Internet and Higher Education 12 (2009) 112–116
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Internet and Higher Education
The development, validation, and application of the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale Steven R. Terrell ⁎, Martha M. Snyder, Laurie P. Dringus Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Accepted 10 June 2009 Keywords: Attrition Communities of practice Connectedness Doctoral students
a b s t r a c t Student attrition from distance and limited-residency doctoral programs is significantly higher than that from traditional programs. The focus of this paper is the development and application of a survey instrument, the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale, designed to identify students at risk of dropout. The study focused exclusively on students currently working on their dissertations with results indicating that low feelings of student-to-student and student-to-faculty connectedness in the learning environment may be predictive of departure from the program. This study supports the work of Lovitts (2001) and others who have also recognized connectedness as an integral part of the dissertation experience. Recommendations are made for addressing these issues through various initiatives that administrators, faculty, and students can support including the design and development of a doctoral student community of practice (CoP). © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Historically, 40% to 50% of students matriculating into traditional doctoral programs do not graduate (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; National Center for Education Statistics, 2000; National Research Council, 1996; Smallwood, 2004). The attrition rate for students in distance-based programs, however, is consistently 10% to 20% higher (Rovai, 2002a). Studies suggest factors such as student feelings of depersonalization (Willging & Johnson, 2004); learning styles incongruent with the learning environment (Perry, Boman, Care, Edwards, & Park, 2008); low levels of intrinsic motivation (Terrell, 2002); issues of socialization (Golde, 2005) and feelings of isolation (Ali & Kohun, 2006) negatively affect student persistence in doctoral programs. In her quintessential study of doctoral attrition, Lovitts (2001) reported that approximately half of all students leave a doctoral program for academic reasons such as failure, lack of integration into the program, isolation, problems with or loss of their advisor, loss of interest or dissatisfaction with the program. Twenty percent of her respondents cited personal reasons such as illness, injury, lack of motivation, family or relationship issues with another 20% stating that financial reasons led to their departure from graduate school; the remaining 10% cited a host of miscellaneous reasons for their withdrawal. Regardless of the reason, withdrawal from a doctoral program is costly to the student, the department and the university. It is
⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address:
[email protected] (S.R. Terrell). 1096-7516/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.004
imperative that researchers, faculty members and administrators identify student characteristics predictive of attrition. Identification of these factors will lead to a better understanding of student attrition and serve as the impetus for the development of tools and processes that will positively affect doctoral student persistence. This paper begins with the discussion of one such characteristic, the need for doctoral students to be part of an academic community, and how membership in such a community relates to persistence in a doctoral program. 1.1. Understanding doctoral students' need for community Much of the research on attrition from doctoral programs has focused on the criteria used for admittance (e.g., GRE scores, grade point averages and admissions interviews) or personal characteristics of the students (e.g., learning styles, personality type and level of intrinsic motivation). Less effort has been put into understanding what occurs during their tenure as a student (Creighton, Parks, & Creighton, 2007). Beginning with the application process, it is likely that many doctoral students are not fully cognizant of the difficulty of the task before them; this has led many educators to call for applicants to “be made aware of the challenges and demands of doctoral study” (Smith, Maroney, Nelson, Label, & Abel, 2006, p.17) prior to acceptance. Soon after matriculation, many of these same students find that success is no longer specifically defined by means of class participation, course-related projects, and examinations. Instead, students must be “responsible, active, intentional agents in their own learning” (Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008, p. 85). Others, accustomed to the structured community
S.R. Terrell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 12 (2009) 112–116
afforded by earlier academic settings, may feel “they are wasting time” or “the program may not have a beginning, middle or end to which the student can relate or understand” not understanding that “the transition to independent scholar is part and parcel of the doctoral educational process” (Smith et al., 2006, p. 18). These problems are exacerbated as students enter candidacy and the focus shifts from completing coursework to conducting original, rigorous, and independent research. As noted by Gardner (2008), beginning to write the dissertation is particularly difficult for many students as they must “transition from being consumers of knowledge, such as they have experienced within the classroom, to creators of knowledge through their own original research” (p. 328). It is during candidacy that the largest degree of attrition from doctoral programs occurs (National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, 1998). The question then becomes, “Why do some students succeed while others do not?” Offering one possible explanation, Lovitts (2005) identifies three factors that influence degree completion and creative performance; these include individual resources (e.g., intelligence, motivation, learning styles and personality), the microenvironment (e.g., location, department, peers and other faculty, and advisor) and the macroenvironment (e.g., culture of graduate education and culture of the discipline). As noted earlier, the individual resources represent innate student characteristics and cannot be effectively addressed once the student has started the program. However, the administration and faculty do control the micro and macro environments and should be able to influence student persistence by aligning their structure with actions that positively affect student persistence (Lovitts, 2005). For example, in the microenvironment, actions may be taken to integrate doctoral students into the department and engage them in scholarly discourse with peers and faculty. In the macroenvironment, administration and faculty can foster an open-door policy which communicates to students that they are encouraged to express their ideas and concerns with administration, get to know the faculty, and talk to them about their research interests and endeavors. In essence, the microenvironment and macroenvironment represent the community of the doctoral student; the more conducive the community is to the support of student goals and needs, the less likely the student is to leave the program prior to graduation. Golde (2005) supports these same ideas by noting that inadequate academic integration is a leading cause of doctoral student attrition. Golde contends that attrition may occur if there is either a mismatch or incongruence between a student and the discipline or department (i.e., the macroenvironment) they have chosen or when the student feels isolated from meaningful participation with either the peers, discipline or department (i.e., the microenvironment). In the virtual learning community context, Rovai (2002b) identified “sense of community” as “a foundation upon which to design and facilitate online instruction” (p. 321). He indicated that there is a relationship between sense of community in terms of degree of emotional connectedness and cognitive learning to support persistence and increased learning. Rovai noted attributes of sense of community to include feelings of membership and belongingness and a feeling that one is part of a bigger structure with mutual interdependence taking precedent over the needs of the individual person. Overall, sense of community involves a high level of engagement, trust, and dedication to building community. Faculty, administrators and students must work together to create a strong sense of community through interaction (Rovai, 2002a). 1.1.1. Purpose of the study and research questions For students in distance education programs, the physical separation from the school often leads to feelings of isolation and disconnection from one's school, both of which can lead directly to the decision to drop out. This study served to extend the literature by attempting to understand the limited-residency doctoral students' feelings of con-
113
nectedness towards each other and the faculty by using a survey developed specifically for that purpose. For the purposes of this study, the authors refer to the definition of connectedness from Rovai (2002a) as the “feeling of belonging and acceptance and the creation of bonding relationships” (p. 322). Rovai suggests that these relationships are developed by developing “feelings of safety and trust” (p. 322). Herein, this definition was extended to include the degree to which students had access to the knowledge, skills, and resources within their microenvironment. This access is facilitated by trust and communication. Simply put, if doctoral students feel like they are not accepted, are unable to freely access information, and lack a sense of safety and trust, they will not feel connected to the learning environment. This definition, combined with the desire to better understand the needs of students in a limited-residency doctoral program, inspired the development of the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale and the following research questions: 1. Is the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale a valid instrument for measuring connectivity between students and faculty in a distancebased doctoral program? 2. Is the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale a reliable instrument for measuring connectivity between students and faculty in a distancebased doctoral program? 3. Can the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale be used to identify areas possibly predictive of attrition? 4. How can the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale be used to address doctoral student persistence? 2. Experimental materials and method 2.1. Participants The sample frame included all students (N = 469) in a limitedresidency doctoral program currently working on their dissertation as part of a degree in either educational technology or information systems. The program requires 40 credit hours of coursework and 24 credit hours for the dissertation. Students earn the doctorate in an average of five years. The attrition rate is greater than 60% (Terrell, 2005a) and earlier research has shown that the attrition cannot be predicted by demographic characteristics or by constructs such as learning style, information perception or information focus (Terrell, 2002, 2005a,b). 2.2. Instrumentation Earlier work by the authors (2007, 2008) focused on the initial development of the instrument based on a preliminary set of 24 questions to measure sense of community and research competency. Statements were adapted from Rovai's (2002b) Classroom Community Scale and the authors' knowledge and experience supervising dissertation students. Subsequently, the questions were evaluated by a panel of subject-matter experts for item validity. The removal and addition of questions, as well as the modification of existing questions, led to a set of 18 questions to be used for this study. Two constructs — feelings of student-to-student and student-to-faculty connectedness were the focus of the development and application of the instrument. Nine of the statements were “connectedness items” taken from Rovai's (2002a) Classroom Community Scale and modified to fit the student population. For example, the Classroom Community Scale is intended to assess sense of community while students are enrolled in courses and this study intended to assess how dissertation students felt about their level of connectedness with faculty and fellow peers. Most of these students completed coursework and were working on their dissertations independently. Two statements were “learning items” taken from Rovai's (2002a,b) Classroom Community Scale (i.e., “I feel that I'm
114
S.R. Terrell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 12 (2009) 112–116
encouraged to ask questions” and “I feel that I receive timely feedback” [p. 205]) and seven additional questions were added based on the authors' suggestion that connectedness relates not only to feelings of belonging, trust, and acceptance but connectedness also pertains to the degree to which students have access to knowledge, skills, and resources within their microenvironment. Like the “connectedness items,” “learning items” taken from the Classroom Community Scale were modified to fit the student population represented in this study. After review by the university's Institution Review Board, an invitation to complete the online survey was sent to all students (N = 469) in the program, with instructions that it be completed by students currently working on their dissertation. Of the 223 respondents, 42 students (18.8%) indicated they were actively working on their dissertations while still enrolled in coursework and 61 students (27.4%) had completed their coursework and were enrolled in their first term of dissertation credit. The majority of the respondents (N = 120, 53.8%) were enrolled in dissertation credit for more than three years. Over three-fourths of all students (77.6%) were working to identify a suitable topic for their dissertation; this figure dropped slightly to 73.5% when considering only students who had completed their coursework. Fifteen (6.7%) of the respondents indicated they were working on their final dissertation report. 3. Results 3.1. Quantitative results In order to investigate the first two research questions, the researchers employed a principal components analysis with oblique rotation. Due to the likelihood that the hypothesized factors would be correlated, this analysis afforded the most interpretable structure. The KMO statistic (.920) and Bartlett's Test (p =.000) indicated the validity of the sample (Stevens,1992), with the internal reliability of the instrument established by a Cronbach's alpha of .873 and a Spearman-Brown coefficient of .932. The analysis resulted in a parsimonious two-factor model (i.e., studentto-faculty connectedness and student-to-student connectedness), each with an eigenvalue greater than 1.00, accounting for 64.04% of the variance. The criterion for inclusion, established by the authors, was the unambiguous loading of an item into a factor with a loading of .60 or higher. Both factors and corresponding questions, along with their associated descriptive statistics, are shown in Appendix A. Mean scores were computed for the combination of questions contributing to each factor (Table 1). Students in the sample gave slightly lower-than-average ratings to the sense of connectedness they felt between themselves and faculty members (x ̅ = 2.92). Students expressed student-to-student connectedness (x ̅ = 2.21) scores that, overall, were significantly lower than their perceived connectedness to faculty, t(222) = −10.885, p b .001. 3.2. Qualitative results In order to investigate the third research question, the items on the questionnaire were coded to reflect key words that were part of the question's stem and then they were ranked within the factors. In doing so, evidence of patterns in student opinions emerged (Table 2). For example, at the time of the administration, the lowest mean scores for student-to-faculty connectedness seemed to indicate that students felt there was a limited sense of community between the faculty and students. Although they also indicated they did not feel they were not Table 1 Mean scores for Identified Factors. Factor
Questions
N
x̅
S.D.
1. Student-to-faculty connectedness 2. Student-to-student connectedness
2,4,6,7,11,12,14,16,18 1,3,5,8,9,10,13,15,17
223 223
2.92 2.21
1.055 .8612
Table 2 Mean scores for questions related to student-to-faculty connectedness. Student-to-faculty connectedness
x̅
4. Community exists between student and faculty 11. Receiving adequate support 7. Communicate regularly with faculty 2. Students encouraged to ask questions 18. Students feel like they can communicate 14. Feel confident of faculty support 16. Trust faculty 6. Timely feedback 12. Valuable feedback
2.18 2.64 2.69 2.85 2.91 2.94 3.22 3.31 3.50
receiving adequate support; they admitted they were not communicating regularly with faculty members. Scores hovering around the overall mean indicate that students believed they could communicate with the faculty and were confident the faculty would be supportive. The highest scores are indicative of moderate beliefs of trust and that faculty members are dedicated to supporting students' efforts as they write the dissertation. When the questions were coded and sorted in ascending order according to their mean scores, patterns of student-to-student interaction emerged (Table 3). As shown in Table 3, it is evident that students experience low levels of connectedness to one another, do not feel they have the ability to communicate easily and therefore do not communicate regularly. This interpretation is reflected in very low levels of interpersonal feelings (e.g., part of an academic family and the ability to rely on one another). Although still below the scale average, the highest scores reflected feelings of caring and trust. It is possible that these scores reflect the interpersonal relationships students developed during their on-campus, face-to-face meetings. 4. Discussion An ideal online learning environment has high levels of faculty-tostudent and student-to-student connectedness evidenced by authentic and ongoing discourse and information sharing. In this case, the results indicate a less than ideal environment and may help explain the program's attrition rate. Given these results, it is recommended the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale be used for two purposes; identifying students at risk of attrition and justifying the need to develop doctoral program initiatives that encourage persistence. 4.1. Administrator- and faculty-led initiatives First, administrators and faculty may use the instrument to identify individuals who demonstrate these traits characteristic of non-completion and intervene before students decide to leave the program. Among others, possible initiatives that administrators and faculty can introduce include: 1. Hosting face-to-face and online workshops to assist students as they begin working on their dissertations. Workshop topics could
Table 3 Mean scores for questions related to student-to-student connectedness. Student-to-student connectedness
x̅
3. Connected to other students 8. Students are like a family 9. Communicate regularly with other students 13. Spirit of community with other students 15. Can rely on other students 17. Can easily communicate with other students 5. Can easily communicate with other students 1. Students care about one another 10. Students can trust one another
1.75 1.90 1.92 2.01 2.21 2.26 2.31 2.66 2.91
S.R. Terrell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 12 (2009) 112–116
2.
3. 4.
5.
include how to identify possible research areas, characteristics of a quality dissertation and expectations of the faculty. Assigning students to a faculty member in an advisory capacity at the start of candidacy. While this person may not ultimately serve as the dissertation chair or mentor, he or she would serve as a point of contact for students thereby decreasing the probability of candidates simply “falling through the cracks.” Developing student and faculty cohort groups that are organized according to similar interests and research agendas. Creating mentoring groups consisting of dissertation students who have reached recognized milestones with their dissertation (e.g., they have completed their dissertation proposal or recently graduated) to meet with candidates to review and strengthen the candidate's dissertation. Using and supporting a variety of tools to facilitate online communication (e.g., email, discussion forums, blogs, wikis, social networking, and voice-over-Internet protocol [VoIP]) between and among students and faculty.
4.2. Student-led initiative — the development of communities of practice The identification of students at risk for attrition is only the first step. Higher graduation rates for limited-residency doctoral programs require a unique platform to support the needs of students working on their dissertation. Given the recent emphasis on community in the literature and its affect on student satisfaction and learning (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Rovai 2002b; Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006; Tinto, 1997), one approach (Tinto, 1997) suggests the development of communities of practice designed to enhance achievement by enabling students and faculty the opportunity to interact with each other and participate in collaborative experiences so that learning is shared among community members. A community of practice (CoP) has been defined by Johnson (citing Wenger, 1998 and others) as “a community dedicated to learning and advancing knowledge and know-how in a given subject area and among its members” (Johnson, 2005, p.17). These communities extend the concept of virtual communities through informal, but cohesive sharing of a common knowledge domain and extending that knowledge through shared practice (Johnson, 2005; Snyder, 2009; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). More specifically, communities of practice (CoPs) support a collective achievement of a group of people who share a common goal to build knowledge in a specific domain or practice (Wenger, 1998). Encouraging student-to-student and student-to-faculty interaction within a CoP encapsulates the collaborative effort of a CoP and from that effort over time, a strong and positive sense of community is achieved. These types of communities of practice should ultimately strengthen student engagement and persistence and lead to lower levels of attrition. Janson, Howard, and Schoenberger-Orgad (2004) suggest that faculty should support and encourage student-led CoPs noting: “Students, however, have a particular role in this [community building] — it is up to them to take control of their future and shape their postgraduate experience. Universities, on the other hand, will need to fulfill their obligations to respond to specific requests from postgraduates and to step in when asked to offer appropriate resources …” (p. 179). Encouraged by their supervisors, Janson et al. (2004) formed a group for the purpose of sharing information about the dissertation process. This group grew from three students to approximately eight students. Although the group's initial intent was to focus on the process (e.g., writing dissertation documents and conducting research), they eventually began to talk about their personal dissertation progress. Over time, the group transformed from a primarily task-based support group
115
to a group that offered a combination of task and emotional support. This combination helped the group work through frustrations while at the same time remain focused on the process and the specific task at hand. This self-formed and self-directed group is an example of an organic “bottom-led” initiative, which is often more successful than one driven from the top (Janson, et al.; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
5. Conclusions It is evident that students surveyed for this study experience less than desirable levels of connectedness between each other and faculty members. These results help justify a need for interventions initiated by administrators, faculty, and students. As discussed, various activities initiated by administrators and faculty would benefit online doctoral students. Examples include: providing face-to-face and online workshops that focus on various aspects of the dissertation, assigning faculty mentors or advisors early on in the doctoral program, establishing faculty and student cohorts based on specific interests and research agendas, and using online communication tools to facilitate student-tostudent and student-to-faculty interaction. Coupled with these activities, student-led initiatives, such as the development of CoPs that are supported by administration and faculty, are also recommended for online doctoral students. The following questions will help identify the needs associated with the development of such CoPs: 1. What types of support do online doctoral students need to help them persist with the dissertation? 2. What would an online CoP that supports dissertation students look like in terms of structure, support, resources, and ideal number of participants? 3. What would be the mission, goals, and values of the CoP? 4. What motivates students to participate (e.g., share knowledge and information) in a CoP? What keeps students from participating in a CoP? 5. What kinds of tools would it employ (e.g., discussion threads, wikis, blogs, etc.)? 6. Who would be responsible for keeping the CoP alive? What are the roles of administrators, faculty, and students? By making small, yet incremental changes to the way limitedresidency doctoral students are supported, it is hoped persistence will increase and these students will feel supported and empowered to complete their doctoral degrees. Future research is needed on the design and development of the initiatives addressed herein as well as the implications these initiatives have on the culture of the higher education institution.
Appendix A. Factors and related questions Factor one — faculty to student connectedness
N
2. I feel that I am encouraged to ask questions to the faculty about the dissertation process. 4. I feel a spirit of community between the faculty and myself while I am working on my dissertation. 6. When I ask questions or submit work to my dissertation advisor, I feel like I receive timely feedback. 7. I communicate with faculty members about the dissertation process on a regular basis. 11. I feel that I am receiving adequate support from the faculty while I am working on my dissertation. 12. I feel that the feedback I receive from the faculty is valuable. 14. I feel confident that the faculty will support me while I am working on my dissertation. 16. I feel I can trust faculty while I am working on my dissertation (e.g., rely on faculty members to follow through on commitments,
223 2.85 1.356
x̅
S.D.
223 2.18
1.181
223 3.31
1.381
223 2.69 1.185 223 2.64 1.328 223 3.50 1.280 223 2.94 1.349 223 3.22 1.283
(continued on next page)
116
S.R. Terrell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 12 (2009) 112–116
Appendix (continued) A (continued) Factor one — faculty to student connectedness keep confidences, treat people with respect and help me learn). 18. I feel like I can easily communicate with faculty about the dissertation. Mean
References N
x̅
223 2.91
S.D. 1.364
223 2.92 1.300
Factor two — student-to-student connectedness 1. I feel that students currently working on their dissertation care about each other. 3. I feel connected to other students in the program who are working on their dissertation. 5. I feel like I can easily communicate with other students about the dissertation. 8. I feel like fellow students who are working on their dissertation are like a family. 9. I communicate regularly with other students who are working on their dissertation. 10. I feel I can trust other students who are working on their dissertation. 13. I feel a spirit of community between other students and myself while working on the dissertation. 15. I feel like I can rely on other students who are working on their dissertations for their support. 17. I feel like I can easily communicate with other students who are working on their dissertations. Mean
223 2.66 1.302 223 1.75
0.957
223 2.31
1.146
223 1.90
1.086
223 1.92
1.098
223 2.91
1.168
223 2.01
1.074
223 2.21
1.108
223 2.26 1.125 223 2.21
1.340
Appendix B. Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale (DSCS) Instructions: Please rate each sentence from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 1. I feel that students currently working on their dissertation care about each other. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I feel that I am encouraged to ask questions to the faculty about the dissertation process. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I feel connected to other students in the program who are working on their dissertation. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I feel a spirit of community between the faculty and myself while I am working on my dissertation. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I feel like I can easily communicate with other students about the dissertation. 1 2 3 4 5 6. When I ask questions or submit work to my dissertation advisor, I feel like I receive timely feedback. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I communicate with faculty members about the dissertation process on a regular basis. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I feel like fellow students who are working on their dissertation are like a family. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I communicate regularly with other students who are working on their dissertation. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I feel I can trust other students who are working on their dissertation. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I feel that I am receiving adequate support from the faculty while I am working on my dissertation. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I feel that the feedback I receive from the faculty is valuable. 1 2 3 4 5 13. I feel a spirit of community between other students and myself while I am working on my dissertation. 1 2 3 4 5 14. I feel confident that the faculty will support me while I am working on my dissertation. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I feel like I can rely on other students who are working on their dissertation for support. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I feel I can trust the faculty while I am working on my dissertation (e.g., rely on faculty members to follow through on commitments, keep confidences, treat people with respect and help me learn). 1 2 3 4 5 17. I feel like I can easily communicate with other students who are working on their dissertations. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I feel like I can easily communicate with faculty about the dissertation. 1 2 3 4 5
Ali, A., & Kohun, F. (2006). Dealing with isolation feelings in IS doctoral programs. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 1(1), 21–33. Bowen, W., & Rudenstine, N. (1992). In pursuit of the Ph.D. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Creighton, T., Parks, D., & Creighton, L. (2007). A pedagogy of mentoring doctoral students: Developing an educational methodology. In C. A. Mullen (Ed.), The handbook of successful mentoring programs: From undergraduate through tenure. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Gardner, S. (2008). “What's too much and what's too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326–350. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Golde, C. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669–700. Janson, A., Howard, L., & Schoenberger-Orgad, M. (2004). The odyssey of Ph.D. students becoming a community of practice. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(2), 168–181. doi:10.1177/1080569904265421 Johnson, C.M. (2005). Establishing an online community of practice for instructors of English as a foreign language. Dissertation, Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences, Nova Southeastern University, Dissertation Abstracts, Proquest. Lovitts, B. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lovitts, B. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154. National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Percentage distribution of doctoral degree students according to selected student, enrollment, and employment characteristics, by type of degree: 1999–2000 Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ tables_listings/show_nedrc.asp?rt=p&tableID=210 National Research Council (1996). The path to the Ph.D.: Measuring graduate attrition in the sciences and humanities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies (1998). Summary of workshop on graduate student attrition.Arlington, VA: Author NSF 99-314. Perry, B., Boman, J., Care, W., Edwards, M., & Park, C. (2008). Why do students withdraw from online graduate nursing and health studies education? The Journal of Educators Online, 5(1), 1–17. Rovai, A. (2002a). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197–211. Rovai, A. (2002b). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332. Shea, P., Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 175–190. Smallwood, S. (2004, January 16). Doctor dropout. The chronicle of higher education Retrieved March 18, 2005 from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i19/19a01001.htm Smith, R., Maroney, K., Nelson, K., Label, A., & Abel, H. (2006). Doctoral programs: Changing high rates of attrition. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 45 (1), 17–31. Snyder, M. M. (2009). Instructional-design theory to guide the creation of online learning communities for adults. TechTrends, 53(1), 48–56. Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Terrell, S. (2002). The effect of learning style on doctoral course completion in a webbased learning environment. Internet in Higher Education, 5(4), 345–352. Terrell, S. (2005a). Supporting different learning styles in an online learning environment: Does it really matter in the long run? Online Journal of Distance Education Administration, 8(2). Terrell, S. (2005b). A longitudinal investigation of the effect of information perception and focus on attrition in online learning environments. Internet in Higher Education, 8(3). Terrell, S., Dringus, L., & Snyder, M. (2007, Novemberr). The development and validation of an instrument to measure sense of community among dissertation students in a limited-residency doctoral program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Tampa, FL. Terrell, S., Dringus, L., & Snyder, M. (2008, Marchh). The development of an instrument to measure sense of community in a limited-residency doctoral program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City. Tinto, V. (Spring, 1997). Enhancing learning via community. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 13(1), 53–59. Walker, G., Golde, C., Jones, L., Bueschel, A., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge: Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Willging, P., & Johnson, S. (2004). Factors that influence student's decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 105–118.
