<%BANNER%>

Faculty Perceptions of Readiness to Teach Online

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022535/00001

Material Information

Title: Faculty Perceptions of Readiness to Teach Online
Physical Description: 1 online resource (95 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Graff, Randy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: development, distance, education, efficacy, faculty, online, teaching, training
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify factors supporting and impeding faculty teaching online. Ten faculty were interviewed to discover supporting factors, motivations, and attitudes that contributed to their success in teaching online as well as the factors that contributed to resistance and de-motivation that detracted from their success. Through a narrative analysis of the data, the qualities of self-reliance, personal interest, experience, reflection, peer support, and technical support comprised the supporting factors that sustain faculty readiness to teach online. Presence, respect for students, technology, sharing with peers, pride, subject interest, and time and patience are attitudes and beliefs of faculty who are ready to teach online. Working with peers, student needs, flexibility, success and money are the motivations of faculty who are ready to teach online. Faculty resistance was evidenced by the administration, change, difficulty of the course management system and interactions with students. De-motivating factors were administration, class size and time. Factors that impeded their readiness to teach online were student evaluations, technical support, administrative support, work, time and faculty development.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Randy Graff.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Behar-Horenstein, Linda S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022535:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022535/00001

Material Information

Title: Faculty Perceptions of Readiness to Teach Online
Physical Description: 1 online resource (95 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Graff, Randy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: development, distance, education, efficacy, faculty, online, teaching, training
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify factors supporting and impeding faculty teaching online. Ten faculty were interviewed to discover supporting factors, motivations, and attitudes that contributed to their success in teaching online as well as the factors that contributed to resistance and de-motivation that detracted from their success. Through a narrative analysis of the data, the qualities of self-reliance, personal interest, experience, reflection, peer support, and technical support comprised the supporting factors that sustain faculty readiness to teach online. Presence, respect for students, technology, sharing with peers, pride, subject interest, and time and patience are attitudes and beliefs of faculty who are ready to teach online. Working with peers, student needs, flexibility, success and money are the motivations of faculty who are ready to teach online. Faculty resistance was evidenced by the administration, change, difficulty of the course management system and interactions with students. De-motivating factors were administration, class size and time. Factors that impeded their readiness to teach online were student evaluations, technical support, administrative support, work, time and faculty development.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Randy Graff.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Behar-Horenstein, Linda S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022535:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF READINESS TO TEACH ONLINE By RANDY GRAFF A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Randy Graff 2

PAGE 3

To my patient and supportive wi fe and my understanding daughters 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my wife, Staci, whose support has carried me these past twenty years; and also my daughters, Sydney and Emily, whose patience with my lack of presence is astounding. I thank my committee members for their encouragement. I thank my chair, Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein, my mentor and my friend, for the reassurance and faith she has given and shown me. I thank my friend and colleague Doug Johnson, for our Wednesdays worth of work. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ..10Problem ....................................................................................................................... ............10Purpose ....................................................................................................................... ............13Barriers ...................................................................................................................... ......14Purpose ....................................................................................................................... .....15Research Questions ............................................................................................................ .....15Limitations ................................................................................................................... ...........152 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................................17Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........17Benefits of Online Education ..................................................................................................18Students ...................................................................................................................................19Institutional ................................................................................................................. ............20Faculty ....................................................................................................................................20Theoretical Understanding ..............................................................................................21Teaching Techniques .......................................................................................................21Awareness of Student Needs ...........................................................................................22Technical Hurdles ...................................................................................................................23Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ..........233 METHODS ..................................................................................................................... ........25The Setting ................................................................................................................... ...........25Physical Setting .............................................................................................................. .26Social Setting ................................................................................................................ ...27Subjectivity Statement ............................................................................................................28Participants .................................................................................................................. ...........30Data Analysis: Narrative Analysis ..........................................................................................34Historical Overview of Narrative Analysis .....................................................................35Diversity ..................................................................................................................... .....36Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... ........38Data Collection .......................................................................................................................38Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................40Validity ...................................................................................................................... .............41 5

PAGE 6

4 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... ..........43Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........43What Factors Support Faculty Self-Effi cacy in Readiness to Teach Online? ........................43Self-Reliance ................................................................................................................. ..43Personal Interest ............................................................................................................. .45Technical Support ............................................................................................................46Peer Support ....................................................................................................................48Experience .................................................................................................................... ...48Reflection .................................................................................................................... ....49What Factors Impede Faculty Readiness to Teach Online? ...................................................50Student Evaluations .........................................................................................................50Technical Support ............................................................................................................52Administrative Support ...................................................................................................53Time .......................................................................................................................... .......54Work .......................................................................................................................... ......55Faculty Development .......................................................................................................56What Motivations do Faculty Hold Con cerning Readiness to Teach Online? .......................57Flexibility ................................................................................................................... .....57Student Needs ..................................................................................................................58Working with Peers .........................................................................................................59Success and Money .........................................................................................................60What De-Motivations do Faculty Hold Concerning Readiness to Teach Online? .................60Time and Effort ............................................................................................................... 60Administration ................................................................................................................ .61Class Size .........................................................................................................................62What are the Perceived Causes of Faculty Resistance to Web Based Teaching? ..................63 Administration ................................................................................................................ .63Change .............................................................................................................................64Interactions with students ................................................................................................65What Attitudes and Beliefs are Conducive to Faculty Teaching Online? ..............................65Faculty Presence ..............................................................................................................66Sharing with Peers ...........................................................................................................67Technology .................................................................................................................... ..67Respect for Students ........................................................................................................69Pride ......................................................................................................................... ........705 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. .......71Conclusions .............................................................................................................................71Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................71Findings and the Literature .....................................................................................................73Implications to Theory ........................................................................................................ ....77Recommendations for Future Studies .....................................................................................79 6

PAGE 7

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...................................................................................................83B INFORMED CONSENT ........................................................................................................84C IRB PROTOCOL ................................................................................................................ ....86LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................89BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................95 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Technology, Time and Administration ..............................................................................705-1 Themes and Descriptions by Faculty (n=10) Connotations ...............................................725-2 Findings of Study Compared to Literature Review ...........................................................80 8

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF READINESS TO TEACH ONLINE By Randy Graff August 2008 Chair: Linda S. Behar-Horenstein Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this study was to identify f actors supporting and impeding faculty teaching online. Ten faculty were interviewed to discov er supporting factors, mo tivations, and attitudes that contributed to their success in teaching onlin e as well as the factor s that contributed to resistance and de-motivation that detracted from their success. Through a narrative analysis of the data, the qualities of self-relia nce, personal interest, experien ce, reflection, peer support, and technical support comprised the supporting factors that sustain faculty readiness to teach online. Presence, respect for students, technology, sharing with peers, pride, su bject interest, and time and patience are attitudes and be liefs of faculty who are ready to teach online. Working with peers, student needs, flexibility, success and mo ney are the motivations of faculty who are ready to teach online. Faculty resistance was evidenced by the admini stration, change, difficulty of the course management system and interactions with student s. De-motivating factors were administration, class size and time. Factors that impeded th eir readiness to teach online were student evaluations, technical support, administrative support, work, time and faculty development.

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Problem Faculty are the individuals who create curricul um, develop objectives, compile material to teach objectives, present information in a vari ety of ways, provide guidance and feedback to students and assess outcomes. Readiness is a per ception of the qualities one possesses when they are prepared to teach a course. Teaching online occurs when facu lty members create or use an online service or course managements system, or even their own departmental or personal web space to store documents, keep grades, post discussions, and interact with students synchronously or asynchronously. Faculty members who are ready to teach onlin e possess the internal notion that they can succeed. This notion is known as self-efficacy. Self -efficacy is a psychological theory that helps to frame the complex process behind faculty perc eption of being comfortable and qualified to complete some level of performance, in this case, create and teach in an online format. Perceived self-efficacy is defined as people' s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance th at exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Selfefficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave (Friedman, 1998). This theoretical perspective offers an explanation of the fe elings and attitudes that builds on common understandings of believing in self. This theory ha s been applied to many areas of interest that exceed the scope of this study including goals of high school students (Carraway, 2000), cardiac rehabilitation (Doyle, 2000), exceptional student e ducation (Eisenberger, ContiD'Antonio, & Bertrando, 2000), exercise adhere nce at the worksite (Fox, 2000), ethics and governance (Fort, 2001), social studies (Doppen, 2002), football pract ice (Downey, 2002), smoking and African American males (Wallack, 2002), snowboarders with disabilities (Bright, 10

PAGE 11

2004), video games and their impact on trainee gaming experience (Orvis & U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Soci al Sciences., 2005), dealing with Chlamydia infection in college students (Thomas, 2006) and pe rspectives on the use of the internet in the election process (Williams & Tedesco, 2006). Howeve r, self-efficacy theory also can be useful to help explain the beliefs that faculty need to have in order to be w illing and ready to teach online. While not the first theorist to explore concepts of self-efficacy, Albert Bandura is currently the most prominent in the field (Pajares, 2006). Bandura posits that indi viduals possess, a selfsystem that enables them to exercise a meas ure of control over th eir thoughts, feelings, motivation, and actions (A Bandura, 1986). This power to make a decision and the decisions that are made become the indicators of self-efficacy and in turn the indicators of success for a given undertaking. With regards to faculty perception of their readiness to teach online, efficacy can be assessed through exploring three areas of general variance: le vel, strength, and generality (Pajares, 2006). Within any domain, the level of task demands varies in complexity. Within online education one range begins with using email to communicate occasionally with students who are using a course management systems s ynchronous tools to conduct real-time educational group experiences. The complexity of the ta sks matter will be individually determined by participants in this study, based on the current co mplexity of faculty onlin e courses. The current and recent past level of task demands, especially in relation to immediate future plans, are of particular interest in this st udy. The more comfortable an individual is with using a method, the more likely they are to continue to strive towards excellence a nd regain that sense of comfort within technology. It is this sense of comfort then results in moving forward that is of interest to 11

PAGE 12

the researcher. Becoming aware of the range of complexity of tasks invo lved in online course building is a critical component of self-efficacy. The strength with which faculty believe they can succeed (for instance in teaching on-line) is an indicator of self-efficacy (and their readiness to teach on-lin e). Other theories like selfconfidence and personal motivation have elements of self-belief that lend support to this claim (Benabou & Tirole, 2002). The converse is also tr ue; the strength with whic h faculty believe they will fail (for instance in teaching on-line) is an indicator of a lack of self-efficacy (and their unwillingness to teach on-line). This idea extends outside of the educational setting impacting beliefs in daily living with implications reachi ng into personal life, (in a non-academic sense) moods and behavior patterns (A. Bandura, 1982). Feelings of self-efficacy may apply to daily living may follow faculty through many settings in cluding the online course development setting inside and outside the university walls, with th e technical infrastructu re, including their home office, the local coffee shop and perhaps even a hotel room while on vacat ion. Their experiences with personal computers and other technol ogy, in informal teaching settings, and in conversations with friends and peers also may ha ve an impact on faculty efficacy of teaching online. The perception one develops in one area of life often impacts other areas as well. Believing that one can succeed in a task ( like teaching on-line) is critical to establishing a sense of selfefficacy. Depending upon the specific situation generality comes in to play. For example, faculty may not feel as efficacious, for instance, in creating streaming video as they do in posting audio files. Tied into the concept of level discu ssed above, generality diffe rs not necessarily in complexity, but in type. Generalizing the skills and comfort with attaching a file to an email message does not necessarily translate into posting files into a course management systemnor 12

PAGE 13

does posting an audio file generalize to creating a streaming video and placing that content on a streaming server and linking that content in a course management system. Working with new technology can sometimes stretch us beyond our leve l of comfort. Taking the time to reflect on relationships between previously learned skills and new situations is a learning technique. The ability to differentiate between when and which skills generalize and those that do not are also critical components of self-efficacy. These three areas of variance: level, strength, and generality apply to faculty perceptions of readiness to teach online as they each measure one part of faculty efficacy. Control over these elements has an impact on the success of an onl ine course. Self-efficacy theory postulates that people can control these elements and regulat e their beliefs that they can succeed. Purpose Many faculty in higher education are reluctan t to develop and enhance courses with web based teaching methods (Surry & Land, 2000). They en counter internal and ex ternal barriers that may contribute to their reluctance. Internal barriers include personal beliefs about teaching, how students learn, trust in others, computers, clas sroom management, and openness to change (J. Angers & D. Machtmes, 2005). According to the Am erican Association of University Presidents (AAUP) external barriers may include technical infrastructure, time for training, development, and working in an online environment (AAUP, 1999). There will always be people who take risks a nd try new things. Their success or lack of success becomes a learning opportun ity. At the other end of the spectrum are laggards (Rogers, 1995). They are individuals who never try new things. In between these extremes are a continuum of people who adopt new technology qui ckly and steadily and those who adopt new technology only after it has been accepted by a majority of their pe ers. This group represents the reluctant faculty; the group that this study is focused on, the large group of higher education 13

PAGE 14

faculty who are skeptical, traditionally conservative, yet somewhat open to change (Rogers, 1995). This study is concerned with their perceptions, the factors that cause them or impede them from being ready and feeling ready to teach online. Barriers Barriers to teaching online are readily identifi able and prolific in research, professional journals and even in trade magazines (Agee, Holisky, & M., 2003; Aggarwal, 2000; J. Angers & D. Machtmes, 2005; Baker, Boggs, & Arabasz, 2003; M. Baker, R. Boggs, & P. Arabasz, 2003; A. W. Bangert, 2004; J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003; S. Bennett & Lo ckyer, 2004; Carrol-Barefield, Smith, Prince, & Campbell, 2005; Faseyitan, Libi i, & Hirschbuhl, 1996; Hislop & Ellis, 2004; Howell, Saba, Lindsay, & Williams, 2004; King, 2002; Kinuthia, 2004; Kosak et al., 2004b; Lawhon & Ennis-Cole, 2005; Maguire, 2005 ; Meyer & ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education., 2002; Qing & Akins, 2005). The impressi ons that these author s describe are those told by faculty who use cutting edge technology, a nd indirectly, by educational support staff. The faculty in the middle have not been a source of information that informs the field. Instead, survey data has been compiled, high-end technol ogy faculty have been in terviewed, or written articles or trades-folk and the media have written articles about thei r own perceptions. The experiences of faculty in the middl e of laggards and cutting edge to date have not be reported or studied. Another barrier to faculty teaching online is a lack of representation in the governance of technology decisions (Grant, 2004). The administrative and academic structure at this southeastern university is of ten incongruent with information sharing and decision making processes. The university is moving towards faculty governance. For example, one of the colleges represented in this study, the College of Education actually operates under faculty governance. The body of people who make t echnology decisions for central campus are 14

PAGE 15

administrativeeither in job title or in prac tice, direction in tec hnology purchases for the enterprise are made from a financial or poli tical framework of understanding and most often made by administrators or faculty acting in admini strative roles. Because these decisions are not grounded in pedagogy or educational concerns, the possibility of not being successfully adopted by the faculty is heightened (Kinuthia, 2004). Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the pe rceptions, attitudes, be liefs and factors that influence the self-efficacy among f aculty who are skeptical but open to change with regards their readiness to teach online. How faculty perceive their readiness will be explored using Banduras Self-Efficacy theory as a theoretical framework. Qualitative methods and in terviews will be used to analyze the stories of faculty to gain a deep er understanding regarding why some faculty are reluctant to participate in web-based teaching. Research Questions 1. What factors support faculty self effi cacy in readiness to teach online? 2. What factors impede faculty readiness to teach online? 3. What motivations do faculty hold con cerning readiness to teach online? 4. What de-motivations do faculty hold c oncerning readiness to teach online? 5. What are the perceived causes of faculty resistance to web based teaching? 6. What attitudes and beliefs are conducive to faculty teaching online? Limitations This study is bounded, as are all qua litative studies, by the lack of general tran sferability of the findings (Creswell, 2005). The focus on la te adopters of technology may be considered limited with respect to the more immediate data that could be collected by interviewing the cutting edge and early adopters. However, the lack of qualitativ e data in the area of reluctant faculty perceptions of readine ss makes this study timely and cen tral to the growing demands placed on faculty for creating and conducting on-line learning. Also, the relevance of this study 15

PAGE 16

to the theory of faculty perceptions may be problematic because there is no theory currently available. Reliance upon a theoretical construct of self-efficacy, one outside the field of higher education, may further the implications of the findings to higher education faculty. 16

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Teaching online is an important part of many higher educational institutions and include benefits of increased enrollment, the appeal hi gh tech teaching to students (Carrol-Barefield et al., 2005), improved efficiency of classroom management and reduced withdrawals and absenteeism (Woods, Baker, & Hopper, 2004). Elemen ts of online courses vary in complexity and design. The range can begin at a low level of complexity, posting files and links to websites, where students proceed in a relative lock-step fashion at their own pace and on their own time and proceed to a higher level. For example, a higher level of complexity involves arranging learning experiences where faculty and students at a distance meet and interact in the same time in internet space. This is synchronous computer-based instruction, a more complex use of the online environment. As the complexity of the synchronous environment in creases, there is a greater dependence and expecta tion from faculty that the sy stem will work (Kosak, Manning, Dobson, Rogerson, Cotnam, Cola ric, & McFadden, 2004). According to the National Center for Educati on Statistics (NCES), 48% of college-level, credit-granting distance educat ion courses were offered at the undergraduate level of all institutions, and 22 % at the graduate level. Further, among institutions offering distance education courses, 43 % offered Internet course s using synchronous computer-based instruction (Statistics, 2005). All of these offerings require a great deal of work which is only made easier if all of the participantsstudents, administration and faculty-buy in. The purpose of this study is to work with f aculty to co-construct the meaning of faculty readiness to teach online. This study is intende d to offer in-depth understanding of what skills 17

PAGE 18

and qualities faculty perceive as important to successfully (as perc eived by participants) teach an online course or course component. The purpose of this chapter is to present an ove rview of research per tinent to this study. An overview of the following topics includes: (a ) the benefits of online education, (b) teaching techniques, (c) awareness of student needs, (d) technical hurdles and, (e) a summary. Benefits of Online Education The benefits of teaching online are dependent upon the audiencewhat educational tasks students are able to perform with in the sphere of their learning preferences; what benefits administrators glean from faculty offering online c ourses; what goal(s) faculty are trying to attain with the use of online learning techniques. Students have found that it is valuable to access information from a variety of places and take te sts online (Carrol-Barefield et al., 2005). They also have experienced a greater sense of mo rale and overall satisfaction with the learning experience (Woods et al., 2004). The benefits to administrators include increased enrollment, the allure of delivering high-tech education to students (Carrol-Ba refield et al., 2005), improved efficiency of classroom management and reduced withdrawals and absenteeism (Woods et al., 2004). For faculty who have course materials readily available online, the process of grading the interaction students have with those materials becomes streamlined (CarrolBarefield et al., 2005). This benef it is coupled with pedagogical a dvantages over traditional brick and mortar classroom techniquesnot having to duplicate materials, pass out documents, or listen to unqualified complaints of not having access to the materials before class (Covington, Petherbridge, & Warren, 2005). 18

PAGE 19

Students Benefits of online learning to students vary. However, students are able to work on their own schedule, readily access materials, read a ssignments and texts online, take advantage of non-linear access to learning, and asynchronous acce ss to discussions (Beasley & Smyth, 2004). In a face to face course that meets one or multiple times a week, students may be asked to turn work in at a specific time and pl ace. There is flexibility, if so desired by faculty, in an online course environment to have documents and assi gnments turned in by a deadline outside of a regular course meeting time. According to Hu ang, learners can arrange their learning around their everyday lives without being constrained by time and place (H.-M. Huang, 2002). This deadline can be monitored after the fact by faculty (in a technical fashion) and gives students the freedom to work when and where they choose. Many students work from a variety of locations, often in between the tasks of everyday life. Bringing books and materials into different environments is not always feasible, so access to materials during free time is beneficial. Online learning envi ronments facilitate access to materials, assignments and articles online (Swan, 2003). Non-linear access to course content provide s a meaningful way for students to access content as opposed to the linear face to face me thod where information can come too slow or too fast, the student not being ready to process the content. Access to information in this manner also empowers students to dir ect their inquiry in a self-m eaningful way (Picciano, 2002). Asynchronous access to discussions benefits studen ts ability to interact with faculty and peers in a manner that is mean ingful. Online discussion grou ps are characterized as being discussion-oriented, authentic, pr oject-based, inquiry-focused, a nd collaborative (H.-M. Huang, 2002). This use of the discussion to ol adds to the value of the c ourse and brings a semblance of appropriateness to a complex process. 19

PAGE 20

Institutional According to the professional organization E ducause, from an administrative standpoint, online learning represents an investment from the university. The return on this investment can be quantified (Educause, 2006). From the institutional pe rspective, benefits include increased enrollment, participation in the competitive hi ghly technical market (C arrol-Barefield et al., 2005), improved efficiency of cl assroom management and reduced withdrawals and absenteeism (Woods et al., 2004). Other institutional goals take the form of strategi c planning that involves transforming the teaching and learning experien ce, paving the way for increased enrollment, sustaining academic diversity and gaining a competitive advantage (Baker et al., 2003). Faculty The benefits to faculty te aching online are well docume nted. Maguire (2005) has categorized the motivators and inhibitors to on line teaching as: intrinsic motivators, extrinsic motivators, institutional motivators, intrinsic inhib itors, and institutional inhibitors. Of relevant interest are the intrinsic motivators which includ e intellectual challenges, adding to overall job satisfaction, improved working conditions, and self-gratification (Maguire, 2005). Grant (2004) recognizes the power of intrinsic factors with regards to training faculty to be ready to teach online. For example, he found that faculty find valu e in attending training in a facility close to and with members of their department. Attendi ng training with members of their department often builds a camaraderie that helps faculty see value in atte nding training. Training provides faculty with the tools, knowledge and guided experience to feel rea dy to teach online. This is an opportunity for faculty to influence others in their department and college to do things, like attend training, to be ready to teach online. 20

PAGE 21

Theoretical Understanding Faculty are the individuals who are respons ible for creating curriculum, developing objectives, compiling material to meet those obje ctives, presenting information in a variety of ways and providing guidance and feedback to stud ents. Readiness is a perception of the qualities one possesses when they are prepared to teach a course. Teaching online occurs when faculty members create or use an online service such as BlackBoard, WebCT, or even their own departmental or personal web space to store documents, keep grades, post discussions, and interact with students synchronously or asynchronously. Teaching Techniques Successful teaching techniques are important to improving the quality of online courses (A. W. Bangert, 2004; J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003 ; Grant, 2004; Howell et al., 2004; King, 2002; Kosak et al., 2004b; Yang & Cornelious, 2005). Bangert acknowledges the concern educators have about the lack of quality assurance pro cedures in online courses and suggests using a constructivist model of teaching a nd learning with faculty serving as facilitators or coaches while the learners actively construct mean ing and knowledge through interactive learning experiences (A. W. Bangert, 2004). Results of Bangerts study are focused on a qua ntitative evaluation of student response to survey questions evaluating faculty teaching. Self or peer assessment plays an important and tangible role in evaluating faculty teaching. The evaluation of faculty effectiveness based on student perceptions provides limited insight as the results are gleaned from a quantitative decontextualized assessment of a w holly subjective instrument. Howeve r, results from others in the field help to validate the importance of Bange rts suggested model of teaching and include assessment based on faculty input (J. Bennett & Be nnett, 2003; Grant, 20 04; Howell et al., 2004; King, 2002; Kosak et al., 2004b; Yang & Cornelious, 2005). 21

PAGE 22

Awareness of Student Needs The role faculty play in an online course is necessarily quite different than the role of a classroom instructor. Here, it is of paramount importance that the faculty member be aware of his or her students with regards to their needs, learning styles, a nd expectations (J. Angers & K. Machtmes, 2005; Baker, 2003; M. B. Baker, R. Boggs, & P. Arabasz, 2003; A. W. Bangert, 2004; Carrol-Barefield et al., 2005; Covington et al., 2005; Hi slop & Ellis, 2004; Levenburg & Major, 2000; Morris, Xu, & Finnegan, 2005). Teacher attitudes and beliefs are key to modifying their role as an online educator and the ability to pay attention to things they may previously have taken for granted in the past (J. Angers & D. Machtmes, 2005) Non-verbal cues which may have been one of these things taken for granted in the traditional classroom is an extremely significant factor in human interaction. According to Baker (2003), 60% of interpersonal communication is nonverbal. Faculty (especially t hose new to online teaching) must be open to this change in role and perspe ctive including utilizing interactive elements to their course and being aware of everyday thi ngs that impact students (C ovington et al., 2005). This change in the manner of teaching can be terribly difficult. How does one notice someone sitting in their home in front of thei r computer nodding off to sleep? How do you hear the sneezing and wheezing of an ill student? How can you see a student with their arms crossed in front of them in a symbolic stance of disagreement? How can you see the active listening cues that are evidenced by the nodding of the head, eye contact, appropriate smiling during a conversation? A change from the way in which teaching is done in the classroom is imperative to this role change. This change is more than just at the practi cal level; it must occur at the theoretical plane (Baker, 2003; A. W. Ba ngert, 2004; Carrol-Barefi eld et al., 2005; Hislop & Ellis, 2004; Levenburg & Majo r, 2000; Morris et al., 2005). 22

PAGE 23

Technical Hurdles As with any reliance upon technology, the n eed for support and training is extremely important to overcoming technical hurdles that would otherwise quash development of teaching and learning in an online environment (J. Be nnett & Bennett, 2003; Grant, 2004; Howell et al., 2004; King, 2002; Kosak et al., 2004b; Rice, 200 4; Yang & Cornelious, 2005). There will always be rationale for centraliz ed support of systems such as em ail or an enterprise course management system and even some of the more general aspects of support and training. However, when it comes down to the actual work ing with faculty, the decentralized approach often breaks down the institutional and inter-persona l barriers often associated with apparently disinterested core service support. Grant (2004) advocates a decentralized approach to faculty development and cites smaller focused training wo rkshops as important to effectively engage faculty in active learning. Bennett & Bennett (2 003) also recognize the importance of removing barriers from faculty with the goa l of facilitating online learning. Th ey focus on the literature of diffusion where the characteristic compatib ility is discussed (J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003). Compatibility looks at the measure of how mu ch a faculty member s ees the instructional technology tool as consistent with their values and philosophies of teaching. The training that faculty receive must be aware of the values and philosophies that impact the faculty in a particular field. General knowledge of values and philosophies will only serve to confound the issue. Faculty need a peer presented approach to faculty development and support through faculty mentors, administrative a nd technical support a nd collaboration with faculty and students (Yang & Cornelious, 2005). Conclusion One problem with online education is that traditional faculty (t hose who normally teach face-to-face) are often placed in the position of having to teach online. They are pressured by 23

PAGE 24

their peers, administration and by students (J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003). Resources, training and other solutions are sometimes offered to facu lty (Agee et al., 2003; J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003; Grant, 2004; Rice, 2004) but the piece that is mi ssing is the faculty per ception of readiness. Some studies have come very close and even ha ve offered resources in a decentralized manner such as offering small group instruction on instru ctional technology tools at the department level (Grant, 2004). This way faculty c ould feel less threatened and actua lly discuss issues specific to their field and interests, rather than work with other faculty from a completely different discipline. However, faculty should be involved in the objectives stage of the training development (Agee et al., 2003; Lawhon & Ennis-Cole 2005). What is it that the faculty feel is important to be successful in teaching online? Wh at aspects of their face-to-face courses do they want to transform into an online version? Facult y are an integral part of this learning process and need to be included at an earl y stage in the training development. Maguire recognizes the need to focus on faculty attitudes and specific factors motivating and inhibitingaffecti ng participation in online, we b-based teaching (Maguire, 2005). The perception of faculty members readin ess to teach online align themselves with Maguires observation. 24

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 3 METHODS The Setting The southern university where this study took place is a public, land-grant, research university. The university sprawl s across the state in extension service locations, satellite campuses, and hospitals and clinicssome reachi ng far outside the states borders. There are sixteen colleges that make up the academic organization of the university, among them are the Colleges of Education, Dentistr y, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health and Health Professions, and Veterinarian Medi cine. Participants for this study are from the Colleges of Education and the Health Science Center. Th e College of Education (COE), founded in 1906, has five academic departments. The colleges mission recognizes a di verse global community and is geared towards problem solving and collaborative preparation of pr actitioners and scholars (C. Webmaster, 2006). The mission targets a diverse world population and sees its customers as scholars and practitioners. There are 115 fu ll-time faculty and a pproximately 1,900 full-time students (C. Webmaster, 2006). The six health-related colleges form an academic, administrative and clinical unit known as the Health Science Center (HSC). The HSC and was founded in 1956. The HSC is an integrated academic enterprise whose main purpose is to operate as a single campus dedicated to training a variety of professiona ls side by side to safeguard th e health of the citizens. The mission recognizes the diversity of its customers (the student community) yet sees this as an alliance with a common goal. There are 300 full-time faculty and over 6,000 students (H. Webmaster, 2006). The College of Education and the six college s of the HSC represent complex, dynamic and political academic and administrative units. Both areas are geographically close, yet are far apart 25

PAGE 26

with regards to mission and recognition of student body. The COE produces scholars and practitioners while the HSC, for the most part, trains professionals. For the purposes of this study, interviews and observations comprised the data collection techniques as they are well suited to get at faculty perceptions (Lawhon & E nnis-Cole, 2005). Archival records, field notes and a research journal assist ed in background information and with creating a detailed description of the settin gs and research experience of thes e two unique areas. The interviews took place either in the particip ants office, classroom or in a centrally located administrative office. The observations take place either in the classroom, online, or in the participants office. Physical Setting The College of Education is housed in a moderately refurbished 1934-built school. A major section was added on in late 1970; both sections house academic and administrative staff as well as classrooms. The offices are generally small and are equipped with a wide variety of second-hand furniture. The faculty, however, do have up-to-date computer systems, most of them are of the Macintosh variety and only a few of them are WinTel (Window Operating System and Intel Processor) based. The classrooms range from traditional school-style rooms with black chalk boards and 1970-ish tables, ch airs and desks. The technology in most classrooms is an overhead projector. Some room s have computers and da ta projectors; however, most of the projectors are old. Some offices and classrooms have windows looking out on the college grounds which are surrounded with aged oak trees and other natural features. The HSC facility is comprised of ten buildings in close geographical proximity. The age of the buildings ranges from pre-1956 to those curren tly under construction. Th e facilities include space for administrative, academic, research and clin ical responsibilities. The offices range from small open cubicles and small closed offices to large, multiple room office suites. The furniture ranges from recently purchased high-end modern to second-hand collections and isolated pieces. 26

PAGE 27

The classrooms range from closet-sized to larg e lecture style auditorium s. The technology in the classrooms ranges from light switches and power outlets to distance education capable rooms. The higher end rooms include plasma screens showing the remote a udience, follow-me cameras that track the speaker and follow them as they walk, and video codices that send video and audio of the classroom particip ants as well as computer video in simultaneous streams. In between these two extremes are the majority of rooms that are equipped with a new computer, projector and electroni c writing tablet. Faculty computers are very wide ranging from the absolute latest and cutting edge to older, outdated systems. The newer buildings have windows while the older buildings usually do not. The sc enery outside is mainly buildings and roads. Social Setting The social setting of this study will include interviews and observations which will take place in the classroom, online, in faculty offices or in a central administrative location. The interviews were comprised of open ended questions designed to facilitate conversation and elicit faculty stories. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. There are numerous articles about faculty development, tips for teaching online, and incentives for faculty to teach online, but lack ing in the literature ar e articles about faculty perceptions of readiness to teach online. Additionally, training programs designed to assist faculty in preparing to teach online often times are based on good ideas and personal biases of professional trainers. Rarely is a gap analysis of skills performed. Instead assumptions are made and tools are taught in a lockstep and at times pedagogical (true se nse of the word with trainers leading faculty by the hand, walki ng to knowledge, showing them the way rather than working with faculty and building upon current knowledge). Tip sheets are created, videos constructed and workshops held. Expert technology trainers ex-faculty and even very well qualified instructional designers, describe on-line teachi ng, but faculty member teaching and researching 27

PAGE 28

in the field have not been represented in researc h. Public perceptions hold that university faculty are not required to learn to teach. However, they are required to be skilled in their field. This firsthand knowledge puts them in a unique positi on to understand how to be ready to build and teach that content online. For the purpose of operationalizing my con cepts: Faculty are those people that are responsible for creating curriculum, developing objectives, compiling material to teach those objectives and providing guidance and feedback to students. Readiness is a perception of the qualities one possesses when they are intrinsically prepared to teach directly or indirectly a course or course section. Teaching online is wh en a faculty member creates or uses an online service such as a course management system, or even their own departmental or personal web space to store documents, keep grades, post discussions, and interact with students synchronously or asynchronously. Subjectivity Statement I have been in faculty development for the past 11 years either training faculty formally or as a faculty member myself in the classrooms of higher education institutions teaching students. In the higher education system, I work with facult y at the Universitys Health Science Center. Through interactions with these faculty and staff I have grown to appreciate the complexities of teaching extremely technical and personal course s and making the transition to teaching online. Some faculty approach support staff and want them to scan slides and documents so they can then upload them to a course management system. Others want to learn ho w to create interactive web components for an online course. Some appro ach staff a year or a semester before their course is held and some come for help after the semester has already begun. For the past six years I have trained faculty in the use of technology including using the Blackboard course management system and prod ucts that support creat ing content for online 28

PAGE 29

teaching. Most recently, I have assisted with th e migration of our Health Science Center faculty to a new course management system. The migration was handled efficiently and expertly but with minimal input of facultyfrom heavily weighted opinions of support staff and administrators. Through observing faculty in wo rkshops, I have seen that many are willing participants excited about the ne w tool and its possibi lities for teaching, some seem threatened by the technology and the steep learning curve associated with th e new software. In training some are engaged and some are not as they sigh loudly with the slow pace of some of their peers and the training. These experiences have shaped my view of teaching online. Having supported a user friendly course management system for 6 years, I have a bias towards ease of use over features and have a dislike of complex teaching environments that are too cumbersome. The training currently offered for the new system is in a nd of itself too complex, lengthy, and based on good ideas rather than informed methodology. It seems to be a combination of an immature framework (Astronomy for Poets is the name of the sample class within which training takes place) which is misleading and skills that are not equivalent to those used that is in stark contrast to the complexity of the system. Navigation is extremely convoluted. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) web standards and World Wide Web Consortium (WC3) standards are not strictly followed. Faculty are forced to use an obfuscated internal navigation which does not allow for the use of conventional browser controls. File management is complex and quite different from computer file systems, web space systems and previous course management systems. Faculty development is a difficult charge. Prof essionals involved with faculty development have diverse attitudes and beliefs about work ing with faculty, as do faculty working with 29

PAGE 30

trainers, ranging from full comfort and familiar ity with each other to fear of technology and asking for help from a non-academic, which can lead to estrangement and lack of confidence. I believe that both extremes could benefit from engaging faculty in discussion prior to and during training. My skills in qualitative research are gr ounded in coursework, intense immersion in evaluation and qualitative foundations (theoretic al and practical), data collection and data analysis over the course of two years. I have worked under expert tutelage, as part of a research group, and independently as a qualitative researcher resulting in national research presentations and publications. Using Nvivo soft ware I have analyzed data for two research publications and have also provided training to f aculty and students in its use. Participants Ten faculty members were selected for this study. They were from the College of Education and the Health Science Center. The sampling was criterion based where participants had a major teaching responsibility (as opposed to research or clinical) of greater than time and who have taught for two or more semesters over the past two years utilizing appropriate online teaching techniques in a hybrid course (a face to face course w ith online extension and activities that promote communi cation, foster group work and enhance the classroom learning experience). In this case, appropriate online t eaching techniques include interactive teaching using discussion boards, chat rooms, and simulations. These ten faculty members helped co-construc t the data generated by this study through the telling of their stories. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained and then an email script that was used to invite faculty to participate in the study (See Appendix C). After receiving approval, I ema iled university faculty and staff who are close to faculty and who could 30

PAGE 31

facilitate access to them (gatek eepers) to request their involveme nt in the selection of faculty participants (or informan ts) of this study. Key gatekeepers who facilitated access to participants include Jill, of the College of Dentistry; Ned from the College of Education; William, from Learning Support Systems (course management system administrator); Mark from the College of Medicine, Office of Medical Education; Justin, from the College of Nursing; and Horace, from the College of Pharmacy. The number of colleges is limited to allow for a depth of knowledge of faculty perceptions of efficacy in their readiness to teach online. The College of Education and the colleges of the HSC have had a recent increase in the number of faculty who teach online. The combination of Education and the HSC is designed help to create a rich body of data from two similar areas with dissimilar course management systems. By sel ecting two areas of campus, I hoped to get a broad and deep understanding of the dist inct groups and to gain insight in to a diverse group of faculty. Each gatekeeper was individually and informally interviewed in person in a mutually agreeable location during the initial part of this study to assist in compiling a list of faculty who meet the qualification guidelines previously mentioned. I initiat ed contact by telephone with the gatekeepers, providing eac h, if they agree and at a later meet ing, a list of requirements. I asked them to consider the faculty with whom they worked and had them suggest those who met the criteria and who might be willing to work on this project. To help better prepare the thinking process and evaluation that each gatekeeper we nt through in helping select faculty I also discussed with each gatekeeper the concept and details of this study, including conceptual framework, research questions, data collec tion techniques, methods and timeline. Once the informants were identified the gate keepers assisted me in placing a phone call or email introduction of me to the faculty so th ey would not be entirely surprised by my first 31

PAGE 32

contact with them. My first contact with facu lty was on an individual basis via email using the pre-approved email script submitted to IRB. If th ere was a lack of response from faculty (within seven days), I followed this first message up with a second email message including a carbon copy to the associated gatekeeper. Ana teaches in the College of Nursing. She is a warm and friendly female in her early sixties. She is a tenured associate professor who has been teaching fully online courses for the past two years. She has also taught hybrid cour ses for the same two years and prior to that and currently she taught and teaches f ace to face courses. Ana star ted teaching online courses out of a desire to expand her teaching. She teaches mainly graduate students and also teaches the occasional undergraduate course. Art teaches in the College of Medicine. He is an athletic and f unny male in his early forties. He is a non-tenured clinical assistant professor who has been teaching hybrid courses for the past three years. Art started adding web-base d resources to his face to face course out of the desire to meet the requests and needs of his students. He teaches only graduate students. Bill teaches in the College of P ublic Health and Health Profe ssions. He is a serious male in his early forties. He is a tenured associat e professor who has been teaching hybrid courses for the past three years. He started teaching onlin e to provide his students with a means to access course documents and web-based materials in an organized and readily available manner. He teaches graduate students. Dan teaches in the College of Education. He is an easy to get along with male in his mid sixties. He is a tenured professor who has been teaching hybrid courses for the past year and a half. He mainly teaches students face to face e ither on the main campus or in a cohort format on 32

PAGE 33

a distant campus. He started teach ing online as part of a move by his department to offer courses online. He teaches graduate students. Doug teaches in the College of Nursing. He is a considerate and honest male in his mid forties. He is a tenured clinical assistant pr ofessor who has been teaching online courses for the past three years. He teaches an even amount of face to face and fully online courses as well as teaching clinical courses in the hospital. He was assigned an online teaching responsibility. He teaches graduate and undergraduate students. Marge teaches in the College of Nursing. She is a critical and poignant female in her mid forties. She is a non-tenured associate prof essor who has been teaching hybrid and online courses for the past three years. She was as ked to teach online by her administration. Marge teaches undergraduate and graduate students. Melissa teaches in the College of Public He alth and Health Professions. She is an energetic and thoughtful female in her early fortie s. She is a non-tenured assistant professor who has been teaching hybrid courses for the past year She voluntarily has become involved in using the course management system. Meli ssa teaches graduate students. Pam teaches in the College of Education. She is a soft-spoken and knowledgeable female in her early forties. She is a non-tenured assi stant professor who has been teaching fully online courses for the past two years. She was ma ndated to teach online by her department. She teaches undergraduate students. Pat teaches in the College of Pharmacy. He is an outgoing and story-telling male in his late fifties. He is a tenured professor who has been teaching hybrid courses for the past five years. He has also taught distance education via video conferencing. He was mandated to teach online. He teaches graduate students. 33

PAGE 34

Stew teaches in the College of Pharmacy. He is a precise and straightforward male in his early fifties. He is a tenured clinical asso ciate professor who has been teaching online and hybrid courses for the past six years. He began teaching online as a way to keep in touch with his students when he travelled. He is now mand ated to teach online. He teaches graduate students. As each informant confirmed their interest, I scheduled a time and place for our first interview, provided them with my cellular phone number and requested a contact phone number for them in the event that ther e was a problem meeting, and inform ed them of a backup location. One work day preceding the interview I sent a re minder email message about the time and place of our scheduled meeting. On the day of the meeting, I checked my recording equipment for fresh batteries and recording space. I also brought an extra recorder and batteries. I arrived five to ten minutes early to ensure the location wa s ready for the interview. Data Analysis: Narrative Analysis Analyzing spoken and written words to get at meaning is a common approach that helps begin to understand the thoughts, history and beliefs of huma n beings (Feldman, Skoldberg, Brown, & Horner, 2004). Some of the earliest oral tr aditions in history take the form of stories. These stories, including the ep ics of Virgil and Homer through modern day delivery methods of film, book and music, fulfill one of the four criti cal orientations of litera ry criticism; namely: mimetic, pragmatic, expressive and objectiv e (Adams & Searle, 2005). The expressive orientation informs us about the importance of telling and interpreting stories. This orientation looks to the purpose of literatu re and has been described by so me of the most talented and thoughtful writers throughout histor y including Plato, Aristotle. Hora ce, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Dante Alighieri, Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Alexander Pope, Samuel 34

PAGE 35

Johnson, Immanuel Kant, William Blake, Friedrich Von Schiller, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, John Keats, Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Emile Zola, Anatole France, Sigmund Freud, and Lionel Trilling (Adams & Searle, 2005). These well written authors offer criticism on literature and may also help to inform the analysis of stories through use of Narrative Analysis. Analyzing spoken and written words to get at me aning is an approach that helps begin to understand the thoughts, history and beliefs of human beings. This approach is used by scholars across discipline and epistemological boundaries. Po sitivists use structured surveys, closed questions and statistical symbol s in their work. Every research er who writes and goes through the process of rewriting uses analysis of thei r own work to build upon early drafts. From the constructivist point of vi ew analysis of informants expressive narratives help s to uncover an understanding of how meaning is made of events, how human conduct is shaped by experience, how the nature of reality for an individual is shaped by cultural messages, and a multitude of other dimensional outcomes (Hatch, 2002). Historical Overview of Narrative Analysis Narrative analysis has its origins in the assump tion that people like te lling stories and that their lives can be self-described in terms of stories because this is a primary method for people to make meaning of events in their lives (Daiute & Lightfoot, 2004). The stories that people choose to tell, the settings they choose to describe, the events they choos e elaborate, the details they choose to present all have an impact on the impression made on the listener/reader. The way in which people try to make others understand something either through the use of metaphor, simile, analogy, and/or description is telling of their cu ltural and social influences as well as the way in which they make sense of the world. 35

PAGE 36

On the individual level, research ers have explored the concept of how self is constructed through the act of storytelling (San ds, 2004). The actual process of how this self is constructed is well documented and assists in understanding differences in culture and psychological perspectives of organizations and individua ls (Daiute & Lightfoot 2004). Stories about organizations and other general t opics are actually stories told by individuals who offer insight into the perspective and interests of the storyteller. Narrative analysis uses methods typically used in literary studies to look at and construct meaning of the stories of informants. The method act ually has its origins in the social sciences as positivist research began to have difficulty expl aining things in naturalist terms (Reissner, 2005; Riessman, 2006). The narrative format for analysis is not an analysis meth od with clear-cut steps leading to an overall process. The steps are re latively flexibly and systematic which leads the inherent complexity of this method (Daiute & Lightfoot, 2004). Diversity Narrative analysis is inherently interdis ciplinary (Riessman, 2006). The primary method of communicating with others is th rough telling stories which is not isolated to any specific field of study. In scholarly fields, narrative analysis is evident in Public Admini stration in studies that look at organizational change in city management, forms of gove rnment and public participation (Feldman et al., 2004; Hampton, 2006; Miller & Jaja, 2005). Education makes great use of narrative analysis in the areas of curriculum, inclusion of exceptional students in mainstream education, physical education, socio-economic power differentia ls, educational philosophy, and assessment and evaluation (Connelly & Clandini n, 1990; Dorries & Haller, 2001; Oliver, 1998; Ruano, 2005; Smeyers & Verhesschen, 2001; Webbstock, 1997). Psychology also utilizes narrative an alysis to look at alternativ e levels of narrative analysis in health education research, st ructure of narrative analysis as from the elderly Japanese 36

PAGE 37

viewpoint, the relationship between psychology and marketing from the consumers perspective, the meaning of child care for women raising th eir young children, and comparative analysis of existential and narrative analys is (Murray, 2000; Naudin & Azor in, 1998; Nomura, 2005; Sands, 2004; Stern, Thompson, & Ar nould, 1998; Tokuda, 2004). Narrative analysis is used in marketing while looking at trends in marketing research (Zinkhan & Delorme, 1995), in information t echnology to examine information requirements during and Enterprise Resource Planning (like PeopleSoft) implementation (Alvarez & Uria, 2002), music theory (Almen, 2003) and in religi on while reconstructing a feminist Christian Doctrine. (Greene-McCreight & Carr, 2001; Lieu, 2000; Mankowski & Thomas, 2000) Journalism looks at the act of collecti ng as covered by a newspaper (Bishop, 2003), Organizational Studies looks at workplace emotions (Boudens, 2005), and environmental studies uses narrative analysis in an atte mpt to understand environmental remediation (Campbell, 2002). Medicine relies on narrative analysis quite a bit. Researchers evaluate community-based rotations, the relationship between a heart failure nurse specialist, their patients and their patients family as it copes chronic illness or breast cancer (Chin, Aligne Stronczek, Shipley, & Kaczorowski, 2003; Patricia Davidson, Paull, Rees, Daly, & Cockburn, ; Patricia Davidson, Paull, Rees, Daly, & Cockburn, ; P. Davidson, Paull, Rees, Daly, & Cockburn, 2005; Fiese & Wamboldt, ; Lawson, 1998), among many others. Within the field of faculty development and online learning, the lite rature is devoid of qualitative studies using narrativ e methodology. This could suggest that faculty are not readily and regularly asked to participat e in discussions about developi ng workshops about online course development. 37

PAGE 38

Instrumentation There will be three instruments for this st udy: a semi-structured interview protocol, a faculty observation worksheet, and an archival /setting/background records data sheet. The researcher created each instrument and check ed the validity by asking graduate student colleagues and the members of my dissertati on committee to review the protocols. The interview data was collected and transcribed th en verified through the use of member checking by providing informants with a copy of the t yped transcript and asking them to check for accuracy. The semi-structured interview protocol was used to assist with the interactive interview process as discussed by Hatch (2002). Questions that asked request descriptive, structural, and contrasting information were written. Faculty we re asked to discuss par ticulars of the social scenes that have helped create a sense of self efficacy with relation to teaching online. The researcher talked with faculty about the kinds of things, the steps in achieving and the characteristics of efficacy and readiness to teach online. The interview protocol was comprised of open-ended questions that prompt us to compare examples of related elements of their social worlds in relation to teaching online. These quest ions provided the data in the form of stories that were analyzed using narrative analysis. Data Collection In order to facilitate conversa tion, a semi-structured interactiv e interview and protocol with open ended questions as suggested by Hatch was used. The interviews were tape-recorded and transferred to a personal computer that was physically secured behind a locked door in an alarmed house on a password protected computer and the audio files encrypted. The encrypted audio files will be backed up to a physically secured, password protected and encrypted USBkey. Once the integrity and availability of the au dio files and their backups on the computer and 38

PAGE 39

removable drive were verified, the audio recording on the tape recorder were deleted and the process of transcribing the interview began. The electronic files were maintained in their secured and backed up state until after the study is completed, turn ed in and accepted by my committee and college. This data were collected during the sche duled interviews. Collecting data through interviews provided a record of the co-construc ted information created during the interviews. Although the term semi-structured was used, it is informal enough to allow for following leads as suggested by the conversation. The term semi-structured come s from having a set instrument, setting a meeting time and setting a place for the interview (Hatch, 2002). According to Holstein and Gubrium when di scussing how meaning is elicited through the interview process, it is actively and socially assembled in the interview encounter (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003, p. 4). One way that people respond to a question is with a story. Stori es are useful to both participants and observers of organizations because they are a basic tool that individuals use to communicate and create understand ing with other people and for themselves (Feldman et al., 2004, p. 147). These encounters provided data that were analyzed for constructed meaning. The protocol for the study c ontained open ended questions de signed to elicit stories about faculty beliefs. I asked faculty to tell me about a time they may have felt confident and/or ready to teach a class online. I asked them to tell me wh at it was like to have something get in the way of them feeling ready to teach on-line. I asked them to take me through a motivating experience and also through a de-motivati ng experience they have gone th rough with regards to on-line teaching. In an effort to end on a positive note, I asked them to consider a faculty member with whom they are familiar that is the most reluctan t to teach on-line in their department, college or university. I asked them to imagine this pers on recently having been extremely successful in 39

PAGE 40

teaching an on-line course. Next, I invited them to describe what this conversation might look like and also have them step backwards in time to when the possible solutions to the resistance previously exhibited by this faculty member with regards to teaching on-line were solved. Data from the observations were from the physic al spaces where we met in to discuss the research questions and the physical (office) and ethereal (web) space where faculty teach online (discussion boards, white boards, chat rooms, et c.). Through the use of observation, I gained a perspective and a sense of setting and time for the narrative offered by each faculty member. Studying the physical setting of the office helped me form a fuller pictur e of the environment within which a faculty member creates and interact s with their course. The ethereal space helped to enhance the surrounding physical setting and also assisted in di splaying a more full view of the place where students and faculty interact. Th e archival data consiste d of previous course evaluations collected from the website (The Un iversity, 2006), training transcripts, and samples of faculty perceived successes from their prev ious online courses. The previous course evaluations were used to get an impression of the general like or dislike of the course/faculty member by students. Field notes and a research j ournal were used to provide rich detail in an effort to create a fuller pictur e of the setting and responses to research questions and a deeper understanding away from the research setting. Data Analysis Interview transcripts were anal yzed using narrative analysis. The transcribed data were read thoroughly keeping the resear ch questions in mind and noting st ories that were told. I took notes in the margins to record my initial impressions. During the second read of the transcript I kept a list of my research questions nearby and re ferred to them as I read and consider what was said during the interview and attempted to id entify narrative themes. The textual analysis proceeded in chunks. 40

PAGE 41

Prior to the second intervie w I began with a member checking where I presented the informant with a transcript of our discussion al ong with a summarized version of my notes and asked if I accurately recorded their stories and if the notes were aligned with the content of their stories. After clarifying this document, I bega n to ask any follow up questions based on the data from the first interview. This meeting was recorded with the same care as the first interview and the data subsequently transcribed and analyzed in the same manner using narrative analysis. This process was repeated (although pe rhaps in parallel) with each pa rticipant. To decide if the stories and their implications were supported by the transcript data, I went back to the transcript to verify the story data. I looked for themes that possibly similar between participants, grouping the College of Education and the HSC separately at first, and then looked for similarities between the themes for the two groups. To ensure the integrity of the data, I went back to the transcripts and verified the context of the stories. A r ecording of these representative stories were presented to a group of my peers for review. Next, a diagram was created expressing the relationships (if any) between and within the stories. The findings were then reported in narrative format using excerpts from the data as referenced. These findings were summarized in a discussion and overview section. My personal reflections were written up as an interpretive co mmentary. References to the literature were cited and limitations of the findings discussed (Creswell, 2005). Validity Validity in qualitative studies is quite different than its namesake in traditional positivist studies. The latter seeks to align with a goal of a single truth. Qualitative studies seek to confirm the process in a social world through th e use of truthfulness a nd auditable steps which form the basis of trustworthiness and in turn, va lidity (Bailey). By describing the methods I used, 41

PAGE 42

the manner in which I collected and then analyzed the data, and by putting forth my subjectivity in an explicit manner, I hope to achieve a collegial level of trustworthines s that is credible and that my processes, although not seeking an objective reality, would be confirmable and in essence, valid. 42

PAGE 43

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction Six research questions guided this study: 1. What factors support faculty self-efficacy in readiness to teach online? 2. What factors impede faculty readiness to teach online? 3. What motivations do faculty hold co ncerning readiness to teach online? 4. What de-motivations do faculty hold c oncerning readiness to teach online? 5. What are the perceived causes of faculty resistance to web-based teaching? 6. What attitudes and beliefs are conducive to faculty teaching online? This chapter presents the results of these que stions based on narrative analysis of faculty interviews (n =10). The results are presente d organized first by rese arch question, then by themes within that question and as appropr iate by sub-themes within that theme. This study of faculty readiness to teach onlin e is intended to offer detailed understanding of what skills and qualities f aculty perceive as important to successfully (as perceived by participants) teach an online course or course component. Success, then, is relative to faculty and multi-faceted including faculty sense of acco mplishment, student evaluation of the course, student evaluation of teaching, dist ribution of student grades, peer review, administrative review, as well as other factors. What factors support faculty self-effi cacy in readiness to teach online? Seven themes arise with regards to self-efficacy when soliciting faculty stories. The themes of self-reliance, personal interest, suppor t, experience, reflection, online testing, and a simple course management system ar e manifest throughout their narratives. Self-Reliance Self-reliance is having the knowle dge, ability and desire to comp lete tasks related to online teaching. This aspect of readiness helps to bolste r faculty belief that they can be successful in 43

PAGE 44

managing their online course. Four faculty memb ers retell seven experien ces with being selfreliant and help to describe the teach ing landscape within their discipline. Art shared his experience about being able to post handout files in a timely manner into the course management system. His department pur chased laptops for faculty expressly for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of faculty course leaders to create or obtain and post just in time content for students: we purchased laptops for the faculty lets say that the lecturer di dnt send me an email with the ppt, but in the morning you have th e device and you load it, I load it from his powerstick to mine, I stick my powerstick in my computer I take the file and I send it to students and those who have laptops can now follow along with the handout. Similarly, Ana chosen to do her own work in crea ting courses in the course management system so that she had control offer the distribution of materials and could respond to her students learning needs. In addition, Ana also cr eated a hard copy of her online course: I have a notebook like this for ever y single course I keep a copy of everything so if something happened to Web CT . [I] have the lectures preserved. So when a student calls me or emails me and asks me about something, I dont have to do a thing, I just flip through a book and can say its on so and so, its a nice little backup. Doing things on her own and being comfortable w ith the technical solutions she developed adds to her self-efficacy. Bill also liked to do his own work. He found it ea sier than waiting for his technical support staff and trying to keeping track of what was they did or did not post. Although his reasons differed, the timeliness of his posting supported his online teaching. Similarly, Art created videos of procedures on a camcorder and edits them on his laptop for later posting inside of WebCT on his own without technical support. Stew, an instructor and a program director, fe lt that working with technology-comfortable faculty might be an indicator of successful teachin g online. He reasoned that if a faculty member 44

PAGE 45

is comfortable with classroom technology, then th ey are more likely to be comfortable using technology to conduct an online session. Personal Interest Personal interest is expressed by statements that are beyond faculty interest in their discipline and refer to some aspect of teaching online. Having a persona l interest in teaching online is a one factor that supported faculty read iness to teach online. Six faculty relate six instances of personal interest. Ana described her interest in using synchronous collaborative tools as a means for reaching out to doctoral students. Because she believes st udents have an interest in technology, she is personally motivated to learn it. Her college is beginning to use synchronous learning tools and Ana, after seeing a demonstration at a faculty retreat, is planni ng to learn and incorporate one such tool inter her online course. Bill found that sharing his knowledge online was personally satisfying: What motivates one to do that to co mmunicate technical content in an exciting way thats meaningful and memorable is the goal . So to take what I do, it applies to me personally, is to be able to share that in such a way that its meaningf ul to others, and is personally satisfying. When asked why he enjoys teaching online, he described the importance of teaching scientists communication skills so they can have elev ator discussions about their research. Dan expressed the personal satisfaction he experiences by being one of the pioneers in his department and in his field, I was the first one in the college to do that and incorporate Elluminate software with that. Dan also di scussed his pride in winni ng a grant early during the college and departments initiative in de veloping a distance education program. Pat reported his belief that there is a pot ential for mass marketing some kinds of educational content without reduc ing quality. He described th e power of using video based 45

PAGE 46

teaching using a build your own course that could be an elective credit. He also discussed the implementation of a cafeteria style curriculum a littl e of this and a little of that; a choose your own path style of self-care video that taps into collective knowledge of students. At the time of this study he was in the process of looking into the feasibility of this approach. Technical Support Technical support involv es providing assistance for faculty and students. Typically this includes receiving assistance from the help desk as well as local instruct ional support. Technical support was seen as a factor critical in supporting readiness to teach online. Four faculty related four experiences with technical support. Online testing contributes to the sense of readiness for faculty by assisting with the administrative burden of teaching. Conducting online te sts, mostly low stakes, is seen to provide quick feedback for students when faculty use this in a traditional sense. In addition it is used as a teaching tool to motivate students to r ead or complete various assignments. Art shared his need for assistance with the grade book, I have just found it easier to call the eLearning people, theyve got good tech support, most people know the system, and they can walk you through how to do things. He seemed satisfied with the ava ilability of technical support staff. He also relied upon the technical support to assist him in creating online exams: We dont do paper testing but there s basically this super ni ce guy who works hard and is easy to work with if you can give him your tests 72 hours in advance, he usually converts my tests for me in less than five minutes. But sometimes we have parts like the session ends today and the test is tomo rrow and so we cant get it to him a couple of days ahead of time, so it puts him in th at crunch. But generally, if he knows its coming, you know, you tell him before hand, look I am not gonna be able to get it to you, hes very understanding. Art described how using online testing and the online grade book to helped to simplify the work he has to do in order to keep track and pr ovide access for students to see their grades. It also gave them the ability to see how they sta nd with regards to the rest of the class. 46

PAGE 47

Weve got to get 60 students through in one afternoon so, and online grade books allow you to keep track of their grades and give them access to their grades, them look at the statistics of their grades and the paper form at, give them back their quiz and they dont know where they are in their class. Online testing took part of the difficulty of managing feedback and au tomated some of the course grading. Marge reported her perception and observation w ith local technical support, and he said that, you know, you can have me come help. Bu t you know he, he will come. People call and he will show up. You know Pats impre ssion of his media support folks was: having someone like Andy is a tremendous asset, alwa ys available, always willing to help. Ah, how can I do this, this is what I want to do. Pam also reli ed upon her technical support staff with ease: Now we are real fortunate that with our distan ce ed department, Lilly before she left had been working on getting them into Flash, she put them into that format didnt have to do that, I just sent them the file and told them what I needed. She mentioned that her comfort with instructi onal design staff supported her readiness to teach online. Pam found online testing to be supportive of being ready to teach online. She talked initially about using some of the test banks fr om publishers, but then she realized that the questions were very low level, and decided that, although easy to use, that something else needed to take the place. So, the tests I do online now tend to be multiple choices, due to the ease of the questions, so theres a little more application. A nd I do include some short answers. Being able to draft her own test questions added to her readiness to teach online. Readiness due to a reduced administrative burden furthers the perception of readiness to teach online. 47

PAGE 48

Peer Support Peer support, working with colleagues on so me aspect of online teaching was another factor that sustained teaching online. Three f aculty discussed three inst ances of peer support. Ana worked with a peer who taught the exact class that she taught and used the same course shell. This second faculty member wa s assigned a section of the same course Ana was teaching and Ana took advantage of the scenario to arrange for this other faculty member to conduct a peer review of her course. So it rea lly was a good evaluation, be cause she actually got to teach what I did. So sh e wrote a real good evaluation. Pam enjoyed having a distance education depart ment staffed with people, were in her opinion were both technology and pedagogically va luable, So I go to Dan or Lilly and I say, this is an assignment that Ive done in class, how ca n I put this into a format that will work in an online class? The individuals that she speaks about were formally trained in educational technology but they are not faculty. Melissa recognized the importance of informal p eer assistance. She explained that she had opportunities to meet with faculty in a common area during lunch and at times one of them either struck up conversations about sim ilar situations that she experien ced in online or face to face classroom settings. She also described the technical assistance she received from peers as a factor central to her success. Experience Having experience in or a thorough understandin g of ones field also facilitates and helps readiness to teach online. Practical experience se emed to moderate fear of technology because of the participants strong content knowledge. Experience was discussed three times by three participants. Art reflected upon his experiences in clinical settings and past experiences teaching: 48

PAGE 49

For instance I taught over ten of the sections ove r the years; I teach a harder section in internal medicine but also teach emerge ncy medicine where I worked prior to coming over here. These experiences helped him make the transi tion to teach online. Although she did not differentiate between online and f ace to face instruction, Ana also relied upon her experiences to feel comfortable with teaching online. She expl ained that she teaches best when she thoroughly understands the content and has examples from which to draw upon. Melissa also cited experience, as a factor in fee ling ready to teach online. For example, it was around her 4th week of teaching her first online course, th at she finally felt comfortable. Reflection Reflection is what faculty think about in response to student and peer feedback. With regards to online teaching, faculty used reflection to evaluate met hods that they used to teach which often led to positive change. Three facu lty described three examples of reflection. With regards to student evaluation, Ana explai ned that she took the negative comments as feedback that she could use to make modifications for teaching the course during the next semester. She also talked about how peer fee dback sparked changes to her work. In online teaching this can be a difficult thing to obtain. For example, she mentioned a course with a video conferencing component: Yeah. I was going up for associate professor an d I needed evaluation. Well, what I ended up doing was recording one of the sessions. And then I sent it to my peer evaluator and she reviewed it and [then we] sat down together and watched the video tape of the class and talked. Even though this was for an administrative purpose, Ana mentioned th at the feedback she received help her spend some time reflecti ng on her course structure and content. Marge mentioned working with the univers ity course management system and she compared it to different systems that she used previously. She described her discomfort with the 49

PAGE 50

current technology as tedious and frustrating over even the simplest tasks of moving content and making sure it was available to students. While reminiscing, Melissa reca lled what not to do, it was just quite an experience. Ive learned quite a b it just from this semester about what not to do next spring. What factors impede faculty readiness to teach online? Six themes arise with regards to factors impeding faculty readiness to teach online including: student evaluations, technical support, administrative support, time, work, and faculty development. Student Evaluations Student evaluations are comprised of a set series of questions that are presented to students at the end of a semester. Typical ly the items focus on an evaluati on of the instructor and/or the course. Student evaluation of teaching can be perceived as an impediment with regards to teaching online. Art explained his anxiety afte r reading student evaluations. Do you read the evals? Wait for them and anticipate them? Absolutely, its horrible, its horrendous . I mean if you bust your ass, work a 20 hour day for this week period where you are trying to answer every email within 5 minutes and do all of this extra teaching, you know like coming in at 5 in the morning to start and the lecture goes basically from 7 to 715, so you are up on a day that you arent lecturing answering emails, you get your butt over here to class, send out emails handoutsthis isnt even lecturing. He explained that the administrati on of the course is being confused with the course itself, that he does not receive any genuine feedback from students since they either do not complete the evaluations at all, or they use it as a form of retribution. Pat also shared his anxiety and was concerned even if one student says negative things. 50

PAGE 51

Art described how he tried to use the surveys as a means to get an idea of their needs and desires with regard s to the course: I had an evaluation once [where] the dilemm a was that the students wanted to be out of class on time. Where they are in class from 7am to 1pm and all they wanted was a 15 min break and you better not let that speaker go 5 min into my break time. Because I need to pee and get my coffee and get ready for the next class. So then as the course master, you hound that guy coming in and lecturing for you, or yourself, you go ove r a little bit and they get upset. Thats the setting. So what can I do to help that? I talked to the lecturer when they came and I said, look this class needs to be done at 8:15 and I am going stand up in the back of the room and work my way up the lecture hall In other words, some classes are more responsive to your personality than others; some classes want you to be more successful than others. These are all my personal observations. You know the evaluations can ping a whole point on how you are positioned in the class, how you are, um and all that stuff. While he doesnt assert that the evaluations are useless, instead he point s out that the variance can depend on non-teaching matters that are out of his hands. Ana shared that she perceived student feedback as ambiguous. On the one hand, her students seem to have appreciat ed the freedom and flexibility afforded by the online teaching environment, while other students were frustrated with the lack of face to face time. Ana also pointed that teaching students who have mature and practical experience in nursing and lacking experience in leadership and management wa s frustrating, in her nursing leadership and management course. Bill recognized that to be successful in teaching online, he must have the right kind of student -mature and tolerant of the online a nd independent learning mo dalities. Bill also pointed out that in the more difficult courses; st udents preferred face to face meetings. He shared that: There was some positive feedback [but ] if you had them rate whether this was the best time they ever invested in education, theyd rather be dead. Bill pointed out that students seem to lack an appreciation for the time and effort that faculty put into developing and managing an online course. 51

PAGE 52

Marge felt that students became accustomed to receiving copies of notes and slides to the extent that they would be incen sed if they were not sent out or even if they were later in coming out than expected. Dan described students repor ting the course structure im peded their learning and the facultys ability to receive good evaluations in teaching online. However, Dan was empathetic about students concern about the lack of instructor-student inte raction. Pam observed that lack of instructor-student interacti on hurt her evaluation scores. In c ontrast Dan attri buted students tech savviness as helpful and stated that: the students helped get us up and running and actually took charge of it a nd ran with it. Technical Support Technology and technical support although enabli ng, was also an impediment to teaching online. For example, Ana expressed her frus tration over technology l eading teaching when it caused her to redevelop courses and that this precluded her from being successful in teaching online. Bill concurred and added that the personnels apparent n eed to retain complete control over the course management system was an impediment: Some of the technical assistance wasnt there. I mean if I want to see something get some stuff posted that afternoon, the technical staff is really busy, or if there is a limited number of them and they are out sick, well gosh golly, we cant help that and the stuff wont get posted. Stew recalled how the technica l support personnel obstructed hi s desire to post audio files of lectures inside the course management system. Ana also described what happened when th e technology did not work. She explained experiencing two different migrations of c ourse management systems and suffering by losing work time and having to fix broken links. Marg e echoed this frustration because she had to 52

PAGE 53

spend a weekend retooling a course and then found out that she had been working in the wrong section: It was communication problems . So I get this email saying that they were going to move all of our courses into the same title And I opened it up and I see this Fall 2008 template. One was 2008 in it, so I thought th is must be the one I am working in. I downloaded everything into that only to find out that it was migrated to one that wasnt on list. It didnt come up on my screen. So I realized that 2 days before classes started. Pam and Melissa experienced a similar situation, we re more accepting of the problems, as if this was an expected state within that they were expected to work. Bill described his frustration in wanting post so me files in a timely fashion and finding out that the tech staff was too busy to help. Ana, Bill, Marge, and Stew described the incompatibility between their work habits and the timing of assi stance. While they understood that the technical support staff were quite busy, and the importa nce of planning ahead, they described that things did not alwa ys occur in a timely fashion. Often things were done at the last minute and this impeded their success in teaching online. Administrative Support Administrative support referred to college and university a cademic management providing faculty with necessary resources to facilitate online teaching. Part icipants described there were instances in which college administrators made online teaching more difficult. Ana recalled how an enrollment cap of 30 was changed by admini strators who took advantage of her being new and assigned her up to 60 students. Instead of supporting faculty, giving th em resources or time they lay blame after a perceived failure or problem: they get absolutely killed in evaluations a nd youve got students standing at department chair door, the deans door, etc. and they tu rn around and say, what kind of a teacher are you? Why didnt you re-arrange the way you teach that course you shouldnt be requiring a paper fr om every student, 53

PAGE 54

Ana and Dan recognized that online teaching ha s been popular with administration but not because it enhanced teaching. Instead it was seen as an opportunity to generate money for the college. Doug asserted that the administrati on did not understand the difference between a face to face and an online course. After creating an online course, Doug received notification that I got the assignment that says, Oh well we n eed you to teach the live course, it seems like there was the impression that this was not going to be a big deal. Contrary to this idea, it was a big deal, not only to Doug but to his students as well. Ana and Pam lamented the lack of admini strative support in conduc ting and facilitating peer reviews of teaching as an opportunity to he lp enhance teaching in this new environment. Melissa and Pat saw peer review as an ad ministrative function and expressed their disappointment in not having this process available to them. Bill and Pat recognized that teaching was less valued than research in tenure and promotion, a truism they understood, but did not like. Melissa understood that writing research grants and service were imperative to attaining te nure, while Dan also felt that the administration perceived teaching as a low priority when compared to publications in the process of achieving tenure. Ana believed that service was the prim ary requirement for tenure and promotion in her discipline, while Pat reported his belief that th e president of the unive rsity as unsupportive of online teaching, [he] is not a big proponent of distance ed, from what I gather. Time Time is the investment that faculty gave in creating and maintaining an online courses. Creating materials took a significa nt amount of time. Art talked about trying to encourage his students to read before a lectur e and found that giving a quiz befo re the lecture ensured greater student readiness for class disc ussion. However, creating the content and uploading these quizzes 54

PAGE 55

took an extraordinary amount of time. Ana reported having to perform maintenance on a course when versions of the course management system changed: It changes, it requires me to go in and re-do stuff. Its more like sweeping the floor and painting the walls, its more of a maintenance role. Bill and Melissa echoed these frustrations and recalled the lack of time they had to prepare for an online course. They shared that there was an e xpectation that they would make these changes on their own time, beyond that which the college officially allocated to course preparation. Art mentioned that in his department, faculty were officially given two hours of paid preparation time for each 50 minute lecture. Bill reported that he needed to spend ten hours to prepare for a 50 minute lecture. He expressed his frustrati on with the time it t ook to physically upload documents to the course management system. Si milarly, Pat saw this task as taking time away from instruction: you gotta be kind of a magician, or at least the leader of the three ring circus to make that thing work. Pat also felt strongly that the amount time require d for preparation was wasteful. In setting up for a multiple point video conference, Pat describes spending more time on the technical setup than he did on the teaching. Work Work is the amount of effort that faculty percei ved they put into a task. Similar to taking a long time to create content online, the amount of work it takes to create content and manage students can be extraordinary. For example, Art described spending an inordinate amount of time creating content. He mentioned that the work requ ired was tedious. He reported that he needed to research each topic by first conducting a current lit erature review and he had to assemble this information into a lecture. After preparing each lecture, he created a PowerPoint presentation so that he could present the information in an orderly manner to his class. Rather than presenting a 55

PAGE 56

straight forward, bullet by bullet PowerPoint, he described using animation so that he did not overwhelm his students. Ana felt that the course management system required too much maintenance. She also felt that the administration pressured faculty to admit unmanageable numbers of students. Ana expressed her frustration about the amount of work that was require d to do to just get her course in an operational state, often rebuilding it from scratch, whereas most courses typically necessitated changes only annually. Bill, Marge, Pat and Pam held a strong di slike for their course management systems because of the unwieldy nature of the system. Marge stated: Its too cumbersome and it doesn t do, it doesnt. You ought to be able to take a document from one course, cut it and paste it into the ot her course. You cant do that. You have to, you know, open 25 screens to that document. This belief was also compounded by the fact th at some faculty had ha d experience with other course management systems that were simpler to use. Faculty Development Faculty development was the learning opportun ities that faculty had to enhance their teaching. Faculty development was offered by a department, college or by the university. Faculty development focused on teaching rath er than just admi nistrative technology. Ana teaches at a satellite campus, but she did not have access to resources available on the main campus and described the difficulty that she had with lack of access: Being on a satellite, an urban campus, its not like, Joe wouldnt help you, its just that theyre not here. And Clara helps us, but she s the technical person, not the software type person I mean she keeps me fr om shooting the computer. Even though assistance might be a phone call awa y, as Ana pointed out the satellite campus lacked resources for faculty. 56

PAGE 57

Melissa, relatively new, had had an over whelming amount of faculty development opportunities, but these were opport unities that the faculty or ad ministration in her department did not recommend. She mentioned that there was no central place to go to get information that was consistent and valuable. Pat also expresse d similar concerns after observing peers who tried to force traditional teaching styles into an onlin e environment. While he did not fault these faculty, he reported the lack of centr al faculty development opportunities. What motivations do faculty hold co ncerning readiness to teach online? Participants in this study described why th ey taught online. They reported flexibility, student needs, working with peers, success, and money as the primary motivations in their readiness to teach online. Flexibility Art, Dan and Stew reported the flexibility that teaching online afforded faculty. Art explained how the use of daily quiz empowered empowering students, the y come immaculately prepared for class its not like when I get up there, theyve never hear d of this before, but theyve had to do their own research. You know theyre smilingits a big buy in to learn. The success of his students helps motivate Art to t each online. Art also described the flexibility of time and place that teachi ng online affords faculty: And then their individu al faculty mentor reads that pa per and makes the comments, all on WebCT. So theres not this paper going back and forth and, you know, you can read it in your pajamas at 4 in the morning, whatever you want. Dan reported that the time he saved conducting a course online rath er than driving and searching for a parking spot on campuswhich he did not do when he worked from home. He also explained that teaching at satellite campuses on weekends as part of a distance education course allowed him to avoid traffic and parking i ssues. In Stews colleg e, many of the faculty 57

PAGE 58

travelled on a regular basis and online teaching gi ves them the flexibility of conducting a course from Germany just as they would from their home. Art used the course management software as a tool for teaching as well as for mentoring. We do this portfolio concept in a class the students, this is right before they go out to clinical rotations we ask them to ta ke a look at how they pe rform this year and on that test and determine areas of weakness. A nd then they upload that paper into webct. And then their individu al faculty mentor reads that pa per and makes the comments, all on webct . And then the follow up is based on how he did on that test and what you determine your strengths and weaknesses, now assess how you are going to improve your weaknesses. And again the faculty mentor w ho reads that paper makes the suggestion it also allows a way for the faculty mentor to go inside the students head a little bit. So when that student starts havi ng difficulty, this faculty mentor has been working with them on sort of a month or once every other mont h unitreading their intimate work, so when they go to the second year and theyve got a problem, you can pu ll up these files, so its a dual roleits a faculty mentoring too and its a faculty assessment tool. Its all done on WebCT. You can retrieve it back; its not looking for a paper. This flexible use of the course management syst em provided faculty with one place to log into to work with their students. Student Needs Many student educational needs such as access to course materials, methods of communication, and the ability to post assi gnments are addressed by the online learning environment. The existence of these technolog ical advances enhances the online experience. Dan felt that the use of teaching online addr essed the needs of working adult students with complex schedules. Pat also mentioned this however it was his college s desire to increase minority enrollment that caused them to offer onlin e education. However, he also felt that because programs pulled people away from their families and jobs that the program would be unsuccessful unless satellite locations were set up. Stew observed that the flexibility offered by online teaching impacted how much time students devoted to tasks. He re ported that students in his college made good use of time, its a 58

PAGE 59

four hour class, otherwise theyd have four hour s of inflexible time, now they only have two hours of inflexible time meaning that they only ha ve to be there for the discussion groups. In Dougs case, evaluations for his online cour ses were higher than his colleges mean for face to face courses. Thus, student feedback was a strong motivator for him and an indicator of his success, one of ma ny other indicators. Working with peers Working with peers provided a supportive lear ning environment and provided a platform for faculty who were interested in using i nnovative methods in online teaching. Both the camaraderie that was developed and the innovations used helped motivate faculty to teach online. Art was motivated to teach online to he lp manage the large num ber of faculty that worked in his course: so these are big modules going over the enti re human body and coordinates with other classes and we have multiple speakers, we probably have over 360 doctors, PhDs, and PAs that come in over that and coordinate wi th them, so you could see that if we didnt have some sort of platform, it would be really tough. He also explained that working with departme ntal colleagues motivated him to evaluate his teaching online. Along with his colleagues, they competed and tried to keep students average grades under 90 percent by using hu mor about test questions, extr a credit and physical prowess: Well, this year the big thing is this batch is so bright its hard to keep their averages out of the 90s, so everyone is givi ng everyone crap over having a class average of 92, and this guy is giving extra credit and his average is 95 and Im a stud because Ive got an 88 average and youve got a 95 and youve got to write better te xt questions. Pat talked about learning shortcuts and tricks that he learned from other faculty in using the course management system things that only other faculty who used that system could figure out. every once in a while and someone will show me a trick, and its staggering, How did you do that? And theyll say that its easy. So its a little frustrating in a way, ah that there is probably so many things that WebCT could do. 59

PAGE 60

Pam also appreciated learning from other facult y in her college. She describes a bi-annual college-sponsored event where faculty showcased th eir online courses for ot her faculty to view. Success and Money The success of programs owing to its enroll ment, continued existence, and financial stability motivated to faculty to teach online. Bill and Stew, for example described the overwhelming success of their programs. Bill rece ived positive feedback from his department chair; With exception of Hopkins, where the ch air there was extremely enthusiastic and the feedback was always popular. Stew was ac knowledged for his role in ensuring that a high number of students enrolled and matriculated as well as the funding th at his online program generated for the college. Bill also won a grant to create an online course. Dan was also motivated by working with cutting edge techno logy and his recent distance education learning grant award. What de-motivations do faculty hold concerning readiness to teach online? Teaching online can be a difficult and frustrating task for students as well as faculty. The largest contributing factors that participants id entified were time and effort, administration and class size. Time and Effort When the amount of time or the level of effort faculty expended reached a personal threshold, faculty experienced a de-motivation which sapped their desire to continue to teach online. Art described his frustration about worki ng beyond normal teaching such as creating quizzes on a very regular basis to ensure that stud ents read before coming to class. He also described the amount of time it took him to create a lecture in his discipline: 60

PAGE 61

It takes me 20 hours on average to do a lecture I havent done in a year or two. If I have to do a de novo lecture, one from the ground up, it might take me 300 hours, 300 hours to do it, do you follow? For a 50 minute lecture. Y eah, because you have to do all the basic research, youve got to read all of the arti cles, youve gotta go through it, youve got to dissect everything about how to teach it and onc e you get a template youve got to organize that template. And then you have to put it into PowerPoint, type all of the ppt slides, work with the sequencing the animations, you know. Although the end result may be wond erful, the time and effort that goes into this process demotivated him from teaching online. Bill echoed this sentiment and explained that winning a grant for online teaching course was the only way he had the time to create course because he was able to hire people to assist him. He realized that when he took a personal interest in some thing, it became a massive project and this made him reluctant to do so again. Pa m also described how re fining existing courses took a large amount of time and effort. Because of this experience, she reported a reluctance to undertake such a task again. Administration According to the participants, the administra tion of academics was also a de-motivation. Misunderstandings and miscommunicat ions diminished the facultys desire to be successful and teach online. Ana explained her frustration with the administrati on and their lack of understanding about teaching online. Her administration believed that online education could easily facilitate increased class sizes and compen sate for a shortage of instructors. While she recognized that this was technically accurate, she reported th at having over 30 students is a course section was unmanageable. Dan felt that the administration held him back from using technology to succeed: Ive learned over time that I dont expect necessarily to be rewarded for what I am doing. I just want to make sure that whatever I am doing, I dont want to get punished for it. Yeah. I dont expect to get the rec ognition for it; I just dont want to be caught. Moving forward on things, you know itll make a difference. 61

PAGE 62

Pam also did not expect her administration to be overwhelmingly interested in her teaching but saw their interest in online education only as a source of revenue for the college. Bill mentioned that his administrators lack of inte rest in a good teaching product as evidenced by no change in the amount of time facu lty received to prepare for cl asses. In his case, he was expected to spend the same amount of time whethe r he was teaching face to face or online. Marge discussed a lack of pers onal interaction with administra tors after she was given an assignment to teach a graduate course online. Sh e felt strongly that the course should be face to face, but her administration thought otherwise. Da n also talked about th e lack of face to face interaction and that his effort to overcome this by traveling to satellite sites which he believed was helpful. Pat pointed out how not getting to know students because he was pressed into teaching online without being given the tools or means to have equal or adequate interaction, impacted the quality of his teaching. Stew was discouraged from creating an online course on his own by his technical support person. Stew believed if he worked on his own cour se that this would threaten the job security of his technical support person. Class Size Each participant discussed issues pertaining to class size (numbers of enrolled students) some participants reported that most often administration viewed an online course as an opportunity to increase enrollment. However, some faculty experienced online course enrollment with double or triple the numbers they would see in a traditional face to face course as a demotivating experience. Ana discussed being pressed to allow over 30 st udents into her graduate courses which she maintained was the highest reasonably possible. She spoke to colleagues in colleges where the 62

PAGE 63

focus was solely on pure online courses. Also, she di d a lot of research about class size to arrive at her 30 seat limit. Bill saw the trend to teach more courses at th e expense of research and publications as a sad state. He explained that th e administration took advantage of distance education and had a short sighted perspective. Participants saw in creasing faculty teaching load without support and compensation as a de-motivating act. Marge and Dan felt the large size in thei r graduate courses diminished personal interactions. For the faculty, interacting with students was one of the most intimidating experiences. Not having those experi ences was perceived as de-motivating. What are the perceived causes of facu lty resistance to web based teaching? Resistance to web based teaching was supported by the studys participants when they discussed complications in the on line learning environment that did not have remedies. Issues related to resistan ce that the faculty identif ied included administration, change, interaction with students and difficult course management systems. Administration Some faculty reported that the administrati on often obstructed their efforts to teach. For example, Bill believed that his administration wanted the course he developed to live on. He explained that his administra tion wanted to have the course be a standalone module that did not require an instructoran idea that he described as absurd. Marge felt that administration failed to address faculty needs that were related to online teaching: I just think its absurd. If you told me that I had to teach in a classroom that didnt have any lights or that I had to move desks in ever y time I had to teach, I would be raising holy hell [well], this technology stuff, is like, this is the way it is, and were supposed to say, ok. Gee. You know, hit me again. I just th ink there was absolute ly no concern about faculty needs. 63

PAGE 64

Technology and decision-making caused Pat and f aculty from his college to resist when a decree went out over the land th at faculty would participate in this campus outreach program. Their lack of input into this decision still imp acts the amount that faculty would buy into distance education in his college. Pam talked about the lack of control that sh e had with aspects of her course after having made recent modifications to make it a fully distance course, changing it from the hybrid version that she had been teaching. Admi nistrative modifications and a lack of understandi ng also helped make faculty resistant to web-based teaching. Change Change that is not communicated well or t hought out has a tendency to come across in a negative manner and results in faculty resistance to teaching online. Changes in technology and tasks have become tedious. Ana shared her frus tration over the seemingly constant change that the course management system goes through: One of the aggravations of teaching only web is that every time we change a platform, then I have to go back in and make sure all the li nks are hot and so and so forth, Ive had to do that for the last three years because we have changed platforms. Platforms and versions, so sometimes you have to reload your Impatica and stuff like that. So instead of .spending time developing more case studies, I forego that and make sure there reference list is updated by at least a year, etc. and th en I spend my planning time converting this platform. Part of the issue with this ch ange is the lack of solid and consistent communication. Marge believed that the technology was leading the cha nge rather than teaching. Melissa described colleagues who were reluctant to continuously use the online course management system because so many things had gone wrong with the previous upgrade. Pat also experienced frustration in moving from an easy to use course management system to a more complex system. Likewise, Stew reported that ther e were some faculty who had experienced three different course management systems and eight versions of those systems. 64

PAGE 65

Interactions with students Art shared his frustration with student ev aluations and their absolute link to student grades. If a student were doing ve ry well in a course, they woul d rate the instructor and the course high. If a student were doing poorly in a course, they w ould rate the instructor and the course poorly. Ana was frustrated over submitting grades for students based on group activities when often one group member would cause others to suffe r lower grades or one would benefit from the hard work of their peers. The online format of her course necessitated this, and it was not easy for her or for her students. She saw her peers as afraid of the web and unable to communicate with students via any medium except for face to face. Melissa felt that there was an age gap between her and her students. The lack of personal face to face interaction troubled her and made her resistant to conducting such a course again. Pat reported why he missed interac ting with the students, I believe that I can have more impact by a looking them straight in the eye and a liv e class room and then I can pontificating over a bunch of zeros and ones in Computer Technology. Marge displayed frustration while interac ting with students and suggested that she modularize her course and place them on the web as a package for sale. Her dislike for the course management system was so overwhelming th at did most of her interaction with students over email. What attitudes and beliefs are conduc ive to faculty teaching online? Positive attitudes and beliefs of faculty about teaching onlin e are quite abundant within interview data. Faculty discusse d their presence, sharing with peers, technology, respect for students, pride, interest in their subject, time and patience when discussing positive aspects of teaching online. 65

PAGE 66

Faculty Presence Art talked about being sensitive to his stude nts need to reassure student that he was present in the course. He did, however, balance this presence between guiding students in the right direction when they were going down a wrong path, with respecting their ability to think and make decisions on their own. Doug shared a similar belief, about the need for faculty to have a presence in an online course. He stated, what I find to be perhaps the most important thing also I find that if I am absent from the discussions I start saying things like where is the instructor, its like they wonder wh ere I am. He calls this daily maintenance. As a new faculty member, Melissa believed that students needed to comfortable and she explained how she sought to do so in a guiding manner. Doug recognized the difference between teach ing online and teaching face to face. When asked, at the last moment, to teach a f ace to face version of his online course: I am an agreeable person so I said sure, I can do it but in fact it was a whirlwind of two different courses. I had 70 people in the live class and 30 in the onlin e. I think the online always takes me more time but it was like a se parate course. Separa te issues, separate problems preparations, different assign ments, different ways of evaluating. Doug described how this knowledge has helped to better prepare him for teaching courses online. Pat saw online teaching as an opportunity for faculty to focus on learning how to teach in this new environment. He mentioned that people entering teaching today need some instruction on how to teach in a didactic classroom. Bill viewed online discussions as a community concept rather than just the faculty being present. He talked about the time when he was teaching a purely onlin e course which at one point was so technical and conten t rich, that the class needed to meet physically for two sessions. He added two physical meetings because students needed them. 66

PAGE 67

In a similar manner, Dan talked about drivi ng to a campus to meet at a place convenient to his distance students, not for a class session, but to meet with a dissertation group. Sharing With Peers Art recognized the value of informal peer interactions and camaraderie: In another persons course [you ask] what do you need covered in the lecture, [or are asked] please cover this. Then you give the lecture and then ask, did I cover what you needed me to? And here are a couple of test questions. And then you have, you know I am having trouble on webct, can you help me; and Ill see if I can help you. Oh, I have to go to a conference, can you cover for me that day. A feeling of solidarity was also shared by Ana, who discussed her willingness to share the content of lectures and test quest ions with peers. She also talk ed about sharing techniques for teaching on the web in informal conversations and more formally at a retreat in front of the entire faculty. Dan and Pam talked a bout a faculty showcase where they shared and showed their web course to other faculty. Melissa expressed her apprecia tion for the opportunity to work with peers on an informal basis. She also valued the feedback that she received in a group sett ing from senior faculty: So every other week we meet and junior facult y are invited to meet w ith Dean P. and Dr. K and we have another senior faculty floating in and out and they encourage us to bring anything we are working on to that meeting to get feedback not only from them, but from other junior faculty in the room who may have, getting experience with CDC grants or anything like that, so thats so mething that has been fairly new and I think very helpful. She also explained that these meetings often se rved as a springboard to meeting with others where faculty would meet ove r breakfast and talk about their teaching philosophies. Technology Ana and Dan talked explicitly about pe rsonally enjoying distance education. Ana mentioned her success in getting her points across for a difficult course and that this process was more streamlined than face to face instruction. Dan recalled bei ng able to use the technology to provide a lecture from a remote state. 67

PAGE 68

Staying current with technol ogy is something that Art and Ana both considered. One way that Art found out about new things was thro ugh discovery, its a litt le bit like hunting for Easter eggs. Every now and then you come upon something, the more you learn about the system, oh, look at that; lets use that. Ana co-tau ght and shared resources with other faculty to stay current. Ana, along with Melissa, Pat, and Pam enjoyed the technology of distance education while stating that the advances in educational technology have benefited students. Doug, although he relied upon technology, is not dr iven by it. He taught courses where his students were truly at a distance. However, he let his technical support staff build and release contents to students. He reported that the tec hnology has given him the ability to delegate some of the administrative tasks and that this has freed him to teach and interact with his students. Melissa and Pat both talked about their ev entual willingness to try new technological things. Melissa contemplated about how to use the online chat to replace some of the face to face sessions she conducted and as a wa y to get students in larger classes to ask questions. Pat thought about his peers and their reluctance to work in a technologically rich course: so, a lot of the people that ente r into this, so called online teaching, are brought kicking and screaming from the first place, if not kick ing and screaming you continue, you may even submit a little bit or you may just become an enthusiast who tries new things, some of which fail and are of ten called pioneers. He also described some of the t echnological things he has tried in the past with video and some of the expert technical staff he has worked with including creating short vi deos and working with a television and radio program. More recently, Pat conducted web searches and included links to appropriate videos in his course. Ana, Pam, and Stew pointed out new faculty ac ross disciplines are expected to be open and experienced in instructional technology. 68

PAGE 69

Respect for Students Art, Ana Bill, Doug, and Melissa explicitly mentioned their desire for students to succeed in the online teaching environment. Art discussed walking a fine line between writing a hard test, getting low student evaluation and getting called into the directors office to be asked if he wanted to be in the program, only to be told that he should write an easy te st so that the students would love him. Ana described th e comments she received from a peer who evaluated her course and pointed out that her course is well organized, that students know where to find stuff. Doug also made consistent use of online teaching tool s. He made a strong effort to communicate his expectations to students. Bill mentioned his conscious efforts to provide practical information to students as well as share it in a meaningful wa y by taking things out of the scientific and technical realms, and sharing it in such an accessible way. Melissa assigned her students projects and had them present the projects to th e university community because she respected the value of their work. Art, Doug, Melissa, and Pat valued student in telligence and feedback. Art talked about his use of discussion boards and how he allowed students to answer one anothers questions. He described their collectiv e intelligence quotient as being greater than his alone. Doug discussed the way in which he used routin e quizzes, their results and email as a method of feedback to and from students. Melissa, who was teaching a large cl ass, talked about reworking her course based on the comments she received. However she was very anxious to get student feedback. Pat explained that how he casually qu izzed students on practical detail of his course to see if they were able to assess a patient professionally a seme ster or two after a course has been completed. He also relied upon his students when he had a t echnical question about so ftware. He described technology as what they do. 69

PAGE 70

70 Pride Bill, Dan, Doug, and Pat spoke about being proud of the work they did in distance education. Bill talked about being able to demystif y anything if given the resources to so. Dan reported enjoying that his course was organized and designed in a way that is unique to other instructors in his college. Doug reported being proud of his assignment to teach the web based portion of a graduate program. Pat spoke a bout his must do attit ude, seeing errors as opportunities and seeing himself as a problem solverall qualities that he saw as conducive to being successful in teaching online. Table 4-1. Technology, Time and Administration Technology Time Administration Supporting Factors Support and personnel Patience and awareness Attitudes and Beliefs Enjoy working with Impeding Factors Barriers (course management system) Perceived current lack Grants, research and service Lack of understanding Lack of peer review De-motivating Factors Anticipate Anticipated: Lack of understanding Lack of recognition Focus only on money Faculty Resistance Control Faculty work Faculty input

PAGE 71

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Conclusions The ten faculty that made up this study shar e the responsibil ity of educating and training career oriented students in the disciplines of E ducation, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy and Public Health and Health Professions Using criterion sampling each faculty member was purposively chosen because of their willingness to teach online and their recent experiences teaching online. Although each faculty members experiences and perceptions were unique, there were several themes around which faculty stories were aligned. Most prevalent among these were: internal value, influential and positive peer rela tionships, effort of new work and difficulty with administration. While telling stories about their succe ss, participants described an intrinsic drive to do well while holding an interest in their ow n subject. As faculty described the details of preparing and teaching online, they spoke about the support and knowledge they received when working with peers in informal and professi onal situations. Among t hose faculty who spoke about the effort and new work necessary to teach online, they also descri bed their frustration. Participants frequently desc ribed college and university ad ministrators as lacking an understanding of the time, effort, and infrastruc ture that was requisite to supporting distance education. Summary of Findings Six research questions guided this study. 1. What factors support faculty self-efficacy in readiness to teach online? 2. What motivations do faculty hold con cerning readiness to teach online? 3. What attitudes and beliefs are conducive to faculty teaching online? 4. What factors impede faculty readiness to teach online? 5. What de-motivations do faculty hold c oncerning readiness to teach online? 6. What are the perceived causes of faculty resistance to web based teaching? 71

PAGE 72

Guided by these research questions an analysis of faculty perceptions of readiness to teach online revealed six themes. Posi tive and negative perceptions of faculty readiness to teach framed each theme. (See Table 5-1) Table 5-1. Themes and Descriptions by Faculty (n=10) Connotations Theme Description Positive Connotation Negative Connotation Intrinsic Internal qualities that influence faculty success 9 (51) 0 Peers Faculty within the university 3 (19) 0 Technology Software and people 2 (17) 2 (14) Students Interactions with students 2 (17) 3 (20) Time and work Effort required to get things done 1 (3) 5 (29) Administration Higher educational management knowledge and support 0 3 (19) The numbers in the table represent the number of cover terms in that category while the numbers in parentheses are counts of faculty comments. Within the themes intrinsic and peers the majority of positive connotations that indicated faculty success were described. Intri nsic qualities refer to things like personal interest in the topic, students and teaching; self-reliance and pe rsonal enjoyment of working with technology; having positive online teaching experiences that mo tivate; using reflection to improve teaching; enjoying the personal flexibility that online teaching affords; and being proud of the distance education programs faculty were involved in building. The cover term peers refers to reliance upon, working with and sharing with peers including peer support in the form of informal conversations, camaraderie, work ing with technology savvy faculty, and sharing content and ideas with peers. Time, work and administration were the th emes in which the majority of negative connotations and perceived impediments were de scribed. Time and work refers the actual changes to the fundamental course management system and the work that ensues; difficulty 72

PAGE 73

using a course management system; the amount of time it takes to get acclimated to various technology tools; and the time it takes to cr eate and manage an online course. Administration refers to a lack of understanding of the time and effort it takes to build an online course. Participants shared their perceptions that the administration values publication and research over teaching and va lues distance education as a m eans to generate money and not as a mechanism to enhance teaching. Participants also described a lack of support from the administration, a lack of support for peer re view and resistance to faculty input. Findings and the Literature The body of literature on distan ce education cites the benefits of online education, teaching techniques, awareness of student needs, and technical hurdles as elements of faculty concern (J. Angers & D. Machtmes, 2005; A. W. Bangert, 2 004; Carrol-Barefield et al., 2005; Covington et al., 2005; Kosak et al., 2004a; Woods et al., 2004 ; Yang & Cornelious, 2005). Researchers in the field have identified the benefits for st udents, administration and faculty (Educause, 2006; Grant, 2004; H. M. Huang, 2002; Maguire, 2005; W oods et al., 2004). Of the topics in the online teaching literature, genuine a nd in-depth faculty input is the cr itical element that is vacant. However, it is a natural and easy fit if the time is taken to ask for and listen to the narrative of faculty who are reluctant yet willing to teach online. Benefits of online tests and online instruc tional delivery modes provide flexibility for students (Beasley & Smyth, 2004), increased enrollment (CarrolBarefield et al., 2005) and intellectual challenges for faculty, enhanced job satisfaction, working conditions, and selfgratification (Maguire, 2005). While convenient for students, online tests also benefit faculty. Faculty interviewed saw the flexibility of online tests as beneficial to them as much of the manual grading of multiple 73

PAGE 74

choice exams could be offset to such an extent that they are able to create and administer tests on an almost daily basis as reinforcem ent to reading course texts. Increased enrollment, while seen as a fi nancial boon by administrators, for faculty increased enrollment was proportionat e to the lower quality of a c ourse. Ana tells of having to fight to keep enrollment at 30, which is twice th at of what professional online schools allow. She explained that the administration faulted ne w faculty who accepted more than the enrollment limit of 30 after students complained about a lack of quality in the course. Dan described the administrations perception of in creasing enrollment in their distance education programs as a cash cow. The administration also lacked a ge neral understanding about the complexity of teaching online. Doug was teaching an online course and was given a face to face section of that course with one days notice. His administration erroneously thought that since the same book was used for both sections, that th e course was exactly the same. Benefits to faculty citied in the literature (intellectual cha llenge, job satisfaction, working conditions, and self-gratification) were evident in faculty interviews. A major addition to these benefits is working with peers. Five faculty e xplicitly mentioned peer su pport and interaction as a significant benefit to conducting online learning. For example, Art talked about his enjoyment while he worked with multiple faculty in a course as well as the camaraderie the emerged within his teaching unit. Ana had a peer teach a section of her course and eval uate the structure and content. Pat relied upon a co-teacher for the high technical component of their course. Melissa learned how to use the course management system from a fellow faculty member. Pam valued working with knowledgeable and technology oriented faculty. Another topic discussed in the literature was student course evaluations. Bangert recognizes the need for faculty input with regards the evaluation of teaching (2004). Faculty 74

PAGE 75

interviewed expressed negative opinions of stude nt evaluations. Art and Pat dread reading evaluations and see grade inflation resulting from faculty dependence upon good student evaluations for tenure and promotion. Faculty also discussed the ambiguous and narrow feedback left by students. Every participant interviewed discussed the need for peer review of faculty teaching. Some talked about the difficulty of doing peer review in the online learning environment while others were resistant to be reviewed by someone who was not an expert in their field. Ana told of one uni que opportunity that presented itsel f when a faculty member used her course shell to teach an online course. Subs equently that faculty member provided her with an in depth analysis and review of the course structure and material. Awareness of student needs in the literature was comprised of topics examining learning styles and student expectations (J. Angers & K. Machtmes, 2005; Baker, 2003; M. B. Baker et al., 2003; A. W. Bangert, 2004; Carrol-Barefield et al., 2005; Covington et al., 2005; Hislop & Ellis, 2004; Levenburg & Major, 2000; Morris et al ., 2005). Being aware of student needs was a motivating factor of teaching onlin e for faculty interviewed. This included awareness of course management system flexibility and its usefulness as a conduit of feedback. Art, Dan and Stew recognized the benefits that students receive fr om access to materials via the course management system and that inflexible time was freed up for students by providing asynchronous activities online. Faculty presence was a major theme from the in terviews. Art and Dougs regular presence in a course was important, especially in the di scussion boards where topics could easily go down erroneous paths. Ana, Dan, Doug and Melissa talk ed about faculty presen ce in terms of personal interaction. Personal interacti on was decreased in a fully onlin e course, but the tools in the 75

PAGE 76

course management system and aware faculty can overcome this deficit. Doug goes so far as to report that he knows his online students better than he does his face to face students. Additionally, the literature shows the importa nce of teacher attitudes and beliefs with regards to online teaching and the transformation of their role as an online educator (J. Angers & D. Machtmes, 2005). This article describes teachers beliefs that technology is a tool that adds value to lessons and to students learning and motivation. Contrary to this, Ana, Doug, and Pam approach technology in a more specific way. They start with a problem and look for solutions to that problem. A technology tool may be one of the solutions, but technology is not seen as a discrete and valued entity. For them teaching dr iving technology is a positive concept while they express frustrations with tec hnology leading and driving teaching. Angers and Machtmes also discuss administrative support and release time as aspects of online teachers (2005). Administration was one of the most common and negatively rein forcing elements for faculty getting ready to teach online. None of the te n faculty interviewed were given release time to develop their courses. Findings from the interv iews echo the importance of faculty attitudes and beliefs, but find these specifi c areas to be important: sharing with peers; interest in subject; faculty presence; respect for students; use of technology; pride in their course, program and college; time and patience. Technical hurdles are cited in the literature as important to overcome in order to be successful in teaching online (J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003; Grant, 2004; Howell et al., 2004; King, 2002; Kosak et al., 2004b; Rice, 2004; Yang & Cornelious, 2005). Faculty interviews strongly supported this need to overcome technical hurdles. F aculty interviewed enjoyed support 76

PAGE 77

staff who were available and knowledgeable about teaching. Some even were very willing to give up control of their course and allow support staff to make things av ailable to students. Others wanted full control. As discussed by Gr ant (2004) a decentralized approach to faculty development is preferred. Overwhelmingly supported is Yang and Corneliouss assertion that faculty need a peer presented approa ch to faculty development (2005). Review of the literature re vealed four major themes and 21 subthemes. Treating the subthemes as principles, Table 5-2 lists each prin ciple along with the major author and if this study confirms or refutes that principle. Implications to Theory In generally assessing the efficacy of the facu lty interviewed with regards to readiness to teach online, Pajares framework of level, streng th and generality is appropriate (2006). Level deals with the complexity and the range of the t hing in question. To get at level, discussion about future plans with regards to online teachin g were examined. Strength is relative to the self-confidence of a person and questions about technical opinions and instances of selfconfidence were analyzed. General ity looks at the ability to try and succeed at a new task based on the experience and success of wo rking on a somewhat similar ta sk. Exploring responses about using new technology were studied. Faculty were asked about the future of online education to glean a se nse of the level of complexity they planned on implementing in their online courses. Art ta lked about the relative ease and sense of surprise he experiences upon discovering new things that can be done online. He compares this to hunting for Easter eggs Ana sees herself moving towards synchronous learning using Elluminate. Her interest arose from other faculty showing her how they use it and also from faculty relating that st udents really liked the technology. Dan expressed an interest in simulation. He sees the complexity of doing some thing in Second Life and is quick to point out 77

PAGE 78

that the concept of faculty member and support t eam is an evolving relationship as one that can enable his teaching to become more multifaceted. Melissa is interested in putting a course fully online and taking advantage of recording some of the more mundane and unchanging lectures. She wants to spend more time working with student s via discussions and other interactions. Pat sees himself branching out in complexity through creating elective credit courses that are self paced. Strength of self-confidence was l ooked at in responses to tec hnical opinions and instances of self-confidence. Art was a specialist in the areas he taught. He coordinated and assembled handouts from multiple speakers, and created a nd used video to help his students understand procedures as ways to strengthen his self -confidence. Ana worked on obtaining a deep understanding of topics before sh e taught it, relied upon her hard copy of her course and was able to do her own technical work in preparation for starting a new course, all of which assist in strengthening her sense of confidence. Bill and Stew expressed their confidence through doing their own technical work. Dan and Pat took ad vantage of the flexible delivery formats of Elluminate and discussion boards. Generality looks at the ability to try and su cceed at a new task based on the experience and success of working on a somewhat similar task. This is the area where no data was found. Increasing use of one type of technology was well evidenced, but using the skills and familiarity of one type did not seem to offer help in learning that new type. Ana used video conferencing equipment to talk to remote sites. She also uses the discussion boards inside of the course management system. Elluminate is a tool that combines the use of chat, voice, and whiteboard so an instructor can conduct a lecture or use the space for a collaborative project. Although Ana talks about having seen, experienced and wants to use the software, she does not feel confident to 78

PAGE 79

do so based on her past experiences. Marge, who was quite familiar with one course management system, did not find those skills part icularly helpful in using a different course management system. Recommendations for Future Studies While collecting and analyzing the data from this study questions and themes arose that were outside the scope of this project. Succe ss for teaching in this study was left up to the individual interpretation by each faculty member. Success is discussed quite extensively in the literature (Carrol-Barefield et al., 2005; Howell et al., 2004 ; King, 2002; Qing & Akins, 2005; Stavri & Ash). Success, however, needs to be examined for online courses including the value of student evaluations of faculty and courses, student success based on grade distribution, faculty peer review, administrative review and presence of standards within an online course. Although there are some discussions in the literature about technology adoption (J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003; Kinuthia, 2004) with regards to instructional technolog y, the adoption process of centrally available technology at a university needs to be examin ed paying particular attention to faculty involvement. Extensive articles have been written about the value and n eed for faculty development (Agee et al., 2003; D. Bangert, Doktor, & J ohnson, 2001; Cavanaugh & NetLibrary Inc., 2004; Donohue, Kelley-Lowe, & Hoover, 2001; Duffy, Kirkley, & NetLibrary Inc., 2004; Educause, 2006; Grant, 2004; Lawhon & Ennis-Cole, 2005; Marcia Landen & Michael, 1996; McColskey, Parke, Furtak, & Butler, 2003; Payne, 1996; Sarg eant, Curran, Allen, Jarvis-Selinger, & Ho, 2006; Shea et al., 2004; Stanley, ; Wallin, 2003). However, there needs to be a survey of faculty development organizations looking at what suc cessful programs look like and what type of faculty involvement exists. 79

PAGE 80

Pedagogy is a popular topic in education (Aggarwal, 2000; Breier, 2005; Doppen, 2002; Duffy et al., 2004; Knowles, 1980; Shea et al., 20 04). However, what disciplines in higher education can benefit from andragogy as an appr oach to teaching and learning? What impact does andragogy have on teaching and learning in an online course? The themes that emerged from this study were based on the unique experiences and perceptions from faculty stories. Major themes we re: internal value, influential and positive peer relationships, effort of new work and difficulty wi th administration. Faculty have a voice filled with an understanding of their field and teaching that should drive distance education, faculty development, instructional design, and instructio nal technology. Table 5-2. Findings of study compared to literature review Principle Author Confirmed /Refuted Benefit to faculty -grading (Maguire, 2005) Confirmed -intrinsic-intellect ual challenge (Magui re, 2005) Confirmed -intrinsic-job satisfac tion (Maguire, 2005) N/A -intrinsic-improved working condi tions (Maguire, 2005) Confirmed -intrinsic-self-gratifica tion (Maguire, 2005) N/A -intrinsic-faculty development w ith peers (Grant, 2004) Confirmed -student access to materials (Covington et al., 2005) Confirmed Benefit to administration/institution -increased enrollment (Carrol-Ba refield et al., 2005) Refuted -allure of delivering high tech educatio n (Carrol-Barefield et al., 2005) Refuted -efficiency of classroom manage ment (Woods et al., 2004) Refuted -reduced withdraws and absent eeism (Woods et al., 2004) N/A -return on investment (Educause, 2006) Refuted Teaching techniques -student evaluation of teaching as a negative aspect (A. W. Bangert, 2004) Confirmed -assessment based on faculty input (J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003; Grant, 2004; Howell et al., 2004; King, 2002; Kosak et al., 2004b; Yang & Cornelious, 2005) Confirmed 80

PAGE 81

-successful teaching techniques are core to quality of online course (A. W. Bangert, 2004; J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003; Grant, 2004; Howell et al., 2004; King, 2002; Kosak et al., 2004b; Yang & Cornelious, 2005) Confirmed Awareness of Student Needs -learning styles (J. Angers & D. Machtmes, 2005; Baker et al., 2003; Baker, 2003; A. W. Bangert, 2004; CarrolBarefield et al., 2005; Covington et al., 2005; Hislop & Ellis, 2004; Levenburg & Major, 2000; Morris et al., 2005) N/A -expectations (J. Angers & D. Machtmes, 2005; Baker et al., 2003; Baker, 2003; A. W. Bangert, 2004; CarrolBarefield et al., 2005; Covington et al., 2005; Hislop & Ellis, 2004; Levenburg & Major, 2000; Morris et al., 2005) Confirmed -ability to modify role as an online e ducator (J. Angers & D. Machtmes, 2005; Covington et al., 2005) Confirmed -awareness of non-verbal cues (Baker et al., 2003; Covington et al., 2005) Confirmed -role change at the theoretical le vel (Baker, 2003; A. W. Bangert, 2004; Carrol-Barefield et al., 2005; Hislop & Ellis, 2004; Levenburg & Major, 2000; Morris et al., 2005) Confirmed Technical Hurdles -reliance upon technology, need for support and training (J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003; Grant, 2004; Howell et al., 2004; King, 2002; Kosak et al., 2004b; Rice, 2004; Yang & Cornelious, 2005) Confirmed -decentralized faculty devel opment (Grant, 2004) Confirmed -faculty compatibility between technology and values and philosophies of teaching (J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003) Confirmed -need for peer presented faculty development (Agee et al., 2003; Lawhon & Ennis-Cole, 2005) Confirmed -faculty mentors (Yang & Cornelious, 2005) Confirmed 81

PAGE 82

-administrative and technical suppor t (Agee et al., 2003; J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003; Grant, 2004; Rice, 2004) Confirmed -collaboration with faculty and student s (Yang & Cornelious, 2005) Confirmed -faculty attitudes about participating and teaching online (Woods et al., 2004) Confirmed -faculty dependence upon and expectations of systems (Kosak et al., 2004b) Confirmed -pressured by peers, administration and students (J. Bennett & Bennett, 2003) Confirmed New Findings from this Study -genuine, in-depth faculty input with regards to online teaching -faculty presence -respect for students The last section of this table represents findi ngs of the study that were not evidenced in the literature. 82

PAGE 83

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Epistemology: Constructivism Ontology: Idealist/Interpretivist Interview Questions Initial Interview Describe your academic field. Based on your perceptions, tell me about your experiences us ing WebCT Vista. What do you believe to be necessary skills to teach online? What qualities or aspects do you find valuab le with regards to teaching online? Follow-Up Interview I noticed that you did _____ during your class. How does that lend itself to your teaching? What is your perception of the f eedback about your teaching have you received from your peers? What is the perception of the feedback you ha ve received about your teaching from your department or college leadership? What is the perception of the feedback you ha ve received from stude nts after having taught online? What future expectations do you have with regards to online teaching? Observations As background information, not analyzed Faculty learning environment (physical and online) Faculty development and management of onlin e course materials in an office setting Archival Sources as background information, not analyzed Past online course material Course planning documentation Anonymous student evaluations Faculty peer evaluations Faculty departmental chair evaluations 83

PAGE 84

APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT Protocol Title: Faculty Perceptions of their Preparedness to Teach Online Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to partic ipate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine the faculty perceptions of thei r preparedness to teach online. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to volunteer to answer questions in two interviews about your field of teaching and impressions of what successful online teachi ng looks like. The first interview will take approximately 20 minutes and the second intervie w will take approximately 40 minutes. In order to facilitate discussion I will ask permission to record the interview. Between the interviews I will ask to observe you e ither in your classroom or in your office while you are conducting class. At the conclusion of the interview and of th e pilot study, you will be provided a copy of the study. Time required: 1 hour Risks and Benefits: You will benefit from qualitative feedback of your online teaching and from increased awareness of your teaching procedures. There are no anticip ated risks. Compensation: There is no compensation for part icipating in this research. 84

PAGE 85

Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the ex tent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. The list connecting your name to this number will be kept in a locked file in my faculty supervisor's office. When the study is completed and the data have been analyzed, the list will be destroyed. Your name w ill not be used in any report. This data may be used for future presentations or publications. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from th e study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Randy Graff, MEd. Educational Leadership a nd Adult Education, Assistant Director of Education and Training, Health Scien ce Center, IT Center, Box 100152, 352-273-5018, rgraff@ufl.edu Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein, 1202 Norman Hall, 352-392-0731 ext. 230, lsbhoren@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I volunt arily agree to pa rticipate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigat or: ___________________________________ Date: _________________ 85

PAGE 86

APPENDIX C IRB PROTOCOL 1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL: Faculty Perceptions of their Preparedness to Teach Online 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(s): (Name, degree, title, de pt., address, phone #, email & fax) Randy Graff Med. Educational Leadership and Adult Education Assistant Director of Education and Training Health Science Center, IT Center Box 100152 352-273-5018 rgraff@ufl.edu 352-273-5035 3. SUPERVISOR (IF PI IS STUDENT): (Name, campus address, phone #, e-mail & fax) Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein 1202 Norman Hall 352-392-0731 ext. 230 lsbhoren@ufl.edu 352-392-0038 4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL: From _1/19/06_ To _12/31/06_ 5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: (A copy of your grant proposal must be included with this protocol if DHHS funding is involved.) There is no source of f unding for this protocol. 6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: This protocol is part of a pilot study to investigate faculty perceptions of their preparedness to teach online. 7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON-TECHNICAL LANGUAGE The UFIRB needs to know what will be done with or to the research participant(s). This research will involve in terviewing one staff member on ce to assist with background information and to help determ ine and two University of Fl orida faculty twice each; one initial interview to establish rapport and gath er preliminary information followed by an observation of the faculty member in class or their office depending upon the type of course they are teaching (hybrid or purely online) and a second in terview to follow up on the observation. The interviews will be tape recorded an d transcribed. The recordings will be stored in a locked file cabinet and destroyed when th e study is over. This data may be used for future presentations or publications. 86

PAGE 87

This research will also involve examining archival data in the form of past online course material, course planning documentation, an onymous student evaluations, faculty peer evaluations and faculty departme ntal chair evaluations. 8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK. (If risk of physical, psychological or economic harm may be involved, describe the steps taken to protect participant.) The participants will benefit from qualitativ e feedback of online teaching and increased awareness of their teaching procedures There are no anticipated risks. 9. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANT(S) WI LL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, AND PROPOSED COMPENSATION (if any): Two participants will be over 18, faculty and will be recruited on a criterion basis (currently teaching at least one online or hybrid course and at least one year of previous online teaching expe rience) with cooperation of the key informant (the third participant) who is the manager of the Univ ersity of Florida, Office of Information Technology, Academic Techno logy, Learning Support Sy stems who is over 18, and involved with the University of Floridas Course Management System and knowledgeable about faculty interest an d time using the system. The faculty will be contacted by email using the attached template (see Email Template for Faculty Recruitment). There is no propos ed compensation. 10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (if applicable). All participants (two faculty and one staff me mber) will be presented with an informed consent document and asked to sign. Th ey will then be gi ven a signed copy. Please use attachments sparingly. __________________________ Principal Investigator's Signature _________________________ Supervisor's Signature I approve this protocol for submission to the UFIRB: ____________________________ Dept. Chair/Center Director Date 87

PAGE 88

88 Email Template for Faculty Recruitment Dear ________, I am a graduate student in th e Higher Education Administra tion program in the College of Education. My prim ary area of study is faculty develo pment. I also have an interest in online education that leads me to the point of this message. This semester I will be conduc ting a pilot study investigatin g faculty perceptions of their preparedness to teach online. Through conv ersations with Doug Johnson, Manager of Learning Support Systems (AKA, The WebCT Gu y) I have learned of your interest in teaching online and would like to invite you to participat e in this pilot study. Your involvement will take about one hour (split betw een two interviews and one observation) and will include talking with me about your perception s of preparedness to teach online. Please see the attached Informed Consent form for details. Thank you for taking the time to consider working with me this semester. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Randy Graff rgraff@ufl.edu 352-273-5018

PAGE 89

LIST OF REFERENCES AAUP. (1999). Statement on Distance Educati on [Electronic Version] Retrieved May 24, 2006, from http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/DistanceEd.HTM Adams, H., & Searle, L. (2005). Critical theory since Plato (3rd ed.). Australia ; Boston, Mass. United States: Thomson/Wadsworth. Agee, A. S., Holisky, D. A., & M., S. A. (2003). Faculty Development: The Hammer in Search of a Nail. Faculty and Staff Development, September/October 2003 1-10. Aggarwal, A. (2000). Web-based learning and teaching technologies : opportunities and challenges Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Almen, B. (2003). Narrative Archetypes: A Critique, Theory, and Method of Narrative Analysis. Journal of music theory, 47 (1), 40. Alvarez, R., & Uria, J. (2002). SPECIAL I SSUE Tell Me a Good Story: Using Narrative Analysis to Examine Information Requirements Interviews during an ERP Implementation. Data base, 33(1), 38. Angers, J., & Machtmes, D. (2005). An Ethnographic-Case Study of Belie fs, Context Factors, and Practices of Teachers Integrating Technology. The Qualitative Report, 10 (4), 771794. Bailey, P. H. Assuring Quality in Narrative Analysis. Western journal of nursing research, 18(2), 9. Baker, Boggs, & Arabasz. (2003). Student and Faculty Perspectives on E-learning Suppport. Educause Center for Applied Research, 2003 (16), 1-36. Baker, J. D. (2003). An Investigation of Re lationships Among Inst ructor Immediacy and Affective and Cognitive Learning in the Online Classroom. Internet & Higher Education, 7, 1-13. Baker, M., Boggs, R., & Arabasz, P. (2003). St udent and Faculty Perspectives on E-learning Suppport. Educause Center for Applied Research, 2003 (16), 1-36. Baker, M. B., Boggs, R., & Arabasz, P. (2003). Student and Faculty Perspectives on E-learning Suppport. Educause Center for Applied Research, 2003 (16), 1-36. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist, 37 (2), 122-147. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and acti on: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Bangert, A. W. (2004). The Seven Principles of Good Practice: A framework for evaluating online teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7 (3), 217-232. Bangert, D., Doktor, B., & Johnson, E. (2001). De signing Web-based Telemedicine Training for Military Health Care Providers. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 21 (3), 162-169. Beasley, N., & Smyth, K. (2004). Expected and Actual Student Use of an Online Learning Environment: A Critical Analysis [Electronic Version]. Electronic Journal on eLearning, 2, 43-50. Retrieved June 7, 2006, Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2002). Self-C onfidence and Personal Motivation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 2002 871-915. Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of f actors that influence th e diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. The Internet and Higher Education, 6 (1), 53-63. 89

PAGE 90

Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an Online Teacher: Adapting to a Changed Environment for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Educational Media International, 41 (3), 231-244. Bishop, R. (2003). Its Not Always About The M oney: Using Narrative Analysis to Explore Newspaper Coverage of the Act of Collecting. The Communication Review, 6 (2), 117135. Boudens, C. (2005). The Story of Work: A Narrative Analysis of Workplace Emotion. Organization Studies, 26 (9), 1285-1306. Breier, M. (2005). A Disciplinary-Specific Appr oach to the Recognition of Prior Informal Experienc in Adult Peda gogy [Electronic Version]. Studies in Continuing Education 27, 51-65. Retrieved June 7, 1968, from http://taylorandfrancis.met apress.com/link.asp?id=x4254n6190214032 Bright, L. (2004). Perceived bene fits, constraints, and negotiati on strategies of skiers and snowboarders with disabilities. from http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0008968 Campbell, R. A. (2002). A Narrative Analysis of Success and Failure in Environmental Remediation: The Case of Incineration at the Sydney Tar Ponds. Organization & Environment, 15 (3), 259-277. Carraway, K. L. (2000). Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement and life satisfacti on in high school students. Carrol-Barefield, A., Smith, S. P., Prince, L. H ., & Campbell, C. A. (2005). Transitioning from Brick and Mortar to Online: A Faculty Perspective. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8 (1), 12. Cavanaugh, C., & NetLibrary Inc. (2004). Development and management of virtual schools issues and trends Hershey, PA: Information Science. Chin, N. P., Aligne, C. A., Stronczek, A., Ship ley, L. J., & Kaczorowski, J. (2003). RESEARCH REPORTS Evaluation of a Community-Based Pediatrics Residency Rotation Using Narrative Analysis. Academic medicine : journal of th e Association of American Medical Colleges, 78 (12), 5. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). St ories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19 (5), 2-14. Covington, D., Petherbridge, D., & Warren, S. E. (2005). Best Practices: A Triangulated Support Approach in Transitioning Faculty to Online Teaching. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8 (1), 13. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research : planni ng, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill. Daiute, C., & Lightfoot, C. (2004) Narrative analysis: studying th e development of individuals in society. Davidson, P., Paull, G., Rees, D., Daly, J., & Cockburn, J. Cardiac Failure in Critical Care Activities of Home-Based Heart Failure Nurse Specialists: A Modified Narrative Analysis. American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 14 (5), 8. Davidson, P., Paull, G., Rees, D., Daly, J., & Cockburn, J. (2005). Activities of Home-Based Heart Failure Nurse Specialists: A Modified Narrative Analysis. American Journal of Critical Care, 14 (5), 426-433. 90

PAGE 91

Donohue, P. J., Kelley-Lowe, M. B., & Hoover, J. J. (2001). From Mythology to Technology: Sisyphus Makes the Leap To Learn. Access ERIC: FullText. North Dakotao. Document Number) Doppen, F. H. (2002). Beginning social studies teachers' use of technology in the teaching of history. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. Dorries, B., & Haller, B. (2001). The News of Inclusive Education: a narrative analysis. Disability and Society, 16 (6), 871-891. Downey, K. (2002). Relationship between football practice self-efficacy and game performance. Doyle, M. N. (2000). The effect of phase II cardi ac rehabilitation on self-efficacy and quality of life. Duffy, T. M., Kirkley, J. R ., & NetLibrary Inc. (2004). Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education cases from higher education Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Educause. (2006). ROI (Return on Investment) (Publication. Retrieved June 8, 2006, from Educause: http://www.educause.edu/Browse/645?PARENT_ID=174 Eisenberger, J., Conti-D'Antoni o, M., & Bertrando, R. (2000). Self efficacy : raising the bar for students with learning needs Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye On Education. Faseyitan, S., Libii, J. N., & Hirschbuhl, J. ( 1996). An inservice model for enhancing faculty computer self-efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 27 (3), 214-226. Feldman, M. S., Skoldberg, K., Brown, R. N., & Horner, D. (2004). Making Sense of Stories: A Rhetorical Approach to Narrative Analysis. J Public Adm Res Theory, 14 (2), 147-170. Fiese, B. H., & Wamboldt, F. S. COPING WITH PHYSICAL AND MENTAL ILLNESS Coherent Accounts of Coping with a Chronic Illness: Convergences and Divergences in Family Measurement Using a Narrative Analysis. Family process, 42(4), 14. Fort, T. L. (2001). Ethics and governance : business as mediating institution New York: Oxford University Press. Fox, B. D. (2000). Strategies to enhance self-e fficacy to improve exercise adherence in a worksite fitness center. Friedman, H. S. (Ed.). (1998). The encyclopedia of mental healthSelf-Efficacy San Diego: Academic Press. Grant, M. M. (2004). Learning to teach with th e web: Factors influencing teacher education faculty. The Internet and Higher Education, 7 (4), 329-341. Greene-McCreight, K., & Carr, A. (2001). Book Revi ews Feminist Reconstruction of Christian Doctrine: Narrative Analysis and Appraisal. The Journal of religion, 81 (3), 1. Hampton, G. (2006). Enhancing public pa rticipation through narrative analysis. SAGE Public Administration Abstracts, 33 (2). Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings Albany: State University of New York Press. Hislop, G. W., & Ellis, H. J. C. (2004). A study of faculty effort in online teaching. Internet & Higher Education, 7 (1), 15. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2003). Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Howell, S. L., Saba, F., Lindsay, N. K., & Williams, P. B. (2004). Seven strategies for enabling faculty success in distance education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7 (1), 33-49. Huang, H.-M. (2002). Toward Constructivism for Adult Learners in Online Learning Environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (1), 22-37. 91

PAGE 92

King, K. P. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. The Internet and Higher Education, 5 (3), 231-246. Kinuthia, W. (2004). Impediments to Faculty Engaging in We b-Based Instruction: Clarification of Governing Policies Access ERIC: FullText : Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Wash ington, DC.o. Docu ment Number) Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult e ducation -from pedagogy to andragogy (Rev. and Updated ed.). New York: The Adullt Education Company. Kosak, L., Manning, D., Dobson, E., Rogerson, L., Cotnam, S., Colaric, S., et al. (2004b). Prepared to Teach Online? Pers pectives of Faculty in the University of North Carolina System. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7 (3), 17. Lawhon, T., & Ennis-Cole, D. (2005). Advice fr om the Trenches: Experienced Educators Discuss Distance Learning. Journal of Faculty Development, 20 (2), 105-110. Lawson, E. J. (1998). A narrative an alysis: A black woman's percep tions of breast cancer risks and early breast cancer detection. Cancer nursing, 21(6), 9. Levenburg, N., & Major, H. (2000). Kindling the Fire: How to Attract Faculty to Distance Educatoin. Faculty and Staff Development, September/October 2000 8. Lieu, J. Narrative Analysis and Scripture in John. Journal for the study of the New Testament. Supplement series (189), 144-163. Lieu, J. (2000). Narrative Analysis and Scripture in John. Journal for the study of the New Testament. Supplement series (189), 144-163. Maguire, L. L. (2005). Literature Review Faculty Participation in Online Distance Education: Barriers and Motivators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8 (1), 20. Mankowski, E. S., & Thomas, E. (2000). Special S ection: Qualitative Research on the Narratives of Spiritually-Based Communities The Re lationship between Personal and Collective Identity: A Narrative Analysis of a Campus Ministry Community. Journal of community psychology, 28 (5), 12. Marcia Landen, Z., & Michael, M. (1996). Cla ssroom research: A faculty training opportunity for research administrators. SRA Journal, 28(3/4), 5. McColskey, W., Parke, H., Furtak, E., & Butler, S. (2003). A Structured Professional Development Approach to Unit Study: The Experiences of 200 Teachers in a National Teacher Development Project North Carolinao. Document Number) Meyer, K. A., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Highe r Education. (2002). Quality in distance education. from http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS44875 Miller, H. T., & Jaja, C. (2005). Some Evidence of a Pluralistic Discipli ne: A Narrative Analysis of Public Administration Symposia. Public Administration Review, 65 (6), 728-738. Morris, L. V., Xu, H., & Finnegan, C. L. (2005). Roles of Faculty Teaching Asynchronous Undergraduate Courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9 (1). Murray, M. (2000). Levels of Narrati ve Analysis in Health Psychology. Journal of Health Psychology, 5 (3), 11. Naudin, J., & Azorin, J. M. (1998). Binswanger & Schapp: Existential Analysis or Narrative Analysis? Translated by Catherine Wieder. Journal of phenomenological psychology, 29(2), 212. Nomura, H. (2005). Narrative Analysis and Coherence of Narrative Structure: A Methodological Discussion of Turning Points, as Told by an Elderly Japanese. Hattatsu shinrigaku kenkyu = The Japanese journal of developmental psychology, 16 (Part 2), 109-121. 92

PAGE 93

Oliver, K. L. (1998). RESEARCH NOTE: A Jo urney Into Narrative Analysis: A Methodology for Discovering Meanings. Journal of teaching in phy sical education : JTPE, 17 (2), 16. Orvis, K. A., & U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (2005). The influence of trainee gaming experien ce and computer self-efficacy on learner outcomes of videogame-based learning environments. from http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS69429 Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy information. Retrieved 6/16/2006, from www.des.emory.edu/mfp/self-efficacy.html Payne, S. L. (1996). Qualitative research and reflexive faculty change potentials. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(2), 20. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond Student Percepti ons: Issues of Intera ction, Presence, and Performance in an Online Course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 2140. Qing, L., & Akins, M. (2005). Sixteen myths a bout online teaching and learning in higher education: Don't believe everything you hear. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49 (4), 51-60. Reissner, S. C. (2005). Learning a nd innovation: a narrative analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18 (5), 482-494. Rice, J. (2004). Preparing School Technology Leaders for Online Professional Development: Training Efforts with El Paso Teachers for Online Course Facilitation in Texas STARgate. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7 (3), 12. Riessman. (2006). Narrative analysis. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Ruano, C. (2005). Understanding the cultural cons truction of wealth and power differentials through ethnographic narrative analysis in Colombia1. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 8. Sands, R. G. (2004). Narrative Analysis: A fe minist approach. In D. K. Padgett (Ed.), The qualitative research experience (pp. 48-78). Belmont: Wadsworht/Thompson Learning. Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis-S elinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facilitating interpersonal interaction and learning online: Linking theory and practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26 (2), 128-136. Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M ., Pelz, W. E., Duffy, T. M., & Kirkley, J. R. (2004). Faculty development, student satisf action, and reported learning in the SUNY learning network. In Learner-centered theory and practi ce in distance education: Cases from higher education. (pp. 343-377): Lawrence Erlbau m Associates, Publishers. Smeyers, P., & Verhesschen, P. (2001). Narrative analysis as philosophic al research: bridging the gap between the empirical and the conceptual. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(1), 71-84. Stanley, C. A. The Faculty Development Portfolio: A Framework for Documenting the Professional Development of Faculty Developers. Innovative Higher Education, 26 Number 1, 23-36. Statistics, N. C.F. E. (2005). Distance Educati on at Degree-Granting Po stsecondary Institutions: 2000 (Publication. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from Department of Education: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/2003017/ Stavri, P. Z., & Ash, J. S. Does failure breed success: narrative anal ysis of stories about computerized provider order entry. International journal of medical informatics, 72 (1), 8. 93

PAGE 94

94 Stern, B. B., Thompson, C. J., & Arnould, E. J. (1998). Narrative Anal ysis of a Marketing Relationship: The Consumer's Perspective. Psychology & marketing, 15 (3), 20. Surry, D. W., & Land, S. M. (2000). Strategies for Motivating Higher Education Faculty to Use Technology. Innovations in Education & Training International, 37 (2), 145-153. Swan, K. (2003). Learning Effectiveness: What th e Research Tells Us [Electronic Version], 110. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://users.edte.utwent e.nl/collis/2003-SelectedIssues/Gr3/Learningeff.pdf The University, P. O. (2006). Student Assessmen t of Instructors. Retrieved June 13, 2006, 2006, from http://www.aa.ufl.edu/aa /dass/tcheval/search.asp Thomas, T. L. (2006). Chlamydia infection populati on specific risk factors for female university students. from http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0015382 Tokuda, H. (2004). A Narrative Analysis of Mean ing of Child Care for Women Raising Their Young Children. Hattatsu shinrigaku kenkyu = The Japanese journal of developmental psychology, 15 (Part 1), 13-26. Wallack, C. E. (2002). Perceived racism, stress, optimism, social support and self-efficacy : factors in smoking frequency of African American males. Wallin, D. L. (2003). Motivation and faculty de velopment: a three-state study of presidential perceptions of faculty prof essional development needs. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 27 (4), 317. Webbstock, D. (1997). Quality Assurance with Resp ect to University Teaching in South Africa: A narrative analysis. Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 22 (2), 12. Webmaster, C. (2006). The College of Educa iton Website. Retrieved January 1, 2006, 2006, from http://www.coe.ufl.edu Webmaster, H. (2006). The Health Science Center. Retrieved January 1, 2006, 2006, from http://www.health.ufl.edu Williams, A. P., & Tedesco, J. C. (2006). The Internet election : perspectives on the Web in campaign 2004. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Woods, R., Baker, J. D., & Hopper, D. (2004). H ybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. The Internet and Higher Education, 7 (4), 281-297. Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2005). Prepari ng Instructors for Quality Online Instruction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8 (1), 1-21. Zinkhan, G. M., & Delorme, D. E. (1995) Qualitative Research in Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), 99-101.

PAGE 95

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Randy Allen Graff was born in 1968, in Jack sonville, Florida. The younger of two children, he grew up in Jacks onville graduating from Wolfson High School in 1986. He earned his B.A. in political science and English from the University of Florida (UF) in 1990 and his M.Ed. in educational leadership and adult educat ion from Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in 1993. Upon graduating with his M.Ed., Randy began te aching in a residen tial/outpatient child and adolescent psychiatric facility as a middle sc hool teacher in Daytona Beach, Florida. He has been a teacher for the past 15 years and is currentl y teaching faculty and staff at the University of Florida in the use of instruct ional and operational technology. Randys career took him from being a classroom teacher to being a lead techno logy resource specialist for the district, working with exceptional education teachers and district personnel with instructional, administrative and assistive technology. Randys career allows him to work with cutting-edge technology. On completion of his Ph.D. program, Randy will re tain his assignment to the Senior Vice President of Health Affairs and begin to focu s on building a faculty de velopment center. Randy has been married to Staci Graff (ADA Program Director) for 13 years. They have two daughters: Sydney, age 9; and Emily, age 6.