VOL. 25, No. 1
The first cohort in the Doctor of Education in Distance Education at Athabasca University began in August 2008. From the first two years of this program, there are experiences for reflection and stories to be told from this community of online learners. Storytelling offers a reflective tool for constructing meaning to inform practice and pedagogy, and provides a legacy for future online doctoral students in distance education.
La première cohorte au programme de doctorat en Éducation à distance à l’Université d’Athabasca a débutée en août 2008. Sont issues des deux premières années de ce programme, des expériences qui portent à réfléchir et des histoires à raconter au sujet de cette communauté d’élèves en ligne. La narration d’histoires peut ainsi être un outil de réflexion permettant l’élaboration de connaissances qui contribuent à la pratique et à la pédagogie et elle permet de laisser en héritage aux futurs étudiants au doctorat en ligne, des leçons à tirer sur l’éducation à distance.
Storytelling is a powerful learning tool that enables us to communicate our experiences and the experiences of others to transcend personal frameworks and take on wider perspectives (McDrury & Alterio, 2003). The stories that we share are often more about our perceptions, or about the intentions or possibilities of what we have experienced, than about universal truths (McKillop, 2005). Storytelling is fundamental to our everyday lives as we communicate, interact, and understand others within our world.
Storytelling is for another as much as for oneself. In the reciprocity that is storytelling, the teller offers herself as guide.... The other's receipt of that guidance not only recognizes but values the teller. The moral genius of storytelling is that each, teller and listener, enters the space of the story for the other (Frank, 1995, pp. 17-18).
Storytelling is a reflective tool for constructivism; applying knowledge from previous stories to new situations to construct deep meaning. A constructivist approach to education emphasizes the learners and how they construct a representation of reality through their interactions with the world (Bruner, 2006). Reflection provides the process for meaning making of storytelling that moves the learner “from one experience to the next with deeper understandings of its relationships with and connections to other experiences and ideas. It is the thread that makes continuity of learning possible, and ensures the progress of the individual and, ultimately, society” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 845). As McKillop (2005) posits, reflection is:
central to the experiential learning process (Kolb, 1984); it serves to impose order on our thoughts to help bring about a resolution to a problem (Dewey, 1991); it enables a person to distance themselves and enable the wider context to be looked at in closer detail or from a different view (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985); Schön’s (1983) concept of the critically reflective practitioner depends upon it; Moon (2002) draws together the literature on reflection and focuses on the common view that reflection has different stages ranging from simply noticing something (surface learning) to taking action about it (deep learning) (para. 6).
Storytelling as a reflective process may stimulate critical thinking skills, encourage self-review, and facilitate life-long learning (McDrury & Alterio, 2003). Accordingly, a community of online learners in the first cohort of the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Distance Education at Athabasca University has a story to be told to inform practice and pedagogy, and provide a legacy for future doctoral students in distance education. From the first two years of this program, stories have been gathered from cohort members and are interspersed throughout this paper to illustrate what the students have learned and how this experience has thus far affected their lives.
Athabasca University (AU) is Canada’s open and distance university. The university’s philosophy is based on the key principles of excellence, openness, flexibility, and innovation; it is committed to excellence in research, teaching, and scholarship. AU offers over 700 courses in more than 90 undergraduate and graduate programs in arts, science, and professional disciplines (Athabasca University, 2010a).
In August 2008, the professional doctoral degree in distance education commenced at AU. Professional doctoral programs are relatively new in most professional fields. However, professional degrees are currently available in disciplines such as education, health, law, psychology, management, creative arts, and science (Neumann, 2005). The intended audience for AU’s doctoral degree is practitioners and those with career experience in distance education.
A professional doctoral degree in distance education combines advanced knowledge with research connecting the profession, the university, and the workplace (Neumann, 2005). The transition to the professional workplace is aligned with AU’s tradition of expansion of opportunity and openness for students (Athabasca University, Centre for Distance Education, 2003). To the professional workplace, the university brings experience and the ability to link theory with practice by providing resources, motivation, support, and credentialing for knowledge generation, research, and teaching in this field of study. It promotes skill development that is valued in the professional community, while the research component of this doctoral degree will lead to the discovery of new knowledge, and the dissemination and implementation of such in the professional community (Athabasca University, Centre for Distance Education). Additionally, the professional doctoral program also benefits from greater integration within the professional community (Athabasca University, Centre for Distance Education).
AU’s doctoral degree in distance education is a non-residential online program that focuses exclusively on distance education. Unlike other doctoral programs that include a blending of distance with traditional face-to-face delivery, such as summer or weekend requirements, this program is fully online. The only time AU’s doctoral students in distance education are obligated to meet face-to-face is during the one-week orientation at the start of the program. The nature of AU’s online delivery facilitates access for students in non-urban areas, individuals with disabilities, students who are employed and wish to study while continuing to work, and other potential students for whom the pursuit of a doctoral degree through a traditional educational institution would be difficult or impossible (Athabasca University, Centre for Distance Education, 2010b).
Admission to this doctoral program is highly selective based “on the applicant’s previous academic record, research track record, ability to participate in scholarly studies and conduct research independently at a distance” (Athabasca University, Centre for Distance Education, 2010a). Completion of this program is within seven years; however normally most students will complete within four years (Athabasca University, Centre for Distance Education, 2003). The program components consist of six online courses (18 course credits), a candidacy examination, and completion of a dissertation and dissertation defence. All of the components are delivered at a distance either synchronously or asynchronously using tools such as the open source Moodle Learning Management System (LMS) or Elluminate® (Internet based video/audio conferencing tool). The six program courses are described below:
Currently, there are 13 students in the first cohort. Initially, 15 students were admitted into this doctoral program. However, prior to initiating the first course, one student declined and another student deferred commencement to a later cohort. The gender distribution of the 13 remaining students consists of eight women and five men. The cohort has a variety of Masters’ Degrees in Arts, Integrated Studies, Distance Education, Education, and Science. All of the students are Canadian citizens, residing in five provinces from British Columbia to Newfoundland. In addition to pursuing their doctoral studies, all of the students in this cohort are continuing to work in their professions. They are currently employed in:
AU’s doctoral program in distance education incorporates a cohort-based model for learning. This model refers to “a group of students who begin and complete a program of studies together, engaging in a common set of courses, activities, and/or learning experiences” (Barnett & Muse, 1993, p. 401). The structure of each individual cohort model may vary. According to Mayer (2004), a closed cohort structure has “one student entry point and lock-step coursework … [while open cohorts have] multiple student entry points and more student choice in coursework sequence” (p. 19). At AU, the students are admitted at one point at the beginning of the doctoral program and progress uniformly in a lock-step manner through the scheduled courses. As Saltiel and Russo (2001) posit the use of cohorts can create learning environments where synergies are present that promote exchange of ideas, critical feedback, and support for collaborative learning within a scholarly online learning community. Based on team work, peer interaction, and support, these authors suggest that the cohort model is about affecting change, including developing self-directed and collaborative “leaders who can change the organization” (p. 8). For AU’s professional doctorate degree in DE, this cohort model may serve to produce leaders within the students’ respective fields.
Cohort based learning for adult degree programs has been discussed in the literature for the past 20 years, however, as Tisdell et al. (2004) argue there has been limited consideration given to the actual cohort experience. Most often students are asked about their cohort experiences post-hoc, after being in a cohort, versus their perceptions while still participating in a cohort (Maher, 2005). The following section provides insights into AU’s first cohort perceptions following the second year of the four-year doctoral program. These stories reflect on the learner’s different perspectives that mutually formed and informed unique experiences, and individually and collectively constructed meaning as a cohort.
The reflective journey for storytelling for the cohort began with the first course, which included a five-day, face-to-face orientation. This orientation was the foundation for building a community of online learners. As Tisdale et al (2004) recommend, this face-to-face meeting set the focus on community building and co-learning for fostering our interaction and high levels of social presence. “Separated from work, family, and daily responsibilities, participants have the luxury of totally immersing themselves in the experience … it helps them form intimate bonds in short period of time. Living closely with others in this way, facades are dropped and authentic knowing is fostered” (Lawrence, 2002, p. 84). The orientation week included a blend of academic, administrative, and social activities which provided a number of different forums for engagement.
Following the orientation, the initial course included collaborative activities with various combinations of students working together and presenting in a variety of online formats synchronously and asynchronously. Time zones were meshed and relationships were strengthened through innovative instructional design strategies, enthusiastic faculty, and willing learners. Synergies were created as we constructed meaning, developed collegiality, became empowered, and gave and received support within the cohort as we studied at a distance.
In our first course in the program, we examined literature on cohorts and the cohort model and I came away with a somewhat clinical view of the process. The value of the cohort and the apparent benefits were viewed from a distance and having been part of a cohort in my Master’s degree I felt I knew all there was to know. How wrong I was and how narrow and unengaged my thinking was at the time. This cohort has become synonymous with moving a large and seemingly disparate process forward. Albeit we have common courses and assignments we also have our individual research projects and more personal academic foci and interests. At times the cohort acts like a personal pick-me-up, a boost when creative energies are not at their optimum. At other times the cohort envelops the whole group and there is great synchronicity and cohesion. The cohort acts like an amorphous entity that is ever changing based upon both individual and group needs.
After the first course, the cohort continued to strengthen a variety of relationships by organizing periodic synchronous meetings to plan academic activities, support individual professional endeavors, and to connect and socialize. Saltiel and Russo (2001) indicate a primary characteristic of the cohort model is a common goal that encourages learners to develop high levels of cohesiveness within a strong emotional and academic supportive atmosphere.
I have found that the cohort has come together to form strong bonds of support. Over the past two years, we have become critical friends—friends who can work together to support one another, friends who can say that a piece of work is not clear, and needs to be rewritten, friends who can say that a piece of work needs to be better referenced, and friends who can say that a piece of work is well done—what a great job.
We also have discovered each other’s strengths. Some have great research skills, and they are willing to share their discoveries. Almost every day, an e-mail will come in saying someone has found a great article on the topic we are discussing this week. Also, now knowing the research area of most of the students, members of the cohort will send out articles with the message, “I thought of you when I read this article; I hope it is helpful.” Some students are good with writing or with APA format. I personally have learned so much from other members of the cohort, about writing, formatting, researching, presenting, collaborating, and laughing while learning. While the courses have been intense, we have had many laughs—belly laughs that come from the soul, laughs that are shared among friends—friends for life.
To support cohesion and group performance, cohorts require time to develop group roles and norms (Maher, 2004). As the courses progressed, we assumed a variety of interdependent roles in the cohort that evolved. Role behavior within the cohort may be influenced by peer interactions and contextual factors such as group tasks, timelines, resources, and group norms (Scribner & Donaldson, 2001).
The cohort is not a cohesive group of individuals that are continuously in-synch with each other. At certain times some members of the cohort may be completely silent and apparently absent while others may be figuratively knocking on doors attempting to rally each other for a particular assignment or group event. As a whole, however, the group appears to understand this asymmetry and has come to value this uneven flow of energy. In most cases there is recognition that given the time together the cohort will produce a quality, even product and an even sharing of effort and support: this just may not occur all at once or in a synchronized fashion. There appears to be an unspoken understanding that, as with any self-regulating organization, roles will be established and in time roles may shift, yet despite this movement the needs and value of the cohort remains. This may not be true for all cohorts but in the first doctoral cohort at Athabasca University this appears to be the case.
Group norms may impose social control on interpersonal interactions and communication as well as influence the cohort’s decision making and problem solving (Scribner, & Donaldson, 2001). As our cohort shared experiences and developed a sense of trust, the group norms nurtured a comfort level with one another that mitigated the risk associated with throwing out half-baked, unformed ideas for didactic discourse. As suggested by Lawrence (2002) these ideas were “discussed, affirmed, built on, challenged, debated, and ultimately "baked" through collaborative effort. The community members have shared ownership in the knowledge created” (p. 85).
Most of our courses have had a group assignment. I think I’ve had the opportunity to work with every other member of the cohort on group assignments. In any group situation, there is probably one or two people who you would rather not work with, and many who you would be happy to work with. Having worked with everyone at least once, I can now say, that I would be happy to work with any of them again in the future. Through group assignments, I have gained knowledge and experiences through my teammates. I have worked with a variety of online synchronous and asynchronous collaborative tools to develop and create the product of our collective knowledge and expertise. As an instructional designer, I encourage online group work. I know that some faculty resist it, as it is perceived that not everyone contributes equal effort and it is tiresome dealing with issues of teams not getting along with each other, to say nothing of time zone and technology concerns. However, as doctoral students, I feel that the final product and our collective understanding were stronger as a result of a group effort.
Groups are complex, adaptive, and dynamic systems that differ from one to another within the group’s embedding context (McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000). Although groups have features in common such as roles and norms the “nature of the group, its task, and other contextual factors (e.g., support, training, time to complete task) also influence group performance and effectiveness” (Scribner & Donaldson, 2001, p. 610).
Tisdale et al. (2004) stress that support is an important contextual factor for the ongoing construction of knowledge within cohort learning. Anderson (2010) asserts that student-student interaction in distance education paced and cohort-supported models can lead to the development of social support networks. In addition, Anderson, Annand, and Wark (2005) suggest that cohort members can provide “non-threatening, empathetic forms of support and instruction that often speak more directly to the learners than that provided by teachers coming from much different social and cognitive perspectives” (¶ 11). Within a community of inquiry, social presence provides safety and comfort for learners to authentically express their ideas and differences, and to receive and accept peer support in a collaborative context (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Pedagogy that promotes peer support networks empowers cohort members to “collaboratively create knowledge and self-determine personal growth in a [learning] community of trust” (Tisdale et al., p. 125).
In a safe and secure environment of our cohort I have been able to say, “help, I am lost”, or “I just don’t understand”, or even express dismay or admiration for the way the course or the program is progressing. In doing so, my thoughts and feelings are validated, and supported, and affirmed. This environment has allowed me to complain or object in such a way as to be heard and assisted in working through whatever it was that caused my concern in the first place. My peers have allowed me to work around or move aside mental barriers and continue my academic journey within a supportive structure. I do not feel judged by my peers and being that most of us are at a similar educational and academic level there is a common appreciation of the issues and concerns we encounter on a daily basis.
For the cohort, teaching presence provides instructional management, builds understanding, and directs instruction that balances the cognitive and social issues consistent with the intended educational outcomes (Garrison et al., 2000). In addition to designing and organizing the learning experience, this presence encourages didactic discourse between the teacher and students, within the cohort, and also with the content that creates “an effective group consciousness for the purpose of sharing meaning, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement, and generally seeking to reach consensus and understanding (Garrison et al., p. 101).
The comprehensive examination process, which is a major step within my doctoral program at Athabasca University, involved a two-hour online exam of my research proposal. In my case four faculty members including my supervisor examined me. One of the very first questions I was asked was why I chose to pursue a doctoral program and why Athabasca. I responded to this question with a multipart answer and indicated that I was looking for a program that I could complete at a distance while I continued to work, but more specifically I wanted the discipline that a doctoral program could impose on my studies. In this context, discipline meant structure and support to assist me in my pursuit of this degree. In retrospect, I am not sure what I really understood these words to mean other than having academic support for my writing, having some form of a peer community to vet my ideas, and be in an environment where I was pushed to develop a personal discipline around these ideas. The academic support came almost immediately. I was gently pushed to critically read and write and to clearly articulate my understanding of selected materials. I was encouraged to share my understandings with my peers in online discussion forums and to find ways to engage my peers in the learning process. This may all sound “normal” for those who participate in online learning, however it was the degree to which the cohort engaged and supported each other that encouraged me to move forward with confidence.
Fahy (2003) indicates that support in the online environment includes all interventions and facilities that aid distance learners in coping with difficulties related to isolation, technology, and communication. Although family and significant others are not within the domain of instructional systems (Gorsky & Caspi, 2010), they are resources for learner support (Potter, 1998). Gibson (2003) states that support for online learners from family members, friends, employers, and others has emerged as a key variable in persistence studies and academic outcome studies.
Last year, three of us were together in Orlando, Florida presenting at either at the Sloan or mLearn 2009 conferences. It was a time to get reacquainted and for two of our husbands to be introduced. Over lunch, we, the students became engaged in discourse on mobile learning. Left out of the discussion, our husbands proceeded to initiate their own conversation. They spoke about reading our papers when we asked for their thoughts (even though they didn’t know the topics). They laughed about how tired they were when they had to stay up until the "wee" hours of the night when we wanted their feedback. They joked about starting a “support group for husbands and family members” of doctoral students. They talked about our accomplishments, struggles, and how they had to support us through “good and bad” and how difficult and enlightening it was for them. Their insights suggest it is not only the cohort that shares a common path or group of experiences but also our families or significant others who are supporting us.
As full-time distance education doctoral students who are also working professionals, we must cope with a wide range of life commitments such as family, jobs, and social obligations. Often this requires sacrificing personal pleasure, curtailing one’s social life, and negotiating arrangements (Kember & Leung, 2004). It is a challenge that we struggle with on a daily basis.
Like most of us I juggle multiple roles: I am a mother, wife and grandmother, working professional, doctoral student and a person once involved in multiple leisure activities. Indeed this doctoral experience has added a new dimension to my life and unquestionably reshaped my day-to-day routine. With very little warning my already busy life was abruptly overturned pressing me to relentlessly reorganize, restrategize, prioritize, then prioritize even more, and eventually often forgo anything that was external to my studies or work. Social events were quickly replaced with lonely nights in front of the computer, family trips were replaced with conference expeditions, and family events were replaced with trips to the library and guilt-laden apologetic emails. I was constantly replacing familiar with unknown and stability with change. I still charged forward guided by my personal vision and pushed by the apparent success of acquiring new knowledge at an exponential speed. Whenever I allowed myself a pause to reflect on my chaotic and often feverish life style, I would conclude that this transition period is what I need to be able to eventually make my choices and take my passion (for learning) [in] the right direction. I also learned to contend with physical tiredness, short-lived frustrations or the stress of fleeing deadlines. It is the tenacity, persistence, passion, inquisitiveness, and patience that one needs to pursue this level of academic study.
Negotiation includes the ability to accommodate different goals to achieve a balance between potentially competing demands and multiple responsibilities (Kember & Leung, 2004). Like a swinging fulcrum, we strive for equilibrium in meeting our commitments while pursuing our studies. In this inequity, it is our cohort that espouses stability that cultivates “a sense of belonging, creates an environment in which mutual respect flourishes, supports risk taking, provides a place for critical reflection and the development of shared understanding, and encourages and sustains multiple perspectives” (McPhail, Robinson, & Scott, 2008, p. 368).
Balance is extremely important in pursuing a cohort-based doctorate. I owe much to my cohort, but I also owe a great deal to my bicycle and my bagpipes! You need to balance a quality education with a busy lifestyle as the cohort weaves itself into your life. Bicycles and bagpipes militate against the most outrageous exigencies of the books. The bicycle is a DE technology and a more perfect technology than the computer! (The bicycle is a time machine, but that’s another story.)
Fast forward to September 2010; the required course work is done and all the doctoral students have successfully completed their individual distance education practicum ranging from individual project work to facilitating the delivery of online learning in AU’s undergraduate courses. Four of the thirteen students have successfully completed the candidacy examination while the remainder is currently working toward this outcome.
The abovementioned stories from the past two years are the lived experiences of AU’s first cohort in the doctoral program in distance education. Telling these stories provides an opportunity to understand our cohort and a reflective tool to share and learn from our experiences (McKillop, 2005). As Egan (1988) argues, our stories are not some causal entertainment but rather they reflect how we make sense of our world and experiences as doctoral distance learners. “Accordingly, as the first cohort in the new program, we bring what we study to life” (Author, 2009).
The author gratefully acknowledges the students in the first cohort of the Doctor of Education in Distance Education at Athabasca University for generously contributing their thoughts and ideas in the stories that they shared.
Anderson, T. (2010). Interactions affording distance science education. In D. Keenpohl & S. Lawson (Eds.), Accessible elements: Teaching science online and at a distance (pp. 1-18). Athabasca University Press.
Anderson, T., Annand, D., & Wark, N. (2005). The search for learning community in learner-paced distance education programming or ‘Having your cake and eating it, too!’. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 222-241.
Athabasca University. (2010a). Athabasca University at a glance. Retrieved July 10, 2010 from:
http://www2.athabascau.ca/aboutau/glance.php
Athabasca University. (2010b). Doctor of Education (EdD) in Distance Education Program Regulations. Retrieved July 10, 2010 from: http://www.athabascau.ca/calendar/grad/distance_06_01.html
Athabasca University, Centre for Distance Education. (2003). Step 1 proposal 2003, 1-13. Athabasca University, Centre for Distance Education. (2010a). How to apply. Retrieved on January 16, 2009: http://cde.athabascau.ca/programs/doctoral/apply.php
Athabasca University, Centre for Distance Education. (2010b). General information about the EdD. Retrieved on January 7, 2009, from: http://cde.athabascau.ca/programs/doctoral/intro.php
Author. (2009).
Barnett, B. G., & Muse, I. D. (1993). Cohort groups in educational administration: Promises and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 3(4) 400-415.
Bruner, J. (2006). Acts of meaning. Cambridge MA: Harvard University PressEgan, K. (1988). Teaching as storytelling: An alternative approach to teaching and the curriculum. London: Routledge.
Fahy, P. (2003). Indicators of support in online interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1), 1-16.
Frank, A. W. (1995). The wounded storyteller. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Gibson, C. C. (2003). Learning and learning: The need for theory. In M. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 147-160). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2010). Learning science at a distance: Instructional dialogues and resources. In D. Keenpohl & S. Lawton (Eds.), Accessible elements: Teaching science online and at a distance (pp. 19-36). Athabasca University Press.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Relationship between the employment of coping mechanisms and a sense of belonging for part-time students. Educational Psychology, 24(3), 345-357. doi:10.1080/0144341042000211689
Lawrence, R. L. (2002). A small circle of friends: Cohort groups as learning communities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 95, 83-92.
Maher, M. (2004). What really happens in cohorts. About Campus, 9(3), 18-23.
Maher, M. (2005). The evolving meaning and influence of cohort membership. Innovative Higher Education, 30(3), 195-211. doi:10.1007/s10755-005-6304-5
McDrury, J., & Alterio, M. (2003). Learning through storytelling in higher education: Using reflection and experience to improve learning. Routledge.
McGrath, J.E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 95-105. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_8
McKillop, C. (2005). Storytelling grows up: Using storytelling as a reflective tool in higher education. Paper presented at the Scottish Educational Research Association conference (SERA 2005), 24-26 November, 2005, Perth, Scotland.
McPhail, C. J., Robinson, M., & Scott, H. (2008). The cohort leadership development model: Student perspectives. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(4), 362. doi:10.1080/10668920701884539
Neumann, R. (2005, July). Doctoral differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs compared. Journal of Higher Education and Policy Management, 27(2):173-188.
Potter, J. (1998). Beyond access: Student perspective on support service needs in distance education. The Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 24(1), 59-82.
Saltiel, I. M., & Russo, C. S. (2001). Cohort programming and learning. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Co.
Scribner, J. P., & Donaldson, J. F. (2001). The dynamics of group learning in a cohort: From nonlearning to transformative learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 605-636.
Tisdell, E. J., Strohschen, G. I. E., Carver, M. L., Corrigan, P., Nash, J., Nelson, M., Royer, M., Strom-Mackey, R., & O’Connor, M. (2004). Cohort learning online in graduate higher education: Constructing knowledge in cyber community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(1), 115-127.
Dorothy (Willy) Fahlman is a doctoral student in the first cohort of the Doctor of Education in Distance Education program at Athabasca University, Canada. In addition, Willy is a tutor with Athabasca University and also a health care educator with Alberta Health Services. E-mail: willyf@athabascau.ca