Written by: Ezekiel Gacee
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
The concept of knowledge management draws from a wide range of disciplines and is broadly discussed in commercial applications. Knowledge management has been acknowledged in disciplines and purviews varying from philosophy, business organizations and financial models (Edvardsson & Durst, 2013). Knowledge management praxes have ascertained value for customary business operations and is viewed as a significant asset towards building a platform of competitive advantage. Nonaka (1994), Nahaplet (1998), and Teece (2000), describe knowledge management as an important mechanism for competitive advantage, and a core competency for any organization. From an organizational perspective, Stankosky (2008), describes knowledge management as a method to leverage knowledge to add industry value to an organization. Inversely, higher education institutions being multifaceted organizations with a highly concentrated profile require a distinguished platform of knowledge management that would enable strategic decision making (Youseff & Cunha Dolci, 2012). Viju (2010), describes how knowledge management has become a significant force in leveraging the assets and resources of an organization. Viju (2010), continues by describing these resources and assets as intellectual capital. Omerzel (2011), describes intellectual capital as organizational knowledge that may be utilized to generate competitive advantage and organizational wealth. Therefore, knowledge management has been validated as a significant organizational asset and a viable foundation for organizational competitive advantage. Chu, Wang, and Yuan (2012), provide a broad definition of knowledge management and define it as “an integrated, systematic approach to identifying, managing and sharing all of an enterprise’s information assets, including databases, documents, policies and procedures” (p. 34). Bonner (2000), describes knowledge management as an ongoing, bottom up process that discovers value for knowledge which is then utilized across organizational boundaries. McCune (1999), suggests that knowledge management is the development and utilization of intangible knowledge resources and tangible assets utilized by the organization. Merging Bonner’s and McCune’s definition of knowledge management Liss (1999) and Beckman (1997), provide a more holistic definition describing knowledge management as a formal process directed toward determining what information an organization possesses that could benefit others in the organization while developing ways to make it readily available. Beckman (1998), and Chait (1998), state that this process includes the access to knowledge, the means knowledge is harvested, evaluated, purified, stored and utilized. They describe knowledge management as “a well-defined system that provides a learning and innovation process, while converting information and scholarly assets into endurable value towards the strategic goals of the institution”, (p.447). According to Edvinson and Malone (1997) and, Nonaka (1994), knowledge management includes the application of individual (tacit) knowledge, structural knowledge, and organizational (explicit) knowledge within an organization. Individual knowledge also referred to as tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994), is intuitive in nature and originates in individual employees as it relates to knowledge based on past intangible experiences, and “know-how”. Structural knowledge is tangible and is codified into organizational manuals and reports. Subsequently, organizational knowledge is the action of learning within an organization. Knowledge management outlines a methodical, unequivocal and contemplative assembling process essential to manage knowledge. According to Bixler and Stankosky (2005), the intent of this process is to amplify an organization’s knowledge efficacy and create value through competitive advantage. Bixler and Stankosky (2005), continue by describing the process integrated in knowledge management includes gathering, consolidating, filtering disseminating and recycling knowledge throughout the organization. For the purpose of this research, the definition of knowledge management provided by Duhon (1998), is the most fitting and most frequently cited: “Knowledge management is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, evaluating, retrieving, and sharing all of an enterprise’s information assets. These assets may include databases, documents, policies, procedures, and previously un-captured expertise and experience in individual workers”, (p. 8).
Although no previous research has reiterated the effects, use, or applicability of knowledge management including the identifying, capturing, evaluating, retrieving and, sharing of information assets, on student retention in higher education institutions, Nawaz and Gomes (2014), assert that when knowledge management is applied to the strategic administration of higher education, a leveraged competitive advantage is created and may result in increased student retention rates and enhanced graduate rates. Although research dictates the significance and expediency of knowledge management in organizations, there is no unanimity among researchers outlining a link between knowledge management and student retention (Laal, 2011). Nawaz & Gomes (2014) and Laal (2011), dictate the importance of knowledge management and its significance towards building a placid platform of student retention. Omona, & van der Weide (2010), describe the importance of knowledge management and its increasing valuable prominence in the business realm, they annotate the lack of its existence in higher education. This includes the need for higher education institutions to integrate the harvesting, originating, organizing, and disseminating of knowledge into application of student retention programs (Namdev Dhamdhere, 2015).
As noted by Laal (2011), student retention remains a challenge and priority at higher education institutions across the country. Student retention are the pillars of sustainable competitive advantage for higher education institutions. Student retentions acts as the backbone for student diversity, institutional financial sustainability and social development (Scurtu & Neamtu, 2015). Yet little is known about the workings and deployment of knowledge management and its effect on student retention (Nawaz and Gomes, 2014). While previous studies cogitated the application of knowledge management on the policy making, innovation process, and the sharing of organizational assets, these studies did not delve into the workings of knowledge management and its influence on student retention.
This study will explore the effects of knowledge management on student retention in a higher education institution. The research is organized first with the introduction to the study, which describes and defines knowledge management from a corporate and institutional perspective, providing insight on the significance of knowledge management in higher education institutions and its implications on student retention; the background of the study explaining the history of this phenomenon and its present state; the problem statement describing the topic and defining the need of the study; a research question reflecting the qualitative nature of the case study; advancement of scientific knowledge by identifying the gaps in literature; and concluding with the significance of the study.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Introduction This section provides a brief overview of the research focus or problem, explains why this study is worth conducting, and discusses how this study will be completed. (Minimum three to four paragraphs or approximately one page) | ||||
| Dissertation topic is introduced and value of conducting the study is discussed. | ||||
| Discussion provides an overview of what is contained in the chapter. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Background of the Study
Knowledge management from a corporate valuation, is a pylon of competitive advantage, organizational structure and continuous asset building (Shafique 2015). Similar to corporate entities, managing knowledge in higher education institutions is considered key to achieving breakthrough competitive advantage. An increasing number of higher education institutions are beginning to comprehend the significance of implementing a knowledge management approach to their operational structure.
With the rapid expansion of knowledge management within higher education and the interconnectivity with other industries and other institutions, knowledge management rests at the epicenter of the development of student retention strategies (Pinto, 2013). These organizations however, are predominately part of the corporate domain and do not include higher education institutions. The interrelationship of knowledge management and higher education institutions is in its infancy.
According to Shafique (2015), an increasing number of higher education institutions are utilizing similar corporate business structures of knowledge management in order to sustain and stimulate better institutional practices. Although an increasing number of higher education institutions are implementing corporate structures of knowledge management, no evidence of knowledge management structures exist in the realm of student retention (Nawaz and Gomes 2014; Kidwell, Vander Linde and Johnson 2000). Prior research conducted by Sallis and Jones (2002), specifies the use of traditional knowledge management utilities such as mass marketing, mailing lists, broadcast and referrals by higher education institutions as the primary font for student retention practices. These burgeoning student retention techniques operate minimal and unsophisticated knowledge management paradigms in their design. Nowaz and Gomes (2014), recognized the need for a more efficient and effective knowledge management stratagem in higher education. Realizing that higher education institutions by design, contain a plethora of data directly correlated to student retention, a more sophisticated structure of student retention practices could be fabricated utilizing contemporary devices of knowledge management. The need to incorporate knowledge management in the logistics of all functional areas of student retention is not progressing but rather evolving into a sizeable task (Serban and Luan, 2002). Thorn (2001), states that in such a diverse and wide spread environment as exists in institutions of higher education, it is challenging to comprehend the implications and the utilization of knowledge management in higher education institutions and the effects on student retention. There has been little evidence or references discovered in the literature that designate the necessity for the research of knowledge management and its influence on student retention in higher education institutions (Nawaz & Gomes, 2014). Further, Roberts (2009) and Chu, Wand and Yuen (2012), indicated the need for further research be conducted on the facets of student retention in higher education institutions that could be advanced by the utilization of knowledge management.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Background of the Study The background section explains both the history of and the present state of the problem and research focus. It identifies the “gap” or “need” based on a summary of the current literature and discusses how the study will address that “gap” or “need.” (Minimum two to three paragraphs or approximately one page) | ||||
| Provides a summary of results from the prior empirical research on the topic and identifies the need as defined by the prior research which this current study will address. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Problem Statement
It is not known how knowledge management affects student retention in a private, non-for-profit higher education institution in New England. Retention of college students remains a challenge and a priority at institutions across the country (Nawaz & Gomes, 2014). Studies conducted by Malhotra, Mossis, and Smets (2010), Mehrizi and Bontis (2009) and Sallis and Jones (2002) have discovered the lack of knowledge management in higher education institutions. Research conducted by Hislop (2013), explains how knowledge management is utilized for the educational policy-making of nations and higher education institutions. Numerous higher education institutions worldwide, employ an array of knowledge management processes in areas of academic services, curriculum assistance and student detection, (Adhikari, 2010), (Laal, 2011), yet little information exists on the effects on student retention. Higher education institutions are becoming highly involved in the business of knowledge management. However, they are not utilizing knowledge management into the mechanisms of student retention. Higher education institutions are beginning to comprehend the significance of implementing a knowledge management approach to their operational structure but lack the aptitude. Effective institutions manage knowledge because it is designated as a crucial factor of organizational success (Bousa & Venkitachalam, 2013). Maintaining streamlined procedures of managing information pertaining to the faculties of retention such as institutional resources, university programs and student education is a concept that higher education institutions have yet to successfully adapt to serve the increasingly competitive facet of student retention (Roberts, 2009). As the importance of knowledge management and the significance towards building a placid platform of student retention become more relevant, the need for higher education institutions to integrate knowledge management into the planning, organizing, and structuring of student retention programs becomes paramount.
According to Nonaka (1994), knowledge management consists of planning, organizing and guiding people and procedures within an organization. Lubega, Omona and van der Weide (2010), describe knowledge management as a discipline that is concerned with practices involving the technical support and analysis of applications utilized by organizations to classify, identify, generate, identify, and commission the acquisition and leveraging of practical applications immersed in concerted settings. Similar to corporate entities, higher education institutions, managing knowledge is considered key to achieving breakthrough competitive advantage. According to Kidwell, Vander-Linde & Johnson (2000), an increasingly high number of higher education institutions are utilizing similar corporate business concepts. Kidwell, Vander Linde and Johnson (2000), also describe knowledge management as the development of transmuting information and scholarly assets into lasting value. Petrides (2012), defines knowledge management as the cognizant integration of persons, processes and technology occupied with the task of constructing, and implementing the cerebral infrastructure of a business or organization. As realized form the various definitions of knowledge management found in the literature pertaining to higher education institutions, none relate knowledge management’s direct impact on student retention. These procedures are in place for institutions to warrant their knowledge resources and to enhance and effectively engage its operational activities that are consistent with operational success.
Thorn (2001), states that in such a diverse and wide spread environment as is found in higher education, it is challenging to comprehend the implications of knowledge management in efforts to increase student retention. Although, the logistics and preliminaries are present, no interchange exists of the fundamental advancement of bracketing knowledge management with student retention. According to Luan (2014), institutional administrators including admissions counselors, faculty, coaches, and student advisors are directly responsible for students’ educational integration and all neoteric environments, all of which directly contribute to a student’s institutional retention. Successful student integration into a higher learning institution can increase the retention rate of new and existing students therefore, contributing to the competitiveness of the institution. The importance of harnessing and applying knowledge management has been increasingly acknowledged in the academic realm (Lau, 2003). Therefore, higher education institutions need to expand their knowledge management faculties to react to the internal and external dynamics of student retention, (Nawaz and Gomes, 2014). Serban and Luan (2002), posited the possible use of knowledge management in areas of faculty development, curriculum advancement and student integration, all of which have been proven to increase student retention. Demetriou and Schmitz (2011), explain how higher education institutions may utilize knowledge management functions in mention to student retention as a marker of enrollment management. Therefore, feeble student retention rates may echo negatively in a higher education institution while causing severe economic tension. Knowledge management could guide higher education institutions to improve student retention rates, student’s learning outcome and educational experience (Pircher & Pausits, 2011). Roberts (2009) and Chu, Wand and Yuen (2012), indicate the need for further research on facets of student retention within higher education institutions that could be advanced by the use of knowledge management. Knapp (1998), suggests that knowledge management is imperative to higher education institutions because of the information converted by the processes of knowledge management. This intellectual capital then translates into lasting standards for admissions departments and student retention rates. Petrides (2003), labelled knowledge management as a primary implement to the sourcing and evaluating of information directly affecting the measures of student retention. Yussef, and Cunha Dolci (2012), proposed that higher education institutions progress curriculum and exploit models of academic evolvement based on the data gathered through knowledge management, consequently providing a setting for improved efficiency, innovation and effectiveness. A current review of the literature pertaining to knowledge management indicates that there have been no substantial inquiries supporting the direct rapport of knowledge management and its influence on student retention. This study will aid higher education institutions in understanding the mechanisms of knowledge management and its effects on student retention. This understanding will assist higher education institutions in the development of comprehensive retention strategies. In addition, it will
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Problem Statement This section includes the problem statement, the population affected, and how the study will contribute to solving the problem. This section is summarized in Chapter 3. This section of Chapter 1 should be a minimum of three to four paragraphs with citations from empirical research articles to support statements. (Minimum three or four paragraphs or approximately one page) | ||||
| States the specific problem proposed for research by presenting a clear declarative statement that begins with “It is not known if and to what degree/extent…” (quantitative) ~or~ or “It is not known how/why and…” (qualitative) | ||||
| Identifies the general population affected by the problem. | ||||
| Suggests how the study may contribute to solving the problem. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study is to research how knowledge management (the application of individual knowledge, structural knowledge, and organizational knowledge) effects student retention. With an increasing number of organizations accepting the significance of explicit and tacit knowledge, higher education institutions need to recognize the influence of knowledge management on student retention. Though extensive quantitative data has been reported (Nawaz and Gomes, 2014), qualitative analysis is deficient. Qualitative research, the methodology selected for this study, supports the researcher’s efforts to completely describe the phenomenon. “If you want people to understand better than they otherwise might, provide them information in the form in which they usually experience it” (Guba and Lincoln, 1985, p.120). With knowledge management being successfully applied over the past decade in commercial business operations, higher education institutions and student advisor need to comprehend its impact on student retention. Data investigating how student retention rates are influenced by knowledge management will be collected three ways. Although interviews and surveys are one of the most commonly used methods of data collection, it has not typically been employed when researching topics related to knowledge management and student retention. Conducting interviews and surveys as the primary data collection methods not only serves to augment the occurrences of this type of data collection, it was also deemed the most appropriate for this study. Primarily, the researcher will conduct interviews with approximately 10 admissions professionals with at least two years of experience who are employed by Johnson and Wales University in Providence, RI. The researcher will utilize a voluntarily drafted list of contacts consisting of admission professionals to be included in the interview process upon approval of the Institutional Review Board and the Academic Quality Review Board. Additional data will be collected through anonymous surveys completed by 15 university counselors who are responsible for assisting students traverse their college process. These 15 school counselors are also employed by Johnson and Wales University in Providence, RI. Documentation will also be included by the researcher after analyzing the methods and types of information transmitted among students and admissions professionals. According to Daun-Barnett, Behrend and Bezek (2014), information shared among students and admissions professionals is vital to providing students with the best opportunity to promote their institutional integration and retention. Information shared, collected, stored and reviewed by the students and the admissions professionals respectively may be explicit in nature in the form of personal beliefs and principles as well as explicit information in the form of institutional policies, financial requirements and documented procedures. Shared information among students and admissions professionals will include Admissions counselors will be presented with signed Consent Forms that will be kept anonymous.
Yin’s (2014) resolution that the Five-Cycle approach combined with the components of case study research allowed researchers to gain increasingly relevant insight into the phenomenon being studied. The five components delineated in Yin’s (2014) research were “1) a study’s questions; 2) it’s propositions, if any; 3) its unit(s) of analysis; 4) the logic linking the data to the propositions; and 5) the criteria for interpreting the findings” (p. 29). Utilization of Yin’s approach allowed the researcher to identify the mechanisms of knowledge management and the impact negotiated on student retention. By examining the “how” and “why” questions particular to qualitative case study research as described by Yin (2014), as well as including the three data collection methods, the researcher was able to study the contemporary phenomenon of knowledge management within the boundaries of student retention.
.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose statement section expands on the problem statement and identifies how the study will be accomplished. It explains how the proposed study will contribute to the field. This section is summarized in Chapter 3. (Minimum two to three paragraphs) | ||||
| Presents a declarative statement: “The purpose of this study is….” that identifies the research methodology and design, population, variables (quantitative) or phenomena (qualitative) to be studied and geographic location. | ||||
| Identifies research methodology as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed, and identifies the specific research design. | ||||
| Describes the target population and geographic location for the study. | ||||
| Quantitative: Defines the variables, relationship of variables, or comparison of groups. Qualitative: Describes the nature of the phenomena to be explored. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Research Question(s) and Hypotheses
This research study concentrated on the problem that it is not known how knowledge management affects student retention in a private, non-for-profit higher education institution in New England. Rowley (2000), defines knowledge management as the collaboration of knowledge workers and their tacit and explicit knowledge, activities, and technologies, which allow the identification, sharing, communication, creativeness, or using and sharing individual and organizational knowledge. As stated by Ward (2001), knowledge management affords higher education institutions the ability to significantly increase student retention and graduation rates. According to Ward (2001), organizations that employ knowledge management create a robust environment for structural collaboration, organizational document management, and student-centric focus. Although research has revealed that knowledge management does promote student retention there is no research firmly disclosing how.
The utilization of 20 admission professionals was used to explore the phenomena of this study and what knowledge management processes do admissions professionals use and how do they describe its effects on student retention in a private, non-for- profit institution in New England. The following research questions will guide this qualitative case study:
RQ1: How does the application of individual (tacit) knowledge effect student retention?
RQ2: How does the application of explicit knowledge effect student retention?
By utilizing multiple data collection devices-individual interviews, member checking, student surveys and documentation of students’ emails, the study will be able to answer this research question and advance scientific knowledge through a thorough data analysis. According to Seidman (2012), academic persistence and integration is conditional of knowledge management. Nonaka’s (1975), model of student retention describes student recruitment and retention as contingent of student persistence and integration. Knowledge management is categorized as the gathering, sorting, transforming, recording and, sharing of knowledge (Zaki & Zubari, 2012). This act of vigorously gathering, sorting, transforming, recording, and sharing knowledge within higher education institutions need to be recognized, absorbed and correlated to the impact on student retention.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Research Question(s) and/or Hypotheses This section narrows the focus of the study by specifying the research questions to address the problem statement. Based on the research questions, it describes the variables and/or groups and their hypothesized relationship (quantitative study) or the phenomena under investigation (qualitative study). It describes how the research questions are related to the problem statement and how the research questions will facilitate collection of the data needed to answer the research questions. (Minimum two to three paragraphs or approximately one page) | ||||
| Qualitative Designs: States the research question(s) the study will answer and describes the phenomenon to be studied. Quantitative Designs: States the research questions the study will answer, identifies the variables, and states the hypotheses (predictive statements) using the format appropriate for the specific design. | ||||
| This section includes a discussion of the research questions, relating them to the problem statement. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Advancing Scientific Knowledge
While research studies have been conducted on the topic of knowledge management, no link has been established between the application of knowledge management and student retention (Nawaz and Gomes, 2014) and (Laal, 2011). Previous studies and research conducted failed to substantiate an association between knowledge management and its impact on student retention. At present, the effects knowledge management on student retention is not known. In addition, admission professionals’ understanding of the influence of knowledge management on student retention needs to be assessed. The significance of this qualitative case study is to investigate how knowledge management impacts student retention in a higher education institution in Rhode Island dictated by admissions councilors’ utilization of knowledge management. Although, Tinto (1975), did discuss the various whys and wherefores of student retention, the research found no candid association between student retention and admissions counselors’ perception of the use and influence of knowledge management.
This research will contribute to current scientific knowledge by addressing the gaps found in research literature by collecting acumen from admissions counselors through email analysis, questionnaire, and semi structured interviews. The need for further research is apparent due to the gaps and limitations found in current research literature concerning knowledge management and its effect on student retention. Through the lens of admissions professionals’ and their perception of the utilization and influence of knowledge management on student retention Addressing the gaps in the current literature regarding the use a and effect of knowledge management on student retention in a higher education institution in New England, this study will aid admissions professionals by examining how knowledge management directly influences student retention, what aspects of knowledge management best suits the dynamics of student retention, and assist admissions professionals best use of tacit and explicit knowledge management to increase student retention.
Multiple theories, including the Student Retention Theory (Tinto, 1975), the Knowledge Creation Theory (Nonaka, 1994), were appropriate to the application and influence of knowledge management on student retention. The study will assist further research between these theories and the phenomenon, as no one theory was pinpointed by the researcher as being entirely relevant to examining the influence of knowledge management on student retention. Creswell (2007), states that the use of fundamental theoretical frameworks, assist inform the analysis of research problems and to methodically simplify the results of the case study. As indicated by current studied and research
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| ADVANCING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE This section specifically describes how the research will advance the body of knowledge on the topic. The study can yield a small step forward in a line of current research, but it must add to the current body of knowledge in the literature in the learner’s program of study. It identifies the “gap” or “need” based on the current literature and discusses how the study will address that “gap” or “need.” This section also identifies the theory(ies) or model(s) that provide the theoretical foundation for the study and how the study will contribute to the research on the theory(ies) or model(s). This section summarizes part of the Background (focused on identifying the “gap” or “need” from the literature) and Theoretical Foundations sections (expanded in Chapter 2). (Minimum two to three paragraphs) | ||||
| Clearly identifies the “gap” or “need” in the literature that was used to define the problem statement and develop the research questions. | ||||
| Describes how the study will address the “gap” or “identified need” defined in the literature and contribute to the body of literature. | ||||
| Identifies the theory(ies) or model(s) that provide the theoretical foundations or conceptual frameworks for the study. | ||||
| Connects the study directly to the theory and describes how the study will add or extend the theory or model. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Significance of the Study
By developing a comprehensive understanding of the various elements of knowledge management, higher education institutions and, more so admissions professionals will have the capability to facilitate a better understanding of the various components of student retention. Knowledge management facilitates a comprehensive method of collecting, coordinating, controlling, and interpreting information (Laal, 2011). When the various systems of knowledge management are applied to the mechanisms of student retention a placid platform of information is created concerning student social and academic integration (Nawaz and Gomes, 2014). While previous studies cogitated the application of knowledge management on the policy making, innovation process, and the sharing of an enterprise’s information assets, the research does not delve into the effects of knowledge management on student retention in higher education institutions. Current gaps and incompatible results in empirical research signify a necessity for further research into the effects of knowledge management on student retention in higher education institutions. Examining the gaps found in the researched literature will complement Tinto’s (XXX), model of student retention by broadening the scope of student retention marked by social and academic integration.
This qualitative case study, through the use of multiple data sources will explore how knowledge management influence student retention and will answer the research question as well as add to the contemporary domain of knowledge concerning the influence of knowledge management on student retention. This study will seek to research what knowledge management practices are present and currently used by admissions counselors in a higher education institution and its effect on student retention. Didactic implications as well as the perceptions of admissions counselors will be examined generating results that will bring awareness to admissions counselors on how utilizing knowledge management can develop student retention. To help assist higher education institutions better student retention rates, admissions counselors need to comprehend how knowledge management effects the various facets of student retention. While many studies did acknowledge the use of knowledge management in higher education provided benefits in the area of faculty development, curriculum innovation and student sustenance (Kidwell, Vander-Linde & Johnson, 2000), Nawaz & Gomes (2014), acknowledged the lack of an organized knowledge management platform in regards to student retention. While the applications of knowledge management continue to advance, comprehending how and to what extent it influences student retention will aid admissions counselors understand its implications on student retention. By applying and incorporating its mechanisms into the student retention process, admissions advisors will have the ability to better existing student retention rates.
Knowledge gained
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Significance of the Study This section identifies and describes the significance of the study and the implications of the potential results based on the research questions, the problem statement, and the hypotheses or the investigated phenomena. It describes how the research fits within and will contribute to the current literature or body of research. It describes potential practical applications from the research. (Minimum three to four paragraphs) | ||||
| Describes how the proposed research fits within the prior research and how the study will make an academic research contribution in the field of study. | ||||
| Describes how the study will make a practical contribution in the field of study. | ||||
| Describes how addressing the problem will add value to the population, community, or society. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Rationale for Methodology
A qualitative approach was chosen as the research method for this study. Qualitative research methodology is appropriate when the researcher searches to comprehend, discover, and interpret how phenomenon are experienced by the participants (Tufford & Newman, 2012). Yin (2014) suggests that the qualitative approach is more relevant in gaining a more thorough, comprehensive understanding of the topic. Specifically, qualitative research provides an opportunity to understand and explore the perceptions of people in their environment (Birkinshaw, Brannen, & Tung, 2011). A quantitative approach does not permit the exploration of a phenomenon such as the one posed in this study. Van Maanen (1979): describes qualitative research as “an umbrella term covering an array of interpretive techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world” (p. 520). Essentially, qualitative research revolves around the notion of comprehending the sense people have assembled and how society makes sense of the experiences people have in the world. Yin (2014), suggests that the utilization of quantitative methodology is of little assistance in the identification of meanings and experiences.
This qualitative descriptive research is based on the problem that it is not known how knowledge management affects student retention in a private, non-for-profit higher education institution in New England. Centered on the problem, two research questions were designed each examining the distinctive aspects of knowledge management and its influence on student retention as described in the literature review and theoretical framework. Previous research outlined research of the existence of knowledge mismanagement in higher education institutions
Although mixed methods and quantitative research have been conducted on the effects of knowledge management on student retention, the researcher concluded that the research of the contemporary issue of knowledge management and its influence on student retention in a real world setting will engender more information.
As opposed to qualitative research, quantitative research is based on a scientific approach utilizing systems analysis and results computation (Bailey, 1978). Quantitative research is grounded on the development of hypotheses based on theoretical models pertaining to the nature of a phenomenon. The nature of quantitative research challenges the scope and design of qualitative research. Quantitative research provides the researcher with mathematical models used as the methodology of data analysis (Williams, 2007). According to Creswell (2003), quantitative research “employ strategies of inquiry such as experimental and surveys, and collect data on predetermined instruments that yield statistical data” (p. 18). Qualitative research, the research methodology chosen for this study, is a holistic approach to research that involves discovery (Williams, 2007). Creswell (1994), continues by describing how qualitative research is a model unfolding in a natural setting, giving the researcher the opportunity to develop a detailed account by delving into actual experiences. Qualitative research includes a participant’s perspective forming a phenomenon that is investigated by the researcher. It is the robust association between the researcher and the data investigated that sets the difference from quantitative research where the phenomenon being investigated is firmly freestanding from the researcher. Qualitative research is premised on Yin’s (2008), scheme of case study research “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real – life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p. 18). When utilizing case study research Yin (2014), emphasized the significance of employing differing data collection methods and sources of evidence, including: documentation, archival records, interviews and participant observations.
| Criterion* (Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Rationale for Methodology This section clearly justifies the methodology the researcher plans to use for conducting the study. It argues why the methodological framework is the best approach to answer the research questions and how it will address the problem statement. It uses citations from textbooks and articles on research methodology and/or articles on related studies to justify the methodology. (Minimum two to three paragraphs) | ||||
| Identifies the specific research methodology for the study. | ||||
| Justifies the methodology to be used for the study by discussing why it is the best approach for answering the research question(s) and addressing the problem statement. | ||||
| Uses citations from seminal (authoritative) sources (textbooks and/or empirical research literature) to justify the selected methodology. Note: Introductory or survey research textbooks (such as Creswell) are not considered seminal sources. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Nature of the Research Design for the Study
Yin (1994), described the case study as an empirical inquiry that examines a current phenomenon in depth and “within a real world context” (p.10). It also permits researchers to focus on a holistic and real world perspective-such as researching organizational and managerial processes. It is applicable then, to use case study in order to evaluate how knowledge management may affect student retention in higher education institutions in the northeastern US. This case study will incorporate findings from the analysis of interviews, questionnaires, and documentation collected from ten admission counselors of a higher education institute in the North-Eastern region of the United States. According to Yin, (1994), a case study design is appropriate for the study because it focuses on explaining a decision, or set of decisions: why they were taken, how these decisions were implemented and what resulted. By binding the case study to the topic of knowledge management and its effect on student retention, the researcher will be able to explore the impact of this phenomenon within higher education institution. Other qualitative methods, such as a phenomenology, were not deemed appropriate for this study. Whereas a phenomenology would focus on the lived experiences of those involved, this study seeks to explore how knowledge management and student retention are related in higher education institutions.
Furthermore, Yin’s (2014) resolution that the Five-Cycle approach combined with the five components of case study research allowed researchers to gain increasingly relevant insight into the phenomenon being studied. The five components delineated in Yin’s (2014) research were “1) a study’s questions; 2) it’s propositions, if any; 3) its unit(s) of analysis; 4) the logic linking the data to the propositions; and 5) the criteria for interpreting the findings” (p. 29). Utilization of this approach allowed the researcher to identify the most relevant criteria for evaluating and understanding the findings of the study. By delving into the topic utilizing the “how” and “why” questions particular to qualitative case study research, as well as including varying collection methods, the researcher was able to explore this contemporary educational phenomenon within the boundaries of its context.
According to Yin, (1994) a case study is utilized in many situations, to contribute to our knowledge of organizational and related phenomena. Baxter and Jack (2008) concurred, that a qualitative case study permitted researchers to explore phenomena in its context using varying sources of data “to develop theory, evaluate programs, and develop interventions because of its flexibility and rigor” (p. 544). This qualitative study will utilize a case study design to answer the research questions and address the problem statement. According to Yeh (2005), higher education institutions are organizations that are in constant pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge management may be utilized as a strategy to improve competitive advantage by increasing student retention (Chu, Wang & Yuan, 2011). This case study will illustrate how knowledge management effects student retention in a higher education institution. Remaining consistent with the parameters of the case study, interviews, questionnaires and documentary information will be introduced. Yin (1994), describes case study interviews, questionnaires and documentation as an essential source of information and evidence. Yin (1994), continues that a case study should take place in a real world setting.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Nature of the Research Design for the Study This section describes the specific research design to answer the research questions and affirms why this approach was selected. It describes the research sample being studied as well as the process that will be used to collect the data on the sample. It identifies the instruments or sources of data needed to answer the research questions. It provides citations from seminal sources such as research textbooks, research articles, and articles on similar studies.(Minimum three to four paragraphs or approximately one page) | ||||
| Describes the selected design for the study. | ||||
| Discusses why the selected design is the best design to address the problem statement and research questions as compared to other designs. | ||||
| Briefly describes the target population, and the sample for the study, the data collection procedures to collect data on the sample, and the instruments or sources of data needed to answer the research questions. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Definition of Terms
The Definition of Terms section of Chapter 1 defines the study constructs and provides a common understanding of the technical terms, exclusive jargon, variables, phenomena, concepts, and technical terminology used within the scope of the study. Terms are defined in lay terms and in the context in which they are used within the study. Each definition may be a few sentences to a paragraph in length. This section includes any words that may be unknown to a lay person (words with unusual or ambiguous meanings or technical terms).
Definitions must be supported with citations from scholarly sources. Do not use Wikipedia to define terms. This popular “open source” online encyclopedia can be helpful and interesting for the layperson, but it is not appropriate for formal academic research and writing. Additionally, do not use dictionaries to define terms. A paragraph introducing this section prior to listing the definition of terms can be inserted. However, a lead-in phrase is needed to introduce the terms such as: “The following terms were used operationally in this study.” This is also a good place to “operationally define” unique phrases specific to this research. See below for the correct format:
Term.Write the definition of the word. This is considered a Level 3 heading., Make sure the definition is properly cited (Author, 2010, p.123). Terms often use abbreviations. According to the American Psychological Association (APA), abbreviations are best used only when they allow for clear communication with the audience. Standard abbreviations, such as units of measurement and names of states, do not need to be written out. APA also allows abbreviations that appear as words in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2005) to be used without explanation [4.22-4.30].
Spaces. Do not use periods or spaces in abbreviations of all capital letters unless the abbreviation is a proper name or refers to participants using identity-concealing labels. The exception to this rule is that a period is used when abbreviating the United States as an adjective. Use a period if the abbreviation is a Latin abbreviation or a reference abbreviation [4.02]. Use standard newspaper practice when presenting AM and PM times, as in 7:30 PM or 6:00 AM.
Abbreviations. Do not use periods with abbreviated measurements, (e.g., cd, ft, lb, mi, and min). The exception to this rule is to use a period when abbreviated inch (in.) to avoid confusion with the word “in”. Units of measurement and statistical abbreviations should only be abbreviated when accompanied by numerical values, e.g., 7 mg, 12 mi, M = 7.5 measured in milligrams, several miles after the exit, the means were determined [4.27].
Time units. Only certain units of time should be abbreviated. Do abbreviate hr, min, ms, ns, s. However, do not abbreviate day, week, month, and year [4.27]. To form the plural of abbreviations, add “s” alone without apostrophe or italicization (e.g., vols, IQs, Eds). The exception to this rule is not to add “s” to pluralize units of measurement (12 m not 12 ms) [4.29].
| Criterion* (Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Definitions of Terms This section defines the study constructs and provides a common understanding of the technical terms, exclusive jargon, variables, phenomena, concepts, and sundry terminology used within the scope of the study. Terms are defined in lay language and in the context in which they are used within the study. (Each definition may be a few sentences to a paragraph.) | ||||
| Defines any words that may be unknown to a lay person (words with unusual or ambiguous meanings or technical terms) from the research or literature. | ||||
| Defines the variables for a quantitative study or the phenomena for a qualitative study from the research or literature. | ||||
| Definitions are supported with citations from scholarly sources. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations
This section identifies the assumptions and specifies the limitations, as well as the delimitations, of the study. An assumption is a self-evident truth. This section should list what is assumed to be true about the information gathered in the study. State the assumptions being accepted for the study as methodological, theoretical, or topic-specific. For each assumption listed, you must also provide an explanation. Provide a rationale for each assumption, incorporating multiple perspectives, when appropriate. For example, the following assumptions were present in this study:
- It is assumed that survey participants in this study were not deceptive with their answers, and that the participants answered questions honestly and to the best of their ability. Provide an explanation to support this assumption.
- It is assumed that this study is an accurate representation of the current situation in rural southern Arizona. Provide an explanation to support this assumption.
Limitations are things that the researcher has no control over, such as bias. Delimitations are things over which the researcher has control, such as location of the study. Identify the limitations and delimitations of the research design. Discu ss the potential generalizability of the study findings based on these limitations. For each limitation and/or delimitation listed, make sure to provide an associated explanation. For example: The following limitations/delimitations were present in this study:
- Lack of funding limited the scope of this study. Provide an explanation to support this limitation.
- The survey of high school students was delimited to only rural schools in one county within southern Arizona, limiting the demographic sample. Provide an explanation to support this delimitation.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations This section identifies the assumptions and specifies the limitations, as well as the delimitations, of the study. (Minimum three to four paragraphs) | ||||
| States the assumptions being accepted for the study (methodological, theoretical, and topic-specific). | ||||
| Provides rationale for each assumption, incorporating multiple perspectives, when appropriate. | ||||
| Identifies limitations of the research design. | ||||
| Identifies delimitations of the research design. | ||||
| The Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This section summarizes the key points of Chapter 1 and provides supporting citations for those key points. It then provides a transition discussion to Chapter 2 followed by a description of the remaining chapters. For example, Chapter 2 will present a review of current research on the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology, research design, and procedures for this investigation. Chapter 4 details how the data was analyzed and provides both a written and graphic summary of the results. Chapter 5 is an interpretation and discussion of the results, as it relates to the existing body of research related to the dissertation topic. For the proposal, this section should also provide a timeline for completing the research and writing up the dissertation. When the dissertation is complete, this section should be revised to eliminate the timeline information.
| Criterion* (Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Chapter 1 Summary and Organization of the remainder of the study This section summarizes the key points of Chapter 1 and provides supporting citations for those key points. It then provides a transition discussion to Chapter 2 followed by a description of the remaining chapters. The Proposal, but not the Dissertation, provides a timeline for completing the research and dissertation. (Minimum one to two pages) | ||||
| Summarizes key points presented in Chapter 1. | ||||
| Provides citations from scholarly sources to support key points. | ||||
| Describes the remaining Chapters and provides a transition discussion to Chapter 2. For proposal only, a timeline for completing the research and dissertation is provided. | ||||
| The Chapter is correctly formatted to dissertation template using the Word Style Tool and APA standards. Writing is free of mechanical errors. | ||||
| All research presented in the Chapter is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected academic, professional, original sources. In-text citations are accurate, correctly cited, and included in the reference page according to APA standards. | ||||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | ||||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem
The influence of knowledge management on student retention is a composition of functions that originate from an individual and organizational setting that facilitate the development of new and existing knowledge. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the way knowledge management affects student retention in a higher education institution in POIIOHIUFV.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION (TO THE CHAPTER) AND BACKGROUND (TO THE PROBLEM) This section describes the overall topic to be investigated, outlines the approach taken for the literature review, and argues the evolution of the problem based on the “gap” or “need” defined in the literature from its origination to its current form. (Minimum two to three pages) | ||||
| Introduction: Provides an orienting paragraph so the reader knows what the literature review will address. | X | |||
| Introduction: Describes how the chapter will be organized (including the specific sections and subsections). | X | |||
| Introduction: Describes how the literature was surveyed so the reader can evaluate thoroughness of the review. This includes search terms and databases used. | X | |||
| Background: Discusses how the problem has evolved historically into its current form. | X | |||
| Background: Describes the “gap” or “need” defined in the current literature and how it leads to the creation of the topic and problem statement for the study. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Theoretical Foundations and/or Conceptual Framework
Tinto’s (1975) model of student retention.
Many of the readings in the contributing literature that study student retention in higher education institutions have been adopted in reference to the theoretical framework of student retention by Vincent Tinto (1975). Although the literature studying student retention theories are predominately dedicated to Tinto’s model of student retention, there will also be an analysis of Alan Seidman’s (1987), student retention formula and Alexander Astin’s (1975), student retention theory.
Students do not begin a college course with the intention of dropping out before the end of the term, yet many do (Tinto, 1975). Tinto (1975), conceived this theory, provides a central notion and theoretical framework for comprehending the dynamics of student retention. According to Tinto (1975), a student’s retention is pursuant to the students’ primary commitment to the higher education institution. Prior research shows how students perceive their learning environment and other college experiences influence retention. Understanding student retention theory allowed researchers to determine the factors involved in a students retention. better by university admissions counselors will illustrate how student retention assists university admissions make better decisions regarding the planning, coordinating and implementation of student retention policies. In addition, increased knowledge about retention theory will help the researcher comprehend how admissions counselors may improve their interactions with students both in and out of the classroom and within the university as a whole in order to better understand the elements of retention. In addition, this theory allowed researchers to identify the contemporaneous composition of existing student retention policies. Tinto’s model is poised towards the notion that student retention is directly impacted by learning, teaching, curriculum development and assessment, all of which Tinto (1991), describes as an onus of knowledge management. Tinto (1993) includes the student’s sociological perspective as part of their retention. This suggests that the social order of classrooms in a higher education institution and other communities of student learning serve as bonds to the wide ranging academic and social structure of the institution (Tinto, 1993). Therefore, Tinto’s (1975), delineation of student retention is centered upon individual student attributes, commitment to their education and interactions with other members of the institution, including admissions counselors, faculty, other students and administration. Tinto’s theory which is based in part on Dureim’s suicide model (1897), is grounded on the notion that a student’s successful completion of academic goals is in conjunction with their integration into the institution’s academic and social community. Extending his theory, Tinto (1975), hypothesizes that a student needs to progress through three stages of integration in order to be fully integrated into the college community. These three stages are “separation from communities of the past, transition between communities and incorporation into the communities of the college” (p. 72). Although Tinto (1975), states in his theory that a student needs to bridge all three stages to be fully integrated, he cautioned that the three stages may not be clearly outlined nor chronologically experienced. A number of students may experience all three stages partially while others may experience them simultaneously. Separation from communities of the past involves students withdrawing themselves from communities associated with the family environment, local high school and local residential neighborhoods. This stage not only means that students need to physically separate themselves but also mentally. According to Tinto (1975), students who successfully disassociate themselves from family and past cohorts including other factions that devalue higher education will successfully integrate and persist. Tinto (1975), describes transition as the period of time between the separation from old communities and full integration with the new communities. Students were apt to persist if they came from parents who had attended college. Peers and parents could provide insight and guidance pertaining to any social challenges and direct them through the bureaucracy involved in the enrollment process.
As described by Tinto (1975), in his model of student retention and persistence, the degree of realization a student possesses in their quest towards higher education impacts the level of commitment to an institution, academic goals and career goals. The research conducted by Tinto recognized and described the foundations characterized as the precursors to student success. Tinto (1991), provides a comprehensive understanding of the connectivity amid the concepts of knowledge management and student retention.
Tinto (1991), suggests that the social and academic order of higher education institutions, including other communities of student engagement serve as a bond to the wide ranging academic and social structure of the institution. Tinto’s (1991), theory proposes that student retention, a measure of academic performance, is aligned with enrolment and advising administration. Enrolment administration, curriculum development and academic assessment, and advising administration is congruent to the mechanisms of student retention. This is supported by the Student Retention Theory in which a student’s retention in a higher education institution is based on a myriad of factors including; the student’s institutional experiences, faculty student relationships, innovative teaching methods, physical facilities, and technology (Lau, 2014) most of which are discussed throughout the duration of the student’s enrolment and is initially described by university advisees. The theory explores the dynamics of students’ decisions of continuing their education at a higher education institution. The students’ decision of whether to continue their education and extend enrollment is, according to Tinto (1991), centered on student persistence, academic integration and social acceptance. Tinto (1991), concedes a gamut of factors existing in higher education institutions that have a direct bearing on students’ enrollment. These comprise of pre-acceptance information, admissions processes, student academic and social support, assessment and curriculum development. Tinto’s (1991), model of student retention will demonstrate to what extent and with what utility higher education institutions utilize knowledge management as a measure of student retention.
Nonaka’s (1994), Model of Knowledge Management; SECI Model
Nonaka’s (1994), model of knowledge management is predominantly concerned with knowledge collection and the methods of knowledge implementation. Knowledge management as described by Nonaka (1994), is the application of the planning, leading, organizing, and control utilities of an organization’s knowledge practices. His theory is grounded on Polanyi’s (1964), explanation of tacit and explicit knowledge that suggest a sequence of knowledge creation systems centered on the conversion of knowledge from one form to the other. Nonaka’s (1994), model is frequently associated with the research and study of knowledge creation and engrosses themes of governance, management, organizational form, and business strategy. A significant feature of knowledge management is that it presents individuals and organizations the opportunity to comprehend circumstances and situations. An outline of knowledge management functions defined by Nonaka (2005), proposes that organizing, controlling, planning, and leading are applied throughout all institutional processes. Knowledge management is concomitant to and inextricable from the behavior of people and organizations. (Nonaka, 1994). The theory of knowledge management is widely utilized in the realm of education. The application of knowledge management activities in higher education institutions is a developmental factor in the formation and enhancement of curriculum, institutional policy, and student retention in the form of ascertained retention policies. Based on Nonaka’s (1995), theory of knowledge management it has been established that knowledge management has become increasingly significant in the development of organizational advancement and academic and public policy. In regards to knowledge management, Wyman (1997), states that knowledge management continues to be an extremely valuable instrument in the development of educational policy making in higher education institutions worldwide. When scrutinizing student retention Grites (1979), states that admissions counseling and academic advising stand as a process of critical decision making during which “students realize their maximum educational potential through communication and information exchanges with a counselor” (p.1). The information and knowledge exchanged between a student and an admissions counselor is often personal and includes financial data, school grades and housing options (Bess & Dee, 2012) and act as a prime indicator of a student’s persistence and retention within an institution. Nonaka (1995), describes, personal knowledge as tacit knowledge; While Braxton et.,el (2014), asserts that student advising and academic counseling is based on the exchange of explicit knowledge pertaining to the students’ academic retention. This supported the Model of Knowledge Management in which the exchange of tacit and explicit knowledge between students and advising counselors used the tacit and explicit information to create propositions related to student retention.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| theoretical foundations and/or conceptual framework This section identifies the theory(ies) or model(s) that provide the foundation for the research. This section should present the theory(ies) or models(s) and explain how the problem under investigation relates to the theory(ies) or model(s). The theory(ies) or models(s) guide the research questions and justify what is being measured (variables) as well as how those variables are related (quantitative) or the phenomena being investigated (qualitative). (Minimum two to three pages) | ||||
| Identifies a model(s) or theory(ies) from seminal source(s) that provide a reasonable conceptual framework or theoretical foundation to use in developing the research questions, identifying variables/phenomena, and selecting data collection instruments. | X | |||
| Accurately cites the appropriate seminal source(s) for each theory or model. | X | |||
| Includes a cogent discussion/synthesis of the theory or model and justifies the theoretical foundation/framework as relevant to the study. Connects the study directly to the theory and describes how the study will add or extend the theory or model. | X | |||
| Builds a logical argument of how the research questions directly align to the theoretical foundation for the study. | X | |||
| Reflects a deep understanding of the foundational, historical, research relevant to the theoretical foundation/framework. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Review of the Literature
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the effects of knowledge management on student retention in a private, non-for-profit higher education institution in New England. This section will explore relevant literature and former research in relation to the categories of knowledge required when ruminating student retention. Knowledge management as an organizational discipline has already been successfully implemented into many organizations. These organizations however, were predominately part of the business setting. The interrelationship of knowledge management and higher education institutions is still quite rare. Referenced in this section will be models of conventional knowledge management in addition to knowledge management as it is applied to student retention in higher education. In addition, there will be a provision of the prevalent models of student retention as prescribed by existing literature.
.
Definition of knowledge management.
Knowledge management as a concept is not new and is considered a valuable organizational asset. A vast amount of research has been conducted on the importance of knowledge management and its bearings on organizational performance. Recently, many organizations including higher education institutions have seen great benefits from the implementation of knowledge management practices. Definitions of knowledge management as found in the literature are numerous. A preliminary search in the literature for a definition of knowledge management recovered a range of over sixty broad definitions. This denotes that knowledge management is a multidisciplinary field of research that encompasses a large piece of organizational and academic ground (Toro & Joshi, 2013). For reasons suitable for this study, only the definitions of knowledge management particular to organizational functions and more so higher education institutions were included. Sallis and Jones (2002, p. 3), provide a holistic definition of knowledge management; “knowledge management is everything from the application of new technology to a broader endeavor of harnessing the intellectual capital of an organization”. Knowledge management according to Malhotra, Majchzek, and Rosen (2007, p. 11), “knowledge management implies continuous and ongoing renewal of organizational schemas to anticipate future opportunities and threats”. Dimitriades (2005), describes knowledge management as a management discipline related to the methodical attainment, conception, allotment, garnering and use of knowledge in organizations. According to Nonaka (1994), the foremost expert in the realm of knowledge management, knowledge management consists of planning, organizing and guiding people and procedures within an organization. Lubega, Omona and van der Weide (2010), describe knowledge management as a subject that is concerned with practices involving the technical support and analysis of applications utilized by organizations to classify, identify, generate, identify, and commission the acquisition and leveraging of practical applications immersed in concerted settings. Kidwell, Vander Linde and Johnson (2000), describe knowledge management as the development of transmuting information and scholarly assets into lasting value. Petrides (2012), defines knowledge management as the cognizant integration of persons, processes and technology occupied with the task of constructing, and implementing the cerebral infrastructure of a business or organization. One of the most prominent definitions of knowledge management has originated from the research of Nonaka and Takeuchi, (1995). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), define knowledge management as the process of applying a methodical approach to the harvesting, shaping, managing, and distribution of knowledge throughout an organization. The definition of knowledge management as provided by Nonaka and Takeuchi provides a comprehensive understanding of knowledge management as it is applied to the majority of contemporary organizations including higher education institutions. The common thread as disclosed by the existing definitions of knowledge management found in the literature, is that knowledge management is a discipline that allocates knowledge towards a universal role of organizational improvement through the utilization and development of knowledge assets of an organization with the intent of advancing the objectives of the organization (Rowley, 2000).
Knowledge-intensive firms and higher education institutions.
As the research delves into the various definitions of knowledge management and its applications on an organizational level including higher education institutions, it is necessary to provide a platform defining the knowledge-intensive firm. For the purpose of this study a formal definition of knowledge-intensive firm will be given in order to better comprehend and define the connection and similarities of the knowledge-intensive firm and higher education institution. The research is delimited by the existence of knowledge management in a higher education institution. According to Alvesson (2001, p. 1101), knowledge intensive firms are “companies where most of the work can be said to be of intellectual nature and where explicit and tacit knowledge crisscross among well qualified employees who form the major part of the workforce”. Although there is no consensus in the literature on the definition of knowledge intensive firm, Grimshaw & Miozzo (2009), provide a list of organizations and firms that are commonly labeled as knowledge intensive, these include: IT service companies, law firms (Malhotra, Mossis, and Smets, 2010), and all institutions that promote schooling of any form including universities, colleges and primary and secondary schools (Mehrizi and Bontis, 2009). According to Namdev Dhamdhere (2015), a knowledge intensive firm or “knowledge house” includes research and development firms, accounting firms, advertising companies, and higher education institutions. Research by Namdev Dhamdhere (2015), concedes that higher education firms are organizations that foster explicit and tacit knowledge and transform it into practical procedural systems. Higher education institutions are a significant component of the knowledge based economy. Higher education institutions are a principal originator, gatherer, organizer and propagator of knowledge (Surban & Luan, 2002). Knowledge management in reference to higher education institutions can be found throughout an institution’s entire foundation. Jones (2002), noted that higher education institutions are the foremost creators and handlers of knowledge and of knowledge management structures. They are able to extended knowledge expertise, produce high quality graduates, elevate innovation, and promote the development of knowledge (Oxbrow, 2000). As knowledge management is becoming an increasingly important issue in higher education institutions, significant pressure is being felt by institutions to convert the existing knowledge that resides in all employees, and organizational structures to provide a wide and uncomplicated means of providing access to levels. The knowledge that exists in most higher education institutes is not properly organized nor is it stored for future systemization (Kidwell, Vander Linde & Johnson, 2000). As the originators, harvesters, organizers and storers of knowledge it is imperative that higher education institutions comprehend the types of knowledge that are being projected by its students, faculty, and administrative offices. According to Nonaka’s (1991), knowledge creation theory, the types of knowledge that are prevalent in all organizations including higher education institutions is concerned with organizational learning, development and enhancement. The knowledge creation theory also engages knowledge relating to administration, management, organizational form and business strategy (Nonaka, 1994). Sallis and Jones (2002), add classifying knowledge, auditing knowledge, accounting for knowledge, and applying knowledge as commissions of knowledge creation. The nature and scope of these types of knowledge found in higher education institutions promote the need to examine Nonaka’s knowledge creation theory, Spender’s theory of knowledge, and Blackler’s theory further. This study will provide a comprehensive examination to better understand the types and categories of knowledge in higher education institutions, specifically advising counselors and the manner which this knowledge is handled in regard to student retention.
Advising counselors as knowledge workers.
Similar to knowledge intensive firms, there is no precise universal definition of knowledge worker. Frenkel et al (1995), provides a broad definition and forwards the term knowledge worker into three categories. Category one is based on the workers’ creativity. Creativity in this context is defined as a “process of original problem solving” (Frenkel, 1995, p. 779), that comprises of tacit knowledge retained by the firm’s workers. Second category is the knowledge predominately used at work. This knowledge is theoretical or contextual in nature therefore, making it explicit in nature (Frenkel, 1995), (Nonaka, 1995). This type of knowledge is sourced from firm specific manuals and procedural guidebooks that are procured by students from university advisees. Category three is skill. According to Frenke; (1995), skill is the ability to act and relate to physical dexterity. According to Lowe (2002), a knowledge worker is every employee who uses their brain more than hands. Bess & Dee (2007, p. 85), describe advising counselors as “individuals having the capacity of using problem solving skills, organizational procedures and innate knowledge, as a catalyst to promote student engagement”, and retention. Gordon, Habley and Grites (2008), define advising counselors as employees of higher education institutions having a direct responsibility of devoting the majority of their energy to meeting directly with students with the intent of addressing any circumstances pertaining to their education. In order to assist students, advising counselors must utilize a variety of methods including, academic and procedural directives mandated by the institution as well as problem solving skills needed to guide students in their academic endeavors. For the purpose of this study and for reasons pertaining to the research questions the definition of admission counselor provided by Frenkel, (1995), Lowe (2002) and Gordon, Habley and Grites (2008), is in alignment with the definition of knowledge worker. To illustrate the importance of student advisors in the process of student retention a cohesive association needed to be made connecting student advisors to the mechanisms of knowledge management. Building off the research of Davenport, Freitag (2008), designates academic advisors as knowledge workers because of their ability to think for a living, they are good problem solvers, they understand students and their needs. Advisors also have a high degree of expertise in education and specialize in student education. Therefore, according to the definitions provided for the characterization of a knowledge worker in the literature, it is pliable to label advising counselors as knowledge workers.
Knowledge creation theory and Organizational knowledge creation.
Knowledge management schemas are categorized largely by the type of knowledge that is found within the organization (Hislop, 2013). The knowledge diverging from an organization is the facilitating component that assists an organization discover, select, establish, spread and convert valuable information and expertise necessary for activities such as critical thinking, problem solving, scholarship, strategic planning and decision making (Gupta, Iyer, & Aronson 2000). It is extremely important for organizations to realize effective assignments for the management of organizational knowledge. According to Friehs (2000), there are eight knowledge management assignments:
1. Mobilize explicit knowledge.
2. Integrate knowledge from organization and make it accessible.
3. Identify missing knowledge.
4. Develop new knowledge.
5. Make knowledge more accessible and usable.
6. Create organizational culture that allows experimenting and learning.
7. Evaluate and reflect learning processes.
8. Codify new knowledge. Add these into research questions and on questionnaires
Organizational knowledge creation.
Epistemological Dimension
Exteriorization
Explicit Knowledge Combination
Tacit Knowledge
Socialization Interiorization
Individual Group Organization Inter-Organization
Level of Knowledge
Figure 2. The Spiral of Organizational Knowledge Creation.
Boisot’s knowledge category model (1987), describes knowledge as defused and undiffused or codified and uncodified. Boisot (1987), determined the Knowledge Category Model also impacted the type of knowledge an admission advisor selects when assisting a student According to his model Boisot (1987, p. 115), defines codified-undiffused knowledge as being “proprietary knowledge”. Proprietary knowledge is knowledge that is transferred to a group of individuals within an organization and is kept strictly within that group. Proprietary knowledge is knowledge pertaining to organizational training procedures, organizational protocol and daily operations (Boisot, 1987). Uncodified knowledge is classified as knowledge that is not easily transferred to others and refers to knowledge founded on personal experience. Uncodified knowledge is knowledge that is exchanged between individuals or groups of individuals and is comprised of personal experiences, undocumented organizational procedures and policies.
Hedlund and Nonaka (1993), designated a system where levels of knowledge are designated into four levels of carriers. Each level is assigned to a certain category. The four levels according to Hedlund and Nonaka (1993), are the individual category, the group category, the organizational category and the interorganizational category. Hedlund and Nonaka (1993), contend that knowledge management levels may have a direct implication on organizational strategies and innovation.
Although a multitude of knowledge management assignments including a wide collection of knowledge management frameworks have been examined, for the purpose of this study, a methodical examination of Nonaka’s knowledge creation theory will be conducted.
Nonaka’s knowledge creation theory is broadly used throughout existing knowledge management literature. According to Nonaka’s (1994) knowledge creation theory, knowledge is categorized as tacit and explicit. Although many deem tacit and explicit knowledge as distinct units. The literature demonstrates that tacit and explicit knowledge as being mutually complementary (Nonaka, 1994), (Boisot, 1987). The interaction between people is the driving force behind the interchangeability between tacit and explicit knowledge. Nonaka (1994), states that the model of knowledge creation and the interchangeability of tacit and explicit knowledge is anchored to the postulation that human knowledge is created and developed through social interaction among tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. The social process of knowledge conversion is conducted among individuals and not restricted within a single individual. knowledge that is gained through one’s experience of the world. The lived experiences an individual has is the driving contributor to the formation of tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is personal (Nonaka, 1994), and is entrenched in individual experience and includes intangible features such as personal beliefs, morals, lived experiences, and values (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Nonaka provides an outline of the way knowledge is conceptualized. Nonaka (1995) describes knowledge as being deeply personal, possessed and subsisting within people According to Nonaka (1995), knowledge is defined as a “justified true belief” (p. 16). Justified true belief according to Nonaka (1995), is the knowledge people cultivate based on personal experiences and work methods. While Nonaka (1995), describes knowledge as being strictly personal, he also provides a distinction between individual, group and organizational knowledge. Nonaka (1995), postulates that knowledge, although deemed individual can move through the individual, group and organizational levels. According to Buckman (1998), tacit knowledge is securely placed in employees’ consciences, is readily available and is deemed to be an organization’s most important knowledge receptacle. Tacit knowledge as explained by Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001), is a collection of insights, intuitions and hunches that are challenging to express and validate. Tacit knowledge exists in people rather than other physical, mechanical and technological forms (Lloria, 2008). Buckman (1998), conquers that tacit knowledge is pleated away in employees’ minds and is the most significant knowledge source in any organization. According to Lesser and Prusak (2001), tacit knowledge is complicated to understand, verbalize or put into text; it represents knowledge that is nearly impossible to disembody and codify. Tacit knowledge is attained without intension to understand or learn. Due to its subconscious nature Roosendaal (2009), describes tacit knowledge as intangible and subjective. Nonaka (1995) describes tacit knowledge as being deeply personal, possessed and subsisting within people. Individual or tacit knowledge is created by peoples’ personal experiences. According to Grant (2008), tacit knowledge is the product of a variety of knowledge processes incorporating codifying, sharing, utilizing and generating knowledge. Tacit knowledge is created through the blending of knowledge from individuals and higher level systems found at the organizational level. Need to show relationship between tacit knowledge and relationship with study.
The second form of knowledge described by Nonaka’s knowledge creation theory (1995), is explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is shared formally in various electronic and tangible media (Hoe, 2006), forms, manuals and other organizational primers. Contrary to tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge can be transferred and expressed statistically with numbers and verbally with words. According to Zack (1999), explicit knowledge is articulated in a formal precise manner. It is knowledge that is codified and describes specific organizational procedures that formally promote consistency and uniformity within an organization. Explicit knowledge is created with the intent of being shared and pooled by all who seek instruction (Rodgers, 2003). Expand explicit knowledge Using Nonaka’s constructs, admissions counselors can manifest specific tacit and explicit knowledge in order to facilitate transparent mechanisms to better handle knowledge throughout the institution therefore maintaining the characteristics of knowledge workers and knowledge intensive firm (Chua, 2002).
Nonaka’s SECI model.
Nonaka’s Knowledge Creation Theory and SECI model of knowledge creation can be utilized to evaluate the way knowledge is created and recycled in higher education institutions and applied to the dynamics of student retention. As depicted above, Nonaka’s (1994), knowledge creation theory and SECI model of knowledge creation is wide ranging and contains features of epistemology. The theory draws upon Polanyi’s (1964), differentiation of tacit and explicit knowledge and the creation of a knowledge management platform that functions as a mechanism of conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. Nonaka’s knowledge creation theory has been associated with the development of organizational structure as well as business strategy (Hislop. 2013), including academia and student retention strategies. (Seidman, 2012). This theory allowed researcher to determine how knowledge is created, structured and reused in determining the factors pertaining to student retention. Nonaka (1995), developed the knowledge creation model to illustrate the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. Nonaka’s (1995), model of knowledge creation, also referred to as the SECI model (socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization) is illustrated below in figure 1. The central notion of Nonaka’s knowledge creation model is the postulation that knowledge is the direct result of the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. This notion as described by Nonaka (1994), permits the conjecture of four various modes of knowledge conversion depicted in the SECI model of knowledge conversion. The SECI mnemonic with which the knowledge conversion model is labeled utilizes the first letter of each of the knowledge conversion processes (socialization, externalization, conversion, and internalization). The fundamental position of the SECI model is the distinction created between tacit and explicit knowledge. According to the SECI model, individual knowledge is created by personal experiences through relationships with other individuals or with the organizational environment. A significant dynamic of knowledge creation is that its evolves through a spiral and not a circular motion (Hislop, 2013). It is important to recognize that the SECI knowledge creation/conversation occurs through a double simultaneous conversion. As tacit knowledge is being created it is being created via various forms as it moves between individual levels, group planes and organizational echelons (Nonaka & Hirata, 2008).
First, socialization is the process of sharing and disclosing personal and subjective knowledge or tacit knowledge within a group or organization (Smith 2001). Hislop (2013), describes tacit knowledge as being local and belonging to a single individual. Individual tacit knowledge cannot be found in manuals, textbooks or files. Tacit knowledge is conveyed through the use of analogies, metaphors and stories (Rampersad, 2002). Socialization is the process of generating new tacit information through the interpersonal sharing of tacit knowledge (Spender, 1996). New tacit knowledge is created when one person gains access to the tacit knowledge of others through direct relationships. The socialization process of tacit knowledge creation occurs over a prolonged period of time through the continuous interaction among people and the cultivation of personal and group relationships (Mills & Friesen, 1992). This type of knowledge includes shared value systems, work practices and beliefs.
Externalization, the second process of knowledge creation is the transformation from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. This transformation involves articulating tacit forms of knowledge to explicit concepts. According to Goh (2002), the articulation happens by moving and sharing tacit knowledge within groups and peers. This is done through a process involving the sharing of language, concepts, figures, numbers and images. It is during this process that great amounts of dialogue are needed among individuals and groups in order to interpret and codify tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
Combination, the third process of knowledge creation is the process of collecting, editing and categorizing knowledge (Nonaka, 1995). This step involves the movement of knowledge from a group level to an organizational level. The knowledge is shared among all individuals and groups and becomes a standard in the organization. When the knowledge is put into organizational practice it becomes embedded in individuals’ skills, and competencies. As the knowledge is entrenched into an organizations’ formalized knowledge base it is utilized as an organization wide system of procedures and rules (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Secondly
Internalization is the fourth and final process of the knowledge creation spiral. During this process, explicit knowledge is transformed to individual tacit knowledge. Here knowledge moves from an organizational level back to an individual level. This is where organizational knowledge is absorbed and embedded by the organizations’ individuals. The knowledge cultivated through the processes of socialization, externalization and combination are internalized as tacit knowledge by the organization’s people and is absorbed into their work practices (Rai, 2011). Although internalization is the fourth and final process of Nonaka’s knowledge creation model it acts as a catalyst of continuous organizational knowledge creation. Tacit knowledge gathered on an individual level needs to be socialized with other members of the organization thereby beginning a new spiral of knowledge creation.
| Tacit |
| Tacit Tacit |
| Explicit Explicit |
| Explicit Explicit |
Tacit Tacit
| | Externalization |
| Internalization | |
Explicit Explicit
Figure 1. The SECI Model of Knowledge Creation.
Knowledge management processes in higher education.
Define knowledge management processes Different organizations require different knowledge management processes. Therefore, a parallel standardized knowledge management processes across all organizations is not pliable. According to Birgenean (2005), higher learning institutions are faced with challenges including high student dropout and retention rates. Research conducted by Ramachandran, Chong, and Ismail, (2009), discovered knowledge management processes (knowledge creation, capture, organization, storage, dissemination, and application), in higher education institutions, serve as precursors of successful student retention rates. The research identified higher education institutions maintain the capability to improve student retention rates as well as increase graduation levels through the utilization of knowledge management processes (Kidwell, 2001). In his research, Kidwell (2001), discovered as the method in which knowledge is created, handled and distributed is unique throughout organizations, a need for an exclusive and distinctive knowledge management process that is customized according to the needs of the organization. As a result, a customized knowledge management process must be established for the unique creation, handling and distribution of knowledge through a unique knowledge management process for the Knowledge management processes involve multiple repetitive progressions. Malhotra (1998), describes these processes as being intertwining resulting in the continuous regeneration of organizational representations that are imbedded to antedate future threats and opportunities of the organization. Scores of these processes act as links between people and knowledge (Petrides & Nodine, 2002). Figure 1.2 summarizes the links within the knowledge management process. Examples of knowledge management processes according to XXXXXX (XXXX), are
Knowledge Content
People Processes
Figure 1.2. Knowledge Management Process.
Figure 1.2. Knowledge Management Process.
The knowledge management process intertwines knowledge content and people processes. How does this interact with SR & KM Within this intertwining of processes exists subsets of knowledge content and people processes. These processes and content involve the constant exchange and interaction of knowledge. It is important to recognize that the knowledge management process is a bottom up, continuous process of finding value and use of new raw information to be used throughout an organization (Mathew, 2010). According to Kidwell (2001), higher education institutions are in a position to solidify significant opportunities by applying knowledge management processes to support their mission. The opportunities that originate from the knowledge management processes include academic service, curriculum services, access to potential customers, and methods to sustain and increase student retention (Adhikari, 2010). Knowledge creation that ultimately lends itself to the progression of knowledge management processes may occur through an array of methods. These may include scientific research, the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, as discussed by Nonaka (1991), and the dialogue of existing knowledge among employees. Knowledge management processes that usually commence through the capturing, organizing and accessing of knowledge result with the digitization of knowledge. Digitizing knowledge is the management process of aligning, documenting, extracting, analyzing, categorizing, and presenting knowledge (Serban & Luan, 2002). Digitizing knowledge provides organizations the opportunity to store knowledge for future use. The storing of knowledge in digital form includes but is not limited to computer databases, organizational records, and procedural manuals. The knowledge management process as shown in figure 1.2, is completed for the purpose of sharing knowledge throughout the organization and solidifying the collaboration of all members to facilitate an enhanced application of knowledge. As described by Davenport and Prusack (1998), the knowledge management process is the aligning, sharing, categorizing and presenting of knowledge. In higher education institutions, the aligning, sharing, categorizing, and, processing of information lead to better curricula development and student satisfaction (Kidwell, Vander Linde & Johnson, 2000). Although knowledge management processes do exist in many organizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998), higher education institutions are at the forefront of developing knowledge management processes to better service the needs of their students.
Knowledge management processes provides higher education institutions the opportunity to employ knowledge management applications to support their endeavors. According to Serban and Luan (2002), knowledge management processes enables higher education institutions to better student retention and graduation rates, develop new program offerings, analyze and increase enrollment, and create a viable platform to meet their students’ needs. The impact of knowledge management processes in higher education is exhibited by the significant increase of organizational productivity, employee motivation and customer satisfaction. (McCampbell, Clare, & Gitter, 1999). Therefore, a need exists for higher education institutions to encompass knowledge management processes (Freitag, 2008).
Although the benefits of knowledge management processes in higher education institutions are visible, there are various factors that lessen the ability of higher education institutions to recognize and implement these processes (Kidwell, 2001).
Institutional culture: institutional culture is the principal environment that dictates the harvesting, expediting, sharing and learning of knowledge. For knowledge management processes to exist and flourish there needs to exist an open institutional culture that provides all members the opportunity to integrate personal talents and experiences into institutional knowledge.
Recognizing the existing strengths of the institution and its culture: many institutions are the keepers of abundant knowledge that provides them with formal and informal channels of knowledge. Many institutions do not recognize the amounts of knowledge that exists internally. Higher education institutions are accustom to sharing the knowledge that does exist among certain departments and clusters rather than having an open channel of knowledge sharing throughout the institution.
The belief that technology is the main piece of knowledge management processes within an institution. Technology in many institutions is believed to be the principle originator and handler of knowledge management processes. Although technology is a significant piece of knowledge management process it is seen as a way of warehousing and preserving it for future use. According to Nonaka (1994), personal beliefs, social relations and individual knowledge are the originating factors of knowledge management processes. The interaction between people, the exchange of ideas, networking and the interchange of information are the principal originators and keepers of knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). These interactions act as the generators of knowledge and contribute to the enhancement of knowledge management levels within an institution.
The focus of reusing old existing knowledge management processes rather than focusing on the generation of new knowledge management processes. Although the recycling of existing knowledge management processes creates a tangible measure of procedures and policy within the institution, there needs to be a focus on the creation of new processes. The creation of new processes provides institutions with the opportunity to stay relevant and suppress stagnation, and to promote new methods of knowledge management that will ultimately give the institution a competitive advantage among its competitors.
Higher education institutions are using knowledge management processes to enhance vital stages of student retention. Student admissions and retention data is among the most important information operated by knowledge management processes in higher education institutions (Gordon, Habley & Grites, 2008). Given that the processes of knowledge management are intertwining and serve as a continuous regeneration of organizational representations, Novins (2002), describes these processes as being student recruitment, student retention and operational efficiency.
Kim
Although a relationship between knowledge management and its utilization in higher education institutions exists, there is no distinct literature exemplifying the relationship and the exact effect knowledge management processes have on student retention.
Student retention defined.
Dennis (1998), defines student retention as an assertive program ensuring the continuous supply of students necessary to preserve institutional vitality. Wild and Ebbers (2002), describe student retention as a university’s utmost responsibility to ensure ultimate commitment to student success. According to ( ), it is important Student retention is not just the non-completion of school but it is the Seidman (2012), describes student retention as a student who remains enrolled in college until he/she attains his/her academic goals, which is usually graduating from the institution. Another predominant definition of student retention given by Austin (1997), is, retention is the product of the number of students persist academically from fall to fall. Tinto (1993), the foremost cited researcher of student retention, defines retention as “the rate at which an institution retains and graduates students who first enter the institution as a freshman at a given point in time”, (p. 127). According to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (2008), student retention is: “A measure of the rate at which students persist in their educational program at an institution, expressed as a percentage”.
Tinto’s student retention theory.
Tinto’s sociological perspective which suggests that the social order of classrooms in a higher education institution and other communities of student learning serve as bonds to the wide ranging academic and social structure of the institution (Tinto, 2000). Tinto’s (1975), delineation of student retention is centered upon individual student attributes, commitment, and interaction with other members of the institution. Tinto’s theory which is based in part on Dureim’s suicide model (1897), is grounded on the notion that a student’s successful completion of academic goals is in conjunction with their integration into the institution’s academic and social community. Extending his theory, Tinto (1975), hypothesizes that a student needs to progress through three stages of integration in order to be fully integrated into the college community. The three stages according to Tinto (1975), are “separation from communities of the past, transition between communities and incorporation into the communities of the college” (p. 72). Although Tinto (1975), states in his theory that a student needs to bridge all three stages to be fully integrated, he cautioned that the three stages may not be clearly outlined nor chronologically experienced. A number of students may experience all three stages partially while others may experience them simultaneously. Separation from communities of the past involves students withdrawing themselves from communities associated with the family environment, local high school and local residential neighborhoods. This stage not only means that students need to physically separate themselves from their previous physical surroundings but separate themselves mentally also. According to Tinto (1975), students who successfully disassociate themselves from family and past cohorts including other factions that devalue higher education will successfully integrate and persist. Tinto (1975), describes transition as the period of time between the separation from old communities and full integration with the new communities. Students were apt to persist if they came from parents who had attended college. Peers and parents could provide insight and guidance pertaining to any social challenges and direct them through the bureaucracy involved in the enrollment process.
Theoretical foundations and Theme 1, Theme 2,
Developmental advising.
Although academic advising has not been associated with an immediate theoretical framework, the literature suggests various theoretical foundations connected with academic advising. Some of the more standard theories associated with the workings of academic advising is the research conducted by Chickering and Reisser (1993). The research conducted by Chickering and Reisser (1993), is based on previous research conduct by Erikson’s (1963), eight stages of identity formation. Chickering’s and Reisser’s (1993), theory of Psychosocial-Identity Formation theory, demonstrates how students’ growth varies according to various vectors that exist throughout the duration of a student’s lifecycle. An early advocate and one of the most commonly noted systems of advising was Crookston’s (1972) theory of Developmental Advising. This theory permitted researchers to better comprehend the guiding relationship established between students and their respective advisors throughout the duration of the students’ enrollment. King (2005), deemed developmental advising as a holistic application defining it as a process of orientation that has a direct impact on the retention of students. Crookston (1972), explored developmental advising and its relation to student’s environmental and interpersonal interactions, behavioral attentiveness, problem solving abilities, evaluating skills and decision making, all of which are topics regularly deliberated among students and advisors. The relationship between student and advisor was viewed by Crookston (1972), as a crucial element in a student’s academic development. According to Crookston (1972), the scope of the relationship between student and advisor is to create an environment of complete openness, trust, acceptance, collaborative problem solving, evaluation, decision making, and sharing of knowledge. The result of the relationship between student and advisor has been deemed to have direct consequences on a student’s persistence. Crookston’s research (1972), noted that developmental advising comprises of complete resolution of students’ personal and academic development by taking into consideration the students’ developmental status and providing encouragement through trust and the interchange of information. The theory of Developmental Advising permitted researchers to determine how advisors effect student’s academic aptitude and persistence.
Higher education institutions . Research conducted by Tinto (1993), Frid (2003), and Boisot (1987), have identified several compentants
When recruitment and marketing departments can access the right information and insight at the right time, they can get answers to questions such as:
• How many applications have we received to-date compared
to this time last year? The last three years? By major? By
demographic?
• Based on application trends for a specific major over the last
three to four years, what should we forecast for next year?
• Are students with higher SAT scores more likely to be
engaged throughout campus and perform better academically?
Are they more likely to graduate? Are first-generation
students more likely or less likely to get more involved in
campus?
• How can we segment recruitment data by department,
major, state, county and high school to develop and enhance
recruitment plans and initiatives?
• How can we attract students who will be successful and want
to complete their degree here?
• Are we using our merit/financial aid effectively? Student Retention
Every school wants to maximize retention and graduation rates.
But without the right data-driven insights, it’s difficult for retention
staff to identify which students are likely to deregister, as
well as proactively contact students to prevent their attrition.
Nor can they understand and proactively mitigate the most
common causes of attrition.
The key is giving retention staff access to the right information
and insight at the right time so they can:
• Proactively identify at-risk students in order to retain them.
• Calculate retention or graduation rates of students and
better understand which students are most at risk of
dropping out or transferring.
• Know how many students in each major were retained each
year and where the greatest attrition was so they can make
program changes to reduce it.
• Routinely identify at-risk students who might be having
problems and create interventions to try to prevent them
from leaving.
• Identify strategies that can be put in place to properly advise
at-risk students and measure the outcomes of these
programs to ensure they are effective.
• Analyze data regarding performance-based funding indicators
such as course completion, time to degree, transfer
rates, the number of degrees awarded, and the number of
low-income and minority graduates.
WE NEED TO ADD PEOPLES’ THOERIES IN THE LITERATURE FOR VALID
ATION.!!!!!!!!!! AND “IN A STUDY OF XXXXXX XXXX STATED
XXXX RESEARCH DELINEATED
AN “AMAERICAN – BRITISH” STUDY ON
. Building on the research by Plester et al. (2008), Drouin (2011) focused on the relationship between literacy and text
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This section provides a broad, balanced overview and synthesis of the existing literature related to the proposed research topic. It identifies topics, themes, trends, and conflicts in research methodology, design, and findings. It describes the literature in related topic areas and its relevance to the research topic and research approach. It provides an overall analysis and synthesis of the existing literature examining the contributions of this literature to the field; identifying the conflicts; and relating the topics, themes, and results to the study topic and research approach. Accurate, empirical research citations are provided for all ideas, concepts, and perspectives. The researcher’s personal opinions or perspectives are not included. (Minimum 30 pages) | ||||
| This section must be a minimum of 30 pages. The purpose of the minimum number of pages is to ensure that the overall literature review reflects a foundational understanding of the theory or theories, literature and research studies related to the topic. A well-written comprehensive literature review that reflects the current state of research and literature on the topic is expected and will likely exceed 30 pages. Literature review should be updated continuously. This is an ongoing process to dissertation completion. | X | |||
| Quantitative Studies: Describes each research variable in the study discussing the prior empirical research that has been done on the variables and the relationship between the variables. Qualitative Studies: Describes the phenomena being explored in the study discussing the prior research that has been done on the phenomena. | X | |||
| Themes or Topics (Required): Discusses and synthesizes studies related to the proposed dissertation topic. May include (1) studies describing and/or relating the variables (quantitative) or exploring related phenomena (qualitative), (2) studies on related research such as factors associated with the themes, (3) studies on the instruments used to collect data, (4) studies on the broad population for the study, and/or (5) studies similar to the proposed study. The themes presented and research studies discussed and synthesized in the Review of Literature demonstrates a deep understanding of all aspects of the research topic. | X | |||
| Methodology Section (required): Discusses and synthesizes the various methodologies and designs that have been used in prior empirical research related to the study. Must use authoritative sources to justify the proposed design. | X | |||
| Instrumentation Section (required): Provides discussion and justification for the instrumentation selected for the study. This section must argue the appropriateness of the dissertation’s instruments, measures, and/or approaches used to collect data. Empirical research must be used to justify the selection of instrument(s). | X | |||
| Structures literature review in a logical order, includes actual data and accurate synthesis of results from reviewed studies as related to the learners own topic, not just a summary of the findings. | X | |||
| Includes in each major section (theme or topic) within the Review of Literature an introductory paragraph that explains why the particular theme or topic was explored relative to the overall dissertation topic. | X | |||
| Includes in each section within the Review of Literature a summary paragraph(s) that (1) compares and contrasts alternative perspectives on the topic and (2) provides a synthesis of the themes relative to the research topic discussed that emerged from the literature, and (3) identifies how themes are relevant to the proposed dissertation topic. | X | |||
| Provides additional arguments for the need for the study that was defined in the Background to the Problem section. | X | |||
| Ensures that for every in-text citation a reference entry exists. Conversely, for every reference list entry there is a corresponding in-text citation. Note: The accuracy of citations and quality of sources must be verified by learner, chair and committee members. | X | |||
| Uses a range of references including founding theorists, peer-reviewed empirical research studies from scholarly journals, and government/foundation research reports. Note: A minimum of 50 peer-reviewed, empirical research articles are required for the literature review. | X | |||
| Verifies that 75% of all references are scholarly sources within the past 5 years. The 5 year time frame is referenced at the time of the proposal defense date and at the time of the dissertation defense date. Note: Websites, dictionaries, publications without dates (n.d.), are not considered scholarly sources and should not be cited or present in reference list. | X | |||
| Avoids overuse of books and dissertations. Books: Maximum of 10 scholarly books that present cutting edge views on a topic, are research based, or are seminal works. Dissertations: Maximum of 5 published dissertations. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Summary
This section succinctly restates what was written in Chapter 2 and provides supporting citations for key points. The summary section reflects that the learner has done his/her “due diligence” to become well-read on the topic and can conduct a study that will add to the existing body of research and knowledge on the topic. It synthesizes the information from the chapter to define the “gaps” in or “identified research needs” arising from the literature, the theory(ies) or model(s) to provide the foundation for the study, the problem statement, the primary research question, the methodology, the design, the variables or phenomena, the data collection instruments or sources, and the population to be studied. Overall, this section should help the reader clearly see and understand the relevance and importance of the research to be conducted. The criteria listed in the table below are required for this section. The Summary section transitions to Chapter 3 by building a case for the study, in terms of research design and rigor, and it formulates the research questions based on the gaps and tensions in the literature.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| Chapter 2 Summary This section restates what was written in Chapter 2 and provides supporting citations for key points. The summary section reflects that the learner has done his/her “due diligence” to become well-read on the topic and can conduct a study that will add to the existing body of research and knowledge on the topic. It synthesizes the information from the chapter to define the “gaps” in or “identified research needs” arising from the literature, the theory(ies) or model(s) to provide the foundation for the study, the problem statement, the primary research question, the methodology, the design, the variables or phenomena, the data collection instruments or sources, and the population to be studied. It then provides a transition discussion to Chapter 3. (Minimum one to two pages) | ||||
| Synthesizes the information from all of the prior sections in the Literature Review using it to define the key strategic points for the research. | X | |||
| Summarizes the gaps and needs in the background and introduction describing how it informs the problem statement. | X | |||
| Identifies the theory(ies) or model(s) describing how they inform the research questions. | X | |||
| Justifies the design, variables or phenomena, data collection instruments or sources, and population to be studied. | X | |||
| Builds a case (argument) for the study in terms of the value of the research and how the research questions emerged from the review of literature | X | |||
| Reflects that the Learner has done his or her “due diligence” to synthesize the existing empirical research and write a comprehensive literature review on the research topic. | X | |||
| Summarizes key points in Chapter 2 and transitions into Chapter 3. | X | |||
| The Chapter is correctly formatted to dissertation template using the Word Style Tool and APA standards. Writing is free of mechanical errors. | X | |||
| All research presented in the Chapter is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, academic, professional, original sources. In-text citations are accurate, correctly cited and included in the reference page according to APA standards. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
Chapter 3 documents how the study is conducted in enough detail so that replication by others is possible. The introduction begins with a summary of the research focus and purpose statement to reintroduce the reader to the study. This can be summarized in three to four sentences from Chapter 1. This section also outlines the expectations for this chapter.
Remember, throughout this chapter, that verb tense must be changed from present tense (proposal) to past tense (dissertation manuscript). Furthermore, consider what happened during data collection and analysis. Sometimes, the research protocol ends up being modified based on committee, AQR review, or Institutional Review Board (IRB) recommendations. After the research study is complete, make sure this chapter reflects how the study was actually conducted.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION This section includes both a restatement of the research focus and the Purpose Statement for the study from Chapter 1 to reintroduce reader to the need for the study and a description of contents of the chapter. (Minimum two to three paragraphs) | ||||
| The Introduction summarizes the research focus, and the purpose statement to reintroduce the reader to the study. This section also outlines the expectations for this chapter. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Statement of the Problem
This section restates the research problem for the convenience of the reader. Then, edit, blend, and integrate this material into the narrative. Change future tense in proposals to past tense for dissertation manuscripts.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This section restates the problem for the convenience of the reader. This section is a summary of the related section in Chapter 1. (Minimum one to two paragraphs) | ||||
| The research problem is restated for the convenience of the reader. This section aligns to the related section in Chapter 1. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Research Question(s) or Hypotheses
This section restates the research question(s) and the hypotheses for the study from Chapter 1. For a quantitative study, it then presents the matching hypotheses and explains the variables. For a qualitative study, it then describes the phenomena to be understood as a result of the study. The section also briefly discusses the approaches to collecting the data to answer the research questions. For a quantitative study, it describes the instrument(s) or data source(s) to collect the data for each and every variable. For a qualitative study, it describes the instrument(s) or data source(s) to collect the data to answer each research question. It also discusses why the design was selected to be the best approach to answer the research questions, test the hypotheses (quantitative), or understand the phenomena (qualitative). Remember to change future tense to past tense for dissertation manuscripts.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND/OR HYPOTHESES This section restates the research question(s) and the hypotheses or phenomena and explains why the selected design is the best approach to answer the research questions. Further, it defines the variables and/or groups. The section also discusses the approaches to collecting the data to answer the research questions. This section expands on the related section in Chapter 1. (Minimum one to two pages) | ||||
| For a qualitative study, restates the research questions and the phenomena for the study from Chapter 1. For a quantitative study, restates the research questions from Chapter 1, presents the matching hypotheses and operationalizes the variables. Research questions must align directly with the problem and purpose statements, | X | |||
| Describes the nature and sources of necessary data to answer the research questions (primary versus secondary data, specific people, institutional archives, Internet open sources, etc.). For a quantitative study, the section describes the instrument(s) or data source(s) to collect the data for each and every variable. For a qualitative study, The section describes the instrument(s) or data source(s) to collect the data to answer each research question. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Research Methodology
A qualitative approach was chosen as the research method for this study. Qualitative research methodology is appropriate when the researcher searches to comprehend, discover, and interpret how phenomenon are experienced by the participants (Tufford & Newman, 2012). Yin (2014) suggests that the qualitative approach is more relevant in gaining a more thorough, comprehensive understanding of the topic. Specifically, qualitative research provides an opportunity to understand and explore the perceptions of people in their environment (Birkinshaw, Brannen, & Tung, 2011). A quantitative approach does not permit the exploration of a phenomenon such as the one posed in this study. Yin (2014), suggests that the utilization of quantitative methodology is of little assistance in the identification of meanings and experiences. Although numerous mixed methods and quantitative research have been conducted on the effects of knowledge management on student retention, the researcher concluded that the investigation of contemporary issue of knowledge management and the influence on student retention in a real world setting will engender more information.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This section describes the research methodology for the study (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed) and explains the rationale for selecting this particular methodology as opposed to the alternative methodologies. (Minimum one to two pages) | ||||
| Elaborates on the research methodology (from Chapter 1) for the study (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed). Provides the rationale for selecting the particular methodology supported by empirical studies in the research literature. Justifies why the methodology was selected as opposed to alternative methodologies. | X | |||
| Uses authoritative source(s) to justify the selected methodology. Note: Do not use introductory research textbooks (such as Creswell) to justify the research design and data analysis approach. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Research Design
Yin (1994), described the case study as an empirical inquiry that examines a current phenomenon in depth and “within a real world context” (p.10). It also permits researchers to focus on a holistic and real world perspective-such as researching organizational and managerial processes. It is applicable then, to use case study in order to evaluate how knowledge management may affect student retention in higher education institutions in the northeastern US. This case study will incorporate findings from the analysis of interviews, questionnaires, and documentation collected from ten admission counselors of a higher education institute in the North-Eastern region of the United States. According to Yin, (1994), a case study design is appropriate for the study because it focuses on explaining a decision, or set of decisions: why they were taken, how these decisions were implemented and what resulted. By binding the case study to the topic of knowledge management and its effect on student retention, the researcher will be able to explore the impact of this phenomenon within higher the education institution. Other qualitative methods, such as a phenomenology, were not deemed appropriate for this study. Whereas a phenomenology would focus on the lived experiences of those involved, this study seeks to explore how knowledge management and student retention are related in higher education institutions.
Furthermore, Yin’s (2014) resolution that the Five-Cycle approach combined with the five components of case study research allowed researchers to gain increasingly relevant insight into the phenomenon being studied. The five components delineated in Yin’s (2014) research were “1) a study’s questions; 2) it’s propositions, if any; 3) its unit(s) of analysis; 4) the logic linking the data to the propositions; and 5) the criteria for interpreting the findings” (p. 29). Utilization of this approach allowed the researcher to identify the most relevant criteria for evaluating and understanding the findings of the study. By delving into the topic utilizing the “how” and “why” questions particular to qualitative case study research, as well as including varying collection methods, the researcher was able to explore this contemporary educational phenomenon within the boundaries of its context.
According to Yin, (1994) a case study is utilized in many situations, to contribute to our knowledge of organizational and related phenomena. Baxter and Jack (2008) concurred, that a qualitative case study permitted researchers to explore phenomena in its context using varying sources of data “to develop theory, evaluate programs, and develop interventions because of its flexibility and rigor” (p. 544). This qualitative study will utilize a case study design to answer the research questions and address the problem statement. According to Yeh (2005), higher education institutions are organizations that are in constant pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge management may be utilized as a strategy to improve competitive advantage by increasing student retention (Chu, Wang & Yuan, 2011). This case study will illustrate how knowledge management effects student retention in a higher education institution. Remaining consistent with the parameters of the case study, interviews, questionnaires and documentary information will be introduced. Yin (1994), describes case study interviews, questionnaires and documentation as an essential source of information and evidence. Yin (1994), continues that a case study should take place in a real world setting.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| RESEARCH DESIGN This section describes in detail the specific design for the study and describes why it is the best design to collect the data to answer the research needed for the study. It explains exactly how the selected design was used to facilitate collection of data for each and every variable (for a quantitative study) or how the selected design was used to facilitate collection of data to describe the nature of the phenomena in detail (for a qualitative study). It identifies the specific instruments and data sources to be used to collect all of the different data required for the study. This section expands on the Nature of the Research Design for the Study section in Chapter 1. (Minimum one to two pages) | ||||
| Elaborates on the research design from Chapter 1. Provides the rationale for selecting the particular research design supported by empirical references. Justifies why the design was selected as the best approach to collect the needed data, as opposed to alternative designs. | X | |||
| Describes how the specific, selected research design will be used to collect the type of data needed to answer the research questions and the specific instruments or data sources that will be used to collect this data. For quantitative studies provide the variable structure and state the unit of analysis. | X | |||
| Uses authoritative source(s) to justify the design. Note: Do not use introductory research textbooks (such as Creswell) to justify the research design and data analysis approach. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Population and Sample Selection
This section discusses the setting, general population, target population, and study sample. The discussion of the sample includes the research terminology specific to the type of sampling for the study. This section should include the components listed in the following table.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| POPULATION AND SAMPLE SELECTION This section discusses the setting, general population, target population, and study sample. The discussion of the sample includes the research terminology specific to the type of sampling for the study as well as how the sample population and final sample will be protected. This section provides a detailed description of the population and sample which were identified in the Research Design for the Study section in Chapter 1 as well as research considerations relevant to the sample and population. (Minimum one to two pages) | ||||
| Describes the general population (i.e., students with disabilities), target population (i.e. students with disabilities in one specific district – geographic location) and the study sample (students with disabilities in the district that participated in the study – actual study sample). | X | |||
| Describes the study sample size. Provides evidence (based on the empirical research) literature that sample size is adequate for the research design and meets GCU required sample size requirements (listed in criteria below). | X | |||
| Quantitative Sample Size Requirements: Absolute Minimum: 50 cases or participants or 40 cases per cell. Applicable to studies that use frequencies/descriptive statistics and parametric statistical tests (t-tests, ANOVA, correlation, regression analysis)—additional requirements related to the use of certain statistical analysis procedures may increase that number. General rule of thumb on survey research = 10 subjects per survey question. An a-priori and/or post hoc Power Analysis is required to justify the study sample size based on the anticipated effect size and selected design. Qualitative Sample Size Requirements: Case Study: Minimum 10 participants or cases; Recommended Target=20 due to attrition; minimum of 3 sources of data; must demonstrate triangulation of the data. Case study interviews may include closed-ended questions with a dominance of open-ended questions; should be no less than 30 minutes; at least 15 pages of transcribed data, single spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman. Phenomenology: 10-15 interviews; no closed ended questionnaires allowed; Interviews should be 60-90 minutes. There should be a minimum of 60 pages of transcribed data, single spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman. Descriptive: 12-15 interviews or cases with at least 3 sources of data; 30-60 pages of transcribed data, single spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman. Narrative or Grounded Theory: Minimum of 30 pages of transcribed data from interviews, open-ended questionnaire, or other data sources. Transcript to be 12 Point and single spaced. Studies typically have a minimum of 10-20 interviews or40-60 open-ended questionnaires. Interviews are 60-90 minutes in length. Grounded theory studies must yield a theory or model. | X | |||
| Defines and describes the sampling procedures (such as convenience, purposive, snowball, random, etc.) supported by scholarly research sources. Includes discussion of sample selection, and assignment to groups (if applicable), and strategies to account for participant attrition. | X | |||
| Describes the site authorization process, confidentiality measures, study participation requirements, and geographic specifics. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Instrumentation OR Sources of Data
This section fully identifies and describes the types of data that will be collected, as well as the specific instruments and sources used to collect those data (tests, questionnaires, interviews, data bases, media, etc.). Discuss the specific instrument or source to collect data for each variable or group for a quantitative study. Discuss the specific instrument or source to collect information to describe the phenomena being studied for a qualitative study. Use the “Instrumentation” heading if you are conducting quantitative research. Use the “Sources of Data” heading if you are conducting qualitative research. Use appropriate APA level subheadings for each data collection instrument and place a copy of all instruments in an appendix.
If you are using an existing instrument, make sure to discuss in detail the characteristics of the instrument. For example, on a preexisting survey tool describe: how the instrument was developed and constructed, the validity and reliability of the instrument, the number of items or questions included in the survey, the calculation of the scores, and the scale of measurement of data obtained from the instrument. You must also obtain all appropriate use permissions from instrument authors. If you are developing your own instrument, describe in detail the process used to develop the instrument, how the validity and reliability of the instrument was established, and the characteristics of the instrument as described above. Please note that GCU does not recommend developing or modifying instruments for quantitative studies and permission to do so must be obtained from the Director of Dissertations.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| INSTRUMENTATION OR SOURCES OF DATA This section identifies and describes the types of data that were collected as well as the specific instruments and sources used to collect those data. For quantitative studies it also describes the specific type of scale of measurement used in an instrument or used to define the different groups. (Minimum one to three pages) | ||||
| Data Collection Instruments: Provides a detailed discussion of the instrumentation and data collection which includes validity and reliability of the data. Includes citations from original publications by instrument developers (and subsequent users as appropriate). | X | |||
| Data Collection Instruments: Describes the structure of each data collection instrument and data sources (tests, questionnaires, interviews, observations data bases, media, etc.). Specifies the type and level of data collected with each instrument. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Validity
This section describes and defends the procedures used to determine the validity of the data collected. Validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. Ask if what is actually being measured is what was set out to be measured. As a researcher, you must be concerned with both external and internal validity. External validity refers to the extent to which the results of the study are generalizable (quantitative) or transferable (qualitative) to the population. Internal validity refers to the rigor with which the study was conducted (study design, theory instrumentation, measurements, etc.). For this section, provide specific validity statistics for quantitative instruments, identifying how they were developed. Explain specific approaches on how validity will be addressed for qualitative data collection approaches.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| VALIDITY This section describes and defends the procedures used to determine the validity of the data collected appropriate to the methodology conducted. (Minimum two to four paragraphs or approximately one page) | ||||
| Quantitative Studies: Provides specific validity statistics for quantitative instruments, identifying how they were developed. Validated surveys cannot be used in part or adapted. Validated instruments borrowed by the learner must be included in the proposal/dissertation appendices as a pdf or jpeg document along with the learner’s word file of his/her version of the instrument (whose content should be identical with that of the original pdf). NOTE: Learners should not modify or develop quantitative instruments without permission from the Director of Dissertations. Qualitative Studies: Establishes validity to ensure the data that is collected is true and certain. Processes include collection of multiple sources of data; triangulation; member checking; quasi-statistics; review of data analysis by others; expert panel review of developed instruments; and/or practicing interviews and observations. | X | |||
| Appendices must include copies of instruments, qualitative data collection protocols, codebooks, and permission letters from instrument authors (for validated instruments, surveys, interview guides, etc.) | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Reliability
This section describes and defends the procedures used to determine the reliability of the data collected. Reliability is the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure is replicable and yields the same result with repeated trials. For this section, provide specific reliability statistics for quantitative instruments, identifying how the statistics were developed. Explain specific approaches on how reliability will be addressed for qualitative data collection approaches.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| RELIABILITY This section describes and defends the procedures used to determine the reliability of the data collected appropriate to the methodology conducted. (Minimum two to four paragraphs or approximately one page) | ||||
| Quantitative Studies: Provides specific reliability statistics for quantitative instruments, identifying how the statistics were developed. Explains specific approaches on how reliability will be addressed for qualitative data collection approaches. Qualitative Studies: Establishes consistency and repeatability of data collection through in-depth documented methodology; detailed interview/observation/data collection protocols and guides; creation of research data-base; and/or use of triangulation. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Data Collection and Management
This section details the entirety of the process used to collect the data. Describe the step-by-step procedures used to carry out all the major steps for data collection for the study in a way that would allow another researcher to replicate the study. Think of this section of Chapter 3 as a recipe, that you need to carefully follow in order to produce the best possible study results (or “entrée”).
If you were to insert a table in this section, for any reason, set it up as shown below. Refer to Table 1 on page 29 for formatting instructions.
Table 2
t Test for Equality of Emotional Intelligence Mean Scores by Gender
| t test for Equality of Means | |||
| t | df | p | |
| EI | 1.908 | 34 | .065 |
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT This section details the entirety of the process used to collect the data. It describes each step of the data collection process in such a way that another researcher could replicate the study. (Minimum one to three pages) | ||||
| Quantitative Studies: Describes the procedures for the actual data collection that would allow replication of the study by another researcher, including how each instrument or data source was used, how and where data were collected, and recorded. Includes a linear sequence of actions or step-by-step of procedures used to carry out all the major steps for data collection. Includes a workflow and corresponding timeline, presenting a logical, sequential, and transparent protocol for data collection that would allow another researcher to replicate the study. Qualitative Studies: Provides detailed description of data collection process that would allow replication of the study by another researcher, including all sources of data and methods used, such as interviews, member checking, observations, surveys, and expert panel review. Note: The collected data must be sufficient in breadth and depth to answer the research question(s) and interpreted and presented correctly, by theme, research question and/or instrument. | X | |||
| Describes the procedures for obtaining informed consent and for protecting the rights and well-being of the study sample participants. | X | |||
| Describes (for both paper-based and electronic data) the data management procedures adopted to maintain data securely, including the length of time data will be kept, where it will be kept, and how it will be destroyed. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Data Analysis Procedures
This section provides a step-by-step description of the procedures to be used to conduct the data analysis. The key elements of this section include the process by which you prepared raw data for analysis and then subsequently analyzed that data. Overall, be sure that the language used to describe the data analysis procedure is consistently used in Chapters 4 and 5.
Here is an example of a figure:
Figure 1. Correlation for SAT composite score and time spent on facebook.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES This section describes how the data were collected for each variable or group (quantitative study) or for each research question (qualitative study). It describes the type of data analyzed, identifying the descriptive, thematic, inferential, and/or non-statistical analyses. This section demonstrates that the research analysis is aligned to the specific research design. (Minimum one to three pages) | ||||
| Lists the research question(s). Also includes the null and alternative hypotheses for quantitative studies. | X | |||
| Describes in detail the relevant data collected for each stated research question and/or each variable within each hypothesis (if applicable). | X | |||
| Describes in detail the data management practice including how the raw data was organized and prepared for analysis, i.e., ID matching of respondents who may respond to more than one survey/instrument, coding/recoding of variables, treatment of missing values, scoring, calculations, etc. | X | |||
| What: Describes, in detail, statistical and non-statistical analysis to be used and procedures used to conduct the data analysis. | X | |||
| Why: Provides the justification for each of the (statistical and non-statistical) data analysis procedures used in the study. | X | |||
| How: Demonstrates how the statistical and non-statistical data analysis techniques align with the research questions/design. | X | |||
| Quantitative Analysis – states the level of statistical significance for each test as appropriate, and describes tests of assumptions for each statistical test. Qualitative Analysis – evidence of qualitative analysis approach, such as coding and theming process, must be completely described and include the analysis /interpretation process. | X | |||
| Provides evidence that quantity and quality of data is sufficient to answer the research questions. This must be present in this section or in an appendix including data samples. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Ethical Considerations
Prior to all data collection, IRB approval will be granted from both Grand Canyon University, and all participating higher education institutions. Permission will be obtained by the researcher from the participating higher education institution. Permission will be requested through written and verbal confirmation from the Dean of the department from higher education institution coupled with the permission from the Dean of Admissions. Recruitment of all participants will be done by contacting the higher education institution’s recruitment office or if applicable the recruitment officer by department head requesting volunteers to participate in all three methods described in the triangulation of the data. Ethical considerations of the study will include but not limited to, minimalizing the risk of harm to all parties involved in the research as well as the higher education institution, as well as protecting the identity of each participant. Consent forms are used to ensure participants are aware of the risks and benefits of participating in a research study (Belmont Report, 1978). Informed consent will be collected by all parties involved in study as well as the HEI. Each interviewee will be requested to sign an informed consent form agreeing to allow their interviews be audio and video recorded. The anonymity and confidentiality of all parties involved in the study will be provided. Each participant will be referred to only by a code or number. Preventing and avoiding deceptive practices towards all parties involved in study as well as the higher education institution. Also the right to withdraw from the study at any point will be provided to all involved including the higher education institution.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS This section discusses the potential ethical issues surrounding the research as well as how human subjects and data will be protected. It identifies how any potential ethical issues have been and will be addressed. (Minimum three to four paragraphs or approximately one page) | ||||
| Provides a discussion of ethical issues related to the study and the sample population of interest. | X | |||
| Describes the procedures for obtaining informed consent and for protecting the rights and well-being of the study sample participants. | X | |||
| Addresses anonymity, confidentiality, privacy, strategies to prevent coercion, and any potential conflict of interest. | X | |||
| Describes the data management procedures adopted to store and maintain paper and electronic data securely, including the length of time data will be kept, where it will be kept, and how it will be destroyed. Note: Learners are required to securely maintain and have access to raw data/records for a minimum of three years. If asked by AQR reviewer or CDS representative, learner must provide all evidence of data including source data, Excel files, interview transcripts, evidence of coding or data analysis, or survey results etc. No dissertation will be allowed to move forward in the review process if data are not produced upon request. | X | |||
| Includes copy of IRB Informed Consent (Proposal) and IRB Approval letter (Dissertation) in an Appendix. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Limitations and Delimitations
While Chapter 1 addresses the broad, overall limitations of the study, this section discusses, in detail, the limitations related to the research methodology and design and potential impacts on the results. The section also describes any limitations related to the methods, sample, instrumentation, data collection process and analysis. Other methodological limitations of the study may include issues with regard to the sample in terms of size, population and procedure, instrumentation, data collection processes, and data analysis. This section also contains an explanation of why the existing limitations are unavoidable and are not expected to affect the results negatively.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS This section discusses in detail the limitations and delimitations related to the research methodology and design and potential impacts on the results. (Minimum two to three paragraphs) | ||||
| Describes any limitations and delimitations related to the methodology, sample, instrumentation, data collection process and analysis. Explains why the existing limitations are unavoidable. Note: This section must be updated as limitations emerge in the data collection/analysis, and then incorporated in Chapter 5 the limitations overall and how the study results were affected. | X | |||
| Presents strategies to minimize and/or mitigate the negative consequences of limitations and delimitations. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Summary
This section restates what was written in Chapter 3 and provides supporting citations for key points. Your summary should demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the overall research design and analysis techniques. The Chapter 3 summary ends with a discussion that transitions the reader to Chapter 4.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY This section restates what was written in Chapter 3 and provides supporting citations for key points. It then provides a transition discussion to Chapter 4. (Minimum one to two pages) | ||||
| Summarizes key points presented in Chapter 3 using authoritative, empirical sources/citations. | X | |||
| Presents alignment of the 10 strategic points, illustrating how the research questions align with the problem statement, methodology, design, instrumentation, data collection, procedures and data analysis approach. | X | |||
| Demonstrates in-depth understanding/mastery of the overall research methodology, design and data analysis techniques. | X | |||
| Ends Chapter 3 with a transition discussion to focus for Chapter 4. | X | |||
| The Chapter is correctly formatted to dissertation template using the Word Style Tool and APA standards. Writing is free of mechanical errors. | X | |||
| All research presented in the Chapter is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected academic, professional, original sources. In-text citations are accurate, correctly cited and included in the reference page according to APA standards. | X | |||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | |||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
References
Hacker, D., Somers, N., Jehn, T., & Rosenzweig, J. (2008). Rules for writers. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Nock, A. J. (1943). The memoirs of a superfluous man. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Squires, D. A., & Kranyik, R. D. (1995). The comer program: changing school culture. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 29-32.
Strunk, W. I., & White, E.B. (1979). The elements of style. New York: Macmillan Publishing, Inc.
Adhikari, D., (2010), Knowledge management in in academic institutions. International Journal
of Educational Management 24(2).
Agarwal, N. K., and Maroul, L. (2016). Qualitative and quantitative instruments for knowledge management readiness assessment in universities. Qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries. 5
Alvesson, M. (2001). Knowledge work: ambiguity, image and identity. Human Relations 54(7).
Argote, L, and Ingram, P., (2000). Knowledge transfer. A basis for competitive advantage in
firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 82(1).
Astin, A., (1997). What Mattersin College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco. Jossey-
Bass.
Bailey, K. D. (1978). Methods of social research. (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4).
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf.
Becarra-Fernandez, I., and Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organizational knowledge management: A
contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems. 18(1).
Beckman, T. (1997). A methodology for knowledge management. Proceeding of the IASTED International conference on artificial intelligence and soft computing. ACTA Press, Calgary, Canada.
Belmont Report. (1978). Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of
human subjects of research. (Vol. 2, DHEW No.5, 78-0014). Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
Edvardsson, I., and Durst, S. (2013). The benefits of knowledge in small and medium-sized enterprises. World Congress on Administrative and Political Sciences 81.
Bess, J., and Dee, J. (2008). Understanding College and University Organization. (2nd edition).
Volume 2 Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Bhusry, M., Ranjan, J., and Nagar, R. (2012). Implementing knowledge management in higher
educational institutions in India: A conceptual framework. Journal of Higher Education
Research 7(1).
Bixler, C. H. (2005). Developing a foundation for a successful knowledge management system. In M. Stankosky. (Ed.). Creating the discipline of knowledge management: The latest in University research. Amsterdam, Boston: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and
interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6).
Boisot, M. (1987). Information and Organizations: The Manager as Anthropologist.
London: Fontana-Collins.
Bonner, D., (2000). Enter the chief knowledge officer. Training and Development, 15(2).
Bosua, R. and Venkitachalam, K. (2013). Aligning strategies and processes in knowledge
management: a framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 331-346, doi:
10.1108/JKM-10-2012-0323
Braxton, J., Doyle, W., Hartley III, H., Hirschy, A., Jones, W., and McLendon, M. (2014).
Rethinking college student retention. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Buckman, R. H., (1998). Knowledge sharing at buckmann labs. The Journal of Business
Strategy. 19(1).
Chait, L. (1998). Creating a successful knowledge management system. Prism, 2.
Chickering, A., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chu, K., Wang, M., and Yuan, A. (2012). Implementing knowledge management in school
environment: Teachers’ perception. Knowledge Management and E-Learning: An
International Journal, 3(2).
Chua, A. (2002). Taxonomy of organizational knowledge. Singapore Management Review 24(2).
Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing Among Five
Approaches. (3rd edition). London: SAGE Publications.
Crookston, B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 13
Dalkir, K. (2011). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. New York: McGill
University.
Daun-Barnett, N., Behrend, C., and Bezek, C. (2014). College Counseling for Admissions Professionals. Improving Access and Retention. New York: Routledge.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What
They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Demetriou, C. and Schmitz, S. (2011). Integration, motivation, strengths, and optimism:
Retention theories past, present and future. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th National Symposium on Student retention, 2011, Charleston.
Dennis, M., (1998). A Practical Guide to Enrollment and Retention Management in Higher
Education. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.
Dimitriades, Z. (2005). Creating strategic capabilities: organizational learning and knowledge
management in the new economy. European Business Review, 17(4).
Duhon, B. (1998). It’s all in our heads. Inform, 12(8), 8.
Edvinson, L., And Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual Capitol. New York. HarperCollins.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and Society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Freitag, D. (2008). Are academic advisors knowledge workers? Yes! Academic Advising Today,
31(3).
Frenkel, S., Korczynski, M., Donohue, L., and Shire, K. (1995). Re-constituting work: trends
towards knowledge work and info-normative control. Work, Employment and Society
9(4).
Frid, R. (2003). A Common KM Framework for the Government of Canada: Frid Framework
for Enterprise Knowledge Management; Canadian Institute of Knowledge Management,
Ontario.
Friehs, B. (2003). Knowledge Management in Educational Settings. Proceedings of Aare
Conference.
Goh, S. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some
practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management 6(1).
Grant, R., (1996), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal. 17.
Grant, K. A., (2007). Tacit knowledge revisited; We can still learn from Polanyi. The Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management. 5(2).
Grimshaw, D., and Miozzo, M. (2009). New human resource management practices in
knowledge intensive business service firms: the case of outsourcing with staff transfer. Human Relations 62(10).
Grites, T. J., (1979). Academic Advising: Getting us through the eighties. AAHE-ERIC: Higher
education research report. Washington D.C.: American Association of higher education.
Gordon, V., Habley, W., & Grites, T. (2008). Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook.
San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. (2nd ed).
Goupta, B., Iyer, L., and Aronson, J.E. (2000). Knowledge Management: practice and
challenges. Industrial Management & Data Systems 100(1)
Harris, R. and Brown, G. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical
problems in aligning data. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(1).
Haslinda, A. and Sarinah, A. (2009). A review of knowledge management models. The Journal of
International Social Research. 2(9).
Hedlund, G. and Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of Knowledge Management in the West and Japan.
Implementing Strategic Process, Change, Learning and Cooperation. London: Macmillan.
Hislop, D., (2013). Knowledge Management in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoe, S., (2006). Tacit knowledge, nonaka and takeuchi seci model and informal knowledge
process. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9(4).
Jasimuddin, S., (2012). Knowledge Management; An Interdisciplinary Perspective. London:
World Scientific.
Kidwell, J., Vander-Linde, K., and Johnson, S. (2000). Applying corporate knowledge
management practices in higher education. Educause Quarterly, 4
Krueger, R. A., (1994). Focus groups: the practical guide goes applied research. (4th edition)
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Lau, L. (2014). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 1(124).
Laal, M., (2011). Knowledge management in higher education. Procedia Computer Science 3:
544-549.
Lesser, E., and Prusak, L. (2001). Preserving knowledge in an uncertain world. MIT Sloan
Management Review. 43(1).
Lincoln, Y., and Guba, G., (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage
Lioria, M. (2008). A review of the main approaches to knowledge management. Knowledge
Management Research and Practice. 6
Liss, K. (1999). Do we know how to do that? Understanding knowledge management. Harvard Management Update, 2
Lowe, G., (2002). Leveraging the Skills of Knowledge Workers. Isuma, Spring.
Makambe, U. (2014). A Knowledge Audit of a Private Higher Education Institution. Enhancing
Organizational Performance through Effective Knowledge Management. Middletown: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Malhotra, N., Majchzek, A., and Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of
Management Perspective. 21(1).
Malhotra, N., Mossis, T., and Smets, M. (2010). New career models in uk professional service
firms. From up-or-out to up-and-going-nowhere? International Journal of Human Resource Management 21(19).
Mathew, V. (2010). Service delivery through knowledge management in higher education.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice 11(3).
McCampbell, A., Clare, L., and Gitter, S. (1999). Knowledge management: the new challenge
for the twenty first century. Journal of Knowledge Management 3(3).
McCune, J.C. (1999). Thirst for knowledge. Management Review 4.
Mehrizi, M and Bontis, N. (2009). A cluster analysis of the km field. Management Decision
47(5).
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Mills, D. and Friesen, B. (1992). The learning organization. European Management Journal.
10(2).
Mostert, J. and Snyman, M. (2007). Knowledge management framework for the development of
an effective knowledge management strategy. South African Journal of Information management 8(2).
Namdev Dhamdhere, S., (2015). Importance of knowledge management in higher educational
institutes. Journal of Distance Education, 16(1).
Nahaplet, J. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review. 23(2).
Nawz, N. and Gomes, A. (2014). Review of knowledge management in higher education
institutions. European Journal of Business Management 6(7). ISSN 2222-2839
Noel, L., Levitz, R., and Saluri, D., (1985). Increasing Student Retention. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational
Science 5(1): 14–37.
Nonaka, I, and Hirata, T. (2008). Managing Flow: A process Theory of the Knowledge-Based
Firm. Basing Stoke. Palgrave McMillan.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford
University Press
Novins, P., (2002). Knowledge management for competitive advantage and shareholder value. E
Business Review, 2(4).
Omana, W., van der Weide, T., and Lubega, J. (2010). Using ict to enhance knowledge
management in higher education: a conceptual framework and research agenda. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology 6(4).
Omerzel, D., (2011). Knowledge resources and competitive advantage. Managing global transitions, 9(4).
Oxbrow, N. (2000). Skills and competencies to succeed in a knowledge economy. Information
Outlook 4(10).
Petrides, A., and Nodine, T. (2002). Knowledhge management in education: Defining the
landscape. Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education 4(5).
Pircher, R. and Pausits, A. (2011). Information and knowledge management at higher education
institutions. Management Information Systems 6(2).
Plessis, M., (2005), The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge
Management 11(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710762684
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Rai, K. (2011). Knowledge management and organizational culture: A theoretical integrative
framework. Journal of Knowledge Management 15(2).
Ramachandran, S., Chong, S., and Ismail, H. (2009). The practice of knowledge management
processes: A comparative study of public and private higher education institutions in
Malaysia. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 39(3).
Rampersad, H., (2002). Increasing organizational learning ability based on a knowledge
management quick scan. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice 3.
Roberts, J. (2009). Students satisfaction and persistence – a study of factors which are vital to
student retention. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Schwandt, T. (2007). The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (3rd edition), Sage Publications.
Rodgers, W., (2003). Measurement and reporting of knowledge based assets. Journal of
Intellectual Assets 4(2).
Rosendal, B. (2009). Sharing knowledge, being different and working as a team. Knowledge
Management Research and Practice 7.
Rowley, J. (2000). Is higher education ready for knowledge management? The International journal of Educational Management 14.
Sallis, E. and Jones, G. (2002). Knowledge Management in Education. Enhancing Learning and
Education. London: Kogen Page.
Scurtu, L and Neamtu, D. (2015). The need of using knowledge management strategy in modern business organizations. The USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration, 2(22).
Seidman, A. (2012). College Student Retention. (2nd edition) New York: Rowan & Littlefield.
Shafique, F. (2015). Knowledge management in higher education: applicability of LKMC model in saudi universities. Computer Science and Information Technology.
Smit, P. and Cronjé, G. (2002). Management Principles. A Contemporary Edition for
Africa. (3rd edition) Landsdowne: Juta.
Smith, E., (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of
Knowledge Management. 5(4).
Spender, J., (1996). Organizational knowledge. Learning and memory: Three concepts in search
of a theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, (9)1.
Stake, R. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Surban, A. and Luan, J. (2002). Knowledge Management: Building a Competitive Advantage in
Higher Education. New York: Wiley Publications.
Stankosky, M. (2005). Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management. The Latest in
University Research. New York: Elsevier Butterworth–Heinemann.
Thorn, C., (2001). Knowledge management for educational information systems. What is the
state of the field? Education Policy. 9(47).
Teece, D., (2000). Managing Intellectual capital: Organizational, strategic, and policy dimension. Oxford
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent literature. A
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V., (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student retention. Journal of Higher Education
53.
Tinto, V., (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the cause and cures of student attrition. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V., (2005). Research and practice of student retention: What’s next? Journal of College
Student Retention: research, Theory & Practice 8(1).
Tinto, V., (2012). Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Treacy, M. and Wiersem, F. (1993). Customer Intimacy and Other Value Disciplines. HarvardBusiness Review 5(1).
Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work,
11(1), 80-96. doi:10.1177/147332501036831
Van Maanen , J. ( 1979 ). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 ( 4 ), 520 – 526 .
Vijil Laden, B., Milem, J. M, and Crowson, R. L. (2000). New institutional theory and student
departure. In John M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Viju, M., (2010). Service delivery through knowledge management in higher education. Journal
of Knowledge Management Practice, 11(3).
Von Krogh, G., and Roos, J. (1995). Organizational Epistemology. New York: St. Martins’s
Press.
Ward, L. (2001). Collaborative KM tools; Putting customer care online. Knowledge Management, (4).
Wessels, P.L., Grobbelaar, E. and McGee, A. (2003). Information systems in the South
African business environment. (2nd edition) Durban: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Williams, C. (2007). Research Methods. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 5(3).
Wild, L., & Ebbers, L., (2002). Rethinking student retention in community colleges. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 26.
Wyman, F., (1997). A predictive model of retention rate at regional two-year colleges.
Community College Review, 25(1).
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Yussef, Y. and Cunha Dolci, P. (2012). An assessment of knowledge management practices in
Brazilian higher education institutions: a qualitative study. Conference paper
Zak, M. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4).
Zaki, A.R., & Zubairi, S.A. (2012). Role of knowledge management in higher education – A
qualitative model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(6),
1104-1118.
| Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3) | Learner Score | Chair Score | Methodologist Score | Content Expert Score |
| QUALITY OF SOURCES & REFERENCE LIST For every in-text citation a reference entry exists; conversely, for every reference list entry there is an in-text citation. Uses a range of references including founding theorists, peer-reviewed empirical research studies from scholarly journals, and government/foundation research reports. The majority of all references must be scholarly, topic-related sources published within the last 5 years. Websites, dictionaries, and publications without dates (n.d.) are not considered scholarly sources and should not be cited or present in the reference list. In-text citations and reference list must comply with APA 6th Ed. | ||||
| Ensures that for every in-text citation a reference entry exists. Conversely, for every reference list entry there is a corresponding in-text citation. Note: The accuracy of citations and quality of sources must be verified by learner, chair and committee members. | X | X | ||
| Uses a range of references including founding theorists, peer-reviewed empirical research studies from scholarly journals, and government /foundation research reports. Note: A minimum of 50 peer-reviewed, empirical research articles are required for the literature review. | X | X | ||
| Verifies that 75% of all references are scholarly sources within the last 5 years. The 5 year time frame is referenced at the time of the proposal defense date and at the time of the dissertation defense date. Note: Websites, dictionaries, publications without dates (n.d.), are not considered scholarly sources and should not be cited or present in reference list. | X | X | ||
| Avoids overuse of books and dissertations. Books: Maximum of 10 scholarly books that present cutting edge views on a topic, are research based, or are seminal works. Dissertations: Maximum of 5 published dissertations. | X | X | ||
| Section is written in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA format. | X | X | ||
| *Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required. | ||||
| Reviewer Comments: |
Appendix A
The Parts of a Dissertation
GCU uses the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition for its dissertation formatting and style guide. The GCU dissertation template complies with APA 6.0 with exceptions as noted in the template and in this formatting guide. A dissertation has three parts: preliminary pages, main text, and supplementary pages. Some preliminary or supplementary pages may be optional or not appropriate to a specific project. The learner should consult with his or her dissertation chair and committee regarding inclusion/exclusion of optional pages.
Preliminary pages. The following preliminary pages precede the main text of the dissertation.
- Title Page
- Author’s Name
- Copyright Page (optional)
- Committee and Deans Approval Page
- Learner Signature Page
- Abstract
- Dedication Page (optional)
- Acknowledgements (optional)
- Table of Contents
- List of Tables (if you have tables, a list is required)
- List of Figures (if you have figures, a list is required)
Main text. The main text is divided into five major chapters. Each chapter can be further subdivided into sections and subsections based on the formatting requirements for each college.
- Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
- Chapter 2: Literature Review
- Chapter 3: Methodology
- Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results
- Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Supplementary pages. Supplementary pages follow the body text, including reference materials and other required or optional addenda.
- References (required)
- Appendices (required)
- IRB Approval Letter
- Informed Consent Form
- Copies of Instruments and Permission Letters
- Appendices (optional)
- Data analysis, tables and charts if referenced in Chapter 4
- Lengthy tables or large figures if referenced in other chapters
- Photographs, artifacts or media related to study results
- Vitae (optional)
- Glossary (optional)
- List of Abbreviations (optional)
Keep in mind that most formatting challenges are found in the preliminary and supplementary pages. Allocate extra time and attention for these sections to avoid delays in the electronic submission process. Also, as elementary as it may seem, run a complete spell and grammar check of your entire document before submission.
ORPHIC MAGAZINE 