Overcoming Faculty Avoidance of Online Education

Technological Advances

The most important argument for online education is the need to adapt to our current technologically advanced environment. Online education is part of a growing trend (Wang, 2006) due in large part to the advances in course delivery software and increasing Internet sophistication of students. According to a recent survey of online learning (Allen & Seaman, 2011), the number of students taking online classes has doubled since 2005; in addition, 75% of institutions reported an increase in demand for online courses (Allen & Seaman, 2010). While still not as pervasive as its traditional on-ground counterpart, online learning is showing impressive growth, something traditional colleges and universities should acknowledge and begin to leverage.

Moreover, technological innovation is a well-documented external force for change in the organizational development and change literature as technology creates one of the most imminent needs for change (Lewin & Gold, 1999). Indeed, those organizations that fail to effectively adapt when faced with rapidly advancing technology may become stagnant or decline in their organizational life cycle, which may ultimately lead to their failure (Lewin & Gold, 1999). One such example of a company that perished due to its inability or unwillingness to adapt to technological advances is America’s former top video-rental chain. Blockbuster was forced into bankruptcy and eventually closed all of its stores after being bested by Netflix, an innovative startup with a rent-by-mail business model. Blockbuster’s demise was attributed, in large part, to its complacency and outdated business model. It ignored digitization when it was first introduced and later unsuccessfully attempted to chase the trend Netflix had mastered years earlier (Baskin, 2013).

Blockbuster is just one example in a list of organizations (e.g., IBM, Eastman Kodak, Blackberry) that failed to move swiftly enough when technology demanded that they change their business model. Whereas organizations such as Netflix harnessed the technological evolution and were able to gain considerable market share in their respective industries, thus illustrating that to thrive in the increasingly competitive marketplace, organizations (including institutions of higher education) must align their strategic goals with their competencies, organizational assets, organizational structure (Fornaciari, Forte, & Mathews, 1999), and the demands of new technology.

One example of higher education institutions embracing technology and rapidly gaining market share is the online-learning initiative edX. The result of a collaboration in 2012 between Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), edX is an open-source (freely available) learning platform designed to offer high-quality online and on-campus education (edx.org). The process of credentialing students for knowledge acquisition and creating universally accepted metrics to assess the success of edX and other online programs of its kind are important challenges still being explored. Nevertheless, the significance of this new venture must be underscored given that two of America’s Ivy League institutions worked together to offer free online education worldwide. Signaling its impact on the online education arena, edX has rapidly expanded to include a consortium of global leaders in higher education and has been named by Forbes as the world’s largest not-for-profit MOOC (High, 2014). The example of the success of edX is not to suggest that all traditional institutions should pursue the development of MOOCs (which is only one aspect of edX’s role in online education). Rather, edX illustrates how centuries-old traditional institutions are capable of adapting to current technological innovation.

Pedagogical Research Support

Online courses can deliver innovative content in an efficient and rigorous manner (Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, & Tamim, 2011) to the extent that they are facilitated by motivated, well-trained faculty (Valentine, 2002; Yang & Cornelious, 2005). Additionally, because of an increase in research and pedagogical papers on the topic of online learning, instructors can access research-based recommendations for facilitating learning in an online classroom (e.g., Oliveira, Tinoca, & Pereira, 2011; Parlamis & Mitchell, 2014; Payne & Johnson, 2005). Instructors may also leverage published information about student motivation and multimedia learning strategies that have been systematically investigated in the last decade (Abrami et al., 2011).

Benefits for Students

Among the many benefits for constituents of higher education, online learning allows for greater flexibility and autonomy for students. A large proportion of current students belong to the millennial generation (born between 1980 and 2000). Millenials are technologically savvy multitaskers who regard the Internet as a primary source of information. These students desire classes that are accessible across great distances of space and time. Online education (a) removes geographic restrictions, (b) features round-the-clock accessibility, and (c) eliminates commuting costs of both time and money (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2000). Students benefit in that their choices of school or program are expanded, they can better manage their personal lives, and they can therefore take a more self-directed approach to learning.

In summary, online learning is the beginning of a trend that is transforming higher education. However, despite the myriad benefits for organizations and students, and the support offered to faculty through research-based pedagogical articles and books, there is still a great deal of resistance to the online format by some faculty. We propose that for this technological transformation to take place in higher education, individual faculty members must be at the core of the change effort.

Cultural Assumptions and Values

Two related misperceptions faculty have about online education are that quality cannot be controlled and learning cannot be assured (Allen, Seaman, Lederman, & Jaschik, 2012; Lin, Singer, & Ha, 2010). Many faculty hold a historical perception of online institutions being degree factories offering a low-quality education at a high cost. This is no longer the case as many traditional, elite universities have accredited degree-granting online programs. Ironically, this assumption is difficult to dismiss without interaction and engagement with online learning.

Additionally, the prevailing cultural paradigm of traditional higher education is instructor-centered, as opposed to the online education model that is widely held as student-centered. According to this traditional instructor-centered model, students seek knowledge from instructors teeming with information and experience who disseminate the knowledge in a face-to-face format where instructors can assess nonverbal cues indicating whether or not transference of learning is successful. Opponents of online learning remain skeptical regarding the identity of the student behind the screen and regard online education as inferior, questioning the extent to which knowledge is transferred absent of visible nonverbal cues as affirmation (Allen et al., 2012). Recent research indicates that although online education provides little to no face-to-face instructor–student interactions, learning seems to be unaffected. In one such study (Parlamis & Mitchell, 2014) researchers compared master’s-level online and on-ground negotiation classes taught by the same instructor and found no significant differences in knowledge acquisition (as measured by negotiation outcomes, mean course grades, and self-report measures) between students in the two courses.

While the issue of confirming the identity of online students is still a work in progress, one may argue that on-ground instructors also do not always confirm student identities (e.g., via the use of a state issued picture identification). To assure the identity of online students, instructors can require online students to complete assessments using certified proctors who may confirm students’ identification before administering assignments in a monitored environment. Instructors can also use online tools, such as Turnitin, to help detect and deter plagiarism. Turnitin is proprietary software that compares a student’s submitted written work against all other works ever submitted in the widely used system. It also helps verify that student papers are not simply copied from sources on the Internet.

Fears of the Unknown, Loss, and Failure

Expanding on Self and Schraeder’s (2009) personal attribute of potential for benefit or harm to one’s well-being, we propose that a second source of faculty resistance to online education is related to fears of the unknown, loss, and failure. First, faculty may fear technology as something they do not know or understand. While this particular fear may be somewhat generational in nature, it may be gradually addressed through training and immersion strategies, whereas other faculty concerns may be more difficult to address. Second, faculty may fear technology as a time-consuming medium that may upset the balance of teaching, research, and service in academia. Specifically, faculty may fear the amount of time and preparation required to teach well online, where some students’ expectations may include having 24-hour access to instructors and instant feedback on coursework or correspondence. While some research estimates that the time spent teaching online may be double or triple that of a traditional on-ground course (Palloff & Pratt, 2007), other research shows evidence to the contrary. For example, Lazarus (2003) conducted a longitudinal case study of time spent on online teaching tasks (e.g., email, discussions, and assignments) and found that it was comparable (3.5 to 7 hours per class) to on-ground classes. Third, some faculty members may fear the loss of their comfortable, stable, and well-crafted in-classroom teaching model and fear that their teaching strategies may fail in the new online environment. Fifth, and related to the fear of loss, faculty may fear failure if they make the change to online education. A faculty member may find it difficult to relinquish the success he or she has found in teaching on-ground courses for the unknown outcome of teaching online. A star instructor in the traditional classroom may fear the loss of some shine in the online environment.

Fear of Disruption of Interpersonal Relationships

Expanding on Self and Schraeder’s (2009) personality characteristics personal attribute, we propose that a third source of faculty resistance to online learning is related to fears of disruption of interpersonal relationships. Faculty may fear the loss of personal relationships with students (Lin et al., 2010). The personality of some faculty teaching traditional courses is such that they genuinely relish interactions with students both inside and outside of the classroom. These interactions, which sometimes develop into lifelong friendships, may involve the instructor giving students career advice, providing mentorship, or simply being a sounding board for students’ ideas. The possible threat of decreased job satisfaction from not witnessing one’s impact on students’ lives may prove too great for some to transition to online teaching.

Concerns About the External Impact

Our fourth and final proposed personal source of faculty resistance to online education builds on Self and Schraeder’s (2009) individual needs attribute. Faculty may express concern about the impact the change will have on the reputation of the college or university. They may perceive that the reputational hit the university may experience because of the change to online teaching would negatively impact them personally in terms of future job prospects—thus potentially limiting their ability to provide for the needs of themselves and their families. Given the previous examples of highly regarded institutions successfully embracing online education—including Harvard University and MIT’s edX initiative and the University of Massachusetts’s UMassOnline program—faculty concerns of this regard may be somewhat dissipated by learning such information.

The unique role that faculty play in the change process, as well as the aforementioned sources of personal resistance, underscore the need for a change model that captures the profound importance of the individuals taking part in that change. However, many of the change models that have been applied to organizational change are largely based on the organizational level of analysis and tend to be top-down (e.g., Burke & Litwin, 1992; Kotter, 1995; Lewin, 1951). In contrast, the TTM of change (Prochaska et al., 2008) addresses change at the individual level of analysis.

Recommendation 1

Consciousness raising is about learning new information that will support the healthy new behavior (Prochaska et al., 2008). Therefore, our first recommendation is for higher education administrators to engage faculty in the consciousness raising process by communicating a clear message to faculty who are at this stage the recipients of change. The message should include personalization of faculty’s role in leading the change to online education (that it is ultimately faculty’s choice to engage in the process, not the administration’s), validation of faculty fears and concerns, and objective clarification of the risks and rewards associated with the change.

Recommendation 2

Dramatic relief begins with emotional experiences and may be managed if appropriate action is taken (Prochaska, et al., 2008). To engage faculty in the dramatic relief process, our second recommendation is that administrators continue the two-way communication process by allowing faculty the opportunity to fully express and experience their emotions surrounding the move to online education. Activities may include several scheduled sessions for faculty to give personal accounts of experiences with online education, share stories, engage in role-play sessions, and have a chance to ask administrators any questions related to the change.

Recommendation 3

Environmental reevaluation involves both cognitive and emotional aspects as the change recipient begins to process how he or she may impact others by engaging in or abstaining from the change behavior (Prochaska et al., 2008). In other words, faculty may begin to realize the positive impact that their facilitating online education would have on their careers, their students, their institutions, and higher education in general. In addition, they may realize the negative impact not facilitating online education may have on all concerned.

To engage faculty in environmental reevaluation, we recommend that administrators present objective data such as the increasing demand for online courses, current enrollment trends of their institution and traditional institutions overall, the growth of proprietary institutions and MOOCs, as well as benchmark colleges and universities that have successfully made the transition to online education. In so doing, administrators may provide a message of discrepancy and efficacy (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993)—that change is both necessary and possible. The shift to online education must be clearly communicated in such a manner that faculty perceives it as a natural next step in the evolution of their institution—it should make sense within the larger organizational context. Although change leaders cannot control this sensemaking, communication can significantly help influence the process (Sloyan, 2009).

If change recipients engage in the previous three processes and successfully navigate the first two stages, they then progress to the preparation and action stages during which two processes occur: self-reevaluation and self-liberation (Prochaska et al., 2008).

Recommendation 4

When the change recipient prepares to engage in the new behavior, self-reevaluation occurs as the individual imagines himself/herself with and without the change behavior (Prochaska et al., 2008). To assist faculty in successfully progressing through the self-reevaluation process, we recommend that administrators along with faculty governing bodies (e.g., faculty senate) formally revise institutional policies regarding teaching (e.g., annual performance review, tenure, and promotion) so that they reflect online teaching as one of many aspects of faculty’s role in the institution. In order for sustained change to take place, it is critical that faculty realize that the change to online learning and teaching can be incorporated into the new identity of what it means to be a professor. In addition, we recommend that administrators organize and/or offer seminars and colloquia where faculty from other universities may share how teaching online classes has affected their roles as faculty. If feasible, faculty should also be supported in their attendance at academic conferences (or individual workshops/sessions) with an online education focus.

Recommendation 5

Once individuals have successfully advanced through the previous four processes and decided that there are more pros than cons associated with engaging in the change behavior (decisional balance), they may then encounter self-liberation—an active process that involves going beyond the belief that one is capable of successfully implementing the change and taking action on said belief by using newly acquired skills (Prochaska et al., 2008). Therefore, our fifth recommendation is to recruit faculty to experience online learning first hand, from the perspective of a student. For example, faculty can begin to learn about the online pedagogical approach by being a student in an online class that teaches faculty how to design, deliver, and manage online courses. Several institutions already have instituted such training classes. However, there are online vendors (e.g., Jesuitnet, Embanet) that offer such training as well.

Recommendation 6

Our final recommendation is an extension of the previous one as it relates to the self-liberation process. We propose the establishment of a system to provide faculty the support to exercise their newfound autonomy with the confidence (self-efficacy) necessary to begin and continue to teach online. For instance, the institution may establish a program or unit staffed with individuals who can provide academic technology support to faculty teaching online. In so doing, faculty may receive technical support in creating new online courses or transitioning traditional on-ground classes to an online format, training in new technologies, and troubleshooting assistance as needed.

During the final two stages of the TTM, maintenance and termination, four processes occur: counterconditioning (learning the new behaviors associated with the change), helping relationships (seeking and using social support for the maintenance of the new behavior), contingency/reinforcement management (emphasizing reinforcement for engaging in the new behavior), and stimulus control (removing temptations for relapsing and installing cues that encourage the change). We offer only general recommendations for the processes occurring in the final stages of the TTM although we proposed specific recommendations for each of the processes of its first four stages. This is because the first four stages of the TTM characterize readiness for change and readiness to change, whereas the focus of the last two stages is on maintenance and termination.

In general, we recommend that rewards, reminders, and a social network to support online education all need to be in place by the final stages. For instance, administrators may offer faculty additional compensation and/or a reduced course load for developing new online courses or adapting a traditional course to an online format or as incentive to continue teaching online. In addition, faculty mentoring and support sessions for new online instructors should be implemented. For instance, online education liaisons—well-trained faculty who are proven effective at teaching online—may be designated within each academic unit (department, program, or college) to serve as a touchstone and source of support for new online faculty.

Limitations

One limitation is that we do not offer empirical data on which to base the stated recommendations for use in a higher education context. Although they are gleaned from impactful research, to our knowledge they have not been empirically tested in academia. A second limitation is that although we discussed four possible domains as sources of resistance (personal, organizational, the content, and process of the change itself), we examined only personal factors as a source of faculty resistance to change. Third, the possible sources of faculty resistance to online education suggested were primarily based on affect—particularly fear and threat. As such, the research-based rebuttals presented may do little to alter faculty’s affective states if they are deeply rooted. Finally, while we mentioned previously that the successful implementation of online education would result when faculty are ready for change and to change, we primarily addressed the latter, which entailed behavioral changes.

Implications

The aforementioned limitations notwithstanding, there are several implications of the current conceptual article. For faculty, this article will prove informational for those unfamiliar with the existing evidence regarding the efficacy and efficiency of online education. Should the recommendations be implemented as stated, faculty will have a voice in the development of online programs at their institutions. While this does not guarantee that they will choose to teach online, those faculty who do select to participate in online education will be better equipped if trained appropriately before attempting to do so. This will no doubt lead to greater ownership of the change, resulting in faculty empowerment and commitment to the change. For administrators in higher education, the recommendations in this article are additional tools that may be used in the complex series of steps involved in determining if and how to introduce online education programs at their institutions.

Future Research

Our first two recommendations for future research are related to the previously stated limitations. First, we recommend empirical investigations of the suggestions for creating readiness in a college or university transitioning to online education. Our literature review found no empirical investigation of the domains of readiness and the institutional conditions within the higher education context.

Second, as we only attended to personal factors, we recommend that future research empirically examine the other three domains of resistance to change (organizational factors, process factors, and content factors) both individually and collectively. Research into organizational resistance factors may include distrust of the organization and change leaders, organizational politics, and the history of change in the organization; process factors for investigation may include the level of involvement in the process and perception of a problematic process; content factors may include perceptions that change is not needed and that change is wrong (Self & Schraeder, 2009).

Third, future research could investigate not only the readiness of faculty to facilitate online education but also the readiness of students to engage in online learning. Psychometrically sound measures developed for just that purpose (e.g., Parnell & Carraher, 2003) may prove helpful in identifying students who would excel in the online learning environment, thereby increasing the observed effectiveness of online education.