Qualitative+Study+Discussion


 * ** EDU8005-8 ** ||  ||
 * ** Qualitative Research Design ** || ** 4 Qualitative Study Discussion Section ** ||
 * ** Qualitative Research Design ** || ** 4 Qualitative Study Discussion Section ** ||


 * Thanks, Stephen. I comment more in-text. **
 * A Discussion section of a study is where the findings are synthesized (linked together and made sense of) in light of existing literature and knowledge base. To be sure, it is one thing to write a separate literature review on a topic, and then to write a separate ‘findings’ section of study, but it requires some acute thinking and rethinking in order to synthesize both sections in a way that it makes coherent sense. Moreover, for a researcher to synthesize well these two sections, that researcher has to possess a correct, wide, and deep understanding of extant related literature base, as well as a sharp and insightful understanding of one’s own study. Thus the merging of existing literature with one’s own completed study is not an easy feat to accomplish. **
 * As for structuring the Discussion section, a variety of ways exist. For instance, one useful way is to organize it in accordance with the Research Question section of the study. As you browse through completed dissertations at NCU (via library site) you may notice such an organizational pattern. **
 * Keep reading the related literature of your chosen topic. Try focusing on studies that used a qualitative design, and try to note the ‘language’ of discussing qual data and findings, as well as what was included and excluded in the Discussion section. Also, please carefully consider NCU’s milestone document templates. The templates outline what is to be written in each section. **
 * I look forward to your next completed assignment. **

=Qualitative Study Discussion Section= A positive relationship has been demonstrated between online participation and learning performance ( Huang, Lin, & Huang, 2012; Martinez‐Caro, 2009; Pelz, 2010; Ruey, 2010 ), as well as between learning performance and student satisfaction in online courses ( Ali & Ahmad, 2011; Chen & Lien, 2011; Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010; Kozub, 2010; Martinez‐Caro, 2009 ). There is, however, little empirical research regarding adult professional development or appropriate techniques for teaching and engaging non-traditional learners ( Donavant, 2009 ), or on appropriate modes of interaction in learning management systems ( So & Bonk, 2010 ). The specific problem is to investigate means of improving the learning experience of online professional development learners by identifying factors that increase learner satisfaction ( Watts, 2012 ).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Results
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The purpose of this section is to present the findings and the evaluation of the findings of this multi-phase case study. The purpose of this descriptive, qualitative case study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the various factors that increase the learner satisfaction of adult online professional development learners. The multi-phase study involved adapting two sources of evidence: historical data and interview data . Multiple sources of evidence, with no preference of one source over another, are recommended with case study research (Yin, 2009). The first source of evidence was historical data of online course evaluations collected over a 5-year period from adult professional development learners. The second source of evidence involved personal interviews with select

adult learners. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The case study addressed the research question: What are learner perceptions of factors that contribu <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">te to satisfactory experiences or to dissatisfactory experiences in an online professional development course? The findings are organized into three themes: factors leading to satisfaction, factors leading to dissatisfaction, and factors that neither satisfy , nor dissatisfy. An evaluation of findings is presented with the results being interpreted and coded based on thought units according to Herzberg’s (1987) definition. The findings will be compared and contrasted to studies included in the literature review. The analysis of multiple sources of evidence within this two phase study address and extend the concept of learner satisfaction in an online environment. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Extant** [| *1] **data**. According to Herzberg (1987) , a thought unit consists of three components:

(a) the context of the comment (C), (b) a feeling, observation, or result (FOR), and (c) a direction (D). Each comment was coded and analyzed using this definition. Example of identified thought units from the analysis of the extant data are presented below: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">By analyzing the answers to the two open-ended questions from online course evaluations , the researcher and his manager identified and coded 7,496 thought units. These thought units were categorized into 17 broad categories as shown in Table 1. Thought units like examples 1 and 3 were included in a category called “physical connection to course”. Thought units like example 2 were included in a category called “learning materials”. //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Satisfaction Categories Gleaned From Extant Online Course Evaluations // <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Among the 7,496 thought units, 4,176 (55.7%) were positively stated and 3,322 (44.3%) were negatively stated. All 17 categories contained thought units that were both positively and negatively stated, but some were overwhelmingly one or the other. The largest percentage of positive statements were (a) learning materials, (b) instructor’s content knowledge, (c) instructor’s teaching methodology, (d) types of learning activities, (e) perceived learning outcomes, (f) personal feedback from instructor, (g) instructor’s online characteristics, and (h) quality of student guide. These eight categories comprised most (83.7%) of the positive statements made by learners on the open-ended evaluation questions. The largest percentage of negative statements were (a) physical connections to course, (b) instructional directions, (c) instructor-learner interaction, (d) personal feedback from instructor, (e) learning materials, (f) instructor’s teaching methodology, (g) types of learning activities, and (h) instructor’s online characteristics. These eight categories comprised most (70.4%) of the negative comments that learners made regarding the online courses. Seven of the 17 categories were in neither list of most statements made (a) effectiveness of instructional design, (b) instructor’s facilitation skills, (c) learner-learner interaction, (d) miscellaneous thought units, (e) course workload, and (f) building rapport with instructor. These categories included a small proportion of the total number of thought units (12.2%) in this phase of the study. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Interviews**[| *2]. Open-ended questions were formulated for the semi-structured phone interviews based on the categories derived from phase one of the study. Verbatim transcriptions, member checking, and analysis and coding followed each interview[pjm3]. The findings showed that learners were much more satisfied with their online courses than might be apparent from the results of phase one , where 55.7% of the statements about the online courses were positive. The findings of the analysis of interview transcripts are included in Table 2. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Table 2 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Satisfaction Categories Identified in Semi-Structured Interviews <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">In the analysis of interviews, an additional category was identified that did not manifest in the extant data, instructional organization. This category addressed statements and opinions that indicated that the manner of presentation was either disorganized or well-planned. In the interviews, 1,131 thought units were uttered with 855 (75.5%) being positive, and 278 (24.6%) being negative. The largest percentage of positive statements were (a) learning materials, (b) perceived learning outcomes, (c) instructor’s teaching methodology, (d) instructor’s content knowledge, (e) quality of student guide, (f) instructor-learner interaction, (g) instructor’s online characteristics, and (h) instructor’s facilitation skills. These eight categories comprised most (71.3%) of the positive statements made by interviewee
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Example 1: “The access to the remote machine was exceedingly slow and tedious - need a faster activities solution.” (E: Remote access, FOR: Slow and tedious, D: Negative)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Example 2: “It would be nice if each lesson contained some example busniess (sic) reasons as to how and why these features/modules can be used”. (E: Student materials, FOR: Need real-world examples, D: Negative)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Example 3: “The instructor was using VOIP phone line for the class, the audio was breaking up and was not clear”. (E: Instructor connection, FOR: audio was breaking up and not clear, D: Negative)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Table 1 **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Category || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Total Thought Units (%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Positive Units (%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Negative Units (%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">All Categories || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">7,498 (100.0%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">4,176 (55.7%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">3,322 (44.3%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Building rapport with instructor || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">41 (0.5%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">16 (0.4%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">25 (0.8%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Course workload || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">88 (1.2%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">37 (0.9%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">51 (1.5%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Effectiveness of instructional design || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">267 (3.6%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">112 (2.7%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">155 (4.7%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructional directions || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">563 (7.5%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">149 (3.6%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">414 (12.5%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor-learner interaction || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">507 (6.8%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">118 (2.8%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">389 (11.7%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor’s content knowledge || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">667 (8.9%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">618 (14.8%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">49 (1.5%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor’s facilitation skills || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">240 (3.2%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">118 (2.8%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">124 (3.7%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor’s online characteristics || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">428 (5.7%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">241 (5.8%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">187 (5.6%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor’s teaching methodology || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">873 (11.6%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">608 (14.6%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">265 (8.0%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Learner-learner interaction || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">160 (2.1%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">59 (1.4%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">101 (3.0%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Learning materials || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">960 (12.8%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">688 (16.5%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">272 (8.2%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Perceived learning outcomes || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">439 (5.9%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">361 (8.6%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">78 (2.3%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Personal feedback from instructor || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">587 (7.8%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">313 (7.5%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">274 (8.2%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Physical connections to course || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">545 (7.3%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">53 (1.3%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">492 (14.8%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Quality of student guide || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">373 (5.0%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">238 (5.7%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">135 (4.1%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Types of learning activities || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">641 (8.6%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">408 (9.8%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">233 (7.0%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Miscellaneous thought units || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">117 (1.6%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">39 (0.9%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">78 (2.3%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Category || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Total Thought Units (%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Positive Units (%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Negative Units (%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">All Categories || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">1131 (100.0%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">854 (75.5%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">277 (24.5%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Building rapport with instructor || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">2 (0.2%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">1 (0.1%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">1 (0.4%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Course workload || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">10 (0.9%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">6 (0.7%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">4 (1.5%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Effectiveness of instructional design || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">41 (3.6%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">24 (2.8%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">17 (6.1%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructional directions || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">48 (4.2%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">28 (3.3%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">20 (7.2%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor-learner interaction || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">93 (8.2%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">64 (7.5%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">29 (10.4%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor’s content knowledge || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">83 (7.3%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">80 (9.4%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">3 (1.1%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor’s facilitation skills || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">44 (3.9%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">40 (4.7%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">4 (1.4%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor’s online characteristics || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">62 (5.5%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">50 (5.8%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">12 (4.3%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructor’s teaching methodology || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">111 (9.8%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">89 (10.4%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">22 (7.9%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Learner-learner interaction || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">41 (3.6%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">26 (3.0%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">15 (5.4%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Learning materials || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">135 (11.9%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">112 (13.1%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">23 (8.3%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Perceived learning outcomes || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">107 (9.5%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">104 (12.2%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">4 (1.4%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Personal feedback from instructor || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">42 (3.7%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">36 (4.2%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">6 (2.2%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Physical connections to course || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">123 (10.9%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">39 (4.6%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">84 (30.2%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Quality of student guide || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">76 (6.7%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">71 (8.3%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">5 (1.8%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Types of learning activities || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">42 (3.7%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">34 (4.0%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">8 (2.9%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Miscellaneous thought units || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">17 (1.5%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">12 (1.4%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">5 (1.8%)  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Instructional organization || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">55 (4.9%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">39 (4.6%)  || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">16 (5.8%)  ||

s, and three of the most positive categories were different from those gleaned from the extant data. The largest percentage of negative statements were (a) physical connections to course, (b) instructor-learner interaction, (c) learning materials, (d) instructor’s teaching methodology, (e) instructional directions, (f) effectiveness of instructional design, (g) instructional organization, and (h) learner-learner interaction. These eight categories contained the majority (81.3%) of the negative statements made by interviewee

s, with the last three categories being different from those gleaned from extant data. Six of the 18 categories were in neither list of highest frequency statements; (a) instructor’s facilitation skills, (b) personal feedback from instructor, (c) types of learning activities, (d) miscellaneous thought units, (e) course workload, and (f) building rapport with instructor. These categories were a small proportion of the total number of thought units (13.9%) in this phase of the study, and four of them were consistent with the extant data. =<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Discussion = <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">This descriptive case study was able to determine factors that contribute to online learner satisfactory experiences and to dissatisfactory experience in a professional development course. Surprisingly, the factors differed slightly between the phases of the study and the literature review. Some of the factors focused on the relationship between the instructor and the learner and the instructor’s ability to facilitate learning, which has been supported in the literature (Boling et al., 2011; Jackson et al., 2010). The factors included

building rapport with instructor, instructional directions, instructor-learner interaction, instructor’s facilitation skills, instructor’s online characteristics, instructor’s teaching methodology, personal feedback from instructor, and ( in [| *4] phase two ) instructional organization. These factors accounted for 43.2% of the comments in the extant data and 40.4% of the comments from the interviews. Other researchers have found that learner-learner interaction is a key component to satisfaction in the classroom (Abrami et al., 2010; McGlone, 2011), which was supported by the learner-learner interaction and types of learning activities factors from this study. Interestingly, this type of interaction only represented 10.7% of the comments from the extant data and 7.3% of the comments from the interviews. The literature identified that immediate real-world applications of knowledge were important to adult learners (Ke & Xie, 2009; Keengwe & Georgina, 2011; Zemke & Zemke, 1995), and the instructor’s content knowledge, learning materials, perceived learning outcomes, and quality of student guide factors addressed this issue, accounting for 32.5% of the comments from the extant data and 35.4% of the comments from the interviews. Most of the remainder of the identified factors involved the logistics of the course. These factors included course workload, instructional directions, and physical connections to course and accounted for 16.0% of the extant data comments and 16.0% of the interview comments. The findings of others that reflection, a sense of community, and the importance of student motivation did not appear as factors in this case study (Ali & Ahmad, 2011; Karge et al., 2011; Omar et al., 2011). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">It should be noted that there are possible limitations to the results of this study. This study made no effort to determine the motivation for the writing of the comments from the extant data. Because the extant data was more negative than interview data, there are several explanations. It is possible that students [| *5] are more likely to write comments in the open-ended questions on the course evaluation because they are dissatisfied with their experience since most students do not include any comments. It is also possible that despite the semi-structured interview process, and all attempts to remain neutral in the assessing of thought units, that learners were less likely to discuss negative experiences when speaking directly with the researcher. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The findings are an important contribution to the knowledge of the field, allowing instructors to better identify factors that may increase the satisfaction of learners with their online professional development courses, while concurrently minimizing the factors that may decrease learner satisfaction. The findings also provide additional information to researchers to determine the factors that are important for creating and implementing online professional development courses that maximize learner satisfaction.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> [|1]Archival? <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> [|2]Especially for this results section, it may have helped to provide lengthier excerpts (quotes) from transcripts for response-context, along with biographical background of that interviewee so readers can ‘situate’ the response in a more clear manner… <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> [|3]So constant comparison method was utilized? <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> [|4]from? <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> [|5]You may want to consider the issue of using ‘student’ and ‘learner’ interchangeably…as you may know, in adult ed literature, these 2 terms are perceived differently…


 * = References ||
 * * Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2010, July). Interaction in distance education and online learning: //Using evidence and theory to improve practice. The Evolution from Distance Education to Distributed Learning. Symposium// conducted at Memorial Union Biddle Hotel, Bloomington, IN. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x
 * Ali, A., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Key factors for determining students’ satisfaction in distance learning courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University. //Contemporary Educational Technology, 2//(2), 118-134. Retrieved from http://cedtech.net/
 * Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. //Computers and Education, 59//, 524-534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.022
 * Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2011). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. //Internet and Higher Education// [pjm1] . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.006
 * Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., & Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. //Computers and Education, 58//, 874-884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.019
 * Chen, L.-C., & Lien, Y.-H. (2011). Using author co-citation analysis to examine the intellectual structure of e-learning: A MIS perspective. //Scientometrics, 89//, 867-886. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0458-y
 * Donavant, B. W. (2009). The new, modern practice of adult education: Online instruction in a continuing professional education setting. //Adult Education Quarterly, 59//(3), 227-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741713609331546
 * Ferguson, J. M., & DeFelice, A. E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and academic performance. //International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11//(2), 73-84. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
 * George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). //Case studies and theory development in the social sciences//. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 * Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate employees? //Harvard Business Review, 46//(1), 53-63. Retrieved from https://www.scss.tcd.ie/~leavys/files/BMIT_LEC_3_HertzbergOneMoreTime.pdf
 * Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W., & Huang, T. K. (2012). What type of learning style leads to online participation in the mixed-mode e-learning environment? A study of software usage instruction. //Computers & Education, 58//(1), 338-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.003
 * Jackson, L. C., Jones, S. J., & Rodriguez, R. C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in student satisfaction in online courses. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14//(4), 78-96. Retrieved from http://jaln.sloanconsortium.org/index.php/jaln
 * Karge, B. D., Phillips, K. M., Dodson, T. J., & McCabe, M. (2011). Effective strategies for engaging adult learners. //Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8//(12), 53-56. Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/TLC/article/view/6621
 * Keengwe, J., & Georgina, D. (2012). The digital course training workshop for online learning and teaching. //Educational and Information Technologies, 17//, 365-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9164-x
 * Kozub, R. M. (2010). An ANOVA analysis of the relationships between business students' learning styles and effectiveness of web based instruction. //American Journal of Business Education, 3//(3), 89-98. Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/AJBE
 * Martinez-Caro, E. (2011). Factors affecting effectiveness in e-learning: An analysis in production management courses. //Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19//(3), 572-581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cae.20337
 * Pelz, B. (2010). (My) three principles of effective online pedagogy. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14//(1), 103-116. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
 * Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. //British Journal of Educational Technology, 41//(5), 706-720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.x
 * So, H.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments: A Delphi study. //Educational Technology & Society//, //13//(3), 189–200. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (EJ899878)
 * //Watts, S. W. (2012).//Technological tools impact on learning in online professional development courses//. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, Northcentral University,// //Prescott Valley, AZ. Retrieved from https://stevesncujourney.wikispaces.com/file/view/WattsSEDU7006-8-8Graded.docx//
 * //Watts, S. W. (2013).//Proposal 2//. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, Northcentral University,// //Prescott Valley, AZ. Retrieved from https://stevesncujourney.wikispaces.com/file/view/WattsSEDU8005-8-2Graded.docx//
 * Yin, R. K. (2009). //Case study research: Design and methods// (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
 * Zemke, R., & Zemke, S. (1995). Adult learning: What do we know for sure? //Training, 32//, 69-82. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED504481)
 * [pjm1] Is this a journal or magazine?...if so, see APA ||
 * [pjm1] Is this a journal or magazine?...if so, see APA ||