Learning Alone,Together

Abstract

In a closed-cohort educational program design, students enter a program together, take the same courses together, and, ideally, graduate together. In an effort to increase interaction and communication among students, it has been utilized more and more for online graduate programs. This article surveyed students in one of the few closed-cohort graduate programs in a mass communication school. Results indicate that students found several aspects of closed-cohort important, valued social media sites as a way to communicate with other cohort members, felt a strong sense of community among their cohort, and used their cohort to create a professional network of peers.

Keywords

journalism and mass communication education online education graduate education closed-cohort design classroom community professional networks continuing education

As journalism and communication college curricula have adapted to meet the needs of a rapidly changing industry and student body, one key development is the growth of part-time online graduate programs. These programs, whether they award a full master’s degree, a certificate, or are not-for-credit MOOCs (massive open online courses), provide new skills and networking opportunities for both traditional students and mid-career industry professionals seeking professional advancement opportunities. The expansion of online graduate education also presents significant challenges for faculty who have likely spent most of their teaching careers working with full-time residential students. Educators have struggled to determine how best to design online graduate-level programs for adult learners who hold full-time jobs while going to school (Arbaugh, 2005; Beaudoin, Kurtz, & Eden, 2009; Fisher & Baird, 2005; Park & Choi, 2009). One of the primary challenges is developing a program structure that allows distance education students to develop the same “sense of community” as residential students, a crucial aspect to student success (R. L. Moore, 2014; Top, 2012). An extensive meta-analysis by Bernard et al. (2004) found that, in general, online students experience a weaker sense of connectedness than do students who receive in-class instruction. The current study examines one online communication graduate program that utilizes a closed-cohort structure to determine whether students in this particular structure perceive themselves as being part of a cohesive learning community.

The program analyzed in this article is a two-and-a-half-year online closed-cohort master’s degree program at a large state university in the southern United States. It is a part-time program designed for mid-career communication professionals and focuses on new media tools, digital economics, and communication theories to prepare students for leadership in a changing media landscape. It involves mostly asynchronous online learning in addition to two brief campus residencies that include face-to-face interaction. Program promotional materials indicate that, anecdotally, students consider the support of and ability to network with members of their cohort to be one of the program’s most valuable assets. As the program prepares to enroll its fifth cohort, this study attempted to systematically examine the role that the closed-cohort design has played in students’ decisions to enroll, the amount and nature of interaction among cohort members, and most importantly the sense of community fostered among members (Arbaugh, 2005; Conrad, 2005; Gokcearslan & Alper, 2015; Rovai, 2002a). This survey also attempted to determine how students use members of their cohorts for professional networking opportunities while they are enrolled in classes and after graduation. In addition to expanding the literature on online education best practices—specifically regarding the closed-cohort design—this project is also one of the first to examine the cohort experience in an online graduate program in journalism and mass communication, as previous studies have focused on journalism undergraduate programs, online MBA, education, and public health programs.

Literature Review

The expansion of distance education has been intricately linked with communication technology (Castañeda, 2011; Sumner, 2000). Distance education took a giant leap forward in popularity and accessibility with the advent and proliferation of personal computers and the Internet. During the 1990s, online programs became the primary distance education platform. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 2012, more than 20% of all students enrolled in graduate-level programs participated in a distance education program (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). This growth was driven in part by smaller colleges and for-profit schools embracing this new technology as a way to increase their enrollment without adding physical facilities (Crotty, 2012).

Journalism and mass communication programs have been comparatively slow to embrace this trend. Surveys completed around the turn of the millennium found an overall reluctance to utilize online distance education among journalism and mass communication programs (Sutherland, 2003; Sutherland & Stewart, 2000). In fact, the University of Missouri at Columbia, a cornerstone of journalism higher education, did not offer its first online degrees until 2001 (Distance Education Report, 2001). This reluctance appeared to be subsiding in recent years. Castañeda (2011) found in her survey of journalism and mass communication programs that administrators felt online distance education was a way to reach more students, especially non-traditional students.

Generally, online courses can be found on a wide variety of subjects, and the size of online courses can vary from a handful of students to enormous MOOCs that may include thousands of students around the world. With that wide variability, it is not surprising that the bulk of academic research regarding online education has focused on the structural design of these programs (Beaudoin et al., 2009; Engstrom, Santo, & Yost, 2008; Fisher & Baird, 2005; Park & Choi, 2009). Research suggests that interaction and communication are important factors for any learning environment, especially one that lacks the physical proximity of a classroom. In other words, successful online education (Conrad, 2005; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) and student satisfaction (Drouin, 2008) are more likely when there is a sense of community among learners, and students’ sense of community can significantly decrease when they are in separate physical environments (Gokcearslan & Alper, 2015). A sense of community is especially difficult to develop in asynchronous online programs because students may feel as though they must learn the material on their own without the benefits of shared experiences with their peers (R. L. Moore, 2014).

Although there is disagreement over how to define community among distance learners, research suggests that the cohort aspect of an instructional program is extremely important in fostering interaction (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 2003; Bocchi, Eastman, & Swift, 2004; R. L. Moore, 2014; Tisdell et al., 2004). In general, there are three types of cohort designs: a fluid cohort, an open cohort, and a closed cohort (Basom, 1993). A fluid-cohort design allows students to take classes whenever they choose and is typical of the “hands-off” approach in most online education. An open-cohort design requires students to take some classes together but not all and is similar to most residential graduate programs. Finally, in a closed-cohort design, all students enter a program together, take the same classes together in the same order, and finish together. In these programs, classes are most often not open to individuals not enrolled as part of the cohort.

Pedagogy scholars have studied closed-cohort online programs as a way to enhance collaboration, student engagement, and peer-to-peer learning. Research has found that, in general, instructional environments that foster participant interaction have better learning outcomes (Arbaugh, 2005; Bailey & Cotlar, 1994; Borthick & Jones, 2000; Jiang & Ting, 2000; Sherry, Fulford, & Zhang, 1998). Specifically relating to journalism and mass communication programs, J. Moore (2014) found increased student-to-student interaction was a predictor of success in undergraduate public relations classes. Graduate-level programs in particular, with their emphasis on developing situational knowledge as opposed to simply imparting facts, are suited to more collaborative learning environment (Richardson, MacRea, Schwartz, Bankston, & Kosten, 2008; Tisdell et al., 2004). A closed-cohort design can provide this environment by allowing cohort members to develop relationships and a learning community across multiple courses and semesters (Conrad, 2005). Research has also demonstrated the beneficial effect of cohort program design for graduate education in particular. Beachboard, Beachboard, Wenling, and Adkison (2011) found that students in cohort programs developed better critical thinking and communication skills, got higher grades, and took more personal responsibility for their learning. A cohort design has also been associated with higher retention rates (Bocchi, Eastman, & Swift, 2004).

However, research is not unanimous in its stance on cohort-based distance education. Some studies have found no relationship between the types of learner-to-learner interaction that a closed-cohort design fosters and improved learning outcomes (Carey, Kleiman, Russell, Venable, & Louie, 2008; Hong, 2002). Likewise, although a multinational survey of distance learners found that 29% of students felt that the peer relationships a closed-cohort design might facilitate were critical for success, most respondents believed that self-determination was more important (Beaudoin et al., 2009). Certain practical constraints may keep students from enrolling or succeeding in these programs. Closed-cohort programs generally have a predetermined time frame. If a student wants to finish a program more quickly or over a longer period of time, this may not be possible. In addition, some students may desire greater diversity in their learning community (Gaspari, 2007). In fact, Beachboard et al. (2011) found that closed cohorts might be more likely to develop cliques and behavioral and intellectual conformity.

Sense of Community

Sense of community is an important concept for a number of academic fields, notably social psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Psychologists David McMillan and David Chavis (1986), known for theoretical and operational advancement of the concept, defined sense of community as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together” (p. 8). Sense of community is also a valuable concept in pedagogy research, which focuses on learning communities (Palloff & Pratt, 2007), and it has attracted renewed interest with the growth of online education—in fact, Top (2012) suggested that sense of community is the best predictor of perceived learning in online learning environments. As mentioned above, closed-cohort programs may lead to a greater sense of community among learners given the fact that students take all of their courses together.

There has been a robust research stream concerned with the advantages of learning communities in online education, although scholars often use differing definitions of “community.” Research by Rovai (2002a) has distilled these various conceptualizations of community into two main aspects relevant to education: (a) feelings of connectedness among community members and (b) a commonality of learning goals and expectations. The first aspect, connectedness, can be traced back to Grant’s (1988) “ethics of caring.” It involves developing feelings of friendship, cohesion, and satisfaction among a group of learners. Once this is established, members are more likely to speak openly because of increased trust and feelings of safety. These feelings are important because students will be more likely to expose gaps in their own learning and expect that their peers will be supportive (Preece, 2000). Rovai’s (2002a) second aspect of learning communities, shared learning goals, assumes that knowledge and meaning are actively constructed within those learning communities. For a learning community to succeed, members must internalize a shared set of values and goals.

Brown (2001) has suggested that communities among distance learners are built in three steps: (a) making friends/becoming comfortable, (b) community conferment through class discussion, and (c) camaraderie and personal communication. Following this line of thinking, incorporating some form of face-to-face interaction among cohort members, particularly at the beginning of an online program, has been shown to establish a stronger sense of connection among students and improve several learning outcomes (Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker, 2000; Reinhart, 2010; Tisdell et al., 2004). In addition, according to Arbaugh (2000a, 2000b) and Tinto (1993), learners with an increased sense of community among their peers are significantly less likely to drop out of the program before completing their degrees, a common problem for online programs.

Based on the literature cited above, this survey will seek to answer the following research questions:

RQ1a: How knowledgeable were students regarding the closed-cohort design of the program prior to their application?

RQ1b: How important was the closed-cohort design in students’ choice to enroll in the program?

RQ2: What structural aspects of an online program do students consider to be most important when selecting a master’s program?

RQ3: Which communication channels do students use to interact and form relationships with their classmates for course-related and non-course-related purposes?

RQ4: To what extent does the closed-cohort design allow students to develop a sense of community?

RQ5: To what extent does the closed-cohort aspect of the program provide networking opportunities that support career enhancement?

Method

To assess the impact and importance of the closed-cohort design of this program, a census survey was conducted of all students who enrolled in the program from 2011, the first year of the program, through 2013 (N = 54).¹ A questionnaire was developed, approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board, and distributed to the population via the Qualtrics online survey website. Respondents were given 2 weeks to complete the survey, which asked respondents to indicate which cohort they were in but did not ask for names. Forty-two students took the survey, resulting in a 77.78% completion rate. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents were from the 2011 cohort (n = 16), 26% were from the 2012 cohort (n = 11), and 36% were from the 2013 cohort (n = 15).

The questionnaire consisted of several sections, in addition to basic demographic questions, that corresponded to the research questions listed above. Respondents were asked about

their level of knowledge and the importance of the closed-cohort design;

the importance of several key aspects of closed-cohort design in general, both positive and negative (Gaspari, 2007);

the ways they interacted with the members of their cohort, specifically the types of media used to communicate both personal and class-related information;

their sense of “classroom community” as conceptualized by Rovai (2001, 2002a) and Rovai and Jordan (2004) and measured using a scale adapted from Rovai’s (2002b) research; and

the degree to which students maintained relationships and communication with the members of their cohort after graduating from the program.

All sections used 7-point Likert-type scales to measure knowledge, importance, agreement, and use. In addition, a few open-ended questions were used to gather more qualitative data for several of the research questions.

Findings

Demographics

The respondents were older (M = 36 years) and had a higher income level (most made between US$50,000 and US$100,000 per year) than the average graduate student. However, the program is specifically designed and intended for mid-career communication professionals, so an older and higher earning student population is to be expected. In fact, respondents had an average of just over 11 years of professional experience. Most indicated that they currently work in strategic communications/marketing (40%, n = 17), 21% said public relations/public information (n = 9), 10% said journalism (n = 4), 7% indicated that they worked in advertising or information technology (n = 3), and 14% indicated they worked in some other field (n = 6). Sixty percent identified as female (n = 25). The majority (60%, n = 25) indicated that they live in the same metropolitan area as the university in which the program was based, 33% (n = 14) live outside that area but still in the state, and the rest (7%, n = 3) live in the United States but in a different state (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Survey Respondent Demographic Characteristics.

	N	M	SD
Age	42	35.88	7.89
Years of professional experience	42	11.49	7.95
	n	%
Gender^a
Male	15	35
Female	25	60
Income level (per year)^a
<US$50,000	8	19
US$50,000-US$100,000	26	62
US$100,000-US$200,000	4	10
>US$200,000	1	2
Current profession
Advertising	3	7
Information technology	3	7
Journalism	4	10
Public relations/public information	9	21
Strategic communications/marketing	17	40
Other	6	14
Residence during program
Lived in same metro area as university	25	60
Lived in same state as university	15	33
Lived in the United States	3	7

Percentages may not equal 100 because respondents were given the option not to respond to these questions.

Research Questions

RQ1a asked how knowledgeable students were about the closed-cohort structure of some graduate programs prior to selecting a master’s program, and RQ1b asked how important this particular aspect was to their decision to enroll in the program. On a scale from 1 (not at all familiar) to 7 (extremely familiar), the mean response for the cohort knowledge question was only 2.67 (SD = 1.75), indicating that students did not have much familiarity with a closed-cohort structure prior to selecting this particular program. When asked how important this aspect of the program was in students’ decision to enroll, using a similar 7-point scale, the mean response was 3.1 (SD = 1.86), indicating a relatively low level of importance.

RQ2 asked which structural aspects students considered most important in choosing a master’s program. Using a 7-point scale anchored by 1 (not important at all) and 7 (extremely important), respondents indicated that the most important criteria were having the opportunity to form and maintain a professional network with classmates (M = 5.34, SD = 1.87), the opportunity to meet classmates in person (M = 5.19, SD = 2.1), having a support system of the same classmates throughout the program (M = 5.17, SD = 1.9), having a small class size (M = 4.83, SD = 1.72), and having a set curriculum (M = 4.29, SD = 1.37). In the middle range were being able to select classes (M = 3.45, SD = 1.55) and the option to take electives (M = 3.33, SD = 1.79). Structural aspects considered the least important were being able to take as many or as few classes at a time as desired (M = 3.19, SD = 1.76) and being able to take a break from the program for a period of time (M = 3.17, SD = 1.81).

Interestingly, although students indicated that they did not have much prior knowledge about the concept of a closed-cohort structure and did not consider it highly important in selecting a master’s program in which to enroll, when asked about specific qualities that were important to them in choosing a graduate program, they assigned higher ratings to several qualities most often associated with a closed-cohort program (having the opportunity to form and maintain a professional network with classmates, having a support system of the same classmates throughout the program, having a small class size, and having a set curriculum). In addition, they rated aspects only possible in a fluid-cohort design as least important (being able to take as many or as few classes at a time as desired and being able to take a break from the program for a period of time). This indicates that these online master’s program applicants value a structure that fosters formation of relationships that provide a support system during the program and career-based networking opportunities even after graduation. Of course, this study surveyed only those students who chose to enroll in this specific online graduate program with its closed-cohort structure, so it is possible that students who selected other programs might have ranked structural qualities differently.

RQ3 inquired about which communication channels students use/used to interact with their classmates for course-related and non-course-related purposes (career networking, personal socializing, etc.). Students were not queried about their use of communication channels required by program instructors for coursework, such as discussion boards. Instead, the survey asked about usage of communication channels that students could choose to use or not. Students indicated on a scale of 1 (never) to 7 (all the time) how often they used email, SMS/text messaging, telephone, Twitter, Facebook, and in-person meetings to interact with classmates. For class-related purposes, Facebook (M = 6.62, SD = 0.85) and email (M = 5.49, SD = 1.19) were the favored channels. The same pattern emerged for career networking and socializing activities not related to coursework: Facebook (M = 6.07, SD = 1.47) and email (M = 4.33, SD = 1.75). Twitter was the channel used least, and interestingly, it was more likely to be used for networking and socializing purposes than for course-related purposes. This suggests that Twitter may grow in popularity as cohort communication continues after graduation when there is no longer coursework to discuss and conversations are more likely to focus on career networking and personal topics. Means for all of the forms of communication can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2.

Methods of Communication Between Cohort Members.

	N	M	SD
Used for course-related communication
Email	41	5.49	1.19
SMS/text message	42	3.81	1.89
Facebook	42	6.62	0.85
Twitter	42	2.88	1.85
Telephone	42	3.62	1.53
In person	42	3.36	1.53
Used for non-course (personal) communication
Email	42	4.33	1.75
SMS/text message	42	3.67	1.86
Facebook	42	6.07	1.47
Twitter	42	3.24	1.83
Telephone	42	2.98	1.55
In person	41	4.07	1.68

Note. Responses based on a 7-point Likert-type scale measuring how often cohort members used different media for communication with other cohort members (1 = never, 7 = all the time).

Respondents were also given the opportunity to describe other ways they communicated with their cohort via an open-ended prompt. Comments showed that students also occasionally used Google Hangout and Skype for both course-related and personal purposes. However, the comments overwhelmingly indicated that students relied on their cohort’s Facebook page for communication purposes. Each of the three cohorts involved in this survey elected to form a private Facebook page, and those in the second and third cohorts even indicated that they received advice from previous cohorts to do so. One student commented that “Facebook was/is our main communication method and honestly a lifeline for me through the program!” Comments suggest that students enjoyed the social nature of Facebook, the fact that cohort members responded to posts very quickly, and the fact that faculty and administrators did not have access to it.

RQ4 asked to what extent the closed-cohort design allows students to develop a sense of community. This was assessed through an adapted version of the “classroom community index” (Rovai, 2002b). Using a 7-point scale with 7 as strongly agree and 1 as strongly disagree, the mean for the combined items asking whether respondents “feel students care about each other,” “feel connected to others in the program,” “feel a spirit of community,” “feel the program is like a family,” “trust other students,” and “can rely on others in the program” was 6.1. This suggests that students formed a very strong sense of community. Means and standard deviations for the individual items in the index can be found in Table 3. Despite the connection cohort members felt with their classmates, not all opinions about the experience were positive. In an open-ended prompt about how a closed-cohort structure could better create a sense of community, respondents indicated that instructors should set limits on participation so that no one student would dominate the discussion boards and that more effort be taken to ensure that students from different career paths are equally welcomed and integrated into the program.

Table 3.

Results of Classroom Community Index and Individual Indicators.

Survey item	N	M	SD
Feel students in program care about each other	42	6.31	0.75
Feel connected to others in this program	42	6.14	0.95
Did not feel a spirit of community^a	42	2.00	1.68
Feel program in like a family	42	5.57	1.47
Feel uneasy exposing gaps in understanding^a	42	3.17	1.91
Trust other students in program	42	6.19	1.13
Feel I can rely on others in program	42	6.31	0.95
Classroom Community Index	42	6.1	1.26

Note. Item responses based on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Entries in bold represent an average of the other seven survey items.

Item reverse scored.

RQ5 focused on to what extent the closed-cohort aspect of the program provides students with networking opportunities that support career enhancement. Respondents who had graduated from the program indicated that it was important to maintain contact with other members of the cohort (M = 6.38 on a 7-point scale) and that they had been in contact with them often (M = 6.56 on a 7-point scale). In addition, all but one said their contact was primarily for both professional and personal matters, and one respondent said the contact was primarily professional. When asked to provide any additional thoughts on the cohort aspect of the program (this question was open to all respondents), many wrote about their cohort as a vital source of career networking and advice. Respondent comments noted that classmates “share job openings with each other,” “provide indirect networking, such as referrals with third parties” and “made site visits to some of our cohort member workplaces, which was an excellent learning experience.” These career networking opportunities apparently do not stop after graduation, based on the open-ended responses: “Since the end of the program, we have helped each other through professional and personal issues, and I don’t see that momentum slowing down anytime soon”; “If a member is in need of a new employment opportunity, the other members instantly proffer job listings, tips/advice, insider info, recommendations, and general support. It remains a safe space for sharing professional quandaries”; “The primary focus now seems to be on sharing job leads and offering support to those members who are feeling frustrated in their job searches.”

Discussion and Conclusion

In general, the results of this survey suggest that a closed-cohort structure for an online master’s program in communication can provide students with a consistent source of support, collaboration, and peer learning. A primary focus of this study was students’ perceived sense of community, and results show that students in the program feel strongly connected to each other and value support from each other. Students do realize the trade-offs in not being able to take elective courses or proceed through the program at a different pace, and they acknowledge that some members of a cohort may dominate discussion within the class and in out-of-class social media interactions. In spite of this, survey respondents seem relatively well pleased with their online learning experience and level of interaction.

Perhaps surprising is the degree to which students in the program did not make the connection between the closed-cohort program structure, which they rated as relatively unimportant, and the ability develop an ongoing professional network of well-connected mid-career professionals who care deeply about the continued success of their classmates, both during the master’s program and after graduation. Students themselves seem amazed by the added value of the cohort experience: “I did not give much thought to the cohort aspect when deciding to apply, but the cohort turned out to be one of the best, if not the best, components of the program.” Another respondent said, “It has been amazing to have such a great group of smart, connected and friendly people as a support network, both throughout the program and in the time since graduation,” while yet another said, “I feel I could call on any one of my cohort members were I ever in need of professional advice or assistance.” These results support previous research that shows growth in sense of community is primarily based on community members’ own efforts to sustain the community (Conrad, 2005). Sense of community deepens over time because relationships extend beyond course boundaries and exist outside formal instructional activities.

These results suggest that closed-cohort online graduate programs designed to advance the careers of working professionals should highlight the ongoing networking benefits of this particular structure. Administrators would do well to use testimonials from graduates about their continued professional support activities in marketing materials designed to attract applicants to the program. This information could be used to alleviate the fears of potential applicants who worry that online education is too impersonal and detached by showing how members of a closed-cohort bond during the course of a program and continue those connections even after graduation. Likewise, during the course of the degree program, faculty and administrators could encourage cohort members to begin to develop personal and professional ties that extend beyond academic-related activities, providing examples of strategies that have worked well for previous cohorts.

Our findings also suggest ways that program administrators could avoid problems with a closed-cohort program by setting interaction expectations upfront and encouraging students in advance not to dominate discussion boards or other modes of interaction. Likewise, it may enhance the experience of students in professional careers not common to other members of their cohort to either select a program more closely aligned to their field or to focus their efforts more on adding new skills to their professional repertoire, a goal that a professionally diverse cohort could help with.

It should be noted there are limitations to the current study. The sample size of 42 is relatively small, and respondents were limited to those who had already chosen to enroll in a closed-cohort graduate program. No comparisons can be made between levels of student satisfaction or perceived sense of community for students in a closed-cohort versus fluid-cohort program. Future research could compare results of this study with those from students who selected programs with a more open-cohort structure to determine whether there is a similar sense of community, how/whether cohort members communicate, and whether opportunities for collaboration and career networking are similar.

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Justin C. Blankenship is a doctoral candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Media and Journalism. His research interests are in the changing nature of news production and pedagogical innovation in journalism instruction.

Rhonda Gibson is an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Media and Journalism. Her research interests include the effects of exemplification in journalism on issue perception, the effects of images of sexual minorities in the media, and communication pedagogy.

References

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2000a). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9-26. doi:10.1177/108056990006300402

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2000b). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with Internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24, 32-54. doi:10.1177/105256290002400104

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2005). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 135-149. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268561

Bailey

E. K.

Cotlar

(1994). Teaching via the Internet. Communication Education, 43, 184-193. doi:10.1080/03634529409378975

Basom

(1993). Educational leadership faculty involved in teacher education. Connections: Conversations on Issues of Principal Preparation, 2(1), 3.

Beachboard

M. R.

Beachboard

J. C.

Wenling

Adkison

S. R.

(2011). Cohorts and relatedness: Self-determination theory as an explanation of how learning communities affect education outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 52, 853-874. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9221-8

Beaudoin

M. F.

Kurtz

Eden

(2009). Experiences and opinions of e-learners: What works, what are the challenges, and what competencies ensure successful online learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 5, 275-289. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/44836/

Benbunan-Fich

Hiltz

S. R.

(2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46, 298-312. doi:10.1109/TPC.2003.819639

Bernard

R. M.

Abrami

P. C.

Lou

Borokhovski

Wade

Wozney

. . . Huang

(2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379-439.

10.

Bocchi

Eastman

J. K.

Swift

C. O.

(2004). Retaining the online learner: Profile of students in an online MBA program and implications for teaching them. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 245-253. doi:10.3200/JOEB.79.4.245-253

11.

Borthick

A. F.

Jones

D. R.

(2000). The motivation for collaborative discovery learning online and its application in an information systems assurance course. Issues in Accounting Education, 15, 181-210. doi:10.2308/iace.2000.15.2.181

12.

Brown

R. E.

(2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18-35. Retrieved from http://spot.pcc.edu/~rsuarez/rbs/school/EPFA_511/articles/from%20Erica/community%20building.pdf

13.

Carey

Kleiman

Russell

Venable

J. D.

Louie

(2008). Online courses for math teachers: Comparing self-paced and facilitated cohort approaches. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 7(3). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1630

14.

Castañeda

(2011). Disruption and innovation: Online learning and degrees at accredited journalism schools and program. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 66, 361-373. doi:10.1177/107769581106600405

15.

Conrad

(2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning. The Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1-20. Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/78/59

16.

Crotty

J. M.

(2012, November 14). Distance learning has been around since 1892, you big MOOC. Forbes.com . Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2012/11/14/distance-learning-has-been-around-since-1892-you-big-mooc/

17.

Distance Education Report. (2001). Online J-schools spark interest at graduate level. Distance Education Report, 5(18), 1-2.

18.

Drouin

M. A.

(2008). The relationship between students’ perceived sense of community and satisfaction, achievement, and retention in an online course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9, 267-284.

19.

Engstrom

M. E.

Santo

S. A.

Yost

R. M.

(2008). Knowledge building in an online cohort. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9, 151-167.

20.

Fisher

Baird

D. E.

(2005). Online learning design that fosters student support, self-regulation, and retention. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22(2), 88-107. doi:10.1108/10650740510587100

21.

Gaspari

(2007). To cohort or not to cohort: An essential question to ask when considering an online MLS program. LIScareer.com . Retrieved from http://www.liscareer.com/gaspari_cohort.htm

22.

Gokcearslan

Alper

(2015). The effect of locus of control on learners’ sense of community and academic success in the context of online learning communities. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 64-73. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.003

23.

Grant

(1988). The world we created at Hamilton High. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

24.

Gunawardena

C. N.

Zittle

(1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970

25.

Haythornthwaite

Kazmer

M. M.

Robins

Shoemaker

(2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00114.x

26.

Hong

K. S.

(2002). Relationships between students’ and instructional variables with satisfaction and learning from a web-based course. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 267–281. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00105-7

27.

Jiang

Ting

(2000). A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a web-based course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 317-338. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/8482/

28.

McMillan

D. W.

Chavis

D. M.

(1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.

29.

Moore

(2014). Effects of online interaction and instructor presence on students’ satisfaction and success with online undergraduate public relations courses. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 69, 271-288. doi:10.1177/1077695814536398

30.

Moore

R. L.

(2014). Importance of developing community in distance education courses. TechTrends, 58(2), 20-24.

31.

Palloff

R. M.

Pratt

(2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Park

J.-H.

Choi

H. J.

(2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 207-217. Retrieved from http://ifets.info/journals/12_4/18.pdf

33.

Preece

(2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. New York, NY: John Wiley.

34.

Reinhart

(2010). Graduate students’ communication practices and perceived sense of community. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11, 223-238.

35.

Richardson

P. K.

MacRea

Schwartz

Bankston

Kosten

(2008). Student outcomes in a post-professional online master’s-degree program. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 600-610. doi:10.5014/ajot.62.5.600

36.

Rovai

A. P.

(2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33-48. doi:10.1007/BF02504946

37.

Rovai

A. P.

(2002a). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/153

38.

Rovai

A. P.

(2002b). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197-211. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00102-1

39.

Rovai

A. P.

Jordan

(2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/795

40.

Sherry

A. C.

Fulford

C. P.

Zhang

(1998). Assessing distance learners’ satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative and a qualitative measure. American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 4-28. doi:10.1080/08923649809527002

41.

Sumner

(2000). Serving the system: A critical history of distance education. Open Learning, 15, 267-285. doi:10.1080/713688409

42.

Sutherland

(2003). Diffusion of courses with World Wide Web features: Perceptions of journalism and mass communication program administrators. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 57, 384-395.

43.

Sutherland

Stewart

(2000). How accredited programs use the World Wide Web. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 54(3), 23-34.

44.

Tinto

(1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

45.

Tisdell

E. J.

Strohschen

G. I.

Carver

M. L.

Corrigan

Nash

Nelson

. . . O’Connor

(2004). Cohort learning online in graduate higher education: Constructing knowledge in cyber community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(1), 115-127. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/7_1/12.pdf

46.

Top

(2012). Blogging as a social medium in undergraduate courses: Sense of community best predictor of perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 24-28.

47.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Enrolment in distance education courses, by state: Fall 2012 (NECS Publication No. 2014-023). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014023.pdf