need help please

for research homework – just the questions to be answered

thanks

I have done part 1 so just need part 2 to be done, thanks

Its due day after tomorrow

thanks

so 6 questions

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 carry out these two 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.

(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 other is 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.

(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 think this 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 these are correctly used and give valid results. The discussion
section gives an explanation of these findings.

(Guide to length for Question 2: 1800–2500 words)

73213

3. The activities in the Learning Guide frequently prompt you to participate in
discussions with other students on the Online Campus. You are expected
to participate throughout the trimester by posting messages or replying to
other students 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 other resources
you make reference to.

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.

(b) Describe how research could be
carried out to answer each research
question.

Detailed description of the
research method is provided.

Types and characteristics of
the information collected are
provided.

Task 2: Research Evaluation

(a) Identify and clearly state the two
research questions.

The research questions are
clearly stated.

(b) Briefly summarise the methods used,
including sample selection and sample
sizes.

Sample selection, sample
size and research method are
provided for each paper

(c) For each paper, assess the suitability
of the methodology for the research
question and the rationale for
choosing it.

The suitability of the research
questions and the rationale for
choosing these are discussed.

(d) From Module 6 and associated
readings, assemble a checklist of
characteristics good quality research.

A checklist has been prepared
and presented.

(e) Assess the 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.

(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.

Task 3: Forum Posts

Participate in forum posts and
discussions throughout the trimester.

Copies of forum posts are
included with written work.

Assignment Presentation

Formatting, grammar, spelling are of
an academic standard. Word count
included.

Assignment is presented to
correct academic standard.

Reference list and in-text referencing
are prepared in correct APA style.

Correct APA style is presented. 5

Total 100

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.

• 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: jhlim@uncc.edu

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 9(3), 2008, pp. 223–236 ISSN 1528-3518

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

226 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 9, No. 3, 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.

Qualitative Investigation of Doctoral Students’ Learning Experiences in Online Research Methods Courses 227

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

228 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 9, No. 3, 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-

Qualitative Investigation of Doctoral Students’ Learning Experiences in Online Research Methods Courses 229

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:

230 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 9, No. 3, 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

Qualitative Investigation of Doctoral Students’ Learning Experiences in Online Research Methods Courses 231

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.

232 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 9, No. 3, 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.

Qualitative Investigation of Doctoral Students’ Learning Experiences in Online Research Methods Courses 233

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

234 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 9, No. 3, 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

Qualitative Investigation of Doctoral Students’ Learning Experiences in Online Research Methods Courses 235

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

236 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 9, No. 3, 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.

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.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ need help please ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed with your coursework?

Get quality coursework help from an expert!

Order now