See attachments for instructions and sample
EDUC
Literature Review Instructions
For this assignment, you will create a narrative review of the literature on your research topic:
Flexible learning for disabled students.
The literature review must follow the basic structure of the project template for the Related Literature section and be at least 10 pages, excluding the title and reference pages. Your literature review must include all relevant citations from your Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review Outline, follow current APA format, and consist of at least 15 empirical, scholarly sources that have been published within the last 5 years.
Specific Guidelines
· The body of the literature review must be at least 10 pages and will include the following required current APA formatted level-1 and level-2 headings:
· Related Literature (level-1 heading). Provide a brief narrative overview of the major content of the literature.
· Narrative Review (level-2 heading). Provide a tight synthesis of the existing knowledge on this topic and link this existing knowledge to your proposed study.
· Theoretical Review (level-2 heading). Provide a direct connection to the conceptual or theoretical framework related to the topic area.
· Summary (level-1 heading). Provide a brief narrative summary at the end of the body of the paper.
· The literature review is not merely a series of summaries of individual studies; rather, it is a coherent and cohesive synthesis of all your sources. Paragraphs citing only one source are a prime example of summary instead of synthesis.
· End the paper with a reference page of all sources identified in the literature review.
· The final product must comply with current APA format requirements and must be submitted in a Word document. The paper must be 3,500 words, not including the title and reference pages.
15
Military Veterans and Their Persistence in Limited Residence Doctoral Programs:
A Transcendental Phenomenological Study
by
Student Name
Liberty University
Overview
This literature review provides a theoretical understanding of persistence as well as related literature on military veterans persisting in LRDPs. This body of knowledge, while helpful to researchers studying persistence, highlights the literature gap that exists concerning military veterans persisting in LRDPs. The theory framing this inquiry is Ryan and Deci’s (2017) marco-theory which leans on three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Ryan and Deci (2017) argued emphatically that “one of psychology’s most critical questions concerns the internal or external conditions necessary to support human flourishing” (p. 80). This review of the literature demonstrates how autonomy, competence, and relatedness are factors of self-determination (i.e., persistence), and how these factors may influence military veterans to persist in LRDPs.
Theoretical Framework
The role of having a theoretical framework for qualitative inquiry is significant as it influences the research process. A theoretical framework provides an “explanation of a certain set of observed phenomena in terms of a system of constructs and laws that relate these constructs to each other” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007, p. 32). This literature review will examine how the phenomenon, persistence, relates to SDT constructs. Constructs, constitutively defined, are “descriptive labels that refer to phenomena of interest” (Gall et al., 2007, p. 36). The constructs (i.e., descriptive labels) this study will use to refer to persistence will connect with the three tenets of SDT–autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness constructs may reveal commonalities in persistence, enabling researchers of persistence to predict and control this phenomenon.
Reviews of persistence literature indicate research studies conducted on persistence are prevalent and are increasing (O’Neill & Thomson, 2013). Many seminal researchers have provided theoretical frameworks on persistence for today’s researchers to test and extend. For example, Astin’s (1975) Theory of Involvement provided researchers a framework for studying persistence by emphasizing the importance of student involvement (i.e., input, environment, and outcome) in college. Tinto (1985) leaned on Astin’s groundbreaking research and is most cited by researchers conducting persistence studies (Guiffrida et al., 2013). Tinto’s (1985) Theory of Student Integration suggested the degree of academic integration and social integration predicted student persistence. Tinto (1985) explained that academic integration included grade performance, academic self-esteem, valuing academics; and social integration included social interactions with peers and faculty.
Many researchers lean on Tinto’s (1985) Theory of Student Integration to understand student persistence; yet his theory has received critical reviews over the years (Davidson, Cody, & Wilson, 2013) as it does not make the distinction between student integration and motivation (Guiffrida et al., 2013). Researchers suggest Tinto’s (1985) theory “places a strong emphasis on student commitment but fails to describe the motivational orientations that lead to academic commitment” (Guiffrida et al., 2013, p. 136). Guiffrida et al. (2013) argued that research needs to “recognize the impact of student motivational orientation on student persistence decisions” (p. 136); however, “many theoretical advancements related to persistence were built upon Tinto’s initial premises” (Wolniak, Mayhew, & Engberg, 2012, p. 796).
While Tinto’s (1985) Theory of Student Integration is seminal for the study of academic persistence, Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory (SDT) is a broad theoretical framework of human motivation that includes student integration and academic persistence. SDT is founded on three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and researchers have tested SDT in multiple domains, especially the education domain. SDT has extended researchers’ understanding of students’ intrinsic motivation to persist in higher education. An extensive body of research indicates intrinsically motivated students are more likely to persist successfully in higher education than students who are extrinsically motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Likewise, a breadth of research suggests teachers “who support students’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness through their behaviors are more likely to increase their intrinsic motivation to learn” (Goldman, Goodboy, & Weber, 2017, p. 175).
Since the 1970s, a plethora of research has been conducted on motivation and its influences on behavior and learning (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Researchers, teachers, coaches, and organizational leaders have longed to understand how to motivate individuals to follow through with life and work tasks. Deci (1971) conducted social-psychological experiments to examine how rewards, feedback, or opportunity choices affected intrinsic motivation. These experiments lead to the development of SDT. In the 1980s, SDT was recognized and accepted as an empirical theory that can be applied to a variety of domains including education, organizations, sports, goals, and relationships.
SDT defines intrinsic and extrinsic motivational sources, and explains the roles these motivational sources play in cognitive and social development. In addition, SDT provides an understanding of how social and cultural dynamics influence individuals’ decisions and goals as they pertain to their well-being, performance, and persistence (Ryan & Deci, 2008). SDT is a fitting theoretical framework when considering how and why motivational sources and social and cultural dynamics relate to military verterans’ experiences in shaping their decisions and goals. For example, Williams and LeMire (2011) surveyed 116 commanders considering pursuing a doctorate in traditional doctoral programs. Williams and LeMire (2011) described this population as “highly qualified; many having multiple master’s degrees and at least 5 years of leadership experience” (p. 141). The survey findings revealed time was the biggest deterrent (Williams & LeMire, 2011). At the heart of SDT is an individual’s behavior based on intrinsic motives and extrinsic forces (i.e., self-motivation and self-determination) that satisfy or thwart three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Related Literature
Ryan and Deci (2008), through their decades of extensive research on motivation and developing SDT, confirmed that “autonomous motivation and controlled motivation lead to very different outcomes, with autonomous motivation tending to yield greater psychological health and more effective performance” (p. 183). In addition, Ryan and Deci (2008) argued autonomous motivation leads to “greater long-term persistence toward healthier behaviors” (p. 185). Many researchers have examined SDT with a critical eye to test Ryan and Deci’s stance on motivation and how it applies to students persisting in higher education as well as online education (Kuan-Chung & Syh-Jong, 2010). Research studies provide consistent evidence that intrinsic motivation—a subset of autonomous motivation—has the strongest positive association with students persisting in higher education (Goldman et al., 2017; Guiffrida et al., 2013; Walsh & Kurpius, 2015). This evidence supports SDT. Although there is no research on military veterans persisting in LRDPs, an abundance of research studies suggest autonomous motivation is a factor when examining military veterans persisting in higher education (Gregg, Howell, & Shordike, 2016; Wilson et al., 2013). An examination of literature on persistence in higher education, persistence in doctoral programs, and persistence in LRDPs is needed for laying a foundational understanding of military veterans and persistence.
Persistence in Higher Education
An analysis of multiple research studies indicates that autonomous motivation, specifically intrinsic motivation, consistently and positively influences students’ persistence in higher education (Goldman et al., 2017). Likewise, amotivation consistently and negatively influences persistence in higher education. For example, Goldman et al. (2017) argued that “students’ attitudes, communication behaviors, and success are best understood as products of their own intrinsic motivation to learn” (p. 168). Goldman et al. (2017) created and tested instruments—the Student Psychological Needs Scale (SPNS) and the Intrinsic Motivation to Learn Scale (IMLS)—to assess 1,067 students’ psychological needs and intrinsic motivation to persist in higher education. The items in the scale contained the following four factors: autonomy, competence, relatedness with classmates, and relatedness with instructors. In addition to these new scales, the researchers used the Intrinsic Goal Orientation Subscale, the Student Motivation Scale, the Affective Learning Scale, and the Revised Cognitive Learning Indicators Scale. Using confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) and parallel mediation models to analyze data, the researchers determined that “personalized education can fulfill students’ psychological needs to encourage their intrinsic motivation to learn” (Goldman et al., 2017, p. 185). The researchers suggested instructors encourage students’ intrinsic motivation by “making themselves available to students outside of class, integrating students’ interest into their course design, and communicating with students in a way that is appropriate and effective,” (Goldman et al., 2017, p. 188).
Like Goldman et al. (2017), Guiffrida et al. (2013) also focused on students’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness. They surveyed 2,520 college students using the following scales: Competence Motivation Scale derived from the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS); The Need for Relatedness at College Questionnaire (NRC-Q); and the AMS. These scales, as well as demographics and grade point average (GPA) analyses, were used to examine “the relationship between intrinsic motivation for attending college as defined by SDT and academic success, while considering the possible moderating effects of student and institutional characteristics that prior research has shown to be related to college academic achievement and retention” (Guiffrida et al., 2013, p. 122). Findings indicated autonomy and competence positively influenced students’ persistence in higher education while psychological relatedness “had a more nuanced relationship to the outcome variables” (Guiffrida et al., 2013, p. 136). For example, fulfilling relatedness needs with peers as a motivation to persist in college negatively influenced GPA while fulfilling relatedness needs with faculty and staff as a motivation positively influenced GPA (Guiffrida et al., 2013). In addition, the researchers identified significant institutional and student characteristics related to persistence in higher education. Guiffrida et al. (2013) determined the type of institutions students attend has the strongest correlation to persistence (i.e., students are more likely to persist and graduate from a 4-college than a 2-year college). Like the study Goldman et al. (2017) conducted, this study contributes to SDT in that “students who attended college motivated by intrinsic needs for autonomy and competence were more likely to have higher GPAs and greater intentions to persist than students who were not motivated to attend college to fulfill these intrinsic needs” (Guiffrida et al., 2013, p. 139).
Doctoral persistence. Doctoral persistence is a phenomenon that has been thoroughly researched (Lovitts, 2008; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Willis & Carmichael, 2011). This phenomenon is of great interest to researchers and educators as, historically, 40 to 60% of doctoral candidates do not complete the dissertation phase (Rockinson-Szapkiw & Spaulding, 2014). In an effort to understand doctoral students’ struggles and how they overcame them, Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) explored factors that influenced a purposeful sample of doctoral students (N = 76) in education who successfully attained their doctoral degrees. The participants attributed their persistence to social integration, academic integration with an academic match, and the feeling of overcoming adversity (Rockinson-Szapkiw & Spaulding, 2014).
Analyses of doctoral students who showed persistence like the study Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) conducted are essential for doctoral candidates, educators of LRPDs, and researchers to understand how and why certain students persist. Also essential are analyses of students who did not persist. Willis and Carmichael (2011) conducted a grounded theory research study on doctoral non-completers (N = 6) from counselor education programs. All participants for this study withdrew during the dissertation phase. When participants were asked to describe their experiences of doctoral attrition, two distinct experiences emerged: a negative experience and a positive experience. Five participants described their doctoral attrition experiences as negative. One participant described her doctoral attrition experience as positive. The first analysis phase of the interviews’ open coding revealed the following codes: depression and futility (Willis & Carmichael, 2011). The second analysis phase clustered codes into one—personal emotions and family emotions. The third analysis phase refined clustered codes into the following themes: emotional consequences of dropping out. Two distinct experiences emerged from these findings: a negative experience termed Dropping Out and a positive experience termed Leaving (Willis & Carmichael, 2011). Participants who had negative experiences identified the following barriers as reasons: problematic chair relationship and focusing on their career as “a place of refuge from doctoral study” (Willis & Carmichael, 2011, p. 206). These participants admitted to still valuing a doctoral degree and living for years with regret of not persisting; however, they believed their experiences prevented them from reaching their goals (Willis & Carmichael, 2011). One participant reported a positive experience leaving the doctoral program. This unexpected finding suggested not all attrition is a negative experience, but is contingent upon how an individual experiences it. The participant admitted to pursuing a doctoral degree to “prove to her father that she was capable of doing it” (Willis & Carmichael, 2011, p. 206). This participant reassessed her motivations for pursuing her doctoral degree and decided it was no longer important to her. She described Leaving as “relief and peace” (Willis & Carmichael, 2011, p. 206).
These studies show individuals pursue doctoral degrees for a variety of reasons; also, individuals leave doctoral programs for a variety of reasons. Studies suggest these reasons and motivations. Studies conducted on doctoral persistence report attrition rates of 40 to 50% during doctoral coursework and an additional 10 to 20 % during the dissertation phase; and these studies show this is a decades-old trend seen across the United States (Lovitts, 2008; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). While these studies do not lean on Ryan and Deci’s (2017) SDT, this theory certainly has relevance for studies conducted on doctoral persistence. Spaulding and Rocksinson-Szapkiw (2012) provided recommendations from their study that may apply the three tenets of SDT—autonomy, competence, and relatedness. For example, Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) recommended students identify motivations for pursuing a doctoral degree; select programs compatible with their goals; consider relational dynamics when selecting dissertation committee members; and build organizational systems and financial supports to encourage structure for attaining goals. Willis and Carmichael’s (2011) unique finding that attrition can be either a positive or negative experience can be applied to Ryan and Deci’s (2017) descriptions of autonomous and controlled motivations. For example, five of the six participants for Willis and Carmichael’s (2011) study experienced controlled motivation in an environment void of autonomy, whereas one participant experienced autonomous motivation by choosing to follow her personal values rather than her father’s values.
Persistence in limited residence doctoral programs (LRDPs). LRDPs add another layer to the phenomenon, doctoral persistence. Due to attritions rates of 10 to 20% higher than that of traditional programs, LRDPs have been thoroughly researched as well (Kumar & Coe, 2017; Rockinson-Szapkiw, Spaulding, & Spaulding, 2016). Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., (2016) argued that “while doctoral attrition can occur at any stage, the largest degree of attrition in online and residential programs is documented during candidacy” (p. 101). Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., (2016) investigated institutional factors and integration factors to build an LRDP persistence model. A synthesis of analyses on archival data (N = 148) suggested this model predicted whether online doctoral students persisted including the following influencers of online doctoral persistence: “support services; quality of the program, curriculum, and instruction; academic integration; social integration with faculty; and familial integration” (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016, p. 110).
SDT is a meta-theory for studying the role motivation plays in developing self-determination (i.e., persistence). These studies examining persistence in LRDPs identify constructs that may fall under this meta-theory. For example, influencers of online doctoral persistence Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., (2016) identified (i.e., institutional and integration factors) may fall under SDT’s propositions of “how social and cultural factors facilitate or undermine people’s sense of volition and initiative” (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 22). Likewise, Barry’s focus of social integration as an influence of online doctoral persistence may lean toward one of SDT’s tenets—relatedness. Relatedness, as defined under SDT, applies to the development of personal relationships and belonging to a group (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Thus, SDT provides a framework for understanding persistence in LRDPs.
Military Veterans and Persistence
Research studies on persistence in higher education, doctoral persistence, and persistence in LRDPs like those discussed previously do not emphasize the military veteran student; however, these findings should be considered when examining this population. While no research exists on military veterans persisting in LRDPs, researchers have investigated military veteran students in higher education (Gregg et al., 2016; Mentzer, Black, & Spohn, 2015). These inquiries, combined with studies discussed previously, are worth noting to gain insight into this student body and ways to encourage their doctoral persistence in LRDPs. For example, research studies conducted on military veterans persisting in higher education indicate veterans struggle with integration such as connecting with the school as well as with other students (Gregg et al., 2016). Gregg et al. (2016) argued “veterans feel underprepared for academia” (p. 6). These researchers conducted a descriptive phenomenological study and interviewed 12 veteran students persisting in postsecondary education. The purpose of their study was to give a voice to the lived experiences of military veterans transitioning to from active military service to postsecondary education. The following themes emerged from the analysis: repurposing military experiences for life as a student veteran; reconstructing civilian identity; and navigating postsecondary context and interactions. The researchers were surprised and encouraged to learn that while literature suggests military veterans isolate themselves from their student peers, this study’s participants reported positive experiences that “became more manageable with participation in social networks and group activities involving follow student veterans” (p. 7). In addition, participants explained they felt more connected to their university when they surrounded themselves with others who identified with their life circumstances.
Mentzer et al. (2015) investigated persistence for the military student population, and their findings do not align completely with those of the persistence studies discussed previously. The researchers measured “financial, social, and academic supports provided to the military student population to determine the correlation of these elements to student persistence” (Mentzer et al., 2015, p. 35). While this study did not focus on military veterans’ doctoral persistence in LRDPs, findings are worth considering for understanding military veterans persisting in LRDPs. For example, this correlational study included 294 students, 30 of which were military veterans; 80% of participants were working on their master’s; the remaining 20% of participants were working on a specialist or doctoral degree. All participants were attending a nonprofit university that emphasized online education (Mentzer et al., 2015). Their results suggested academic support correlates significantly with military veterans’ persistence in higher education, and social support was not as significant (r = .13, p = .25). Additionally, financial support was not significant (r = .09, p = .44). Their results did note “persistence for the military, nonmilitary, and the overall populations was strongly affected by institutional identity” (Mentzer et al., 2015, p. 40). This argument does suggest, however, the need for integration.
The empirical findings on military veterans persisting in LRDPs vary, yet all relate to the importance autonomy, competence, and relatedness play in human development, optimal functioning, and well-being. These studies suggest social networks (Gregg et al., 2016) and academic support (Mentzer et al., 2015) influence military veterans’ persistence in LRDPs. By focusing on SDT as a framework for these findings, researchers can begin to understand why military veteran students do what they do, as well as behavioral tendencies toward their motivation to persist.
Summary
Current research studies suggest 40 to 60% of doctoral candidates do not complete the dissertation phase (Rockinson-Szapkiw & Spaulding, 2014). Compounding these statistics are the attrition rates at 10 to 20% higher for students who participate in LRDPs (Rockinson-Szapkiw & Spaulding, 2014; Terrell et al., 2012). Additionally, attrition rates of 10 to 20% higher for military veterans (Terrell et al., 2012) show a significant persistence gap between these students and traditional students. These statistics do not tell researchers or educators how or why military veterans persist in LRDPs, as there is no research conducted on this population in these programs; and these statistics are not representative of the essence of military veterans (i.e., extraordinary persistence and self-determination). The goal of this transcendental phenomenological study is to fill this research gap, and provide researchers and educators of LRDPs an understanding of this population as a way of closing the persistence gap.
References
Deci, E. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115.
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction, 8th edition. Pearson.
Goldman, Z., Goodboy, A., & Weber, K. (2017). College students’ psychological needs and intrinsic motivation to learn: An examination of self-determination theory. Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 167-191.
Gregg, B., Howell, D., & Shordike, A. (2016). Experiences of veterans transitioning to postsecondary education. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70(6), 1-8.
Guiffrida, D., Lynch, M., Lynch, M., & Wall, A. (2013). Do reasons for attending college affect academic outcomes? A test of a motivational model from a self-determination theory perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 54(2), 121-139.
Kuan-Chung, C. & Syh-Jong, J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741-752.
Lovitts, B. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 1-19.
Mentzer, B., Black, E., & Spohn, T. (2015). An analysis of supports for persistence for the military student population. Online Learning, 19(1), 31-47.
O’Neill, S. & Thomson, M. (2013). Supporting academic persistence in low-skilled adult learners. Support for Learning, 28(4), 162-172.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. & Spaulding, L. (2014). Navigating the doctoral journey: A handbook of strategies for success. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Spaulding, L., & Spaulding, M. (2016). Identifying significant integration and institutional factors that predict online doctoral persistence. The Internet and Higher Education, 31(October), 101-112.
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Spaulding L. & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2012). Hearing their voices: Factors doctoral candidates attribute to their persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 201-219.
Terrell, S., Snyder, M., Dringus, L., & Maddrey, E. (2012). A grounded theory of connectivity and persistence in a limited residence doctoral program. The Qualitative Report, 17(62), 1-14.
Walsh, K. & Kurpius, S. (2015). Parental, residential, and self-belief factors influencing academic persistence decisions of college freshman. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18(1), 49-67.
Williams, T. & LeMire, S. (2011). Air force commanders and barriers to entry into a doctoral business program. Journal of Education for Business, 86(3), 140-147.
Willis, B. & Carmichael, K. (2011). The lived experience of late-stage doctoral student attrition in counselor education. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 192-207.
Wilson, K., Smith, N., Lee, A., & Stevenson, M. (2013). When the army post is the campus: Understanding the social and academic integration of soldiers attending college. Journal of College Student, 54(6), 628-642.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
