How faculty s satisfaction with teaching online relates to synchronous/asynchronous communication

Transcription

1 How faculty s satisfaction with teaching online relates to synchronous/asynchronous communication Lei Ma Boston University United States leima@bu.edu Abstract: Faculty s satisfaction is a crucial factor to determine the success of online learning. However, faculty is less satisfied with and less enthusiastic about teaching online than teaching in a classroom (Whittier, 2009). Some researchers suggest that increasing the amount of synchronous format of communication might be a solution for improving faculty satisfaction (Whittier, 2009). However, very few studies have provided solid evidence on the correlation between the amount of synchronous/ asynchronous communication and faculty s satisfaction with online teaching. The proposed research project aims to fulfill this knowledge gap. This project is still in progress. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered and analyzed. Electronic surveys will be delivered to online faculty at selected universities and focus group discussions will also be administered. The results of this research will contribute to recommending better course design practices that could improve faculty s online satisfaction. Introduction Over the past two decades, rapid development in Information Technology has enabled online education and computer-mediated communication to grow significantly in accessibility and popularity in higher educational institutions. (Burbules & Callister, 2000; Rovai, 2002; Kanuka, Collett, & Caswell, 2002; Snyder, Tan & Hoffman, 2006, Allen & Seaman, 2007). Allen & Seaman (2008) reported that over 20% of all American college students took at least one online course during Fall Term 2007, more than doubling the number of online students since Fall They also reported that about 69% of educational institutions offered online programs via distance in 2006; 90% of these institutions expected their online enrollments to grow (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Additionally, the economic downturn and rising unemployment will lead to an increasing demand for enrolling online courses with specific types of schools (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Given the increasing demand for online education, many educators have expressed the concern of the quality issue with online learning. The Sloan Consortium, consisting of institutions and organizations committed to quality online education (Sloan-C, 2007), has published research-based effective practices for quality online education. This research is organized around five pillars of quality: (a) Student satisfaction, (b) Faculty satisfaction, (c) Access, (d) Learning effectiveness and (e) Institutional cost effectiveness. Researchers have discovered that these pillars are interdependent and that the online learning experiences of students and faculty will not be well satisfied if one or more pillars is greatly lacking in efficacy (Benke, Bishop, Thompson, Scarafiotti, & SchWeber, 2004). Among the five pillars, learning effectiveness had been a popular and active research area in the past. However, it is no longer worth pursuing after a multitude of past studies have demonstrated that there are no significant differences in learning effectiveness, via distance education or the traditional classroom (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). In recent years, more studies shifted their focus to the inquiry of faculty s experience in online teaching. Research has suggested that faculty members who teach online are less satisfied with and less enthusiastic about teaching online than teaching in a classroom (Whittier, 2008; 2009). The asynchronous text-based communication at distance causes two major dissatisfying factors: altered teacher-student relation and increased workload for faculty (Whittier, 2009). However, will adding more synchronous communication automatically improve faculty satisfaction of online teaching? Very few studies have provided data and analysis on this issue. The purpose of this study is to provide evidence on the correlation between the amount of synchronous/

2 asynchronous communication and faculty s satisfaction with teaching. Although still in progress, this project aims to answer the following questions: Is there a correlation between the amount of synchronous/face-to-face communication and faculty s satisfaction with online teaching? How do faculty perceive synchronous/face-to-face session as adding value in an online course? Literature Review While individual faculty members may have personal reasons to prefer traditional classroom teaching over distance education, available studies have reported several predominant reasons why faculty in general are still not very enthusiastic about teaching online. Reasons include negative feelings toward the change in interpersonal relations, increased workload and inadequate institutional support. The lack of institutional support is not within the scope of this research project. Changed instructor-student relations One of the most dissatisfying factors for teaching online is reduced or eliminated face-to-face communication with students and the changed interpersonal relations (Berge, 1998; Clay, 1999; Kirby, 1999; Whittier, 2009). Faculty members noted that written communications are more structured and formal than face-to-face interactions in teaching-learning activities, exhibiting a tendency to seem impersonal and possibly suppress spontaneity in interpersonal interactions (Zvacek, 1991; Burpee & Wilson, 1991). They also perceived that the lack of visual and nonverbal cues make on-line interactions complicated (Whittier, 2008, 2009). That is, the separation in space and time causes large transactional distance, which describes the potential misunderstanding between the inputs of the instructor and those of the learner (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Trained in face-to-face classroom teaching, most faculty members are enthusiastic about direct engagement with students. The American Faculty Poll in 2000 confirmed this in its finding that one of the most important reasons for faculty to pursue an academic career was the enjoyment and fulfillment of working with students (Sanderson, Phua, & Herda, 2000). An experienced instructor, in a traditional classroom, will be able to create an effective learning experience through carefully observing students body language, facial expression, verbal response, etc (Bower, 2001). The great reward of teaching for instructors is when they see the spark of understanding glows in students eyes. However, in a distance learning setting, faculty may have little or no interpersonal contact with the students. Media and technology must mediate their communications, which may undermine faculty s passion towards teaching. Additionally, student feedback in distance learning is often delayed and indirect. Workload issues Another dissatisfying factor noted repeatedly is the issue of faculty workload (Berge, 1998; Betts, 1998; Schifter, 2000; O'Quinn & Corry, 2002). Some research reported that certain aspects of the course management online (assignment distribution, class announcements, giving exams, posting grades) could be more efficient with online teaching than classroom-based teaching, potentially reducing overall workload for a course (Poling, 1994; McComb, 1993). However, most research discussing the time required for teaching online reported that it consumed a lot of additional time compared to traditional face-to-face classroom teaching (Pachnowski & Jurczyk, 2003). Some studies reported that the amount of time spent teaching online is over twice the amount of time spent teaching in-class and the time increases with the number of students enrolled (Tomei, 2004; Cavanaugh, 2005). Offering a course online instead of in a classroom requires more precise planning, more detailed design and more preparation time for instructional materials (Whitaker, 1995). According to Bonk (2001), 62% of faculty respondents indicate that the preparation time demanded of an online course is the main obstacle for teaching at a distance. Faculty perceives that the time devoted to course development alone takes away from their time that could be spent on research (Betts, 1998; Rockwell, et al, 1999). Willis (1992) noted that although course content might be unchanged for an on-line course, its presentation required new instructional strategies and additional preparation time

3 Other than the course preparation time, the time spent on communicating with students is another major differentiator between the time spent online and in a classroom (Cavanaugh, 2005). The volume of communications increase markedly when teaching on-line versus teaching in the classroom (Harasim, et al., 1995; Cavanaugh, 2005; Whittier, 2008; 2009) Based on a most recent survey study, Dr. Whittier (2008, 2009) analyzed in details why online communication caused more time. For instance, Faculty did a great deal of extra work online to avoid miscommunication while face-to-face communication in a classroom was much clearer and simpler; The asynchronous nature of online teaching caused much time wasted on waiting for a response while the synchronous classroom learning always receives timely feedback; Individualized communication through takes much more time than teaching in classroom; Written messages were more time consuming than oral dialogue in a classroom; etc. (Whittier, 2008; 2009). The high expectations of instant response, unlimited availability of instructors also gave faculty much pressure and took them tremendous amount of time (Pachnowski & Jurczyk, 2003; Keeton, 2004; Whittier, 2009). Dr. Whittier concluded that the text-based asynchronous online environment was the main cause for the heavy workload of communicating online. Methodologies An exploratory study with mixed methods will be used to examine the experiences and satisfaction levels of selected faculty who teach or have taught both online and in a classroom at Boston University and Seattle University. The primary data sources for this study will be obtatined from faculty focus group discussions, custom-developed surveys of faculty. This study incorporates qualitative and quantitative data to explore, describe and infer significant factors of faculty satisfaction and the relationship between the amount of synchronous/ asynchronous communication. This exploration will focus on theoretical constructs and best practices of distance education and teacher satisfaction. The two types of data resources for this study are: (a) focus groups and (b) surveys. The focus groups provide information for developing the survey questions and served as a reference for analyzing the survey results. The faculty survey responses will be anonymous. The survey will gather information about faculty demographic information, their experiences of teaching online and in a classroom, and their satisfaction towards both formats of course delivery. Conclusions One of the main goals of this project is to provide evidence on the correlation between the amount of synchronous/ asynchronous communication and faculty s satisfaction with teaching. This project is still in progress. The final findings of this research will contribute to recommending better course design practices that could improve faculty s satisfaction with teaching. References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J., (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C). Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J., (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning, Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C). Benke, M., Bishop, T., Thompson, M., Scarafiotti, C, & SchWeber, C. (2004). Promoting student support and satisfaction in online learning. In J. Bourne & J.C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Into the Mainstream (pp. 17). Needham: Sloan-C

4 Berge, Z.L. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions: Can policy changes fix it? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 1(2), Summer (On-line), Betts, K.S. (1998) Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study. (Doctoral dissertation. The George Washington University). Dissertation Abstracts International: UMI. Bonk, C.J. (2001). Online teaching in an online world. Retrieved September 10, 2003, from Burpee, P., & Wilson, B.(1991). Distance education in the faculty of education. Aspects of Education. 25: Cavanaugh, J., (2005). Teaching Online - A Time Comparison. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1), Spring State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Collins, M. & Berge, Z. L. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer-mediated online courses. Available: Clay, M. (1999). Faculty attitudes toward distance education at the State University of West Georgia. University of West Georgia Distance Learning Report, December (On-line), Dooley, K.E. & Murphrey, T.P. (2000). How the perspectives of administrators, faculty and support units impact the rate of distance education adoption. Retrieved on July 26, 2009 from Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning On-line. Cambridge, MA: Masschusetts Institute of Technology;. Kanuka, H., Collett, D., & Caswell, C. (2002). University instructor perceptions of the use of asynchronous textbased discussion in distance education courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 16 (3), Kirby, E. (1999). Building interaction in online and distance education courses, Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual , McComb, M. (1993). Augmenting a group discussion course with computer-mediated communication in a small college setting. Interpersonal Computing and Technology. 1(3). [On-line]. Available: http// Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. O'Quinn, L. & Corry, M. (2002). Factors that deter faculty from participating in distance education. Retrieved on July 17, 2009 from Parisot, A.H. (1997). Distance education as a catalyst for engaging teaching in the community college: Implications for institutional policy. New Directions for Community Colleges, 99, Pachnowski, L., & Jurczyk, J., (2003). Perceptions of Faculty on the Effect of Distance Learning Technology on Faculty Preparation Time. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3), Fall State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Rockwell, S.K., Scheuer, J., Fritz, S.J., & Marx, D.B. (1999). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 2(4), Winter (On-Line),

5 Rovai, A. P.(2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-16 Schifter, C.C. (2000). Faculty motivators and inhibitors for participation in distance education. Education Technology, 40 (2), Sloan-C. (2007). The Sloan Consortium. 2007, from Snyder, T. D., Tan, A. G., & Hoffman C. M. (2006). Digest of education statistics National Educational Statistics Center. (NCES No ). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from Tomei, L., (2004). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning [Online serial] 1(1). January 2004, Willis, B. (1992). Strategies for Teaching at a Distance. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; ERIC Digest no. ED Whitaker, G. W.(1995). First-hand obversations on tele-course teaching. T.H.E. Journal. 23(1): Whittier, D. (2008). Time Online: Faculty Activities and Satisfaction Teaching Online. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp ). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Whittier, D. (2009). Time Online: Faculty Methods and Satisfaction Teaching Online and in Classrooms. In press. Zvacek, S. M. (1991). Effective affective design for distance education. Tech Trends. 36: Acknowledgement The author s great thanks go to Dr. David Whittier for his consistent support, guidance, valuable input and feedback