Fri, Jun 6, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 5, Issue 2 (JUNE ISSUE 2024)
johepal 2024, 5(2): 90-101 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hover A, Carter J L. (2024). Leveraging Flexible Trajectories to Meet the Needs of Non-Traditional Graduate Students in Master of Education Degree Programs. johepal. 5(2), 90-101. doi:10.61186/johepal.5.2.90
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-745-en.html
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-745-en.html
Abstract: (1093 Views)
Program coordinators/faculty members of two Master of Education Degree programs at a university in the United States of America meets the needs of nontraditional graduate students through flexible trajectories related to course sequence, program progression, and course formats. These Master of Education Degree programs for teachers (licensure and non-licensure) have transitioned from strict cohort models to specialized course sequences codesigned between the program coordinator and each student. Each program has undergone course format changes based on student need. The licensure (secondary education) M.Ed. program originally started with mostly onsite classes and transitioned to utilizing a mix of course formats to meet student needs – onsite, asynchronous online, and hybrid. The non-licensure M.Ed. program used to offer students a choice of two course formats- onsite or asynchronous online; however, due to course enrollment trends, the program transitioned to all asynchronous online coursework. As a result of these programmatic changes, students have benefited and the programs have grown, combatting challenges of recruitment and retention at the university.
Keywords: Online Course Formats, Higher Education, Student Retention, Graduate Programs, Non-Traditional Graduate Students
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2023/11/14 | Accepted: 2024/06/7 | Published: 2024/06/30
Received: 2023/11/14 | Accepted: 2024/06/7 | Published: 2024/06/30
References
1. Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-flexible course design: Implementing student-directed hybrid classes. EdTech Books. [DOI]
2. Bekkouche, N. S., Schmid, R. F., & Carliner, S. (2022). “Simmering pressure”: How systemic stress impacts graduate student mental health. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 34(4), 547-572. [DOI]
3. Bryant, J., Ram, S., Scott, D., Williams, C. (2023, March 02). K-12 teachers are quitting. What would make them stay? McKinsey & Company. [Article]
4. Carroll, D., Ng, E., & Birch, D. (2009). Retention and progression of postgraduate business students: An Australian perspective. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 24(3), 197-209. [DOI]
5. Dopmeijer, J. M., Schutgens, C. A. E., Kappe, F. R., Gubbels, N., Visscher, T. L. S., Jongen, E. M. M., Bovens, R. H. L. M., de Jonge, J. M., Bos, A. E. R., & Wiers, R. W. (2022). The role of performance pressure, loneliness and sense of belonging in predicting burnout symptoms in students in higher education. PLoS ONE, 17(12), 1-11. [DOI]
6. Field, K., Kelderman, E., Mangan, K., & O’Leary, B. (2021). Recruiting and retaining students in a challenging market. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
7. Halpin, P. A., Golden, L., Hagins, K. Z., Waller, S., & Gopalan, C. (2018). Symposium report on “Examining the changing landscape of course delivery and student learning”: Experimental Biology 2017. Advances in Physiology Education, 42(4), 610-614. [DOI]
8. Halpin, P. A. (2022). Redesigning a face-to-face course to an asynchronous online format: A look at teaching pathophysiology with software that enhances student engagement. Advances in Physiology Education, 46(2), 339-344. [DOI]
9. Hanover Research. (2024, March 01). Increasing higher ed student retention and preventing drop-out. [Article]
10. Herman, J. H. (2013). Faculty incentives for online course design, delivery, and professional development. Innovative Higher Education, 38, 397-410. [DOI]
11. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. [Article]
12. Jackson, K. M., Konczosné Szombathelyi, M. (2022). Student burnout in higher education: From lockdowns to classrooms. Education Sciences, 12(12), 842. [DOI]
13. Kahu, E. R., Stephens, C., Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2014). Space and time to engage: Mature-aged distance students learn to fit study into their lives. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(4), 523-540. [DOI]
14. Lemay, D. J., Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T. (2021). Transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 1-9. [DOI]
15. Lin, X., & Gao, L. (2020). Students’ sense of community and perspectives of taking synchronous and asynchronous online courses. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 169-179. [Article]
16. Mauldin, R. L., Barros-Lane, L., Tarbet, Z., Fujimoto, K., & Narendorf, S. C. (2022). Cohort-based education and other factors related to student peer relationships: A mixed methods social network analysis. Education Sciences,12(3), 205. [DOI]
17. Metz, C. J., & Metz, M. J. (2022). The benefits of incorporating active learning into online, asynchronous coursework in dental physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 46(1), 11-20. [DOI]
18. Nadworny, E., & Carrillo, S. (2023, February 02). The college enrollment drop is finally letting up. NPR. [Article]
19. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2023, October 26). Stay informed with the latest enrollment information. [Article]
20. Ohrablo, S. (2016, March 22). Advising online students: Replicating best practices of face-to-face advising. NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources. [Article]
21. Pang, L., & Jen, C. C. (2018). Inclusive dyslexia-friendly collaborative online learning environment: Malaysia case study. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1023-1042. [DOI]
22. Roehling, P., & Bredow, C. (2021, September 28). Flipped learning: What is it, and when is it effective? Brookings. [Article]
23. Siegelman, A. (n.d.). Blended, hybrid, and flipped courses: What’s the difference? Temple University Center for the Advancement of Teaching. [Article]
24. Singleton, K. J., Evmenova, A., Jerome, M. K., & Clark, K. (2019). Integrating UDL strategies into the online course development process: Instructional designers’ perspectives. Online Learning, 23(1), 206-235. [DOI]
25. Tipton, J. C., Hover, A., & Butler, K. (2023). Educational reprogramming: Leadership perceptions and practice of academic program directors in a college of education during COVID-19. In D. J. Fowler & M. B. Raehll (Eds.), On leadership: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 145-158). Information Age Publishing.
26. Umekubo, L. A., Chrispeels, J. H., Daly, A. J. (2015). The cohort model: Lessons learned when principals collaborate. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 451-482. [DOI]
27. U.S. Department of Education. (2022). Preparing and credentialing the nation’s teachers: The secretary’s report on the teacher workforce. [Article]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
