Abstract
More and more faculty who teach online are facing incivility in their classroom. These disruptions impede learners’ development and wellbeing and can negatively impact faculty and institutions of higher education. In this article, we review the consequences of online academic incivility and the situational factors that contribute to these disruptions. In addition, we present promising practices and strategies for faculty, including (a) functional communication, (b) empathy, (c) timely feedback, (d) active listening, and (e) clear and consistent expectations. Faculty members implementing these strategies in their online classes may be useful in reducing the challenges of academic incivilities. Future research directions and practical implications for promoting civil communications are considered.
“Knowing how detrimental academic incivilities may be for students, faculty, and education necessitates the need to discover possible solutions to impede incivilities in the online classroom.”
Incivility in online social communications continues to increase (Antoci et al., 2016). As online education advances, similar incivilities are noticeable across the online adult learning landscape (Galbraith & Jones, 2010). In higher education and specifically in the face-to-face classroom, incivility causes disruptions and chaos, and may be a catalyst for impeding learning (Knepp, 2012). In addition, the consequences of academic incivilities in online classes may lead to psychological or physical distress (Clark et al., 2012) impacting learners’ academic progress. Although academic incivility in face-to-face learning environments have been briefly presented in the literature, solutions for addressing academic incivilities in online learning in higher education remain limited (Burke et al., 2014). Tangible guidelines and promising practices to reduce these detrimental behaviors are rarely addressed among adult learners in higher education (Stalter et al., 2019). As research and practices related to aspects of academic incivility are in their infancy, there is a need to discuss foundational practices that can be adopted by educators of adult learners across diverse higher education disciplines in both face-to-face and online higher education. The purpose of this article is two-fold: (a) identifying factors and consequences related to academic incivility in online adult learning environments, and (b) presenting possible ways for educators of adult learners to reduce academic incivilities in online environments.
For this article, online academic incivility is defined as any discourteous verbal or nonverbal behaviors directed toward others, such as instructors, students, or observers that disrupts the online learning environment. Online academic incivility may take many forms including (a) insulting, rude, offensive, or demeaning comments (Coe et al., 2014; Lachman, 2014); (b) failure to respond (Clark et al., 2012); (c) trolling or trying to hurt, embarrass, annoy, or instigate an emotional response from others for personal amusement (Rafferty & Vander Ven, 2014); and (d) flaming or sending abusive, hateful, derogatory, or otherwise inappropriate messages about an individual to that person privately or in a public setting (Watts et al., 2017). Conversely, repeated, regular, or persistent incidences of incivility have been referred to as (a) cyberbullying (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006), (b) cyberincivility, or (c) cyberharassing or sexually harassing (Lampman et al., 2008). Acts of academic online incivility typically take place through learning management systems (LMSs), texting, social media platforms, web messaging, email, and postings. Incivility in academic communications may be private or public. Private attacks (e.g., personal emails or messages) and public affronts (e.g., detrimental comments on discussion boards or through group messaging) can include other individuals, groups, and the entire class (see Table 1 for examples). Negative online academic interactions may occur between (a) student and instructor, (b) student and student, (c) instructor and student, and (d) instructor and instructor (Hutchinson, 2009; Wright & Hill, 2015).
Incivility in Online Higher Education Environments.
Adult Learners and the Prevalence of Incivility in Online Environments
Online learning is a burgeoning area in higher education. Adult learner enrollments in online higher education continue to increase (Ginder et al., 2018). In online learning, learners harness the power of the internet to learn in the convenience of their own preferred environment while utilizing personal and mobile technologies. The introduction of mobile technologies such as smartphones and tablets add greater accessibility to course resources, content, and foster participation (Adams Becker et al., 2017). Learners are no longer constrained by location, device, or designated schedule they can leverage moments of time and various means for learning. For instance, participation in online discussions may take place via smartphone while multitasking at work, or on a tablet while waiting for another activity to begin.
Determining the prevalence of online academic incivility can be challenging due to (a) the lack of a centralized registry for reporting acts of incivility, (b) the subjective nature of the perceptions of incivility, and (c) faculty reluctance to report these incidences. There are no known mechanism for systematically reporting academic incivilities to calculate civility data; yet, reports from adult learner educators indicate the presence of academic incivilities (Ausbrooks et al., 2011; McKinne & Martin, 2010). Furthermore, the effects of increased usage of mobile devices on academic incivility has not been investigated in online adult learning. What is known is that both faculty and adult learners confirm that they experience incivility in higher education (Bjorklund & Rehling, 2010).
Likewise, because of prior life experiences, both faculty and adult learners may deem academic interactions from different viewpoints (Bjorklund & Rehling, 2010). A simple statement “as noted previously” may be interpreted by one person as being informative and another person as being sarcastic. Research findings identify that even in face-to-face instances of academic incivility, faculty and students often have different opinions relative to the occurrence of uncivil behaviors (Clark et al., 2012; Natarajan et al., 2017). Yet, Lampman (2012) found that 91% of higher education professors (n=524) experienced at least one event of student incivility or bullying (the study did not specify if these interactions occurred online or in face-to-face classes). Incidents of incivility were more likely to happen to faculty members who were women, minorities, younger in age, or who had less experience and credentials (Johnson-Bailey, 2015). With the rapid pace of technological advances and increases in online learning environments, addressing online academic incivilities has become essential for both faculty and institutions.
In an annual survey of civility in the United States, adult participants indicated that there is an increase of incivility in America and that it has reached a crisis point. Furthermore, the increase in incivility is greater online than in face-to-face environments (Shandwick, 2018). With the rapid pace of technological advances, increases in online learning, and the sense that incivility is at a crisis point, addressing online academic incivilities has become essential for both faculty and higher education institutions.
The Consequences of Online Academic Incivilities
Research investigating academic incivilities in adult learning environments has identified monetary, academic, and affective consequences. Financial repercussions associated with online academic incivility range from individuals to institutions. For instance, potential students investigating higher education institutions’ climate and culture prior to enrollment through current students’ online postings and social media could find academic incivility objectionable leading to decreased enrollment in favor of an institution whose environment may be more favorable (Morse, 2010).
Academic incivility that disrupts learning effects student performance, leading to lower achievement, which may affect students’ ability to be successful in courses, degree completion, and future careers (Lasiter et al., 2012). As students fail or drop courses, their grade point average (GPA) may be reduced, affecting their eligibility for financial aid. For students who rely on monetary support packages to enroll in school, any disruption in financial support may lead to students losing their ability to attend their institution and earn a degree (Kinsley & Goldrick-Rab, 2015).
Online academic incivility influences instructors’ performance and actions in online environments (Anderson et al., 2013) as well as retention of qualified instructors (Wright & Hill, 2015). Incivility incidents may require adult educators to expend significant time and energy to manage these difficult situations (Alkandari, 2011) and to navigate these events’ potential negative impacts on their professional careers (Dentith et al., 2014). Thus, handling academic incivilities may disrupt faculty members’ professional productivity as resolving incivil interactions take time away from preparing course materials and teaching, conducting research, writing manuscripts, and serving in professional capacities (Morrissette, 2001). The financial impact of online incivility may extend to administration for legal expenses if these negative behaviors escalate requiring further support and remedies beyond the faculty member (Clark & Springer, 2007).
Affective consequences of online academic incivilities have a direct impact on both students and instructors. For instance, if online academic incivility is not addressed or if the incivility appears to saturate the learning environment, other students’ may feel that their communications should be equally terse. Furthermore, students could become dissatisfied with the course or begin to feel alone or abandoned (Anderson et al., 2013; Feldmann, 2001). Thus, academic incivility may be a contributor to distorted or negative end of the semester evaluations of instructors, leading to increased job stress (Alkandari, 2011) and a greater likelihood of instructor attrition (Keashly & Neuman, 2010; Morrissette, 2001).
The affective impact of academic incivilities can be significant, leading to psychological distress for those in the learning environment (Clark et al., 2012). Feelings of dissatisfaction, animosity, rage, anxiety, and fear can emerge as potential outcomes of incivility (Knepp, 2012). As a result, students’ frustration, disengagement, and poor conduct can affect student learning for more than just the perpetrator of online incivility (Alkandari, 2011). Although emotional repercussions can range in severity (Knepp, 2012), more intense emotional reactions can invigorate negative responsive action, having additional long-term emotional consequences for all people involved (Antoci et al., 2016).
Situational Factors of Online Academic Incivilities
The affordances of the online learning modality contributes to the culture of online instruction. The situational factors associated with online academic incivilities include the following: (a) time, (b) asynchronicity, (c) anonymity, and (d) communication (Clark et al., 2012). Online learning affords class continual access unlike face-to-face learning. Typically, the time frame during face-to-face learning is limited to the time learners meet, typically 3 h per week. Conversely, in online learning, interactions can take place in the virtual classrooms, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, thereby increasing the prospects for online academic incivilities to occur.
Likewise, the asynchronous nature of online correspondence leads to increases in the occurrences of online incivilities (Ellison et al., 2011) in that time gaps occur in online discussions from the time a message is posted or sent to the time it is received and read. In face-to-face environments, everyone speaking at once can create confusion and misunderstandings. Moreover, in an online environment, the initial message intended for one person can be interspersed with comments from others making it difficult to track conversations which in turn can contribute to misunderstandings. Time gaps inherent in asynchronous communication and spatial separation of online spaces can contribute to reduced accountability leading to actions consistent with incivility (Fleckenstein, 2005).
Online environments can harbor self-misrepresentations and incongruences. Anonymity can contribute to online disinhibition (e.g., people communicating outside of their typical face-to-face persona) when engaged in the online environment (Suler, 2004). The lack of restraint, self-awareness, and reduced self-regulation in online environments may lead to toxic online disinhibition occurring when behaviors have escalated to include aggressive actions, hostile language, swearing, name-calling, and threats (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). Anonymity intensifies the likelihood of acts of online incivility especially when users take additional efforts to conceal their identity, before corresponding with others (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012, 2015; Rainie et al., 2013; Santana, 2014). Generally, academic environments require the use of names; however, even though identification may be present, perceived invisibility leads to displays of incivility (Wright, 2013). Some may feel emboldened to make statements they may not otherwise make in a face-to-face setting because the online platform provides a perceived shield as protection from personal connections (Rainie et al., 2013).
Online incivilities are complicated by the lack of nonverbal cues that can convey the speaker’s intent, such as facial expressions and tone, contributing to misunderstandings that may lead to escalated tensions (Suler, 2004). The words, phrases, and attitudes used in communication may have one intention but be perceived as another (Betts, 2009) causing misunderstandings that can easily escalate into hostility. When misunderstandings and resulting negative behaviors are not addressed, the perpetuation of incivility can occur. Segrist et al. (2018) noted that students’ interactions in online learning formats might be socially mediated. The more that students perceived that other students were engaging in academic incivilities, the more likely they themselves would engage in similar actions.
Promising Practices for Addressing Online Academic Incivilities
Knowing how detrimental academic incivilities may be for students, faculty, and education necessitates the need to discover possible solutions to impede incivilities in the online classroom. The following promising practices for addressing online academic incivilities are based on findings related to face-to-face academic incivilities and online educational platforms. Although not every intervention may work in all circumstances, these practices may promote civility awareness foundational to a civil and productive environment. These strategies to address academic incivilities in online classes with adult learners are categorized as follows: (a) functional communication to reduce conflict, (b) building empathy, (c) timely feedback, (d) active listening, and (e) clear and consistent expectations.
Functional Communication
Online interactions lack the nonverbal cues that are essential in functional communication. In this regard, adhering to nondefensive written communication may reduce conflict in online communication. Specially, pronouns matter and the pronouns “I” and “you” followed by a directive or a criticism can contribute to conveying blame or judgment (Gordon, 1970). Examples of “you” statements might be as follows: “You did not read the directions.” or “You never answer the whole question.” An “I” statement might read, “I” wanted this done last week and it is not. An “I”/“you” statement might read, “I” gave “you” 8 hours to answer me and “you” did not respond. These types of sentences can be read in an accusatory tone by the reader and not convey the intent of the sender.
From high-risk conflict to lower severity interpersonal conflict resolution situations, “you” statements should be avoided (e.g., Biesen et al., 2015; Rogers et al., 2018; Vecchi et al., 2005). In general, “you” pronouns tend to set up negativity and blame in online communication. In contrast to saying, “You did not complete this assignment,” consider the way the message may be perceived if the same message was written, “The assignment was not completed” or “There were three out of six parts addressed in the response.” The information about an incomplete assignment is conveyed without the recipient feeling accused.
Although “I messages” (Gordon, 1970, 1976) are a standard practice for effective intimate communication, Bippus and Young (2005) found that negative message including “I,” “you,” and “I/you” statements were perceived by students similarly. There were no distinguishable differences in the students’ reception of the communication. These types of statements were perceived as equally negative in the absence of an intimate relationship. Instructors should employ caution when making “I” statements.
Other reasons to consider avoiding “I” feeling statements in academic online environments include perceptions that these types of statements: (a) convey emotionalism, (b) are self-serving, or (c) transmit a feckless manner (Kislik, 2018). Perceptions of emotionalism may be more difficult for females. Wolfe (2018) noted that women engineers did not favor “I” statements in conflict communication, findings that feelings statements were counterproductive in conflict situations and participants instead favored statements that confirmed the situation and provided solutions.
Likewise, in writing, “I” statements can be perceived by the reader as this is what is best for the writer of the message and does not consider everyone. For instance, “I need everyone to read all the pages before emailing me questions.” The perception of this “I” statement might be the following: (a) the instructor does not want me to communicate, and I should not ask questions; (b) the instructor does not want to be bothered; and/or (c) I cannot get the help I need. A better way to phrase the reading statement could be as follows: “When emailing questions about course content or assignments, please reference the pages read from the text to provide context for our conversation.” Being conscientious about words used in communications may help to mitigate online hostility related to perceived intent in communications.
Empathy
Instructors’ empathic interactions with students are essential for effective online communication (Area-Moreira & Ribeiro-Pessoa, 2012). When empathy is taught and integrated into practice, instruction is more effective. Teachers with higher levels of empathy supported increased effectiveness in working with culturally diverse students (Warren, 2013).
Fuller (2012) studied 14 online educators and identified eight strategies for building empathy in online academic environments, which includes the following: (a) providing students success tips before the course begins, (b) synchronous interactive chats, (c) employing a conversational tone in synchronous and asynchronous communications, (d) interaction through facilitated discussions, (e) responsive communications, (f) lesson designed is consistent and easy to follow, (g) frequent opportunities to ascertain understanding, and (h) positive personal communication during the introduction of the course. These eight strategies consider learners and the importance of empathetic communication from the onset of the class to establish an online empathetic culture.
Cordial and Timely Written Feedback
Many online interactions occur through personal messaging or email. Communication barriers of brevity, tone, and prior experiences may not convey the intent of the instructors. We suggest that instructors begin each communication with an authentic pleasantry. For instance, “I hope this finds you well” conveys concern. Always address the student by name, “Dear Crosby,” or “Dear Mr. Jones,” before discussing the purpose of the message. These pleasantries model courtesy and civil communication to the students, establishing for the students the type of communication that is expected of them (Watson et al., 2016).
Message timing and delivery in asynchronous writing can contribute to miscommunications leading to online academic incivilities. Instructors may reduce academic incivility by adding clarity to their communications with students, reducing the perception of personal attacks on students, and reducing situational frustration (Galbraith & Jones, 2010). Likewise, it is imperative that students have a mechanism for communicating their concerns or frustrations related to the course in a timely fashion throughout the course instead of at the end of a course when the course is over, and the frustrations cannot be remedied. Options to provide a regular nonthreatening means of communication include the following: (a) a regular survey after completing each module, (b) texting, (c) email, or (d) LMS messaging. Instructors responses need to be immediate to value learners’ concerns and to alleviate additional frustrations.
When online incivility occurs, instructors should address students’ acts of online academic incivility in the same mode that the incivility occurred. For example, when a student sends a harsh group text, a response back through the group text is warranted. Sending a message to the entire class when the incivility occurred in a personal message can escalate additional incivilities. Responses to groups or the class should not single out the perpetrator but should confront the negative or incivil interaction. Clear communication addressing the incivility calls unfavorable attention to the unwelcomed behavior, thereby reducing future instances of incivility (Anderson et al., 2013). When incivilities persist in courses, despite best online communication practices, instructors could provide a space for a synchronous face to face or online meeting (Goleman, 2007). In a face-to-face setting or through an online meeting, observation of nonverbal cues and tone will provide important cues missing in text-based communications, thereby reducing misinterpretations (Zaidieh, 2012).
Active Listening in Online Environment
Active listening skills promote effective communication and reducing conflict in face-to-face communication (Phillips, 1999). In face-to-face interaction, students detect instructor’s meaning through the tone or inflection of voice. In written communication, these nonverbal cues are absent, contributing to increased misunderstandings. People may overestimate their ability to communicate effectively in digitally mediated communication. Specifically, Kruger et al. (2005) found that participants using email believed they could accurately communicate messages 88% of the time; however, their actual accuracy was 62.8%. Recommendations in online communication include the following: (a) the use of emoticons :-) and emojis ☺ to communicate facial expressions, (b) a call to action to indicate expectation, (c) asking for clarity when unclear messages are received, (d) answering messages quickly and self-edit before sending, (e) addressing each part of the response, and (f) waiting to post or send a message when irritated or aggravated allowing reflection (Galbraith & Jones, 2010; Jug et al., 2019; Loglia & Bowers, 2016 ; Park et al., 2014).
In online educational discussions such as messaging, acknowledging the name of the student being addressed (e.g., “Hi Ashley, Thank you for posting . . .”) can reduce confusion in multiple person discussions. To establish clear communication, instructors should consider addressing each part of the post (e.g., “In the first part of the post about Bandura and motivation” or “The section written about Vygotsky and the sociocultural approach to learning . . .”). Finally, in cases where, students send email or LMS messages stating that they do not understand the directions in an assignment, we suggest that instructors (a) empathize; (b) ask for shared understanding, by asking the student to provide more clarity; and (c) if needed, offer a means to facilitate a synchronous discussion. In practice, the instructor’s return message might read, Thank you for your message. The indication of being frustrated has been noted and it is my hope that we can reach clarity of understanding quickly to provide success. Please describe the portion of the assignment that makes sense and which section, or steps of the directions are unclear or confusing?
Clear and Consistent Expectations Regarding Communication and Feedback
Providing clear expectations for students at the onset of a new course is an established method for reducing misperceptions and fostering academic civility (Nordstrom et al., 2009). Instructors are encouraged to include in writing civility expectations in the course syllabus, to incorporate behavioral contracts into their course, and to provide outlets for student feedback on the classroom climate (Burke et al., 2014). Online academic civility contract may be completed at the beginning of the course in conjunction with students. Once there is an established policy, all stakeholders should agree to abide by the policy.
Nordstrom et al. (2009) indicated that changes in society have increased academic incivility and emphasized that students may be less aware of societal conventions than in the past. To scaffold students’ understanding, clear written guidelines may be added to the syllabus (Washington, 2015). Including policies and procedures to follow in online communication with specific definitions, examples, and expectations may reduce future misunderstandings and set the expectation that incivility is prohibited.
The nature of online instruction necessitates that feedback be provided through online means (Jug et al., 2019). Perceptions of feedback may be a source of incivility. Rovai (2019) noted the importance of immediate feedback for effective communication. Yet, research findings examining online course perceptions identified a discrepancy between the regularity in which instructors report giving feedback to students and the frequency in which students expressed that they receive feedback. Adcroft (2011) suggested that the disparity between instructors’ and students’ perception of feedback implies that instructors and students define feedback differently. Jug and colleagues (2019) asserted that these deviations can be prevented through provision of clarity in the feedback process. For instance, instructors should state that they are conveying feedback and conduct a feedback session bidirectionally, allowing students to respond with potential growth areas and strategies for improvement. Feedback may be received more favorably if students are able to share self-evaluations and positive comments are shared by the instructor both before and after the growth area or critical commentary in a feedback sandwich (Jug et al., 2019). By discussing feedback and civil communication, the online academic environment may be better informed in turn promoting civility.
Conclusion
This article provided an overarching view of online academic incivility in higher education and the related monetary, affective, and academic consequences. Situational factors and strategies to address online academic incivility were discussed since they can contribute to the quality of online education experiences for instructors and students. Therefore, addressing negative online interactions when they occur can help to improve the learning environment while communicating to students that these types of interactions are not tolerated and not a part of the online classroom culture. Furthermore, instructors and course developers can proactively create and require online course modules regarding (a) communicating effectively online, (b) identifying and reducing incivilities, (c) peer roles in incivility, and (d) conflict resolution. These types of modules may increase positive communication and promote social awareness of incivilities to reduce the frequency of negative interactions (Wright & Hill, 2015). By devoting efforts toward resolving actual and potential online academic incivilities, a positive and beneficial online academic experience may be realized by students and instructors.
Policies and procedures related to online academic incivilities can be developed and professional development opportunities for faculty can be conducted to increase awareness and support, and to equip all stakeholders (Washington, 2015). Class policies could provide students a recourse in their syllabus that students and faculty may follow to address online academic incivility inclusive of the available university supports (e.g., ombudsman, advisor, Dean, or other university personnel). As online learning continues to grow and acts of online academic incivility increases, future research may include investigations of proactive strategies for establishing positive and supportive communication, disinhibition in academic environments, timing and miscues, and strategies for reducing incivilities. Furthermore, professional development programs for faculty, compliance training for students, and the development of policies and procedures to reduce online academic incivility and the documentation of these incidences are other areas for future research and development (Misawa, 2015).
The strategies presented in this article for educators of adult learners for reducing online academic incivilities can be components of institutional, departmental, and faculty plans to promote academic civility and courtesy. As more institutions are adding online learning offerings and enrollments continue to increase, it is imperative that the research community, adult learning educators, practitioners, students, and other stakeholders support efforts to reduce online academic incivilities to provide a safe learning environment for all.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biographies
Laurie O. Campbell, EdD, is an assistant professor at the University of Central Florida; she is co-director of the Behavioral Indicator Training Program, 
. She pursues research related to improving all aspect of education to improve STEM identity among underserved and underrepresented populations, personalized and active learning, and cyberbullying.
Jessica Tinstman Jones, MEd, EdS, is a doctoral student in the Counselor Education and Supervision program and a graduate research assistant for the College of Community Innovation and Education at the University of Central Florida. Jessica’s research focuses on crisis intervention, suicidality, mental health impacts of bullying and cyberbullying, adolescents, and military populations. She has clinical experience working in academic settings with populations experiencing bullying behaviors.
Glenn W. Lambie, PhD, serves as the associate dean for Graduate Affairs and Faculty Excellence and The Robert N. Heintzelman Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair. Dr. Lambie is active in the areas of scholarship, research, and professional service. He is recognized for his research, teaching, and mentorship at the national level and at UCF.