Table of Contents
The number of online learning courses offered continues to grow and the demand for this delivery method of education is no longer an option that universities can ignore. Allen and Seaman (2016) have continued to report that online learning in higher education continues to grow despite the recent decline in higher education enrollments overall. Nonetheless, with this growth of online learning in higher education, an evolution of faculty teaching practices is an essential requirement to better suit the online learner (Lloyd, Byrne, & McCoy, 2012). Regardless of the growing enrollments of students in online learning, faculty continue to remain concerned over the quality of online education and the acceptance of this delivery method remains low (Allen & Seaman, 2016).
Yet, some researchers have pointed out that the percentages of faculty with negative perceptions of online learning and moreover, concerns of the quality of online education, are made up of faculty that have little to no experience with online education (Johnson, Meling, Andaverdi, Galindo, Madrigal, & Kupczynski, 2011). Additionally, in a 2009 survey of chief academic officers, 19% of all respondents stated that their institution did not provide any training or informal mentoring for faculty teaching online courses and in 2011 this number decreased to only 6% (Allen & Seaman, 2011). It is important to consider the use of professional development for online faculty because online teaching requires a different set of skills compared to the traditional face-to-face method (Wolf, 2005).
Moreover, one cannot assume there is a correlation between quality teaching in the face-to-face environment and effectiveness in the online format (CITE). Ultimately, if both the quality of education and faculty perceptions of online teaching are fundamentally significant to the positive growth of online learning in higher education (Johnson, Meling, Andaverdi, Galindo, Madrigal, & Kupczynski, 2011), universities can benefit from offering and evaluating professional development for online instruction. This study examines the relationship of faculty’s perceived barriers to online teaching and learning, and analyzes if there is a change in these perceptions following an online teaching certification program.
127 our experts are availableright now
Literature Review
Online learning and distance education are used interchangeably throughout the literature and higher education. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a division of the United States Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), uses the term distance education and defines it as “education that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously” (CITE). For the purposes of this paper, the term online learning will be used. In the 2016 annual report by Allen and Seaman, the authors reported that online learning enrollments increased by 7% between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014, a trend that continues to emerge.
Of the 5.8 million online learning students enrolled for Fall 2014, 49% took all of their courses online and the other 51% were enrolled in some but not all online courses (Allen & Seaman, 2016). NCES defines an online course as “a course in which the instructional content is delivered exclusively via distance education. Requirements for coming to campus for orientation, testing, or academic support services do not exclude a course from being classified as distance education” (CITE). Allen and Seaman (2016) defined an online course “as one in which at least 80% of the course content is delivered online”, often not ever meeting face-to-face.
Despite the unremitting trend on increased enrollments for online education, a high percentage of higher education leadership report that they do not believe their faculty accept the value and legitimacy of online education (Allen & Seaman, 2016). However, this is not the case at larger institutions with 10,000 or more online education enrollments where 60.1% of chief academic officers reported faculty acceptance of online education (Allen & Seaman, 2016). Along with the lack of faculty acceptance of online learning, there are often other barriers to online learning cited in the literature. Faculty perceptions and their relation to online education are often mentioned in the literature (Santilli & Beck, 2005; Johnson, Meling, Andaverdi, Galindo, Madrigal, & Kupczynski, 2011; Lloyd, Byrne, & McCoy, 2012).
According to Johnson et. al (2011), the lack of commitment or acceptance from faculty for online education stems from their concerns with the quality of the courses in this modality. However, Allen and Seaman (2016) reported that 71.4% of surveyed academic leaders rated the learning outcomes in online courses to be the same or superior compared to their face-to-face counterparts. It is important to also note, that one of the benefits of the modality of online education is that the barrier of distance is removed (Allen & Seaman, 2016). Another factor that can lead to faculty concern is the time and effort placed into designing and teaching an online course (Santilli & Beck, 2005).
Similarly, in an article by Bender, Wood, and Vredevoogd (2004), the authors found that faculty reported teaching an online course consisted of a higher investment of time compared to their traditional courses. Maguire (2005) also acknowledged the increased workload as a barrier to online teaching and also included the lack of recognition for online teaching faculty receive towards their tenure and promotion process. In a study conducted by Santilli and Beck (2005), 65% of faculty reported their students’ lack of technology skills to be a barrier in effective communication in the online environment.
Additionally, Lloyd, Byrne, and McCoy (2012) listed other barriers of online teaching found in the literature to include: a lack of compensation for time and class sizes; added responsibilities; inability to grasp visual cues from students; concerns about the quality of the content; concerns about the ownership of courses developed; inadequate training and resources; increased workload; the value toward promotion and tenure; a lack of administrative and technical; support; a lack of experience with online teaching; and a change in the faculty’s institutional role (Lloyd, Byrne, & McCoy, 2012). In 2012, Lloyd, Byrne, and McCoy conducted a study with the purpose to isolate the most common barriers to online teaching from the faculty perspective and determine whether or not there was a difference among faculty groups. Four categories or factors were identified and these included: interpersonal barriers, institutional policy barriers, training and technology barriers, and cost/benefit analysis barriers.
One of the factors mentioned above, training and technology as a barrier, is something important to explore in the realm of online learning and higher education, as a high percentage of universities report to offer some type of professional development for their online faculty (Allen & Seaman, 2016). One need for training may be the level of comfort faculty have with technology as Muirhead (2002) pointed out that faculty that are historically considered effective in their face-to-face courses may not always perform in the same light in courses due to their lack of comfort with the technology. Moreover, Betts and Heaston (2014) stated that faculty with no experience with online teaching may be possess a more negative disposition towards online education due to perceived barriers of the modality.
Professional development for faculty teaching online is a way to disseminate the required knowledge and skills to do so in an effort to have successful online courses (Bartlett & Ghoshal p. 681). In 2011, 72 percent of institutions that offered online courses reported to have internally run professional development programs for their faculty (Allen & Seaman, 2011). However, Allen and Seaman (2011) reported that the size of the institution has an effect on what type of professional development is offer with larger institution (over 15,000 total enrollments) being less likely to utilize externally run training programs for their online faculty. Nonetheless, faculty that participate in some type of professional development for online learning are more likely to be successful teaching in this method (Wolf, 2005).
The purpose of this study was to determine whether faculty perceptions of barriers of online teaching changed after undergoing formal professional development for online teaching. Problem Statement Online learning is increasing throughout higher education, however negative perceptions are commonly reported in the literature (Lloyd, Byrne, & McCoy, 2012). While institutions are swiftly adding online programs to their offerings, it is often reported that faculty are not receiving the necessary training to teach online (CITE). Not only is the lack of training a concern but also the lack of resources or capabilities of support services to handle the needs of online students is reported in the literature as a missed opportunity (CTIE). One might wonder if the prevalence of negative perceptions of faculty concerning online learning is in part because of the lack of attention institutions are placing on training, resources, and support services.
Methods
The study was conducted to analyze whether faculty perceptions of barriers of online learning changed after the completion of an online teaching certification program. With permission, the instrument utilized in this study was Lloyd, Byrne, and McCoy’s (2012) Faculty-Perceived Barriers of Online Education. The participants of this study were those that were enrolled in an online teaching certification course at a small Catholic private university in the Southwest. An electronic survey, created using Qualtrics, was distributed at the beginning and the end of the training program. This was done in an effort to determine whether faculty perceptions of online barriers would change after the training program was completed.
The survey was voluntary for the participants and also anonymous. The survey was sent to 20 participants enrolled in the training program via email and reminders were embedded into the training course. All participants received the same email invitation to participate in the pre and posts surveys. Of the 20 participants in the training program, 17 completed the surveys, with a response rate of 85%. The participants were selected utilizing a convenience sampling because they were those enrolled in the online teaching certification program and due to the timing of the study. The demographics of the sample of 17 included the following: In terms of gender, 58.8% of the participants were female with 35.3% being male. Majority of the participants identified as white with 70.6% of participants selecting this option.
However, 11.8% of respondents preferred not to disclose information on ethnicity. The average age of the sample was 41. Of the participants within the sample, 41.2% were assistant faculty, 35.3% were adjunct faculty, 11.8% were tenured, and both associate and full faculty consisted of 5.9% each. When asked if participants had participated in an online training course before, 58.8% of participants responded no. Majority of the participants of the sample, 41.2%, were from the business school with the next majority, 35.3%, coming from humanities. 47.1% of faculty responded to teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The age group with the most participants was 30 – 49, totaling 47.1% and the next highest percentage was the age group of 50 – 69 with 35.4% of participants. As mentioned previously, the survey was sent electronically to their institution email. The collection of data utilized an online survey management tool called Qualtrics.
The questionnaire consisted of ten demographic variables, one variable of the comfort with online teaching and one expertise with online teaching variable, twenty-two variables from Lloyds, Byrne, & McCoy’s (2012) instrument on Faculty-Perceived Barriers of Online Education, and one open ended question allowing participants to provide any other perceived barrier to online teaching that was not listed. Subscales of this instrument included: interpersonal barriers (5 variables), institutional policy barriers (4 variables), training and technology barriers (4), and cost/benefit analysis barriers. (4 variables). The other variables associated with perceived barriers from the instruments dealt with anxiety, skills, enrollments, access, and plagiarism. The barrier questions utilized a 4-point Likert scale (‘not a barrier,’ ‘somewhat of a barrier,’ ‘a barrier,’ and ‘a significant barrier”) to assess faculty perceptions.
Results
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the difference in levels of comfort with technology required for online teaching before and after faculty completed the online teaching certification program. There was a significant difference in the scores for levels of comfort pre-training (M=3.31, SD=1.25) and levels of comfort with technology post-training (M=4.23, SD=.832); t(12)= -2.803, p = .016. This variable was scaled on a 5-point Likert scale (1= extremely uncomfortable, 2 = moderately uncomfortable, 3 = neither comfortable nor uncomfortable, 4 = moderately comfortable, 5 = extremely comfortable). The results showed that faculty levels of comfort with technology required for online teaching increased after the completion of the online teaching certification program.
Averages were computed for the subscales of interpersonal barriers, institutional policy barriers, training and technology barriers, and cost/benefit analysis barriers for both pre and post responses. Although there were differences between the means only one comparison was significant. There was a significant difference in the faculty ratings of cost/benefit analysis barriers pre-training (M=2.25, SD=.883) and post-training (M=2.48, SD=.937); t(12)= -.23, p = .033. This variable was scaled on a 4-point Likert scale with 2 being somewhat of a barrier. Although the change was significant it was small in size.
Discussion
Instructors’ willingness to participate in distance education is positively impacted by increased training, an expectation of high student evaluation scores, and comfort with the technology, while negatively impacted by communication issues such as lack of visual cues and other forms of social contact (Lee & Busch, 2005 ).
Conclusion
Internally run training courses are provided at twice the rate for those teaching online as for those who are teaching face-to-face (72% for online compared to 34% for face-to-face) (Allen & Seaman, 2011).
