The Evolving Military Learner Population: A Review of the Literature Kate Ford, Karen Vignare University of Maryland University College Abstract This literature review examines the evolving online military learner population with emphasis on current generation military learners, who are most frequently Post-9/11 veterans. The review synthesizes recent scholarly and grey literature on military learner demographics and attributes, college experiences, and academic outcomes against a backdrop of conceptual frameworks addressing adult transition theory, learner persistence, and institutional responsiveness. Military learner demographics and academic risk profiles are most similar to nontraditional, first generation learners, although military learners face additional challenges associated withservice-connected injuries and disabilities. Like other nontraditional learners juggling work, family, and academic responsibilities, military learners have become increasingly reliant on online learning. Intersecting community memberships, role identities, and commitments often complicate the transition to college and perceived sense of fit, a finding more pronounced in studies involving military learners attending campuses predominately serving traditional students. The significant lack of research examining online military learners limited further comparative analysis. Introduction Overall, current research suggests military learners adapt and persist in college by drawing upon deeply engrained military traits and tendencies, including self-discipline, mission-first focus, and reliance on fellow military learners. A few studies have suggested that institutional support systems for military learners, such as offering customized services and courses online, contributed to learner satisfaction and persistence. A growing number of institutions have adopted military-friendly approaches to program and service delivery since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill in 2008. Yet impact findings were mostly anecdotal. Confirming these findings requires additional quantitative empirical research with larger and more precisely defined population samples. As technology continues to blur previously sharp distinctions between face-to-face and online learning, the next wave of military learner research must focus on military learner retention models encompassing multiple learning modes and delivery methods, institutional student supports needed to enhance success, understanding military learner paths through multiple institutions and population samples that provide generalizable information about military learners. Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 7 Review of the Literature This literature review examines the recent scholarly and grey literature published between 2000- 2014 on current generation military learners and their related college experiences and outcomes with an emphasis on the Post-9/11 military learner, who is most often a student veteran. Military learners, like nontraditional learners, increasingly select education offerings in online learning formats (Allen & Seaman, 2011, 2013). There is still a lack of research about online military learners and this special issue will begin to address research needed on military student populations. This literature review attempts to connect the literature on military students with research on online learners. The review is by no means exhaustive. Rather, it is an attempt to distill and synthesize the representative findings of current research against a backdrop of conceptual frameworks addressing adult transition theory, learner persistence and institutional responsiveness. Each year, an average of 300,000 degree-seeking active-duty service members attend college courses on base, off-base, or online using tuition assistance benefits available through the Department of Defense’s Voluntary Education Program (Military OneSource, 2014). The largest military-serving institutions all recognize that the pattern of attendance has been shifting from active duty to veteran. Tuition assistance expenditures reported by the Department of Defense each year have been proportionally higher for distance learning compared to classroom learning, suggesting that more active- duty service members are taking college courses online rather than in traditional classroom settings (DOD voluntary education fact sheets, FY2009-FY2013). Annual Veteran Benefits Administration Performance and Accountability Reports (http://www.benefits.va.gov/reports/annual_performance_reports.asp) have shown steady annual increases in the total number of GI Bill beneficiaries for more than a decade. For example, in 2001, the total number of beneficiaries across all available GI Bill chapters, excluding Survivor and Dependent Assistance, was 373,734. By 2008, that number climbed to 461,248. By 2012, the number nearly doubled to 845,094, with the largest percentage gain attributable to an influx of veterans receiving benefits through the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, or Post- 9/11 GI Bill. Enacted in 2008, the Post-9/11 GI Bill significantly expanded educational benefits available to qualifying military veterans who served at least 90 days of active duty following September 11, 2001. The new bill covered tuition, payable directly to the institution where the beneficiary enrolled, at up to 100% of the highest public in-state undergraduate tuition for 36 months. The bill also provided an annual book stipend up to $1,000 and a housing allowance directly to the learner. Unlike previous GI Bills, the Post- 9/11 GI Bill also contained a provision allowing veterans to transfer unused benefits to their spouses or children. Additional enhancements enacted since 2008 increased the number and type of covered educational expenses, streamlined the maximum tuition cap ($20,235.02 for 2014-15), expanded benefits to qualifying members of the National Guard and reserves, and extended a pro-rated housing allowance to veterans pursuing all of their courses online (Veterans Benefits Administration, 2014). By comparison, the Montgomery GI Bill for veterans who served on active duty (MGIB-AD) required a longer period of qualifying service and an individual contribution of $100 per month for the first 12 months of duty. A single monthly benefit check was paiddirectly to studentveterans. The total maximum monthly benefit in 2008 was $1,101, which typically covered less than 75% of the average cost of tuition, fees, room and board at four-year public universities and only about 30% at private four-year institutions. The maximum monthly education benefit available to members of the reserves and National Guard under the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) was significantly less (Smole & Loane, 2008). The Post-9/11 GI Bill has fueled a growing interest in the college experiences and outcomes of the current generation military learner, although much of the current research focuses primarily on the student veteran rather than service members who are still on active duty. The amount of peer-reviewed empirical research remains rather limited (Barry, Whiteman, & MacDermid Wadsworth, 2014). Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 8 Nevertheless, a tentative and informative body of knowledge awaits the researcher willing to expand the search to include non-peer-reviewed and practitioner-based journals, government data sources, informed commentary from higher education associations and think tanks, and the significant number of quality doctoral dissertations documenting the lived experiences of the military learner. However, the lack of attention paid to military learners who predominately pursue their degrees online represents a major failing in the current research, particularly given statistical enrollment information suggesting that military learners are more likely than both traditional learners and nontraditional learners to complete at least part of their degree online (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2010; Radford, 2011). This review begins with a profile of the Post-9/11 military learner and synthesis of literature describing the military learner’s movement through and adaptation to higher education learning environments. The institutional response or adaptation to the military learner is explored next, followed by a discussion of the data on military learner outcomes. Method The exploratory research performed for the literature review was grounded by four research questions: 1. What are the documented educational outcomes of current generation military learners? 2. What are the demographic characteristics and college experiences of current generation military learners? 3. Are there individual or group attributes associated with military learners that have been found to positively or negatively correlate with or influence outcomes such as academic performance, persistence and degree attainment? 4. What are institutions doing to support military learner success and degree attainment? Multiple disciplines and perspectives were considered, including educational psychology, philosophy, sociology and higher education/distance learning. For the initial review, various key words, including transition, acculturation, academic efficacy, self-regulated learning, persistence, retention, outcomes and student services were combined with the term military learner in a search engine available through the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) online library services. The search engine simultaneously scans more than one hundred online databases, including, but not limited to, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Military and Government Collection, Psychology and Behavior Sciences Collection, PubMed, Survey of Distance Learning Programs in Higher Education 2012-13 Edition and SocINDEX with Full Text. When the initial search of scholarly literature revealed a rather limited body of knowledge relative to the specific research questions used for this review, it was expanded to include additional citations from select articles, dissertations and other types of relevant grey literature available in full-text format from UMUC’s library databases, Google Scholar and Google Search. The combined search of the scholarly and grey literature yielded two somewhat distinct, although not mutually exclusive themes related to current generation military learners. The first theme pertained primarily to the participation, persistence and outcomes of active-duty service members pursuing voluntary/off-duty higher education courses, primarily in face-to-face classroom settings. The second more voluminous theme emerged in 2008 and primarily addressed current generation student veterans entering or returning to college following active-duty status. This theme explored college transition and integration, health and disability needs related to combat exposure, postsecondary institution programs and services targeting service members and veterans, and—to a lesser extent—quantifiable academic outcomes. The majority of resources associated with both themes failed to address the military learner in the context of online learning environments. Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 9 The current scholarly and grey literature on military learners was inconsistent in the usage of terms such as student veteran, service member or military undergraduate. Some studies have used the term student veterans broadly to refer to all military-affiliated members of a student population, regardless of whether their status was active, retired or reserve. The lack of precision in terminology has also been documented by Cate (2014b) and Barry, Whiteman, and Macdermid Wadsworth (2014). For clarification purposes, the termmilitary learneris used throughout this review to refer to members of the military student population enrolled in postsecondary higher education who are: a) active-duty service members; b) National Guard members; c) reservists; and d) veterans. Findings that apply only to a specific subset of military learners are noted. While also worthy of study, particularly given the transferability of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, spouses and dependents of military learners are beyond the scope of this review. The phrase current generation military learnerrefersbroadly to those who served in the United States Armed Forces between 1990 and the present. This period encompasses the first Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm) through the more recent surges and withdrawal of troops in the Middle East: (cid:120) Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan that commenced on October 7, 2001. (cid:120) Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), which commenced on March 20, 2003, with draw down of troops in December 2011. (cid:120) Operation New Dawn (OND), the terminology used by Department of Defense to describe the military presence in Iraq after September 1, 2010. Post-9/11 military learner refers specifically to current generation military learners who were engaged in military service after September 2001. When comparisons were drawn in the literature between military learners and other learners, the terms traditional and nontraditional are most often used. Traditional typically refers tolearners under the age of 24 attending college full time who are not financially independent for financial aid purposes. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provides a more complete definition of nontraditional learners as possessing one or more of the following defining attributes, which have also been found to increase the risk of not completing college (Choy, 2002; Horn & Carroll, 1996): (cid:120) Delays enrollment (cid:120) Enrolls part-time (for at least part of the academic year) (cid:120) Works full-time (35 hours or more per week) while enrolled (cid:120) Is financially independent from parents (cid:120) Has one or more dependents other than a spouse (cid:120) Is a single parent of dependent children (cid:120) Completed high school with a GED or does not have diploma Horn and Caroll’s (1996) description of learners on a continuum based on their number of nontraditional characteristics provides a useful framework for understanding the military learner demographic profile. Whereas a traditional learner possesses none of the seven characteristics associated with nontraditional learners, a minimally nontraditional military learner possesses one, a moderately nontraditional learner possesses two to threeand a highly nontraditional military learner possesses four or more characteristics. In cases where the traditional/nontraditional status of non-military learners is not clear from the literature, this review employs the term nonmilitary learner. As a group, military learners were generally viewed as nontraditional learners, although some individual military learners possessed demographic characteristics or enrollment patterns more closely associated withthose of traditional learners. Caution is advised when generalizing any findings beyond the setting in which they occurred. Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 10 Organizing Framework Theoretical models that describe input, environmental, and output variables are useful for conceptualizing the process or path through which learners enter, engage, and ultimately complete or dropout ofcollege. The most frequently observed models or frameworks in the literature analyzed for this review explain, theoretically, adult transition or student integration and persistence (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Schlossberg, 1984; Schlossberg, Lynch, & Chickering,1989; Tinto, 1993, 1997, 2006). This finding was not surprising. Much of the current literature specifically examines: a) the transitional experiences of military learners from the highly structured and regimented culture of the military to the more ambiguous and self-regulated environment associated postsecondary education; b) military learners’ college experiences and obstacles; and c) the resulting sense of belonging or fit, intent to persist, or, to a lesser extent, specific academic outcomes and completion rates (Barnhart, 2011, Beatty, 2013; Carne, 2011; Covert, 2002; Diamond, 2012; DiRamio, Ackerman, & Mitchell, 2008; DiRamio & Jarvis, 2011; Dunklin, 2012; Hayek, 2011, Lang & Powers, 2013; Lemos, 2013; Livingston, 2009; Lopez, 2013; O’Rourke, 2013; Rumann, 2010; Rumann & Hamrick, 2010; Wilson, Smith, Lee, & Stevenson; 2013). According to Schlossberg (1984), transitions are significant when they challenge and transform roles, relationships, beliefs, or the customary manner in which things are done. Adult transition theory posits that there are four types of transitional triggers or events: planned, unplanned, nonevent, and chronic hassle. In the context of a military learner, a planned transition is retiring from military service and enrolling in college. Being discharged early as a result of a combat injury or service-connected disability is an unplanned transition. Planning for a deployment that does not occur is a nonevent. An inability to focus during lectures or exams because of a traumatic brain injury is an example of a chronic hassle. Schlossberg, Lynch, and Chickering (1989) described transitions as a multi-stage process that one moves in, through, and out. Their 4S model encompassing situation, self, supports and strategies described how the individual navigates the transition by taking stock of the situation and the available coping resources. The seminal persistence and attrition models developed by Tinto (1993) and Bean and Metzner (1985) also speak to the military learner’s transition to college, although the conceptual focus of these models is primarily on the subsequent engagement and support factors believed to influence college persistence or attrition.Tinto’s model originally focused on the successful academic and social integration of traditional learners as a pre-condition for avoiding college departure. In 1997, Tinto updated the theoretical language and construct of the model to incorporate differences found in the academic engagement profile for nontraditional learners. Central to these revisions was an emphasis on the centrality of the classroom in fostering the academic and social integration of both traditional and nontraditional learners, making the model somewhat more useful in framing the persistence of military learners. Bean and Metzner’s model (1985) built on previous models by retaining the background and academic integration variables expected to impact retention for nontraditional learners—who were defined as being older (age 25 or over), part-time commuter learners—while addressing the larger impact of the external environment. Their model theorized that positive environmental support variables compensated for poor academic support, but that poor environmental variables outweighed positive academic variables in the decision to leave. One of the shortcomings of the aforementioned persistence/attrition modelsis the assumption that a university is a single node end-state with persistence or departure as the only two possible outcomes. As a result, the models do not adequately account for the mobility or migration patterns of military learners that may result in multiple college transfers or the deployment-related stop-outs of current generation military learners. These models were developed prior to the proliferation of online learning environments. They do not account for military learner persistence in online learning environments, according to Hayek (2011), whose research called into question Bean and Metzner’s conceptual model of nontraditional student attrition. Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 11 Military learners were more likely to be first generation college learners from lower income families, online learnersand learnerswhose persistence patterns do not follow the terminal departure end- state depicted in older persistence models (Cole & Kim, 2013; National Survey of Student Engagement, 2010; Radford, 2011). Therefore,an alternative persistence model was chosen as the primary conceptual framework for this review. First proposed by Falcone (2011) and subsequently updated by Shea and Bidjerano (2014) to include technology-enabled institutional responsiveness to the learner, this comprehensive persistence model addresses factors believed to influence the college persistence of low- income, low-socioeconomic status, first-generationand working class learners. Multiple theoretical perspectives are embedded in the model, including elements of Tinto’s attrition model, Rendon’s (1994, 2002) theory of validation, and Bourdieu’s concepts (1977a, 1977b, 1984, 1986) of social structural forces, individual agency, and forms of capital. Bourdieu (1986) identified three types of capital: economic, social and cultural. Economic capital is material wealth. In the context of the military learner, GI Bill benefits represent economic capital the veteran has earned in exchange for a specified period of military service. A student veteran converts that capital to cash value by drawing down his or her benefits to pay for tuition, books and housing. One’s connections represent social capital. The ability to draw value from those connections is situational. For example, the value of the camaraderie and esprit de corps associated with military service is never clearerthan on the battlefield where survival and completion of the mission depend heavily on deep team cohesion and willingness to make personal sacrifices. Building and drawing value from social connections outside the military requires learning different situational-appropriate tactics. According to Bourdieu, cultural capital can be objectified, institutionalized or embodied, and may also be converted to economic capital. Objectified cultural capital includes paintings, books, machines or other symbolic artifacts representing one’s knowledge, talents, skills, status, etc. Institutionalized cultural capital is a form of objectified capital that confers and conveys additional meaning beyond the object properties. Examples of institutionalized cultural capital include military uniforms, stripes, stars or medals representing affiliation, rank, authority and performance. A college degree is another institutionalized form of cultural capital. Embodied cultural capital is acquired through socialization and education. It represents the internalization of external capital, or habitus—the deeply engrained dispositions that govern one’s attitudes and actions. Habitus can generally be thought of as the product of one’s upbringing. One can argue that the nature of military indoctrination, training, and socialization is such that a military learner’s habitus may be more reflective of the deeply engrained values and behaviors prized by the military than ofhis or her upbringing. The use of a multi-theoretical model to frame college learner persistence responds to the recommendations of several retention researchers who posited that existing theoretical models fail to adequately address the complexity of college persistence, particularly for marginalized or nontraditional learner populations (Braxton & Milem, 2000; Park & Choi, 2008; Rovai, 2003; Wapole, 2007). One can further argue that the conceptual underpinnings of Falcone’s model (2011) operate in a complimentary manner to key elements of the adult transition model, namely self, situation, support and strategies (Schlossberg et al., 1989). While adult transition theory primarily concerns itself with the individual’s perspective taking and coping processes during major transitions, the interplay between individual perception, agency, and social context is apparent in both Falcone’s persistence model (2011) and the 4S model. As can be seen in Figure 1, Shea and Bidjerano’s (2014) insertion of an institutional adaptation portfolio node within the environmental and experiential variables section of Falcone’s model extends the model’s usefulness as a framework for examining the institutional response to military learners and responded to what Tinto (2006) described as the absence of an effective and sustainable multi-layered model of institutional action. Shea and Bidjerano (2014) move the field further by including the institutional role in the retention process. The military learner still transitions frequently, so additional conceptual modeling is required to understand whether the role of the institution and its responsiveness is the only factor at play, or whether military culture—which is characterized by frequent changes in mission, purpose, and location —plays a foundational role in educational goals. Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 12 Figure 1: Falcone’s (2011) student persistence modelupdated byShea and Bidjerano to reflect technology-enabled institutional adaptation to the learner. From Shea, P. & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national study of community college students. Computers & Education, 75, p.110. Copyright 2014 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission. Results Profile of Current Generation Military Learners Some of the most frequently cited demographic data on current generation military learners comes from two national data sets that are somewhat dated, namely the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2004/09 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS: 04/09) and the 2007-2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08) (Radford 2009; Radford & Wun, 2009; Radford, 2011). This data represents a cohort of military learners who entered higher education just prior to the implementation of the more generous Post-9/11 GI Bill. The NPSAS:08 dataset showed that military learners represented approximately 4% of the total student population enrolled in higher education, with veterans significantly outnumbering active-duty service member enrollments (Radford & Wun, 2009). Overall, military learners were more similar to nontraditional learners in that they were typically age 24 or older;juggling family, work, and academic responsibilities;and more likely to be enrolled part- time. Nevertheless, military learners spent as much time studying as traditional learners, despite working more hours and spending more time on family responsibilities each week (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2010). Military learners received financial aid awards and GI Bill benefits that were comparable to or larger than those received by nontraditional learners, with for-profit institutions most often awarding the highest amount of aid, typically in the form of loans (Radford & Wun, 2009). These findings are consistent with a small sample study by Cate (2011), in which all respondents reported using financial aid to pay for college, with 60% using multiple forms of aid, including GI Bill benefits, grants and scholarships. Almost half of the respondents reported also using personal savings and federal loans. Military learners were also similar to other nontraditional learners in their choice of college. Military learners enrolled more often at community colleges and private for-profit institutions than traditional undergraduates. While for-profits and community colleges draw more nontraditional than traditional learners, all nontraditional learners, both military and nonmilitary, were enrolled more often at Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 13 four-year public institutions than for-profit institutions (Radford, 2011). Consistent with earlier national datasets, preliminary NCES data for the fall 2012 semester indicated that undergraduate military learners enrolled most often in public two-year institutions, followed by public four-year institutions. The more recent data indicated that more undergraduate military learners enrolled at private for-profit rather than private non-profit four-year institutions, although graduate military learners attended private non-profit institutions more often (followed by public institutions) than private for-profit institutions (Queen & Lewis, 2014). A recent report by the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee indicates that the total number of veterans attending private for-profit institutions using the Post-9/11 GI Bill has increased from 23% in 2009 to 30% in 2013 (Harkin, 2014). The number of veterans choosing for-profit institutions has increased quickly in the Post-9/11 era. Nationally, military learners most frequently cited location, affordability, and available degree programs as key drivers in their choice of college; nonmilitary nontraditional learners also indicated college reputation as a factor (Radford, 2011). A smaller study of military learners across multiple institutions in Arizona, Virginia and Ohio, found that military learners who attended private non-profit and public institutions also cited reputation of the institution and its degree programs as deciding factors. Participants in that study who attended for-profit institutions indicated that the focus on adult learners, convenient class hours and the availability of campus locations in multiple states were among the most important considerations (Steele et al., 2010). Another small study found that college choice for active- duty service members pursuing their degrees online was closely related to their military work experiences and career paths (Bunting, 2003). Although the data pointed to a number of similarities between military learners and other nontraditional learners, there were also some noteworthy differences (Radford, 2011). Military undergraduates were more likely to pursue degrees in technical fields and enroll in distance education courses, the majority of which used asynchronous Internet-based technologies.They were also less likely to have a dependent or be single parents than other nontraditional undergraduate learners. Slightly less than one-third of military undergraduates attended college full-time the entire year, but that rate is still higher than the number of nontraditional learnersattending full time (Radford, 2011). This difference may be explained in part by the availability of GI Bill benefits, because the data analyzed by Radford also indicated military learners who received those benefits were more likely to maintain full-time enrollment status throughout the year than those who did not receive benefits.At the graduate level, military learners were more often over the age of 35 and waited longer than other graduate students—seven years on average—before starting graduate school. Graduate military learners were also more likely to be African American, less likely to be Asian, more likely to be married with dependents, and more likely toenroll in online learning courses than their nonmilitary peers (Parsad & Lewis, 2008; Radford, 2011). More recent demographics compiled by the Department of Veterans Affairs (2014) indicated that 73% of military learners were male and 27%were female. Slightly less than half were married and/or had children. The majority of military learners were 24-40 years old, although 15% fell within the same age range (18-24) astraditional college learners. Also, 62% of military learners were first generation learners. These statistics are largely consistent with those reported by the National Survey of Student Engagement (2010), which also indicated that military learnerswere also more likely to be transfer students. Consistent with Falcone’s (2011) persistence model, Wurster, Rinaldi, Woods, & Liu (2013) argued that being a first generation learner adds significantly to the persistence complexities of student veterans. They identified numerous persistence risk factors from the literature on first generation learners likely to also affect studentveterans: • Delaying college enrollment • Coming from lower income family backgrounds • Having dependents • Living off-campus Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 14 • Working full-time while attending school • Being less prepared, academically • Having lower education aspirations • Lacking knowledge on navigating the application and enrollment process • Lack of financial, informational, and embodied cultural capital associated with having parents who attended college Wurster et al. further posited that differences in the types of cultural and social capital valued by the military versus academia may increase the difficulty student veterans experience in adjusting to the college environment. Another key difference between nonmilitary learners and military learners is the latter’s exposure to combat activity during Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and the impact of what Schlossberg (1984) would classify as a chronic hassle type of transition associated with combat-related physical and mental health injuries. Numerous studies and reports identified the following wounds as prevalent among service members returning from OEF/OIF: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) , PTSD, depression, loss of limbs, orthopedic injuries, severe burns, and hearing loss (Barry, Whiteman, & Macdermid Wadsworth, 2012; Cate, 2011; Church, 2009; Hoge, Castro, Messer, McGurk, Cotting, & Koffman, 2004; Ness & Vroman, 2014; Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008; Vance & Miller, 2009). The studies also indicated that the nature of the injury, severity of symptoms or side effects from treatment and medication may present numerous functional impairments or physical, emotional and cognitive challenges, which in turn, may also impact the learner’s interactions, experiences and academic performance, both online and in face-to-face classrooms. For example, those with spinal cord/back injuries, amputations and other conditions that limit physical dexterity may have difficulty sitting at a computer for an extended period of time or engaging in some computer related tasks. Sensory impairments may make it difficult for the learner to access a course website or electronic resources. Cognitive and psychological injuries may impair focus, memory, concentration and/or the ability to interpret feedback or organize and prioritize assignments (Church, 2009). Studies found military learners with service-connected disabilities may avoid treatment, disclosure and utilization of available services on or off campus (Cate, 2011; Church, 2009). Researchers have also documented increased ratesof excessive alcohol consumption, binge drinking and substance abuse among student veterans, although they are more likely to engage in these behaviors as coping mechanisms rather than as sociallymotivatedbehaviors (Cate, 2011; Whiteman & Barry, 2011). As a result of their military training and experiences, military learners may also have greater self- discipline, leadership abilities, time-management skills, maturity and a sense of purposeful focus compared to traditional learners (Steele et al., 2010). These attributes, engrained through military socialization, represent Bourdieu’s (1986) concepts of habitus and capital, which the learner can employ to mitigate the potential impact of the aforementioned challenges. Cate (2011) found military learners who perceived that they had high levels of social support were also less likely to experience negative life events post-deployment, although the majority of respondents in his study reported not being able to communicate or discuss problems with family or friends who could not relate to their military experiences. In keeping with the theoretical underpinnings of Falcone’s (2011) persistence model and Schlossberg’s (1984) adult transition theory, one can argue the lack of perceived support represents a deficit—one that may compel the learner to identify other internal/external memberships, which may provide the necessary level of support and validation. The extent to which military learners’ attributes or external and internal memberships and commitments helped or hindered interactions, experiences and perceptions of fit with the institution is explored further in the next section. The profiles of military learners are nearly as diverse as all higher education learners. The general demographics of military learners indicate they are more similar to nontraditional college learners even though a small percentage are younger than 25 years old. They choose colleges that nontraditional Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 15 learners do and have a greater reliance on online and for-profit universities compared to traditional learners. They face the same risk factors as all nonmilitary nontraditional first generation learners, often combined with medical and mental challenges borne from being in combat and battlefield roles. Even when these additional risk factors are not a burden, military learners still face regular and significant transitions while attending college. Institutional Experiences Following the conceptual framework from Schlossberg (1984) and Falcone (2011), the military learner’s stocktaking of self and situation were expected to have influenced his or her goals, commitments, and intentions—e.g., whether to attend college, choice of college, and field of study. Rate of pursuit and/or learning mode (online, hybrid, or classroom) decisions may have also been made, in accordance with the learner’s perception of his or her work/life situation, available financial aid, whether he or she is re-enrolling after a deployment stop-out, enrolling for the first time or transferring with or without break. Enrollment and registration The military learner’s first formal interaction with the institutional environment has been frequently portrayed in the literature as a battle with the bureaucracy, with the learner having to navigate an array of complexities associated with the admission, enrollment and financial aid processes. Some first-time military learners reported that the transition support received from the military, the Veterans Administration, and their chosen institutions—particularly in terms of accessing GI Bill or Department of Defense Tuition Assistance benefits—was not very helpful. Some received regular non- payment/disenrollment notices while waiting for benefits to be processed. Others were surprised to learn that they did not qualify for the benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill or the initial version of the Post- 9/11 GI Bill (DiRamio et al., 2008; Steele et al., 2010). Other common issues reported included unresponsive or indifferent staff, problems with forms and paperwork, benefit delays, difficulty navigating course schedules and registration processes, lack of veteran-specific services or social activities and interaction opportunities for veterans, and lack of handicapped parking (DiRamio et al., 2008; Elliott, Gonzalez, & Larsen, 2011; Livingston, 2009; Lopez, 2013; Zinger & Cohen, 2010). A number of military learners who were re-enrolling following deployments also reported encountering problems navigating one or more processes. For some, re-entry was further complicated by the way their withdrawals (for OEF/OIF deployments) had been processed, having their email or login accounts to other systems cancelled, or having to adjust their degree plans to account for having missed infrequently offered courses while deployed (Bauman, 2009; Beatty, 2013; DiRamio et al., 2008; Persky & Oliver, 2010; Rumann & Hamrick, 2010). Bean and Metzner (1985) point out that nontraditional learnersface similar barriers when returning to college. Another perspective expressed in the literature was an acute sense of pressure related to time. Some active-duty service members pursued their degrees entirely online, not because they perceived the courses as requiring less study time, but rather for the flexibility online learning afforded them in managing their time. They also found that online courses were less frequently cancelled (Bunting, 2003). Military learners enrolling for the first time and those re-enrolling following a deployment related stop out, often felt as though they had to make up for lost time or thatthey werebehind their former peers who had completed their degree requirements and graduated. Some indicated that online learning enabled them to better manage their learning time around family and work responsibilities and indicated they would take all of their courses online were it not for the reduced housing allowance afforded to online learners under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Others were concerned about supporting their families or running out of GI Bill benefits before being able to complete their studies. Their sense of urgency was exacerbated by the need to complete developmental education courses, and the limited availability of required courses, Online Learning - Vol. 19 Issue No. 1 (2015) 16