Luận án hỗ trợ giáo dục cho sinh viên có con qua công nghệ di động - Brenda Varner

Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks CEC Theses and Dissertations College of Engineering and Computing 2017 Supporting Education for Students with Children through Mobile Technology Brenda C. Varner Nova Southeastern University, fibernomad@gmail.com This document is a product of extensive research conducted at the Nova Southeastern University College of Engineering and Computing. For more information on research and degree programs at the NSU College of Engineering and Computing, please click here. Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.edu/gscis_etd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Share Feedback About This Item NSUWorks Citation Brenda C.

Supporting Education for Students with Children through Mobile Technology. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, College of Engineering and Computing.edu/gscis_etd/1015. This Dissertation is brought to you by the College of Engineering and Computing at NSUWorks.

It has been accepted for inclusion in CEC Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact nsuworks@nova. Abstract Supporting Education for Students with Children through Mobile Technology By Brenda Varner A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computing Technology in Education College of Engineering and Computing Nova Southeastern University 2017 Abstract Abstract An Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to Nova Southeastern University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supporting Education for Students with Children through Mobile Technology By Brenda Varner August 2017 The original goal of this project was to build a peer e-mentoring program for parents and measure the effect of the program on persistence. In spite of strong mentor participation, two terms of focused recruiting did not attract mentees.

This sparked the question of why those who had successfully navigated the higher education system thought a peer e-mentoring program was needed but those in the process did not. A focused ethnography was designed to try to understand why students with children were resistant to peer e-mentoring. Students with children used technology to integrate the various roles of life. They used smart phones to organize, schedule, and research.

They used them to schedule rides or childcare for children, communicated with professors and classmates, reviewed course resources, and whatever else they needed to communicate about. They solved problems by taking them one at time and planning for emergencies with contingencies. These students considered planning their best defense against failing to reach to graduation. They realized establishing and keeping communication lines open was critical.

The turned most often to family for help but would reach out to professors and even staff if needed. They looked for professors who were known to go above and beyond for their students just in case they needed to reschedule exams or assignments. The overwhelming consensus about participation was that they just can’t see how it is possible make another commitment. Two mentor participants agreed to be interviewed and shared thoughts about privacy concerns but were willing to take the chance to help ease the way for another student parent.

The students with children interviewed expressed the need to find solutions to constantly changing requirements but were not comfortable sharing their problems in a one to one mentoring program. Previous studies have suggested that implementing solutions for non-traditional students required a focused needs assessment. Many programs designed to increase retention for non-traditional students have resulted in exactly the results this one originally faced, a lack of participants or low results. Ultimately these students need just in time solutions for a changing myriad of road blocks to graduation.

Abstract Acknowledgments A diverse and talented group lent their effort to assist in the completion of this study. Out of the many, there are a few I would like to thank individually. Cheryl Sarafini-Cook and Janet McCullough at Eastern Florida State College (EFSC) Lab School gave me the opportunity to explore the idea of a peer e-mentoring program for parents at EFSC. Gertrude Abramson for patience and effective innovation when the project was in peril.

Steve Terrell and Dr. Ling Wang for many hours of review and helpful suggestions. The subject experts and students who reviewed, tested, and offered corrections to the materials before publication deserve my gratitude and appreciation as well. My final comment is to state my heartfelt gratitude to family and friends who have given me the space and support to realize the dream.

Table of Contents Abstract iii Chapters 1. Introduction 1 Background 1 Context 3 Problem Statement 5 Dissertation Goal 6 Research Questions 7 Barriers and Issues 8 Limitations and Delimitations 8 Limitations 8 Delimitations 9 Definition and Acronyms 10 Definition of Terms 10 List of Acronyms 12 Summary 13 2. Review of the Literature 14 Overview 14 Parents in Higher Education 14 Mobile Learning in Higher Education 17 Mentoring in Higher Education 22 Persistence and Retention Theories for Higher Education 24 Summary 26 3. Methodology 27 Introduction 27 Research Design Overview 28 The Original Research Design 28 The Ultimate Research Design 36 Summary 39 4.

Results 41 Data Analysis 42 Findings 43 Demographics 44 Technology Use 45 Problem Solving 46 Participation 47 Summary of Results 48 v 5. Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations, and Summary 50 Conclusions 51 What are the Current Accepted Principles for E-Mentoring Support Programs? 52 What Devices, Programs, and Apps do Students with Children Use? 53 How do Students with Children Currently Solve Problems? 53 To Whom do the Students with Children Turn to for Assistance When Needed? 54 Why Has the Peer Mentoring For Parents Program Attracted Mentors but Not Mentees? 54 Implications 55 Recommendations 56 Summary 57 Appendices A. Internal Review Board Approvals 59 B. Communication Scripts to Get the Conversation Going 64 C.

Participant Orientation Slides 70 D. Match Selection Forms 76 F. Table of Experts 78 G. Bi-Weekly Surveys 81 H.

Table of Questions and Variables 99 I. Table of Interview Responses 104 References 107 vi Chapter 1 Introduction Background The 1996 welfare reforms of work first created an environment making it hard for parents to return and persist in higher education (Cerven, 2013). Under The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA) states are given the flexibility to design individual programs. However, those plans are required to move people from welfare assistance to the workforce.

Although, the federal lifetime limit for receiving benefits is five years, the maximum time for Florida residents to receive cash assistance is four years. Furthermore, Florida applicants must complete 30 hours per week of work related activities to receive assistance and this may not be post-secondary education activities (Hahn, Golden & Stanczyk, 2012; http://www.edu/uscode/text/42/607). PRWORA is based on the premise that a skill set will build through the work place. Would be recipients would progress to get increasingly higher level jobs eventually leading to a career (Haney, 2013).

Part of the larger law of PRWORA replaced Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants for six years (Hahn et al. Signed into law August of 1996, this is often referred to as the first reform period. The second reform period began in October 2002 with TANF grants being authorized under quarterly extensions until the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005 reauthorized the block grants 1 (Kim, 2012; http://royce.gov/uploadedfiles/the%201996%20welfare%20reform%20law. With the exception of some additional funding in 2009 and 2010 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act the TANF grants have remained funded at the 1996 levels forcing state governments to get increasingly creative in using the grants to fund programs.

However, would be recipient families are not thriving. Livermore, Powers, Davis, and Lim (2011) examined the lives of previous welfare recipients to see how well their needs were being met. Although the participants had complied with TANF requirements by getting a job they were still accessing various governmental and social programs to make ends meet. The most reliable route out of poverty is education (Marsh-McDonald & Schroeder, 2012).

Education statistics in Brevard County start out promising with an average high school graduation rate 12 percentage points above the average in Florida but three points below the US average. The Brevard County population also outperforms the state average by 4% for obtaining at least some college (http://www.org/app/florida/2016/rankings/brevard/county/outcom es/overall/snapshot; http://www.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20- 578. However, according to spacecoastedc.org only 25% of the population persists to a bachelor’s degree, 4% points below the national average of 33%. These statistics do not account individually for parents in Brevard County however, national statistics for parents offer little hope, with estimates of only 28% of parents persisting to graduate 2 within six years with a bachelor degree or less.

Single parents fare much worse with only 17% persisting to graduate within six years (Gault, Noll & Reichlin, 2017). Context This research sought to understand why students with children have resisted using mobile technologies for peer mentoring in higher education at Eastern Florida State College (EFSC) in Brevard County, Florida. Parents often struggle with the balance of school, work, and family leaving little or no time on-campus for extracurricular activities such as participating in a traditional mentoring program (Estes, 2011). E-mentoring removes the barriers of time and space (Panopoulos & Sarri, 2013).

Peer mentoring is a formal or informal collaborative relationship of two similar individuals who work together to fulfill a need (Collings, Swanson & Watkins, 2014; Douglass, Smith & Smith, 2013; Mollica & Mitchell, 2013).Student support is needed most in the early days of a foray into higher education as new students attempt to navigate the unknown waters of blending a new activity into an already busy life (Collings et al. For parents entering higher education the additional role of student comes with conflicting cultural expectations both of which required a total commitment of time and resources for both the roles of parent and student. Therefore a student parent was always balancing resources and never quite living up to the cultural standard of either (Estes, 2011). Often, giving students a venue to vent the pressure will increase intent to persevere (Morton, Mergler & Boman, 2013).

However, this venue must feel safe or the student will not utilize the resource (Park, Cerven, Nations & Nielsen, 2013). Peer mentoring provides opportunities for social and emotional support when the mentors and mentees are matched based on mutual goals and interests (Douglass et al. 3 A peer e-mentoring for parents program was established at EFCS in February 2016. The program was developed using best practices as published by various educational and governmental institutions.

The formal activities were designed to get the conversation started between mentors and mentees. These activities focused on relationship dynamics combining Becky Bailey's (2000) seven powers of self-control with Chickering and Reisser's (1993) seven vectors of development. Attempts to recruit mentee participants on the campuses of EFSC as well as through social networking channels were unsuccessful although mentors readily agreed to participate. Using social networking channels should reach students who do not spend time on-campus and new students who are not yet participating in on-campus activities.

Following the lead of previous researchers an invitation to participate in the program was posted on various social networking sites, sent through email blasts, and through flyers distributed on- campus (Damron, Harville, Niemira & Soto, 2012; Putsche, Storrs, Lewis & Haylett, 2008). Although there were inquiries about the program only 2 mentees registered to participate. One mentee stopped communicating before finishing the mentor selection survey and the other mentee stopped communicating right after accepting her mentor assignment. She never actually communicated with her mentor.

The removal of time and space is a two-sided sword. It allows participation by those that otherwise may not be able to participant in a face-to-face mentoring scheme but the unstructured relationship also allows a decreased commitment to the program (Mollica & Mitchell, 2013). Whether the students who stopped communicating left EFSC or just decided to not participate in the program may never be known but 4 understanding why the mentee population has resisted the current program may help future programs better serve the needs of students with children.