Examining Dissatisfaction with an Online Doctoral Program PDF

EXAMINING DISSATISFACTION WITH AN ONLINE DOCTORAL PROGRAM ___________________ An Applied Research Project Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Doctor of Ministry Dallas Theological Seminary ___________________...

EXAMINING DISSATISFACTION WITH AN ONLINE DOCTORAL PROGRAM ___________________ An Applied Research Project Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Doctor of Ministry Dallas Theological Seminary ___________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Ministry ___________________ by Frank Fenby May 2006  Accepted by the Faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Ministry Examining Committee  ABSTRACT EXAMINING DISSATISFACTION WITH AN ONLINE DOCTORAL PROGRAM Frank Fenby Readers: Michael S. Lawson, Robert Kasper The purpose of this study was to develop a substantive grounded theory concerning the cause of learner unhappiness that arose during the second semester of the online Doctorado en Educación Teológica (DET) program at Seminario Teológico Centroamericano (SETECA). The learners at the end of the first semester voiced no significant complaints. However, in the midst of the second semester, a vocal outcry exposed several surface complaints. The question this dissertation seeks to answer is What was the root problem or problems, and how might they be related? Interviews with the professors and a focus group with some of the learners and faculty during the second semester expanded the issues instead of narrowing them. The administration implemented some immediate corrections and research continued. Now, at the end of the fourth semester, a clearer picture of the issues is available. The research findings obtained after this fourth semester is the focus of this dissertation. A grounded theory qualitative study was attempted. The goal was to develop a substantive theory that would explain the learner dissatisfaction in this case, possibly explain why it first arose during the second semester instead of the first, and provide iii guidance to help correct the current situation and prevent this sort of problem in the future. The results show that the root of the learner problems that surfaced during the second semester were, and to some extent continue to be, the ability of the faculty to embrace the new environment, its pedagogy, and especially its time management disciplines. The problems center in the faculty and not the learners, the environment, the pedagogy or the educational content. Similar issues are to some extent discussed in the extant literature. Future research on the DET program at SETECA should focus on the effectiveness of faculty training as the program prepares for a second cohort of learners expected to start the program in January 2007. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................... iii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION......................................... 1 Purpose of this Study 1 Description of the Doctoral Program 1 Relationship of the Researcher to the Program 4 The Problem as First Perceived 5 Preview of Remaining Chapters 5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW................................... 7 Online Learning Community Education 8 Education in General 16 Grounded Theory Qualitative Research 20 3. RESEARCH DESIGN..................................... 22 Research Method Selection 22 Preliminary Research 23 Data Collection 24 Data Analysis Methodology 28 4. RESEARCH RESULTS.................................... 33 Development of the Theory 34 Statement and Grounding of the Theory 40 Validation of the Theory 52 Congruence with the Literature 65 v  Conclusions 69 5. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................. 72 For the Current Cohort 72 For Preventing Issues with New Cohorts 74 For Future Research 79 For New Qualitative Researchers 80 Summary 81 Appendix....................................................... 83 A. QUESTIONNAIRE ON PEDAGOGICAL CHANGE 83 B. SETECA STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................. 98 vi  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter states the purpose of this study and provides the background necessary to understand the research environment, especially the doctoral program studied. Purpose of This Study The purpose of this study was to develop a grounded theory regarding the root cause or causes of the learner dissatisfaction expressed during the second semester of the initial offering of the Doctorado en Educación Teológica (DET) program at Seminario Teológico Centroamericano (SETECA) in Guatemala City, Guatemala Central America. Description of the Doctoral Program The DET program is unique in many ways. It has a unique history, philosophy, and a unique implementation. A discussion of each of these follows. History During the last decade of the twentieth century, there was born the idea of creating a doctoral program in Latin America for Latin America. A meeting was held in August of 1998 in Costa Rica with representatives of four seminaries present. There began to develop the basic concepts of what came to be known as the Cooperative Program for Doctoral Studies, or “ProCED.” In October of the same year, another meeting was held in Brazil (during a continental AETAL meeting- Evangelical Association for Theological Education in Latin America) where the concept was presented to all interested in participating in or using the program to improve their own institutions. The elaboration of the project began with the involvement of seven seminaries, but as time passed, only three were left to bring it into being. This number was reduced to two in the early months of 1  2 2001 and to one a year later, leaving the project exclusively in the hands of SETECA. 1 One of these institutions decided not to participate in the program, according to several informal sources involved in the discussions, over disagreement about the amount of technical theological content in the curriculum. Another did not have adequate personnel. 2 The statements concerning the philosophy of the program, given below, reveal the effects of this practical orientation fostered by SETECA. Philosophy The philosophy of the program has not significantly changed since the first group of learners arrived on campus in January 2004 for their orientation. The English version of the DET web site advertises the philosophy of the program. The excerpts below summarize it. “The purpose of the program is to develop educational leaders.... It responds to the needs of persons already involved in leadership positions in theological institutions, without having received preparation in administration or education. It is not a doctorate in ‘Christian Education,’ nor does it seek exclusively to prepare professors to be better teachers.”3 The DET philosophy clearly embraces the so-called “new paradigm” philosophy of education as seen in the following statements concerning learning in community and focusing on the learner. “The impact of community is a very important factor in the learning process. Research in adult education has identified two elements that favor learning: (a) 1 “Historic Background,” online: http://phd.seteca.edu/English/Descriptions/Background.htrn accessed 14 February 2006. 2 Informal conversations in Guatemala with the DET administrators, October 2002. 3 “Purpose of the Program,” online: http://phd. seteca.edu/English/Descriptions/Purpose.htm, accessed 14 February 2006.  3 constant contact with one’s own context, and (b) at the same time a close relationship with persons that have the same interests. DET draws on both and in this sense community comes to be both a vehicle for and a result of the learning process. DET intends to serve a group of individuals who are presently leaders in the field of theological education. They will learn from: each other; their experience of the contexts in which they currently live and minister, their interaction with the teaching faculty, materials provided them in written and electronic form, and their own investigation.”4 “Qualified professors and relevant materials play an important role in this as in any doctorate. Nevertheless, our program is centered on the student and his (or her) role in taking responsibility for his own learning. The professors assist him in this process by means of the Internet and the residential seminars. In addition to interacting with professors, the student will develop a close relationship with his advisor, who has the responsibility to guide the student in the process of preparing the thesis.”5 All of this is justified and emphasized in a final section about learning on the job. “Typical students in the program will have at least a decade of experience as church and/or seminary leaders. Most of them will also have university degrees in a secular field in addition to their qualifications in Bible and theology. Thus, our students will be well qualified to assume responsibility for their own learning, as suggested in the previous section. But on-the-job learning relates to more than the competence of the student. It relates to the fact that such students are able to relate new theories to past and present experiences. New ideas can be tested immediately in the vortex of real life needs and challenges. This results in personal rather than surrogate learning. It sticks.”6 Implementation Learners start the DET program by attending an orientation workshop at SETECA in Guatemala City, Guatemala. Here they meet some of the faculty and 4 “Learning in Community,” online, http://phd.seteca.edu/English/Descriptions/Community.htm, accessed 14 February 2006. 5 “Focus on the Learner,” online, http://phd.seteca.edu/English/Descriptions/The%20Learner.htm, accessed 14 February 2006. 6 Ibid.  4 administration, get course materials for their first two courses and are assisted in accessing and using the online classroom. The DET program calendar year divides evenly into two semesters. Two courses comprise each semester. A learner takes both of them at the same time since there is a designed synergy between them. At the end of the semester, about six months later, the learners come back to SETECA to present their final papers for each course to the cohort in person. (The learners present all of their other course papers to the others, and discuss them in the online classroom.) This on campus session, called a “module,” lasts two weeks. During it, they also receive the course materials for the next semester. At the end of the module, the learners participate in an integrative seminar with an important person in the disciplines of education or theology. This pattern repeats for the first four semesters. At the end of the fifth semester, the learners meet with representatives of the faculty at a major research library instead of meeting at SETECA. Here the learners do much of the library research needed for their dissertations. Relationship of this Researcher to the Program This researcher conducted an experimental online portion of a doctoral course at Dallas Theological Seminary in Summer 2002. The administrators, who were formulating the DET program, were learners in that course. They were impressed with the online portion of the course and saw it as the tool they were looking for to meet the needs of the DET program. This began a consulting relationship between SETECA and this researcher. Both of the professors for the first semester courses spent considerable time with this researcher preparing their courses. During the following semesters, the researcher took a greatly decreased role, simply keeping in touch with the program  5 administration. When the research problem manifested itself, this researcher went on site in Guatemala and worked with the administration concerning the problem. This problem- solving role continued. The Problem as First Perceived Near the end of the second semester, the learners started complaining to the administration about their workload, the quality of the assignment prompts, feeling left out in the class discussion and about a general unresponsiveness from the faculty. The faculty also had their complaints. They attacked the philosophy of the program as being non-Latin American and too confining. Some immediate steps addressed these surface issues. Preview of the Remaining Chapters The next chapter reviews the extant literature in order to give the reader a background in not only the online learning pedagogy and environment used in the DET program, but also the current, painful, attempt by higher education to return its pedagogy to its roots from before the industrial revolution. This struggle will underline the findings of this study. This chapter also covers several key works in the field of grounded theory research that informed the research method used for this study. Chapter 3 explains the selection of grounded theory as the type of research for this study. It briefly covers the research activity up to collection of the data for this project. Next, it covers the design of the questionnaires, the data collection process, and preparation of the data for analysis. Finally, it explains the typical steps used to analyze the data and build the grounded theory. The fourth chapter presents the results of applying the methods in chapter 3 to the data collected in January 2006. A theory arises from these results. Quotes from the data then show the grounding of this theory in the data. Notes and quotes from before this  6 final study began help validate the findings of the study. A final section shows the corroboration of the extant literature with the results of the analysis and the theory developed from the data. A fifth and final chapter contains recommendations for the DET program and for continued research on the learners’ experience with that program. It also contains recommendations for inexperienced researchers doing qualitative research.  CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature related to online learning as implemented in the DET program at SETECA, specifically in relationship to its philosophy and pedagogy. Creswell says, “In qualitative research the literature should be used in a manner consistent with the methodological assumptions; namely, it should be used inductively so that it does not direct the questions asked by the researcher.”1 Since this is a qualitative research project this literature review serves to demonstrate the background from which this researcher proceeded. Qualitative research does not test a hypothesis derived from the literature. It seeks an independent understanding of the subject. It then, at the end of the study, compares its results to the literature. “This approach is used in all types of qualitative designs, but it is most popular with grounded theory, wherein one contrasts and compares his or her theory with other theories found in the literature.”2 This chapter also looks at several key works concerning qualitative research. The pedagogy used at SETECA for the DET program is both as ancient as Old Testament and as recent as the past few years. The explosion of computer assisted personal communications in education is forcing education to re-examine the very roots of how people learn and develop. Current thinking is challenging the hegemony that 1 John W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994), 20. 2 Ibid., 23. 7  8 current methods, especially what Paulo Freire calls the “banking method,”3 of education have held since the invention of the steamship and railroad.4 This conflict is probably sharper in post-secondary, and especially graduate level education, than it is anywhere else. This short review of the literature, relevant to the current project, starts with recent works about online learning community based education. It then looks at the changing face of post-secondary education today and the philosophy underlying it. This sequence allows the reader to go to any level of background desired. Online Learning Community Education Online education is a new field yet it is already developing a literature. However, this literature is still in its early stages. Much of current thinking is in online discussion forums and email list-servers. Since accessibility to this is both difficult and limited, this review focuses on the most significant items in the more traditional media. Again since this is a new field much of what is being written is either anecdotal and/or deals with a limited topic area. This is less true of the first group of books presented, yet even these show their author’s development in this emerging field. Palloff and Pratt Series Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt provide us with four excellent books on the subject of learning community based online education. These books were the model presented to SETECA for the development of the DET program. Palloff and Pratt developed the masters program in online teaching and learning at the California State 3 Paulo Freire, The Paulo Freire Reader, ed. Ana Maria Araújo Freire (New York: Continuum, 2001), 67-79. 4 For an extended discussion of this point see Peter Senge’s article “The Industrial Age System of Education” in Peter Senge, Nelda Cambron-McCabe, Timothy Lucas, Bryan Smith, Janis Dutton and Art Kleiner, Schools that Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 27-58.  9 University at Hayward, and the Ph. D. programs in online education at Capella University in Minnesota, an all-online university. Their first book, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, 5 covers the pedagogical aspects of online learning. Its orientation is practical yet references the appropriate theoretical foundations. It is required reading for anyone considering any form of distance or online education. They clearly set the stage for online learning and its contrast to the current hegemony by stating that, “Key to the learning process are the interactions among students themselves, the interactions between faculty and students, and the collaboration in learning that results from these interactions.”6 The bibliography in this book is an excellent starting place for reading in online education. Material from Keith Pratt’s 1996 doctoral dissertation on “The Electronic Personality” 7 at the Fielding Institute is evident in this book. Their second book, Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom,8 discusses what they have discovered about the practical aspects of teaching online. They summarize these lessons under seven headings. The first is “Course Development Needs to Focus on Interactivity, Not Content.” They hold that “Content can be creatively delivered through facilitation of effective discussions, collaborative assignments that promote teamwork and interaction.... It is pedagogy and not technology that is critical to the success of an online course.”9 5 Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). 6 Ibid., 5. 7 Keith Pratt, "The Electronic Personality." (PhD diss., Fielding Institute, 1996). 8 Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt, Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The Realities of Online Teaching (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001). 9 Ibid., 152-3.  10 The second heading is “Faculty and Student Roles Need to Change.” “... Faculty need to be willing to give up a degree of control and allow the learners to take the lead in learning activities.... What is most important is to encourage faculty to move away from the lecture mode of teaching and toward the use of more active learning approaches.... Once again, learner-centered pedagogy is everything when it comes to teaching online or face-to-face.”10 The other headings focus on training and support for both students and faculty, and the need for early planning and infrastructure development. The book has some mention of software that is useful for delivering online education. The third book in the series by Palloff and Pratt focuses on the virtual student. They summarize their main point and the content of this significant book by saying: What we are promoting as we focus more on the learner and a learner-centered educational process is neither pedagogy nor andragogy; but instead heutagogy, or self-directed learning (Hase and Kenyon, 2000). In fact, no matter what terminology is used to describe what should be occurring in the online classroom, the reality is that good online learning involves all three theoretical constructs. The instructor provides the container, pedagogically speaking, through which students can explore the territory of the course and, it is hoped, apply their learning to their lives. In this book, we focus on how to make all that happen by looking at the virtual student, who that person is and what that person needs to succeed in an online course, what the virtual student should expect, and what the instructor should expect from the virtual student. We also provide a range of tips and tricks for fostering the success of the student online.11 They also note that, “The focus of the book is primarily “cohort-based” learning, that is, students who begin and end a course together during a quarter, semester, or a seminar scheduled at the convenience of the instructor and students. We have found that the community building tips we use and discuss are difficult to implement in non- 10 Ibid., 153. 11 Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt, The Virtual Student: A Profile and Guide to Working with Online Learners (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), xv.  11 cohort situations, such as continuing education courses where students start and end at varying times.”12 Note that the cohort forms for just an individual course, not necessarily an entire academic program. Attempts to hold a cohort together over several courses or an entire program are usually frustrated by learners becoming ill, moving, or for some other reason needing to drop out of the cohort and join back in the program later. The fourth book in the series deals almost exclusively with collaborating online. It is the smallest and most narrowly focused book of the set. They note, “Collaboration forms the foundation of learning community online – it brings students together to support the learning of each member of the group while promoting creativity and critical thinking.”13 The first part of this book covers the typical problems faced when attempting to get learners to work together in any environment, especially online. The second part gives detailed instructions for thirteen different types of collaborative online projects. These four books provide excellent guidance for designing and delivering online courses. The bibliographies included with each book give a broad scope of other available resources. With these resources in hand, one is well prepared to understand the model used for the online program at SETECA. Building Courses and Learning Units Quality resources on writing online courses are hard to find. The books by Palloff and Pratt are some of the few good ones that exist. Their books, like most of the resources on course and lesson development, focus on some technique or type of activity. An example of the other books is Conrad and Donaldson’s Engaging the Online 12 Ibid. 13 Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt, Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), xi.  12 Learner. 14 Their focus is on planning online activities, primarily asynchronous, that will enhance learner engagement with the course content. One of their techniques is the asynchronous dyadic debate. It encourages learner peer dialog on critical issues. They also include “ice breaker” activities to help the learners in this cohort quickly form an active, engaged, learning community. Another resource also focused on learning activities in the online classroom is Gilly Salmon’s E-tivities.15 This book addresses the needs of course planners who, stripped of the lecture method, must learn new and effective ways of getting the learner actively involved in the content, and how to engage them in the adventure of learning in community. To meet the needs of the faculty at SETECA, this researcher wrote an extensive document on how to build an online assignment prompt. It covered each of the elements that a student needs or might need to know to write a project for posting to the class. In discussing these elements, it reveals the underlying educational philosophy and its resultant pedagogy. The Facilitator’s Role A critical element in online learning community education is the role played by the facilitator, that is, the professor. A good facilitator can make up for weak course materials; poor course and unit design, and even, to some extent, compensate for technical difficulties. The Palloff and Pratt series indirectly addresses facilitation skills. Probably the greatest challenge a traditional classroom professor will face in the move to teaching in an online learning community is the shift of his role from being 14 Rita-Marie Conrad and J. Ana Donaldson, Engaging the Online Learner: Activities and Resources for Creative Instruction (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004). 15 Gilly Salmon, E-tivities: The key to active learning online (London: Routledge-Falmer, 2004).  13 an all-knowing lecturer to becoming a facilitator of learning. The two items mentioned below document this role. Collison, et al. in Facilitating Online Learning: Effective Strategies for Moderators16 addresses facilitating online classes or moderating almost any online community. They note that While we’re a long way from developing a profile of characteristics or attributes possessed by skilled online moderators, humility, the capacity to listen (read!) carefully, and the ability to respond without interjecting personal or professional opinions or values seem to be characteristics shared by the most successful practitioners. Needless to say, this is not the usual list of top criteria for successful group leadership in face-to-face settings! In fact, this new, digital venue calls for a reconsideration of many of the standard discussion-leading techniques.17 They also note that the facilitation skills they develop in this book are not new, but need to be refined for use in online learning communities. The idea of designing instruction and dialogue to facilitate the personal building of knowledge is certainly not new. Some argue that this method was employed by practitioners from fourth century B.C. Athens, by Renaissance educators like Vico, and, in our time, by followers of John Dewey and case study and management experts in law and business. The challenge we address in this book centers on how technology can successfully mediate and enhance this powerful technique, in text-based, asynchronous environments. 18 This comment clearly shows that this critical tool in the online learning community education is vintage yet nouvelle. Another book by Gilly Solomon19 is now in its second edition, a rarity in the literature concerning online learning. This book is a treasure-trove on the art of 16 George Collison, Bonnie Elbaum, Sarah Haavind, and Robert Tinker, Facilitating Online Learning: Effective Strategies for Moderators (Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing, 2000). 17 Ibid., xvi. 18 Ibid., 3. 19 Gilly Salmon, E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, 2d ed. (London: Routledge-Falmer, 2004).  14 moderating, and hence, facilitating online learning. The sample discussion entries from, the diaries of facilitators, complete with explanations, are especially helpful. Table 3.1,20 entitled “E-moderator Competencies,” is an excellent standard for judging the effectiveness of a course facilitator, and can serve as a valuable self-assessment tool. Even a quick reading of “Part 2: Resources for Practitioners”21 gives the reader an excellent background for understanding the dynamics of learning in an online learning community. From just these two resources, a person unfamiliar with active, cooperative, guided inquiry and learning community education can gain a good feel for what life is like in the online classroom, for both the facilitator of learning and the learners. The Learners’ Experience While the above resources speak of the facilitators’ part, other resources speak of the learners’ experience in the online learning community. Daniel Eastmond’s Alone but Together: Adult Distance Study through Computer Conferencing 22 is a very early book in the field of online learning community education. He first explores why many learners prefer asynchronous online education. He then discusses the experience of being in a computer mediated (online) course. He notes that any technology hype is short lived, and yet that learners soon become fully engrossed in the dialog, some almost to the point of addiction. 23 Chapter 5 on “The Dynamics of Online Relations”24 talks about the nature 20 Ibid., 54. 21 Ibid., 150-229. 22 Daniel V. Eastmond, Alone but Together: Adult Distance Study through Computer Conferencing (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc., 1995). 23 Ibid., 68-90. 24 Ibid., 127-148.  15 of interpersonal relationships that develop in the online classroom. A key point in this chapter is that the online classroom provides a more “level playing field” than is typical in many other learning venues. While the online classroom does help “level the playing field,” there are still other factors, such as culture, that play a part. Ruth Geer, a lecturer at the University of South Australia, in an article entitled “The Necessity of Considering Cultural Influences in Online Collaborative Learning,”25 lists major areas of cultural difference needing consideration. One of the key areas is the difference in attitudes towards conflict. Since the online classroom is collaborative, and hence the learners provide constructive feedback to each other, people from certain cultural backgrounds may become uncomfortable with even this level of confrontation. When the facilitator invites critique of the course resources, especially the facilitators own positions, this level of discomfort accelerates for people from cultures that do not allow the questioning of an authority. The Use of Technology Daniel Eastman’s book, referenced above, dealt primarily with the sociological aspects of the technology used to deliver online learning community education. Richard Ascough argues that the pedagogy of online learning must take precedence over the technology used to deliver it. 26 He decries simply uploading lecture notes and requiring assignments based on them. He also notes the problems with the use of synchronous communications such as chat rooms. A number of benefits of online 25 Ruth Geer. “The Necessity of Considering Cultural Influences in Online Collaborative Learning." In ED-MEDIA 2001 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications: Proceedings of the Conference in Tampere, Finland June 25-30, 2001. Online: ERIC ED 466161, accessed 15 February 2006. 26 Richard S. Ascough. “Designing for Online Distance Education: Putting Pedagogy before Technology.” Teaching Theology and Religion 5 no. 1:17-29.  16 delivery, such as the ability to have the learners interact with each other over individual projects, enhance this article. An interesting side note in Ascough’s article is the very positive response of the learners concerning their spiritual formation in his online class. He says, “Of thirteen returned evaluations in my online class on Luke-Acts all thirteen indicated that the course design facilitated a community of learners. In response to the question about spiritual needs six students indicated that this course met their own spiritual needs more than a face-to-face course in New Testament, five indicated that it was the same, and two indicated that it was less.”27 This is a very encouraging result. This researcher would not be surprised to find significantly greater spiritual formation in online learning community classes, as opposed to most face-to-face classes. Education in General Education in general is going through a metamorphosis. Understanding where the changes are happening in education allows one to understand the choice of the online learning community paradigm and what its expected benefits are. The purpose of this section of the literature review is to show some of the current trends in postsecondary education in general, unrelated to online education. This is to illustrate that the pedagogy used in online learning community education is not unique to online learning, but rather a transfer of quality pedagogies to the online arena. While some minor adjustments may be required, by in large the methods used online are usable in many face-to-face learning environments. The Robin Williams' film entitled The Dead Poets Society28 is an easy introduction to this new paradigm. In this film, Williams as Professor Keating takes a 27 Ibid., 27. 28 The Dead Poets Society, Walt Disney Video, 1998, DVD.  17 position in a very traditional boys boarding school and introduces new pedagogies such as active learning, cooperative learning, and learning in community, that are similar to those used in online learning communities. These methods prove to be very effective and for the most part very well received by the learners. The movie has an unpleasant ending, but even to the end, the effectiveness of Professor Keating’s teaching methods is clear. Pascarella and Terenzini’s synthesis of the research on the effectiveness of college education highlights the need for change in postsecondary pedagogy. Their findings are very pessimistic. In their first volume, covering twenty years of research, they lament, “Modern colleges and especially universities seem far better structured to process large numbers of students efficiently than to maximize learning.”29 Their second volume,30 covering the decade of the 1990s, reconfirms their earlier conclusions. Lion Gardiner urges education to address these issues in his call to action: Recognition is now widespread that higher education must change, and, as in other sectors of society, repeated and insistent calls have been made for a significant, even radical, reinvention, redefinition, and restructuring of our industry (see, e.g., Guskin 1994a, 1994b; Heydinger 1994; “It’s Time” 1993; Osborne and Gaebler 1992; “Twice Imagined” 1995). If we use our new research based knowledge to construct curricula and courses that engage our students’ imaginations and activate their energies in achieving important outcomes that purposefully and consistently involve them in active, social, cooperative modes of learning and if we effectively use new developmental styles of advising, our students will surely rise to heretofore unknown levels of accomplishment.31 Mary Ellen Weiner concludes one of her lists of teaching difficulties by saying, “Finally, the equating of content mastery with instructional effectiveness inhibits instructional improvement because it makes teaching an activity without form or 29 Ernest T. Pascarella, and Patrick T. Terenzini How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 1999), 646. 30 Ernest T. Pascarella, and Patrick T. Terenzini How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 1999). 31 Lion F. Gardner, Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic Gains in Student Learning (Washington, DC: The George Washing University, 1996), 145.  18 substance in its own right. This simple, reductionist view of teaching is not only unfortunate, it is naive.”32 The next items show some of the ways that postsecondary educators are trying to meet the challenge. All of them are written for a face-to-face environment, yet all of them have been adapted for online learning communities, which is why they are included here. The widely referenced book Active Learning by Johnson, Johnson, and Smith has a very approachable chapter summarizing their view of the problem with postsecondary education and then goes on to give many practical ways to improve teaching in the college classroom. American higher education has moved through three distinct, yet overlapping, phases (Boyer, 1990).... First came teaching, then service, and finally the challenge of basic research. In more recent years, faculty have paid lip service to blending the three, but when it comes to making judgments about professional performance, the three are rarely assigned equal merit. Research and publication dominate.... The deemphasis on teaching is based partially on the misperception that teaching is a routine function that anyone can do. If a faculty member has a PhD it is assumed that he or she is qualified to teach. The view that those who know can teach is part of a paradigm of teaching that is labeled as the “old” paradigm.... The old paradigm is to transfer the faculty’s knowledge to a passive student so that faculty can classify and sort students in a norm-referenced, competitive way. The assumption was that if you have content expertise, you can teach. Many faculty members consider the old paradigm the only alternative. They have no vision of what could be done instead. Lecturing while requiring students to be passive, silent, isolated, and in competition with each other seems the only way to teach. Not wanting to appear unfit or stupid, faculty members conform to the current consensus about instruction and are afraid to challenge the collective judgment of how best to teach. The tradition of the old paradigm is carried forward by sheer momentum, while almost everyone persists in the hollow pretense that all is well.... All is not well. Students often do not learn what faculty think they are teaching.... Furthermore, students often ask boring questions, such as “What do 32 Maryellen Weimer, Improving College Teaching, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990), 3-20  19 I have to do to get an A?” or “Will it be on the final exam?” Students ask the latter question to determine if the material is important.33 The authors then explain a new paradigm of teaching and learning and go on to give practical ways to implement cooperation in the college classroom. Probably the most famous of these is their “Jigsaw Procedure.”34 They also have a very helpful chapter on staging academic conflict and working through it by cooperative means. 35 Inspiring Active Learning by Merrill Harmin sets forth some forty-seven strategies for gaining active, cooperative, learning in the face-to-face classroom. Most of these transform easily into a unit learning-project for online learning community learners. A good example of that is strategy 13:1 where the learners answer the question “What might explain...?”36 That question would make an excellent prompt for a highly interactive online learning community discussion. Mel Silberman’s book37 has even more good ideas for prompting active learning. No listing of sources of quality learning experiences transferable to online learning communities is complete without mentioning the work of Jane Vella, especially her work on using dialog in education. Most of her writing is on the theory of learning through dialog, and training people to use dialog as a teaching tool. However, even in the midst of this, there are practical ideas for projects in online learning communities. For example, she gives the following project in a chapter entitled “Immediacy: Teaching What Is Really Useful to Learners.” “Take any educational event you have designed. 33 David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith, Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom (Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company, 1991), 1:3-6. 34 Ibid., 4:17. 35 Ibid., 7:1-26. 36 Merrill Harmin, Inspiring Active Learning: A Handbook for Teachers (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994), 166. 37 Melvin L Silberman, Active Learning: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1996).  20 Consider what the content is: the skills, knowledge, or attitudes you are teaching. How could you have presented that content as an open system, inviting questions, arguments, and editing?” 38 Grounded Theory Qualitative Research If grounded theory research is new to the reader then the following works may be helpful. Strauss and Corbin’s introductory book39 is the source of the method using in this project. Strauss’s earlier 40 book contains more details concerning the method and has some examples of his methods. Creswell, 41 in one book, highlights the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods. In another,42 he reviews five different types or styles of qualitative research and provides guidance for choosing between them. Daniel Eastmond’s book, referenced above, is an excellent example of qualitative research that is a mixture of several different subtypes. He says this of his approach Developing overarching concepts and relationships that can theoretically and parsimoniously describe relations and meanings is often seen as the ideal aim of academic research inquiry (Moore, 1992), this has been a primary aim of my research as well. Rather than seek to develop formal, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss. 1967), this research endeavor, in an applied field, is more concerned with establishing substantive theory, “which deals with a particular limited domain of 38 Jane Kathryn Vella, Learning to Listen Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue in Educating Adults, Revised Edition (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2002), 177. 39 Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2d ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998). 40 Anselm L. Strauss, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 41 John W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994). 42 idem, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998).  21 inquiry” (p. 67). However, there are other purposes and approaches to investigating the human experience that I sought to employ. First, the ethnographic approach, arising out of anthropology, seeks to provide “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) that meaningfully captures the essence of what transpires in a setting and the interactions among groups. Often that expression cannot be reduced to summary statements and concepts without losing important meanings and relationships (Spradley. 1980; Wolcott. 1988). My approach also shares common elements with Eisner’s (1991) conception of educational criticism and connoisseurship—a stance that other disciplines’ contributions, particularly those of art, music, and literature from the humanities, have as much to offer in elucidating our knowledge of educational realities. I agree that a nonscientific, yet disciplined inquiry has much to offer.43 Summary This chapter reviewed some sources concerning online learning community education and traced its roots. They have shown that the philosophy of education it seeks to implement is solid. It is time tested and effective. This chapter also briefly reviewed some of the key literature on qualitative research. With this background the reader should be able to understand the environment this study attempts to evaluate, see the problems uncovered as matching the extant literature, and to some extent understand the method used to investigate the DET program at SETECA and provide guidance to the administration for improvement. 43 Daniel V. Eastmond, Alone But Together: Adult Distance Study Through Computer Conferencing (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc., 1997), 207.  CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN This chapter explains the research design that is the basis of this project. The research period spans more than eighteen months. Early investigations helped the DET administration alleviate some of the learners’ problems. This project, which comes near the end of the program, is the culmination of this. It is the first formally analyzed study concerning learner satisfaction with the DET program. The current research data illustrates the research design determined before the research began. Research Method Selection Grounded theory qualitative research became the method of choice for several reasons. First, qualitative methods fit the research situation better than quantitative methods. There were a number of reasons for this. One was that the population is extremely small. At any one time, there were never more then eight learners. There were only two administrators for the program, and only two faculty members involved in each semester. Another issue is that there was no control group with which to compare the findings. It was also impractical to discern all the variables and hold certain of them under control. In addition, one cannot reasonably replicate the experience of these learners. In summary, the situation under study is not repeatable and hence cannot be subject to the rules of quantitative research. It can however, be subject to the rigors of qualitative research. That is to say, hermeneutical analysis of the verbal data can yield well-grounded, accurate, results derived from field research. 22  23 According to Creswell, there are a number of different types of qualitative research.1 Grounded theory is appropriate for this study because the goal was to determine the root cause or causes of the learner dissatisfaction issues with the current offering of the program. If the research goal had been to trace the experience of any one person through the DET program, this would indicate a biographical qualitative study. If the goal were to understand what it is like, in general, to be a learner in the DET program, this would call for a phenomenological or ethnographic qualitative study. If the goal of this study were simply to report what happened, a historical or case study would be adequate. However, the goal of this study is to develop a theory concerning the root cause or causes of a social phenomenon. This then suggests a grounded theory qualitative study. Preliminary Research A brief history of the previous research and corrective actions will show the rationale behind the two data collection methods used in this final study. The program began in January 2004. The first semester, during which there were no significant problems reported, ended in July and the second semester began. By October, the administration began receiving significant complaints from the faculty and the learners. In November this researcher, who was also the consultant for the program, went on site and met with the administration, faculty and two of the learners who were present at SETECA. These meetings revealed that learners were upset with the faculty over late grading of assignments and problems with the assignment prompts. The faculty was frustrated because they did not understand the pedagogy, which they often termed “philosophy,” of the program. To some extent, they felt that it was just a North American 1 John W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998).  24 idea pushed upon them. The administration assured the faculty that the new pedagogy was not just a North American idea, and that they fully supported it. The faculty received a document of some thirty pages on how to write online assignment prompts. It also explained the philosophy as it related to each element in a prompt. A January 2005 focus group with the learners at SETECA reviewed the issues. They heard of actions taken to overcome their problems. The next semester did go better but there were still complaints from the learners. The fourth semester of the program began in July and was relatively quiet. More faculty training was available for this semester. There were fewer verbal complaints from the faculty and learners. The question however, remained as to why these problems did not appear in the first semester, and whether the corrective actions taken resolved the root issues, or just masked them. Data Collection This section details the data collection process after the fourth semester, which is the data from which the theory emerges. It explains the construction of the questionnaires and the preparation of the resulting data for analysis. Data Collection Method The research question concerns the root cause or causes of the learner satisfaction issues. Moreover, the question asks, at least from the learners’ point of view, if these issues are resolved. Directly asking these questions seemed unlikely to yield meaningful answers. This was due to the tendency of the learners to be critical of the program, and yet try to protect the people who make up the program. This tendency started early in the research. During a December 2004 online chat session with one of the learners, several frustrations surfaced, yet the learner offered excuses for those who were creating the problems. For this reason, personal interviews were not likely to be productive. The learners would  25 likely not wish to speak ill of others in either a one-on-one or focus group meetings. The SETECA DET administrators always had the learners complete an open- ended questionnaire at the end of each semester. The questions it asked called for both positive and negative expressions concerning various parts of the program that semester. This questionnaire was not threatening to the learners and the learners never had it used against them. Hence, the learners felt free to share their real feelings, as evidenced by the learners’ openness on previous surveys. The results of this survey after the fourth semester provided much of the research data. To corroborate the findings of the DET standard questionnaire, this researcher prepared a second open-ended questionnaire. He used a similar questionnaire with these learners at the end of the third semester. Since the first one remained confidential and was not used as a corrective against the learners, the second one was expected to elicit open responses. This second questionnaire asked the learners to reflect on the pedagogy of the DET program. At this point, the learners had completed four courses in education, at least two of which had significant components concerning post-secondary pedagogy. Therefore, the concept of pedagogy was familiar to the learners. In fact, they had the background necessary to evaluate pedagogy. If the root cause of the learner satisfaction issues related to the pedagogy, this questionnaire would certainly elicit that response. If, however, the learners found little or no fault with the pedagogy, they might use this as an opportunity to air deeper concerns about the program, at least concerns not settled to their satisfaction. In any case, the results should point to the underlying or root causes of the learner dissatisfaction that arose during the second semester. The questionnaires had advantages over other methods. In previous focus groups with these learners, language became a significant barrier. With the questionnaire, the questions were in simple English that all could read and understand. The responses  26 could be either in Spanish or in English as the learner desired. A few speakers often dominated the previous focus groups. The opinions of the others went unexpressed or they joined in the “group think.” Interviews with the individuals have similar difficulties, especially at it related to language. Interviews and focus group recordings need transcription and sometimes translation before analysis. These two questionnaires then provided the forum for the learners to express themselves about the program. These should give enough information to reveal a root cause or causes of the learner perceived issues with the program. Construction of the Questionnaires This researcher had no input to the construction of the SETECA DET questionnaire. This is helpful because it prevented any bias on the part of the researcher from creeping into the questions. Since the questionnaire was very open-ended and covered all aspects of the current semester, the learners had adequate freedom to express themselves about any issue with the program. The questionnaire directly invited both positive and negative responses. This feature was helpful. The other questionnaire was totally the work of this researcher. As discussed above, this questionnaire asked about the learners’ experience in reference to the pedagogy. The first question asked for any changes the learner saw in the pedagogy over the past two years. If there had been a notable shift in the pedagogy, it might explain why there was less pronounced dissatisfaction now. A second part of that question asked them to evaluate those changes. The next two questions asked the learners to evaluate the positive and negative aspects of the pedagogy as they saw it. It also asked them to explain themselves on these points. These questions, while mentioning pedagogy, allowed the learner to reflect on the various other educational aspects of the program. If indeed the pedagogy or  27 some element of it was a root problem, then these questions should elicit that. At the same time if the pedagogy itself was not a problem, but the implementation of it was, then the offending implementation should surface. The fourth and final question asked the learners to suggest changes to the program and give their reasons for these changes. If the learners had residual issues with the program not aired in the previous questions because they specifically mentioned pedagogy, then this space was available for that discussion. Data Collection Process This researcher flew to Guatemala on 17 January 2006 engaged in small talk with the learners and had them fill out the questionnaire. There were no other meetings with the learners, faculty, and the administration during this visit. This was deliberate so that the learners knew they had only this chance to express their feelings. There was no opportunity for having a private discussion. Normally these private, often undocumented, discussions are very useful in qualitative research. However, anticipating this formal report of the research, the researcher avoided informal discussions. This way the readers of this project could see that the findings were rooted in the field data collected. Administration of the SETECA DET survey occurred later during the on- campus module. SETECA collated the responses and electronically forwarded them to this researcher on 8 February 2006 in electronic format. The reason for the delay was that one of the learners had not turned in a completed questionnaire and the administration was waiting for it. SETECA forwarded the results without it since they had waited long enough. Data Preparation The SETECA DET survey required translation since the results were completely in Spanish. A former translator and editor for a publishing company was  28 engaged to do the translation. An.rtf file of the translation became part of the ATLAS.ti2 database. The learners, with the exception of one, responded to this researcher’s survey in English. A native Spanish speaker translated that one response into English. This researcher then created an.rtf format file for inclusion in the ATLAS.ti database. Data Analysis Methodology This study used a qualitative method for developing a substantive grounded theory. That is, it seeks to build a theory about what caused the satisfaction issues with the current offering of the SETECA DET program. If the study were to build a so-called grand theory, then it would need to build a theory that could explain what happens in similar situations, or make some other generalized statement. Data Analysis Tool This researcher used ATLAS.ti to store the results of the questionnaires and to record the qualitative coding and print reports. This tool greatly simplified the tedious work often associated with qualitative studies. The tool provided fresh queries and reports of the coded quotations with minimal effort. Anselm Strauss’ early involvement with the design of ATLAS.ti3 made it the ideal tool for the type of research attempted in this study. Its design was for grounded theory research of the type Strauss promoted. The sections below describe each of the steps in grounded theory qualitative analysis. 2 ATLAS.ti: The Knowledge Workbench, Version 5.0.67, ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin Germany, 2003-2006. 3 Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2d ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998), 276.  29 Microanalysis The analysis process begins with an extremely analytical reading of the learners’ responses to both questionnaires. There are several goals for this reading. The first is to become very familiar with the details contained in the learners’ responses. A second goal is to start looking for subtle distinctions in the learner's meaning based on a learner’s choice of a particular word or phrase. For example when a learner commented “More materials, like books, from the Latin American reality,” what is the complete message? Is this simply a call for more Latin American books? Alternatively, is this a statement concerning a perceived lack of cultural sensitivity on the part of the faculty or administration? Are there other nuances in this statement that can help one gain a full understanding of what the respondent is trying to communicate? Since this study involved people from Latin America, but the analysis was in English, care was required to keep from reading too much into the exact wording. Some of the responders would have been thinking in Spanish and responding in English. Since much of the research data required translation from Spanish to English by a third party, many nuances may be lost. It is also possible that unintended nuances crept into the data. Therefore, microanalysis would stop short of analysis at the word level, and limit itself to nuances visible in entire statements. Another goal of microanalysis is to look for conceptual categories of responses that might relate to the purpose of this particular study. For example, the statement “More materials, like books, from Latin American reality” suggests two possible categories to this researcher. One was a possible content issue with the program. That is, there was a lack of material from a Latin American perspective, or “reality” to use the respondent’s term. Therefore, “Issue – Content” becomes a code in the notes. Another category surfaces in this statement. The learner might feel that there was some cultural insensitivity with the content of the course and/or its facilitation. “Issue –  30 Cultural” became a code and it joins “Issue –Content” in the notes. This process continues until it appears that most of the conceptual categories, related to the research goal are in the notes. The categories used to develop theory are primarily conceptual categories, not demographic categories. These conceptual categories go into ATLAS.ti as codes along with comments defining them. The research data is now ready for open coding. Open Coding Open coding is the process of going back through the research data and assigning to significant statements in the data the codes determined during microanalysis. To code a statement in ATLAS.ti, one highlights that statement and then drags a code from a list to the highlighted statement. Creating hyperlinks between statements denotes a special relationship between them. Epistemic primitives assigned to each link signify the nature of their relationship. Some of the epistemic primitives predefined in ATLAS.ti are: discusses, evaluates, explains, expands, and supports. The researcher is free to define more hyperlink epistemic primitives. Statements deemed irrelevant to the research goal received no codes. Some of the statements required multiple codes. New codes can arise during open coding. This is expected. These codes became part of the code list in ATLAS.ti and are used in the coding process. Open coding continues until all apparently relevant statements have one or more codes. To simplify building queries and producing reports, codes addressing similar concepts join together to form a family of codes. Almost from the outset of open coding, a second level of coding, known as axial coding commences. Axial Coding Axial coding finds subcategories within the existing categories or codes. This happens when the original categories were broad, and a current single code now appears  31 as comprising multiple categories that might be separate elements of the emerging theory. These separate categories receive their own codes. Statements in the data evidencing these new codes receive them. It is also possible the some of original codes are already at the detail level. During axial coding, these codes cluster together in what ATLAS.ti calls “super-codes.” In this case, no additional coding is necessary, since no greater granularity is required. Axial coding is a synthesis of the open coding, because the codes gain relationships to each other. Doing this is accomplished either by adding new codes that cluster elements found in earlier codes or by clustering codes into super-codes. Epistemic primitives denote the relationships between codes. Some of the epistemic primitives predefined in ATLAS.ti are: contradicts, is cause of, is part of, and, is associated with. The researcher is free to define more code-to-code epistemic primitives. During both open and axial coding, the next level of coding, selective coding, begins. Selective Coding Selective coding moves the coding process from description to conceptualization. The theory underlying the data is now emerging. A single, central, conceptual category becomes the foundation for theory building. Quotes that support elements of the evolving theory receive new codes. Lists of the quotes under each code provide the evidence to support the new theory. At this point the story line, or explanation of the theory takes shape. Coding for Process Coding for process looks for the time factors that sequence the events described in the emerging theory. First, it looks for processes through which the subjects regularly pass. One codes the steps whereever they appear and as often as they appear. Sequencing of the steps happens by linking the codes in ATLAS.ti using appropriate  32 epistemic primitives. Not all studies will have time factors or they may be irrelevant to the study. For a linear theory, one would code the stages through which a person or group passes. For a cyclical or systemic theory, one would code the steps that are in the cycle, which underlies the system. The complete process may be a combination of these. Cause/Effect Matrix For complex theories, it might be useful to build a cause and effect matrix. This matrix does not appear in a published report of the results. It is a working tool for the researcher. When an effect appears in the data, it goes on the effect side of the matrix. The empty space on the cause side of the matrix is a prompt for the researcher to look for that cause. This is a powerful tool for building theory. The unseen causes yield the theory in a grounded theory study. If the causes are obvious, then research is unnecessary. Descriptive studies report the effects but seldom seek to elicit the causes since they are not directly observable and are hard to verify quantitatively with precision. Comparison to the Literature The final task in a grounded theory qualitative study is to compare the results obtained, that is, the theory derived from the data, with the results and theories reported in similar studies. If the current study generally matches previous studies, then the findings confirm each other. If they are significantly different, then the researcher seeks out and explains plausible reasons for the disparity. However since the researcher’s findings were grounded in the research data, those findings are valid even if at variance with the literature. The only question is why they are different. This chapter sought to explain the research theory, tools, and methods used in this grounded theory study.  CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter walks through the development of a grounded theory that seeks to explain the dissatisfaction with the DET program that appeared during the second semester. This theory arises from the data collected in January 2006 and is then validated by reference to earlier research data on the program. Since a substantive theory was the goal of this project, there is no attempt to project a broader application. The final part of this chapter looks at this theory vis-à-vis the extant literature. Grounded theory results from finding a central conceptual category around which the other conceptual categories cluster, and to which the quotes from the informants point. Insights that lead to the discovery of grounded theory come from looking at the properties of the conceptual categories abstracted from the data. It is often the seemingly odd comment by a single informant that is the key to recognizing the abstract concept underlying the comments of the subjects. As is typical in qualitative research, especially grounded theory research, descriptive statistics are not used. They easily distract the researcher from thinking and comparing data at the conceptual level and are hence of little value in discovering grounded theory. This chapter contains a number of quotes from the research data. In keeping with the ethics and traditions of qualitative research, there is no editing of these for grammar, spelling, and the like. There are no footnotes for these quotes. Nor are they marked “[sic],” since that would disrupt the thought contained in the quote. It is also not polite to point out a foreign speaker’s grammatical errors. Sometimes the informants’ errors give clues to their underlying meaning. These clues are useful primarily during microanalysis. Protecting the identity of an informant sometimes requires modifying a 33  34 quote. Shortening quotes by summarizing rambling sections and replacing pronouns with their antecedents is permissible. Square brackets denote any modifications. The literature on grounded theory qualitative research calls the report of the results the “analytic story line.”1 There are two typical ways to present this story line. One is to step through the analysis process showing how the theory grew out of the data. The other is to relate the history of the situation showing how it fits the theory. This chapter presents both. First, it traces the steps of the analysis showing how the categories surfaced, how the one central category emerged, and how the theory took shape. It then seeks to substantiate that theory by briefly following the learners through the DET program using earlier observations. The second “story” is organized by problem areas and then chronologically within. Development of the Theory For this project, the theory developed quickly. This was due to several factors. One, there were only five responders to the standard DET survey, and only seven to this researcher’s short questionnaire. The entire raw data comprises only thirteen pages. The appendices contain all of it. Another factor was the use of questionnaires instead of transcribed interviews and focus groups. The respondents limited their responses to the space available on the forms. This caused them to compress their thoughts, and mention the most pressing ones. While this may have filtered the data to some extent, it also prevented rambling and groupthink. 1 Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2d ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998), 148, 249.  35 The third contributing factor was that the learners had often discussed these issues over a two-year period. They did not need to think long before presenting their feelings. They had been over it many times. Microanalysis, Open and Axial Coding Microanalysis helps the researcher, the true instrument of qualitative research,2 see the conceptual aspects of the data, and move away from general description and demographics. In this study, microanalysis did not last long. Because of the Spanish/English language issues involved in the data, microanalysis had to operate above the typical word level. In response to the pedagogy questions, the learners moved between the pedagogy in theory and the implementation of that pedagogy. Therefore, some references to the pedagogy were actually references to the facilitation of the pedagogy or the content and structure of certain course assignments. This insight engendered a conceptual distinction between various references to “pedagogy.” It soon became evident that many of the references concerned the implementation of the pedagogy and not the philosophy of the pedagogy. With this constant comparison of the data,3 the researcher now had a conceptual level difference between some responses, and hence open coding could begin. Coding this distinction in ATLAS.ti involved first inventing a code for pedagogy, meaning the philosophy of the pedagogy, and then another for the faculty/facilitation, meaning how they used or facilitated the pedagogy. Next, statements in the research data evidencing either of these concepts received the appropriate code. 2 Nicholas Mays and Catherine Pope, “Qualitative Research: Observational Methods in Health Care Settings,” BMJ 311 (July 1995): 182-184. 3 Glaser and Strauss explain their insistence that “constant comparisons” are the basis of qualitative research in chapter five of Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1999), 101-15.  36 One way to do this, mentioned earlier, is to highlight the statement in the data, then drag and drop the appropriate code from a list to the highlighted statement. As soon as this began, other distinct categories presented themselves. For instance, there were statements about the course content that were often independent of the pedagogical distinction. This called for a new code and the marking of the relevant statements in the data. This iterative process of microanalysis and open coding continued for essentially the duration of the project. The major broad categories found in the data included administration, content, faculty/facilitation, cultural, interaction, and pedagogy. A simple count of the occurrences of each code is irrelevant since the count does not show any logical or theoretical connection between codes. Counts do not necessarily imply theory building significance. Unique statements often point out theory building insights. After coding only a few statements in the data, another type of conceptual category became evident. Some of the comments expressed issues, or negative statements, concerning a category, while others expressed some accolade. These new categories received codes. Since these categories cut across the original categories, they are axial categories or codes. This axial concept appeared almost immediately. Therefore, new codes were formed that took into account both axes. This produced a two dimensional matrix. The few statements already coded received the new codes. The original categories or codes became “supercodes”4 that collected the elements along each axis. For the most part, open and axial coding occurred at the same time. A few other categories appeared and received coding. However the two axes discussed above, remained dominant. Coding continued 4 Thomas Muhr and Susanne Friese, User's Manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0, 2d ed. (Berlin: Scientific Software Development, 2004), 32, 176-179.  37 until the data from the two questionnaires produced no new codes at the open or axial levels. The qualitative research term for this phenomenon is saturation. Some statements in the data fit more than one conceptual category. These statements received multiple codes. The quote cited in chapter three under microanalysis is an example of this. “More materials, like books, from Latin American reality.” This statement received codes for both “content” and “culture” on one axis and for “issue” on the other axis. Another learner had a positive statement: “In the modular part of the program I have seen different kinds of presentations, simulation, and role playing." This statement received codes for “faculty/facilitation” and “interaction” on the one axis and “accolade” on the other. Since this quote applied to the “module” between the online sessions, it also received the code for “module” on a third (venue) axis. This descriptive axis allowed the separation of the other categories by venue. Since this study focuses on the online portions of the program, this separation of the data allowed the researcher to maintain that focus. This researcher kept looking for a category related to the use of technology to emerge. It simply did not. In the January 2006 data, nothing related to the use of the internet, word processing software, or the like, surfaced even once. Selective Coding To this point, the results have been descriptive of the conceptual categories found in the data. Reporting these categories, regardless of the level of detail, does not constitute a theory. A theory must explain, or predict something;5 a description only describes something. All of the previous coding helps the researcher get “above” the 5 Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1999), 31, footnote 22.  38 details in the data, and look for the single central category around which the theory builds. Multiple readings and a constant pondering of the data, especially listings of the quotes sorted by their codes, begins the process of selective coding. That is the process of finding the single central category. Strauss and Corbin give the following criteria for choosing a central category. The criteria also explains the process. 1. It must be central; that is, all other major categories can be related to it. 2. It must appear frequently in the data. This means that within all or almost all cases, there are indicators pointing to that concept. 3. The explanation that evolves by relating the categories is logical and consistent. There is no forcing of the data. 4. The name or phrase used to describe the central category should be sufficiently abstract that it can be used to do research in other substantive areas, leading to the development of a more general theory. 5. As the concept is refined analytically through integration with other concepts, the theory grows in depth and explanatory power. 6. The concept is able to explain variation as well as the main point made by the data; that is, when conditions vary, the explanation still holds, although the way in which a phenomenon is expressed might look somewhat different. One also should be able to explain contradictory or alternative cases in terms of that central idea.6 The central category that emerged from this study was “faculty performance.” It explicitly does not say “faculty competence.” That term would imply that the faculty did not know the content they attempted to teach. There were no significant indications in the data that the faculty did not know their content. The issues were simply issues with faculty performance in the online environment. An alternative central category, “faculty 6 Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2d ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998), 147.  39 sensitivity to the learners,” could cover most of the issues. However, preference was given to the slightly broader expression. There were some issues with the non-online portions of the program. These issues related primarily to the duration and time usage during the non-online elements. One learner expressed strong feelings that the duration of the on campus sessions was too long by saying, “Drop the conference at the end of the modules - Limit the modules to 2 weeks.” Some alternative suggestions included, “Perhaps the integration conference could be done in the evenings of the second week,” and, “To begin on Friday and end on Sunday.” Another felt the format of the day lacked cultural sensitivity. “Not to have sessions at 2:00 P.M. It is very tiring and not contextualized.” Since the learners did not build satisfaction related connections between the online and non-online portions of the program, and since this study concerned the online experience, the non-online issues received little treatment. Nevertheless, the one central category subsumes even these issues. Before stating the theory and showing its groundedness in the data, two other research steps require comment. Other Research Steps After determining or selecting the central category in selective coding, the next step in this highly iterative research method requires coding for processes. Since this study considered only the reaction of the learners at a point in time, the data shows little in the way of process. Only two steps are visible. Step one is what the faculty did or did not do, and now step two is that the learner is not satisfied. Had this study included additional research with the faculty, then at least a three-step process might show. The difficulty with such research is faculty defensiveness. They would surely feel attacked.  40 Shifting the blame to other persons or processes would naturally follow. 7 An interesting degenerative loop might be detected by such a study. Poor performance by the faculty that causes satisfaction issues with the learners may cause additional poor performance by the faculty. A final research step with the collected data involves building a cause/effect matrix. Again, since this is a point in time study, such a matrix is simplistic. The data gathered is only sufficient to ground the direct cause of the learner dissatisfaction. An extensive chain of causes and effects, in all likelihood exists. Some possible second level causes suggest themselves and are given mention in these findings. The literature also suggests some of these second level causes. However, the data gathered for this study is insufficient to ground these second level causes. Statement and Grounding of the Theory Theory: Learner dissatisfaction with the DET program was the result of weak faculty performance, especially in the areas of timely response to the learners’ work, inconsistent application of the pedagogy, and insensitivity to the learners’ life situation. The following three sections deal with each area of weakness. A final section, administrative issues, then seeks to explain other comments by the learners in terms of the central category. Timely Response to the Learners’ Work The most egregious of these areas was the slow response the learners experienced from the faculty. This is a very sore point with the learners. One learner makes a very direct suggestion. “It would be good to hire professors who have time to 7 Indeed, during a discussion during the problematic second semester, one faculty member launched a major attack on the philosophy and pedagogy of the program. Yet the learners, a year later, point to prompts in that course as being weak. A lack of faculty training or mentoring could cause this.  41 evaluate assignments quicker.” Another goes into more detail concerning the problem. “Once again there is a subject that I only received until now the evaluation for three units. I am missing the rest. In the second evaluation it was called to my attention because I didn’t work taking account of the professor suggestions, for unit one, when I received it while I was working on unit five.” At least one professor seems to have taken an entire semester to return work based on the following comment. “Teachers grades and responses need to be quicker. Some have taken an entire semester to return assignments. By that time the topic is cold and we’ve moved on to other things.” Another learner states it this way: “The change that happens is the discipline with which the professors evaluate the assignments. Some of them do it in the same week. This helped and was encouraging. Others evaluate the assignment once I’ve started the following semester (which does not help the student to progress).” This shows that there has been at least some improvement. Another learner commented, in reference to the current semester, “The same course gave us back almost every unit in two or three weeks.” It is interesting that only one out of seven made this sort of positive comment. This might indicate that the learners expected prompt responses from the professor, therefore when it occurred it was not noteworthy. Since, even in this improved semester, there were many negative comments concerning timely professor response, it was still an ongoing issue for the learners and a very strong one at that. This negativity concerning the professors’ response to the learners is in sharp contrast to the learners’ experience of the online learning community. Their praise of the online community was almost unbounded. When asked about the online experience, their first comments are about their love for the interaction with their peers. Their comments include, “Interaction with my colleagues,” and “to have opportunity to discuss with people with different background, and different tradition.” Learning in the online classroom went beyond the readings and the papers  42 presented; the learners learned from active interaction with each other. This interaction itself was educationally purposeful. Some comments include “Interaction with the other colleagues helps one to find oneself in the subject and communicate better,” “Learning from other's experience,” and “reading about what others were doing was very stimulating.” The learning was interactive. One learner liked “to find and debate other points of view.” This interchange was, for the most part friendly: “There isn’t competition. This means that one student try to help the other. The critics is not to destroy the other, but to help.” However, one learner remarked, “Not all interactions w/other students have been gracious or helpful. Would be worthwhile to consider spending time on team building, peace making. Agreements on how to resolve conflicts biblically at the beginning of the program.” There is room for progress in this area. Both questionnaires drew comments on these subjects as the research design hoped it would. The learners were indeed upset over this issue and rightly so. If the faculty had been timely in returning graded work, it might have offset some of the other issues. It seems as if the learners learned from the materials and peer interaction, while the faculty was often aloof. This is easy to understand since the learners were a cohort that moved through the program together. They formed and fostered a micro culture in the online classroom. Starting with the second semester, the faculty members were almost interlopers in this culture. Much of what teachers do to gain presence and respect in an online learning community is respond rapidly to learner projects by email. Other faculty functions in the learning community include preparing clear and informative prompts, steering the online discussion, and summarizing or calling for summaries of the learning in each unit. A discussion of some faculty weaknesses in these areas follows.  43 Inconsistent Application of the Pedagogy One learner, responding in English, summarized the professors’ use of the pedagogy by saying, “One notable feature is that a number of the teachers have not assimilated the basic pedagogical (and androgogical) ideas taught in the first course. This fact has tended to annul the benefits of seeing newer educational methods. Our guides do not practice them, and we have treated them as a theoretical exercise that is now in the past.” It is interesting that this person switches terms from “teachers” to “guides.” When learning in community the content expert is not outside the community, a “sage on a stage” who brandishes knowledge and then departs, but rather is a personal guide who facilitates learning the expert’s content. This learner had clearly learned and embraced learning in community, and is piqued at content experts who did not join the ethos of the community. Learning in community can be addictive once one experiences it; it is hard to return to other ways. The next sections cover several violations of community, noted by the learners. Overly Directive Assignments One of these was overly directive assignments. One learner put it this way. “The designing of the courses should include more flexibility and diversity in the ways the students do the assignments. Adult education is based mainly on the students’ choices, according to their own circumstances.” Another connects this directly to adult learning. “Very directed. I’d prefer a program with less direction. In some ways