1. Professional Identities in Online Learning Rebecca A. Croxton, MLIS January 30, 2015

2. Acknowledgement This research has been supported, in part, by funding provided by the Institute of Museum & Library Services in support of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro’s Academic & Cultural Enrichment Program: New Americans Educated for Community College Librarianship. Grant #: RE-01-13-0013-13.

3. Advanced Organizer Background & RQs Methods Results & Conclusions

4. Welcome to Online Learning

5. Professional Identities

6. Background There is a mismatch ❏ Increase in online education ❏ 62.4% of institutions offered fully online programs in 2012. 1 ❏ Skepticism about the quality of online degree programs ❏ 26% Academic Administrators - Online inferior to face-to-face. 1 ❏ 29% Public Citizens - Online is equal value to face-to-face. 2 ❏ 56% Employers - Prefer face-to-face degrees over online. 3 ❏ Student learning outcomes in online courses can meet or exceed face-to-face. 4 ❏ Little attention has been given to how graduate online learners develop professional identities.

7. Purpose of Study ❏ Fill a gap in the literature -- Explore how factors relating to fully online graduate students’ connectedness with peers and faculty may impact their professional identity development Online LearnersProfessionals

8. Theoretical Framework Social Identity Theory: Describes those aspects of a person’s self-concept based upon their group memberships together with their emotional, evaluative and other psychological correlates. 5,6 Community of Practice Approach: Learning should occur in a social collective in which people engage in changing “communities of practice” for substantial periods of time in which their activities are interdependent. 7 Engagement in communities of practice not only builds knowledge acquisition, but is key to identity development.

9. Context Mid-sized university in the southeastern United States. MLIS Program 252 students 181 fully online MLIS students 71 main campus based students 11 ACE Scholars (IMLS funded grant initiative) Completed MLIS degree program as cohort

10. Research Questions RQ1: To what degree do students enrolled in a fully online graduate degree program feel a sense of connectedness to peers and faculty? RQ2: To what degree do online graduate students feel they have developed a professional identity in their chosen field? RQ3: Are peer connectedness and faculty connectedness significant predictors of professional identity? RQ4: What are the satisfaction levels of online learners in a fully online program? Perceptions of students who are members of a designated cohort will be compared to non-cohort students across all measures

11. Methods Sequential, Explanatory Mixed Design Quantitative Strand Online survey Fully online MLIS students Inclusive, captive sample of convenience 62 Responses (34.25% response rate) Qualitative Strand 13 semi-structured, open-ended interviews Purposefully selected sample from survey pool

12. Results Overall…. Fully Online Learners Feel Connected to Peers & Faculty Fully Online Learners Self-Identify as Professionals Fully Online MLIS Students are Satisfied

13. RQ1: To what degree do students enrolled in a fully online graduate degree program feel a sense of connectedness to peers and faculty? Online learners felt connected Moderate degree of connectedness to faculty (Mean=5.41) Average degree of connectedness to peers (Mean=3.85) Cohort students felt more connected than non-cohort students* Cohort - faculty connectedness (Mean=6.28) Non-cohort - faculty connectedness (Mean=5.32) Cohort - peer connectedness (Mean=4.71) Non-cohort - peer connectedness (Mean=3.76) * Not statistically significant

14. RQ1: To what degree do students enrolled in a fully online graduate degree program feel a sense of connectedness to peers and faculty? Cohort membership facilitates peer connectivity Cohort members say… “…the [cohort] program has really helped me a lot because of the support and the friendship I have with my peers in that group. I've just been thrown with a really wonderful group of people. …I can't imagine having done the program without them.” Non-cohort members say… “Can't really knock the online program for the strong disagreement here [to agreement ratings to peer connectedness] It's up to me to make the effort to forge relations … that being said, I don't think the online environment is conducive to facilitate social community.”

15. RQ2: To what degree do online graduate students feel they have developed a professional identity in their chosen field? No significant differences between groups related to cohort membership, credits completed, or age. Paid Work Experience (Mean=6.10) and Unpaid Field Work (Mean=6.63) groups - significantly higher professional identity than No Experience group (Mean=4.93). Barriers (e.g. online context, limited work exp, multiple obligations) - All in mid-range except “Balance multiple obligations” higher than average (Mean=3.61) Graduate level online learners self-identify as professionals (Mean=5.78)

16. RQ3: Are peer connectedness and faculty connectedness significant predictors of professional identity? Multiple Regression Analysis Peer connectedness and faculty connectedness are significant predictors of professional identity (F 2,59 =15,34, p<.0001) Overall model fit of R 2 =0.342.

17. RQ2: To what degree do online graduate students feel they have developed a professional identity in their chosen field? Paid and unpaid work experience plays a key role in professional identity development. Survey Respondent (practicum and volunteer experience): In my last semester I feel myself identifying more strongly with the idea of me being a librarian. Practicums as an embedded librarian and volunteering at the [university] library helps with that. Interview Participant (no library work experience): It’s more time, more exposure, actually doing the internship or practicum in a library. … I have a pretty good understanding of a library, the workings of the library. To me, it’s actually putting your feet in it as an employee.

18. RQ4: What are the satisfaction levels of online learners in a fully online graduate degree program? Online Learners are Satisfied Fully online learners are satisfied (Mean=5.40) Peer and Faculty connectedness are significant predictors of online learner satisfaction* (F 2,59 =13.45, p<.001, R 2 =0.313). *Note: Peer connectedness and faculty connectedness are also significant predictors of professional identity (RQ3).

19. RQ4: What are the satisfaction levels of online learners in a fully online graduate degree program? Online Learners Value Synchronous Interaction Survey Respondent: I have opted to take only synchronous classes thus far. The asynchronous classes are intimidating. Also, I am paying to be taught, not teach myself. Interview Participant: I can’t take the classes that are really more of just correspondence classes. It needs to be [synchronous]. … So as long as it’s online, we have a meeting, you know a scheduled meeting time where the professor kind of lectures, I really… I think it is no different than being in a classroom.

20. Limitations Findings cannot be generalized beyond the population studied Limited response could compromise validity Small number of cohort members Limited recruitment efforts

21. Key Takeaways Course interactivity, especially synchronous interactivity, is valued by MLIS online learners. Work experience (paid or unpaid) plays a key role in professional identity development. Online learners feel connected to peers and faculty (more connected to faculty than peers). Peer and Faculty Connectedness are significant predictors of both professional identity development and online learner satisfaction. Cohort students feel more connected to both peers and faculty than non-cohort students.

22. Wrap Up Questions & Comments? For more information, please email: Rebecca Croxton: racroxto@uncg.eduracroxto@uncg.edu

23. Key References 1.Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States (Report) [PDF]. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/grade-change-2013 2.Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education: College presidents, public differ on value of online learning (Report). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/08/28/the-digital-revolution-and-higher-educationhttp://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/08/28/the-digital-revolution-and-higher-education 3.Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education: College presidents, public differ on value of online learning (Report). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/08/28/the-digital-revolution-and-higher-educationhttp://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/08/28/the-digital-revolution-and-higher-education 4.Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 233-250. 5.Tajfel, H. (1972). La categorisation sociale. In S. Moscovici (ed.), Introduction d lo Psychologic Sociale, pp. 272-302 Pans: Larousse 6.Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-34. 7.Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, (3), 149-164.