Ed.D. Doctoral Study Prospectus Form

Completion of the Prospectus with a score of 3 of higher on the rubricis part of Transition Point 3. Transition points serve as key milestones within the Ed.D. program whereby candidates are expected todemonstrate specific knowledge, skills, or professional dispositions before moving forward. Transition points were carefully developed to monitor candidate performance and to provide support and guidance for candidates who are experiencing challenges with demonstrating the necessary knowledge, skills, or professional dispositions.

The purpose of the prospectus is to develop an overall outline and plan for the doctoral study and guide development of a solid foundation for the formal doctoral study proposal. Since the prospectus serves this foundation, you are encouraged to consult the appropriate doctoral study rubric as a guide to the formative structure to follow within the five sections listed below. The Prospectus will also be used to assign the Committee University Research Reviewer (URR) who will add additional expertise to support presenting a strong proposal.

Name: Richard S. Baskas Date: November 25, 2012

Walden Email Address: richard.baskas@waldenu.edu Candidate ID#: A00261030Personal Email Address (backup): dickwolf07@gmail.com Preferred Tele No.: 813-690-4781

Committee Chair: Dr. Delmus WilliamsSecond Member: Dr. Michael Butcher

Date of enrollment in EdD: November 1, 2010Date of enrollment in 8081: October 29, 2012

Specialization: Check ONE box.

Administrator Leadership Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

Higher Education Leadership Higher Education and Adult Learning

Teacher Leadership Special Education

1

Type of Research: Check ONE box.

Preliminary Study Title:

An Embedded Study to Identify Barriers that Discourage

Military Veterans from Taking Full Advantage of the G.I. Bill

1. Description of the local problem (The local problem that prompted the study is clearly defined and is discussed in terms of the local setting and the larger population or education situation):

1.1 and 1.2 Describe the local problem that prompts the study and describe the local setting in

sufficient detail.

While the Title II (Education) portion of the G.I. Bill is a

major incentive for many who have entered the military since

1944, many veterans do not always use these benefits to continue

their education (U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012). By

the time the researcher began this project study in November of

Qualitative Methods Quantitative Methods Mixed Methods

Primary method isQualitative Quantitative

Program Evaluation

2

2012, the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, enacted in 2001, had not been

around long enough for active duty members and military veterans

to understand the problems that might present themselves from

moving forward (U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012).

However, the literature identifies barriers that have presented

themselves based on studies on earlier versions of the G.I. Bill

beginning from the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 and

continuing through the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) enacted in

1987 (Benjaminson, 2011; Burnam, Meredith, Tanielian, & Jaycox,

2009; Canaday, 2003; Carne, 2011; Hoge, Castro, Messer, McGurk,

Cotting, & Koffman, 2004; Murray, 2002; Steele, Salcedo, & Coley,

2010). Since World War II and the enactment of the original bill

in 1944, some active duty members and military veterans have

experienced difficulties in gaining access to their educational

benefits. These problems began with discrimination issues

against women (Murray, 2002), African Americans (Benjaminson,

2011; Katznelson & Mettler, 2008), and homosexuals (Bayer, 1987;

Canaday, 2003; Herek, 2010; Rado, 1940). These issues thinned

out after the Vietnam War, but other barriers became more

noticeable, issues related to the military workforce (Burnam,

Meredith, Tanielian, & Jaycox, 2009; Lolatte, 2010), contact with

3

the Veterans Administration (VA) (Ellison, Drebing, Mueller,

Delman, & Mistler, 2011; Hoge et al., 2004), post-secondary

institutions (Carne, 2011; Glasser, Powers, & Zywiak, 2009;

Pritchard, Elison-Bowers, & Birdsall, 2009; Zinger & Cohen,

2010), and veterans' home life (Steele, Salcedo, & Coley, 2010).

The literature indicates specific barriers (issues related to

work, home, school, and VA) that have been identified since the

1944 Act became law, but it does not comment on the specific

version of the bill during which these barriers emerged even

though the specific dates as to when they were identified will be

mentioned.

The veterans’ service office at the University of Alaska

Fairbanks (UAF) has reported that there has been a decrease in

the use of the G.I. Bill benefits by military veteran students.

They explained that these reasons included veterans who were

either National Guard or Reserve and have no educational

entitlement (or they did not know that their Title 10 activations

qualified them for Post 9/11), are employed by the University and

receive free tuition, or were unable to use the benefits before

their expiration or never qualified due to their status of

discharge or a failure to meet minimum active service

4

requirements. They also mentioned that older disabled veterans

may not be aware of vocational rehabilitation benefits available

to them. They also felt that this could decrease the level of

participation in the educational programs and eventually diminish

any interest that active duty and civilian personnel may have had

if and when they eventually decide to pursue their educational

goals.

The purpose of this study is to determine the specific

barriers encountered that discourage veterans associated with

campuses of UAF from taking full advantage of this program and

investigate solutions to assist the veterans in overcoming these

barriers while also preparing future recruits to deal with issues

that might present themselves.

Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944

The goal of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (G.I.

Bill) was to help veterans readjust to civilian life by providing

four types of assistance: a) education and training; b) loan

guarantees for purchase of homes, businesses, or farms; c)

unemployment compensation; and d) job counseling and employment

services. When the bill was conceived, the criteria that were

developed for the military veterans were that any veteran who had

5

served 90 days and had received a discharge other than

dishonorable was eligible for one year of training. Service

beyond 90 days entitled the veteran to additional education for

up to three calendar years. This remained the basic structure of

the law, although a number of changes were made in response to

perceived abuses resulting in the bill to be renamed, first to

the Korean Conflict Bill, second to the Vietnam Bill, third to

Veterans Education Assistance Program, and then, finally, to the

Montgomery G.I. Bill. Each iteration has its own unique

structure (Lay, 2009; Rockoff, 2006).

Korean Conflict and Vietnam Era Bills

The Korean Conflict Bill was design to help veterans who

served for more than 90 days and had received an other than a

dishonorable discharge readjust to civilian life. This bill was

worth $110 monthly to cover higher education and subsistence for

single service members and more for those with dependents (Lay,

2009). The Vietnam Era Bill provided benefits both for veterans

and for those who were still on active duty. This bill served

four purposes, 1) to enhance and improve the attractiveness of

military service, 2) to provide access to higher education for

persons who might otherwise be unable to afford it, 3) to provide

6

vocational readjustment and to restore lost educational

opportunities to those whose careers had been interrupted or

impeded by active service, and 4) to help service members get the

vocational and educational status they might normally have

attained had they not served in the Armed Forces (U. S. Congress,

1978).

Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education Assistance Program

The goal of the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education

Assistance Program (VEAP) was different in that it was viewed

more as a recruiting tool than a reward for service. In fact, it

was the first major recruiting tool implemented after the

military became an all-volunteer force. Contributions to this

program could be made from the recruit’s military pay, and these

were matched with $1 for each $2 contributed by the recruit.

These benefits could be used for degree, certificate,

correspondence, apprenticeship/on-the-job, and vocational flight

training programs (Lay, 2009).

Montgomery G.I. Bill

The Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB), passed in 1987, was

designed for the peacetime military and allowed active duty

personnel to set aside an amount equal to a service member’s

7

first 12 months pay reduced by $100 to be matched for schooling

if they had a high school diploma/GED, an honorable discharge and

had completed at least 12 credit hours towards a college degree.

If they did not go to college after discharge, the service

members’ contribution was refunded to them after their term of

service expired (Lay, 2009).

In all of these programs, military veterans had 10 years to

use their educational benefits, beginning on the day they

separated from active duty. However, even though many recruits

signed on to the military expecting to use the benefits, they did

not use them, in part because of obstacles that often developed

that challenged their determination to return to school during

their time in service and after discharge. Turner and Bound

(2003) noted that in the 1940s, 23% of G.I. Bill participants, to

include both White and African American soldiers, said they were

going to use the bill for education. In reality, however, only

2.2 million of 15 million veterans actually ended up using the

benefits available under the 1944 Act (Altschuler & Blumin,

2009). Likewise, Schupp (2009) noted that between 1985 and 1994,

only 52,000 of the 641,000 veterans (8%) eligible for the

8

educational benefit actually used all of the benefits available

to them.

Barriers Relating to Military Life

Some active duty members have experienced work related

obstacles during their military career that tested their

determination when deciding if the bill was worth the investment

they had made in the program. Burnam, Meredith, Tanielian, and

Jaycox’s (2009) study revealed that some active duty personnel

have felt that disclosing their disabilities after having served

on a temporary duty assignment (TDY) would prevent them from not

being treated for disabilities. Veterans felt that if they were

not treated, they would not be able to overcome their

disabilities, effectively preventing them from using their

education benefits to attend school. Lolatte’s (2010) study

revealed that some military supervisors had negative perceptions

of education, suggesting that those military personnel without a

college education might discourage others from pursuing one or at

least were not supportive of their subordinate’s efforts. Some

accused their subordinates of insubordination or of not being

respectful of those who outranked them or suggested that these

soldiers felt superior to those in positions of authority. These

9

attitudes have discouraged some military members from applying

for college while on active duty or finishing their degree during

or after their service. As new recruits are taught to listen to

their supervisors as they are being trained to do their job,

these recruits are sometime exposed to and take to heart negative

thoughts regarding the bill.

Barriers Relating to Veterans’ Home Life

Even when a veteran may be attending college part- or full-

time, he or she might still face obstacles at home that can

interfere with studies. Family responsibilities are among the

most common obstacles that can prevent military veterans from

using their educational benefits. According to Steele, Salcedo,

and Coley (2010), a majority of returning veterans are either

married or have dependents, and 33% of these veterans are married

parents. Steele, Salcedo, and Coley (2010) stated that not only

are these veterans pursuing a degree, they are often also working

to support their family, given that it is unrealistic for a

family to depend completely on the living stipend provided by the

G.I. Bill. It is a no wonder Cunningham (2012) stated that

single veterans with children are the least likely group to

pursue an education.

10

Barriers Relating to the Veterans Administration

When active duty members out-process from active duty to

become civilians, they may also experience problems in encounters

with the VA in qualifying for their education benefits. Hoge et

al., (2004) reported that some veterans refused to seek medical

attention due to problems they experienced with the VA or because

of the rumors they heard about the agency. Veterans have been

known to encounter VA professionals with negative attitudes who

declined to provide the information needed to allow them to

enroll or continue in programs or get needed help. Veterans had

difficulty in getting time off from work to get medical

attention, and were sometimes embarrassed when addressing medical

and psychological issues. When illnesses went undiagnosed or

untreated, veterans’ lives were further complicated and their

chances of applying for their educational benefits, of staying in

school, and of succeeding academically decreased. In addition,

it was noted in a study by Ellison, Drebing, Mueller, Delman, and

Mistler (2011) that some homeless veterans with medical

conditions have never reported their illnesses/disabilities, and

11

this, along with the lack of a permanent address, have made it

more difficult for them to qualify for VA medical and educational

benefits.

Barriers Relating to Post-Secondary Institutions

When military veterans become new college students, or

resume their studies after a long period of time, they may

experience problems related to their current college that may

cause them to drop out and discontinue using their benefits.

Some of these are unique to veterans, while others relate simply

to the fact that these students are not 18 years old and have

life experiences that are not typical within a college community.

It was common for World War II veterans to drop out of school

before completing even one academic year to fight in the war

while some attended and completed no more than one year (Stanley,

2003). Others found that they were not prepared to address the

academic challenges they confronted, and, when they failed, they

were required to either repeat courses or leave school. Carne

(2011) found that some veterans had various difficulties applying

for college when they returned from TDYs, while others felt that

it was not worth attending college if colleges would acknowledge

their life experiences and training and give college credit for

12

that military experience. Still others had problems adjusting to

civilian life and relating to other students, instructors, and

school administrators as they tried to reconcile their life

experiences with those of their fellow students. These

difficulties resulted in their not applying for college or

dropping out before completing their program of study.

Glasser, Powers, and Zywiak (2009) found that some military

veterans felt so frustrated by the lack of knowledge and

expertise that staff at their colleges exhibited regarding VA

benefits that the veterans gave up trying to figure things out

and left school. Others experienced difficulty in transitioning

from military life to enrolling into college when they became

civilians. They felt that they could get ahead on their own

without any help, had always been taught to be self-sufficient,

and had problems dealing with the college administrators’

negative attitudes towards or lack of support for them. These

veterans sometimes refused to seek the help that they needed

increasing their level of isolation and eventually dropped out.

Pritchard, Elison-Bowers, and Birdsall (2009) found that some

college instructors lacked the training required to deal with

military veterans who become disruptive in class. They either

13

referred students to counseling services or gave little support

or direction to help students develop strategies for dealing with

their problems, and the resulting frustration was blamed for

veterans’ dropping out. Cunningham (2012) explained that the

absence of easily accessible information, ineffective outreach by

the VA and universities, the confusing transition from the

military to the VA, and errors with payments further complicated

the process of enrolling into colleges causing veteran students

to decide to not continue their studies. Zinger and Cohen (2010)

explained that other veterans who returned from war and entered

college eventually left school as they could not handle the

absence of the kind of structure they had become accustomed to in

the military, felt disrespected by other students and faculty, or

got lost trying to understand how to file for the G.I. Bill

education benefits.

1.3 Describe a gap in practice that Justifies the local need for

the research study.

There is a gap in practice. Becoming eligible for the G.I.

Bill once a veteran separates from active duty appears to be the

easiest part of taking full advantage of the programs available.

When the bill was enacted, it was not fully realized how

14

unprepared society would be to handle issues associated with

preparing veterans to participate in the educational programs

supported by the bill (Cunningham, 2012). In preparing to become

a college student or finishing a degree, the affected veterans

faced obstacles that could hinder their efforts and test their

commitment to furthering their education. Though the G.I. Bill

program is supposed to help veterans, in actuality, it can also

be a hindrance. The program is specific in the types of

educational benefits it offers, but it does not mention obstacles

veterans may face when trying to use them and how they should

proceed in overcoming these obstacles. If these troops continue

to experience problems as they pursue their education or are

deterred from taking full advantage of their benefits by these

obstacles, future recruits may see this as a warning about what

the future may hold for them, diminishing the incentive to enlist

in the service or to use the resources available to them to

attend college. It may also limit their participation,

decreasing the rate at which veterans enter post-secondary

institutions.

As noted earlier, the veterans’ service office at UAF has

seen a decrease in the number of veteran students using their

15

educational benefits. Other potential veteran students seeking

enrollment at UAF may see this as a concern when looking into

enrolling into the G.I. Bill program and decide to discontinue

their educational progress with UAF by not using their

educational benefits. Other potential enlistees may also see

this as a threat to their future educational aspirations and may

later decide to not enlist into any of the other branches of the

military which would, which could decrease the level of the

nation’s defense.

1.4 Discusses the relationship of the problem to the larger

educational setting as presented in the professional and

scholarly literature.

1.5 Includes appropriate citations from local reports,

professional literature, and/or scholarly literature.

If active duty members and military veterans decide to not

use their educational benefits due to barriers that they

experience, they most likely will decide to not attend any

college or to discontinue their current educational endeavors

(Carne, 2011). If a large enough veteran population absence

itselve from these post-secondary institutions, immediate results

of this would be felt by any of the institutions that are

16

currently educating veterans in the form of a decrease in class

attendance and a decrease in the tuition payments made.

There is an impact on the taxpayers as well. Americans have

invested a lot of money in easing the transition of veterans into

the community. The bill has cost $14 billion in education

benefits to WW II veterans (Military.com, 2006; Ramiraz, 2005),

$4.5 billion for those who served during the Korean Conflict

(Military.com, 2006), $42 billion during the Vietnam War

(Military.com, 2006), and for 2008, $2,864 billion for the

Montgomery G.I. Bill (Military.com, 2006). If veterans do not

make use of the resoures provided or start but do not finish

programs, the return on that investment is diminshed.

Many military veteran students are known to be among the

best students in colleges due to their maturity and discipline

(Moon & Schma, 2011), and colleges have been making special

efforts to recruit and sustain these veteran populations. Once

these veterans leave these schools as dropouts, it becomes

difficult to reattract them. As a result, colleges and

universities are working on strategies to atrract and retain

these students. Cunningham (2012) explained that one of the most

popular intervention plans that has been used to attract and keep

17

more veteran students in colleges is to form organizations or

chapters of organizations like the Student Veterans of American

(SVA). These organizations help ease the transition from the

battlefield to the classroom by creating a social group in which

veterans can network with other veterans. The SVA holds

meetings, examines challenges, and creates an interactive

environment, bringing together people with a common experience to

help facilitate a veteran’s transition to campus life.

Cunningham further notes that the SVA has over five hundred

chapters in all fifty states. But this is not a perfect

solution. Not all universities have a sufficient veteran

population to support a group or a well-organized and active

organizations of this sort, and, even when chapters do exist and

function, it is still often difficult for veterans to balance

participation while negotiating family obligations and jobs and

simultaneously attempting to stay current on coursework.

1.6 Problem aligns with other aspects of the prospectus,

including literature review, research questions, data collection,

and data analysis methods.

The purpose of this study is to help active duty members and

military veterans understand the barriers (issues related to the

18

military workforce, VA, home, and post-secondary institutions)

they are likely to encounter when they return to college or use

the assistance provided them to complete other kinds of

educational programs. It will further seek to identify

strategies that can help them overcome these barriers and

complete a degree program.

This study will lead to an increased understanding of what

these barriers are and help establish processes for modifications

of programs supported by the bill for future recruits. A mixed

method embedded design will address this gap in practice and

better inform the Department of Defense (DoD) about the practices

and processes that can be used to prepare recruits, active duty

members, and military veterans to take best advantage of these

benefits, inform service members of barriers that have been

encountered by service members who have gone before them,

information about how these barriers have been dealt with in the

past, and strategies they might use as they seek to take full

advantage of the oppportunities provided.

2. Rationale of the local problem and Purpose of the study (The rationale for choosing this problem is clearly articulated. The rationale consists of evidence that the problem exists and explains why there is a need to study and address this problem. The purpose or intent of the study is explained):

19

2.1 Articulates the rationale for choosing the local problem and

justifies why there is a need to study and address the problem.

2.2 Lists potential data sources to locate evidence that the

problem exists in the local setting.

2.3 Explains the purpose or intent of the research.

2.4 Explains how the research will contribute to an understanding

of the local problem.

This study will assess the extent to which barriers

identified over time to veterans using G.I. Bill educational

benefits affect participation at one or more campuses of the

University of Alaska system and to identify strategies that can

be used to overcome those barriers. A study by the U. S.

Department of the Veterans Affairs (2009) compared the percentage

of the education benefits used by veterans to the other benefits

offered by the VA. Out of a total of 8,493,700 living veterans,

a very small percentage of these veterans utilized the education

benefit. The breakdown of the benefits usage included,

vocational rehabilitation (0%), pension (1%), education (2%),

burial services (2%), insurance (9%), compensation (10%), loan

guaranty (11%), multiple VA programs (32%), and health (33%).

20

These statistics suggest that military veterans appear to be more

interested in seeking their health benefits to take care of their

immediate health situations, especially if they were returning

from overseas combat.

One campus (UAF) has agreed to participate and the others

(UAA and UAS) will also be added to the studies if they also

agree to be part of the study. Since a large proportion of these

university students are veterans, it would be important to know

whether the results of the VA’s study (2009) hold true for UAF’s

veteran population. If these experiences reflect the research

results from national studies, it will be important to identify

those barriers they encountered that might potentially have

limited participation and strategies those who complete degrees

or had academic success used to overcome these barriers.

As previously mentioned, earlier studies have shown that

23% of those eligible for the original G.I. Bill said they were

going to use the bill for education (Turner & Bound, 2003), but,

that only 2.2 million of 15 million veterans actually ended up

participating in the 1944 Act (Altschuler & Blumin, 2009).

Later, Schupp (2009) revealed that between 1985 and 1994, only

52,000 of the 641,000 who were eligible veterans (8%) used all of

21

the G.I. Bill benefits available to them. In 1946, $400 million

was set aside for higher education under this program. A year

later, this amount reached $650 million. By the end of the

1940s, the budget reached $1 billion. By 2011, this amount had

increased tremendously, reaching $22 billion (Aranguena, 2011),

indicating that much was being invested with much less of a

result than expected. Though no statistics indicate how much of

money was not used for the G.I. Bill, a report by the U. S.

Department of Veterans Affairs (2010) indicated that the main

reason for not applying or using VA benefits was that 36.6% of

veterans were not aware of the educational benefits available to

them. The Annual Benefits Reports (U. S. Department of

Veterans Affairs, 2011) indicated that while the number of people

eligible for the Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits is increasing,

rising from 400,000 to 500,000 in 2009 to 800,000 to 900,000 in

2011, the number of veterans actually using the bill had dropped

in this same period from 300,000 to 200,000 in a given year.

This problem needs to be studied as there is limited

experience and knowledge within the military workforce as to what

active duty members and military veterans should expect when

returning to school using G.I. Bill benefits in order to better

22

prepare themselves if and when these barriers present themselves.

Informing active duty personnel and military veterans of barriers

to degree completion and offering them advice as to how to

overcome these barriers has been a continuing challenge since the

inception of the bill, and the impact of this challenge has

become more evident since the Montgomery Bill was enacted.

Once a recruit signs the bill contract at the start of Basic

Training, it is the responsibility of that recruit to stay

abreast on all the updates to the bill and to deal with any

problems they encounter in using these benefits during the course

of their military career and after. It is up to them to

determine who to contact and what questions to ask to resolve any

issues they may have. There are no programs or briefings that

inform them of any problems that might be encountered when using

the bill. While some of these problems are unique to each

individual, not even those barriers that are commonly noted are

addressed systematically during the course of a service member’s

active duty career. Studying the reasons why some military

veterans did not take full advantage of the education portion of

the G.I. Bill can provide the DoD critical information that is

essential for future recruits, active duty members and military

23

veterans as they make effective future decisions as to whether

the bill is a wise investment before actually committing to the

program or continue to pursue their educational plans once they

become civilians.

3. Review of literature addressing the problem. Consists of two parts: a) theoretical / conceptual framework and b) current research literature addressing the problem.

3.1 Describes the theoretical base or conceptual framework that

informs the study.

Nancy Schlossberg’s (1981) Transition Theory will set the

tone for this study. According to Schlossberg, as people live

and experience life, they are continuously involved in change and

transition. These changes often result in new relationships, new

behaviors, and new self-perceptions. Transitions through life

depend on the characteristics of the individual and the

environment in which they live. Schlossberg’s study attempted to

determine what accounted for the differences in how different

people reacted to the same situation. This study should indicate

how different veterans adapt to educational environments and the

challenges presented there and offer suggestions regarding

elements that can contribute to success in this environment.

24

3.2 Justifies the selection of this theory / framework by showing

a clear contribution to the understanding of the problem.

3.3 Demonstrates an accurate understanding of the selected theory

/ framework.

3.4 Includes appropriate scholarly citations related to the

theory / framework

Carne (2011) explained that some active duty members have

changed their minds about furthering their education after

leaving the service as other opportunities became available or as

life circumstances intervened. Lolatte (2010) explained that

still others changed their minds about continuing their education

as a result of their supervisor’s negative attitude towards

spending time pursuing an education as they feel that their

subordinates may disrespect them as an authority figure. Others

abandon their efforts after witnessing the negative attitudes of

a college’s administrators, professors, and students towards

veterans (Church, 2009). It is also suggested that other service

members and veterans find that they are not comfortable

reorienting themselves to working in a typical classroom

environment, causing them to drop out of the program or that they

do not have the skills required to succeed in conventional

25

classroom (Tovar, 2008). This doctoral study will address these

issues as they pertain to what would discourage military veterans

from taking full advantage of the G.I. Bill.

4. Review of Literature addressing the problem. b) Current research literature related to the problem is summarized and critically reviewed. Includes at least 15 current references fromresearch literature articles published in peer-reviewed journals.Current literature is defined as published within the past 5 years. Research literature is defined as articles reporting data collection methods or data sources, data analysis methods, and findings.

4.1 Summarizes research literature related to the problem.

4.2 Explains the relevance and relationship of the selected

literature to the proposed research study.

A review of the literature has identified barriers active

duty service members and military veterans experience during

their military career and as a college student after having

separated from active duty, these individuals must maneuver

around to successfully complete a degree program. The issues

noted relate to a service member’s military life, a veteran’s

home life, and experiences working with the Veterans

Administration, and/or the post-secondary institutions.

Issues Related to Military Life

26

Some active duty members have experienced work related

issues during their military career that tested their

determination when deciding if the bill was worth the investment

they have made in it. Burnam, Meredith, Tanielian, and Jaycox’s

(2009) study revealed that some active duty personnel have felt

that disclosing their disabilities would change the way they were

perceived on campus, particularly if these disabilities were a

result of having served on TDYs. Veterans felt that if they

revealed any illnesses, required treatment would cause a delay in

applying for their educational benefits or matriculating and

possibly destroy any chances of attending college. The problem

was that, while veterans in this period often felt it was their

responsibility to be strong and work through their problems, not

sorting the issues often made readjustment to society in general

and to school in particular was made more difficult.

Lolatte’s (2010) study revealed that some military

supervisors also had negative perceptions of education, and

worked to transfer those to soldiers in their charge, suggesting

that more senior service members without a college education

might discourage or at least not be supportive of their

subordinate’s efforts to earn a degree. Some also accused their

27

subordinates who were either attending or were bound for college

of being hotshots who were not respectful of those who outranked

them or who felt superior to those in positions of authority.

These attitudes have discouraged some military members from

applying for college or finishing their degree. As new recruits

are taught to listen to their supervisors, those recruits who are

constantly exposed to negative thoughts regarding the Bill might

be less inclined to sign up for college. This embedded study

will address the impact of experiences while on active duty as a

barrier to military veterans that keep them from not using the

G.I. Bill.

Issues Related to Veterans’ Home Life

Even when veterans may be attending college part- or full-

time, they might still face obstacles at home that can interfere

with studies. Colson (2000) reported that high-quality youths

move to post-secondary education programs in the near term only

to terminate eduational pursuits because of external pressures.

Sexton (1980) found that, even as early as 1975, Congress and the

Veterans’ Administration had problems with a large number of

veterans who were taking advantage of the GI Bill program. There

were some veterans who had applied for their educational benefits

28

but instead of using the money towards the tuition, they were

using the money for other personal responsibilities. Teachman

(2007) found that the more education veterans had before they

enlisted into the military, the more they felt that they were

already close enough to their desired educational level and,

therefore, felt that when they separated from active duty, they

no longer needed additional education.

Issues Related to Veterans Administration

When active duty members out-process from active duty to

become civilians, they may also experience problems with the VA

in qualifying for their G.I. Bill benefits. Some of these issues

stem from the fact that these VA professionals may have never

been in the military and, therefore, do not understand what these

veterans experienced and/or how to handle the issues that these

veterans bring home with them. Ellison, Drebing, Mueller,

Delman, and Mistler (2011) reported that some homeless veterans

with any possible military connected illnesses or disability may

have difficulty in accessing their G.I. Bill educational benefits

or are unaware of how to access them. The general public may not

know who among this homeless population are actually veterans and

may disregard them like any other homeless person. If these

29

homeless veterans do not carry any personal identification to

present to the public or a permanent address where they can

receive mail, it would be very difficult for a veteran to obtain

any help to prove that they are veterans. A lack of this

information can prevent these veterans from obtaining their

military records and also prevent them later from attending

college.

Another issue veterans have complained about for many years,

according to Feldman (1974), is that throughout the history of

the G.I. Bill, late checks have been a chronic complaint of

veterans. To one who counts on their G.I. Bill check, its late

arrival is a serious setback. The fact that Vietnam vets have

come to believe that the VA had a reputation for getting its

checks out late has meant that many veterans have never signed up

for their benefits at all. This embedded study will address the

impact of issues related to the VA as a barrier for military

veterans not using the G.I. Bill.

Issues Related to Post-Secondary Institutions

When military veterans become new students, or resume their

studies after a long period of time, they may have experienced

problems related to their current college that may cause them to

30

drop out and discontinue using their benefits. Even when active

duty members are not attending college, as former students or

students who had to temporarily abort their studies to return to

active duty, some colleges make significant and unexpected

changes in their curriculum or teaching practices that make the

transition back to class more difficult. These changes can be so

significant that these veterans are not able to keep up, become

frustrated and eventually decide to drop out.

Transitioning to Civilian Life

Livingston (2009) found that veterans experienced

difficulty in transitioning from military life to college after

their release from active duty. Some veterans felt that they

could get ahead on their own without any help as they had always

been taught to be self-sufficient. Nam (1964) reported that some

World War II veterans dropped out of school before completing

even one academic year while some attended and completed no more

than one year. Others found that they were not prepared to

address the academics, and, when they failed, were required to

either repeat courses or leave school.

College Credit

31

Carne (2011) found that some veterans had various

difficulties applying for college when they returned from an

oversea assignment or TDY. Serving TDY can provide a veteran

with unlimited life experiences. Some veterans felt it was not

worth attending college if colleges would not give college credit

for their military experience while others had problems adjusting

to civilian life and relating to other students, instructors, and

school administrators. These difficulties resulted in their not

applying for college or dropping out before completing their

program of study.

Unprepared College Staff and Classes

Pritchard, Elison-Bowers, and Birdsall (2009) found that

some college instructors lacked the training required to deal

with the military veterans who become disruptive in class.

Students were either referred to counseling services or given

little support or direction in developing strategies for dealing

with their problems. Zinger and Cohen (2010) explained that

veterans who returned from war and entered into college

eventually left college as they could not handle the absence of

structure in a classroom environment. They also felt

disrespected by other students and faculty especially since

32

colleges do not necessarily understand issues relating to the

military. Veterans were also getting lost trying to understand

how to file for the G.I. Bill education benefits. Glasser,

Powers, and Zywiak (2009) found that military veterans often felt

so frustrated by the lack of knowledge and expertise that the

colleges had regarding VA benefits that they gave up trying to

figure things out and eventually left school.

Financial Difficulties

Sexton (1980) found that, since many veterans were having

financial difficulties when they returned to civilian life, they

would apply for the education benefits and use this money for

living expenses with little intent to pursue an education. The

educational institutions reported to the VA explaining that it

was easy for these veteran students to obtain these benefits,

receiving money and using it to meet personal needs without

attending classes.

This embedded study will address the impact of the attitudes

of and programs offered by post-secondary institution issues as a

barrier for military veterans not using the G.I. Bill.

5. Research questions (Lists research questions including

related hypotheses, if applicable):

33

5.1 The research questions and related hypothesis are clear and

focused.

The purpose of this study is to determine what barriers have

discouraged military veterans from taking full advantage of the

Title II (Education) portion of the G.I. Bill so that future

recruits, active duty members and military veterans may learn of

these barriers and how to overcome them when necessary. It

further expects to identify strategies that might be used to

overcome these barriers.

The primary research question is:

What are the barriers that have discouraged military

veterans from taking full advantage of the Title II

(Educational) portion of the G.I. Bill?

Subquestions are:

What percentages are enrolled in programs supported by

the Montgomery G.I. Bill after leaving service?

What barriers have veterans found on these campuses?

What opportunities or successes have veterans found on

these campuses?

What programs offered by UAF, or what strategies have

these veterans used, to address barriers?

34

5.2 The research questions and related hypotheses align with the

problem, purpose, and literature review.

The research questions offered will address the issues

related to military veterans’ limited experience with and

understanding of college environments and how to deal with things

encountered during their military career that might form a

barrier when they seek to take advantage of G.I. Bill benefits.

The purpose of this study is to identify potential problems so

that veterans might leave the service better prepared to take

full advantage of the benefits they earned, allowing them to

successfully take full advantage of the bill and graduate with a

degree. It will also provide the universities being studied with

data to support efforts to retain veteran students to and help

them proceed to graduation. By investing in the bill, active

duty members and veterans may feel that they have made an

appropriate investment in their future education and career. By

understanding barriers identified and analyzing practices that

the military has established over the years relating to use of

the bill, active duty members will be better prepared to overcome

these barriers.

35

5.3 The research questions and related hypothesis can be

answered by the methods of data collection and data analysis

(i.e. the research questions align with the methods of data

collection and data analysis)

This will be a mixed-method embedded study designed to

determine what barriers have discouraged military veterans from

taking full advantage of the Title II (Education) portion of the

G.I. Bill so that future recruits, active duty members and

military veterans may learn of these barriers and learn how to

overcome them if as necessary.

The null and alternative hypotheses for this study include:

H0: There is no difference in interpretation of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill at UAF between the military members who

were properly informed of the Montgomery G.I. Bill

educational benefits and barriers they might have to address

moving forward and the military members who were not.

H1: Military veterans who were properly informed of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill educational benefits and barriers they

might have to address moving forward at UAF are more likely

to be more successful in interpreting their Montgomery G.I.

36

Bill educational benefits than military veterans who were

not.

H0: There is no difference in the level of retention at UAF

between military veterans who were properly informed of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill educational benefits and barriers they

might have to address moving forward and those military

veterans who were not.

H2: Military veterans who were properly informed of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill educational benefits at UAF and

barriers they might have to address moving forward are more

likely to be retained in educational programs than military

veterans who were not properly informed of their educational

benefits before they separated from active duty.

Data collection will include a custom made web survey using

SurveyMonkey.com that consists of both quantitative and

qualitative components. The quantitative portion will consist of

multiple closed-ended questions that will be divided into two

portions. In the first part, participants would provide personal

demographic information regarding their gender, ethnicity,

education, and military service. In the second part,

participants will be asked to choose barriers from a well-

37

researched list of pre-determined barriers that have been

identified in the literature that they have experienced during

their military careers. The qualitative portion of the survey

will consist of two open-ended questions that would provide the

participant an opportunity to provide more detail of their

perception of the bill programs. SurveyMonkey.com is programmed

to allow the researcher to configure the survey so that the

participant will be asked to answer the qualitative questions

though they will not have to offer much information in their

answers. SurveyMonkey.com will continuously collect these data

allowing, the researcher to analyze results at any time during

the data collection process to determine trends and themes.

Descriptive statistics are developed automatically within the

program that can be used to analyze the demographics of the

participants and frequency histograms will be used to display

timeframes indicating when, by what number of students, and how

frequently each identified barrier was encountered.

6. Description of proposed research method (Includes research design, population and sample/selection of participants, data collection methods and/or types of data, data collection instruments, and data analysis methods):

38

6.1 Includes a description of the following components: research

design, population sample, selection of participants, data

collection methods and/or types of data, data collection

instruments (including types of variables, if appropriate), and

data analysis methods.

6.2 Describes and justifies all of the components listed above.

6.3 Aligns all methods components with each other and with the

research questions.

6.4 Includes appropriate citations to the relevant research

literature.

Research Design

This study will utilize a mixed method approach using an

embedded design. The purpose of the embedded design is to

collect both quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously,

and the qualitative data will be used primarily to support and

provide a clearer understanding of the quantitative research

(Creswell, 2012). Creswell (2012) explained that collecting the

second form of data augments or supports the primary form of

data. Creswell (2012) continued that in an embedded design, the

researcher collects both quantitative and qualitative data during

a single study, the two datasets are analyzed separately, and

39

they address different research questions. The design’s strength

is that it combines the advantages of both quantitative and

qualitative research (Creswell, 2012). Quantitative data are

more effective at recording outcomes of the experiment than

identifying through qualitative data how individuals are

experiencing the process (Creswell, 2012). It also provides a

type of mixed methods design where the researcher can collect

qualitative data, but the overall design still emphasizes

quantitative approaches (Creswell, 2012).

The two null and alternative hypotheses for this study

include:

H0: There is no difference in interpretation of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill at UAF between the military members who

were properly informed of the Montgomery G.I. Bill

educational benefits and barriers they might have to address

moving forward and the military members who were not.

H1: Military veterans who were properly informed of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill educational benefits and barriers they

might have to address moving forward at UAF are more likely

to be more successful in interpreting their Montgomery G.I.

40

Bill educational benefits than military veterans who were

not.

H0: There is no difference in the level of retention at UAF

between military veterans who were properly informed of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill educational benefits and barriers they

might have to address moving forward and those military

veterans who were not.

H2: Military veterans who were properly informed of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill educational benefits at UAF and

barriers they might have to address moving forward are more

likely to be retained in educational programs than military

veterans who were not properly informed of their educational

benefits before they separated from active duty.

Sampling and Selection of Participants

To provide rich descriptive data for this study, a large

military veteran population will be needed. UAF is located in

Fairbanks, Alaska’s second largest city. It is adjacent to Fort

Wainwright, making UAF very rich in military veterans. In 2012,

Fairbanks’ population was 32,312 while its military veteran

population was 3,510 (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2012).

41

Fort Wainright’s educational department, Army Continuing

Education System (ACES), offers its active duty members

educational services including, 100% TA, financial aid, basic

skills for improvement, career and degree exploration counseling,

and college programs including distance learning and DANTES (Fort

Wainright, 2007). UAF reported that in 2012, 13.1% of the

student population were veterans, although, after graduation,

this population had increased to 20%. Twenty percent of what the

student population was in 2012 (10,799 students, according to the

University of Alaska Fairbanks) would equate to be about 2,159

military veterans at UAF. UAF has a very veteran friendly campus

as it supports all veterans and military students (active duty,

reserve, guard, separated and retired), as well as their

dependents, who explore UAF’s academic opportunities (University

of Alaska Fairbanks, 2013). UAF’s veteran services include

financial aid, admission, career services, veterans’ services and

the veterans’ resource center (University of Alaska Fairbanks,

2013). The School Certifying Official of the Department of

Veterans’ Affairs at UAF monitors the academic progress of

eligible students in compliance with Title 38, Code of Federal

Regulations (University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2013). UAF’s

42

veteran service officer reported that their military veteran data

is difficult to ascertain as these veterans have not always self-

identified as being a veteran. UAF’s campus newspaper, The Sun

Star, is a student-run weekly newspaper with a circulation of

about 10,000 weekly (University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2013).

I am also asking two other campuses, the University of

Alaska Anchorage (UAA) and the University of Alaska Southeast in

Juneau (UAS) to also work with me to make this study a bit more

generalizable. These requests are pending.

There will be two methods of selecting samples at UAF: 1)

links to the survey will be sent to the editors of the campus’

newspaper, and 2) links to the survey will be sent to the

veteran’s service officer who will send them to each currently

enrolled veteran, and, if possible, to the emails of former,

students who are veterans.

To increase the possibility of reaching a large military

veteran population, the researcher will first develop a

criterion, consent form, and survey instrument that will later be

put onto Surveymonkey.com for which a link will be provided to

the participants. The researcher will email the editorial staff

of UAF’s newspapers a submission offering to purchase space for a

43

description of the project that includes a description of the

study and a link to Surveymonkey.com along with payment. This

newspaper is available as paper and online. Participants would

be asked to self-identify as a veteran and as having a disability

by clicking on that link to complete the survey. The editors of

UAF’s campus newspapers will be offered the opportunity to edit

the submission and determine the location of the submission

within the newspaper. To increase the chances of reaching a

large veteran population in hopes to provide appropriate

descriptive data, the newspapers will be asked to run the

submission weekly for two months. Again, the location of each ad

within the newspaper will be determined by the editors. Once the

participants read the newspapers, locate the description of the

study and show interest in the study, they will be asked to log

into the survey. They will be asked to read and agree to the

terms of the consent form if they fit the criteria, then will be

expected to click on the link that would automatically open the

survey.

The researcher will also email the veterans’ service officer

at UAF asking them to forward an email to each current veteran

student, and if possible any former student veteran, at UAF a

44

description and purpose of the study and a request asking each of

the student veterans to participate in the study. Any current

and former student veteran who is interested in participating in

the study will reply back to the researcher. Once the researcher

receives an appropriate amount of responses for the veterans to

participate, the researcher will send an email to the veterans’

service officer which will be forwarded to those students

agreeing to participate. This email will contain the description

and purpose of the study and a link to surveymonkey.com of the

survey asking them to complete the survey as soon as possible.

This survey will also allow these students to volunteer to

participate in focus groups or interviews where they will be

allowed to provide additional, detailed information about their

experiences with the MGIB. The researcher’s email address will

be provided at the end of the survey to have the participants

contact the researcher. If the student agrees to participate in

the interviews after they complete the survey, the student will

be allowed to email the researcher to set up an appointment for

an interview at the participant’s convenience. Though the focus

groups could be a possible method of collecting more qualitative

45

data, it can be more difficult to conduct due to the students’

varying class schedules.

The sample size to be used for this study will be determined

by two sample size formulas. The infinite population formula

will first determine a sample size (SS). With the Z-value (Z) of

1.96 (95 percent confidence level),

percentage of population picking a choice (p) of .5, and the

confidence interval (C) of .4 (+/- 4 percentage points), SS

becomes 600. In using the infinite population formula (for

populations

less than 50,000), SS of 600 and with UAF’s veteran population of

2,159, an appropriate sample size (New SS) should include 469

veteran students.

To increase the possibility of attracting a large military

veteran population to participate in the survey, the researcher

will explain the purpose of the survey and will have developed a

professional survey instrument that will include a criterion and

46

consent form. They will be asked to read and agree to the terms

of the consent form if they fit the criteria, then will be

expected to complete the survey. If participants refuse to

complete the survey, they may walk away without question. The

researcher will remain until all surveys have been collected,

completed or not.

In order for people to participate in this study, they must

meet the following criteria:

1. Participants must have paid into the Title II

(Education) portion of the G.I. Bill program (Vietnam

War veterans only had to sign up).

2. Participants must have served honorably in any military

branch of service on or after September 16, 1940 (when

the Selective Training and Service Act went into effect)

and 2010 (Rights, 1944). Veterans must have served at

least 90 days unless

discharged earlier for disability incurred in line of

duty, and the final discharge or

release from active duty must be under conditions other

than dishonorable (Rights,

47

1944).

Participants must then meet one of two additional criteria:

1. Participants must never have used the Title II portion

of the G.I. Bill during the 10

years after having separated from active duty (the 10

years begins with the first day

after separation from active duty).

2. Participants, whether they had a service-connected

disability or not, enrolled as a

student no later than 10 years after separating from

active duty, but dropped out of

school soon after and, therefore, never finished using

the Bill.

If the participants had been granted a service-

connected disability, and had been using this

disability payment towards their tuition, but later

decided to not use the money for educational

purposes, they will also be included.

The service member would be required to self-identify

as having a disability and provide the percentage of

48

their disability.

Data Collection Methods and Other Types of Data to be Considered

As noted above, a web-based questionnaire will be offered

using SurveyMonkey.com to make it easier for the researcher to

collect and analyze large amount of data that should be

collected. The quantitative data that will be collected will

consist of responses registered in SurveyMonkey.com that will be

used to calculate the number of responses or frequencies of a

pre-determined list of barriers that veterans may have

experienced and to determine any trends. This program is

calibrated to continuously collect data until the researcher

chooses to terminate the program and stop collecting data. The

researcher can view and analyze data at any time to determine

trends for both types of data and to develop themes from the

qualitative data. When participants have completed the survey,

they will be given an opportunity to email the researcher to

volunteer to participate in an interview to further enrich their

answers.

Ethical Standards

Once participants have become qualified for the study

through the predetermined criteria selection, they will be given

49

the opportunity to decide to participate by agreeing or not

agreeing to complete a consent form. If the participants do not

agree, they will be thanked for their consideration and then will

exit the site. If the participants agree to participate, they

will complete the consent form and SurveyMonkey.com will be

programmed to automatically allow the participants to continue to

the survey. Before the survey results are published, the

researcher will remove any participant identifiers from their

qualitative responses. Responses will remain in

SurveyMonkey.com until the researcher processes the data. Once

participants complete their responses, only the researcher will

be allowed to view the results. As this study involves military

veterans who are current and former students at UAF, a problem

that could arise might relate to making the participants

understand that the study is authentic, that their responses will

only be used for study purposes and that responses will not be

attached to named individuals.

Data Collection Instruments

To ensure that the research questions are addressed

thoroughly and appropriately, particular information will have to

be asked of the participants, and while previously developed

50

instruments were examined, none were founded to be of value here.

Therefore, developing a custom made questionnaire will be

necessary. An unstructured custom made web-based questionnaire

will generate both quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell,

2012). The quantitative data will include the demographics of

the participants and answers to a number of closed-ended

questions pertaining to what barriers are experienced and when

they are experienced. The qualitative portion will include one

open-ended question which must be answered. This will be asked

at the end of the questionnaire and will ask whether the

participants would recommend the G.I. Bill and to explain their

response.

Validation

As this survey will be custom made, it will be pilot

tested to determine internal validity. The researcher will

choose 20 participants at random from the fire department offices

in Anchorage and ask them to complete the survey. Personnel will

be contacted, informed of the purpose of the pre-test and asked

to participate. Upon getting their permission to participate,

the researcher will arrive in person with copies of the pre-test,

explain the purpose of the pre-test, distribute them and wait to

51

collect the tests once they have been completed. During the

pre-test, the researcher will have a copy of the pre-test on

hand. If and when any participant asks the researcher to clarify

any of the questions, the researcher will concurrently annotate

these notes on the researcher’s copy. Additional spaces will be

provided at the end of each question on the survey that will

allow these participants to provide comments and/or questions

about the clarity of the individual questions. Once the testing

is complete, the researcher will collect and later evaluate the

results to determine if any adjustments are necessary. Once any

adjustments have been made, the survey would then be administered

to the sample.

Data Analysis Methods

Once the data are gathered, descriptive statistics would be

the best method to analyze the data. Creswell (2012) explained

that data is to be analyzed to address research questions or

hypothesis to summarize overall trends or tendencies in data.

This study will address a research question and a number of sub-

questions. The quantitative data collected will be analyzed by

using descriptive statistics.

52

Descriptive statistics would be used to indicate general

tendencies in the data (mean, mode, and median). For this study,

each barrier that has been listed in the instrument will be

calculated based on their frequencies of which students

experienced them. The mean would determine the frequencies with

which each barrier in the list was encountered. The mode will

determine the most frequently encountered barrier. The median

will be the middle most barrier from the list. Other descriptive

statistics will include the number of males and females involved

in the study, the branch of service in which they served, and the

dates of their service. The number of barriers they experienced

during what timeframe would indicate what barriers were present

for veterans enrolled under what version of the Bill.

As the qualitative data is collected, the researcher will

analyze the participants’ descriptive responses. Themes will be

developed based on issues (related to work, home, VA, and

college) that the participants will provide in the survey as they

describe their experiences with barriers they experienced and the

timeframe (during which Bill) they were experienced. These themes

will most likely include ordinary (work, home, VA, and college

issues that the researcher might expect to find related to this

53

study), unexpected (surprise themes), hard-to-classify (do not

easily fit into any category), and major and minor themes

(represent the major ideas and the minor secondary ideas in a

database) (Creswell, 2012).

Dissemination of Results

Once this study is complete, it will be the intent of the

researcher to develop a white paper relating to the findings on

these campuses, making it available to the VA on the campuses and

educational offices on nearby campuses. A copy of the study, its

results, and the white paper will also be made available to

appropriate VA and DoD personnel for distribution. An effort

will be made to publish an article from the piece to insure that

those who deal with veterans on these and other campuses are

aware of the findings.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include, a) the availability

of military veterans who are current and former students at UAF

at the time of this study, b) the quality of the criteria for

which the study has been developed, c) the quality of the survey

software that will collect and analyze the data, d) participants

choice to participate, e) the study will not guarantee that those

54

who do participate represent the whole population, and f) the

data will not be generalized to other military or ever Air Force

bases though it can provide guidance there.

Assumptions

There are a few assumptions that will guide the development

of this study. First, it can be assumed that all participants in

this study will be military veterans who will meet the criteria

of the study. Second, it can be assumed that the information

that the participants provide will be truthful.

55

References

Altschuler, G., & Blumin, S. (2009). The GI Bill: A New Deal For Veterans.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Aranguena, J. S. (2011). The Zook Commission: Reassessing World War II

Veterans' Influence on Higher Education. San Luis Obispo: California

Polytechnic State University.

Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of

diagnosis.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Benjaminson, E. (2011). Confronting structural violence: What the

G.I. bill can teach us

about writing international development policy.

Burnam, M., Meredith, L., Tanielian, T., & Jaycox, L. (2009).

Mental health care for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At

the Intersection of Health, Health Care and Policy, 28(3), 771-782.

doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.3.771

56

Canaday. (2003). Building a straight state: Sexuality and social

citizenship under the 1944 G.I. Bill. The Journal of American

History, 90(3), 935-957. doi:10.2307/3660882

Carne, G. (2011). Coming back to college: Middle East veteran student

involvement and culture shock. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses. UMI Dissertation

Publishing. UMI 3449946

Church, T. (2009). Returning veterans on campus with war related

injuries and the long road back home. Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, 22(1), 43-52.

Colson, M. (2000). A qualitative case study of Montgomery GI Bill education

benefits

and the paradox of underachievement in the U.S. Navy (Doctoral

dissertation).

Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning,

Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative & Qualitative

Research. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Ellison, M., Drebing, C., Mueller, L., Delman, J., & Mistler, L.

(2011). Vocational and

57

educational support for veterans. University of Massachusetts

Medical School.

Feldman, S. (1974). Geography Controls GI Bill Opportunities. Washington,

D.C.: National league of Cities.

Fort Wainright. (2007). IMCOM Army Continuing Education System.

Retrieved from http://www.nereducation.army.mil/about.aspx.

Glasser, Powers, & Zywiak. (2009). Military veterans at

universities: A case of culture clash. Anthropology News.

Herek, G. (2010). Sexual orientation differences as deficits:

Science and stigma in the history of American psychology. 1-

10.

Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting,

D. I., & Koffman, R. L.

(2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health

problems, and

barriers to care. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351(1), 13-

22.

Katznelson, I. & Mettler. (2008). On race and policy history: A

dialogue about the G.I. Bill. Perspective on Politics, 6(3).

Lay, R. (2009). Applying the Cominatorial Retention Auctin Mechanism to a Cost-

Benefit Analysis of the Post 9/11 Era GI Bill Transferability Benefit.

58

Livingston. (2009). Discovering the academic and social transitions of

reenrolling student veterans at one institution: A Grounded Theory (dissertation).

Lolatte, T. (2010). Veterans in Transition: The implications to higher education

(dissertation).

Military.com. (2006). GI Bill Turns 62 Today. Retrieved from

Military.com

Moon, T., & Schma, G. (2011). A proactive approach to serving

military and veteran students. New Directions for Higher Education,

153, 53-60. doi:10.1002/hc.426

Murray, M. E. (2002). Whatever happened to G. I. Jane:

Citizenship, gender, and social

policy in the postwar era. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 9(91),

90-130.

Nam, C. (1964). Impact of the "GI Bills" on the educational level

of the male populatioin. Social Forces.

Pritchard, M., Elison-Bowers, P., & Birdsall, B. (2009). Student

trauma in the classroom. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 152-158.

Rado, S. (1940). A critical examination of the concept of

bisexuality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 2(4), 459-467.

59

Ramiraz, S. (2005). Bearing the costs of racial inequality: Brown

and the myth of the equality/efficiency trade-off. Washburn

Law Journal, 15(44), 87-104.

Rockoff, H. (2006). After Johnny Came Marching Home: Veterans Benefits fro the

Revolution through the Korean War. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University.

Schlossberg, N. (1981). A model for analyzing the human

adaptation to transition. The Counseling Psychologist, 9(2), 3-18.

Schupp, J. (2009). Supportive Education for the Returning Veteran (SERV).

Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.

Sexton, R. (1980). Barriers to the older student: The limits of federal financial aid

beneftis. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Wrk and

Learning.

Stanley, M. (2003). College education and the midcentury GI

Bills. The Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 118(2), 671-708.

SurveyMonkey. (2013). SurveyMonkey Brand Perception Survey. Retrieved from

http://SurveyMonkey.com.

Teachman, J. (2007). Military service and educational attainment

in the all-volunteer

60

era. Sociology of Education, 80, 359-374.

Tovar, L. (2008, January). Learning how to learn: Implications

for nontraditional adult students. EBSCOhost.

Turner, S., & Bound, J. (2003). Closing the Gap or Widening the

Divide: The Effects of the GI Bill and World War II on the

Educational Outcomes of Black Americans. The Journal of Economic

History, 63(1), 145-177.

U. S. Congress. (1978). Veteran's Educational Benefits: Issues Concerning the

GI Bill.

U. S. Department of Commerce. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau: Anchorage,

Alaska. Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02/0203000.html

U. S. Department of Commerce. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau: Fairbanks,

Alaska. Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02/0224230.html

U. S. Department of Commerce. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau: Juneau,

Alaska. Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02/0236400.html

U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2009). Analysis of unique

veterans utilization of VA benefits & services. Office of Policy and

Planning.

61

U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs (2010). Analysis of unique veterans

utilization of VA benefits & services. Office of Policy and Planning.

U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs (2011). Analysis of unique

veterans utilization of VA benefits & services. Office of Policy and

Planning.

U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs (2012). Analysis of unique

veterans utilization of VA benefits & services. Office of Policy and

Planning.

University of Alaska Fairbanks. (2013). The Sun Star. Retrieved

from http://www.uafsunstar.

com/about-2.

University of Alaska Fairbanks. (2013). Veterans and Military Students.

Retrieved from http://www.uaf.edu/veterans/

Zinger, L., & & Cohen, A. (2010). Veterans returning from war

into the classroom: How can colleges be better prepared to

meet their needs. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(1),

39-52.

62