International Jl. on E-Learning (2009) 8(2), 223-240
Self-Actualization and E-Learning: A Qualitative Investigation of University Faculty’s Perceived Needs for Effective Online Instruction JODY OOMEN-EARLY AND LYNDA MURPHY Texas Woman's University, USA
[email protected] [email protected] Much has been written about why university faculty choose to refrain or participate in online instruction (Beaudoin, 1990; Bower, 2001; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; McKenzie, 2000; McKinnon, 1998; Paulson, 2002; Rockwell, Scheuer, Fritz, & Marx, 1999; Schifter, 2002; Wilson, 1998). Missing from the empirical knowledge base, however, are phenomenological studies that allow faculty to detail their own realities and factors that enhance or hinder their overall satisfaction and perceived effectiveness online. Researchers conducting this qualitative descriptive study explored the attitudes, experiences, teaching practices and perceived barriers to effective online instruction for university faculty. Participants (n = 101) were emailed an invitation to participate in the online, open-ended survey research through distance learning listservs within the United States. Faculty from two- and fouryear universities, nonprofit and for profit institutions, and who had taught online a minimum of two semesters were included in the sample. Data were coded for common themes, and five major categories emerged: Administrative and Institutional Support, Student Readiness, Instructor Readiness, Technical Support, and Academic Integrity. Implications for practice as well as suggestions for enhancing the “self-actualization” of online faculty will be discussed.
As online enrollments in higher education soar to new heights, more and more university faculty are transplanted rather than transitioned into the virtual classroom. Previous studies have quantitatively explored factors that impact faculty’s willingness to participate in E-learning or adopt virtual
224
Oomen-Early and Murphy
strategies (Beaudoin, 1990; Bower, 2001; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; McKenzie, Mims, Bennett, and Waugh, 2000; McKinnon, 1998; Paulson, 2002; Rockwell, Scheuer, Fritz, & Marx, 1999; Schifter, 2002; Wilson, 1998). However, there is a need to detail qualitatively what barriers exist for faculty who are veterans to E-learning, why faculty believe these barriers exist, and the perceived needs that increase or decrease faculty satisfaction and self-actualization as online instructors. The purpose of this descriptive study was to explore qualitatively university faculty’s perceptions of factors that inhibit or enhance the online teaching experience. Another purpose of this research was to build on previous research and address some of the gaps currently present in the empirical knowledge base relating to this topic. For example, E-learning has been fastened within higher education for well over a decade, and faculty’s perceptions change over time. Much of the research on faculty perceptions was published in the 1990s and early part of 2000s. In order to bring the literature base current and to capture the direct experience of the phenomenon under study, the researchers chose to take a descriptive approach using an electronic qualitative open-ended survey. The intent was to assess from a phenomenological nature what emergent themes illustrate the factors that lead faculty members to become more satisfied in their role as online instructors and more self-actualized in the online environment. The qualitative approach allows faculty a voice and provides a deeper understanding for obstacles facing the online instructor. The open-ended approach also identifies new, emergent themes that were not previously caught using quantitative surveys. These identified needs could initiate change within higher educational settings to improve both the virtual teaching and learning experiences and outcomes associated with them. Since faculty members are the major players in the expansion and facilitation of E-learning, the consideration of their realities and ideas for effective change is imperative. The following questions guided the qualitative study: 1. What do university faculty perceive as barriers to effective online instruction? 2. Why do these barriers exist? 3. What can administrators, distance learning staff, technological support, and faculty do to reduce or eliminate some of these reported barriers? 4. What needs must be addressed in order for faculty to achieve more satisfaction and self-actualization within the virtual classroom?
Self-Actualization and E-Learning
LITERATURE REVIEW
225
Much of the existing literature relating to faculty perceptions of E-learning focuses on faculty motivation and concerns toward distance education without distinguishing between faculty new to online learning and those with more experience. (Betts, 1998; Bower, 2001; Howell, Saba, Lindsay, & Williams, 2004; McKenzie, Mims, Bennett, & Waugh, 2000; Shelton & Saltzman, 2005; Shifter, 2002; 2004). Some of this research is outlined below. In her study, Betts (1998) discussed the need for faculty to feel supported by university administration. Faculty motivation to teach online is linked to the academic institution’s ability to eliminate physical and technical barriers and to stress the benefits of online instruction. Betts’s (1998) findings were similar to outcomes from a study conducted by the National Education Association in 2000. Faculty participants expressed a fear that teaching online would be too time-consuming and that their intellectual property rights would not be respected by their academic institutions. Approximately 84% of the respondents in that study did not receive course reductions, and 63% indicated that their administrators considered teaching online courses part of their normal work load despite the fact that a majority of the participants reported that they spent more hours on their online courses than on their traditional, face-to-face classes. The NEA repeated the survey in 2002. In the 2002 survey, respondents indicated that they were more likely to receive additional compensation to develop a course rather than to teach it. However, the time spent teaching the online course was still considered overwhelming (Shifter 2004). Likewise, Berge and Mulienberg (2001) suggested that technology and pedagogical changes are not the reasons that faculty members are hesitant to engage in online instruction; the major problems are associated with changes in faculty role, organizational function, and administrative structure. In contrast, Shelton and Saltsman (2005) underscored the need for faculty to obtain that technological and pedagogical “know-how.” The authors concluded that most faculty participants in their study were unprepared for teaching in a virtual environment. The two authors divided faculty’s reported barriers to teaching online into seven areas: faculty buy-in, policies addressing faculty concerns, faculty selection, faculty compensation, faculty workload, faculty support, and faculty satisfaction. Of the seven areas, Shelton and Saltman reported, the issues most pressing for faculty were compensation, faculty workload, and faculty selection In addition, Howell, Saba, Lindsay, and Williams (2004) noted four trends affecting faculty in becoming online instructors: 1. The traditional faculty role in the classroom is becoming “unbundled” and being redefined as a motivator or facilitator. 2. Institutions must provide more support for faculty engaging in
226
Oomen-Early and Murphy
online instruction, but faculty are not likely to engage in it. 3. The traditional process toward tenure is being challenged. 4. The attitudes of faculty toward distance education improve as they engage in it. Previous quantitative studies conducted by Bower (2001) and McKenzie, Mims, Bennett, and Waugh (2000) investigated factors that motivated and hindered faculty’s adoption of online instruction. Bower (2001) showed that factors such as flexibility, mobility, and the desire to reach more students were incentives to participate in E-learning, while McKenzie, Mims, Bennett, and Waugh (2000) reported that factors such as lack of incentives (monetary and professional), insufficient training, and workload served as barriers. Schifter (2002) investigated whether there were significant differences in ratings of factors that hindered or enhanced participation in online instruction according to gender and age. The results from the quantitative study revealed that neither gender nor age had a significant effect on faculty participation. However, Schifter (2002) did note that faculty under 30 commonly rated certain factors such as “concern for tenure” and “lack of salary increase” as top reasons for nonparticipation than faculty over 30 years of age. There appears to be a trend in the literature showing less faculty concern with individual barriers (i.e., personal fear or lack of technical skills) and more emphasis on the external factors that impede the instructor’s ability to teach effectively online. These external factors include such things as: the quality of the university infrastructure for distance learning, faculty support and training, and policies relative to workload, intellectual property, and tenure and promotion. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The origin of the study derived from three major theories: Constructivism, Job-Demand Control Theory, and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The theory of Constructivism – or the belief that individuals construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences – often drives qualitative inquiry (Derry, 1999; McMahon, 1997). An absolute truth is not as important as what is perceived to be reality (Kukla, 2000). Faculty in this research study were issued an open-ended survey so they could provide their own explanations of the “realities” they observed teaching online. The Job-Demand Control Theory (Karasek, 1979; 1989) suggests that work strain results from a combination of two factors: (a) demands that generate from defined task requirements of the work situation (such as time pressure, role conflict, and work load); and (b) control, which is the worker’s autonomy to make decisions and the breadth of skills the worker uses to cope with the workload. When combining these two factors, various strain
Self-Actualization and E-Learning
227
outcomes can arise. For example, faculty members who perceive they are well supported, prepared, and have autonomy in the transition to online instruction may exhibit lower levels of work strain and possibly experience lower levels of burnout than faculty who do not have these skills. Because technology often evolves at a faster pace than higher education, it is imperative to explore how university faculty members perceive their preparation, their university’s infrastructure for E-learning, their perceived level of support, their work strain, and the barriers that keep them from becoming “all they can be” in the virtual classroom. Administration, support staff, students, and faculty themselves can all gain from understanding what factors generate a happy, interactive online course room. Finally, this study is also framed by an adaptation of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Based on the qualitative findings, the researchers used the hierarchy pyramid schematic to identify and illustrate faculty “needs” which must be satisfied in order to achieve optimal teaching within the online classroom. Maslow proposed that individuals must first acquire such basic needs as food, shelter, and love before they can gain esteem and eventually become self-actualized, which pertains to living up to one’s full potential (Maslow, 1954). Self-actualization can only occur when all of the forgoing needs are satisfied. Maslow also believed that the only reason that people would not move well in the direction of self-actualization is because of the hindrances placed in their way by society. This theory is also applicable to the training and preparation of university faculty. If the basic needs for online instruction are met, then faculty members can move toward self-actualization, which allows them to explore innovative practices and facilitate lively, thoughtful cyber classrooms. METHODOLOGY
Once the Texas Woman’s University’s Internal Review Board had approved the study, an electronic open-ended survey was made available through Surveymonkey.com. The researchers in this study were given permission by three distance learning-related listservs to generate participation emails to faculty electronically. The announcement about the study and invitation to participate included an active link to the electronic survey. The researchers were also given permission to post an announcement about the study and link to the survey on a Texas Distance Learning Association’s website to generate interest and participation. Participants were not required to provide any identifying information, and their email addresses were encrypted by the survey hosting site so the participants could not be tracked. As an incentive for participation, faculty who participated could choose to participate in a raffle for a $25 gift card to a popular retail store. To participate in the raffle, the participants could choose to click on “yes” at the end
228
Oomen-Early and Murphy
of the electronic survey and be linked to a separate survey where they provided their email address for the raffle. This information was not tied to the individuals’ survey responses.
Sample. The purposive sample included university faculty, both full-time and part- time, who had taught online for a minimum of two semesters, and who subscribed to the Texas-based and national distance education listservs used in the study. A total of 101 faculty members completed the survey. The majority of the participants (94%) taught within the state of Texas, most likely because the distance learning association that agreed to allow the researchers to post an announcement on the website was in Texas. The rest of the sample (6%) were from states all across the United States. Eighty-five percent of the sample (n = 84) were teaching at four-year universities, while 13% (n =13) taught at two-year campuses. Only 2% of the sample reported teaching for a virtual campus. Participants in the study had taught online an average of four semesters.
Instrumentation. The researchers developed a qualitative, open-ended survey to allow faculty to report what they perceived as barriers to effective online instruction and to suggest how these barriers could be reduced. Faculty were encouraged to describe their own experiences with teaching in the virtual classroom. To establish face and content validity, a panel of experts in E-learning reviewed the survey. The panel consisted of seven faculty members who taught online and published on the subject of E-learning as well as select staff from both traditional and virtual universities. Staff included a director of distance learning, an instructional designer, and a manager of faculty training. After review and revisions were made, the open-ended survey was then piloted at a traditional campus among faculty who taught online for wording and clarity. Completion times for the pilot group (n = 12) ranged from 10 to 25 minutes, depending on the length of the participants’ qualitative responses. The electronic survey also collected demographic data, such as number of semesters teaching online, faculty employment status (full or part-time), type of university (two- or four- year), and whether the institution was a virtual or “brick and mortar” campus. RESULTS
Prior to data analysis, the researchers used the pilot data to establish an inter-rater reliability of .91. Responses were downloaded from the survey hosting site and the researchers used the constant comparative method (Glasser, 1965; Strauss, 1967) and content analysis to analyze the data. Reduction of the data occurred through open coding for latent and manifest themes. The emergent themes were used to create major categories. Data sat-
Self-Actualization and E-Learning
229
uration began to emerge after analysis of 42 surveys. Connections among conceptual categories were identified and categories were refined. A software program used in qualitative data analysis, XSight, was used to confirm identified themes by calculating the frequencies of repetitive phrases and words. Five major categories emerged including: Administrative and institutional support, student readiness, instructor readiness, technical support, and academic integrity. Descriptions of these categories are described below:
Administrative and Institutional Support. The most recurrent theme, mentioned by over 87% of the participants, was related to the support (or lack of it) given to faculty by university administration and the overall fledgling infrastructure for distance learning existing within their university. Overall, there was an expressed feeling that the university administration (including departmental chairs) did not fully understand what effective online instruction requires and that administration was “out of touch” with the demands faculty face when they teach online. Faculty expressed concern and frustration about increasing online course enrollments, and many faculty members expressed this was not considered in their workload. One participant wrote that “There is a misconception that dumping loads of students into an online course is the answer to enrollment increases.” Another recurrent theme within this category was the feeling that there is no administrative understanding that preparing and managing online courses is time consuming and perceived to be more difficult than face to face teaching. Some of the respondents provided responses that indicated that “face to face courses get more priority when it comes to resources such as graduate assistants and technology/equipment.” The amount of time that was required of faculty to download, read, critique, and respond to online students’ assignments was reported by most to be an oversight when work units were assigned. A recurring message of faculty who taught online was that they felt “consumed” with the amount of time required to teach online effectively and the strain to meet their other job demands. One person wrote that, “There is just not enough time to do it all: answer all of my emails, design a course or courses, teach them, manage them, grade, research, advise, and so on.” Faculty reported that having to prepare and teach an online course, without having adequate release time, monetary incentives, or technical support, increased their dissatisfaction with online instruction. This theme of time has also been found in other research relative to barriers to online instruction (Clark, 1993; McKenzie 2000; Shifter, 2002) However, it appears that this is still a pressing issue and one that universities have been slow to address. Participants also voiced concerns about how teaching online would impact tenure and promotion. The impact of E-learning on tenure and promotion was a factor identified in previous research (Schifter, 2002). Tenure
230
Oomen-Early and Murphy
status was also a significant factor impacting faculty’s motivation for participating in distance education. Specifically, differences were found for faculty under the age of 30 at the assistant professor and instructor level, or nontenured status in terms of identified needs and motivation for teaching online. Schifter (2002) found that those faculty members who were younger and nontenured, (and who may have the most confidence in using technology) may be dissuaded from participating in online instruction because of the anticipated time and competition it would give to their tenure requirements. Furthermore, faculty in the current study expressed that instrumentation and evaluation of online teaching had not been refined by their university of employment. Faculty (55%) indicated that their universities needed to revise their current teaching evaluation instrument to relate to online instruction, and others (33%) indicated their university did not currently evaluate any online instruction. Another identified barrier within this category was the perceived lack of pedagogical and instructional support when teaching online courses. This falls within the category of “instructor readiness” as well, but it is addressed here, too, because without administrative support, the staffing needed for faculty training does not exist. Faculty members felt that they needed to be trained beyond the technical “nuts and bolts,” of the platform used by their universities and learn about pedagogy and teaching strategies relative to the Web 2.0 generation.
Student Readiness. Over 76% of the participants in this study expressed the need for their universities to assess students’ readiness to learn online. Faculty members expressed how students were not prepared to enter the online course room and how they lacked an understanding of both the technical and learning requirements. Common responses from faculty included, “Students don’t understand the time commitment,” or “They [students] think online means easier or less rigorous than a traditional course.” Faculty also noted how those students who were unprepared for online learning often dropped the course or did not fare well academically at the end of the course. Simply stated, one wrote, “Students who feel uncomfortable with the technology and do not receive technical support fall behind and then struggle to keep pace.” There was also an identified need to distinguish the differences between traditional and online learning, specifically in relation to learning style. One faculty noted that, “There is resistance from students to adapt to Constructivist learning,” while other faculty responses indicated that both students and faculty may have a hard time shifting from the traditional instructor-centered model to the student-centered model of teaching without some kind of training or modeling. Constructivism is the essence of online learning, requiring more independence than traditional, didactic teaching methods. One faculty articulated that “Online learning involves indepen-
Self-Actualization and E-Learning
231
dence and critical thinking, and some students aren’t prepared for that.” Faculty also noted the students’ expectations for online learning were often distorted from the onset of an online course. Repeated faculty responses reflected the theme that students seem to equate convenience with immediacy. “Some students expect instructor feedback to be as instantaneous as clicking a button, so when it’s not, they get upset. They don’t realize that it takes time for the instructor to review and respond to what’s been posted.”
Instructor Readiness. The category of instructor readiness emerged from a number of related themes regarding pedagogical and technical skill requirements necessary to facilitate online learning effectively. Sixty-seven percent of faculty respondents (n = 68) reported that they preferred teaching face to face but felt that online instruction was inevitable. Time was mentioned as a barrier in all of the narrative responses (n = 101), as the 89% of faculty respondents in this study (n = 90) revealed in their narrative comments that the time commitment was more than they had anticipated. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the time that goes into course preparation – providing timely and detailed feedback to students, facilitating interaction, engaging students, and building community online – was often not considered in relation to faculty workload.. Online teaching involves a similar, but distinct set of skills that faculty must acquire in order to achieve success online. Unlike the virtual campus faculty participants who reported that they were required to complete online instructor training, faculty from traditional campuses were not required but encouraged to participate in training. Furthermore, the scope and breadth of the faculty training was a theme that surfaced in the qualitative comments. Traditional universities most commonly offer a one-shot training session on the E-learning platform of the institution. However, this may not appeal to faculty who vary in online teaching experience and who may need to develop more effective teaching strategies and course management tactics. Offering more frequent and different formats for training might afford faculty more opportunity for professional development and increase their self-efficacy as an online instructor. An emerging theme that surfaced in 46% (n = 46) of the participants’ responses was that of financial or work unit incentives to encourage faculty to obtain training: If provided by their university, faculty were willing to attend training, especially if faculty were rewarded through release time or additional salary. Online course preparation, including the time it takes to prepare online curriculum, was a repeated theme identified in this study. Faculty felt that administration did not realize “the time it takes to prepare an effective online course room,” and that “preparing an effective online course requires more than just publishing [your] lecture notes.” The theme of course preparation was also found within previous quantitative studies (Bower, 2001; McKenzie, Mims, Bennett, & Waugh, 2000; Schifter, 2002).
232
Oomen-Early and Murphy
Technical Support. A continuing need for added technical assistance was a recurrent need identified by faculty in this study. Specific quotes offered by faculty included: • “Our university should have some form of technical assistance available 24/7 to be able to assist online students, especially since some students’ schedules require them to work on school at 2 a.m.” • “Students should be required to attend some kind of technology training before going online.” • “Our university should hire support staff who can answer questions about the more advanced features of the platform we are using.” The foundation to a positive E-learning experience is grounded in understanding the fundamental technology necessary to facilitate the learning. However, many of the faculty responses highlighted the lack of technical skills their students or they, themselves, possessed. For example, something as simple as updating a browser could prevent online learners from seeing online coursework, thereby inciting a great deal of frustration for both faculty and students alike and possibly leading to increased attrition. Students often contacted the instructor instead of individuals assigned to technical support, and this placed an added burden on the instructor to try to solve the technical glitches. Some faculty members voiced that they were not versed in the more complex features of their platform and would benefit from gaining assistance with “more than the basics.” A key issue also identified was the lack of extended support to match nontraditional students’ hours. Weekends are busy times for online students to complete assignments, and some of the faculty responses indicated that the technology assistance was often not available on the weekend. Finally, the problem of old equipment, slow servers, or platforms that were incompatible with supported browsers surfaced consistently within the faculty responses.
Academic Integrity. Plagiarism is a widespread concern among academicians, especially for those teaching online, and rightly so. In a 1999 survey of American students conducted by the Center of Academic Integrity at Duke University, 68% of the 2,100 students polled said that they had committed at least one academic offence such as plagiarizing during their time at the college (Facts on Plagiarism, n.d.). Furthermore, the results of a national study published in Education Week found that 54% of students taking the survey admitted to plagiarizing from the internet; 74% of students admitted that at least once during the past school year they had engaged in “serious” cheating; and 47% of students believe their teachers sometimes choose to ignore students who are cheating (Facts on Plagiarism, n.d.). It appears that this report is supported by empirical research. McCabe (1993) found that 55% of faculty surveyed reported that “they would not be willing
Self-Actualization and E-Learning
233
to devote any real effort to documenting suspected incidents of student cheating” (p. 650). Perhaps faculty feel powerless to stop this wave of plagiarism, specifically cyber-plagiarism. Sixty-five percent (n = 66) of the written faculty responses in the current study indicated that plagiarism (or potential for) is a major barrier to effective online instruction. Faculty respondents voiced that their universities should adopt protocol and software platforms that may assist the faculty (and students) in monitoring and reducing this form of academic dishonesty. Faculty participants also reported that cheating in relation to online exams was a barrier for assessment online when universities did not require students to complete exams in person or have secured testing features online within their university platform for distance learning. As stated by the National Center for Policy Analysis, “Too few universities are willing to back up their professors when they catch students cheating. The schools are simply not willing to expend the effort required to get to the bottom of cheating cases” (Facts on Plagiarism, n.d.). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Faculty participants in this study were also asked to offer insight into how the barriers they reported could be reduced or eliminated. Tables 1-4 outline faculty suggestions for practice for administration, training and support staff, faculty, and students. As indicated in Table 1, Faculty emphasized the need for administration to assess the needs of faculty who teach online; assumptions are sometimes made regarding the use of technology and who may be using it. Needs assessment data can serve as a foundation for training programs, software purchases, and policy relating to E-learning at the university level. Furthermore, universities should address or develop policies relative to course enrollment caps for online courses, workload units for faculty who teach online, and instruments and mechanisms used to evaluate online teaching. Faculty should have multiple and ongoing opportunities for training, not only in the technological sense, but pedagogical as well. Faculty who feel supported will feel more confident, and perhaps more willing, to teach in the online environment. Rewards for teaching effectively online (i.e., teaching awards or monetary incentives) can also motivate faculty not only to participate in E-learning, but to excel through best teaching practices. Faculty may also feel more supported in their role as online instructors if the university fosters channels of social support, such as online listservs, newsletters, blogs, or learning communities for online faculty. The study participants had several suggestions for support staff (Table 2). Training for many of the participants seemed to center around the steps required to manipulate their institutions’ course management systems or to use
234
Oomen-Early and Murphy Table 1 Suggestions for University Administration
• Assess the needs of faculty and students. • Establish guidelines for online course enrollments based on best practices from the field (i.e., Sloan-C; AACE). • Address the issue of workload for online faculty and establish university policies that credit faculty for teaching online. • Revise tenure and promotion documents and assessments to include distance learning. • Establish comprehensive professional development programs for faculty utilizing various delivery strategies. • Become versed in the various cost models and infrastructures that are correlated with effective online learning. Compare models and open discussion to faculty and those working in E-learning. • Advocate for policies and resources that support faculty who teach online. • Revisit university policies relative to plagiarism and adopt initiatives that may increase academic integrity in the virtual classroom. • Develop a process for rewarding faculty for innovation in E-learning and fund projects that explore new instructional technologies. • Increase social support for E-learning faculty, establishing networks, listservs, blogs, or faculty learning communities that support their growth as professionals.
Table 2 Suggestions for E-Learning Support Staff • Assess the needs of faculty and students and solicit feedback regularly. • Help initiate and provide students and faculty with the training they need to learn and teach successfully online. • Educate university administrators and decision makers on what is required of faculty and students in the virtual classroom. • Devise professional development training that prepares graduate assistants to assist faculty with online instruction. • Create and implement strategies for delivering services electronically so that more faculty and students can receive this training. • Create a mechanism for online assistance that is available 24/7, but not necessarily “live,” e.g., a Q&A database, various tutorials, a search option where common questions and answers are archived.
certain software applications. However, faculty in this study wanted to discuss effective teaching strategies, especially those used to motivate students and to create community. Training needs change, and faculty evolve. A set of training programs developed a year ago, for example, may no longer be relevant, and support staff must become more attuned to faculty skills and needs. Alternative strategies for providing training are needed. The study participants not only suggested broadening the topics of current training opportunities, but they also described a need for training in multiple modalities – synchronous and asynchronous as well as face to face and electronic. In addition to traditional workshops or symposia, training can be conducted through webcasts, archived video, blogs, wikis, and reading lists.
Self-Actualization and E-Learning
235
Technical support for both faculty and students should be available 24/7; however, this does not necessarily mean that help desk personnel be “live” at all times. Knowledge bases, FAQ’s or self-help documents posted on a webpage could be made available to provide assistance during those times when a help desk is closed. In addition, the study participants mentioned the need for graduate or other assistants to help with day-to-day course activities such as posting announcements created by the instructor and following up on students who have disappeared or who have failed to turn in assignments on time. Tables 3 and 4 list suggestions for other online faculty and for distance education students. The study participants stressed the need for faculty to reach out to one another and to form teaching communities. One participant stated, “The faculty member is often left to try to learn the technology, translate technology, and develop learning strategies in total isolation.” Online faculty should become more vocal in making their needs known not only to administration but also other faculty, especially those who participate on promotion and tenure committees, awards communities, and faculty senates. In addition, although faculty are often pressed for time, it is imperative that online faculty make an effort to learn more about new technologies and teaching strategies by becoming active in distance education associations and organizations, by reading the latest articles, and participating in professional development activTable 3 Suggestion for Faculty Who Teach Online • Understand the terrain: learn more about the Constructivist foundations of online learning. • Be seen and heard: Advocate for support and policies governing E-learning at your own institution. • Take an active role in training that strengthens your own performance as an online instructor. (These may actually save you time in the long run!) • Support one another: Share teaching strategies; shadow; collaborate on course development; increase your social support. • Include policies relating to communication and participation in your syllabus; include your instructor expectations. • Subscribe to listservs or journals relating to E-learning or participating in blog or faculty learning communities.
Table 4 Suggestions for Online Students • Own your role in the learning experience: Constructivist learning puts the student in the driver’s seat. • Match your expectations about E-learning to what is “realistic” in the virtual environment. Online is not instantaneous or easy. • Attend training relative to technical support prior to beginning your online experience. • Adhere to instructor policies regarding communication and participation.
236
Oomen-Early and Murphy
ities. By doing so, they may gain more confidence, feel less isolated, and gain more self-efficacy in facilitating and managing their online course rooms. Participants in the study identified the need for students to understand better the online environment. Complaints from the faculty ranged from students who did not understand the need for a computer to students who thought all online courses were self-paced to students who expected faculty to be available to answer questions 24/7. Orientations to online courses or precourse training sessions are important in helping to create more realistic expectations and an understanding of the primary role a student must play in the learning process. Reducing barriers to E-learning and online instruction requires that all parts of the “university village” play a role and work together. For example, having willing, hard working online faculty is not enough if the infrastructure for Elearning is weak within the institution. As one faculty member wrote, “If faculty time is eaten up by trying to deal with all of the issues associated with online teaching instead of focusing on their own goals, they may surely fall short of reaching their own professional aspirations and tenure requirements.” BECOMING “SELF-ACTUALIZED” ONLINE INSTRUCTORS
One could deduce from this study’s findings that an online instructor has certain primary “needs,” much like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1954). As Figure 1 illustrates, effective online instruction must first start with establishing a university infrastructure for E-learning. A cost-effective model for E-learning along with an effective course platform, policies and guidelines (including those for tenure and promotion) that embrace and validate E-learning, support staff, and standards for quality must be in place to meet the most basic needs of both the online instructor and student. Once these have been established, faculty technical training on the adopted technology is essential. Moving beyond the technical nuts and bolts, faculty should also receive training on the theoretical and pedagogical foundations of E-learning, which differ from the traditional, didactic thinking of the Socratic Method. Armed with a theoretical knowledge base, instructors can then begin to apply and evaluate teaching strategies that foster effective learning. The intrinsic and extrinsic rewards gained from online instruction may then propel online instructors into self-actualization, where instructors feel confident in their ability to teach and manage their virtual classrooms, integrate creativity into their teaching, foster community within their classrooms, and test teaching ideas and new technology. Social support among colleagues and stakeholders is important at every level and can spur involvement and sustained participation, allowing instructors to learn from each other, teach more effectively, and reduce feelings of isolation. As universities strive to prepare self-actualized online instructors, they are improving upon the quality and delivery of online education, which can then lead to more self-actualized students.
Self-Actualization and E-Learning
237
Self Actualization
So cia lS up por t
Intrinsic & Extrinsic Rewards Application & Evaluation
Pedagogical Knowledge
Technological Skill Development
Administrative Support and Adequate Institutional Infrastructure for E-Learning
Figure 1. Hierarchy of needs for university faculty who teach online. DISCUSSION
The results of this study add to the understanding of some of the key issues identified in previous quantitative studies relating to instructional barriers for E-learning (Allen & Seaman, 2006; Beaudoin, 1990; Bower, 2001; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; McKenzie, 2000; McKinnon, 1998; Paulson, 2002; Rockwell, Scheuer, Fritz, & Marx, 1999; Schifter, 2002; Wilson, 1998). Time, workload, and technical support continue to be perceived needs imperative to faculty job satisfaction and performance. Student expectations about online learning, their readiness to learn online, and the support they are given along the way are issues that should be addressed prior to entering the instructor’s virtual classroom. In short, it does take an entire “university village” to support E-learning. It appears that for many faculty members, the infrastructure of their university village has not yet caught up to the technology, though technology for many universities is the vehicle driving university enrollment. Sadly, the frus-
238
Oomen-Early and Murphy
tration voiced in many of the qualitative responses in this study was that university administration may not see past the dollar signs or increasing enrollment figures. Those who are in administrative positions may never teach online; thus, they are not fully aware of the dynamics involved with preparing and facilitating a vibrant, online classroom. The current study captures faculty concerns for how these constraints will impact faculty evaluation, promotion, tenure, and job satisfaction over time. If these identified needs go ignored, the consequences will likely have reverberations throughout higher education: faculty turnover may increase, job satisfaction decrease, quality diminish, and student learning and satisfaction may be compromised. However, remedies for the barriers identified are within reach and may not require great expense. Table 1 outlines how administration, technical support staff, faculty trainers, faculty, and students all may contribute to reducing and possibly eliminating these barriers. As Job-Control Demand Theory postulates, the more control faculty perceive as having over their job situation, the more satisfaction they will derive from their work environment (Karasek, 1979, Karasek et al., 1981). This not only could help reduce faculty burnout, but also lead to positive student performance within the online course room; faculty who are more satisfied with their jobs may engage themselves more fully in E-learning and improve teacher presence and connectedness in the classroom. This would surely assist universities in retaining their students and their faculty. CONCLUSION
This study supports existing studies on this topic (Allen & Seaman, 2006; Beaudoin, 1990; Bower, 2001; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; McKenzie, 2000; McKinnon, 1998; Paulson, 2002; Rockwell, Scheuer, Fritz, & Marx, 1999; Schifter, 2002; Wilson, 1998), but it also adds to the existing knowledge base. New barriers identified include standards for online faculty evaluation, student readiness, and the pandemic of cyber-plagiarism. Perceived barriers that impede faculty performance should be continually assessed by universities and examined empirically by researchers in the field of E-learning to follow trends and offer solutions. The current study addresses a current gap in the knowledge base regarding the need for interpretive, qualitative research that examines faculty members “lived realities.” By allowing experienced online faculty to detail their “constructed” realities with “online instruction,” administrators, support staff, and faculty themselves can collaborate to develop strategies and policies that enhance outcomes for all stakeholders involved with Elearning. Future research studies might explore feelings of burnout among nontenured and tenured faculty who teach online as well as compare rates of burnout among those who teach courses 100% online, in hybrid formats, or primarily face to face. Researchers might also examine rates of tenure and pro-
Self-Actualization and E-Learning
239
motion among those who teach online, in hybrid formats, or primarily face to face. E-learning as a method of instruction is still in its youth, making it imperative for researchers to further examine and track the effects this delivery mechanism will have on higher education over time. References Allen, E.I., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United States, 2006. The Sloan Consortium. Available online at: http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/ making_the_grade.pdf Ardid, C., and Zarco, V. (1998). Introduction to occupational and organizational psychology. pp. 235-246, as cited in Pascula, E., Perez -Jover, V., Miriambell, E., Ivan, G., and Terol, M.C. (2003) Job conditions, coping, and wellness/health outcomes in Spanish secondary school teachers. Psychology and Health, 18(4), 511–521 Beaudoin, M.R. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 21–29. Berge, Z.L., and Muilenburg, L.Y. (2001). Obstacles faced at various stages of capability regarding distance education in institutions of higher learning. Tech Trends, 46(4), 40–45. Betts, K. (1998). An institutional overview: Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(3): Fall. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/betts13.html. Bower, B.L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the faculty challenge. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(11): Summer. Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://www. westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html. Clark, T. (1993). Attitudes of higher education faculty toward distance education: A national survey. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 19–33. Cohen, S. (1992). Stress, social support and disorder. In H.O.F.Veiol & U. Bauman (Eds.), The Meaning and Measure of Social Support. New York, NY: Hemisphere (pp. 109–124). Derry, S. J. (1999). A fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In A.M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pp. 197–211). Dillon, C., & Walsh, S.M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 6(3), 5–21. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter. 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), 33-50. Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology. Available Website: http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ SocialConstructivism.htm Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308. Karasek, R.A. (1989).Control in the workplace and its health-related aspects. In S.L. Sauter, J.J. Hurrell, and C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Job Control and Worker Health. Chichester, UK: Wiley (pp. 129–160).
240
Oomen-Early and Murphy
Karasek, R.A., and Theorell, T. (1990) Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books: New York. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McCabe, D.L. (1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honor codes. Research in Higher Education (1993), 34(5), 647–658. McKinnon, J.D. ( September 6, 1998). Online courses demand more of profs. The Tallahassee Democrat, p. 14C. McKenzie, B.K., Mims, N., Bennett, E., and Waugh, M. (2000). Needs, concerns and practices of online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(3): Fall. Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall33/mckenzie33.html. National Education Association (NEA). (2000 June). A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members. Available at: http://www.nea.org/he/abouthe/dlstudy.pdf. Paulson, K. (2002). Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 123–140. Plagiarism.org. (n.d.) Facts on Plagiarism. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from the Plagiarism.org website at: http://www.plagiarism.org/facts.html. Rockwell, K., Schauer, J., Fritz, S.M., & Marx, D.B. (1999). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach via distance. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3): Winter. Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter24/rockwell24.html Rodrıguez Marıon, J. (1995). Psychosocial stress and coping. In: Rodrıguez Marıon, J. (Ed.), Psicologı´a social de la salud, pp. 53–72, as cited by Pascula, E., Perez -Jover, V., Miriambell, E., Ivan, G., and Terol, M.C. (2003) Job conditions, coping, and wellness/health outcomes in Spanish secondary school teachers. Psychology and Health, 18(4), 511–521. Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2005). An administrator’s guide to online education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Schifter, C.C. (2002). Perception differences about participating in distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5 (1). Retrieved May 5, 2007 at: http://www. westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/schifter51.html Schifter, C.C. (2006). Compensation models in distance education: National survey questionnaire revisited. Online Journal of Distance LearningAdministration, 7(1): Spring. Retrieved August 24, 2007 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring71/schifter71.html. Trochim, William M. The research methods knowledge base, 2nd Ed. Retrieved on August 24, 2007 from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/.
