Students’ Perceptions of an Online Graduate Program in Special Education for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate graduate students’ perceptions of a completely online master’s degree program in special education for emotional and behavioral disorders. The Community of Inquiry survey was used to examine graduate students’ perceptions of the online program in the areas of teaching, cognitive, and social presences. The results suggest that teaching and cognitive presence can be addressed with a high level of satisfaction in an online program. Activities related to creating a social presence within an online program may need additional attention. Given the limited amount of research on how to evaluate online teacher preparation programs, the findings from this study provide a starting point for determining the effectiveness of online programs in education.

Keywords

distance education emotional and behavioral disorders special education teacher preparation online learning

Faced with the challenging task of placing highly qualified special education teachers in classrooms, a growing number of institutions in higher education are considering distance education as a means to addressing teacher shortages (Bullock, Gable, & Mohr, 2008). Distance education, delivered through online and hybrid instruction, allows universities to reach a broader segment of the population by providing access for individuals in rural communities and international locations to obtain a degree. Findings from the Sloan Consortium report in 2013 state that more than 6.7 million students took an online course in the fall of 2012, which is almost a 10% growth rate (Allen & Seaman, 2013). This finding suggests that online instruction is a plausible option for many postsecondary students. In addition, online coursework is very attractive for students who are trying to balance the responsibilities of work and family by providing a flexible alternative to having to be on campus to earn course credit. Flexibility and convenience are two of the most cited benefits for students engaging in online coursework (Bollinger & Martindale, 2004; Rekkedal & Qvist-Eriksen, 2004). Online courses and degrees are also attractive to universities because they help address issues related to classroom space, increased student enrollment, and provide an additional source of revenue (Braun, 2008).

While online courses provide greater flexibility and increased access for students, universities need to ensure that the distance education programs adhere to the same standards and quality in regard to content, social interaction, and instruction. Traditionally, courses taught on campus at institutions of higher education have been evaluated by assessing student attitudes or opinions toward course content, materials, and instructional methods (Roberts, Irani, Telg, & Lundy, 2005). Although an online course may include much of the same course content and materials as an on-campus course, the method of instructional delivery and social interaction is entirely different because online classes are taught through asynchronous and synchronous instructional methods. In a study that examined distance education practices in teacher preparation programs, it was found that email and discussion forums, asynchronous technologies, were the most commonly used (Frazier & Sadera, 2013). Asynchronous instruction is a one-way approach to sharing information and does not require simultaneous interaction between students and teachers. Asynchronous instruction can include teachers recording lectures for students to play back by video or presentation slide show, discussion board activities that allow students to post a reflection and comment on other classmates, reflections, and tests and assignments that students can complete and turn in by scheduled due dates.

Synchronous instruction occurs when at least two individuals are engaged in “real time” communication and allows for additional collaboration between classmates and professor. It allows for direct and immediate interaction between participants and often involves the use of technologies to facilitate conferencing through web, text, video, or social media applications. As teacher preparation pedagogy typically focuses on learning theories of constructivism and social learning theory, one would assume more Web 2.0 technologies would be used on a regular basis. Web 2.0 is defined as the second stage of development of the World Wide Web, which made the switch from static web pages to more user-generated content with social media. Even though there are many advances in the Web 2.0 technologies, research suggests asynchronous discussion is still the most commonly used technology in distance education (Queen & Lewis, 2011). In addition to these online instructional approaches, there are other situational factors such as hardware, software, and overall familiarity with technology that can influence the learning process and outcomes (Howland & Moore, 2002).

While there are a number of benefits to providing online courses and degrees, critics argue that faculty are being forced to change their teaching styles to accommodate this new mode of instruction (Braun, 2008). For some faculty and students, online learning may not be the best option and that must be considered as institutions look to increase online instruction options. Research suggests that teacher preparation programs use hybrid (i.e., courses where less than one-half of the course is face-to-face while the rest is online) more than online courses because it allows for more interaction between professors and students (Frazier & Sadera, 2013). Others feel that distance education lacks a quality control mechanism, and without face-to-face interaction, there is little opportunity for professors to get to know the personality of their students who will be teaching children and youth in the schools. Supporters, however, argue that online courses allow professors and students to be more creative in how they engage in learning. Professors are no longer limited to teaching within the classroom, and can use various technologies to facilitate synchronous group activities, asynchronous case study reflections, video sharing, and direct instruction, but this type of instruction requires training and expertise of faculty members and support from administrators (Frazier & Sadera, 2013).

As more online programs in the area of teacher education have been created, the need to develop multi-faceted evaluation methodologies and processes to determine the effectiveness of online degree programs has also increased (Dobbs & Allen, 2004). In the past, attention has primarily been given to the quality of individual online courses or specific components of online courses (e.g., discussion board, community of learners), but much less is known about the quality and characteristics of online degree programs as a whole (Chapman, 2006; Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2014), specifically in the area of special education teacher preparation. Some research has evaluated components of online doctoral programs (Bolliger & Halupa, 2012), but the research at the master’s level is scant.

In response to the increasing demand and popularity of online instruction, there has been a need to develop a framework for evaluating online courses and programs to ensure quality learning and positive outcomes. Evaluation of online programs has been challenging, because it is difficult to define what an online program is due to the many contextual, pedagogical, and instructional factors associated with it (Nord, 2011). One conceptual framework that has been studied extensively in online research is the Community of Inquiry (CoI). CoI is based on the idea that learning occurs within a community through the interaction of three core elements, which includes teaching, social, and cognitive presences (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). CoI was originally developed to provide a framework by which to evaluate computer-meditated conferencing within higher education, but as computer-mediated conferencing became synonymous with online instruction, the CoI framework was applied to online degree programs (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2014). The CoI framework includes three overlapping presences that can also be recognized independently: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Social presence focuses on the way online learners interact with the teacher and each other. It is concerned with the development of community and interpersonal relationships in an online program (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Garrison et al., 2000; Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2014). Cognitive presence is concerned with the construction and application of knowledge through instruction, reflection, and collaboration (Garrison et al., 2000). It includes cognitive activities that encourage the student to apply knowledge and reflect on course content. Teaching presence examines the instructional design, facilitation, and organization of the online courses (Arbaugh et al., 2008).

In response to the need for quantitative measures to assess online courses, a 34-item CoI survey instrument was developed to measure teaching, social, and cognitive presence. The CoI survey was originally designed to measure individual courses, but with minor wording changes, it has been modified to assess an online program. Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2014) modified the CoI survey to evaluate a cohort-based online doctoral program in curriculum and instruction with an emphasis on educational technology. They administered the modified survey to a cohort of 16 students to measure their perceptions of the program based on the CoI. This program consisted of both synchronous and asynchronous learning experiences and an on-campus component to begin the instructional phase. Students’ perceptions of all three categories were high with teaching/faculty presence ranked the highest.

The American Association for Employment in Education (AAEE; 2009) continually cites special education as the teacher area of highest demand in the United States. Recent predictions suggest that the shortage in special education teachers is chronic and will most likely get worse as rates of teacher retirement are expected to increase (Bullock et al., 2008; Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Conroy, 2003; McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippen, 2004). In addition, the shortage of teachers for children with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) is particularly concerning as it has remained more significant when compared with other disability groups and requires specialization in behavioral and academic interventions (Cancio, Albrecht, & Johns, 2014; Katsiyannis et al., 2003). In response to the demand and need for special education teachers, a completely online graduate program in special education with a concentration in EBD was developed.

In the fall of 2012, a completely online master’s degree program in special education with a concentration in EBD was developed at a public Midwestern university. At the time, it was one of the few, if only, completely online programs in the Midwest that offered the master’s degree in special education with a specific focus in EBD. After 3 years of implementation, it was determined that a survey should be conducted to determine how students perceived the online program. While individual course evaluations had provided instructors with useful feedback on their courses, there was a need to obtain more information about students’ perceptions of the entire program. Given the increase in online teacher preparation programs and the lack of research that examines the quality or characteristics of these programs, the purpose of this study was to utilize the CoI survey to assess graduate students’ perceptions of cognitive, teaching, and social presence of a completely online special education program.

Method

Program

The online master’s degree program in special education with a concentration in EBD is a 36-hour program in which students can choose to become certified to teach students with EBD or obtain a master’s degree without endorsement/certification. Individuals who would seek a master’s without endorsement/certification may be working in the areas of social work or mental health, but want additional strategies or instructional methods for working with individuals with EBD. The concentration is 12 of the credits (four courses) focusing specifically on EBD. Thirty-three of the credits are completely online courses, which focus on special education content. For students adding a special education endorsement/certification, the additional three credits is a semester long internship experience with a focus on students with EBD. For students not seeking an endorsement/certification, they complete another course as a substitution for the internship. Content addressed in courses include general special education content (e.g., reading and writing instruction for students with disabilities, collaboration, assessment) and content knowledge specific to EBD (e.g., characteristics of behavior disorders, behavior modification). Full-time graduate students are able to complete the program in 2 years.

As part of the faculty training, a teaching circle for full-time faculty members teaching online in the special education department was developed to disseminate a variety of resources and materials and discuss effective online teaching. There are currently four full-time faculty teaching in the program and three adjunct instructors. The full-time faculty members developed a teaching circle which met on a monthly basis for the first 2 years of the program to discuss online course development, share strategies, and problem solve any potential barriers to program delivery. Adjunct instructors met with at least one of the full-time faculty member on an individual basis.

In the first year of the degree being offered online, there were 21 students enrolled in the program. The second year, there were 31 students enrolled. The third year, there were 35 students, and at the beginning of the fourth year, there are 39 students enrolled. Therefore, there has been a growth rate of 87.5% since the inception of the online program.

All faculty and instructors use a weekly module format for the courses, so there is consistency within the program. Students are given a weekly assignment sheet/checklist of the projects due at the beginning of each week, so expectations are set for them. Both synchronous and asynchronous technologies are used in the courses. Some of the methods courses (i.e., instructional methods in EBD, reading and writing instruction, etc.) require more personal interactions with students and group projects and presentations using synchronous applications.

Participants

All graduate students (N = 51) who had participated in the online program within the past 3 years or were currently enrolled in the online program were asked to complete the survey. Forty-six participants resided in the same state as the university implementing the program and five participants were located in different states within the Midwest. The majority of the students enrolled in the program take two courses each semester. Twenty-five (49%) students completed the survey.

Instrumentation

Survey

The CoI (Arbaugh et al., 2008) instrument was used to survey participants’ perceptions of the program. The CoI survey instrument includes 34 items that are designed to measure the three constructs of CoI’s conceptual framework. In previous research, the CoI survey instrument has demonstrated adequate factor loadings for the 34 items to support the three constructs of the conceptual framework which includes teaching, social, and cognitive presences (Arbaugh et al., 2008). Teaching presence includes 13 items that evaluate the instructors’ design, facilitation, and direct instruction within the online course (e.g., “The instructor was helpful in guiding the class toward understanding course topics in a way the helped me clarify my thinking”; “The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion”). Social presence includes nine items that are intended to measure the participants’ sense of community and interpersonal relationships within the online course (e.g., “Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course”; “Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration”). Cognitive presence includes 12 items that are intended to measure the integration, exploration, and application of content related to the online course (e.g., “Course activities piqued my curiosity”; “I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this course”). The reliability of the CoI survey was assessed across four institutions of higher education and recorded a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 (Arbaugh et al., 2008). Internal consistency reliabilities for the CoI survey have been recorded at .96 for teaching presence, .91 for social presence, and .95 for cognitive presence (Arbaugh, Bangert, & Cleveland-Innes, 2010).

The CoI survey instrument was originally developed to measure student perceptions of an individual online course. Given the lack of survey instruments for measuring entire academic programs, the CoI survey instrument was modified for the current study to measure students’ perceptions of a completely online program in special education. The survey was modified by asking students to reflect on their experience from a programmatic perspective rather than thinking of an individual course. In most instances, this resulted in changing the word from “course” to “program” and “instructor” to “instructors.” Students responded to the 34-items on a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

Open-ended questions

In addition to the survey items, three open-ended questions were asked. The three open-ended questions were the following: (a) Would you recommend this program to others seeking a similar degree? Why or why not? (b) What do you appreciate the most and would keep the same in the program? (c) What aspects would you suggest be changed to improve the program?

Data Analysis

Descriptive data were used to assess the three constructs in the CoI survey. The data from the open-ended questions were analyzed using the emerging theme analyses of constant comparative analysis and latent content analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Procedures

All students (N = 51) who were accepted into the master’s of special education with a concentration in EBD program in the past 3 years were contacted via email to complete a survey about their perceptions of the online special education program. Three follow-up emails and one additional letter were sent to the participants using the most recent permanent addresses from the university files to gain additional responses. The survey was completed using SurveyMonkey. With additional contacts, a response rate of 49% was achieved.

Results

Demographic results from the survey are presented in Table 1. Participants included 18 (72%) females and seven (28%) males. The majority of the respondents were female (72%), Caucasian (88%), and between the ages of 31 and 40 (48%). The largest number of respondents had completed one to five courses (n = 11; 44%) or six to 12 courses (n = 9; 36%) with five (20%) students who had completed the entire program. Thirty-two percent of the respondents worked in residential or alternative settings and 28% worked in general education settings. Fifty-two percent were currently certified to teach special education, and 88% of the respondents were from the state the program was located in. In addition, 64% of the respondents had taken an online course before this program.

Table 1.

Participants’ Characteristics.

Variable and response category	n	%
Gender
Female	18	72.0
Male	7	28.0
Age
20-30 years	6	24.0
31-40 years	12	48.0
41-50 years	4	16.0
51-59 years	3	12.0
60+	0
Ethnicity
White	21	84.0
Hispanic or Latino	2	8.0
Native American or American Indian	2	8.0
Number of courses completed
1-5 courses	11	44.0
6-12 courses	9	36.0
Completed program	5	20.0
Residency
Nebraska	22	88.0
Other	3	12.0
Current teaching certification
Special education (7-12)	9	36.0
Elementary education	5	20.0
Special education (K-6)	4	16.0
Secondary social science	3	12.0
Secondary English	3	12.0
Secondary Math	2	8.0
Language Arts	2	8.0
School counselor	1	4.0
Spanish	2	8.0
Speech-language pathologist	1	4.0
Elementary education and Special education	1	4.0
Middle grades—Language arts/Social studies	1	4.0
What type of educational setting do you currently work? (some marked more than one)
Residential/alternative placement	8	30.0
General education	7	28.0
Resource	5	20.0
Self-contained (Alternate curriculum program)	4	16.0
Substitute teaching	2	8.0
In school suspension	1	4.0
SPED instructional coach	1	4.0
Number of courses completed in an average semester
One course	3	12.0
Two courses	21	84.0
Three or more	1	4.0
Did you take any online courses prior to enrolling in this program?
Yes	16	64.0
No	9	36.0

Survey

Item specific means and standard deviations for each of the three areas of the framework—teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence—are presented in Tables 2 to 4. The mean score for teaching presence was 4.16 with a SD of 0.70 (range = 3.84-4.64), social presence mean score was 3.89 with SD of 0.78 (range = 3.52-4.33), and cognitive presence mean was 4.07 with SD of 0.81 (range = 3.92-4.25).

Table 2.

Community of Inquiry Survey: Teaching Presence Results.

Teaching presence survey items	M	SD
Teaching presence (Items 1-13)	4.16	0.70
1. The instructors in the program clearly communicated important course topics.	4.40	0.71
2. The instructors in the program clearly communicated important course goals.	4.32	0.90
3. The instructors in the program provided clear instructions on how to participate in course learning activities.	4.21	1.14
4. The instructors in the program clearly communicated important due dates/time frames for learning activities.	4.64	0.57
5. The instructors in the program were helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn.	4.04	0.73
6. The instructors in the program were helpful in guiding the class toward understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking.	4.28	0.61
7. The instructors in the program helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue.	4.12	0.78
8. The instructors in the program helped to keep course participants on task in a way that helped me learn.	4.08	0.997
9. The instructors in the program encouraged participants to explore new concepts.	4.00	0.93
10. The instructors in the program reinforced the development of a sense of community among program participants.	3.96	1.02
11. The instructors in the program helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn.	4.08	0.86
12. The instructors in the program provided feedback that helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses relative to the program’s goals and objectives.	3.84	1.31
13. The instructors in the program provided feedback in a timely fashion.	4.08	0.88

Table 3.

Community of Inquiry Survey: Social Presence Results.

Social presence survey items	M	SD
Social presence (Items 14-22)	3.89	0.78
14. Getting to know other program participants gave me a sense of belonging in the program.	3.76	1.01
15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some program participants.	3.80	1.08
16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.	3.52	1.00
17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium.	3.88	1.05
18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions throughout the program.	4.04	0.79
19. I felt comfortable interacting with other participants in the program.	4.12	0.88
20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other participants while still maintaining a sense of trust throughout the program.	3.96	0.89
21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other program participants.	4.33	0.70
22. Online discussions helped me to develop a sense of collaboration.	3.68	1.07

Table 4.

Community of Inquiry Survey: Cognitive Presence.

Cognitive presence	M	SD
Cognitive presence (Items 23-34)	4.07	0.81
23. Problems posed increased my interest in topical issues.	4.04	0.93
24. Program activities piqued my curiosity.	4.12	0.88
25. I felt motivated to explore content-related questions.	4.08	0.88
26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems posed in this program.	4.20	0.91
27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me resolve content-related questions.	4.08	0.91
28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate different perspectives.	3.92	0.93
29. Combining new information helped me answer questions raised in program activities.	4.12	0.88
30. Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions.	3.96	0.93
31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me understand fundamental concepts in the program.	3.88	1.03
32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this program.	3.92	1.02
33. Because of this program, I have developed solutions to problems that can be applied in practice.	4.24	0.72
34. I can apply the knowledge created in this program to my work or other non-class related activities.	4.25	0.85

From the 34-item CoI survey, the lowest rated score of 3.53 was related to the statement for Item 16 (online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction). The highest rated score of 4.40 was for Item 1 (the instructors in the program clearly communicated important course topics).

Open-Ended Questions

In response to the first open-ended question, two themes emerged. The themes were convenience/access and quality of professors’ knowledge, organization, and communication. Eight of the students identified convenience or flexibility in their responses as the main reason they would recommend the program to another individual. A quote from one student shows how the program was convenient and accessible: “ . . . is that being stationed in a [rural community] with very limited community based graduate programming, the online program through [the university] has been an affordable and accessible way to continue to grow professionally.” A quote from one student exemplifies the theme of professors’ knowledge:

I definitely would recommend this program to other degree-seeking students because this program is designed to be very comprehensive and the instructors have provided a depth of content that has allowed me to learn about the field of special education but most importantly the skills and learning strategies that students with special needs can utilize that are evidenced based.

In response to the second question, students appreciated the applicability of the content addressed in the courses. A student stated, “I think that the instructors have done a thorough job in designing the course activities so that students can research and then apply to their current job or internship setting.”

One theme emerged for improvement in the program that was the significant workload in courses. Many students perceived the workload as overwhelming while working full-time. For example, one student stated, “Workload and expectations in a week time span seems to be a lot.”

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to evaluate students’ perceptions of a completely online master’s degree program in special education in EBD based on the CoI framework. Based on the results from the CoI survey and open-ended questions, there are a number of strengths and areas for improvement related to this completely online master’s degree program. Interestingly, 69% of participants had taken an online course prior to enrolling in this program; therefore, the majority of the students had experiences with online learning. This is consistent with the Sloan-C Consortium finding that an increasing large number of students in higher education are enrolling in distance education options (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Distance education is changing the instructional landscape in all learning environments (K-12 to postsecondary). During the 2009-2010 school year, the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (2013) found that more than 1.8 million students in K-12 schools were enrolled in online courses. Due to this drastic increase, institutions of higher learning must prepare future educators to effectively use technology to facilitate learning. The National Education Technology Plan calls for a teacher force trained to use and collaborate with distance education tools and resources (Frazier, 2010). These statistics suggest that distance education will continue to be part of education world, so it is critical to identify methods of evaluating programs.

Of the 13 items under teaching presence, only one item scored below 4.0, which would suggest that a high percentage of students “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statements related to how well the instructors were able to facilitate and engage students in learning. In addition, students agreed with many of the statements under cognitive presence, which might suggest that there is a relationship between a professor’s ability to engage students online and the application of knowledge. Through the use of synchronous and asynchronous approaches, instructors were able to communicate and instruct students in a way that promotes the application of knowledge related to teaching students with disabilities. The results of the open-ended questions supported the positive results from the teaching and cognitive presence survey items, as the graduate students stated the professors and application of knowledge were the two most impactful aspects of the program. The effectiveness of teacher preparation hinges on the quality of instruction whether is it in a traditional on-campus class or online instruction (Bates & Poole, 2003). Therefore, the results of the survey would suggest the professors are creating an effective learning environment where knowledge and application of content are occurring.

It is well documented that some faculty are reluctant to teach online, but when provided support and training prior to implementing online instruction, they become more willing to put the additional time and effort into online teaching (Cooper, 2001). Faculty teaching in this program was supported by one another through the implementation of a teaching circle, which is a group of faculty collaborating on a specific topic. During the teaching circle meetings, a variety of resources and materials were examined and faculty were able to bounce ideas off of one another about effective online teaching. This allowed for collaboration and discussions among the faculty members to provide feedback and suggestions on their instructional approaches.

The lowest overall ratings were in the area of social presence. This would suggest that the development of community and formation of interpersonal relationships was what students perceived as the lowest rated aspect of the program. This is consistent with previous research of online learning (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). Learning is a social construct, so it is important to use a variety of technologies to create a sense of community in online courses. Teachers often rely on social interaction to facilitate learning, and because there is less interaction between students and professors and students and their classmates in an online course, many teacher preparatory programs use hybrid courses instead of online (Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007). In hybrid courses, students will get the personal interactions with classmates and professors about 50% of the time. In addition, in this program, there are some professors who chose to utilize synchronous Web 2.0 technologies, but others who do not. It should be noted that there were four adjunct instructors who taught courses in the program and none of them used synchronous technology, which could have affected this subset of the survey. As cited in Bullock et al., (2008), research indicates that students prefer online courses to traditional on-campus courses, especially when there is a high level of interaction in the instructional methods. In addition, the program does not use a cohort approach, so in many courses, students were enrolled with students with which they have not yet had courses and therefore had to rebuild a sense of community for each course. This could be another aspect to address in the future when considering how to build and foster a sense of community in online programs. Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2014) noted a significant increase in social presence between the first year and second year within their cohort, which relates to Cleveland-Innes, Garrison, and Kinsel’s (2007) conclusion that it takes time to develop a sense of community within a program. As the majority of the participants in the study were early in the program (only completed between one and five courses), this may have contributed to lower rating in this area.

Finding opportunities to increase interpersonal relationships and community is an important part of any graduate program, but specifically in teacher preparation programs, as these relationships can lead to networking and collaborative engagements that exist beyond the program. While these relationships are important to all teachers, these relationships become even more important for teachers in special education who are faced with the difficult and unique challenges of working with children and youth, especially those with EBD. Specifically, having a community of other special educators can provide support and help teachers to problem solve (e.g., interventions) when encountering challenging issues or students. In addition to the benefits in the classroom, creating a social presence and community is important to student retention and developing a relationship to the university (Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2014).

While the lowest ratings for the online program were for social presence, 30% of students identified flexibility as a positive aspect of the program and a primary reason for enrolling in the online graduate program. This finding is supported by previous research that indicates that a major benefit of online programs is the flexibility and convenience of online courses for working families, distance students, and international students (Rekkedal & Qvist-Eriksen, 2004). As there is a shortage of highly qualified teachers working with children/youth with EBD, we must consider alternate forms of delivery in teacher preparation programs. The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2015) noted that many states are finding the greatest personnel shortages in the field of EBD. In fact, 10 of 11 regions of the United States have been recognized as having a considerable shortage of teachers for children with EBD (AAEE, 2009).

As the majority of the graduate students in this program were full-time teachers (88%) and they identified workload as an area for improvement, this is something to consider. Specifically, many students suggested the workload of online courses was too intense and difficult while teaching full-time. In addition to working full-time, the majority of the students in the program (84%) were also enrolled in two courses each semester, so faculty may need to reconsider the amount and types of assignments required to make sure the workload is appropriate while still ensuring that the course objectives are being met. This is also important for online programs to consider because it has been documented that there is a higher level of retention in on-campus course compared with online courses (Mariani, 2001). Specifically, some research has suggested that this potential mismatch between perceived convenience and workload may contribute to the increased dropout rate seen in some online programs (Leeds et al., 2013). For example, many students may enter an online program thinking that it is easier than traditional, on-campus programs, but while online courses can be more convenient, there is evidence that online courses require more self-motivation and self-regulation skills (e.g., time management) than on-campus courses. Together, these findings highlight the importance of online programs carefully considering workload and identifying and developing ways to help students be successful in online environments.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the encouraging findings from this study, there are a number of limitations to be noted and considerations for future research. First, because the online program had only been implemented for 3 years, the total number of completed surveys was relatively low. The high percentage of respondents (49%) was encouraging, but it is suggested that future studies include a larger sample size that may provide a more comprehensive assessment of the program. Second, the CoI survey instrument was originally designed to assess individual courses. While it has been used to evaluate online programs in other studies (see Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2014), its validity for program evaluation has not been established. Future research should include a factor analysis on the CoI survey instrument as edited to evaluate online programs to make sure the items load together as they do for individual courses. Third, some of the respondents had taken more courses in the program than others. As a result, respondents who have completed the program may have a different perspective than those who are early in the program. Students who are early in the program may not have had a variety of professors and coursework that provides a more comprehensive experience. For the purpose of evaluating a program in its initial stages, there was a variety of respondents; however, as more students complete the program, additional surveys should be completed to provide a more complete evaluation of the program in its entirety and comparing results of program completers and students currently in the program for differences in groups. Finally, this evaluation only focused on student perceptions of the program. In future research, other aspects such as learning effectiveness and faculty satisfaction should also be addressed as stated by the Online Learning Consortium (Bourne & Moore, 2002).

Implications

To address teacher shortages in the area of special education, a growing number of institutions are implementing distance education as a means to increasing access for students from rural settings, working families, and international locations. Since going to a completely online framework, the program evaluated in this study has quadrupled the number of graduate students in the program. This suggests that distance education may be an effective medium for addressing teacher shortages in special education. In response to the increase in distance education programs, there is a need to develop measures to evaluate and assess online programs to ensure quality instruction and positive outcomes. The results from this study suggest that through the use of synchronous and asynchronous instruction, faculty can provide online instruction that engages students in a meaningful way that promotes the application of content. To a lesser extent, the findings from this study also suggest that community and interpersonal relationships can be developed in an online course, but may require additional strategies and activities to promote engagement.

Taken together, these findings suggest that a completely online master’s degree in special education can address the core elements of teaching, cognition, and social engagement, which help facilitate an educational experience. Given the lack of research on the evaluation of online teacher education programs, the findings from this study provide a starting point for evaluating and assessing the quality of instruction and outcomes from online programming.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Elizabeth M. Leader-Janssen, PhD, is an associate professor of special education at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research interests include effective teacher preparation, online instructional methods, and inclusionary practices.

Philip D. Nordness, PhD, is an associate professor of special education at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. His research interests included strength-based assessment, strategic instruction, and evaluation of online teacher preparation programs.

Kristine D. Swain, PhD, is a professor of special education at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research interests include intervention strategies for students with disabilities, student engagement in online instruction, and interdisciplinary collaboration in higher education.

Jessica L. Hagaman, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research interests include early intervention for at-risk students, strategy instruction, Universal Design for Learning, academic interventions, and effective teacher preparation.

References

Allen

I. E.

Seaman

(2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/changing_course_2012

Allen

I. E.

Seaman

Garrett

(2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED529930

American Association for Employment in Education. (2009). Executive summary: Educator supply and demand research. Columbus, OH: Author.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Bangert

Cleveland-Innes

(2010). Subject matter effects and the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 37-44.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Cleveland-Innes

Diaz

S. R.

Garrison

D. R.

Ice

Richardson

J. C.

Swan

K. P.

(2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133-136.

Bates

A. W.

Poole

(2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bollinger

D. U.

Halupa

(2012). Student perceptions of staisfaction and anxiety in an online doctoral program. Distance Education, 33, 81-98.

Bollinger

D. U.

Martindale

(2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3, 61-67.

Bourne

Moore

(2002). Elements of quality online education (3rd ed.). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

10.

Braun

(2008). Making a choice: The perceptions and attitudes of online graduate students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16, 63-92.

11.

Bullock

L. M.

Gable

R. A.

Mohr

J. D.

(2008). Technology-mediated instruction in distance education and teacher preparation in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 229-242.

12.

Cancio

E. J.

Albrecht

S. F.

Johns

B. H.

(2014). Combating the attrition of teachers of students with EBD: What can administrators do? Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 306-312.

13.

Chapman

D. D.

(2006). Building an evaluation plan for fully online degree programs. Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/spring91/chapman91.htm

14.

Cleveland-Innes

Garrison

Kinsel

(2007). Role adjustment for learners in an online community of inquiry: Identifying the needs of novice online learners. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(1), 1-16.

15.

Cooper

(2001). A comparison of online and traditional computer applications classes. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 28(6), 31-37.

16.

Dobbs

R. L.

Allen

W. C.

(2004, March). Designing an assessment model for implementing a quality online degree program. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference, Austin, TX.

17.

Frazier

L. C.

(2010). Distance education in teacher education: A baseline for instructional decision making (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Towson University, Towson, MD.

18.

Frazier

L. C.

Sadera

W. A.

(2013). Distance education in teacher preparation programs: A national study. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 112-138.

19.

Garrison

D. R.

Anderson

Archer

(2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87-105.

20.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

21.

Howland

Moore

(2002). Student perceptions as distance learners in internet-based courses. Distance Education, 23, 183-195.

22.

International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2013). Fast facts about online learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/resource/fast-facts-about-online-learning/

23.

Katsiyannis

Zhang

Conroy

M. A.

(2003). Availability of special education teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 246-253.

24.

Kumar

Ritzhaupt

A. D.

(2014). Adapting the community of inquiry survey for an online graduate program: Implications for online programs. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11, 59-70.

25.

Leeds

Campbell

Baker

Ali

Brawley

Crisp

(2013). The impact of student retention strategies: An empirical study. International Journal of Management in Education, 7, 22-43.

26.

Lincoln

Y. A.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

27.

Mariani

(2001). Distance learning in post-secondary education: Learning whenever, wherever. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 45(2), 2-10.

28.

McInnerney

J. M.

Roberts

T. S.

(2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 73-81.

29.

McLeskey

Tyler

N. C.

Flippen

S. S.

(2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 5-21.

30.

Nord

(2011). Online learning programs: Evaluation’s challenging future. In Mathison

(Ed.), Really new directions in evaluation: Young evaluators’ perspectives (New directions for evaluation, No. 131, pp. 129-134). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

31.

Queen

Lewis

(2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009-2010 (NCES 2012-009). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012008.pdf

32.

Rekkedal

Qvist-Eriksen

(2004). Student support services in e-learning: An evaluation study of students’ needs and satisfaction. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org

33.

Roberts

T. G.

Irani

T. A.

Telg

R. W.

Lundy

L. K.

(2005). The development of an instrument to evaluate distance education courses using student attitudes. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 51-64.

34.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2015). Teacher shortage areas nationwide listing 1990-1991 through 2015-2016. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html