eight interviews were
conducted and all eight participants answered all of the questions.The survey ended with a
request to submit an email address for a follow-up interview.
Survey responses were collected anonymously via Qualtrics, tabulated through software
and a copy was made for back up purposes and stored on an external hard drive located in a
locked drawer. All results were kept on a password protected laptop. Upon completion of the
data analysis the back-up copy and all recordings were destroyed. The survey instrument can be
found in Appendix X.
Interviews
Campus interview participants were interviewed individually using online video software
that allowed for visual observation and audio discussion. The participants were chosen from
convenience sampling and contacted for initial consent prior to the study. All interviews
conducted with video software were recorded for the purpose of future transcription. All
interviews were conducted in English.
The interview consisted of seventeen interview questions focused on knowledge and one
question pertained to motivation. To assist in the design of the research, the questions were
grouped into seven assumed motivational causes or assets. Interviews expanded on knowledge,
motivation and organization assumed causes. Each interview followed standard interview
protocol beginning with disclosure consent followed by demographic questions before
transitioning to questions relative to the assumed causes. Assumed causes were determined and
supported by personal knowledge /scanning interviews, related literature or theories. Questions
probed for deeper elaboration. The interview protocol is included in Appendix Y.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 57
Trustworthiness of Data
Maxwell (2012) discussed the need to rule out validity threats of bias and reactivity when
conducting qualitative research. Maxwell (2012) provided an eight item checklist researchers
should use to ensure the credibility of their study: (1) intensive, long term involvement, (2) rich
data, (3) respondent validation, (4) intervention, (5) searching for discrepant evidence and
negative cases, (6) triangulation, (7) numbers, and (8) comparison. To ensure trustworthiness,
data was triangulated using survey, interview, and observations. Survey was based on valid and
reliable instruments. Surveys were conducted and collected using Qualtrics. Survey numbers
were collected and compared.
Participants were informed that interviews were assured for anonymity and
confidentiality through an Informed Consent Form found in Appendix D. Participants were also
informed that data was being collected for research purposes and for such purposes, their
information would remain anonymous. Interviews were conducted for at least forty minutes and
no longer than eighty minutes. Interviews were transcribed and data was checked through
confirmation of information on institution websites when available.
Role of Investigator
At the time of research, I was the Director of Student Affairs at a higher education
institution in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. As a student affairs’ professional I was
interested in the integration of student affairs’ departments in the emerging field of online
education. I had no responsibilities in my position where I directly interacted with online
students at my university.
I was also a doctoral student in the school of education at a different university from my
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 58
place of employment. I had no direct affiliation with any of the research institutions. However,
one institutional research site was at my university of study but that research school within my
university had no affiliation with the school of education. My role in this study was to conduct a
promising practices investigation in order to understand all institutional organization’s
performance.
As investigator, steps were in place to ensure anonymity of all participants. Informed
consent was received from all participants prior the study. Participants were on a volunteer basis
and received no form of compensation for their time. Participants had the right to end the study
at any time. Volunteers completed confidentiality of information, identity and data. Permission
was sought and granted prior to any use of documentation or data that was produced from this
study and used for other institutional purposes. Descriptions were negotiated prior to any
publication.
Data Analysis
Descriptive data analysis was conducted once all surveys were submitted. Data analysis
for interviews and observations were done using a priori coding of knowledge, motivation and
organization factors that contribute to an online co-curriculum, in addition to employing open
coding to find unexpected and emergent themes. Comments and observations were written down
during the data collection process. All interviews were transcribed once they were conducted.
Interviewees were assigned pseudonyms to remain anonymous. Data analysis for surveys used
frequency coding of Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 59
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The focus of this study was to understand the promising practices concerning the
development of an online co-curriculum. The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis was used as
a framework. However as opposed to identifying gaps, the study used a model similar to Clark
and Estes’ but focused on identifying promising practices. Knowledge, motivational,
organizational and cultural assumptions were outlined based on personal information and
literature reviewed in Chapter 3. A synthesis of the findings from the surveys, interviews, and
document analysis are presented in this chapter under the categories of knowledge, motivation,
and organization. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate which of the assumed causes in
each category have been validated, not validated, or partially validated. The final chapter will
discuss any significant findings further and discuss proposed promising practices.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Knowledge is an essential contributor or inhibitor to successful human performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Krathwohl’s (2002) taxonomy identified four dimensions: factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.
Following are descriptions of the promising knowledge dimensions that contributed to the
development of a co-curriculum.
Common Factual Knowledge Emerged from Diverse Co-Curricular Programming
All surveyed administrators demonstrated that they had sufficient factual knowledge of
their co-curriculum on their campuses because they provided examples of their programs and
described how they coordinated student support. While every school had an online co-
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 60
curriculum, it was found that every school had a unique co-curricular model. Despite the
individuality of each program, it was found that some similarity in certain areas of programming
emerged and those will be discussed later in this section.
Administrators’ lists of their programming were different because of the diversity of their
co-curriculums. A brief description of the programs that they cited included, online discussion
groups, online clubs and organizations, in person alumni groups, on-ground meet-ups, social
hours at local bars, student governments and Google hangouts. Despite the variances in their
programming, all administrators believed that their co-curriculum enhanced student interaction.
In demonstrating this commonality, one administrator explained that their co-curriculum affected
student interaction because it, “enhances it in a way that students are able to expand the
information that they learned in the classroom…there are opportunities for them to meet up
online, to talk about topics that they want to discuss.” While another administrator stated, “It is
helping students connect outside of the classroom, and kind of build those networks deeper.”
Administrators used a wide array of tools to measure their knowledge of their co-
curriculum’s effectiveness. For instance, administrators based their conclusions on feedback
from students through discussion groups, conversations, happy hours, leadership councils,
conversations through Google hangouts or assumptions based on the belief that a co-curriculum
existed and therefore it enhances online education. Even though no common co-curriculum
existed throughout the schools, all administrators believed that their co-curriculums were
effective. In addition, they all believed that they understood student needs through their
respective assessment tools of their programs.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 61
Despite the diverse nature of co-curricular programming amongst the schools a few
common programming themes emerged. The first common theme was that all administrators
strived to provide student services above and beyond basic student services (financial aid,
registration and admissions). Examples of support included leadership opportunities, career
services, alumni engagement, mentor programs, academic support through check-ins with
students, disability services and social services.
Another common theme was that three out of the seven institutions emphasized reaching
students through career related services. Examples of career related services included online job
boards and networking events between current students and alumni. This theme will be
addressed later in the study.
One school varied in their co-curricular services from the seven schools and provided
mental health and wellness support through their co-curriculum. In referring to their service, one
administrator described how they tracked and maintained mental health services for their
students,
(we use) a database where faculty, or administrators are able to submit any type of, kind
of alert that a student may need additional support in some way…we want to make sure
that it's documented in case additional support is needed, but also just, you know an extra
layer of, you know support.
In conclusion, administrators had factual knowledge of an online co-curriculum but their
knowledge of how a co-curriculum enhanced student interaction as well as what support services
they used varied in each institution. Their factual knowledge of a co-curriculum was very
different in comparison to one another and this may be attributed to why they did not use
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 62
common services. Schools did share common themes, but to understand why schools seemed to
gravitate towards common themes is referenced in the section of Chapter Five under Future
Research. None of the administrators used quantitative data to support how they knew their co-
curriculum enhanced online student interaction.
Administrators Understood Student Needs
Administrators relied on varying tools (qualitative and quantitative methods) to identify
their online student co-curricular needs but they focused more on gathering qualitative data.
Schools did not use a common formal process as a tool for identifying student needs. Instead,
institutions relied on using various assessment methods to understand their student needs.
Examples of qualitative instruments used by administrators ranged from observing discussion
posts in online job boards, collecting data through Qualtrics, digital drop-boxes that provided
student feedback, opinions from student groups, entrance surveys through career services,
general qualitative surveys, feedback from immersion programs, discussions held in online town
halls. While the administrators recognized that providing outreach assessment to students was
important to understanding student needs, some voiced concern that the process of collecting
data was challenging and arduous, “So I think surveying, while annoying at times, is actually
extraordinarily beneficial if you get feedback. I'm sure our student evaluation of teaching team
that works with our main registrar hates evaluations, because the return rate's pretty low, but
when you do get the feedback it's amazing, and when you're part of a program that's really
starting from scratch, you can start to implement changes kind of as they roll in, which is cool.”
One school identified that student needs were being assessed and met by using
quantitative data to demonstrate their effectiveness by stating that student participation in their
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 63
online student group had doubled after a year. The administrator cited that their increased
enrollment numbers demonstrated that their work was indirectly and positively affected affecting
their online education programs.
Sufficient Factual Knowledge to Communicate to Students
Administrators had varying ways in which they informed students that they were meeting
their co-curricular needs. Examples of how they communicated to online students included list
serves, town halls, Constant Contact, career panels, newsletters and email. It was apparent that
administrators relied on multiple tools to communicate to students as opposed to one method.
One administrator stated, “We update students on any changes, or when we have new programs,
or groups, or anything. We have a bunch of different sources that we send information through.”
Another administrator stated a similar conclusion,
We just have a generic list serve that we blast out a lot of information through, and that's
external of the platform to IR. You also have within the platform a campus connection
group that we use…we can push things out through our systems (not named to ensure
anonymity), we also use another computer program (not named to ensure anonymity),
and we have a newsletter that goes out every month. So there are a lot of different ways
that we're pushing information to them if we're not, you know directly emailing the
students.
Administrators talked more in general about their communication tools and not their
communication process. Administrators did not specifically discuss that their need to
communicate to online students was to resolve a student problem or that the purpose of their
communication was intended to find answers or solutions. As such, it can be inferred that
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 64
administrators were more concerned about simply having communication with students rather
than having a designed and intentional process of communication that facilitated student
dialogue to resolve administrator or student concerns.
In conclusion, administrators had factual knowledge of co-curricular needs of online
students. Administrators relied on multiple tools to gain factual knowledge. Student surveys
were the most popular tool used to collect student information. Efforts to collect student data
challenged most administrators because of low student participation.
Lack of Theoretical Knowledge to Support the Co-Curriculum
Most traditional co-curriculums use theoretical knowledge to inform the design and
implementation of their programs. Theoretical knowledge guides the construct of purposeful
program design. When theory is used to create programs, administrators can use their conceptual
knowledge of their programs to understand student learning and experience (Anderson, 2008).
In this study, it was found that most online administrators lacked theoretical knowledge of an
online co-curriculum and few had some knowledge of their on-ground co-curriculum. “Again, I
don't know what the on ground theoretical approach would be.” Only one administrator was able
to speak to a theory that they leaned on when they constructed their co-curriculum
(Happenstance Learning Theory).
One explanation for administrators’ lack of theoretical knowledge was attributed to lack
of inclusion in the development of the online program. As one administrator stated, “Because I
wasn't here when it was created, I think it would be challenging for me to address that question.”
Another administrator stated, “You know, if I'm honest, I didn't, I didn't really sit and strategize
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 65
that we're going off a based on, any sort of theory.” And, “I don't have a specific theory I can
touch upon, I'm sorry.” One administrator simply stated, “Pass on that one.”
A few administrators were able to contextualize their online programs in reference to
their knowledge of their on-ground programs. In those instances they referred to the on-ground
theoretical approach as an all-encompassing theory that could be applied to their online co-
curriculum. An example of this is as follows,
Oh. You know I try in the work that I do to be as consistent as possible in how I address
student leadership, student involvement, and student opportunities. So I would not seem
... I do not view much of a difference in how I approach the co-curriculum in either
ground, or online.
While some administrators discussed why their co-curriculum was important, which in
turn could be interpreted as a theoretical approach, no administrator discussed how or why their
online co-curriculum theoretical approach differentiated from their on-ground approach. For
instance, one administrator stated,
I think ultimately our goal is to keep our retention rate high, and have successful
graduates. So whatever we're doing, it's, it's ultimately to have most of our students
graduate, and be employable, and be successful when they graduate…I think we try to
bring the campus to them as much as we can, and we've seen that, that does make them
feel more involved, and more inclusive of the community, and that, I think is, is keeping
the students retained, but I don't have any quantitative data to say we have retained 91
percent of our students because of these 3 student groups, I wish I did, and that would be
amazing, but I don't.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 66
The lack of administrator’s theoretical knowledge demonstrated a lack of conceptual
knowledge. Specially, administrators did not know or have theoretical knowledge of why or
how their co-curriculum impacted or planned to impact student or institutional success. There
was never an overarching strategic plan that tied their co-curriculum together. As such, it could
be inferred that theoretical knowledge is not relevant to an online co-curriculum or that theory is
was not considered in the co-curricular design. Or, it could be inferred that administrators are
doing their work based on gut or past practice, without any conceptual framework. As a result
they may be missing opportunities because they aren’t being purposeful. Articulating a
conceptual framework about what an on line co-curriculum could look like and what purpose it
serves would be a valuable contribution.
Co-Curriculum is Important for Students and Institutions
It was assumed that administrators had basic conceptual knowledge of the theories and
principals to facilitate an online co-curriculum. To better understand the issue, administrators
were asked four questions pertaining to theories, co-curricular importance and learning
outcomes.
Administrators believed that the need for a co-curriculum was an important part of the
student experience and institutional success. Specifically, administrators discussed the
importance of student involvement, student retention, holistic approaches, and the feeling that
students are part of a large school experience as reasons for why their co-curriculum was
important to the organization. An administrator voiced described the benefits as,
I think higher ed. in general is so much more than what you learn in the classroom, it
really is bigger than that, and it, it's important to have a holistic approach when you are
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 67
investing so much time and energy from the student perspective, and things like
networking, and the experiences you have with students, and faculty outside of the
classroom, they shape you in, sometimes more impressionable ways than maybe the
actual readings that you're doing throughout the class. So making sure that students have
as much access as they can to as many, or all of the resources that are on campus students
have, is so valuable for them to really be a part of the aid community, and feel like a
graduate student, and feel like that they're not just one person sitting at home looking at
their computer.
Administrators cited the importance of offering an online co-curriculum because similar
services existed for on-ground students. While they noted that the learning platform for online
and on-ground students differed, they believed that those differences should not affect the quality
of a student’s educational experience. A common link between the two types of students was the
co-curriculum and therefore, providing equitable services was important to the administrators.
Administrators equated equitable services to creating connectivity through a student’s co-
curricular experience. One example of services was,
I think just the nature of all (R) School students should be given the same rate. If we're
making these distinctions of online versus on-ground just because that's the platform
which the student is interacting and participating in their program, but at the end of the
day they're all R School students. In the program they're all (R) School alumni, so we
need to be really consistent in what we provide to them. We also charge the same money.
You don't want somebody who's online feeling like they are getting an abbreviated
version of services. We also want to go above and beyond, more so for your online
students…Part of what happens when someone is a student on-ground is they get a much
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 68
greater feeling of connectivity to the campus, to the school, to their classmates. When
they're online that doesn't necessarily happen, so I feel like there almost needs to be twice
as much effort put into how we develop co-curricular programs for online students so that
we can help foster that feeling of connectivity both during the program and then after.
Desired Outcomes Focused on Career Services, Alumni Affiliations and GPA
The desired student learning outcomes included career services, academic success, and
engagement. Four out of seven administrators stated that career services, helping students
network and find jobs, and teaching students how to apply their education professionally as the
most desirable outcomes of a co-curriculum. “The major outcome for me in career services is
that students have the tools and the resources and they know how to use them going forward in
their job search. The ultimate outcome is that they get a job, but that's kind of the end of the
process.”
Another outcome included creating long term student engagement with the institution.
Long term engagement was defined as an alumnus who continued to affiliate with their
institution by providing mentorships and linking prospective students to career pathways. The
primary focus of the co-curriculum was to achieve human connections through professional
experiences and opportunities. An administrator stated,
You know we really want students who come away with this program, and have the
theoretical, and the practical knowledge that they learned in their classes, but are also part
of the aid community, and ultimately want to give back, as alumni, in terms of maybe
mentorship, or joining us for different events, or are able to connect their employers with
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 69
prospective students, or whatever it may be, you know we want to make sure that they are
staying engaged well beyond the program.
Lastly, one administrator stated that they hoped that improving student’s GPA and
graduation rates as desired outcomes from their co-curricular participation,
I have looked at to see a direct correlation between students who are taking advantage of
these opportunities, what their GPA is like…so you know, we certainly want our students
to do well, we want them to maintain their status, and we want them to earn their degree.
No administrator stated that they identified their student outcomes first and then they
designed their co-curriculum to meet those needs. Instead they discussed the co-curriculum they
created and the outcomes they found after students participated. It could be inferred that desired
outcomes were not identified before the creation of a co-curriculum or rather they did not drive
the design of co-curriculums and instead their co-curriculum was created and then the outcomes
were assessed.
In conclusion, administrators’ basic conceptual knowledge of theories and principles (or
lack of) to facilitate an effective co-curriculum was partially founded. Administrators lacked
conceptual knowledge of theories and theorists that influenced the design of both their on-line
and on-ground co-curriculums. In addition, student learning outcomes did not seem to be part of
the design of a co-curriculum. As a result, even though administrators knew that a co-curriculum
was important to their organization, there appeared to be an overall lack of strategic design to
their product. Lastly, there was a knowledge gap between administrators who were on-boarded
after the design of the co-curriculum. Those administrators understood how they implemented
their co-curriculum but lacked the knowledge in regards to why they are tasked with their duties.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 70
Lack of Procedural Knowledge in Co-Curricular Design
It was assumed that administrators had procedural knowledge of organizational resources
dedicated to supporting online students. Two questions were asked that pertained to
benchmarking and advertising to validate administrator’s procedural knowledge. Traditionally,
Student Affairs has relied on benchmarking or looking to other programs for understanding best
practices and shared knowledge when building new programs (Mosier & Schwarzmueller, 2002).
This study found that administrators did not rely on benchmarking against external organizations
when building their online co-curriculum. In the cases where administrators did not use a model
to create their co-curriculum they identified desired student outcomes to guide the design of their
co-curriculum,
I looked at ... okay ... from the time a student enrolls 'til the time they graduate,
operationally, what's happening to them? And then thinking about what my role is from
the time they matriculate to the time they graduate, what needs to happen career-wise?
Like, what is the career experience for them from start to finish, and what is the program
experience for them? Like, how do I create this end-to-end student experience, and at
what points in their time in the program do I want them to have these other experiences
outside the classroom? So I looked at it like a map, and actually wrote out a career road
map and a student experience roadmap of a, like, what an ideal, not an ideal student, but
what would an ideal situation look like from a student for day 1 through graduation?
What would they experience?
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 71
In the instances where an administrator did use benchmarking to build their program,
they relied on attempts to replicate their current on-ground co-curriculum model to create and
replicate for their online co-curriculum. An example one administrator used,
I mean we, we tried not to reinvent the wheel, so I the model that I would say we used is
kind of a replicate of on campus co-curriculums, and then we tweaked them to fit the
needs of the online student body.
Another administrator said,
That was kind of all I wanted with the online co-curriculum was to make sure that it
looks seamless. That it wasn't the online students were getting a different co-curriculum
experience than the on-ground. That the opportunities were going to be the same, the
delivery method may have been slightly different, and the accessibility maybe a little
different but really trying to make it a seamless process and approach so that
students...Didn't feel that they were not like a student.
To further assess procedural knowledge, administrators were asked to identify how they
informed students about the existence of their co-curriculum. It was found that administrators
relied on blogs, emails, social media, newsletters, adobe connect, website, student driven
advertising, and interactive live streams to inform students that a co-curriculum existed. An
example of the different types of advertising administrators used could be summed up by one
administrator,
Well in addition to the newsletter that is sent out that informs students of co-curricular
opportunities, uh, our virtual platform, Adobe Connect itself, has an ongoing message
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 72
board that is always ... It's updated often. There are, the group's page is similar too, it's
similar to a Facebook account, where students can interact, and on the group's page, it
would be up to them to decide how and why, but every student does go through an
orientation, and at that orientation, they meet me, I share with them how to access the
platform, I show them sort of you know, encourage students to take advantage of these
activities and to get involved.
In conclusion, the assumption that administrators have procedural knowledge of the
organizational resources that are dedicated to support online student’s co-curriculum was
partially founded. Administrators did not have a best practice in terms of a model used to create
their co-curriculum. While some chose to follow the model of an on-ground co-curriculum,
those administrators failed to acknowledge that online students are a different learners than an
on-ground student, and therefore a replication of services might not actually work for distance
learners. Administrators also relied on different methods of advertising to inform students of a
co-curriculum. As such, there was not one common procedural theme that administrators used to
inform students that a co-curriculum existed. While they all relied on multiple methods to reach
students, there was no one specific model that was identified as a best practice to reach students.
Sufficient Procedural Knowledge to Create Diverse Co-Curriculums
It was assumed that administrators were able to create a diverse online co-curriculum that
extended beyond administrative needs (financial aid, registration…). To assess their procedural
knowledge, administrators were asked how they advocated for a co-curriculum amongst
colleagues and if they encountered technological issues in creating a co-curriculum and to
describe how they overcame those obstacles.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 73
It was discovered that all administrators believed that they did not have to advocate for a
co-curriculum amongst their colleagues. One administrator stated, “I don't, I can't recall the
necessary ... I can't recall the need for me to do a lot of advocacy. The school in my view, truly
supports the co-curricular experience.” While another stated, “So I'm really lucky in the culture
I've come into to say, "Hey, have w-, can we, have we thought about doing X?" And they'll be
like, "No, we haven't. Go do that." (laughs) So it's been really supportive and I have, really
haven't had to, um, lobby for any resources in that regard.”
Administrators also believed that they were supported by their colleagues. Support came
from faculty, administration, and students.
Well it was, it was pretty easy because we had so much support from our dean, and our
provost, and our president. So anything that we were pitching, if we pitched it under the
umbrella of student success, and that we're building this program, and that our numbers
are increasing, and you know we need, we need more ways for them to engage, and we
need more specific targeting for these needs, they were pretty open to it.
None of the administrators reported having technological issues in creating a co-
curriculum. They all believed that their technology sufficiently provided various opportunities to
create a good co-curricular experience for online students. Technology was not found to be an
obstacle. Because technology was not considered to hinder a co-curriculum, it might be
reasoned that there is ample technology readily accessible to institutions. Therefore, there may
be an educational opportunity for administrators to collaborate across institutions to share their
promising practices on how they have leveraged technology for online co-curricular services
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 74
thereby creating a comprehensive roadmap for future institutions to follow in this emerging field.
An administrator stated,
I think our technology is great, and it is really dynamic and can do a lot of different
things. Like we're doing a speed net, working online, which is really cool 'cause we have
breakout rooms where, if we have 20 people come, we can send them to, like ... We can
match them up and send them to 10 different rooms to do their own thing and then come
back. So the technology is there. I think it goes back to getting the students there and
creating that value proposition and understanding what they, what they need and what
they will show up to.
However a common theme evolved from the interviews in that learning technology and
understanding how to harness the technology to benefit the co-curriculum was a factor. One
administrator said,
I wouldn't say so much technological issues, more so just me understanding the
technologies that are out there that I could use as a platform to deliver the career services
to students who are online because I think the technology is there it's just a matter of
figuring out how to leverage it.
For many, the technology existed but there was a procedural knowledge gap in how to
utilize the technology for their institution. Gaps should be noted as key opportunities where
administrators can implement new services that might become promising practices. For
example, this quote demonstrates an administrator has defined a knowledge gap pertaining to
their students ability to learn how to use institutional technology while at the same time, it also
shows that there is an opportunity to enhance their co-curriculum by creating an instructional
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 75
manual or video tutorials that could assist and facilitate a student’s learning process. An
administrator said regarding student learning,
There's always a learning curve with our students coming on board, so especially in
terms of our orientation, getting students oriented to the, the academics program, but also
all of the different social components, and you know your career center, your alumni
support, you know all of these different offices. There are some students who need more
time adjusting to this technology, and because of time zones, and because of students
who are trying to join us from submarines, or aircraft carriers, I mean there are gonna be
some technological issues, but we haven't really seen anything that I would say has really
hindered co-curricular activities thus far, although, who knows? Today could be the day.
Yeah, I, I can't, I can't think of a specific moment where I thought wow, the technology
really failed us right now, and we needed this for this moment.
In conclusion, it was confirmed that administrators had the procedural knowledge to
create a diverse online co-curriculum that extended beyond administrative needs. Procedural
knowledge was confirmed because administrators were supported by their institutions and
colleagues to create and manage their co-curriculums. In addition, administrators believed that
technology was not an inhibitor in their creation and maintenance of a co-curriculum.
Administrators did mention that theirs and students learning technology slowed the co-
curriculum, it was not considered to be detrimental to their procedural knowledge. This section
also presented opportunities for administrators to recognize their promising practices and to
collaborate their information to create a roadmap for this emerging field and other institutions
who are in the infantile stages of developing a co-curriculum.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 76
Partial Meta-Cognitive Knowledge to Continuously Improve the Co-Curriculum
It was assumed that administrators continuously modified their co-curriculum to make
improvements. Administrators were asked three questions to demonstrate their Metacognitive
knowledge. First they were asked if they assessed their co-curriculum. Second, they were
asked to identify the materials, resources, or other institutions they used to benchmark the
effectiveness of their co-curriculum. Third, they were asked how they gauged socialization in
their co-curriculum.
Administrator’s assessment processes were varied throughout the institutions. Two of the
institutions did not have an assessment process. Two relied on alumni interaction as an
assessment process, for example,
I would say we haven't done too much in the way of assessments. I haven't asked students
what their thoughts were about a particular program but assessment would be a student
participation or a student engagement in that. That's typically how I initially assessed
career services programs in the past is identifying, clearly if this is something students
want they will attend. Attendance is always one way to assess it but then also in the past
I've kind of taken a look, okay if attendance has been well and I think this is a good
program.
Other options included, Qualtrics, survey, attendance, and an advisory board. “Other
examples are social groups, seeing the number of students within a social group, seeing the
number of activity postings, exchanges, is a good way to assess whether or not that student group
is actually needed, or if through …for things like immersion, we do a pretty extensive survey at
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 77
the end to see which individual components of the program they enjoy, they didn't enjoy, what
they took out of it, what they want to see next time.”
Most of the administrators did not benchmark their co-curriculum against other outside
programs to determine the effectiveness of their co-curriculum. One administrators cited the
lack of other program models to study as reason for not being able to benchmark,
It's kind of hard because you know R School was the first school at the University to kind
of go online with their program. In terms of major universities there wasn't a lot who
went online at the same time we did. We were kind of a pioneer in terms of entering this
marketplace as a major research university.
One school used the Association of Professionalism as a guiding tool for their co-
curriculum. They stated,
The Association for Professionalism, we're able to see what our other schools are doing,
especially in terms of things like career, and alumni, to help kind of rethink the way we're
doing it, and learn from them, and see where we're ahead, and kind of continue on, and
build those out, and find areas where we're really far behind, and get back to the drawing
board, and make sure that that's kind of a priority moving forward when we're thinking
about new co-curricular opportunities, and where we should be investing our time and
our money.
Another school compared their program to another internal program within their school.
As an example they said,
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 78
There is a university that has a program that is similar in size and kind of culture to ours,
so we've had two meetings with kind of our counterparts to here. Like, "What are your
pain points? What things have you tried that are working well?" um, and those kinds of
programming questions. So we've had several ... on the platform, actually ... just chats
with people that do similar work to us in a program formatted similarly to ours to pick
their, pick each other's brains.
It can be concluded that most schools were not aware if there was a premier co-
curriculum that they should be benchmarking their progress against. Assessment techniques
were varied. Some schools were further established in their need or want to assess their program
while others either saw it as not relevant or they were in the infancy stages of creating
assessment strategies.
Administrator’s responses to a socialization varied. Two schools did not gauge
socialization. This was instance was explained by an administrator as being,
We really, we haven't done that. It's actually not something I've thought about.” One
school relied on student feedback through monthly check-ins with students over the
phone, another school relied on feedback from in-person meet-ups. “You know we
recently had a, meet ups around the country that they ... Virtual meet ups where they were
... Each of these student leaders would host a meeting in their region, and they would let
us know, oh, this many people came, this is the concerns that we had, this is what we
talked about. So I guess I primarily use that phone check in bi-monthly to get a sense
from our student government what's happening and how things are going.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 79
One school focused on counting the number of times students logged into webcasts. But
for some schools, gauging socialization was challenging even though they knew when it was or
was not happening. The administrator explained their difficulty,
It's really just word of mouth, and hearing from the students directly saying that the
network is going, that they're making these friendships. We had one student who met
another student in the platform, not in our on campus immersion class, and their
relationship was so strong that one of the students went and spent some time in, in Oman
with the other student, and joined her live session classes from the same webcam. So we
know that these relationships are forming, we know that the network is growing, and I
think it's, it's an interesting concept to figure out how do we measure that to make sure
that we're really growing at a rate that we should be, and providing everything that we
should be.
In general administrators relied more on verbal student feedback to understand if
students were interacting with one another. In addition, there was no common method or tool
used to gauge socialization or the quality and frequency of student interaction.
In conclusion, administrator’s Metacognitive knowledge to continuously modify their co-
curriculum to make improvements was partially validated. Some administrators had more
established assessment processes, benchmarking processes, and assessments of socialization than
other schools. In addition, the schools that had established processes varied in regards to their
implementation. As a result, lack of Metacognitive knowledge would impede programs from
being able to modify improvements because administrators would not have a clear understanding
of what they knew or even needed to know.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 80
Results and Findings for Motivational Causes
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model describes indicators that affect motivation.
Motivational indicators inform if motivation is a concern (Rueda, 2011). Assumed causes of
attainment value, task value, cost value, and self-efficacy and motivational assets were identified
and assessed through surveys and interviews.
I will discuss the survey results by the categories of motivation that were evaluated,
which included attainment value, extrinsic value, cost value, and self-efficacy. Within the
motivation categories, I will first address the assets and then the questions that pertained to each
asset. In addition, overlapping motivational themes were discovered during the interview and
those will be added to the motivational synthesis as findings.
More Motivated to Increase Student Interaction than Institutional Quality
The first assumption was that administrators sought to improve the quality of their
institution. To measurably gauge effectiveness, administrators were asked if their co-curriculum
impacted institutional effectiveness administrators and they were also asked to provide examples
of measurement for instance, did their school ranking increased, how did learning improve.
Administrators did not measure the effectiveness of their co-curriculum. While they
pointed to increased persistence and retention, they were not able to support their opinion with
specific data. An example of this is,
So we are still in the process of putting this together, but we have seen that students who
are part of our social groups do have higher GPAs, I don't know if that's a direct
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 81
correlation, but it is helping students connect outside of the classroom, and kind of build
those networks at a deeper level.
All administrators believed that their co-curriculum was important, but they were not able
to provide specific data to demonstrate the co-curriculum’s impact on either retention, rankings,
or learning. One administrator stated,
But I can say that our retention has increased over the last few years of our online
program. And the ranking seems to be about the same as far as I can tell. But I think that's
one of the most ... Retention came to mind... Is something that we pay attention to and
that is getting better. For me it could be because of our co-curriculum program, I mean, I
haven't done the research to demonstrate that.
One school pointed out that their online program was relatively new and therefore,
understanding the impact of a co-curriculum was unknown. An administrator stated,
So we are still in the process of putting this together, but we have seen that students who
are part of our social groups do have higher GPAs, I don't know if that's a direct
correlation, but it is helping students connect outside of the classroom, and kind of build
those networks at a deeper level.
Because administrators were not able to provide measurable examples of the co-
curriculum’s effectiveness, this assumption was not validated.
The second assumption was that administrators provided online students an opportunity
to interact with on-ground students to encourage student learning and student engagement.
Administrators were asked if they created opportunities for their online students to engage with
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 82
our on-ground students. 37.5% of participants strongly agreed, 50% of participants agreed, and
12.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. An example was provided in an interview when an
administrator discussed their immersion program for online students. An example of this
assumption was stated as,
We had our first immersion a year and a half into the program, and we saw 28 students
come to campus for this on campus immersion, where they're doing different
programmatic opportunities, meeting with faculty, we take them on site visits. And we
had such a strong reaction to that, that we're now going to be running them twice a year,
our numbers have doubled. So we've just seen a really impressive growth very quickly
from students, and from a retention standpoint, they are even more engaged, they're more
excited about their classwork, they're more active in their discussion because they've
formed these relationships in person before the class started.
Figure 2. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 7) I create opportunities for our online students to engage with our on-ground students.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 83
Social Networking Websites Increase Extrinsic Value
It was found that administrators were motivated to create a co-curriculum so students
could interact and feel connected with their fellow students, staff/faculty and community.
Administrators were asked if they believed that their online students used social networking sites
(Facebook, Instagram…) for co-curricular activities. 37.5% of participants strongly agreed, 50%
of participants agreed, and 12.5% neither agreed nor disagreed.
Figure 3. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 8) Our online students use social networking sites (Facebook, Instagram… for co-curricular
activities.
Administrators Seek to Improve Student and Institutional Performance
According to survey results, administrators overwhelmingly agreed that the online co-
curriculum improved student performance and institutional performance. It is noteworthy that
administrators did not validate that they measured the impact of institutional performance (the
first assumption) but despite lacking data, in this assumption they validate that they believed that
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 84
their efforts effected institutional performance. In an interview, an administrator stated, “I think
I touched on the, the quick, you know students who participate in student groups have a higher
GPA, is that directly related? I don't know, I can't say, but I think it's interesting that the students
who are more involved do tend to do better academically.”
For the first question of two questions, asked if administrators believed that the online co-
curriculum improved student performance. 25% of participants strongly agreed, 50% of
participants agreed, and 25% neither agreed nor disagreed. The second question asked if
administrators believed that the online co-curriculum improved institutional performance. 50%
of participants strongly agreed, 50% of participants agreed. As a result, administrators were
extrinsically motivated to increase school performance through a co-curriculum.
Figure 4. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 3) The online co-curriculum improves student performance.
Figure 5. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 85
(Q 4) The online co-curriculum improves institutional performance.
Administrators are Extrinsically Motivated to Engage Students Outside of the Classroom
Based on the results from six survey questions, it was validated that administrators were
extrinsically motivated to engage student interaction outside of the classroom. In addition, it was
found that administrators were motivated to have opportunities such as clubs, organizations and
community engagement for their students. But, their responses were not as strong when asked if
students participated in student government. An administrator stated,
One of my main roles was to ensure that our student government had virtual
representation and that we maintained one unified student government that
oversaw, sort of, all of the student body. And that was the biggest challenge that I
had…I'm very happy to say that we've been able to accomplish that. And we
started out with two virtual students, we now have five virtual student leaders that
are elected each year based on population, and regions. Every year we've sort of
reassessed how best to provide for representation in student government. And I
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 86
think I've played a, you know, significant role in making sure that we have
appropriate representation and that we maintain a one to five student government.
It is also noteworthy that in this motivation section administrators strongly agreed that
online students have different co-curricular needs than on-ground students however results in the
knowledge section determined that when administrators created their co-curriculum they
attempted to replicate their existing on-ground services or they had no knowledge of an ideal
online co-curricular model to replicate. Although the two questions were similar in content, the
knowledge question discussed administrator’s procedural knowledge while this question
discussed their motivation for students. This will be addressed in Chapter Five.
The data is as such, for the first question, administrators were asked if there were online
opportunities for students to form clubs and organizations. 50% strongly agreed, 37.5% agreed
and 12.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. For the second question, administrators were asked if
there were opportunities for online students to engage with their community. 37.5% strongly
agreed and 62.5% agreed. For the third question, administrators were asked if online students
participated in student government. 37.5% strongly agreed, 12.5% agreed, 37.5% neither agreed
nor disagreed and 12.5% disagreed. For the fourth question, administrators were asked if online
students were satisfied with the co-curricular opportunities that are provided to them outside of
the classroom. 62.5% agreed and 37.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. For the fifth question,
administrators were asked if online students have different co-curricular needs than on-ground
students. 25% strongly agreed, 62.5% agreed and 12.5% disagreed. For the sixth question,
administrators were asked if online students utilize co-curricular services frequently. 62.5%
agreed, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 12.5% disagreed.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 87
Figure 6. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 9) There are online opportunities for students to form clubs and organizations.
Figure 7. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 5) There are opportunities for online students to engage with their community.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 88
Figure 8. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 10) Our online students participate in student government.
Figure 9. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 13) Our online students are satisfied with the co-curricular opportunities that are provided to
them outside of the classroom.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 89
Figure 10. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 6) Our online students have different co-curricular needs than our on-ground students.
Figure 11. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 11) Our online students utilize co-curricular services frequently.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 90
Technology is Not a Motivational Obstacle
Based on literature, it was assumed that administrators were motivated to overcome any
lack of resources to address technological issues to create an online co-curriculum. Three
technology related questions were asked. From the results it can be determined that the
assumption that technology would be an issue was incorrect. Instead, administrators validated
that technology was not an issue or a hurdle and therefore, there was no motivational need to
overcome a non-existant obstacle.
The data was also supported by information received in interviews. For the first question,
administrators were asked if technology had inhibited their development of a co-curriculum.
12.5 % agreed, 12.5% neither agreed nor disagreed, 50% disagreed and 25% strongly disagreed.
One administrator said, “Again I think it's more about me figuring out ways that I can leverage
technology, I don't think there's any issue of, gee I wish there was a technological solution that
could help me do this better.”
For the second question, adminstrators were asked if their technology had adequately
supported the development of an online co-curriculum. 37.5% strongly agreed, 50% agreed and
12.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. “I think our technology is great, and it is really dynamic
and can do a lot of different things.”
For the third question, adminstrators were asked if they had adequate technology training
to create a co-curriculum. 25% strongly agreed, 50% agreed and 25% neither agreed nor
disagreed. “Our IT department is, has been wonderful. We have an in house IT department that
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 91
meets with our two leaders at the beginning of each year. And breaks down about how they can
be accessed, and they are very open to deal with our students.”
Figure 12. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q14) My technology has inhibited the development of a co-curriculum.
Figure 13. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 15) My technology has adequately supported the development of an online co-curriculum.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 92
Figure 14. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 16) I have adequate technology training to create a co-curriculum.
Administrators Motivated to Improve Services for Student Learning
It was assumed that administrators were motivated to improve co-curricular services to
enhance student learning. Four questions were asked related to self-efficacy. The survey results
suggested that administrators were strongly motivated to assist students and that that contributed
to their self-efficacy. The results also found that resource availability and assessments were not
strong contributors to administrator’s self-efficacy. The combined four survey questions
reported highly favorable indicators of self-efficacy despite low scores in resource and
availability. Therefore the results showed that administrator self-efficacy was more dependent
on if administrators believed that they were meeting student needs.
The first question asked administrators if they had adequate fiscal resources to improve
their online co-curriculum. 12.5% strongly agreed, 50% agreed and 37.5% disagreed. One
administrator stated in regards to cost of technology, “There may be some technological issues
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 93
around that where we find solutions that could help enhance the co-curriculum but is the added
expense justified in terms of student usage?”
The second question asked administrators if they conducted regular assessments for their
online co-curriculum. 25% strongly agreed, 37.5% agreed, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed
and 12.5% disagreed. The third question asked administrators if their online co-curriculum was
important to their online student’s growth. 62.5% strongly agreed and 27.5 agreed. One
administrator stated,
So we put together our first social group called Campus Connection, and that was a place
where we were pushing out cool live streams that we were running, ways to get things
like their ID card, or different faculty initiatives that were gonna be available online, and
then as we continued to scale, we realized there were really nuanced groups of students
that had nuanced needs. So we created groups like returning Peace Corps volunteer
groups, or military affiliation groups, and then as we brought on X employee, our career
adviser on board, then it became even more targeted into these are specific roles, or
professional opportunities, or themes that these students now want.
The fourth question asked administrators if their online students needed an online co-
curriculum. 50% strongly agreed, 37.5% agreed and 12.5% neither agreed nor disagreed.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 94
Figure 15. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 17) I have adequate fiscal resources to improve an online co-curriculum.
Figure 16. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 12) I conduct regular assessments for our online co-curriculum.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 95
Figure 17. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 1) An online co-curriculum is important to our online student’s growth.
Figure 18. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 2) Our online students need an online co-curriculum.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 96
Table 5
Summary of the Assumed Motivation Causes and Validation Findings
Category Assumed Cause Validated Not
Validated
Partially
Validated
Explanation
Attainment Value 1. Administrator seeks to
improve the quality of the
institution
X No measurements
were provided.
Attainment Value 2. Administrator provides X
87.5% positive
online students an
results. 12.5%
opportunity to interact with
undecided
on-ground students to
encourage student learning
and student engagement.
Extrinsic Value 3. Administrator creates co- X
87.5% positive
curriculum so students can
results. 12.5%
interact and feel connected
undecided
with their fellow students,
staff/faculty and
community.
Extrinsic Value 4. Administrator seeks to X
87.5% positive
improve student and
results. 12.5%
institutional performance.
undecided
Extrinsic Value 5. Administrator seeks to X
75% positive.
engage student interaction
18.75% undecided.
outside of the classroom
6.25% negative.
environment. For example,
online clubs, organizations,
student government.
Cost Value 6. Administrator is motivated X
79.2% positive.
to overcome lack of
16.6% undecided.
resources to address
4.2% negative
technological issues to
create an online co-
curriculum
Self-Efficacy 7. Administrator is motivated X
78.1% positive.
to improve co-curricular
9.4% undecided.
services to enhance student
12.5% negative.
learning.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 97
Synthesis of Survey Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
From eight surveys that were distributed to eight administrators at seven different
organizations (2 administrators participated at one university), 100% of the surveys were
returned fully completed.
The process of evaluating surveys to determine validation was done methodically. The
survey results were examined individually. Questions were then grouped together under their
motivational asset categories. The results from each individual question were combined with
like questions in their similar motivational asset categories. The results were added and then
averaged to determine the total percentages for the assumed motivational cause. Answers that
were strongly agreed and agreed were considered to be positive. Answers that were neither
agreed nor disagreed were not considered positive or negative and remained neutral. Answers
that were either disagree or strongly disagree were considered negative. Causes were determined
to be validated if the average percentage of positive answers constituted a majority. Causes were
determined to be not-validated if the average percentage of negative answers constituted a
majority.
In summary seven out of the seven motivational causes were validated.
1. Administrator seeks to improve the quality of the institution
2. Administrator provides online students an opportunity to interact with on-ground
students to encourage student learning and student engagement.
3. Administrator creates co-curriculum so students can interact and feel connected
with their fellow students, staff/faculty and community
4. Administrator seeks to improve student and institutional performance.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 98
5. Administrator seeks to engage student interaction outside of the classroom
environment. For example, online clubs, organizations, student government.
6. Administrator is motivated to overcome lack of resources to address technological
issues to create an online co-curriculum
7. Administrator is motivated to improve co-curricular services to enhance student
learning.
All motivational causes had a positive response of 75% or higher. In general, administrators
at seven different higher education institutions did not have significant motivational barriers.
They all seemed to be highly motivated to utilize a co-curriculum to improve student learning,
student engagement and institutional effectiveness.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 99
Results and Findings for Organizational Causes
Organization is defined by cultural models and cultural settings and they identify the
visible and invisible structures that are in place in an institution (Rueda, 2011). Cultural models
are typically invisible and contribute to the policies that shape an organization (Gallimore and
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are visible and are the manifestations of the cultural models
(Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001). Assumed causes of cultural model and cultural setting assets
were identified and assessed through surveys and interviews.
The survey consisted of twenty four questions. Six questions in the survey pertained to
organization. The survey questions used a Likert scale of five. The interview consisted of
seventeen interview questions and no questions pertained to organization. To assist in the design
of the research, the questions were grouped into five assumed organizational causes or assets.
Eight surveys were distributed and all survey questions were answered by all participants. Eight
interviews were conducted and all eight participants answered all of the questions.
I will discuss the survey results by the categories of organization that were evaluated,
which included cultural model and cultural setting. Within the organizational categories, I will
first address the assets and then the questions that pertained to each asset. In addition,
overlapping organizational themes were discovered during the interview and those will be added
to the organizational synthesis as findings.
Cultural Setting Supports the Co-Curriculum
The first assumption was that organizations supported administrators to create a co-
curriculum for online students. Administrators were asked if organizational polices supported
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 100
the building of a co-curriculum. 25% strongly agreed, 50% agreed, 12.5% neither agreed nor
disagreed, and 12.5% disagreed.
Figure 19. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 18) Organizational polices support the building of a co-curriculum.
Cultural Model Supports Student Needs more than Innovation and Development
Of four assumptions, two assumptions stood out as being validated because of
overwhelming positive support. It was found that organizational models encouraged
administrators to support the students through an online co-curriculum and organizations
supported administrator’s efforts. And while some administrators had positive input regarding
their organization, because the majority of the answers were not favorable, it was determined that
administrators did not believe that organizations valued the student experience through
innovation and organizations did not support their development to understand online models.
The results of feeling supported to help students but not to be innovative may be related to
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 101
administrator’s knowledge and motivational results. I would like to remind the reader that it was
revealed in the knowledge section that administrators were not knowledgeable about
benchmarking their programs and a model or ideal online program. In addition it was also
revealed that administrators were highly motivated to assist student learning and outcomes in a
co-curriculum and in their knowledge through assessment of student needs was very high. These
inferences will be discussed in Chapter Five. Overall administrators were motivated to do
something to support students, and they have some informal experience-based knowledge of
what to do, but they were unaware of either a conceptual framework to guide their
planning/implementation or of an exemplar against which they could model or benchmark their
work.
To go into the data, the study revealed that the first assumption was that organizations
encouraged administrator support of online students. Two questions were asked. The first
question asked was if administrators were encouraged to talk about online student needs. 25%
strongly agreed, 62.5% agreed and 12.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. One administrator
stated,
Advocating for me, it's been more, being able to identify things that we can support the
online students and advocating that through co-curriculum and coming up with ideas for
that, to the extent that those budget requests and things like that advocating for that, but I
think R School’s commitment to the online program is really strong.
The second question asked if administrator’s institutions discussed the importance of an
online co-curriculum from a student’s point of view. 37.5% strongly agreed, 25% agreed and
37.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. One participant stated,
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 102
The student body is different, and they have different needs, and we need to make
changes to pre existing programming because there is no cookie cutter, traditional online
student, every online student has a different background coming in, and so figuring out
how to help them be successful is, is what everyone's goal is. So just making sure people
are understanding that the goals are the same, you know we want successful.
Figure 20. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 19) I am encouraged to talk about online student needs.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 103
Figure 21. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 20) My institution discusses the importance of an online co-curriculum from a student’s point
of view.
The second assumption was that organizations valued the student experience by
providing new and innovative ways for students to engage with their faculty, classmates and
community. Two questions were asked. The first question asked if administrators actively
benchmarked their co-curriculum against other online co-curriculums. 25% agreed, 12.5%
neither agreed nor disagreed and 62.5% disagreed. The second question asked if administrators
provided innovative ways to meet online co-curricular needs. 50% strongly agreed, 37.5%
agreed and 12.5% neither agreed nor disagreed.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 104
Figure 22. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 21) We actively benchmark our co-curriculum program against other institution's online co-
curriculums.
Figure 23. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 22) We are providing innovative ways to meet online co-curricular needs for students in our
online programs.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 105
The third assumption was organizations supported administrators’ development to
understand online students. Administrators were asked is they are current in their knowledge of
online co-curriculums. 50% agreed, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 25% disagreed.
Figure 24. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 23) I am current in my knowledge of online co-curriculums.
The fourth assumption was that organizations supported administrators’ co-curricular
efforts. Administrators were asked if they were involved in discussions of curriculum
development for students. 37.5% strongly agreed, 37.5% agreed and 25% disagreed.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 106
Figure 25. Participant Likert Scale Ranking
(Q 24) As an administrator, I am involved in discussions of co-curriculum development for our
students.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 107
Table 6
Category
Assumed Cause Validated Not
Validated
Partially
Validated
Explanation
Cultural Setting 1. Organization supports
administrators’ creating a
co-curriculum for online
students.
X
75% positive.
12.5% undecided.
12.5% negative.
Cultural Model 2. Organization encourages
administrator support of
online student needs.
X
75% positive. 25%
undecided.
Cultural Model 3. The organization values the
student experience by
providing new and
innovative ways for
students to engage with
their faculty, classmates
and community.
X 56.25% positive.
12.5% undecided.
31.25% negative.
Cultural Model 4. Organization supports
administrator development
to understand online
models.
X 50% positive. 25%
undecided. 25%
negative.
Cultural Model 5. Organization supports
administrators’ co-
curricular efforts.
X
75% positive. 25%
negative.
Synthesis of Survey Results and Findings for Organizational Causes
From eight surveys that were distributed to eight administrators at seven different
organizations (2 administrators participated at one university), 100% of the surveys were
returned fully completed.
The process of evaluating surveys to determine validation was done methodically. The
survey results were examined individually. Questions were then grouped together under their
organizational asset categories. The results from each individual question were combined with
like questions in their similar organizational asset categories. The results were added and then
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 108
averaged to determine the total percentages for the assumed organizational cause. Answers that
were strongly agreed and agreed were considered to be positive. Answers that were neither
agreed nor disagreed were not considered positive or negative and remained neutral. Answers
that were either disagree or strongly disagree were considered negative. Causes were determined
to be validated if the average percentage of positive answers constituted a majority. Causes were
determined to be not-validated if the average percentage of negative answers constituted a
majority.
In summary three out of the five organizational causes were validated. Two were
partially validated. The three validated organizational causes were:
1. Organization supports administrators’ creating a co-curriculum for online students.
2. Organization encourages administrator support of online student needs.
3. Organization supports administrators’ co-curricular efforts.
The three organizational causes that were validated had a positive response of 75%. In
general, organizations supported administrators’ efforts to create an online co-curriculum that
supported online student needs.
The two partially validated organizational causes were:
1. The organization values the student experience by providing new and innovative
ways for students to engage with their faculty, classmates and community.
2. Organization supports administrator development to understand online models.
The two organizational causes that were partially validated had each had a positive response
rate of 56.25% or lower but an average undecided rate of 18.75% and an average negative
response of 28%. The positive response rate was above fifty percent but the combination of
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 109
undecided and negative were narrowly behind. As such, the two assumptions were partially
validated. The results of a partial validation suggest that organizations could improve their
support of new and innovative ways for online student engagement. And, organizations could
improve their support of administrators’ development to understand online models.
When the validated and the partially validated are compared with one another six findings
can be inferred:
1. Organizations do provide support for administrators’ efforts to create and maintain online
co-curriculums but they could improve their support for administrator training and
innovation.
2. Administrators do not believe that organizations positively support innovation and they
do not positively support administrator training.
3. Organizations are unaware that they should or could enhance their current support of
administrator online co-curriculum innovation and training.
4. Administrators have not conveyed that organizational support for innovation and training
is important.
5. Administrators do not value organizational support for innovation and training and
therefore have not voiced concerns.
6. The cultural setting could be modified to reflect a change in cultural models so that
administrator innovation and training can increase.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 110
CHAPTER FIVE
PROMISING PRACTICES, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors behind the successful development
by administrators of a co-curriculum for online students in higher education. The study was
significant because the field of the co-curriculum is relatively new in online education with few
known models to follow (Thompson, 2003). This study used a promising practices approach to
propose and validate assumed assets as defined in knowledge, motivational and organizational
categories (Clark and Estes, 2008). After analyzing data from interviews and surveys, a total of
twelve assets were validated, five were partially validated and one was not validated. In Chapter
Five, evidence-based recommendations based on these validated knowledge, motivation and
organization causes will be presented. These recommendations will be supported by empirical
findings from this study and by additional review of the relevant literature. The chapter will also
include a recommended implementation and evaluation plan. The chapter will conclude with a
discussion of the limitations of this study and future research suggestions.
Validated Causes Selection and Rationale
In this section, a list of validated causes in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization will be rationalized and prioritized. Causes will be listed by prioritization by what
is believed to be the most achievable organizational goal of the stakeholder. The most
challenging factor will appear towards the end. Achievable goal takes into consideration the
context, culture and resources and is measured by the greatest opportunity for impact.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 111
Table 7
Gap Analysis Dimension Validated Causes
Knowledge 1. Factual
Administrators need basic knowledge about what an online co-curriculum is.
2. Factual
Administrator has basic knowledge of student co-curricular needs.
3. Procedural
Administrator creates a diverse student centered online co-curriculum that
extends beyond basic administrative needs (financial aid, registration…)
Motivation 1. Attainment
Administrator provides opportunities for online students to interact with on-
ground students to encourage student learning and student engagement.
2. Extrinsic
Administrator creates a co-curriculum so students can interact and feel
connected with their fellow students, staff/faculty and community.
3. Extrinsic
Administrator seeks to improve student and institutional performance.
4. Extrinsic
Administrator seeks to engage student interaction outside of the classroom
environment. For example, online clubs, organizations, student government.
5. Cost Value
Administrator is motivated to overcome lack of resources to address
technological issues to create an online co-curriculum.
6. Self-Efficacy
Administrator is motivated to improve co-curricular services to enhance
student learning.
Organization 1. Cultural Setting
Organizational policies support administrators’ creating a co-curriculum for
online students.
2. Cultural Model
Organization encourages administrator support of online student needs.
Support could be through conversations, in meetings, in written docs…
3. Cultural Model
Organization supports administrators’ co-curricular efforts.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 112
Requisite Knowledge about an Online Co-Curriculum
Surveys and data were triangulated and validated the assumed knowledge causes of an
online co-curriculum. It was found that administrators were considered to have factual and
procedural knowledge of a co-curriculum. Secondly, administrators had factual knowledge of
the co-curriculum and the co-curricular needs of students. Lastly, administrators were also found
to have procedural knowledge in creating a diverse co-curriculum.
Administrators Must Know the Co-Curriculum and Understand Student Needs to Create a
Successful Online Co-Curriculum
Administrators in this study demonstrated that they had factual knowledge of an online
co-curriculum as well as factual knowledge of student co-curricular needs. Factual knowledge is
the basic element that one must know to be familiar with a discipline or solve problems in it
(Krathwohl, 2002).
The first promising practice speaks to an administrator’s understanding that a co-
curriculum can exist in online education and is not unique to on-ground education. Universities
that provide students with opportunities to explore and apply knowledge in various ways, and in
this instance through a co-curriculum, enhance student tools and knowledge beyond graduation
(Brewer & Brewer, 2010).
For other administrators to replicate this promising practice, it is essential they
understand that distance learning is enhanced when additional services beyond academics are
available to students through a co-curriculum (Rovai, 2002). Services for students can appear in
multiple forms such as orientation programs, advising, social groups, counseling… (Rovai,
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 113
2002). Altogether, the online co-curriculum improves the quality of student academic
experiences by connecting them to the university, creating social networks for online students,
and by helping students develop their skills that they will need to be successful as a distance
learner (Ludwig-Hardman & Dunlap, 2003).
For the second promising practice, administrators in this study demonstrated that they
had factual knowledge of online student’s co-curricular needs. Assessment is a key element to
quality assurance in online education because it gauges a program’s effectiveness of meeting
student needs (Wang, 2006). For other administrators to replicate this promising practice, they
must understand that online student needs are a largely unexplored field thereby making
administrator’s efforts to understand student needs critical to enhancing student success, learning
and support systems (Dawson, 2010). An example of an administrator’s assessment strategy
could involve comparing online student needs to on-ground student needs. To discover this
information, surveys would be distributed to online students via email. A similar survey could
be distributed to a control group of on-ground students based on similar gender and ethnicity
categories. The results of the data would be analyzed to underscore the significant differences
between online and on-ground student needs. Specifically, the results would help understand
how institutions are meeting the needs of online student needs relative to their work in meeting
on-ground student needs (Dare, Zapata, & Thomas (2005).
Navigating Procedures
Administrators in this study demonstrated that they were able to create a diverse online
co-curriculum that extends beyond administrative needs (financial aid, registration…) because
they knew that their position had administrative support and that they were supported by their
technology. This was demonstrated by their procedural knowledge or rather their understanding
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 114
of how to do something (Krathwohl, 2002). This promising practice is important because
creating new services in higher education requires internal political support and financial
backing. For instance, the study found an administrator who worked with other departments to
create a comprehensive co-curricular network by linking her services with theirs. In one
instance, she combined services with academic advising to ensure that they provided support to
online students through coaching via email and phone calls. She also started a peer lead student
support network where students had the opportunity to discuss issues and solutions with their
classmates. In addition, she also worked closely with faculty to facilitate an educational support
group where faculty would report on students who were not meeting academic standards. The
function of the group was to form a network to address factors that might be affecting academic
work. She also had Success Planning program which involved outreach via email and phone
were students would be contacted and offered assistance in time management and budgeting.
Other administrators can employ this promising practice by informing administration,
faculty and staff of the benefits of comprehensive services to the student learning experience
(LaPadula, 2003). In addition, administrators should be knowledgeable about the plethora of
technology based tools available in today’s market (Venable, 2010). Information on emerging
distance education technology could be gathered at conferences such as the Instructional
Technology Council, Distance Teaching and Learning Conference, or the ISTE Conference.
Administrators will need to be knowledgeable about the tools that their students will be expected
to utilize (Kretovics, 2003). Having knowledge of the necessary resources to create a co-
curriculum will make it easier to advocate to administration about acquiring the necessary
resources to build strong student services. According to Beldarrain (2006), Chickering and
Ehrmann (1996) suggested a framework to use when assessing new technology to implement:
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 115
(1) Encourage contact between students and faculty.
(2) Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students.
(3) Use active learning techniques.
(4) Give prompt feedback.
(5) Emphasize time on task.
(6) Communicate high expectations.
(7) Respect diverse talents and ways of learning.
Using the seven principles, along with a specific needs assessment, will help determine
the purpose and rationale of integrating the particular technology (Beldarrain, 2006). More
importantly, demonstrating a systematic framework in evaluating technology would assist in
advocating for the need to acquire and use the new technology to administration.
Motivational Promising Practices of an Online Co-Curriculum
This study revealed that motivation was an important factor in the successful
development of an online co-curriculum through the triangulation of surveys and interviews.
The study validated that administrators were considered as very motivated to implement and
oversee an online co-curriculum. In addition, administrators were found to have motivational
value, interest and cost in the online co-curriculum. Through a review of the literature, these
validated assets are discussed below.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 116
Seeing the Value of their Work
For online education programs, it is important to ensure that administrators value the co-
curriculum in their programs. In this study, the triangulation of surveys and interviews indicated
that administrators valued the co-curriculum to improve their online education programs.
Administrators who valued the online co-curriculum demonstrated attainment and extrinsic task
values (Atkinson, 1964). The value of the two motivations attributes (Weiner, 1985) to
administrator’s success in building an online co-curriculum.
Attainment value is the personal importance of doing well on a task (Eccles & Wigfield,
2002). Extrinsic motivation is the importance to gain external rewards which also implies a
basic need for competence and self-determination (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). As such,
administrators who oversee co-curriculums on their campuses should be motivated to see both
personal and external value in their work.
Maintaining a Long Term Interest
Advocating for new educational systems in higher education is often a daunting task for
an administrator. As such, the cost value of creating a co-curriculum, or rather the effort needed
to succeed, may be conceptualized as a negative aspect of engaging in the task. Despite time
consuming efforts, coordinating a co-curriculum can have positive value to an administrator
because it facilitates important future goals, regardless if they are not interested in the task for
their own sake (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Administrators who are interested in building an
online co-curriculum should recognize that the cost value or the effort to convince co-workers
for their support and the necessary research to locate useful technology will garner sufficient cost
value upon completion.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 117
Building Self-Efficacy for Independent Work is Important
Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as one’s confidence in their ability to organize and
execute a course of action, to problem solve or complete a task. This study found that an
administrator did not work on a team or as part of staff that oversaw the online co-curriculum on
their campuses. A co-curriculum administrator’s task is challenging and as such, it is more
likely that they will be successful in taking on this difficult task if they have high self-efficacy
rather that if they were inefficacious (Zimmerman, 2000). Because the administrator worked
independently and with limited known knowledge regarding their field of practice, the online co-
curriculum administrators should have high self-efficacy because efficacy expectations
determine their goal setting, activity choice, persistence, and degree of effort (Eccles & Wigfield,
2002).
According to Tai (2006) organizations can increase employee self-efficacy and
motivation by conducting trainings that build self-efficacy prior to their actual work. Tai noted
that research has shown that self-efficacy is trainable (Karl et al., 1993), and training motivation
can be increased (Colquitt et al., 2000). Therefore, because we know that an online co-
curriculum administrator benefits from high self-efficacy, programs should create training
programs where the administrator is trained to believe in their ability to learn and subsequently
they will be more willing to gain knowledge and master their work moving forward (Tai, 2006).
Such training would include programs that simulate scenarios, environments, and content
complexities that an administrator would face. Some examples might include training on how an
administrator would address technology related questions, how to conduct student assessments
online, how to create online chat rooms… Specifically, to increase trainees’ self-efficacy and
training motivation, managers can provide training-related information, such as training
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 118
attributes, training environment, content complexity, and the like. In addition to providing
trainees sufficient pre-information concerning training programs, managers should enhance the
utility and necessity of the training program to increase trainees’ self-efficacy and training
motivation to ensure that trainees have effective training outcomes
Organizational Promising Practices for an Online Co-Curriculum
The triangulation of the surveys and interviews validated the assumed organizational
causes that contribute to an online co-curriculum. The programs established a cultural setting
that was supportive for administrators to create an online co-curriculum. These programs also
reflected cultural models where administrators were encouraged to support online student needs
and create support systems for administrator efforts. By reviewing the study data in light of the
existing literature on organizational culture, these validated assets are discussed below.
Organization Strives to Solve Online Student Learning Challenges
Administrators validated that their organizations encouraged them to support online
student needs and in turn supported the need for an online co-curriculum. This promising
practice is consistent with the concept of cultural model. Rueda (2011) argued that cultural
models are evident shared beliefs and values that are often invisible within an organization.
For this promising practice to transfer to other programs, organizations should encourage
administrators to discuss online student needs as well as talk about their online services from the
student’s perspective. A cultural model that encourages the support for all students (on-ground
and online) will engage in a comprehensive discussion about student support which will lead to
organizations filling the inequities in their co-curricular gaps (Floyd & Casey ‐Powell, 2004).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 119
Conversations should include goal setting, assessment, and engagement that involve multiple
stakeholders within the organization. The ideal cultural model seeks to recognize and identify
organizational goals that value that there are individual student challenges that contribute or
inhibit learning interactions and that it is the co-curriculum administrator as well as the
organization to have continuous conversations on how and when they address student needs.
Culture Setting Should Support Creativity and Experimentation
Administrators in this study validated that their organizations supported that they create
an online co-curriculum. This promising practice is rooted in the organizational theory of
cultural setting. Cultural settings are often the byproduct of a cultural model. They are typically
visible and are often reoccurring patterns in an organization such as policies, rules that influence
how people traditionally conduct their behavior over time (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001).
It is recommended that an administrator can better achieve their goals when they work in
a complementary organizational setting where they can adapt to the cultural setting or become
culturally intelligent (Crowne, 2008). For programs to ensure that they support a co-curriculum
adequately, it is recommended that they have a designated position for an online administrator to
support the online co-curriculum. A designated position demonstrates a programs’ visible
support of an administrator because it defines the importance of their work within the
organizational culture and the hierarchal scheme. An administrator who understands the
structure or the organizational way in which to advocate for their programs will be able to
successfully navigate their setting and achieve higher job satisfaction and job outcome (Trivellas
& Dargenidou, 2009).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 120
For this promising practice to transfer to other programs, it is important for administrators
to exist within an organization that has policies that support the building of an online co-
curriculum. An example of an ideal cultural model that reflects the desired setting in higher
education is an adhocracy organization. An adhocracy model focuses on innovation. Although
rare, an adhocracy model is an organizational model that values flexibility and as a result does
not follow a top down hierarchal model. Instead, an adhocracy model does not have formal
leadership and instead hires and trusts employees who are self-initiating and competent to create
products that will expand on the institutions’ creative portfolio (Patti, 2009). This setting is ideal
because it embraces experimentation, creativity, pro-activeness, and often results in enhanced
administration (Tharp, 2009). Within that model, the organization states their emphasis on
innovation and teamwork to achieve their desired results (Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez &
Sanz-Valle, 2011). If an institution does not adhere to an adhocracy model, the institution could
adapt the values of an adhocracy model by hiring an administrator who is a self-initiating and is
creative. Management should be cognizant that to be supportive of creativity and understand
that a hands off approach to their leadership might be a productive approach for the
administrator.
Implementation Plan
Research has demonstrated that a multi-phased approach leads to improved performance
for personnel and institutions. Various components include needs assessment, training design
and delivery, training evaluation, transfer of training (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Provided below
is a basic outline of possible steps to consider in the implementation and continued improvement
of an online co-curriculum as illustrated in this study and taking into account the necessary
knowledge, motivation and organization factors. While much of the learning for program staff
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 121
and leaders will occur informally and not through a formal training program, the steps below can
be viewed as helpful components or stages that are necessary in any program’s effort to develop
an online co-curriculum.
From this research, it was found that programs often attempted to replicate their on-
ground co-curriculum in an online format or they randomly created a co-curriculum without a
strategic plan. A co-curriculum should be purposeful and comprehensive so that it is intentional
in its design in how it believes it will advance student success.
The first step in creating a strategic design is for an administrator to understand the
fundamental issues that they need and want to address. In order to understand the issues, an
administrator must identify the best assessment tool to evaluate their current co-curriculum so
that they have a firm understanding of their program’s gaps and opportunities. The needs
assessment will identify what their program is doing well and where they can make
improvements. A needs assessment should gauge administrative and student needs and
satisfaction. Administrators should identify one assessment tool to use to gather continuous
student data over time. The use of one assessment tool will provide consistent data where an
administrator can assess student need and satisfaction. Examples of an assessment tool could be
a Likert Scale based survey, discussion groups, or an opened ended survey. In addition to the
assessment tool, administrators can clarify the evaluation of their assessment process, by
benchmarking other online co-curriculums against the progress of their services.
Benchmarking can occur through website comparisons, service comparisons, and data analysis
by comparing their school or program against similar or desired sized institutions, student size
and academic program type.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 122
This research found that institutions relied on multiple types of technology to build their
co-curriculum. No one use of technology stood out as being more significant than another. The
value of the technology that administrators used was subjective. What was clear was that an
institution that used multiple approaches (email, chat rooms, on-ground immersion programs…)
for their co-curriculum lead to more opportunities for programs and students. For the second
step, administrators should assess their program to ensure that multiple opportunities for student
engagement exist for their online students. If online students have limited opportunities to form
connections (only via online), administrators can identify existing programs (alumni, social,
student government…) that include on-ground students as opportunities for online students to
create connections. Secondly, administrators should intentionally learn about emerging
education technology by seeking information through STEM faculty, attending conferences and
reviews of recently conducted research. Administrators should expand their network of
colleagues by reaching out to other administrators within their campus system or at other schools
to increase their knowledge and to be current in addressing concerns.
This research found that there was often a knowledge gap between the designer and the
coordinator of an online co-curriculum. Some causes were attributed to instances where the
designer was no longer employed at the institution and in others, the coordinator had not
questioned the overall intent or purpose of the co-curriculum’s design. The impact of this
knowledge gap inhibited a coordinator’s fundamental understanding of why they did their work,
how their work impacted student development, and how they could improve processes that
would enhance programs co-curriculum. Central to the third step is ensuring that administrators
are knowledgeable about the designer’s intent, their conceptual framework and the purpose of
the functions that they designed for student interaction. In instances throughout this project it
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 123
was common to hear administrators state that they had “found” new ways to leverage the
existing technology to help them in their co-curriculum. It is recommended that administrators
could avoid the time and energy it might take to “find” the technology they need if institutions
ensured that there was a continuity of knowledge that occurred when staff leave or enter a new
position. To help sill knowledge gaps, programs should keep manuals, hold orientations, create
training programs and support administrators need to learn about the co-curriculum.
For the fourth step, administrators should ensure that their work is not operating in a
“vacuum.” This research found that central to an administrator’s success is their ability to
advocate for their needs within their organizational structure. In traditional higher education, a
co-curriculum has proven to be vital to addition to student success. But in the field of online
learning, the co-curriculum’s development and subsequent value has come secondary to their
primary classroom education. For example, in this research, some administrators did not
understand that the work that they did was defined as a co-curriculum. I would speculate that if
they did not understand how to define their own work that their university or college did not
understand what the administrator did and why it was important. It’s essential that
administrators understand that an online student’s success can be impacted by co-curricular
efforts. This concept may be foreign within an organization because staff, faculty and students
might not be familiar with online learning. To ensure that students are supported, administrators
must understand that they need to be included in meetings where their interests are on the
administrative agendas so they can advocate for co-curricular needs within an institution.
Administrators should be able to have a conversation where they are able to communicate to
their colleagues that the work they do is defined as a co-curriculum, a co-curriculum is important
and has existed in traditional education for years, a co-curriculum is an integral part of an online
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 124
student’s experience, and there is research that supports the importance of my work and this will
impact student performance and institutional growth. To maintain their knowledge of their field
so that they can have a valuable voice within their institution, administrators should maintain
regular check-ins with online faculty, staff and students to learn about issues and concerns.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 125
Table 8
Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Solution Implementation
Knowledge and Skills Motivation Organization
Causes Knowing an online co-
curriculum
Knowing co-curricular
needs of online students
Knowing how to create
diverse online co-
curriculums
Attain learning and
engagement from interaction
with on-ground students
Extrinsic value in creating
interactions to enhance
connectedness
Extrinsic value in improving
student and institutional
performance
Extrinsic value in engaging
student interaction outside of
the classroom
Cost value in overcoming lack
of resources to address
technological issues
Self-efficacy to improve
services to enhance student
learning
Supports
creation of a co-
curriculum
Encourages
support of
student needs
Supports co-
curricular efforts
Solutions Identify gaps in co-
curricular services
Create a formal
standardized student
assessment process
Benchmark services
against other online
programs
Facilitate opportunities for
online and on-ground students
to interact
Create multiple pathways for
students to connect with each
other
Maintain knowledge of
emerging online technology
Create learning network for
administrators who facilitate
online co-curriculums
Maintain
conversations
about the
importance of
student needs
Maintain
involvement in
co-curricular
discussions
Implementation Create assessment of
current services to
determine if there are gaps
Identify a student
assessment tool and use it
for a year. Compare the
data to better understand
student needs.
Research other online
programs by visiting their
websites or calling the
program administrator to
discuss their services to
identify opportunities on
your campus
Assess your program to
determine if online students
have multiple options for
building connections
Use existing forums to invite
online students to attend for
example alumni events, meet-
ups…
Discuss emerging technology
with campus resources in the
STEM programs at your
school, at conferences…
Reach out to other
administrators by phone or
email to create meetings,
lunches, or opportunities to
connect
Ensure that you
are invited to
meetings where
your talking
points are on the
agenda
Maintain
weekly/monthly
communication
with faculty,
staff and
students
regarding needs,
problems and
solutions
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 126
Evaluation Plan
Kirkpatrick (2006) identified a four leveled model that I will use as an evaluation system
to assess the impact of the proposed solutions in this promising practices study. The four levels
are defined as (a) Reactions (b) Learning or Performance (c) Transfer or Behavior and (d)
Impact. An evaluation system is not meant to be comprehensive plan but instead serves as a
tool for administrator’s to use to assist them in identifying important steps in their development
of an online co-curriculum.
Level 1: Reactions
Level one measures the reactions of participants to the program (Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Participant reactions to a training experience or to a new development, otherwise known as “the
smile test”, determine if the initiative was effective and well received. If reactions are positive
then it is more likely that learning has occurred. Conversely, if reactions are negative then it can
be assumed that learning most likely did not occur (Kirkpatrick, 2006).
In this case, if programs are successful in creating and maintaining an online co-
curriculum at their institution, reactions to that program will be important to capture. To
evaluate reactions, stakeholders including faculty and staff can be provided a 5- point Likert
scale test that will gauge their satisfaction. Overall satisfaction will be measured based on an
average of the combined answers. Sample questions might be, “I am aware of our co-curricular
offerings” or “I am aware of the benefits of the co-curricular program in our school.” The scores
of the survey should be evaluated and used for continued program development (Kirkpatrick,
2006).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 127
Level 2: Learning
Level two measures how much administrators have learned, and if there has been an
observable change in their skill, knowledge, attitude, confidence and commitment (Kirkpatrick,
2006). For administrators, the level two evaluations demonstrate their knowledge of internal and
external resources, their confidence or self-efficacy, and their skill.
To gauge their depth of learning, a pre and post survey will be implemented (Kirkpatrick,
2006). The pre and post survey will be the same and their results will be compared. The survey
will include multiple choice questions to gauge administrator knowledge, Likert scale questions
that probe for an administrator’s confidence to implement a co-curriculum, and short answer
questions and scenario questions where an administrator has an opportunity to discuss/reflect on
and apply what they have learned through the training process. The multiple choice questions
will test administrators on the information that they should know. If after comparison of pre-post
survey results it is determined that an administrator has not learned from the training, then an
evaluation of the training and its materials will be reviewed and a brief survey will be conducted
asking administrators how and why they could have benefitted from the training more.
Level 3: Transfer
Level three measures administrator’s behavior or to what degree administrators applied
what they learned from the training to their job (Kirkpatrick, 2006). The expected outcome from
the training is that administrator’s new knowledge will enhance their ability to identify resources
inside and outside of their institution which will improve student connections.
To ascertain behavioral change, it’s imperative to allow time for the behavior to change
(Kirkpatrick, 2006). Therefore, administrators and online students conduct a written survey
three months after the training and again, the same survey, one year after the training. The
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 128
survey will ask the administrator, “What changes in behavior have occurred since you attended
the training?” and “Do you plan to change your behavior in the future?” The student feedback is
significant because they know the administrator’s previous behaviors and there subsequent
behaviors.
Level 4: Impact
The expectation from the training is that administrators will increase student co-curricular
opportunities after having gained new and informed knowledge, motivation, and organization
information. Administrators will establish professional networks, create vibrant assessment
tools, and build awareness of student concerns and needs. An administrator has been successful
when their online co-curriculum is robust with social and professional opportunities. The
evaluation used to measure administrator’s impact on the program will be a survey delivered to
students that detail all of the information that students should know regarding their co-
curriculum. The survey will ask students to identify social opportunities, networking
opportunities, alumni programs, student government…through a series of true and false
questions, multiple choice, and fill in the blank questions. Some questions might read, “True or
False. Online students are represented in the student government.” Or “Pick the answer that best
corresponds with the following statement: What day is the all school Alumni & Current Student
Social Networking Party?” If the scores are deemed to be high or above a specific agreed upon
percentage then the program will be considered impactful. If the scores are deemed lower than
desired, then the assumed causes should be revisited.
Limitations
The promising practices model of the study is best designed for a reader with no
knowledge of a co-curriculum. Those readers who are more advanced in their knowledge and
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 129
implementation of a co-curriculum would be more interested in reading chapter 4 to benchmark
their progress versus Chapter Five which might verify their current practices.
Technical problems were encountered in the recording of two conversations. Inaudible
audio limited the transcription ability of the interviews. As such, some of the interview data was
not included in the study because of accuracy. The technical issues were not isolated to one
specific method of recording and were random.
The professional experience, education background, and knowledge of each administrator
varied from institution. As such, the study was limited by varying answers that were dependent
on factors not capable of being mitigated for this study.
The study rendered partially validated assumed assets. While it was recognized that
some of the answers could be considered progressive, they were considered to be exceptional
rather than a promising practice based on the collective response from the participant set. In
particular the work done at S College stood out as more advanced and comprehensive than the
majority of other administrators interviewed in the study and therefore, those strong answers
were part of partially validated assets and not included in this study.
Data analysis was limited in this study in part because of lack of technology on some
campuses. For instance, some campuses had general websites listing their co-curriculum for
students while others had little to no available information. The variances in available data for
analysis limited the studies ability to identify promising practices in this field.
Lastly as noted in chapter three, the study was contingent on sample size. Any
volunteer’s inability to participate would limit the validity of the research. In addition, because
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 130
the study focused on institutional promising practices, biases within self-reported data and
specifically participant attribution or exaggeration may have limited the study. Lastly, data for
this comprehensive study was collected by multiple researchers. As such, the measure to collect
data may inhibit the ability to conduct analysis because the instrument to collect data varied.
Researcher’s Speculation and Recommendations
This research project focused on identifying assets that higher education administrators
can use to construct an online co-curriculum. Central to the research was identifying specific
knowledge, motivation, and organization promising practices that could be used in a tool kit by
other administrators. While this dissertation’s purpose was to hone in on specific elements of a
the online co-curriculum, at the conclusion of this research process, inherent aspects that were
not specific to the research topic presented themselves as a conceptual framework that an
administrator who was interested in this topic should know. The benefits of this dissertation are
to improve administrator’s intentionality when they construct and maintain an online co-
curriculum so that they minimize mistakes and maximize resources.
Throughout the process of the research was the apparent overarching theme of the need to
engage students in their education experience. Engaged students are more apt to persist in their
education through enhanced learning because their environment fosters and complements a
connection to their discipline and experiences (Kift & Field, 2009). Online co-curriculum
administrator should be knowledgeable that student engagement is intentional. The virtual world
that they are creating for online students can be consist of a solely online experience or blended
between online and on-ground experiences. Administrators should understand that the work they
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 131
do is specific to engagement and that the byproducts of their success are what affects student
learning, student outcomes, and institutional success.
An online co-curriculum is relatively new to the field of education. An institution that is
creating a new online program of study or is in the infant stages of designing an online co-
curriculum should understand that an administrator who is knowledgeable in the areas of student
development theory, learning theory, and student engagement could be more intentional in their
designs and coordination of their programs than one who is not. Their knowledge will bridge the
gaps between traditional existing higher education co-curriculums and the emerging online co-
curriculum. Their knowledge will guide reason as institutions find new ways to innovate
learning and engagement in the online world.
In cases where an institution utilizes a pre-designed online program management system
to coordinate their co-curriculum, communication between the administrator and the designer of
the program should occur. Throughout this research, it was observed that often administrators
were able to discuss the tools or programs they used to engage students but they were not aware
of the intent or purpose of the programmer’s design. For example, in an interview an
administrator discussed multiple ways in which they communicated to students. They discussed
a message board, email, and a chat bar. When further probed, they did not know the original
designer’s intent for each platform nor did they understand how to connect the platforms when
they communicated to students. Continuous communication between the designer and the
coordinator could improve how an administrator uses their online tools and it might also create
insight and valuable feedback for designers on how administrators improve their platforms
design that they could use to construct new opportunities for the online co-curriculum.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 132
Another need for continuous communication can be attributed to what Downes (2009)
described as personal learning environments (PLE). Online students create their own unique
learning systems where they find information and make connections with knowledgeable others
of their choice (Downes, 2009). These connections relate to what Siemens & Downes (2008,
2009) describe as connectivism, or how learning occurs in multiple places. Because of
technological advances, people are constantly finding and creating new places where they find
information, share information and connect with others through new and emerging technologies.
Administrators can communicate to designers about the PLE’s their students create and how
their co-curriculum should be manipulated to engage students using multiple technologies.
Because of the newness of online education, an administrator will be creating new and
exciting opportunities for student learning rather than simply maintaining prior duties. A person
who is curious, creative and knowledgeable about theory and institutional practices would be
valuable as an on-line curriculum administrator. An organization should seek to hire a person
who values innovation. The organization should also provide and maintain an environment that
encourages continuous discussion of innovation and engagement. In addition, the leader or
supervisor of an online co-curriculum administrator should provide a supportive environment
that encourages questioning, assessment, innovation and communication.
Programs that stood out in this study were ones that engaged students through multiple
platforms and provided a robust array of subjects to learn. Some administrators believed that
their program was successful because they used multiple platforms to engage students. But in
retrospect, their co-curriculum offered little in terms of diversity of content and only seemed to
provide a narrow co-curriculum that was distributed in various ways. According to Yorke
(2006), there are multiple student factors that influence how a student engages. Examples of
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 133
causes include finances, employment, and priority of importance. It’s essential that
administrators seek to provide rich content that meet the diversity of student needs in multiple
forms to make a strong co-curriculum.
Online education helps an institution grow its student population by providing access to
more potential students. People who were previously not able to attend a college or university
because of physical or timely barriers now can enroll in an online program. As such, it is within
reason to believe that as more students enroll in online classes the diversity of the student
population will also increase. Administrators should also understand that growth in their online
programs may alter the make-up of their study body and therefore the online student needs might
be separate from on-ground students. Areas where changes could occur may be in student age,
race, socio-economic status and physical ability. As such, an online co-curriculum may need to
incorporate workshops or programs that address those issues that are specific to their online
student demographic thereby creating an environment that fosters learning and support.
Future Research
In this study, one program stood out as being more advanced than other programs and
would be a model program to study for future research. In addition, it would be recommended
that this program could be used as a benchmark for other institutions to gauge their progression
and effectiveness.
This promising practices study focused on validated assets of administrator’s co-
curricular efforts. The study rendered information that was partially validated and not validated.
It is suggested that a gap analysis focus on the partially and not validated research found in this
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 134
study would be grounds for future research to better understand the opportunities to create a
comprehensive online co-curriculum.
Throughout this study, a common theme emerged where administrators tailored their
online co-curriculum to be identical to their on-ground co-curriculum. While administrator’s
pointed that online students have different needs from on-ground students, no administrator
recognized that the difference in online students and on-ground students could be rooted in
student development theory. As such, future research could theorize that online student services
could be different than an on-ground student’s services because their development as students is
different. Future research should involve how the learning and development of online learners
(versus traditional on-ground learners) can tailor and compliment their services and resources for
improvement.
Conclusion
Research has found that a co-curriculum that encompasses student engagement, life-wide
learning, student development and support, provides traditional and non-traditional benefits to
student success (Schreiber, 2014). For traditional college students, co-curricular services are
readily available on college campuses (LaPadula, 2010). The use of online technology to deliver
education content has grown significantly where millennial students expect higher education to
be delivered electronically, customization, and collaboration (Hornak, Akweks & Jeffs 2010).
Historically, online student services have been forgotten in the conversation of delivering
effective and high quality online education (LaPadula, 2010). Research has shown that the
student experience is deeply affected by quality of student services. As such, there has been a
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 135
renewed interest in filling the educational gap in online education by creating an online co-
curriculum that offers comprehensive student services (LaPadula, 2010).
This promising practices study attempted to contribute to necessary data by focusing on
factors that contribute to the online co-curriculum. The Gap Analysis model explored the
knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that impact an online co-curriculum (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The analysis, through the triangulation of surveys and interviews, identified nine
validated assets for other administrators to replicate in their institutions. The hope of this project
was to improve the efforts of administrators as well as the quality of education for students in the
emerging world of online education.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 136
References
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University
Press. Chicago
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual review of psychology, 60, 451-474.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation.
A., Zapata, L. P., & Thomas, A. G. (2005). Assessing the needs of distance learners: A student
affairs perspective. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(112), 39-54.
Bandura A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman
Beaudoin, M. F. “Distance Education Leadership for a New Century.” Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 2003, 6(2).” http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/
ojdla/summer62/beaudoin62.html. Accessed May 10, 2005.
Beeny, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of learning in the co-curriculum: A study of expectations and
involvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Georgia.
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student
interaction and collaboration. Distance education, 27(2), 139-153.
Braxton, J. M., & Mundy, M. E. (2001). Powerful institutional levers to reduce college student
departure. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 91-
118.
Bresciani, M. J. (2006). Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review: A
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 137
compilation of institutional good practices. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Brewer, P. D., & Brewer, K. L. (2010). Knowledge management, human resource management,
and higher education: a theoretical model. Journal of Education for Business, 85(6), 330-335.
Blackmon, S., & Major, C. (2012). Student experiences in online courses: A qualitative research
synthesis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(2), 77.
Bosch, T. E. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at
the University of Cape Town. Communication: South African Journal for
Communication Theory and Research, 35(2), 185-200.
Cain, D. L., Marrara, C., Pitre, P. E., & Armour, S. (2007). Support services that matter: An
exploration of the experiences and needs of graduate students in a distance learning
environment. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 18(1), 42-56.
Dare, L.
Calhoun, J. C. (1996). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Journal
of College Student Development, 37(2), 188-122.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning:
Testing the linkages*. Research in higher education, 47(1), 1-32.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance Solutions (2nd ed.). Greenwich Conn: Information Age Publishers.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 138
Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus ‐based student engagement. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141.
Cooper, D. L., & Saunders, S. A. (2000). Assessing programmatic needs. New Directions for
Student Services, 2000(90), 5-20.
Cross, K. P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now. About campus,3(3), 4-11.
Crowne, K. A. (2008). What leads to cultural intelligence?. Business Horizons, 51(5), 391-399.
Cuseo, J. UNIFYING ACADEMIC & STUDENT AFFAIRS: BUILDING BRIDGES
BETWEEN THE CURRICULUM & CO-CURRICULUM.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-
regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The
Internet and higher education, 15(1), 3-8.
Dale, P. A., & Drake, T. M. (2005). Connecting academic and student affairs to enhance student
learning and success. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2005(131), 51-64.
Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 18(1), 42-56.
Dalton, J. C. (2007). Concluding observations and implications of e ‐portfolios for student affairs
leadership and programming. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(119), 99-106.
Dalziel, C. (2003). Community colleges and distance education. Handbook of distance
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 139
education, 663-663.
Dare, L. A., Zapata, L. P., & Thomas, A. G. (2005). Assessing the needs of distance learners: A
student affairs perspective. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(112), 39-54.
Dawson, S. (2010). ‘Seeing’the learning community: An exploration of the development of a
resource for monitoring online student networking. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(5), 736-752.
DiRamio, D., & Wolverton, M. (2006). Integrating learning
communities and distance education: Possibility or pipedream? Innovative Higher
Education,31(2), 99-113.
Downes, S. (2009). New tools for personal learning. MEFANET 2009 Conference, Brno, Czech
Republic, via MVU Videoconference. Retrieved from
http://www.downes.ca/presentation/234
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals.Annual review of
psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student
development in college: Theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Exter, M. E., Korkmaz, N., Harlin, N. M., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2009). Sense of community
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 140
within a fully online program. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 177-
194.
Floyd, D. L., & Casey ‐Powell, D. (2004). New roles for student support services in distance
learning. New directions for community colleges,2004(128), 55-64.
Frost, R. A., Strom, S. L., Downey, J., Schultz, D. D., & Holland, T. A. (2010). Enhancing
student learning with academic and student affairs collaboration. The Community College
Enterprise, 16(1), 37-51.
Hamrick, F. A., Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. H. (2002). Foundations of student affairs practice:
How philosophy, theory, and research strengthen educational outcomes. John Wiley &
Sons.
Hauser, L. (2013). Qualitative research in distance education: An analysis of journal literature
2005-2012. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 155.
Hernandez Sheets, R., & Hollins, E. R. (Eds.). (1999). Racial and ethnic identity in school
practices. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Hirt, J. B., Cain, D., Bryant, B., & Williams, E. (2003). Cyberservices: What's Important and
How Are We Doing?. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 40(2), 284-304.
Holmberg, B. (2003). A theory of distance education based on empathy. Handbook of distance
education, 79-86.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 141
Hornak, A. M., Akweks, K., & Jeffs, M. (2010). Online student services at the community
college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(150), 79-87.
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation.Computers &
Education, 52(1), 78-82.
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal
development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320-334.
Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking Diversity and Educational Purpose: How Diversity Affects the
Classroom Environment and Student Development.
Irwin, C., & Berge, Z. (2006). Socialization in the Online Classroom. E-Journal of Instructional
Science and Technology, 9(1), n1.
Kift, S. M., & Field, R. M. (2009). Intentional first year curriculum design as a means of
facilitating student engagement: some exemplars. In Proceedings of the 12th Pacific Rim
First Year in Higher Education Conference. Queensland University of Technology.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Seven keys to unlock the four levels of evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 45(7), 5-8.
Komives, S. R., & Woodard Jr, D. B. (2003). Student services: A handbook for the profession.
John Wiley & Sons.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 142
practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kretovics, M. (2003). The role of student affairs in distance education: Cyber-services or virtual
communities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3)
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student
engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683-706.
LaPadula, M. (2003). A comprehensive look at online student support services for distance
learners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 119-128.
Lardner, E. (2005). The heart of education: Translating diversity into equity. E. Lardner with
others, Diversity, Educational Equity and Learning Communities.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 112-129.
Lowery, J. W. (2004). Student affairs for a new generation. New directions for student
services, 2004(106), 87-99.
Ludwig-Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2003). Learner support services for online students:
scaffolding for success. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 4(1).
Mable, P. L. (2007). CAS: Encouraging Moral and Civic Learning Through Quality Programs
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 143
and Services for Students. Journal of College and Character, 9(2).
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Sage.
McClellan, G. S., & Stringer, J. (Eds.). (2011). The Handbook of Student Affairs
Administration:(Sponsored by NASPA, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education).
John Wiley & Sons.
Meszaros, P. S. (2007). The journey of self ‐authorship: Why is it necessary? New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 2007(109), 5-14.
Miller, M., & Lu, M. Y. (2003). Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments:
Building successful communities in the virtual campus. Educational Media
International, 40(1-2), 163-169.
Moody, J. (2014). Distance education: Why are the attrition rates so high? Quaterly Review of
Distance Education, 5(3), 205.
Mosier, R. E., & Schwarzmueller, G. J. (2002). Benchmarking in student affairs. New directions
for higher education, 2002(118), 103-112.
Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation?
The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55-72.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 144
Nesheim, B. E., Guentzel, M. J., Kellogg, A. H., McDonald, W. M., Wells, C. A., & Whitt, E. J.
(2007). Outcomes for students of student affairs-academic affairs partnership
programs. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 435-454.
Newton, F. B. (1996). Principles and strategies for enhancing student learning.New Directions
for Student Services, 1996(75), 19-32.
Owens, J., Hardcastle, L. A., & Richardson, B. (2009). Learning from a distance: The experience
of remote students. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 23(3),
53-74.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2). K. A.
Feldman (Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pati, S. P. (2009). Stress management and innovation: A thermodynamic view. Journal of Human
Thermodynamics, 5, 22-32.
Penrod, J. I. (1990). The Chief Information Officer in Higher Education. Professional Paper
Series,# 4.
Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online
programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1-16.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 145
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Sandeen, A. (2004). Educating the whole student: The growing academic importance of student
affairs. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(3), 28-33.Swan, K. (2001). Virtual
interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in
asynchronous online courses. Distance education, 22(2), 306-331.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schreiber, B. (2014). The co-curriculum: Re-defining boundaries of academic
spaces. Recontextualising the profession, 75.
Sherry, A. C. (2003). Quality and its measurement in distance education. Handbook of distance
education, 435-459.
Siemens, G., & Downes, S. (2008, 2009). Connectivism & connected knowledge. Retrieved from
http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/
Simonson, M., & Bauck, T. (2003). Distance education policy issues: Statewide
perspectives. Handbook of distance education, 417-424.
Tai, W. T. (2006). Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy and training motivation on
trainees' training effectiveness. Personnel Review,35(1), 51-65.
Tan, D. L., & Pope, M. L. (2007). Participation in co-curricular activities: Nontraditional student
perspectives. College and University, 83(1), 2.
Tharp, B. M. (2009). Four organizational culture types. Hawort. Organizational Culture White
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 146
Papper.
Thompson, M. M., & Irele, M. E. (2003). Evaluating distance education programs. Handbook of
distance education, 567-584.
Thompson, N. P. (2003). Promoting Student Learning and Student Development at a Distance:
Student Affairs Concepts and Practices for Televised Instruction and Other Forms of
Distance Education (review).Journal of College Student Development, 44(4), 571-573.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (Second
ed.). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D. (2009). Organisational culture, job satisfaction and higher
education service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute of Larissa. The
TQM Journal, 21(4), 382-399.
Venable, M. A. (2010). Using technology to deliver career development services: Supporting
today's students in higher education. The Career Development Quarterly, 59(1), 87-96.
Wang, Q. (2006). Quality assurance-best practices for assessing online programs. International
Journal on E Learning, 5(2), 265.
Weigel, V. B. Deep Learning for a Digital Age: Technology’s Untapped Potential to Enrich
Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548–73.
Whitt, E. J. (2005). Promoting Student Success: What Student Affairs Can Do. Occasional Paper
No. 5. National Survey of Student Engagement.
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 147
Willems, J., & Bossu, C. (2012). Equity considerations for open educational resources in the
glocalization of education. Distance Education, 33(2), 185-199.
Zhao, C. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student
engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn.Contemporary educational
psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zubernisa, L., Snydera, M., & Mccoya, V. A. (2011). Counseling lesbian and gay college
students through the lens of cass's and chickering's developmental models. Journal of LGBT
Issues in Counseling, 5(2)
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 148
Appendix A
Administrator Survey Questions
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 149
Survey Protocol
Please select rate the following from 1 to 5, with 1 being Strongly Disagree and 5 being Strongly
Agree.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Organizational
1. “Organizational policies support the building of a co-curriculum.” (Cultural Setting)
2. “I am encouraged to talk about online student needs.” (Cultural Model)
3. “My institution discusses the importance of an online co-curriculum from a student’s
point of view.” (Cultural Model)
4. “We actively benchmark our co-curriculum against other online co-curriculums.”
(Cultural Model)
5. “We are providing innovative ways to meet online co-curricular needs.” (Cultural Model)
6. “I am current in my knowledge of online co-curriculums.” (Cultural Model)
7. “As an administrator, I am involved in discussions of curriculum development for
students.” (Cultural Model)
Motivation
8. “I create opportunities for online students to engage with on-ground students.”
(Attainment)
9. “Online students use social networking sites (Facebook, Instagram…) for co-curricular
activities.” (Attainment)
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 150
10. “The online co-curriculum improves student performance.” (Extrinsic)
11. “The online co-curriculum improves institutional performance.” (Extrinsic)
12. “There are online opportunities for students to form clubs and organizations.” (Extrinsic)
13. “There are opportunities for online students to engage with their community.” (Extrinsic)
14. “Online students participate in student government.” (Extrinsic)
15. “Online students are satisfied with the co-curricular opportunities that are provided to
them outside of the classroom.” (Extrinsic)
16. “Online students have different co-curricular needs than on-ground students.” (Extrinsic)
17. “Online students utilize co-curricular services frequently.” (Extrinsic)
18. “Technology has inhibited the development of a co-curriculum.” (Cost)
19. “Technology has adequately supported the development of an online co-curriculum.”
(Cost)
20. “I have adequate technology training to create a co-curriculum.” (Cost)
21. “I have adequate fiscal resources to improve an online co-curriculum.” (Self-Efficacy)
22. “I conduct regular assessments for an online co-curriculum.” (Self-Efficacy)
23. “An online co-curriculum is important to an online student’s growth.” (Self-Efficacy)
24. “Online students need an online co-curriculum.” (Self-Efficacy)
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 151
Appendix B
Administrator Interview Questions
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 152
Interview Protocol
Interview Questions:
Knowledge and Skills
1. How does your co-curriculum enhance online student interaction? (F)
2. Describe how your co-curriculum provides support to students above and beyond
registration, admissions, and financial aid services? (F)
3. How did you identify online student co-curricular needs? (F)
4. How did you decide how to address student co-curricular needs? (F)
5. How did you communicate to students that the administration is meeting their co-
curricular needs? (F)
6. What theories did you lean on when you constructed your co-curriculum? (C)
7. How is your theoretical approach to an online co-curriculum different from your on-
ground co-curriculum? (C)
8. Why is it important to your organization that a co-curriculum exists? (C)
9. What student learning outcomes did you want to achieve by each of the examples of a co-
curriculum that you have provided? (C)
10. What other materials, resources, or other institutions have you used to benchmark the
effectiveness of your co-curriculum? (M)
11. How do you gauge socialization in a co-curriculum? (M)
Motivation
12. In a measurable way, how has your co-curricular impacted institutional effectiveness?
For instance, has school ranking increased, has learning improved…
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 153
Appendix C
Administrator Document Analysis Request
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 154
Administrator Document Analysis Request
1. Please provide examples of your co-curriculum. Examples could be links to websites,
examples of student groups (screenshots, websites…)
2. Please provide examples of assessment or when you have requested student feedback.
Examples could include forms (electronic or paper).
3. Please provide examples of when you have solicited student feedback. Examples could
include forms (electronic or paper).
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 155
Appendix D
Administrator Consent Form
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 156
___ ____
____ ___
Consent Form
Research of Online Co-Curriculum
The purpose of the project is to understand the contributing and inhibiting factors of the
promising practices of an administrator and the online co-curriculum. Participants are
administrators who are actively engaged or have knowledge of the co-curriculum at their
respective institution. The study is being conducted by Josh Williams for Rossier’s School of
Education Ed.D. Program at the University of Southern California (USC).
Declaration: I , acknowledge that:
I have been informed about the research and have had an opportunity to ask questions
I consent to partake in this study
My participation is voluntary
I can withdraw at any time
I am aware that I have the option of allowing my interview to be recorded to ensure an
accurate recording of my responses.
I agree to have my interview recorded.
YES NO
I am also aware that excerpts from the interview may be included in the thesis and/or
publications to come from this research, with the understanding that the quotations will be
anonymous.
I consent to the publication of results and I agree to the use of anonymous quotations in any
dissertation or publication that comes of this research.
YES NO
Participant’s Name (please print)
Participant’s Signature (If Over 18) Date
Researcher’s Signature _ _ Date
Researcher’s Title Department
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 157
Appendix E
Administrator Information Form
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 158
Administrator Information Form
Administrator Name:
Title:
University Name:
Location:
Age of Participant:
Gender:
Interviewer:
Date:
Background Questions:
How many years have you been working with this institution?
What is your primary profession? (student affairs, academic affairs, other)
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 159
Appendix F
Administrator Introduction Form
SUPPORTING ADMINISTRATORS IN SUCCESSFUL ONLINE CO-CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT 160
Administrator Introduction Form
Introduction:
Thank you for participating in today’s interview. Your time is valuable and appreciated. The
focus of the study is to understand the factors that administrators believe contribute or inhibit the
promising practices of an online co-curriculum.
The interview will happen in three parts.
1. In the first part of the interview, I will ask your online co-curriculum.
2. In the second part of the interview, I will ask you to fill out a survey.
The data are being collected for research purposes by me, a doctoral student at USC for
educational purposes only. Your name will not be published. Your identity will be changed in
any reported data to ensure your anonymity.
The interview should last approximately 30 minutes. Your time is important to us and therefore,
please let me know if you would like to stop the interview at any time.
Please feel free to ask any questions that you may have.
Thank you
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to investigate the knowledge, motivation and organizational promising practices that higher education administrators have found in their development of a co-curriculum. According to Tinto (1993) a co-curriculum is the set of non-academic student experiences that are supported by a college or university. Assumed causes of knowledge, motivation and organizational promising practices were created from related literature, motivation theories and personal knowledge. The study involved data collection from seven different higher education administrators who oversaw the online co-curriculum on their respective campuses. The analysis of this qualitative study validated twelve causes that lead to nine recommended practices for other campuses wishing to strengthen the online co-curriculum. Essential knowledge recommendations are to identify gaps in co-curricular services, create a standardized student assessment process and continuously improve programs through benchmarking. Motivational recommendations include creating multiple pathways for students to build connections including opportunities for online and on-ground students to interact, maintaining knowledge of emerging technology and creating a learning network for administrators who facilitate online co-curriculums. Organizational promising practices include continual conversations about the importance of student needs and advocating for online students through continued co-curricular discussions. Chapter Five concludes with a detailed implementation plan and an evaluation framework for monitoring the effectiveness of the development of an online co-curriculum.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Financial stability and sustainability in online education: a study of promising practice
PDF
Implementing field-based online graduate professional programs: a promising practice study
PDF
Supporting faculty for successful online instruction: factors for effective onboarding and professional development
PDF
An examination using the gap analysis framework of employees’ perceptions of promising practices supporting teamwork in a federal agency
PDF
Crisis intervention and mental health support services in online graduate degree programs: an evaluation study
PDF
Ensuring faculty success in effective online instruction
PDF
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis
PDF
An examination of supervisors’ perspectives of teamwork in a federal agency: promising practices and challenges using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Using data for continuous improvement: a promising practice study
PDF
Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting recruiting practices addressing the gender gap in the technology industry: an evaluation study
PDF
Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study
PDF
A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers
PDF
Completion in online learning: graduate students' perspectives
PDF
Improved student success at California State University, Dominguez Hills: a promising practice study
PDF
Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study
PDF
Evaluating collective impact in a local government: A gap analysis
PDF
An examination of the facilitators of and barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of supervisors in a federal agency using the gap analysis framework
PDF
Factors contributing to student attrition at a healthcare university: a gap analysis
PDF
The barriers and facilitators of academic success for Black male students at a community college: a gap analysis
PDF
Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis
Asset Metadata
Creator
Williams, Joshua
(author)
Core Title
Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/01/2016
Defense Date
04/22/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
co-curricular,co-curriculum,education,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,online,online co-curriculum,online student services,promising practices,student affairs,student services
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Filback, Robert (
committee chair
), Ephraim, Ronni (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ilovesoup1@gmail.com,joshuadw@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-290731
Unique identifier
UC11280580
Identifier
etd-WilliamsJo-4697.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-290731 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WilliamsJo-4697.pdf
Dmrecord
290731
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Williams, Joshua
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
Tags
co-curricular
co-curriculum
education
gap analysis
online
online co-curriculum
online student services
promising practices
student affairs
student services