6 Copyright © The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand Assignment 3.docx

6 Copyright © The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand
Assignment 3
73213
Research Report 2
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in
higher education:
Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for
Business,
84(2), 101–108.
Copyright © Heldref Publications.

4 Copyright © The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand
Assignment 3
73213
Research Report 1
Lim, J. H., Dannels, S. A., & Watkins, R. (2008). Qualitative
investigation of
doctoral students’ learning experiences in online research
methods courses.
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3), 223–236.
Copyright © Information Age Publishing Inc.
• Jae Hoon Lim, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
Department of Educational Leadership, 9201 University
City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223-0001. Telephone: (704) 687-
8864. E-mail: [email protected]
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 9(3),
2008, pp. 223–236 ISSN 1528-3518
Copyright © 2008 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights
of reproduction in any form reserved.
QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION OF DOCTORAL
STUDENTS’ LEARNING EXPERIENCES IN

ONLINE RESEARCH METHODS COURSES
Jae Hoon Lim
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Sharon A. Dannels and Ryan Watkins
The George Washington University
Although distance education courses have become commonplace
in most colleges and universities, the intro-
duction of online research methods courses in the preparation of
doctoral students has been slow in develop-
ing. This qualitative study explores the online learning
experiences of doctoral students who have taken 1 or
more of their research methods courses in a completely online
format. The findings of the study illustrate the
complex relationships between course delivery tools, course
content, learning communities, and the percep-
tions and preferences of students in their preparation for
dissertation research. The research findings indicate
that online research methods courses may not be preferable for
some students, whereas they offer other stu-
dents expanded opportunities to grow and develop their learning
community.
INTRODUCTION

For instructors and students alike, the college
experience has been changed by the rapid
expansion in the use of technology. It is now
common to find that students at all levels of
academic preparation experience some form of
online learning (see Allen & Seaman, 2006;
National Center for Education Statistics, 2005;
Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). As new tech-
nologies continue to challenge and change the
landscape of the educational experience, edu-
cators continually strive to maintain the quality
of higher education.
Despite the rapid expansion of online learn-
ing communities across the country, online
versions of advanced research methodology
courses (such as regression, hierarchical linear
modeling, qualitative research, and measure-
ment) have been rather limited. In fact,

research methods courses available on the
Web are commonly limited to masters’ level
224 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 9, No. 3,
2008
courses; very few institutions have provided
doctoral level methodology courses online for
many different reasons. Traditionally, research
methods courses have been considered the
core classes of doctoral students’ academic
training, which requires an intensive one-on-
one mentor-mentee relationship in a shared
physical, social, and cultural space (Deem &
Brehony, 2000). As a result, there has been
very limited research on the possible benefits
and challenges of providing advanced research
methods courses online, particularly for those
designed for a population of doctoral students.

Little is known about how this newly emerging
learning environment will benefit doctoral stu-
dents’ research competency or ultimately cre-
ate undesirable challenges.
In response, this article details a qualitative
investigation of doctoral students’ experiences
in advanced research methods courses deliv-
ered wholly online. In particular, this study
explores major challenges and benefits of tak-
ing advanced research methods courses online
and how different groups of students make
sense of their experiences in the virtual class-
room space. Specific attention was given to the
factors conducive or detrimental to their learn-
ing experiences and the development of sup-
portive learning communities in their online
courses.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND

LITERATURE REVIEW
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Jean Lave
and Etienne Wenger’s theory of situated learn-
ing emerged as an alterative perspective to
explain the nature of learning in society.
Whereas traditional learning theories concep-
tualized learning as a psychological, cognitive
process of certain forms of knowledge acquisi-
tion, Lave and Wenger explained that learning
in nature is a social process—a process of
engagement in a “community of practice.”
From this perspective learning takes place
when an individual develops a set of relation-
ships with others (coparticipants) in the com-
munity over an extended period of time (Lave
& Wenger, 1991, p. 98) and acquires a higher
level of competency and comfort maneuvering
larger or more complex activities and projects

through cooperation.
It is important to understand that an individ-
ual’s participation in a community of practice
refers not to just local events of engagement in
certain activities with certain people, but to a
more encompassing process of being active
participants in the practices of social commu-
nities and constructing identities in relation to
these communities (Wenger, 1999, p. 4). In
other words, one’s participation in the commu-
nity of practice involves a fundamental change
in his or her identity by internalizing a set of
values and norms in the community and
embodying behavioral patterns that character-
ize the members of the particular community.
Educational researchers found Lave and
Wenger’s theory of situated learning, in the
context of community of practice, to be very

relevant to explaining the development of doc-
toral students within the academic community
of their discipline. The traditional model of
doctoral student preparation reflects the idea
that such a process is in nature a process of
social and cultural initiation into the existing
community of scholars. The initiation process
is closely monitored and guided by the stu-
dent’s mentor (professor) who is already a full
participant in the academic community. There-
fore, sharing the same physical space and
ensuring mutual observation and interactive
communication occurs on a daily basis seems
essential elements for good doctoral student
preparation (Wikeley & Muschamp, 2004).
Therefore, use of distance learning strate-
gies in doctoral student preparation poses sev-
eral challenges to those who hope to maintain

the quality of their doctoral preparation pro-
grams (Butcher & Sieminski, 2006; Winston
& Fields, 2003). Many criticized any efforts
that seem to damage the traditional model of
apprenticeship in doctoral student develop-
ment. Even those who are more receptive to
using new technologies in the training of non-
traditional doctoral students, often express a
Qualitative Investigation of Doctoral Students’ Learning
Experiences in Online Research Methods Courses 225
concern as to how the quality of their program
could be maintained when such everyday face-
to-face relationships between mentor-mentee
are lost. For example, Stein and Glazer (2003)
questioned, “through the Internet, how to
increase the quality of those relationships
[doctoral students’ relationships with other
learners and faculty mentors] to enhance the

educational experiences, rather than adding to
the isolation and decreased social involve-
ment?” (p. 12). Sharing such concerns with
other researchers described above, Wikeley
and Muschamp (2004) argue that if we believe
that “original thought,” “critical judgment,”
and “contribution to knowledge” are the cru-
cial criteria for doctoral level work, engage-
ment with a research community is an essential
factor in the development of the student’s own
voice. As a result, they poignantly point out
that “many teaching strategies used when
working with students at a distance ignore the
need for students not only to engage with the
community of researchers based within the
university but also to engage with each other as
part of a wider community of researchers”
(2004, p. 128).

COMMUNICATION AND
COMMUNITY BUILDING ONLINE
In distance education literature a great deal of
attention has been paid to the role of communi-
cation to build up quality online communities
of learners in a virtual space (Moller, 1998).
Various factors have been identified as related
to students’ sense (or lack thereof) of commu-
nity, ranging from technical proficiencies, pri-
vacy (Tu, 2005) and students’ self-efficacy or
satisfaction to actual achievement and comple-
tion of the class (Hannafin, Oliver, Hill, &
Glazer, 2003). Researchers, however,
acknowledge that establishing a quality com-
munity in the virtual space is not a simple, easy
task because it “involves developing and culti-
vating a shared sense of purpose and commit-
ment” (Hannafin et al., 2003, p. 256) among

and between students and the instructors.
In particular, the concept of “social pres-
ence” has been used to describe the level of
interpersonal contact, communicational inti-
macy, and immediacy, perceived by students
in a virtual learning environment.
(Gunawadena, 2004). Several scholars found
that social presence is a strong predictor of
learner’s satisfaction (e.g., Gunawardena &
Zittle, 1997) and quality learning experiences
(e.g., De Bruyn, 2004 ) at a computer confer-
ence. In general, computer mediated commu-
nications often used in many virtual classroom
environments have been evaluated to be rela-
tively low in social presence in comparison to
face-to-face communication. However, several
researchers in distance education have pre-
sented arguments that social presence in a vir-

tual environment is different from a traditional
face-to-face setting, which requires a recon-
ceptualization of the notion of social presence
itself (e.g., Aragon, 2003). Tu and McIsaac
(2002), for example, proposed that social pres-
ence be measured on three dimensions: social
context, online communications, and interac-
tivity. Others even argue that some virtual
learning environments actually provide stu-
dents with an unique, though not superior,
opportunity to build up a quality learning com-
munity in which active engagement in learning
and their identity transformation are all possi-
ble (e.g., De Bryun, 2004; Francescato, 2006).
MODE OF INQUIRY
Research Site
This interview-based qualitative study was
conducted at a graduate school of education

with a main campus within an eastern metro-
politan city and three off-campus sites. A large
proportion of the off-campus doctoral students
are full-time working professionals who are
pursuing their advanced degrees within a
cohort model. Three intermediate/advanced
level quantitative and qualitative research
methods courses have been offered completely
online since the fall semester of 2002 (multiple
linear regression, case study, and survey
2008
research). This study is part of an ongoing
multimethod study that began in 2005.
Research Methods Courses
The three online research methods courses,
all traditional semester long, used Blackboard

as their delivery method of instruction. Devel-
opers/instructors were content experts—
research methodologist and technologically
competent in general. They, however, had lit-
tle formal training or professional experience
with online learning or teaching in the past. As
a result, they developed their online courses
through informal consultations with the uni-
versity’s technology center and their col-
leagues in an instructional technology
program.
In general, the structure of the online
courses was linear, yet highly consistent and
tightly organized. All instructors used weekly,
sometimes biweekly, learning modules; each
module included a lecture note with varied
length, required and recommended readings,
and other instructional resources. Instructors

used an asynchronous discussion board exten-
sively to facilitate communication and collabo-
ration among students. For communication
purpose, announcements, written feedback,
private or group e-mail, and phone calls were
used by both instructors and students. Several
other features in Blackboard, such as grading,
exams, online resources, and electronic library
reserves, were also applied in the courses.
Data Collection Procedures
With permission from class instructors, the
researchers sent an invitation e-mail to all stu-
dents taking an online research methods class
during the academic year of 2005-06. First,
survey data were collected from students who
had taken one of the three online research
methods courses at the university. The survey
data were analyzed using appropriate statisti-

cal methods for a separate paper, yet some
background information about the courses and
participants are included in this paper as
needed. Responses to five open ended ques-
tions on the survey were collected as part of
the qualitative data.
On receipt of each survey, the researchers
asked survey respondents to volunteer for an
in-depth interview on their online learning
experience. Seventeen interviews were con-
ducted via either phone or in person. All stu-
dent interviews were conducted by one of the
researchers and a graduate student, and used a
semistructured interview protocol. Three inter-
views were completed during the spring of
2006 and 14 during the 2006-07 academic
year. The protocol included five subsections
examining various aspects of the students’

learning experience in the online class, such as
their initial decision making process, per-
ceived challenges and benefits in their online
learning environment, and impact of their
online class on their dissertation research. All
interviews were tape recorded, with permis-
sion, and then transcribed verbatim.
Additional data, such as institutional docu-
ments, the records of personal communication
with instructors, and class material in the
Blackboard course management system, were
collected as needed. These additional data
sources were used to triangulate the findings
from the interview data. Therefore, the pri-
mary data analyzed for this article are from the
17 student interviews and the written
responses to five items from the survey (n =
58).

Data Analysis
Thematic analysis based on an open coding
and categorization procedure was adopted for
the interview and document data. As the initial
analysis of interview data suggested that there
were at least three distinctive groups of stu-
dents, each experiencing the online learning
environment different from the other, the sec-
ond level of data analysis was conducted
focusing on the differences across the groups.
The process and rationale for each group’s
construction of their community of learners in
the online environment is closely examined.
FINDINGS
Triangulating data from the student surveys,
records from Blackboard, the records of per-

sonal communication with instructors, and the
semistructured student interviews general
themes emerged from across all students. First,
it appears that students do not see technology
or their expertise with technology as an issue.
Responses indicated that they were very com-
fortable with the online environment. “For me,
it was just kind of natural in college; this was
how you did it.” Second, students like online
courses for the convenience and flexibility.
They like being able to “do [their] classwork in
[their] pajamas” at a time of their choosing.
They like being able to “go to class” when they
are “fresh,” rather than when they are physi-
cally, mentally, and emotionally drained after
a long day at work. They appreciate not having
to drive in traffic and hunt for elusive parking
spaces. They perceive that the online format

allows them to “work at my own pace.”
Third, they described the courses as
extremely well organized, information-rich
environments, with very capable instructors. “I
was skeptical as to how useful the format
would be. I’d have to say I was very pleasantly
surprised, and I think it had to do with how
well structured class was.” Many students find
that they actually spent more time for learning,
completed more work, and acquired more
knowledge and skills in their online classes
than their traditional courses previously taken.
As a result, students were also very positive
about their perceived gain in research expertise
and progress on their dissertation. “I feel like I
have more tools at my disposal when thinking
about research questions.” Another student: “It
has definitely helped me to understand analy-

sis.” Other students reported more specific
results. “The project that I did was very similar
to my dissertation project, only the scope was
much smaller.” “I actually did that research,
wrote the paper and presented it at a confer-
ence as part of a panel. That was a great expe-
rience to get some of my research under my
belt, and it formed the decisions I’d made
about my research topic.”
Fourth, students acknowledge that strong
self-discipline and self-regulation are keys to
successful and rewarding learning experiences
in the online classes. After all, “online did not
mean no schedule” but having “your own
schedule.”
Even though the majority of students were
very positive about the quality of the course
content and believed that they had learned a

great deal, they also identified some major
challenges in the classes. First, most students
believed that some courses are more relevant
than others to be delivered online based on the
nature of the objectives of the course. They
perceived that the online format is not an effec-
tive method if the course requires students to
be exposed to a new insight or hard-to-grasp
concepts or ideas. “Of the two online courses
that I have taken, the content of this one (sur-
vey research) seems much more appropriate
for online learning than the other (regression
analysis). In my opinion, statistics courses
should NEVER be taught online. In person
learning is much more effective for difficult
concepts that often require much clarification,
explanation, and discussion.” The theme that
emerged was that the Blackboard Discussion

Board is not a substitute for in-class discus-
sion: Rarely was a true discussion evidenced,
but a series of responses. Students believed
that people would feel less obliged to respond
to the new idea and easily avoid or ignore it if
presented online. One student noted, “you can
just choose to ignore [if] somebody posts
something. In Discussion, you can ignore it, if
you ignore someone in a class it is awkward,
particularly with people, and when everyone
knows where you stand, it is kind of hard to
ignore.”
The online structure appears to alter the
sense of immediacy. Although almost all stu-
dents reported that the professors were very
responsive and quick to respond, several noted
that even this short time lag awaiting a
response disrupted their learning. Interest-

ingly, they did not see having to wait a week
2008
(or in some cases a month) to ask a question in
class as a delay. “Usually, when you go to a
class every week, there are things that you can
ask an instructor and he will answer right
away, instead of waiting for him to have time
to answer his e-mail.” Another student wrote:
“you have to wait to get a question answered—
it’s not like an instant response in the class-
room setting.”
Learning is not in “real time” among instruc-
tor and students. Questions that I have as a
student cannot be answered immediately as
in class because of the time lapse; getting a
question answered when you are out of the

learning “mode” and removed from the mate-
rial can make the concept more difficult to
process and understand.
Many students missed the opportunity to
engage in quick, spontaneous communication
with their instructor and peers with a signifi-
cant amount of visual cues presented. They
found this type of support was not readily
available to them when it was most needed
(e.g., when they are confused or misunder-
stand something). Some experienced the
online communication as less effective to han-
dle such emergency situations.
I had good communication with the professor
but a lot of times, often the questions were a
little nuanced. I can ask you a question and
you can give me an answer and maybe it does
not specifically answer the question I asked.

So I rephrase the question and say, “OK now
I get it” so you can have a back and forth and
it takes a few minutes. When you are going
back and forth to try to rephrase/explain, it
could take a day, maybe more. So I think with
more advanced topics, when those specific
questions came up, I found that challenging
to have interaction with those questions.
For several students the solution was to
make personal contact with the professor. “I
did meet with the professor, and I found it very
helpful.… I can understand better where he’s
coming from in all of his feedback.” Students
suggested that incorporating more advanced
technological tools, such as synchronous chat
and visual/audio capabilities, would enhance
the overall quality of their online learning
experience.

The next level of our qualitative analysis
focused on significant variations found in stu-
dents’ perceptions of the online class environ-
ment and their learning experiences in it. The
data show that the doctoral level research
methods courses online presented different
sets of benefits and challenges to diverse
groups of students. It indicated that there were
at least three distinctive groups of students
who experienced the same online learning
environment very differently from each other.
The First Group: “I Was Limited”
The first group of students, albeit a small
group, perceived the online class environment
provided them with very little real learning
opportunity. “[It] feels as though you are
teaching yourself.” Even before they started
the semester they expected that they would

face significant challenges in their online
class. They perceived that their taking an
online class was close to a coerced decision
making—it was “the only option” available to
them despite their preferred mode of learning.
For example, one student in this group
explained that it was very challenging to her
learning in the online class because she tends
“to be very interpersonal, and rather shy” and
“very hesitant in my [her] professional life to
start or interact in conversation with people I
[she] do not know.” These students expressed
their concerns about the delivery method of
their course—some even thought that they
were “cheated” because the “online class is for
the university not for students.”
There seemed two additional factors, beside
their preferred mode of learning that influ-

enced the first group of students’ high anxiety
and less positive experience in their online
courses. First, this group of students expressed
little confidence in the content area covered in
their online class. Because of the unfamiliarity
of the course content it was already a challeng-
ing class to them: Not knowing the professor
and classmates added another layer of chal-
lenge to these students because they hoped to
have additional support to succeed in the class.
Holly, for instance, confessed her frustration
with an advanced statistic class: “I had gotten
through the EDS program and hadn’t had a stat
course. When I first started taking stat courses,
it was a culture shock or whatever. Not having
a background and others in the course had con-

siderable background [in statistics] and I was
there limited. That was my initial shock. I was
very well shocked.”
Second, this group of students did not have
a clear idea regarding their upcoming disserta-
tion research and had a difficult time relating
the highly demanding coursework to their dis-
sertation research. In contrast to the majority
of students who report that the highly struc-
tured and demanding nature of their online
course was a positive, this first group found
that “some of it (course work) seemed like
‘busy work.’ ” They struggled to find meaning
or value in their highly demanding coursework
in the absence of a concrete idea about their
dissertation research. Consequently, it was
hard for them to stay motivated in the class as
they did not see a good reason for their invest-

ment. One student explained how she lost her
motivation in the class:
I can say this class, my needs for (content of
the class) and what I needed to know was
really pretty much hit right up front because I
do not need to know all the intricacies of (the
course content), trends or any of that so I can
see right up front. [Then] I was eager and
wanted to do my best. When I realized it was
beyond my needs, I have to say personally I
wasn’t as eager. You go through your phases
of learning. Where my needs were, that’s
when I was most excited.
Therefore, it was not surprising that this
group of students least benefited from their
classes: Even after they completed their last
methodology class they tended to stay “fairly
in the same place” as before—having a

research question that was “too broad” to pur-
sue in their dissertation research.
Apparently, this first group of students pre-
ferred a face-to-face learning environment to
an online. Most of them were part of various
cohort programs and as such they had devel-
oped a very strong learning community. These
students were very accustomed to working
with the same colleagues in an environment
emphasizing open communication and collab-
oration. They had identified the sources of
intellectual as well as emotional support from
within their cohort. For this group in particu-
lar, the online environment itself was literally
“a culture shock.” Therefore, their online
courses directing them to work around their
own dissertation research topic with a core
methodological approach shared with a new

group of students made them feel challenged
and even isolated.
Interestingly, these students were more
likely to report that they found communication
with their instructor inefficient and even diffi-
cult especially when they were challenged and
needed some immediate clarification. They
longed for immediate, spontaneous communi-
cation with their professor with visual, nonver-
bal cues and personal attention. There was,
however, a mistrust or at least psychological
distance between this group of students and
their instructors who hardly met each other
face-to-face. As a result, some students
actively searched for a smaller face-to-face
group environment using their personal net-
work and re-built a face-to-face relationship
with the smaller group of students taking the

same class. They used the small face-to-face
network as a safety net as they participated in
their online class learning. It is, however, inter-
esting to note, that within this group the stu-
dents did not attempt to establish new
relationships. They felt that “it’s hard to form
study groups if you don’t already have rela-
tionships with people enrolled in the class,”
and tended to stick to the people that they had
already known. As a result, they experienced
no sense of community in their online class:
2008
Rather, they found that “it’s basically every
man for himself.”
The Second Group:
“Pleasantly Surprised”

The second group of students exhibited
many characteristics similar to those of the
first group. They perceived that the online
class environment is less conducive, though
not ineffective, to their learning. As a result,
this second group of student also preferred a
face-to-face, traditional class environment that
promotes a more collective learning experi-
ence. Yet, these students provided a highly
reflective point of view on the social aspect of
learning which went beyond their own per-
sonal, preferred way of learning. They valued
the social aspect of learning and considered it
as an essential part of their doctoral training.
Donna, one in this group, confessed that she
had been “a little bit prejudiced against the
online classes [because] I am convinced that
part of the quality education experience is per-

sonal contact between professors and stu-
dents.” They elaborated that their relationship
with their professor and peers is not limited to
the temporal or spatial boundary of one univer-
sity course but something that could be devel-
oped into a long-tem professional relationship.
When asked to explain what was missing in
their online class, Brenda, one in this second
group said:
The social thing. To me, an important thing
about going to school is meeting people, and
the online class did not allow me—I made no
friends, I don’t even remember a single name
except for Donna, she’s been my friend for a
long time. I don’t remember any names of
anyone in that class; I don’t even know what
they do, where they are coming from, so I
made no friendships whatsoever … I think

that applies to the professor as well. When
it’s face to face, you get to know the instruc-
tor. That is also a very important relation-
ship—with your instructor. I have found in
my life and throughout my career that many
times I have relied on my instructors for ref-
erences, and job leads, and I don’t know that
Thomas would be comfortable giving a refer-
ence for me because he does not know me
either. So I think to me it is great loss you
have here, you have a lot of convenience but
you really lose that relationship piece.
However, this group of students found that
they were “pleasantly surprised” as they had a
high quality educational experience in their
online classes. They found the online format
did not really interfere with the positive effect.
They evaluated their online class as highly

demanding—making them do more work than
in a traditional class, yet they found the course-
work very beneficial and enjoyable. Leslie, as
a case in point, explained her conversion pro-
cess:
Yeah, I was actually, to be perfectly honest, a
little concerned because I had not taken an
online class before … I was skeptical as to
how useful the format would be. I’d have to
say I was very pleasantly surprised and I
think it had to do the fact of with how well
structured class was. I found the syllabus to
be very well organized and we had specific
assignments each week of what we had to
post on Blackboard and we also had to com-
ment on a particular … each assigned a peer
or buddy’s posting. We ended up getting a lot
of feedback. I think there were almost more

assignments each week than in a face to face
class. I think it caused students to be perhaps
even more active than in face to face class. I
was actually real surprised with how much I
got out of this class. It very much had to do
with the structure and how well structured it
was.
There were two factors differentiating this
second group of students from the first group.
In contrast to the first group, the second group
of students did not experience the level of fear
or anxiety about the content knowledge and
skills covered in their online courses. They had
specifically selected the course, regardless of
the format, because of their interest in the con-
tent. Second, they had a relatively clear idea
about their upcoming dissertation research
and, as a result, easily related their coursework

to various aspects of their own research.
Almost all of these students either completed
their methodological chapter during or right
after their online class. They saw a very tangi-
ble benefit of their coursework and accepted
the highly demanding nature of their online
course as something essential and desirable for
doctoral level courses.
Most important, many, although not all, stu-
dents in this group experienced that their
online course actually afforded more active
interaction with both their instructor and peers.
They believed that they had received more
feedback from their instructor and they liked
having a written record of the course content to
which they could refer back. In addition, they

witnessed that students were even more active
in the online class than traditional class partly
because of required pair work. They found
some students from other programs and satel-
lite campuses sharing their insights and stimu-
lating their intellectual exploration beyond
their own program limit. These students found
that they were able to reach “a larger audience”
and “expand [their] community” based on the
online nature of the class which otherwise was
very difficult to accomplish. They expressed a
belief that this larger community of students
from different programs allowed them to more
clearly see the essence of the methodology. It
required that they focus on the methodology
and not just the content of their study.
On the other hand, what disturbed this sec-
ond group of students most were their own

classmates who posted “low quality” work or
feedback in the Discussion Boards of Black-
board just to get a “score” for their participa-
tion and collaboration. They considered such
peers as not observing the basic ethical guide-
lines for collaboration, and it was consistently
identified as a problem in their online classes.
Even though because you are graded on your
participation, a lot of times you see people
just go in and make silly comments, say “oh
nice” or “what a good idea,” for me that is a
waste of time. Because if you go in and have
to click and wait for the message to open and
then there is this comment only because they
want their name to be shown for participa-
tion—that annoyed me a little. But I think
that the discussion board is a good interactive
way and I enjoyed it.

Despite their preferred learning style and
some negative images of online learning previ-
ously held, this second group of students
quickly adapted themselves to the new learn-
ing environment and re-evaluated its value
based on their emerging experience. Even
though some still speculated that the same
course could have been richer with a face-to-
face component added, many students admit-
ted that their online classes did not evoke a
feeling of isolation as they had anticipated.
Rather they found the online environment
expanded their sense of community and they
were very positive about the experience. As a
result, these students did not seek in-person
interactions with professor or peers. They per-
ceived the online environment as helping them
to develop a new sense of community of learn-

ers, which was expanded, enriched, and highly
conducive to their learning and growth.
Third Group: “I Learn in
Traditional Ways”
The last distinctive group of students
believed that they had chosen to take their
online class based on their own need and
choice. Like the second group, these students
had a very clear idea about their dissertation
topic and its methodological implication.
Therefore, it was natural that they perceived
the content of the course was the main factor
leading them to select their online class; the
online nature of the class was a rather second-
ary issue to them. These students possessed
less negative images of online learning and
expected it to be comparable to face-to-face
classes. On the other hand, these students

clearly enumerated multiple advantages of tak-
ing an online class, such as convenience, flexi-
bility, and even less time expected to spend for
the course.
2008
This group of students included self-
described highly traditional and independent
learners. They liked to control their own pace of
learning and were highly confident about their
ability to monitor their own learning process.
They liked having a clear set of expectations
given to them in the beginning of their online
class, rigid structure including “drop-dead
deadlines,” and traditional learning materials
and structure enforced by their instructor. It was
a most comfortable way of learning to them;

convenient and rewarding at the same time.
Brandon, a full-time doctoral student, said:
I really like that you have deadlines and you
have a pace—like to have to read these notes
by such and such a day. I really liked that I
could do that whenever I wanted to. I like to
read and … I’ve always been a little bit more
… I learn in traditional ways. I get a lot out of
writing, reading, pictures, going to library
and getting books. I learn well that way. So
[having an] opportunity to do that was good.
I could just learn in a way that was comfort-
able. I really like that; I like the schedule
aspect of it.… So I guess the main advantage
is convenience and being able to learn in a
way I was comfortable with.
These students perceived their online class
as challenging and requiring strong self-disci-

pline to complete tasks on their own, yet they
found the work process very comfortable and
fulfilling. For example:
One of the things I enjoyed is that it was very
challenging, one of the hardest courses I have
ever taken because of the material—it was a
challenge and so you know the assignments I
received good grades on were very gratifying
and very fulfilling because I earned them.
The very last grade I got was hard fought, so
it was very, very, challenging. The professor
was supportive in the notes that were pro-
vided, and offering feedback on the learning,
so it was basically, I don’t want to say the
professor was not there, because he was
[there] and provided great instructions
through the class format. But in another
respect, because it was on line, it was like it

was up to you. It was up to me to decide how
I was going to succeed or fail the course…
There was an element of independence that
once I was able to see some success, it was
gratifying—do it on my own, so that was
very good.
Interestingly, this group of students found
few problems in their communication with their
instructor. They perceived that their instructors
were available for them and they provided good
feedback and prompt correspondence. They
used the professor as a resource and sought out
additional resources to enhance their learning,
as they had done in their previous classes. They
noticed that their class discussion online was
not effectively organized, yet they considered it
a minor issue. They perceived research meth-
ods courses to be either highly content-based or

targeting very specific research skills and
assumed that it would be hard or not really nec-
essary—for the professor to promote such open
free-flowing discussions.
Because there was a range of ability levels or
familiarity [among students] I got a sense
other people were much more novice at the
(content knowledge). And so I felt limited in
the interactions I could have with them. I did
not experience any direct email, I don’t know
if others emailed each other in class, any
interaction I had was on the discussion
board—except the professor, sometimes I’d
e-mail the professor. But certainly as com-
pared to a traditional class—as compared to a
face to face class—I had a lot less interaction
with classmates. But again both my online
experiences have been research method

classes, so they are pretty straight forward.
And they were quantitative research methods
classes. If there was a class that lends itself
more to discussion, maybe a theory class or
qualitative research class, where there are
nuances to understanding some things, I
wonder. I don’t know how I’d feel about that
in terms of online interaction. I’d be curious
to see how that would work out. Are the dis-
cussion postings longer? Do more people
chime in more on the topic? But my experi-
ences have only been with classes that are
very content based and very quantitative.
There is a right answer in a lot of cases.
As a result, these students perceived that the
lower levels of interaction with their peers than

traditional face to face courses engendered lit-
tle or no impact on their learning outcomes.
This group was distinguished by their indepen-
dence and singular focus on content. Contrary
to other students they were not looking for the
Discussion Board to provide the social and
motivational support of the traditional class-
room. One student explained:
Interaction with students had no impact on
my learning. That was basically, we were
asked to stick to a topic or point, our research
or methodology—the topic at hand and any
extraneous interactions were discouraged,
which is fine. We did try to assist each other
sometimes and help but I felt like it was more
of an independent thing.
From their perspective, learning research
methodology is highly content based; it is left

to an individual learner’s determination and
independent pursuit to master the content.
Therefore, they found that “for the research
classes, it [online courses] seemed like a good
fit.” Because they attached little value to the
social aspect of learning, including the possi-
bility of developing collegiality or a sense of
community in their class, they tended to act
indifferent about others’ work or situation in
their class. They acknowledged that people
“can just choose to ignore somebody posts
something in [online] discussion” while “it is
kind of hard to ignore people” in a traditional
face to face class “when everyone knows
where you stand.” Even though their own
behaviors reflected some degree of such indif-
ference these students understood that ano-
nymity was a problem negatively affecting the

sense of community in their online classes.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this study pose interesting ques-
tions and possibilities regarding the use of
online methods for doctoral student develop-
ment. As we expected, issues of effective com-
munication, particularly the lack of immediate
and spontaneous correspondence with instruc-
tors, were a core problem experienced by the
majority of students in the online courses.
Because of the lack of face to face interaction
with and observation of their instructors, stu-
dents in general felt that they did not know
their professors well enough and that it was
hard to develop a more personal and support-
ive relationship with them. In addition to feel-
ing that they did not really know the professor,
they also felt that the professor did not know

them as an individual. This was, however, not
only the problem in the relationships between
the instructors and students. Most students per-
ceived their online courses required a more
independent work with “their own schedule”
established than in their traditional courses. As
a consequence, some felt isolated from each
other while other flourished as independent
learners.
However, our study reveals that there is a
significant variation in the experience of online
doctoral research method courses across stu-
dents depending on their learning preferences,
familiarity with the course content covered in
their online class, prior preparation for disser-
tation research, and readiness for more inde-
pendent-task performance. Based on their
position at the intersection of the four variables,

some students felt more comfortable and sup-
ported learning in their online classes whereas
others felt the online environment provided
very little support for their learning. Most
important, these factors influenced the stu-
dents’ perceived level of control over their own
learning process leading them to interpret and
experience the same class structure very differ-
ently from one another. For example, a group of
students (referred to as the “I was limited”
group in this study) found communication with
their professor to be difficult to handle, thus
negatively affecting their experience in the
course. These students did not, however, notice
any problem in their communication with
peers. The second and third groups (the “Pleas-
antly surprised” and “I learn in many ways”
groups respectively), however, reported more

2008
problems (or disappointment) in their interac-
tion with peers who did not contribute to the
online learning community enough or in sub-
stantive ways. To these students, communica-
tion with their professors became less
important or something negligible.
Among the most interesting and compelling
finding from this study is the group of stu-
dents, though not the majority, who perceived
that building a quality community of learners
online to be very possible and real, and per-
ceived it to be conducive to their learning and
professional growth. Some doctoral students,
especially many in the second group, actually
experienced the online environment and their

interactions in the virtual space as a way or an
opportunity of building a quality learning com-
munity among themselves. They perceived the
online structure as an effective tool to develop
and maintain consistent, supportive, and per-
sonal relationships with their professors and
peers. Furthermore, these students indicated
that the online structure helped them expand
the boundaries of their learning community. It
was, therefore, not surprising that these stu-
dents were keen to the problems observed in
their interaction with peers, identified the neg-
ative impact of some peers’ reckless behaviors
on their emerging online learning community,
and actively made suggestions to raise the
level of commitment and sense of mutual
responsibility among their peers. Suggested
improvements for the courses never dealt with

content, but rather centered on ways to
enhance the sense of community.
This finding poses an interesting question
and possibility. Many scholars have been
skeptical about the possibility of developing
research skills among doctoral students in a
virtual space. They viewed such methods as
irrelevant or at least ineffective in helping stu-
dents enter the community of practice—the
community of researchers and scholars. They
regarded the traditional, face-to-face mentor-
mentee relationship as an essential ingredient
to a student’s development into a full partici-
pant in the research community. However,
what remains in question is what we consider
the real experience of students’ participation
in the community of researchers, or even how
we define “the community” of researchers in

which students must participate and develop
their new identity as a full-fledged researcher.
After all, today’s “research community” is less
reliant on a face to face collaboration and
increasingly dependent on virtual relationships
to advance research agendas. Preparing doc-
toral students for this type of virtual collabora-
tion may even become a hallmark of quality
research preparation in the future.
Despite Stein and Glazer’s (2003) concern
regarding the “feeling of isolation and
decreased social involvement,” in online envi-
ronments our study suggests that a small group
of students actually experienced the online
environment and their interactions in the vir-
tual space as a way of building a quality learn-
ing community among themselves. They
perceived the online structure as an effective

tool to develop and maintain consistent, sup-
portive, and personal relationships with their
professors and peers. Furthermore, these stu-
dents indicated that the online structure helped
them expand the boundary of their learning
community. We can easily agree that Wikeley
and Muschamp (2004) argument that there is a
need to engage students not only “with the
community of researchers based within the
university” and “a wider community of
researchers” (p. 184). Interestingly, some of
our students experienced their online training
as a real way to participate in and engage with
the larger community of researchers despite
Wikeley and Muschamp’s concern. More
important, this emerging sense of expanded
community was possible to some students
while others found it impossible—or even not

really necessary—to create in the same learn-
ing environment.
Even though this study was based on the
interview data obtained from a limited number
of participants within a particular institution,
we believe that it provides valuable information
for at least two audiences, faculty members
who are developing and will possibly teach a
similar course in the near future, and university
administrators who consider a more effective
use of online delivery methods for their gradu-
ate students. Therefore, we hope to draw some
practical implications based on our findings.
This study identifies several major
strengths and challenges of the new learning
environment. The findings imply that each stu-

dent’s experience and outcome in his/her
online course may vary depending on personal
preferences and characteristics, the academic
competency of the student, as well as the struc-
ture of the online courses. This means in turn
that each distinctive group of doctoral students
require a different type of support in order to
experience a sense of community (and a sense
of belongingness) in their online classes to
make the environment conducive to their
learning and growth. We therefore believe that
it is critical for instructors to identify and
respond to the different types of needs for
community that their students possess (e.g., do
they desire a safety net based on face-to-face
interaction, or is it a time to expand the bound-
ary of their perceived community in order to
develop a sense of community with research-

ers beyond their program or institution?). By
applying available instructional strategies and
design techniques instructors can then create
online courses that support the preparation of
doctoral students with diverse needs within the
same course experience.
Yet, we want to point out that helping stu-
dents have a positive learning experience and
building a quality learning community online
requires more than the efforts of an individual
instructor to reach out to his or her students.
We found advising—finding the right time to
take the course—plays a crucial role in stu-
dents’ overall experience of online courses.
Therefore, it seems essential to build an effec-
tive system of communication and collabora-
tion among the student’s advisor, instructor,
and administrators to facilitate more positive,

successful learning experiences among stu-
dents taking this type of advanced level of
graduate courses online. Good institutional
support from each satellite campus and aca-
demic program seems also essential to creating
and maintaining a sense of community in vir-
tual classrooms. For example, each satellite
campus can provide a physical space for the
students on a regular basis so that they easily
develop a nested study group on the campus
based on their face-to-face interaction. This
type of support is crucial particularly to those
who feel less comfortable in taking an online
class and miss the face-to-face interaction to
build the sense of community and belonging.
The findings of this study are based on the
online course experiences of students in
courses that may, or may not, be representative

of online research methods courses at other
institutions. Course materials, instructor expe-
rience, available technologies, institutional
culture, and many other variables each shaped
the learning experience of students and these
will vary from course to course and institution
to institution. As a result, the findings of this
study also incorporate not only the delivery
format (i.e., online education) but also the
course, instructor, and institutional character-
istics that also define the learning experience.
From this, another important implication of
this study is related to professional develop-
ment of the faculty members teaching online
research methods courses.
In higher education, research methodology
courses have been regarded as the core ele-
ment of doctoral training and few instructors

have enough experience teaching such classes
online. Therefore, initial and continuous pro-
fessional development for instructors is essen-
tial. One way to do this will be creating a small
community of faculty members teaching
online classes within the institution, and
encouraging them to learn and benefit from
each other’s knowledge and wisdom. On the
other hand, creating a larger network of
teacher-teacher relationships (Anderson,
2003) is also important so that instructors ben-
efit from what has been accumulated in a
larger professional and scholarly community
beyond the boundary of their own institution.
We envision our study as pilot research
exploring the possibilities of using online
delivery method for doctoral student training

2008
in the future. Therefore, it is necessary that
more innovative experiments in a larger-scale
or longitudinal format be conducted with grad-
uate students in an online learning environ-
ment in the near future. Such research
endeavors will help educational researchers
better understand and use new technology to
expand our knowledge of this area.
REFERENCES
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade:
Online education in the United States. Needham,
MA: Sloan-C.
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in dis-
tance education: Recent developments and
research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G.
Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance educa-

tion (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aragon, S. (2003). Creating social presence in
online environments. New Directions for Adult
& Continuing Education, 100, 57-68.
Butcher, J., & Sieminski, S. (2006). The challenge
of a distance learning professional doctorate in
education. Open Learning, 21(1), 59-69.
Deem, R., & Brehony, K. (2000). Doctoral students’
access to research cultures—Are some more
unequal than others? Studies in Higher Educa-
tion, 25(2) 149-165.
De Bruyn, L. L. (2004). Monitoring online commu-
nication: can the development of convergence
and social presence indicate an interactive learn-
ing environment? Distance Education, 25(1),
67-81.
Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M., Cud-
detta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi, P. (2006). Evalu-

ation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in
face-to-face and computer-supported university
contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1),
163-176.
Gunawadena, C. (2004). Designing the social envi-
ronment for online learning: The role of social
presence. In D. Murphy, R. Carr, J. Taylor, & T.
Wong (Eds.), Distance education and technol-
ogy: Issues and practices (pp. 255-270). Hong
Kong: Open University Press.
Gunawadena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social pres-
ence as a predictor of satisfaction within a com-
puter mediated conferencing environment. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8-
25.
Hannafin, M., Oliver, K., Hill, J. R., & Glazer, E.
(2003). Cognitive and learning factors in Web-
based distance learning environments. In M. G.

Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of
distance education (pp. 245-260). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press
Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learn-
ers for asynchronous distance education. Educa-
tional Technology Research and Development,
46(4), 115-122.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005).
Digest of educational statistics. Retrieved Octo-
ber 16, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/d05/
Ronsisvalle, T., & Watkins, R. (2005). Student suc-
cess in online K-12 education. Quarterly Review
of Distance Education, 6(2), 117-124.
Stein, D., & Glazer, H. (2003). Mentoring the adult

learner in academic midlife at a distance educa-
tion university. The American Journal of Dis-
tance Education, 17(1), 7-23.
Tu, C. (2005). From presentation to interaction: new
goals for online learning technologies. Educa-
tional Media International, 42(3), 189-206.
Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of
social presence and interaction in online classes.
American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3),
131-151.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice. learn-
ing, meaning and identity, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wikeley, F., & Muschamp, Y. (2004). Pedagogical
implications of working with doctoral students
at a distance. Distance Education, 25(1), 126-
142.
Winston, B., & Fields, D. (2003). Developing dis-

sertation skills of doctoral students in an Inter-
net-based distance education curriculum: A case
study. The American Journal of Distance Educa-
tion, 17(3), 161-172.
Assignment Copyright © The Open Polytechnic
of New Zealand 11
73213
Assignment 3: Research process and
research evaluation
1. Consider the two research questions you
selected in Assignment 2.
(a) For each research question, select an
appropriate research method.
Justify your choice of methods.
(b) Describe in detail how you would
carryout thesetwo pieces of research.
If you choose a survey method, give examples of
the type of questions
you would ask. If you choose focus groups or
qualitative interviews,
make a list of starter questions. You may need to
briefly repeat some
details that you discussed in Assignment 2, such as

sampling method
and ethical considerations.
(c) Compare the type and characteristics of the
information that the two
methods will provide.
(Guide to length for Question 1: 1000–1500 words)
2. Consider the two research reports attached to
this assignment. (One is by
Lim, Dannels and Watkins, 2008, and the otheris by
Robinson and Hullinger,
2008.) For each report:
(a) Identify and clearly state the research
question.
(b) Briefly summarise the method used,
including sample selection and
sample size.
(c) Assess the suitabilityof the methodology
for the research question and
the rationale for choosing it.
(d) From Module 6 and the associated
readings, assemble a checklist of
characteristics you should look for in good quality
research.
(e) Assess the quality of the two reports
against this checklist, highlighting
strengths and weaknesses. Give an overall comment on
the quality of
the research and its reporting. Justify your comment.

(f) Suggest an alternative method that could
have been used to address the
research question. Do you thinkthis alternative method
would have had
any effects on the findings?
Note: The paper by Robinson and Hullinger
uses a number of statistics that
may be beyond your knowledge. For the purpose of
your critique, you can
assume that theseare correctly used and give validresults.
The discussion
section gives an explanation of thesefindings.
(Guide to length for Question 2: 1800–2500 words)
12 Copyright © The Open Polytechnic of
New Zealand Assignment
73213
3. The activities in the Learning Guide frequently
prompt you to participate in
discussions with otherstudents on the Online
Campus. You are expected
to participate throughout the trimester by posting
messages or replying to
otherstudents in a constructive way.
You do not need to make a posting on all
forums, but by the end of the
trimester you should have contributed to at least 10
forums, with each

posting being between 150 and 250 words.
Make a copy of your forum postings,
including date of posting, and attach
them to your assignment.
Formatting for questions 1 and 2
Please use 1.5 spacing and margins of
approximately 3 cm. Include your name
and student number in a footer, and number
your pages. Put a word count at the
end. Marks will be allocated for spelling and
grammar, so proofread carefully.
References
Provide correct acknowledgement of the two
readings and any otherresources
you make reference to.
Assignment Copyright © The Open Polytechnic
of New Zealand 13
73213
Marking schedule for Assignment 3 –
worth 50% of final grade
Assignment Task Requirements Marks
Task 1: Research Process
Consider the two research questions

selected in Assignment 2.
(a) For each question, select an
appropriate research method. Justify
your choice of method.
For each research question an
appropriate research method is
selected and choice of method is
justified.
5
(b) Describe how research could be
carried out to answer each research
question.
Detailed description of the
research method is provided.
15
(c) Compare the type and characteristics
of the information that the two
research methods would provide.
Types and characteristics of
the information collected are
provided.
5
Task 2: Research Evaluation
(a) Identify and clearly state the two
research questions.

The research questions are
clearly stated.
5
(b) Briefly summarise the methods used,
including sample selection and sample
sizes.
Sample selection, sample
size and research method are
provided for each paper
5
(c) For each paper, assess the suitability
of the methodology for the research
question and the rationale for
choosing it.
The suitabilityof the research
questions and the rationale for
choosing theseare discussed.
5
(d) From Module 6 and associated
readings, assemble a checklist of
characteristics good quality research.
A checklist has been prepared
and presented.
5

(e) Assessthe quality of the two reports
against the checklist, highlighting
strengths and weaknesses and giving
an overall summary on the quality.
The quality of the research
has been assessed using the
checklist of characteristics
of good research. An overall
comment on quality is given.
20
(f) Suggest an alternative method that
could have been used to address the
two research questions. Do you think
the alternative method would have
had any effects on the findings
Two alternative methods that
could have been used to address
the research questions have
been provided.
5
Task 3: Forum Posts
Participate in forum postsand
discussions throughout the trimester.
Copies of forum postsare
included with written work.
20

Assignment Presentation
Formatting, grammar, spelling are of
an academic standard. Word count
included.
Assignment is presented to
correct academic standard.
5
Reference list and in-text referencing
are prepared in correct APA style.
Correct APA style is presented. 5
Total 100

6 Copyright © The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand Assignment 3.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 6 Copyright © The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand Assignment 3.docx

Similar to 6 Copyright © The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand Assignment 3.docx (20)

More from evonnehoggarth79783

More from evonnehoggarth79783 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

6 Copyright © The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand Assignment 3.docx