Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Online doctoral students from different cross-cultural generations may disconnect when dissertation chairs fail to understand how students’ worldviews impact doctoral students during the dissertation-writing process. Because of the changing needs of digitally connected Generation Z students who will enter online doctoral programs by the mid-2020s, higher education leaders must create a model that will prepare online doctoral chairs to change how they mentor students and reflect on mentoring practices. The purpose of this qualitative exploratory case study was to examine how online dissertation chairs perceived the role of reflective mentoring practices and changing student cross-cultural and generational worldviews. The themes that emerged were online anonymity versus personalization, shepherd leadership versus transformational leadership, and meeting professional goals versus student-centered goals. The significance of the study is the need for online leaders to institute a change process that will be firmly in place for online dissertation chairs when Generation Z students are old enough to begin doctoral programs.

Keywords

online dissertation chairs reflective mentoring practices digital generation Generation Z students shepherd leadership

Introduction

When online doctoral chairs minimize the integration of reflective mentoring and relationship building, the likelihood of online doctoral student disengagement increases during the dissertation-writing process. If online chairs underrate the value of reflection related to building learner relationships, attrition rates exponentially rise. Disconnected online doctoral students fail to effectively communicate with chairs or disregard feedback designed to promote successful completion of the dissertation-writing process (Kemp, Molloy, Pajics, & Chapman, 2014).

Online doctoral students from different cross-cultural generations tend to detach from the communication process if online chairs appear to disrespect the impact of students’ generational learning preferences. Disengaged students who struggle with self-efficacy issues related to generational differences may unsuccessfully meet dissertation completion timelines (Blass, Jasman, & Levy, 2012). To address this problem, online dissertation chairs’ perceptions on the role of reflective mentoring practices and changing student cross-cultural and generational worldviews were explored in this qualitative study.

Unlike quantitative researchers who methodically investigate phenomena based on mathematical or statistical testing, qualitative researchers explore phenomena to understand the lived experiences of a certain group or culture (Adler & Adler, 1987). Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative exploratory case study was to examine how online dissertation chairs perceived the role of reflective mentoring practices and changing student cross-cultural and generational worldviews. The central research question was, “How do online dissertation chairs perceive the role of reflective mentoring practices and changing student cross-cultural and generational worldviews?”

Based on the findings of this study, university online educational doctoral program leaders may reevaluate the need to create a change program to prepare dissertation chairs to meet generational challenges. In addition, online chairs may use this study as a springboard for reviewing personal reflective practices. For online chairs who face generational-related issues, this study may serve as a tool to engage online chairs in reflective discussions on changing student attitudes.

Literature Review

Study findings demonstrate that online dissertation chairs have developed basic strategies to mentor Generation X and Generation Y students born before 1994. Generation X students are the generation after the Baby Boomers, and they were born in the 1960s to the 1970s. This generation tended to be reliable workers and dedicated to getting an education; however, Generation X students struggled with learning and keeping up with technological advancements. On the contrary, Generation Y students were born in the 1980s to the early 1990s, and they felt more comfortable using technology than Generation X students. Unlike Generation X students, Generation Y students enjoyed teamwork and collaboration (Doloriert, Sambrook, & Stewart, 2012).

Little research exists on how online chair will meet challenges related to mentoring Generation Z students who have been digitally connected to the Internet since birth. Generation Z students were born after 1994 but before 2004, and they make up nearly 18% of the world’s population. By 2020, almost half of the global workplace will be Generation Z (Fry, 2015). Though the number of Generation Z students who will enter online doctoral programs by the mid-2020s is unknown, higher education leaders must prepare for possible changes.

The literature review for this study was a critical review of online chairs’ mentoring practices, as well as a synthesis of studies related to changing worldviews of Generation Z students. The review provided new insights on methodologies and designs utilized in former studies. New views of doctoral chairs were acquired that may expand understanding on the need for instituting a change program.

Reflective Mentoring Process

One effective tool for online chairs is to reevaluate one-on-one student relationships via a reflective mentoring process. When online dissertation chairs fail to analyze, evaluate, and reflect on the doctoral dissertation-writing process and the changing cultural generation needs of learners, external problems between online chairs and students may surface. However, these problems may not be directly related to the dissertation-writing process (Gardner, 2009). Conflicts related to communication styles may arise if online chairs and students do not share common educational goals. When social issues related to communication disrupt the dissertation completion process, expectation levels for dissertation completion timetables may be interrupted.

Online chairs may fail to be knowledgeable on why potential generational-related problems may arise; therefore, as mentors, reflections may be focused on meeting university goals, such as graduation timetables. In existing studies on reflective practices, chairs are not apt to question how the mentoring process impacts generational needs of students. However, when reflective mentoring does not include a focus balance on student social issues, online doctoral student motivational levels may be in jeopardy, and the failure of students to fully engage in the dissertation-writing process may not be the primary obstacle (Hyatt & Williams, 2011).

Online doctoral chairs who unsuccessfully establish positive and meaningful mentoring relationships with generational and cross-cultural students may experience higher mentee dropout rates (West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). When communication problems related to personal work ethics arise or socialization characteristic of generational differences develop, students may complain that online chairs appear disconnected and unwilling to make constructive changes in the mentorship process. Though chairs may provide feedback to help students meet long-range goals designed to ensure students complete the program, students may want more short-term feedback. In this case, online chairs may find that unexplained relationship problems increase which may be directly related to generational preferences (Doloriert et al., 2012).

In the mid-1990s, online doctoral programs grew at a time when connectivity became a changing way of life for many learners. Online chairs were trained to focus on pedagogy and andragogy, and they were expected to assume pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical roles in the online doctoral classroom. However, higher education leaders seldom stressed the need for reflective mentoring (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010). Therefore, online chairs tended to mainly focus on overseeing the writing process and on timetables for completion (Drysdale, Graham, & Borup, 2014). Though an increased number of study findings demonstrated the impact of generational work ethics in the classroom, educational leaders failed to use the findings to amend the established online chair model (West et al., 2011). Likewise, leaders tended to ignore research findings on how online student satisfaction rates correlated with online chairs’ differing reflective mentoring practices. Online students whose chairs reflected on students’ worldview differences experienced a higher level of satisfaction (Strang, 2009).

Equitable Mentoring

To maintain effective communication, online chairs must reflect on and respect generational differences (Ginsberg, Knapp, & Farrington, 2014). Schniegerjans, Schniegerjans, and Yair (2012) posited doctoral chairs who maintain good relationship practices avoid being unfair to students who have contrasting generational worldviews. An equitable mentoring relationship benefits both online chairs and doctoral learners. When positive relationships are established, online dissertation students tend to be more productive, and chairs demonstrate an increase in reflective practices (Carter & Whittaker, 2009). When reflective online chairs provide frequent opportunities for personal communications, culturally diverse students may feel more empowered to engage in the total decision-making process (Livingston, 2011). Empowered generational learners may more freely negotiate classroom logistics with chairs, such as learners may request less rigid guidelines for posting assignments (Kumar, Johnson, & Hardemon, 2013).

Modes of online student empowerment change from generation to generation. Study findings show that online students born after 1994 are more prone to ignore classroom rules and chairs. These students may prefer to communicate with peers than instructors, and they strongly rely on peer feedback, even to the point of ignoring instructor feedback. These students tend to feel empowerment when they receive praise and support from peers. Developing and maintaining relationships with instructors or chairs may not be a significant factor for them (Kemp, Molloy, Pajics, & Chapman, 2014). Carpenter, Wetheridge, and Turner (2012) posited students who prefer peer interactions may not view an online dissertation chair as an integral part of the process. Few studies exist that explore how online chairs perceive the role of peer support and feedback. In addition, in the literature, limited study findings show how online chairs’ view the role of generational differences and chair/teacher relationships (Holley, 2011).

Impact of Changing Generational Attitudes and Viewpoints

In one study, findings indicated that changing post-Generation Y attitudes and cultural preferences affected how students communicated in the online classroom (Hansen & Leuty, 2012). Generation X and Y online dissertation students who were born between the 1960 and the mid-1980s sought to engage in team building, and they craved a chair’s attention, feedback, and guidance (O’Meara, Knudsen, & Jones, 2013). In contrast, Generation Z students born after 1994 have experienced a connection to technology since birth. Generation Z students use social media as a communication tool, and they tend to be disinclined to work in teams. Because Generation Z students regularly communicate digitally, they lack interpersonal communication skills (Fedynich & Bain, 2011). A limited number of studies exist in the literature that examine how online chairs perceive the impact of generational characteristics of students born after 1994. However, based on existing study findings, change will be needed (Willis & Carmichael, 2011).

Online doctoral chairs who lack training or understanding of the generational change process tend to underestimate the impact of cultural or generational differences. Cross-cultural worldviews may affect how Generation Z students will approach and complete the dissertation-writing process. Generation Z learners tend to incorporate best practices that have personal appeal. These students have spent their lives being connected to multimedia sites, and, while engaging in online conversations, they have learned to speak their minds. Generation Z students tend to express uncensored opinions, which are accepted by peers and not questioned (Weber, 2013). Generation Z doctoral students may have different world visions and untraditional work ethics. These ideas may not be directly based on age but to cultural behaviors common to traits characteristic of a specific generation. If reflective mentoring practices are not in place to provide support to online chairs when Generation Z students enter doctoral programs, the end result may be a decline in student satisfaction (Barnes, 2010).

Institutions of higher learning leaders must begin the change process to help online chair develop a student-centered set of reflective practices. Otherwise, a generation of learners may feel disconnected to a process. Generation Z students who spent most of their formative years spent on the World Wide Web are used to instant action and satisfaction. Online chairs must be prepared to deal with a digital generation that expects immediate gratification. Online chairs must set short-term goals for students, and they must provide appropriate, constructive feedback on short-term goals. Though most online chairs focus on longtime goals and meeting wide range timetables, Generation Z students will expect focused and short-term goal feedback. Studies have shown that dissertation students are more engaged in learning and are more active participants in the online classroom when effective online instructional frameworks and meaningful reflective mentoring processes which center on students’ specific needs are in place. Therefore, the need for creating a meaningful framework for Generation Z students is critical (O’Meara et al., 2013).

Conceptual Framework

Change theory is a framework for educational changes. To make effective changes, leaders must convince participants that change is needed, important, and meaningful. To believe in change, participants must support the moral purpose behind a change (Fullan, 2006). For online chairs to be committed to a change process, higher education leaders must proactively promote meaningful practice, such as online doctoral chair reflective mentoring and transformational leadership skills. Transformational leaders individually mentor followers, and they listen and cater to followers’ needs. Transformational leaders seek the ideals of followers and demonstrate an interest in followers’ ideals (Chou, Lin, Chang, & Chuang, 2013).

Change may create a sense of unbalance. Therefore, to avoid possible confusion, online chairs need to be shown how to reflect on changes related to the connected generation. Change processes must be well planned and implemented in stages. All stakeholders must understand each step of the change, and each stakeholder must believe that change is needed. Plans should be developed before stakeholders are faced with difficult decisions that may result in negative consequences (Fullan, 2006). Though online chairs may not yet mentor Generation Z students, higher education leaders can begin the reflective process and start making changes as needed. Though more studies are needed to investigate the impact of cross-cultural and generational students’ learning characteristics on how online doctoral programs are designed and implemented, a sufficient number of study findings exist to begin the process. Online chairs’ perceptions of the change process must be explored to evaluate how chairs view their roles as reflective mentors.

Method

The purpose of this qualitative exploratory case study was to examine how online dissertation chairs perceived the role of reflective mentoring practices and changing student cross-cultural and generational worldviews. This case study was a bounded study in which the focus was on participants’ perceptions of an external event (Yin, 2003). In one-on-one interviews via Skype and email, participants were asked semistructured open-ended questions. Interviews took less than 60 min, and four participants participated in a second interview.

To identify interview themes or patterns, thematic analysis was used to analyze data. NVivo 10 data management software was used to assist in the organization and sorting of data in this study. Data transcript reviews were conducted before using NVivo 10 data management software to code data. An inductive data coding approach was used to analyze data collected during interviews. Themes and patterns were analyzed and categorized. To protect participant identity and safeguard confidentiality, pseudonyms were assigned, such as P1, P2, and P3. The researcher was the primary instrument in this study.

Participants

Online leadership dissertation chairs from one university with an online doctoral program were invited to participate in the study, and purposeful sampling was used to gather the sample. In a qualitative study, sample sizes should include from 10 to 15 participants (Yin, 2003). In this study, initially, 10 online university chairs agreed to participate. However, one participant had health problems and withdrew from the study, and another participant changed jobs. Eight chairs completed the interviews and fully participated in the study. Participants were from diverse cultural backgrounds and ethnic groups, and they ranged in age from 45 to mid-60s. Participants lived in different sections of the United States and had been chairs from 3 to 15 or more years. Both male and female chairs participated in the study.

During interviews, participants acknowledged they did not know the age range of the dissertation students they chaired. Participants indicated they felt age was unimportant in an online classroom, and online classroom communications between chairs and students were generally limited to professional issues. Three participants commented they sometimes received communications from graduates, and, occasionally, a former student would infer an age group. One participate indicated a former student exchanged a Christmas card with her each year, and, in her last card, the student noted she was a first-time grandmother.

During the open-ended interviews, participants were not asked whether they taught digitally connected students. From interview data, it was not possible to determine whether a relationship among different generations of chairs and students existed. In this qualitative study, quantitative questions were not asked. Participants were not invited to describe specific topics, such as generational characteristics of students. Likewise, participants were not asked about perceptions on the impact or effects of generational differences and reflective mentoring styles. Participants were not asked leading questions.

Results, Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

Three themes emerged from the analysis of the in-depth interview process. Based on the online chairs’ perceptions on reflective mentoring and changing student worldviews, the themes that emerged were online anonymity versus personalization, shepherd leadership versus transformational leadership, and meeting professional goals versus student-centered goals. Themes reflected online teaching traits, leadership qualities, and professional aspirations. Themes are identified in Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of Themes.

Themes
Online anonymity versus personalization
Shepherd leadership versus transformational leadership
Meeting professional goals versus student-centered goals

Theme 1: Online Anonymity Versus Personalization

In the online dissertation classroom, participants felt a sense of anonymity was provided for them and for each individual student. Age, ethnicity, gender, and cultural views were not relevant in the online classroom. P4 noted, “I am an online chair because I want to maintain anonymity, and I believe my mentees feel the same way.” Participants highly respected online student anonymity, and they tended to avoid student communications related to cultural worldviews. P2 indicated, “I have never thought about the cultural perceptions and worldviews of my online doctoral students, except when necessary in the context of the study.” Overall, participants honored anonymity more than getting to know students personally.

Visualizations of student facial expressions or body language were not included in participants’ reflections. Participants focused on the examination and evaluation of their own written expressions and emotional responses to student work and communications. P5 explained,

When I reflect, I think about how I felt during specific correspondences, but I never share my feelings with my doctoral mentees. I do not try to image how online students look or react. I like to be an online chair for that reason.

Chairs expressed that online anonymity provided them a means to be impersonal yet encouraging and result oriented. P1 indicated, “I prefer to focus on ideas and evidence. In online mentoring, I am not distracted by students’ body language or other individual distractions that occur when I work with students face to face.” In online classrooms, chairs tended to view reflection as a tool designed to maintain professionalism.

Subthemes for Theme 1

Three subthemes were identified in Theme 1: respect for online students’ desire of anonymity, reflections on cultural views in terms of dissertation content, and lack of chair reflections on students’ body language or behaviors. The significance of the subthemes was a lack of reflection on student reactions or individual behavior traits. The subthemes are listed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Overview of Subthemes for Theme 1.

Subthemes
Respect for online students’ desire of anonymity
Reflections on cultural views in terms of dissertation content
Lack of chair reflections on students’ body language or behaviors

In the subthemes, participants associated reflective mentoring practices with online practices that frequently afforded both chairs and students higher degrees of personal privacy. P3 summed up the subthemes, “Oh, I have a wonderful relationship with my students. I respect their privacy and cultural differences by mainly concentrating and reflecting on content, not on observations of behaviors.” Participants expressed the need to reflect on their professional behaviors rather than on the behaviors or personal views of students.

Theme 2: Shepherd Leadership Versus Transformational Leadership

Though participants reflected on traditional pedagogical, managerial, and technical mentoring roles, they failed to see a need to address social and communication issues related to possible generational preferences. Participants described themselves as supportive guides who helped students successfully complete the dissertation-writing process. P3 shared, “Chair/student relationships are developed based on creating a trusting and caring mentorship. I see myself as a guide or a shepherd, mainly as a shepherd. I lead students to dissertation completion.” Four participants used the words “guide and shepherd” to describe their mentoring roles. All participants described a chair’s role as a person who guides students forward. P6 clarified the role of shepherd by stating, “As a shepherd, I watch out for my students. I know what they need to do, and I am there to get them back on track if they wonder off course. Otherwise, I respect students’ anonymity.” In the role of shepherd, participants indicated they kept the process moving, and they did not view personal interactions or observations of generational differences as part of the role of being a shepherd. Participants did not characterize themselves as transformational leaders. Participant responses lacked examples of individualized mentoring, and they did not represent themselves as leaders who listened to the needs and concerns of students. Participants tended to focus on long-range goals rather than on a series of short-term goals. Participants indicated the role of shepherd or guide was a long-term personal goal, and one participant stated that being a shepherd was “addictive.” Participants felt that both chairs and students reaped increased benefit from long-range successes. Therefore, participants expressed limited reflection on short-term goals involving students’ generational needs. Participants reflected on whether students were meeting timelines. P8 commented, “I generally only reflect on factors that may affect long-term success rates of my students. Though I address student questions, I focus on the graduation timeline.” A majority of participants tended to reflect on procedural issues, such as timelines, instead of evaluating individual student differences or work ethics related to generational differences. Participants described student communication problems as minor issues, such as questions related to content or procedure. P2 commented, “Communication challenges are typically based on helping online dissertation students understand technical and scholarly writing questions. I cannot remember any communication differences that might have been based on cultural and generational worldviews.” Participants spoke positively about their students, and all participants mentioned chairing “wonderful students who were respectful.” However, several participants indicated they occasionally reflected on the words and tone they used in communications to students, but this type of reflection was not critical in the long-term mentoring process.

Subthemes in Theme 2

Two subthemes in Theme 2 were identified. The first subtheme was long-term goals versus short-term goals, and the second subtheme was a lack of need for understanding generational differences. The significances of these subthemes were the lack of focus on short-term goals and the employment of transformational leadership. Subthemes are outlined in Table 3.

Table 3.

Overview of Subthemes for Theme 3.

Subthemes
Long-term goals versus short-term goals
Lack of need for understanding generational differences.

Participants expressed the need to predominately focus on long-term goals. Based on maintaining positive experiences with online students, participants did not feel a need to examine individual student cultural beliefs or generational differences.

Theme 3: Meeting Professional Goals Versus Student-Centered Goals

Participants felt that reflections on how to maintain long-lasting communications with students after graduation were important. Overall, participants commented that they worked to create lifelong bonds with online students after graduation, such as communicating with former doctoral students via emails and holiday cards. P1 commended, “I reflect on how to establish professional relationships that can be maintained throughout the dissertation-writing process and beyond. I love it when former students call to tell me what they are doing.” Participants expressed a personal sense of pride felt when students successfully completed the dissertation-writing process. P2 noted, “To me, reflections are important after my students graduate. I reflect back over how my guidance benefited students and how my guidance and expertise helped add to the field.” A majority of participants discussed the importance of reflecting after students graduated, and one participant explained that her reflective experiences were “exalting, even joyous” after a student graduated.

Participants discussed the unimportance of age or backgrounds in the online classroom. The consensus was “a sense of timeliness” existed. P5 felt, “I never know how old my online students are, nor do I care! I feel a sense of timeliness online.” Furthermore, participants agreed that age was not a factor in building ongoing chair/student relationships. P7 commented, “In my opinion, bonding based on communicating with students from different generational backgrounds is not part of my chairing or my reflective process. I treat all students the same.” The online learning environment might have been a factor in how participants responded to age and generational differences.

Participants centered on meeting personal goals and university expectations for chairs. P1, P3, and P8 concluded, “When reflecting, online chairs need to focus on conflicts about university policies to make sure that they meet standards.” Plus, four other participants noted that online chairs must reflect on “personal profits” and “how leading students to completion will benefit them professionally.” One participant commented that university leaders expect chairs to make sure that students graduate. P2 stated, “If leaders thought that generational differences were important, policies would be put in place, and expectations would be clearly established.” Overall, participants agreed reflections should be pivoted on how online chairs could stay grounded and be whole heartedly engaged in making sure students graduated.

Participants noted they were “willing to go the extra mile” to make sure online students completed the dissertation process. However, chairs broadly interpreted what “going the extra mile” meant. Overall, “going the extra mile” was interpreted as caring for students, being available to students, and respecting students. Interview responses did not include specific ways participants would be “willing to go the extra mile” if generational issues occurred.

Four subthemes were identified in Theme 3. Those subthemes were long lasting communications, professional pride, sense of timeliness, professional benefits, and going the extra mile. The significance of these subthemes was the use of reflective mentoring practices to advance chairs’ professional standings. The Theme 3 subthemes are listed in Table 4.

Table 4.

Overview of Subthemes for Theme 3.

Subthemes
Long lasting communications
Professional pride
Sense of timeliness
Professional benefits
Going the extra mile

Participants affirmed they felt a sense of pride when students successfully completed the dissertation-writing process. Meeting the needs of changing individual student’s cross-cultural or generational needs was not directly connected to participants’ sense of pride.

Implications

Though online chairs may have years of experiences in guiding doctoral students through the online dissertation-writing process, they may be unprepared to understand the impact of chairing Generation Z students. Unless higher education leaders prepare online chairs for possible changes, chairs may tend to ignore changing generational behavior trends. Online chairs who are concerned with graduation timelines and graduation rates must be convinced that a new reflection model will benefit them, universities, and students. Therefore, leaders must establish long-range standards for helping online chairs understand and demonstrate an appreciation for Generation Z learning styles and connectivity (Doloriert et al., 2012).

Professional satisfaction may be adversely affected if online chairs fail to incorporate and address short-term goals and immediate feedback specifically designed to meet the needs of Generation Z students. Generation Z students have used Internet sites since early childhood, and, characteristic of their generation traits, they expect a clearly defined short-term approach to receiving feedback and meeting timetables. Generation Z students demand immediate, continuous, and positive feedback. Generation Z students may urge and expect online chair to provide specifics on how they are doing on short-term goals, and they may insist on receiving constant snapshots on how they are doing (Fry, 2015).

Given the number of Generation Z students who may enroll in online doctoral programs by the mid-2020s, the needs of online chairs must be anticipated (Weber, 2013). Online doctoral leaders must provide opportunities for dissertation chairs to create and redesign reflective mentoring models, and they must encourage ongoing research on the effects of digital age learners in the classroom. Though educators should be careful to avoid stereotyping generational learners, online leaders must be open and willing to examine and evaluate the impact of generational changes, especially digitally age changes.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation of this qualitative case study was that the findings of a small qualitative research sample usually cannot be generalized to a larger group (Yin, 2003). In this study, the perceptions expressed and themes found may not reflect the views or experiences of online doctoral chairs in other institutions. In addition, the use of open-ended interview questions may have been a limitation. Participants were not asked quantitative questions, such as the effects of reflective mentoring or specific age-related profiles of students. In this study, online chairs from an online university were simply asked to share their perceptions.

Qualitative researchers are limited by the format of the data collection and the data analysis process. Therefore, the duplication of this qualitative study by other researchers may be difficult to conduct. In this study, doctoral chairs’ views on the role of reflective mentoring practices and changing student cross-cultural and generational worldviews were examined. Though the online chairs in this study may not be significantly younger or older than the students they chair, the focus was on chairs’ perceptions of the problem. Online chairs in this study may not yet mentor digital learners; however, during interviews, participants were invited to share their views on the topic.

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study was the need for higher education leaders who work with doctoral chairs to create a change process. Study findings show the need to investigate the impact of digital age students’ changing work ethics and communication styles on relationships with educators. Therefore, higher education leaders who supervise online doctoral chairs may want to consider the implementation of a change program. By the mid-2020s, almost half of the workforce will be Generation Z workers (Weber, 2013), and the number of students enrolling in doctoral programs will likely include a proportionate number of Generation Z students. To prepare online chairs to meet the needs of Generation Z students, change leaders must convince all stakeholders that change is necessary (Fullan, 2006).

An increased number of digital age learners enter the global workplace and higher education system each year, and, according to study findings, Generation Z students may not be willing to follow established social norms. Digitally connected Generation Z students may tend to openly engage in disagreements with instructors, and they may fail to listen to counter arguments or constructive feedback. Generation Z students who spend most of their time connected to multimedia sites may speak their mind and express uncensored opinions. This generation may express decreased regard for what instructors say, and they may do not pay attention to instructors. Generation Z students may show increased respect for learning via technology rather than from relationships and shepherding or guidance from online chairs. If research finding trends continue, Generation Z students may demonstrate a decreased appreciation for the role education and work play in their lives, and they may fail to see education as a “means of survival” but a way to meet short-term goals.

Summary

When online doctoral chairs fail to integrate reflective mentoring and relationship building, the likelihood of doctoral student disengagement increases during the dissertation-writing process (Kemp et al., 2014). In the mid-1990s, online doctoral programs expanded, and most of these students were Generation X and Y students. Generation X and Y students were willing to sacrifice time and money to seek career advancement for a better work/life. Generally, these students sought attention, feedback, and guidance from online chairs. Generation X and Generation Y students seldom openly disregarded chair guidance or opinions (Doloriert et al., 2012).

Generation Z students were born around 1994, and they grew up connected to the Worldwide Internet. Generation Z students were known as the connected generation, and their proclivities to expect immediate results changed interactions with educators. Therefore, when Generation Z students enter online doctoral programs, online chairs and students may experience a type of disconnection that is characteristic of Generation Z (Fry, 2015).

According to Fullan (2006), changes models need to be in place to help stakeholders effectively transition to changes within an educational organization. Based on research findings related to Generation Z students’ learning characteristics, a change in how online doctoral chairs view generational learners may be needed. Though participants in this study may lack experiences in chairing Generation Z students, this situation will change. To understand the possible effects of chairing Generation Z students, a new model for reflective mentoring may be needed.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Barbara Fedock is a University of Phoenix School of Advanced Studies faculty member, and she is a lead teacher and content area chair in the College of Humanities and Mathematics on the Charlotte, North Carolina campus. Dr. Fedock is a university research fellow and dissertation chair.

References

Adler

(1987). Membership roles in field research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Barnes

(2010). The nature of exemplary doctoral advisors’ expectations and the ways they may influence doctoral persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 11, 323-343.

Blass

Jasman

Levy

(2012). Supervisor reflections on developing doctoralness in practice-based doctoral students. Quality Assurance in Education, 20, 31-41.

Carpenter

Wetheridge

Tanner

(2012). Researchers of tomorrow: Research behavior of Generation Y doctoral students. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/researchers-of-tomorrow.aspx

Carter

Whittaker

(2009). Examining the British PhD viva: Opening new doors or scarring for life? Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 32, 169-178.

Chou

Lin

Chang

Chuang

(2013). Transformational leadership and team performance. SAGE Open, 3(3), 1-10.

Doloriert

Sambrook

Stewart

(2012). Power and emotion in doctoral supervision: Implications for HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 36, 732-750.

Drysdale

Graham

C. R.

Borup

(2014). An online high school “shepherding” program: Teacher roles and experiences mentoring online students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22, 9-32.

Fedynich

Bain

(2011). Mentoring the successful graduate student of tomorrow. Research in Higher Education Journal, 1, 14-19.

10.

Fry

(2015). Millennials surpass Gen Xers as the largest generation in U.S. labor force. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/11/millennials-surpass-gen-xers-as-the-largest-generation-in-u-s-labor-force/

11.

Fullan

(2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement (Paper No. 157). Centre for Strategic Education.

12.

Gardner

(2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States. High Education, 58, 97-112.

13.

Ginsberg

Knapp

Farrington

(2014). Using transformative experiences to prepare instructional leaders through doctoral education. Leadership Education, 9, 2168-2194.

14.

Hansen

J. I.

Leuty

M. E.

(2012). Work values across generations. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 34-52.

15.

Holley

(2011). A cultural repertoire of practices in doctoral education. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6, 79.

16.

Hyatt

Williams

(2011). 21st century competencies for doctoral leadership faculty. Innovation Higher Education, 36, 53-66.

17.

Jang

Reeve

Deci

(2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588-600.

18.

Kemp

Molloy

T. J.

Pajics

Chapman

(2014). An analysis of reported motivational orientation in students undertaking doctoral studies in the biomedical sciences. BMC Medical Education, 14, Article 38.

19.

Kumar

Johnson

Hardemon

(2013). Dissertations at a distance: Students’ perceptions of online mentoring in a doctoral program. Journal of Distance Education, 27, 1-11.

20.

Livingston

(2011). An investigation of transformational leadership in a virtual learning environment. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml

21.

O’Meara

Knudsen

Jones

(2013). The role of emotional competencies in Faculty-doctoral student relationships. Review of Higher Education, 36, 315-347.

22.

Schniegerjans

Yair

(2012). Equity theory based strategies for students on overcoming problems in Ph.D. dissertation committees. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 221-234.

23.

Strang

K. D.

(2009). Measuring online learning approach and mentoring preferences of international doctorate students. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 245-257.

24.

Weber

(2013). By the year 2020, almost half of the workforce will be made up of these people. Retrieved from http://www.upworthy.com/by-the-year-2020-almost-half-of-the-workforce-will-be-made-up-of-these-people-5

25.

West

I. J.

Gokalp

Pena

Fischer

Gupton

(2011). Xploring effective support practices for doctoral students’ degree completion. College Student Journal, 45(2), 310-323.

26.

Willis

Carmichael

(2011). The lived experience of late-stage doctoral student attrition in counselor education. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 192-207.

27.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Online Dissertation Chairs’ Perceptions on the Role of Reflective Mentoring Practices and Changing Student Cross-Cultural and Generational Worldviews