Faculty and administrator perceived barriers to online program implementation in higher education

Introduction

According to a study from Pearson, the Sloan Consortium® (Sloan-C), and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, 33% of all students in higher education are enrolled in a minimum of one online course (Allen & Seaman, 2013). This annual survey also found Chief Academic Officers (CAO’s) have, rather drastically, changed their views of online education in the past decade. Today, a majority of CAO’s (66%) indicate that distance learning is essential in the strategic planning of their institutions over the long term. In addition, 74% of CAO’s indicated their belief that student learning outcomes were the same, or better, in online courses, compared to face-to-face courses. 

Educators in a college or university setting have a minimum average of 18 years of schooling when they begin teaching (elementary/secondary, undergraduate, and graduate level education). Over these 18 years, individuals become very adept at identifying “good teaching” and strategies of highly qualified teachers. Lortie (1975) describes this as the “apprenticeship of observation” (p. 61) where he notes that “the average student has spent 13,000 hours in direct contact with classroom teachers by the time he graduates from high school” (p. 61). Individuals without any formal training in teaching and learning can usually identify teachers and classroom environments that were particularly effective, and those that were highly ineffective. 

Not all educators, however, have experienced the same “apprenticeship of observation” with online education, as they have with traditional, face-to-face education in a classroom. For many, lack of exposure and/or familiarity with online education leads to a degree of skepticism toward implementing online courses and programs. Essentially, it is often fear of the unknown that makes decision-makers anxious. These individuals are often part of an administrative chain of approval that is required from the lower levels (program chair/department head) to higher levels (University President/Provost). The multiple layers of administrative approvals adds to the potentially growing list of individuals who may be unfamiliar with and unreceptive to online education. Schools directors and department heads need to be prepared to educate on-campus decision makers as to the role online education may play at the university.

Project Description and Goals

Colleges and Universities across the United States are facing budget cuts, shortfalls, and elimination of personnel and programs due to recent economic downturns and reduced funding.  Administrators are asked to reduce spending, find new and innovative sources of revenue, and make difficult decisions impacting the entire campus.  While many colleges and universities chose to eliminate programs and resources, one way to boost enrollments and revenue is through online learning.

Faculty may be resistant to online programs for a variety of reasons, including their own lack of knowledge about online programs, or their reluctance to forego the “in person” contact with the students they teach in their classrooms each week (Sword, 2012). Faculty report a variety of challenges including the time-intensive preparation for online lessons, intimidating technologies, grief over losing the face-to-face classroom interaction and lack of resources including administrative and technology support, software support, and lack of policies and procedures (Sword, 2012). Administrators often provide an array of responses and opinions to online learning from fully supportive, to lukewarm, to outright hostility. Many administrators and faculty lack the familiarity and comfort with distance education as a viable means for teaching and learning. For some, a webinar meeting may be the closest experience they have had with interactive technologies.

The purpose of this session, therefore, is to examine the barriers to online program implementation, from the perspective of faculty and administrators on a large, research intensive university campus in the southeastern United States.   One goal of this session is to understand the perceived barriers.  A subsequent goal is to strategize ways to address these challenges and barriers with faculty and administrators, while trying to grow online program enrollments.  The results of this study are most useful to campus stakeholders in helping them understand faculty and administrator fears, but ways to assuage those fears and move forward in strategically growing online programs and enrollments.

This study examined the reasons why faculty and administrators are resistant to implementing high-demand online programs with the goal of understanding the barriers, both real and perceived, and using the data to create a strategic plan for online program implementation. Specifically, university faculty and administrators will benefit from the recommendations of this study that will help make program implantations more efficient, faster and smarter.  Efficient program adoption processes ensure a consistent revenue stream, which is more important than ever given the consistent landscape of budget cuts in higher education.

Data sources for this study included a survey of faculty and administrators.  In order to address campus and college-specific issues, the instrument was customized for the faculty and administrators at a large, research intensive university campus in the southeastern United States.

Methodology

For this project, survey design was used to gather critical data on the barriers to online program implementation.  The survey was sent to faculty and administrators via SurveyMonkey. The items asked were: 1) I would have technology challenges; 2) content in my program does not align with online delivery modality; 3) I would experience a lack of assistance with large class sizes within an online program; 4) I would not “own” my online courses within an online program; 5) online programs are of lower quality than face-to-face programs; 6) my program area requires unique face-to-face interaction with students; 7) my program area accrediting body would not allow us to put our program online; 8) transitioning to online would increase my workload/time commitment and I would be inadequately compensated for it and/or it would not count toward Tenure & Promotion; 9) there are currently a lack of policies and standards for online courses at my University; and 10) please indicate below any other barriers, or expand upon your responses above, regarding barriers to offering your subject area in an online program.

The constant comparative method was used to analyze the survey data, and responses were unitized and categorized to identify emerging themes.  From the unitizing and categorizing process, final themes emerged from the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and provided valuable information on perceptions of barriers to online program implementation.

Results

The greatest barriers that emerged were: 1) technology challenges; 2) course content not aligning with online delivery; 3) lower quality than face-to-face, and 4) online implementation would increase workload without reward. The last question in the survey was the open-ended item from which three themes emerged: 1) online not working for an individual (online “just doesn’t work for me”); 2) too much time and not enough credit; 3) and lack of policies or administrative support.  Other barriers which were slightly less impactful in the minds of faculty and administrators were becoming overburdened with large class sizes, lack of course “ownership”, and accreditation concerns.

Conclusion

One can conclude that in the minds of faculty and administration there are real and perceived barriers to implementing online programs at Universities and that for such an action to occur, strategies for removing these barriers need to be created and implemented first. The results from this large, research intensive university clearly demonstrate the barriers that exist in the minds of faculty and administrators. One solution for overcoming these barriers is to ensure that faculty have access to technology support, course design support, and that class conversion to online is rewarded in some way (stipend, service to college/department, counts toward tenure).

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E. G.  (1985).  Naturalistic inquiry.  Beverly Hills:  Sage Publications, Inc.

Lortie, D.  (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL. The University of Chicago Press.

Sword, T. S. (2012). The transition to online teaching as experienced by nurse educators. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33 (4), 269-271.