Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges
(USC Thesis Other)
Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS RELATED
TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ONLINE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING IN
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
by
Ryan M. Cornner
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2010
Copyright 2010 Ryan M. Cornner
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my colleagues in the Thematic Group on Online Learning
for their assistance through our research process. A special thank you to Dr. Hentschke
for all he has done to help each of get to this point and expand our ability to research
online learning. Together, I hope that we will assist others in better understanding online
education and how its implementation can improve student learning. I would like to thank
my parents for always supporting me and emphasizing the importance of education in my
life. The benefit of their encouragement is beyond explanation. I want to express my
gratitude to my mother-in-law who took great personal pains in transcribing all the
interviews in this research. Without her dedication, I would not be where I am. Lastly, I
would like to thank my wife for her understanding and supportive nature. Together, we
have given up weekends and free time, and I look forward to rejoining my family in a full
capacity.
iii
Abstract
Background: Community colleges represent an important access point for many
individuals seeking to enter into the system of higher education. This is especially the
case in California, where the state has indicated that these open-access institutions are
supposed to provide education to the communities they serve and to reach those that are
traditionally underrepresented in higher education. Online education represents a tool that
could expand access to yet more underrepresented populations who lack the ability to
attend college in the traditional manner. While there has been great expansion in online
programs in the California Community College System, the growth has not been evenly
distributed. As a tool in helping the community colleges expand their mission to increase
access to higher education, it is essential that the manner in which online programs have
been implemented is studied to investigate the factors related to successful creation of
robust online educational programs. Specifically, this study seeks to determine: How do
organizational and institutional factors relate the implementation of online education in
community colleges; and how do individual characteristics and perceptions of campus
leaders relate to the implementation of online education?
Methods: This study uses a case study design in which three community colleges within a
single district were selected because of their differences in the size of the institution,
enrollment, capacity of on-campus facilities, fiscal standing and the size of its online
educational program. Document analysis was conducted on each campus‟ central
planning documents. Quantitative data was analyzed related to the college enrollment and
fiscal standing. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with faculty and
iv
administrative leadership, and analyzed to determine which factors were related to the
successful implementation of online educational programs.
Results: The results suggest that a formal faculty leader in the initial stages of
development may assist in garnering faculty support related to the endeavor and that later
administrative leadership may be required when the institution has developed sufficient
faculty support. In addition, the data show that colleges that have had difficulty reaching
out to students through traditional programming may have a better ability to develop a
college culture that is supportive of change and the implementation of new technologies,
such as online programming. Lastly, while the position of online leadership does seem to
relate to success, the personal characteristics of those leaders may be equally important.
A thorough understanding of the culture and political nature of the college is required to
navigate through the approval and leadership structures of the institution. In addition, it
appears that the leader with a dedication to online learning and willingness to personally
address concerns as they arise are associated with more successful implementation of
online educational programming.
Conclusions: Organizational leadership interacts with institutional characteristics and the
organizational culture to effect change. These interactions describe a model of change
that is comprehensive and within the institutional cultural context. Future research should
focus on the manner in which administrative leadership can enhance change and garner
further institutional support.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 13
Introduction 13
Disruptive Innovation 13
Online Pedagogy and Student Learning 19
Technology Acceptance Model and Online Learning 24
Ely‟s Eight Factors and Online Education 36
Institutional Factors and Technology Implementation 40
Marketing and the College Mission 44
Complexities of Higher Education Systems and Institutions 47
Summary - The Integration of Factors 54
Chapter 3: Methods 58
Introduction 58
System Description 66
College Sampling 71
Methods and Instrumentation 74
Interview Participants 75
Interview Procedures 78
Administrative Interview Protocol 80
Faculty Interview Protocol 80
Document Analysis 81
Data Analysis 82
Delimitations and Limitations 83
Chapter 4: Results 86
Overview 86
Organizational Leadership 89
Perceptions of Online Education 98
Organizational Culture 108
Institutional Characteristics 117
Institutional Support 126
Summary of Findings 135
vi
Chapter 5: Conclusions 143
Organizational Leadership and Perceptions of Online Education 146
Institutional Characteristics and Support 157
Organizational Culture and Goals 163
Recommendations 165
References 169
Appendices
Appendix A: Administrative Interview Protocol 175
Appendix B: Administrative Interview Protocol 176
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Research Questions and Related Factors 65
Table 2: Institutional Selection Characteristics 72
Table 3: Interview Participants 75
Table 4: Results 135
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Implementation 57
Figure 2: Organizational Structures 68
Figure 3: Decision to Change 143
Figure 4: Implementation of Online Education 145
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Community colleges represent a major point of access to higher education. Of the
1,045 community colleges in the United States, 95% have open admissions policies
allowing for students who are traditionally underrepresented or excluded from other
forms of higher education to gain access (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). In 2006, these
institutions enrolled 6.3 million students, representing 35% of all students in higher
education (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). In addition, half of those attaining a four-year
degree began at a community college (McPhee, 2006). As a provider of higher education
and an access point for the country‟s underrepresented students, community colleges
serve a role not only in providing two-year associates degrees, but also in providing a
venue through which students can obtain four-year or advanced degrees.
The provision of access to the community is an essential goal of community
colleges. In California, the master plan for higher education even specifically states that
community colleges serve the purpose of creating open access for the state‟s citizenry
(Thelin, 2003). Given the importance of creating access to higher education, community
colleges have a responsibility to investigate various methods and modalities that may
allow new underrepresented populations to gain access to higher education. In light of
this need, innovations that may allow greater access to students are often forefront in
community college planning. The expansion of computer use and Internet-based
technologies has provided a venue through which educational innovation and the
opportunity for the expansion of services can take place.
2
Technology is an essential part of today‟s society that has been integrated into
most segments of life. Its growth has occurred in both professional and personal venues.
In 1998, only 42.1% of households had a personal computer (Day, Janus & Davis, 2005).
In only five years, this number increased to 61.8% (Day, Janus & Davis, 2005). Similar
trends are seen in the use of the Internet, where home access has grown from only 26.2%
in 1998 to 54.7% in 2003 (Day, Janus & Davis, 2005). The numbers indicate that a
majority of those in the United States are actively using online and computer technology
at home. The data is even more impressive for school-aged children of whom 83.4% use
a computer at home and 92.3% use a computer while at school (Day, Janus & Davis,
2005). While the numeric growth in computer and Internet access is important, the
possibilities represented by this access are even more pertinent. Access to the Internet
enables users to enhance their capabilities through online products and services.
Access to the Internet is proportionately more prevalent in younger parts of the
demographic, such as school-aged children (Day, Janus & Davis, 2005). This pattern
highlights the trend towards increasing use of these valuable technologies. As these
younger generations come of age, technologies once seen as an added privilege will be
considered a necessary and important aspect of the social fabric for that generation.
Products and services will have to adapt to the change in social importance and use of
technology by changing their processes to meet the needs and expectations of a
population with greater technological literacy. Educational institutions will also have to
adapt to these changes in technology expansion and usage to meet the needs today‟s
students. One possible way in which education has sought to adapt to changes in
3
technology has been the use of online education. Adjusting teaching methods and
curriculum to the online world is an important step in creating a more technologically
adept educational community that can increase the access to and the flexibility of higher
education.
In response to changes in technology and the demands of the modern student,
educational institutions have begun to implement online educational programming.
Online education has increased greatly over the last decade in all sectors of education
from primary schools to post-graduate programs. The National Governors Association
(2001) reports that online education, or e-learning, is one of the fastest growing sectors of
education and accounted for $7.1 billion dollars of educational expenditures in 2000.
Growth in online education has been seen in all levels of education. The National Center
for Educational Statistics reports duplicated K-12 online enrollment of more than 500,000
(Zandberg & Lewis, 2008). Similar patterns are noted in post-secondary levels with an
estimated 84% of all two and four-year colleges expected to offer online courses in 2002
(National Governors Association, 2001). Allen and Seaman (2008) indicate that online
enrollment has grown quicker than other areas of higher education. In addition, over 3.9
million students were taking at least one online course in fall 2007, representing over
20% of all U.S. higher education students (Allen & Seaman, 2008).
Online education has changed dramatically over the years and will continue to
change as new technological advancements are created. Even in current circumstances,
there is a multitude of ways in which online education is conducted. One of the many
variables is the proportion of the course that is provided through an online modality.
4
Course offerings can be traditional with no online content, web facilitated with less than
30% online content, hybrid with 30 to 79% online content, or true online with 80% or
more content being offered online (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Much variability in online
learning is the manner of interactions between faculty and students. Courses may rely on
asynchronous communications, such as email or standard online boards, or they may
utilize synchronous methods of communications such live instant messaging (UC College
Prep, 2006). Even within the systematic variables that may be limited by course
management technology, there exist many different pedagogical techniques to reach
students and enhance student learning.
The differences seen across educational systems in the nation can also been seen
within the community college system. As a practical result of faculty control over
curriculum development and academic freedom regarding the manner in which course
content is presented, there is great variation in the manner in which online educational
programming is offered within the community college system. Because of this diversity
and the local control over online course offerings, this study follows local definitions for
online education. Whereas the manner of offering online content varies greatly, the local
definitions for online education in this study include courses that are offered completely
online or that have one initial meeting date on campus followed solely by online content.
Online education has the potential to change the way in which education is
offered and has the potential to be a disruptive innovation. Christensen (2008) defines a
disruptive innovation as a new technology that has the ability to provide a fundamentally
different product that deviates from the traditional product or service currently offered
5
and that allows access for new populations who had not previously been served by the
original product or service. Christensen (2008) states that e-learning is a disruptive
innovation in that it has the ability to enable greater access to education and offers a new
modality that deviates from the traditional means of education. A central feature of a
disruptive innovation is its ability to develop new means of product delivery that if given
the opportunity to mature can compete in quality with the original product or service
(Christensen, 2008). The expansion of online learning technologies may allow for the
development of educational services that can be personalized to meet the needs of
individual students, a phenomenon with which existing teaching methods struggle
(Christensen, 2008). Current techniques in customized or individualized education, such
as one-on-one or face-to-face tutoring, are cost prohibitive for most populations. With the
incredible potential of this technology and the growing market demand for flexible e-
learning opportunities, it is no surprise that online curriculum has seen incredible
expansion in the higher education sector. However, there is a need to determine whether
these unique attributes are being utilized as a disruptive innovation as described by
Christensen (2008).
Other technology implementation models have indicated that the implementation
of new technologies follow an evaluative process in which the user determines whether
the benefits of the new product warrant the effort needed to implement it (Davis, 1989).
The technology acceptance model indicates that potential users seek to determine the ease
of use and usefulness of new technologies in determining whether to adopt new
technologies (Keller, 2005; Vankatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). These models
6
highlight the importance of perception in the technology review process. The growth of
online learning indicates that educational leaders and instructors are seeing some benefit
in the use of e-learning techniques. An investigation of the manner in which online
educational programming is being implemented would garner valuable information about
the reasons why educational institutions have sought to change their teaching methods to
adapt to changes in improvements in technology.
Paralleling the nation-wide movement to implement online education is the
growing use of online education throughout the California Community College System.
Although colleges across the state have had a similar ability to adopt online education
and demand for its use, there have been varying degrees of implementation. Differences
can be seen between public and private institutions, and also within seemingly similar
organizational units. For example, a single urban community college district in California
has colleges with as few as twenty sections of online education while other colleges in
the same district have more the one-hundred forty sections. This wide variation of
implementation in a single district exemplifies the variable manner in which e-learning is
being utilized across the nation. In spite of differences in the rate of implementation, to
date there have been few studies investigating factors that relate to the difference in
organizational responses to online education and the resulting disparity in adoption of
these technologies. With the existence of such an extreme range in implementation of
online education in higher education, there is a need to investigate the factors that help us
to understand the differing degrees of implementation.
7
What makes the diffuse expansion of online education more remarkable is that it
is occurring in a system that has been known for being slow to change. Tagg (2008)
reports that educational institutions are complex organizations that are resistant to
institutional change. He further remarks that change within educational systems is often
initiated and sustained by individual faculty or administrative leaders (Tagg, 2008). The
focus on individual efforts in institutional change adds an additional emphasis with which
to evaluate the implementation of online education. Traditional resistance to change in
educational institutions may indicate why some organizations have failed to implement
online education at the same level as others, but it does not enable one to infer why
successful implementation has occurred in other organizations. This gap in literature
needs to be investigated further in order to determine the factors that relate to the ability
of some educational institutions to successfully implement change by adopting online
educational programming.
The purpose of this study is to determine the various factors that seem to relate to
the implementation of online educational programming. Through an investigation of e-
learning implementation at several community colleges within an urban California
District, this study will seek to answer the following questions:
1. How do differences in organizational leadership relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
2. How do personal perceptions of online learning relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
8
3. How does the culture of the institution relate to the initiation and implementation of
online educational programming?
4. How do institutional characteristics relate to the degree of implementation of online
educational programming?
5. How does the support dedicated to online educational relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
Together these research questions will allow for an analysis of the multiple factors
that may impact the implementation of online education and will take into account the
culture of the institution, its organizational structures and the characteristics of
individuals within the institution. In addition, the integration of these factors will
determine the manner in which structural and individual characteristics effect the
implementation of online education.
The research questions draw from literature on educational change, organizational
structure, organizational power, and various models of the acceptance and
implementation of new technologies. Within these frameworks, this question will seek to
determine the relative manner in which college size, financial status, and facilities usage
impact implementation. The goals and mission of each institution will be evaluated to
determine whether emphasis on college growth, access, or student success impact e-
learning usage. In addition, college power and organizational structures will be
thoroughly investigated as well as the manner in which college leaders distribute and
provide resources to drive the online implementation process. These topics will enable an
9
investigation of the total impact of organizational factors hypothesized to be related to the
degree of implementation.
In addition, the questions seek to determine how implementation is related to the
perceptions and characteristics of individual campus leaders, seeks to determine the
impact of central leadership from faculty and administrative ranks on the implementation
process. It is possible that individual initiative and skill sets may be the driving force
behind online education. To address this possibility, this study will investigate the
relative relationship of faculty and administrator characteristics to the implementation
process. In addition, the position of these individuals within the institution will be
evaluated. The relative power of faculty as the end users of e-learning technologies and
their expertise in curriculum development will be important in determining the degree to
which faculty impact college-wide adoption of online educational programming.
To investigate these research questions, this study seeks to conduct a qualitative
comparative case study of the implementation of online education in the California
Community College System. Differences between various institutional factors create a
degree of variance that allows for an in depth study of how these factors relate to the
ability to implement online educational programming. The major qualitative techniques
in this study will include semi-structured interviews of faculty and administrative leaders
and an analysis of college planning documents. Quantitative measures will be used to
indicate the degree to which online education is being implemented and to confirm
statements regarding the college size and fiscal status. Patton (2002) indicates that a
qualitative investigation of programs is warranted when a deep understanding of the
10
interplay between multiple factors is needed and can not be evaluated through the mere
aggregation of quantitative data. The areas identified in the research questions call for an
in-depth investigation of the ways in which individual and organizational factors impact
one another and how these relate to the overall implementation of online education.
This study will focus on community colleges within a single urban district. Using
a maximum variation sampling technique, a three-college sample will be selected that
will include the colleges that exhibit the highest and lowest degree of online
implementation. In addition, the independent variables of each sampled college will
represent maximum differences. This purposeful sample will also seek to select colleges
with variance in college size, funding, and facilities space restraints. In this manner, the
sample will provide a diversity of institutional characteristics, such as institution size and
student demographics, reflective of the community colleges throughout the state and
allow for a study of the impact of distinct institutional characteristics. At the same time,
drawing the sample from a single district allows the study to control for some factors
such as governance structures and location-specific economic demands.
The delimitations of this study include a focus exclusively on community
colleges. The current trends in expansion of online education in the K-12 and university
systems will not be accounted for in the current study. In addition, this study does not
seek to determine the actual effectiveness, quality or benefits of online learning. The
qualitative methods seek only to identify the perceptions of the quality of online
education regardless of what other program evaluations have determined. While this is a
limitation of the study methodology, an investigation of efficacy was beyond the scope of
11
the research questions and was not feasible in the current investigation. In addition, while
the use of a single district allows for control of some factors related to implementation, it
may limit the ability to apply the current findings to other two-year institutions within
California as well as in other states.
The major limit of this study is that the qualitative investigation is focused on
relatively few individuals on campus. While efforts have been made to ensure that the
investigation is focused on those most knowledgeable of and influential in the
implementation process, it does not attempt to determine the overall faculty view of
online education. Given that instructors have the ability to choose whether they want to
use online methods on an individual level, their views are important. Lacking this
information makes it difficult to determine whether the college has reached a possible
tipping point at which the majority of faculty members are now in favor of online
programming. However, the relative novelty of online education indicates a need to
investigate implementation at a more basic level. The current methodology allows one to
determine how leadership and organizational factors impact online education
implementation in a way that may allow the results to be used to better situate a campus
for the implementation process.
In addition, while this study seeks to determine whether individual characteristics
relate to the ability to implement online learning, it does not employ known assessments,
such as leadership style inventories, to determine what these characteristics may be. In
this manner, the study may point to the impact of individuals, but future investigations
may be needed to determine the exact characteristics that promote institutional change.
12
While assessment instruments are not being utilized in this study, any qualitative
description of successful leaders will be provided as evidence of successful skill sets and
techniques that are currently being used.
There is tremendous pressure to implement online educational programming.
Whether from external demands, such as market economies or political pressure, or
internal pressures from administrative leaders or grass roots efforts, there exists a strong
need to better understand how online learning is perceived and implemented.
Administrators and faculty leaders will benefit from a study on implementation by
gaining insight into the factors that impact successful implementation of online education
and how those factors can be recreated to allow institutions to better support institutional
change. The investigation of these critical factors will provide the data needed to infer
which factors are most related to the variation in online implementation and to provide a
basis for establishing an effective practice model. Given the growth of technology use
throughout the nation and the increased demand for online learning opportunities, there is
a need for further knowledge of the factors related to the implementation of online
learning. The development of an effective practice model may assist colleges that are
attempting to expand their e-learning programs in creating the institutional characteristics
most conducive to adopting new technologies. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that
educational institutions are slow to change. As technological breakthroughs continue to
occur at a fast rate, the information garnered from this investigation may serve to inform
the higher education community of the organizational and individual characteristics that
best allow for adaptation to a fast-paced and changing world.
13
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
Online learning technologies have the potential to expand the learning process
beyond its current limits (Christensen, 2008). The remarkable growth of online
programming and its potential to revolutionize higher education warrants a thorough
investigation of the factors relating to the growth of e-learning. In order to more fully
understand the manner in which online education has been implemented and the factors
that relate to its implementation, this study will now turn to a review of several
frameworks for technology implementation and determine their application to higher
education. The use of these frameworks will assist in determining the potential factors
that may impact the implementation of online education that, in turn, will be used to
investigate variance of application in the California community college system.
Disruptive Innovation
Christensen (2008) has written extensively on technology acceptance and has
sought to apply his framework to the implementation of online education. He states that
technology advances either through sustained or disruptive innovations. Sustained
innovations are gains in the performance of a specific product that allows that product to
better meet the needs of the consumer (Christensen, 2008). These innovations may occur
in a gradual linear trajectory or through a market breakthrough that adds significant
functioning to the product (Christensen, 2008). A disruptive innovation differs from that
of a sustained innovation in that it is neither an improvement in the traditional product
nor a breakthrough that adds performance befitting standard product development
14
(Christensen, 2008). Instead, a disruptive innovation is a development of a seemingly
inferior product that does not fit along the traditional sustained innovation trajectory, but
allows alternative populations greater access to the new product (Christensen, 2008). In
this manner, the disruptive innovation can disrupt or redefine the sustained innovation
efforts of the original product and alter its performance trajectory towards the creation of
a new product (Christensen & Bower, 1996). The disruptive innovation model indicates
that a new disruptive innovation is viewed as less valuable because it performs at a lower
level than what is already in place for the current consumer base that uses the original
product (Christensen & Bower, 1996). However, while the new disruptive product may
be inferior to the traditional product, it allows an expansion of services that can reach a
new consumer base (Christensen & Bower, 1996). In this manner, the disruptive
innovation is viewed as innocuous because it is targeting a sector of the public in which
the original product had never intended to compete (Christensen & Bower, 1996). The
seemingly mild threat to the traditional product allows the new disruptive technology to
improve unimpeded by competition with the original and better performing product
(Christensen & Bower, 1996).
Both the new disruptive innovation and the traditional product advance along a
sustained innovation trajectory with each product becoming more effective at meeting the
needs of its consumer base (Christensen & Bower, 1996). When the disruptive product
has been developed and evolves to offer a sufficient level of performance, it will begin to
enter the market at a level competitive with the traditional product (Christensen & Bower,
1996). However, by this point, its sustained innovations have taken the initial disruptive
15
product design and created a product that is fully functioning at the level of the original
product, with the added capacity that made it attractive to the original market still intact
(Christensen & Bower, 1996). The new disruptive innovation has become a product that
is cost effective and efficacious to the point that the original product is unable to compete
(Christensen & Bower, 1996). Christensen and Bower (1996) point out that some firms
are able to withstand the competition from a disruptive innovation, but that survival
becomes the goal rather than innovation of goods and expansion of its consumer base. In
this manner, the disruptive technology changes the way in which business is conducted
and the goal of the product provided to consumers.
While this model was originally developed for application in the field of business,
Christensen (2008) has readily adapted it to education and the evaluation of online
learning programs. In the case of schools, education is the product and educational
institutions have continually made gains (sustaining innovations) to improve the product
and enhance student learning (Christensen, 2008). These gains are often overshadowed
because educational systems have had to take on new goals and objectives through the
years (Christensen, 2008). He argues that in addition to the original task of preserving
and inculcating democracy, the educational system has also taken on the duty to provide
a sufficient level of education to all students, to keep the United States competitive with
other countries, and to assist in the elimination of national poverty. It is his contention
that schools have been making continual gains on all of these ventures (Christensen,
2008). In terms of his model, this means that educational institutions have sustained the
16
process of refining their products in order to offer better performance to their customer
and that these improvements represent sustaining innovations (Christensen, 2008).
Christensen (2008) views the use of computers in education as a potential
disruptive innovation. Computers and online technologies offer an alternative form of
educational programming that differs greatly from traditional formats of teaching and
learning. Consistent with Christensen‟s thesis, there are doubts as to the quality of online
education as compared to traditional face-to-face formats (Lightfoot, 2005). This concern
is certainly noted by faculty, who view online educational programming less favorably
than do students (Wilkes, Simon & Brooks, 2006). In this manner, the use of online
programming fits with Christensen‟s (2008) model in that online education is sufficiently
different as to offer an alternative modality and there is a belief that this innovation offers
an educational product of lesser quality.
Another key characteristic of a disruptive technology is the ability to target a
distinct and new consumer population (Christensen, 2008). In an educational framework
this means that online education must be able to improve access in a manner that new
populations that were not previously able to receive educational services will now be able
to. In evaluating the K-12 system, Christensen (2008) has seen several venues through
which computer-based learning can gain access to additional markets. One example is
credit recovery programs that allow students who have not successfully completed a
course an opportunity to catch up and graduate with their class (Christensen, 2008). In
community colleges, computer-based or online educational programs can target a great
number of non-traditional student populations. Daily family obligations and full-time
17
work are some of the factors that make traditional attendance a difficult endeavor. The
use of online learning increases access to students with these time constraints and allows
the college to fulfill a part of its educational mission by increasing access for all students
regardless of when they are available.
Enhanced flexibility is noted as one possible factor driving online growth trends
and the efforts of some educational institutions to increase online offerings (UC College
Prep, 2006). The unique ability that online courses have to attract students who require or
prefer greater flexibility has created a great demand for online course offerings and
programs. Wilkes, Simon and Booth (2006) have found that faculty perceives online
education as beneficial in terms of flexibility and ability to accommodate work and social
schedules. Adams (2008) has also indicated that online education has major strengths in
its ability reach out to many students who had not originally been able to access higher
education. In this manner, the flexibility of online formats enables the requisite
alternative market that is needed for a disruptive innovation to be effective and grow.
Christensen (2008) indicates that alternative markets are necessary in order for
producers of disruptive products to have the ability to develop and improve them over
time and ultimately develop them into products that are competitive with traditional
educational products. Non-traditional student populations represent a sufficient
alternative market that will allow computer-based learning technologies to progress along
a disruptive innovation path and develop into a competitive product (Christensen, 2008).
Christensen (2008) states that sustained innovation of online education has the potential
to drastically change the manner in which teaching and learning occurs. Traditional face-
18
to-face educational programs are currently described as interdependent and hierarchal in
which one product (teaching) is provided to the consumer (learner) in a format that is
mostly the same regardless of individual need (Christensen, 2008). In this type of system,
individualization becomes expensive and in most cases cost-prohibitive (Christensen,
2008). One can imagine the increased costs associated with teaching to each individual
student‟s needs. The alternative is a modular format in which there is a common interface
(computer-based curriculum), but the product itself can be easily adapted to meet the
needs of the consumer (Christensen, 2008). Christensen (2008) envisions the future of
computer-based learning as a modular format that can be adapted to meet student needs
in a truly student-centered manner. However, online educational products need to
develop further in alternative markets in order to reach this modular goal.
The vision of online modular products presents the potential of online and
computer-based learning as it could develop in a student-centered format. However, the
questions still arises as to whether or not the current implementation of online learning is
functioning as a disruptive technology or is being crammed into existing learning formats
for the sole purpose of expanding the educational market. Christensen (2008) defines
cramming as the attempt to use a new disruptive innovation in the same manner as the
traditional product. In this manner, the potential of the new product is diminished by the
attempt to force-fit it into a model that does not allow all components of the innovation to
be used. With ensuing disappointments in the levels of performance, the innovation is
never fully adapted (Christensen, 2008). For example, computers in schools have largely
replaced typewriters, and the Internet has replaced the encyclopedia, but little has
19
changed in the actual product, teaching (Christensen, 2008). With online education,
cramming would be represented by applying traditional teaching methods and curriculum
to online models. Cramming may seem desirable in that traditional methods may be
currently perceived as more effective than online modalities; however, the use of
traditional methods serves to inhibit the ability of online educational programming to
progress toward its true potential. Without this development, the original vision of
teaching will always maintain superiority over the new innovations.
Online Pedagogy and Student Learning
A great deal of literature on e-learning addresses the social and cognitive nature
of learning online (Borthick, Jones & Wakai, 2003; Du, Havard, Adams, & Li, 2005;
Gunter, 2007; Havard, Du & Olinzock, 2005). These sources are valuable in describing
the manner in which online education has been implemented and whether this
implementation has followed a pattern of innovative or cramming. The social cognitive
model, based largely on the work of Vygostky, posits that learning takes place in the
social environment and is constructed by the learner (Du, Havard, Adams, & Li, 2005;
Borthick, Jones & Wakai, 2003). In this manner the social environment in which learning
takes place is essential, and the creation of social environments will greatly impact the
degree to which learning takes place. From the social cognitive framework, interaction
must take place that allows for a social construction of knowledge that enables a student
to define meaning and for the class to define shared meaning. This interaction can occur
through various methods including those using online technologies. However, a frequent
criticism of online learning has focused on this need and many have questioned whether
20
an online learning environment can assist in the development of socially constructed
knowledge. This is a criticism levied based on traditional face-to-face teaching methods.
The nature of the criticism indicates a degree of cramming and suggests that online
educational systems are still being evaluated by the same traditional pedagogical
evaluations. By utilizing traditional pedagogical frameworks, those investigating online
learning may be neglecting the power of online education and missing the social
environments and interactions that do occur online. The importance of alternative
frameworks in online social environments is especially important given the frequent use
of online social networking sites.
The social construction of knowledge also mandates communication between
teachers and students and some form of peer communication (Borthick, Jones & Wakai,
2003; Du, Havard, Adams, & Li, 2005; Gunter, 2007; Havard, Du & Olinzock, 2005).
Since there is no face-to-face interaction between students and faculty, the capabilities of
the course management system are the only means through which a social environment
can be created. The most commonly used communication methods are asynchronous
communication systems, such as online discussion boards and email, and group
collaborative projects (UC College Prep, 2006). Chen, Olfman and Harris (2005) support
the use of asynchronous communication methods as a method of behavioral modeling
and found no significant difference between these environments and those using face-to-
face instruction. Lecture materials in the form of written or audio video materials are able
to demonstrate skills and knowledge such that a student is able to retain information
(Chen, Olfman & Harris, 2005). However, they state that these types of learning
21
environments must be developed with care in order to increase the social presence in the
online environment (Chen, Olfman & Harris, 2005). Choi, Land, and Turgeon (2005)
concur and state that while online discussions have shown promise, there is no evidence
to date of their actual benefits.
In addition to asynchronous modes of teaching, student-teacher interactions, and
student-student interaction, many online learning platforms are now utilizing
synchronous forms of communication and class interactions to improve the social
environment (UC College Prep, 2006). These efforts are an attempt to make online forms
of teaching as similar in experience to those in traditional classes as possible. Students
are able to interact with instructors and peers in real time and participate in activities such
as live streaming class lectures or audio conversations. While the use of synchronous
tools may be seen as a benefit, they detract from some of the major benefits of online
programming. In order for students to interact in real time with the teacher or other
students, all participants must be available and online at the same time. This requirement
counteracts the benefit of flexibility that makes e-learning so attractive to many students.
In addition, this is further evidence of the push to make online programming equivalent
to traditional course work. Whereas this may be desirable, it may also be distracting from
the possible benefits of online learning that may expand the learning process beyond
what is found in face-to-face programs.
The attempts to create online course management systems capable of synchronous
communication once again highlight attempts to cram traditional teaching methods into
online educational curriculum. Other cramming attempts can be seen in classes that
22
continue to teach curriculum in temporally based lectures and have standard
examinations such as written assignments, quizzes and tests. Instead of developing new
innovative techniques along a sustained innovation projection, educational institutions are
attempting to make online learning synonymous with traditional course work. This is not
surprising given the current belief that online educational programming is of a lesser
quality than traditional educational methods. However, the movement to mimic face-to-
face teaching methods detracts from the true capabilities of online systems such as its
potential to offer modular learning. The attempts to force-fit teaching methods into online
learning indicate that in spite of the benefits that computers could bring to learning, they
have been crammed into the model for the traditional product (Christensen, 2008).
Unfortunately, this demonstrates that format is one of the key differences for faculty as
well. If faculty members view education from an interdependent framework, then online
learning tools will continue to be crammed into standard teaching formats. If the current
implementation is not progressing on a disruptive trajectory, then the question arises as to
how higher education is implementing computer-based learning and what is its impact on
traditional education. Regardless of the nature through which faculty have chosen to
implement online curriculum, it is necessary to evaluate the nature of the implementation
and the factors that encourage its initiation and further development.
Part of the efforts to use traditional methods may arise from a natural resistance to
change. It has already been noted that in order for a product to exert its disruptive
potential, it can not gain entry through the original market and must seek out alternative
consumer bases in which the original product is not competing (Christensen, 2008). It is
23
worth investigating the nature of online implementation from this framework to
determine whether institutions of higher education are in fact seeking sufficient
alternative markets to allow for disruptive innovation. It should be made clear that
disruption does not emanate from dissatisfaction with the current methods, but rather
from a belief that the current system does not have the flexibility to master new skills
(Adner, 2002). Online learning has many potential benefits in addition to those related to
scheduling that allow for the mastery of new skills seen in disruption. In this manner,
online education offers a new framework that could radically alter the traditional
trajectory of educational innovation if it is allowed to develop in an appropriate manner.
While the desire for flexibility can be achieved through online modalities, a new
population must exist that is accepting of the format in its current and perceived inferior
state. One problem related to this is that there is a significant preference overlap, in which
the consumer (students) in online and traditional learning environments is expecting
similar product performance and outcomes (Adner, 2002). These mutual expectations
leave product performance and price as determining factors in consumer selection
(Adner, 2002). In the case of community colleges, online learning has yet to be
sufficiently investigated to determine whether learning differences are significant in the
mind of the student. In addition, pricing is typically equivalent for either format. In this
manner, the essential difference between online and traditional teaching is only one of
format. In this respect, it will be necessary to determine whether a difference in format
alone attracts a significantly different consumer base.
24
The disruptive innovation model offers one potential framework for evaluating
the implementation of online education. The benefits of this model are that its author has
already sought to tie his theories directly to the use of technology innovations in the
educational system. However, there are serious problems with this model as it applies to
higher education. First, it does not account for the significant control that faculty have
over issues of pedagogy and curriculum. Second, the model calls for alternative consumer
groups for the development of innovation, and there is not yet evidence that online
students are significantly different from traditional college students. Lastly, this model
assumes that the individuals using the technology will accept an inferior product. This is
contrary to other implementation models which see satisfaction with current and
alternative products as a major factor in implementation.
Technology Acceptance Model and Online Learning
Traditional models of technology implementation may stand to help explain how
educational institutions can successfully apply online educational systems and the factors
that enhance or inhibit institution-wide implementation. Technology acceptance is a
common theory used when assessing the degree and manner in which new technologies
are adapted (Keller, 2005; Vankatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). The key concept in
the technology acceptance model is that implementation of a new technology is
influenced by the acceptance or rejection of the technology at specific points during the
implementation (Keller, 2005). Since the degree of technology acceptance occurs at an
individual level, the factors of successful implementation will be related to individual
perceptions of the technology. Specific factors for personal acceptance of technology
25
have been investigated in order to develop a more thorough implementation theory.
Noted variables that impact technology implementation include performance expectancy,
effort expectancy, social influence and other facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al.,
2003).
Performance expectancy describes the degree to which an individual believes that
the new technology will be useful or help improve performance on tasks that are already
being conducted (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Inherent in this measure is perceived
usefulness, the relative advantage the new product has over existing products, and
outcome expectations (Venkatesh et al., 2003). This differs from the disruptive
innovation model in that dissatisfaction with the current methods and a believed
performance benefit is necessary to effectively implement a new technology change. The
usefulness of a product has been noted as a major determining factor in implementation
models (Gibson, Harris, & Colaric, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Gibson, Harris, and
Colaric (2008) found that perceived usefulness was a major predictor in intention to use
online learning technologies. However, there are many factors that affect perceived
usefulness in an educational setting.
Adams (2008) found that online education is seen as less preferable when
compared to face-to-face programs. In addition, Tanner, Noser, Totaro and Bruno (2008)
state that faculty are more likely to support the importance of face-to-face interactions in
learning and feel that traditional coursework offers a greater opportunity for faculty-
student interaction. Wilkes, Simon and Brooks (2006) report that faculty are also less
likely than students to view online courses favorably. With these results indicating less
26
than positive faculty views of online education, alone would question why faculty are
implementing online learning at all. Based on the technology acceptance model, there
needs to be factors capable of countering negative perceptions of usefulness in a way that
makes online education more desirable.
Some aspects of perceived usefulness will originate from beliefs regarding the
quality of learning online as compared to traditional methods and the manner in which
this relates to institutional goals. If a college is more inclined to value access as an
institutional priority, the convenience of online education and its ability to reach new
populations would be seen as a major benefit. In fact, the manner in which educational
institutions judge the relative importance of different institutional missions may
determine whether online learning is perceived as useful or deficient in quality.
Effort expectancy is directly related to the individual‟s perceived ease of use of
the new technology (Venkatesh et al, 2003). This perception of complexity and ease of
use has been found to be directly correlated with perceived usefulness (Davis, 1989). In
this regard the level of complexity of a task and its usefulness are weighed to determine
whether there is sufficient reason to put forth the effort to implement the new technology.
This is an essential component in evaluation change models since lack of knowledge of
technology and negative attitudes of their use in education are major determinants of
faculty resistance (Sadik, 2007). This is especially problematic since the technological
competency can vary a great deal in faculty populations. Given the previous information
suggesting that college structure relies heavily on departmental units, it stands to reason
that some departments may have a greater perceived ease of use than others. This may
27
explain the within-institution variability of online learning usage. In addition,
administrative or summative faculty views on ease of use may also impact system-wide
implementation.
The degree to which individuals within an institution are comfortable with
technology may be a significant factor in online implementation. Lee (2001) states that
faculty often object to online modalities because they fear technology, feel they are far
behind technological trends or feel uncomfortable with online pedagogy. In this manner,
there are many factors in ease of use. Faculty must feel comfortable with the technology
as well as the teaching techniques needed to conduct an online course. The ability to
assess the ease of use for online coursework thus has to be evaluated from both
technological and pedagogical frameworks.
One factor that impacts perceived usefulness and performance expectancy may be
the objectives that are used in order to determine usefulness. It has already been noted
that while quality of online teaching and learning may be in question, there are definite
benefits related to educational access. Wilkes, Simon and Booth (2006) have in fact
found that faculty members perceive online education as beneficial in terms of flexibility
and ability to accommodate work and social schedules. Adams (2008) has also indicated
that online education has major strengths in its ability reach out to many students who
had not originally been able to access higher education. In this manner, the perceived
usefulness of online programming may involve a process through which faculty weigh
the importance of perceived quality of online education, the ability of these programs to
meet other educational goals and the amount of effort required for implementation.
28
A common problem related to the development of an online social environment is
the novelty of the structure and domain. New domains can often lead to difficulties in
which the learner lacks the domain and metacognitive knowledge to successfully
navigate the environment and ask productive questions (Choi, Land & Turgeon, 2005).
One recommendation to assist students is to develop a behavioral module to introduce the
student to the online environment and its social capabilities (Chen, Olfman & Harris,
2005). In this manner, the professor is responsible for creating the learning environment
and introducing students to its structure in much the same way as he or she is in a
standard class. While this demonstrates methods that improve online educational quality,
it also indicates additional work for the faculty member who may already feel
overwhelmed by the new skills needed to implement online curriculum.
There are some online tools available that assist students in the learning process.
The provision of asynchronous lecture notes provide students with concrete knowledge
through which students can discover appropriate answers (Chen, Olfman & Harris, 2005).
In addition, course management systems can offer prompt feedback that will allow
students to have right answers confirmed, thereby maintaining the expectation of the
faculty as the knowledge authority (Wang & Lin, 2007). The development of diverse
perspectives is linked to the ability of online systems to present multiple-perspectives in
the course work and through the course management system. A key method used to
encourage this development is the use of peer discussions (Gunter, 2007; Havard, Du &
Olinzock, 2005; Wang & Lin, 2007). Peer discussions allow for diverse student
interactions and exposure to a social context in which students may provide their own
29
perspectives based on personal experience and cultural background (Gunter, 2007;
Havard, Du & Olinzock, 2005; Wang & Lin, 2007). Online systems also provided a
framework that may be used to increase communication among students by allowing
contact to occur outside of traditional classroom settings. Collaborative tasks are also a
manner in which students can be exposed to diverse ideas. Research supports the use of
these tasks in online education and its ability to increase student learning (Gunter, 2007;
Havard, Du & Olinzock, 2005; Lee, 2007). Lee (2007) built student review of alternative
strategies into her collaborative tasks and found positive results in student learning.
Research has also shown that active learning situations can be developed in the
online environment such that students can actively discover knowledge (Lightfoot, 2005).
The entire web can be utilized in this manner to allow students access to the many
sources on the Internet and assignments can be created in order to assist students in
evaluating these sources and developing their own viewpoint (Lightfoot, 2005).
Likewise, online discussions can be created in which peers can effectively offer their own
perspectives, constructively question those of other students and work towards the
development of their own evidence-based perspective (Choi, Land & Turgeon, 2005). In
addition, online discussions have been shown to create greater levels of critical thinking
than standard written assignments (Levin, He, & Robbins, 2006). These studies give
credence to the use of discussion boards to stimulate social interaction and discussion on
the course content. Using these tools, one is able to create an environment that embraces
reflective thought and scaffolds its development. By using an online course platform as
merely an entry point through which students can be guided to the abundance of
30
information available through the web, students can begin not only to learn course-
specific content, but also the ability to find relevant data through the Internet and evaluate
knowledge through a self-construction process. This type of work may be a benefit of e-
learning if the educational system is able to look beyond traditional learning techniques
when developing and implementing online educational programs.
Scaffolding has also been found to be effective in the online learning
environments as well (Havard, Du, & Olinzock, 2005; Wang & Lin, 2007). This
scaffolding can help students build non course-specific skills, such as critical thinking
and evaluation information sources. It can also help to teach students different ways in
which knowledge is constructed through the presentation of reflective thinking skills.
Choi, Land, and Turgeon (2005) created a scaffolding system in which students were
taught to ask questions of peers that progressively required greater critical thinking.
Likewise, Lee (2007) was able to construct tasks that required students to utilize critical
thinking skills online and through peer collaboration. Using these methods, one would be
able to assist students in developing more complex ways of knowing and to further
student cognitive development. This would allow online systems to meet the learning
needs of students and to expand learned skills beyond individual courses, and enabling
students to gain skills in the construction of knowledge that can be used in future online
and face-to-face courses.
Self-motivation is an important factor in education that can lead to increased
persistence and success in educational systems. This goal can be exemplified by a
student who can maintain volitional goal-directed behavior and who recognizes that
31
community and peer relationships are important and require give and take (Chickering &
Reisser, 1993). Cicciarelli (2007) speaks of positive interdependence and states that
some online courses have sought to have students work together with mutual and
independent accountability. Brewer and Klein (2006) investigated mechanisms to
increase this level of interaction. They found that positive interdependence can occur in
online situations and that rewards for participation and the use of assigned and multiple
roles increased the chance of its occurrence (Brewer & Klein, 2006). Although these
tools may assist students in maintaining goal-directed behaviors, there remain concerns as
to whether online courses can reach students who enter the course with the minimal self-
regulation skills needed to participate in an online course that may be substantially self-
paced. Some have even linked these issues to the low retention rates in online courses
(Lightfoot, 2005). The cumulative evaluation of the learning tools offered by online
systems and their potential drawbacks all impact the faculty decision as to whether online
systems should be implemented.
Online educational tools may also be able to assist students in developing specific
interpersonal skills, including the ability to collaborate and lead in a group. Vonderwell
and Zachariah (2005) found that use of roles was effective in increasing social
participation online. They determined that assigned roles on group collaborative tasks
lead to increased peer interactions (Vonderwell & Zachariah, 2005). These studies
indicate that peer interactions through online discussions, collaborative tasks and the use
of assigned roles can in fact assist students in the development of interpersonal skills. The
use of roles allows students to practice different skills in group relationships and to
32
determine their own strengths and weaknesses. This process of identification is a benefit
of an effectively run online course that can bring learning beyond specific course content.
However, it also exemplifies the effort required to develop appropriate online
assignments and environments that support effective student learning.
Emotion is one area that has often been neglected in educational programs in
general, and online programs have not yet thoroughly addressed e-learning within the
emotional context (MacFadden, 2007). The social interaction provided by the course
management system may have some ability to elicit emotions. Zembylas (2008) found
that emotional content does appear in online environments and that these emotions
typically change throughout the semester. This demonstrates that emotions not only
occur, but that they also evolve in e-learning programs. MacFadden (2007) suggests that
instructors create rules to ensure a safe online environment in order to provide an
opportunity to critically examine diverse worldviews to create disequilibrium and
introduce new ways of viewing the world to aid in the construction of a new perspective.
He further states that the expression of positive emotions can enhance this process and
allow learners more freedom to express themselves (MacFadden, 2007). This may be a
venue in which online learning does not have to focus. Many implementation methods
have attempted to use online technology to mimic traditional coursework as closely as
possible. As previously mentioned, the attempt to make online learning synonymous with
traditional courses may act as a distraction in which the focus is not placed on the true
potential of a continually improving e-learning technology.
33
Online education may also represent a powerful technical skill. Some traditional
courses seek to use technology in order to enhance a student‟s digital skills and to
introduce students to academic uses of the Internet and other technologies. E-learning
courses allow students to practice these skills in an environment that actively models the
benefits of technology in academia. There is evidence of programs using introductory
modules to support technical development (Chen, Olfman & Harris, 2005) and the use of
scaffolding to develop information literacy (Walton & Archer, 2004). Specifically,
instructors could use progressively more difficult tasks to teach students how to use the
web to access appropriate Internet-based evidence to support knowledge claims (Walton
& Archer, 2004). These types of information literacy skills and applied academic
technology may, in fact, increase a student‟s ability to use technology in other
educational venues.
The description of student learning techniques utilized in online education
exemplifies the positive nature of online learning and some areas in which online formats
have struggled. It is important to highlight student learning issues because faculty
members as the end-users are most concerned with online systems as they relate to
student learning. It is clear that online platforms do allow for effective learning; however,
the methods described require a great deal of work on the part of individual instructors.
When weighing the perceived usefulness and required effort to implement, faculty will
need to evaluate these issues and the manner in which technology skills impact decision-
making. This process highlights the need to investigate faculty perceptions and may be a
potential route through which divergent implementation occurs.
34
A final factor in the technology acceptance model is social influence. This may, in
fact, be an important factor in educational institutions, especially when the collegial
culture of the institution is taken into consideration. Venkatesh and colleagues (2003)
state that this social influence is determined by the degree to which one views others as
feeling that implementation of the new technology is valuable. Inherent in this measure is
the cultural or social norms of the organization and the degree to which the technology
usage would be considered image enhancing (Venkatesh et al., 2003). When investigating
these measures it is important to evaluate all levels of power in the organization. In the
diffuse structure of colleges, the view of the faculty and the administration may have
equally powerful impact on social influence, or there may be great disparity. This may be
an area in which other change models may play a role. The impact of resource
distribution, for example, may be a visible sign of an administrative view of online
learning that could impact the social influence factor of technology adaptation.
The technology acceptance model also notes facilitating conditions, which refer to
the organizational and technical structures which are already available to support the use
of the new system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). These structures could include the
institutional methods of behavioral control, such as mandatory regulations which enforce
implementation (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Other factors may be related to the systems put
in place to support implementation, such as professional development (Venkatesh et al.,
2003). In addition, levels of compatibility between current programs and the technology
may also have a major impact on the degree to which an individual accepts the new
innovation Venkatesh et al., 2003). These factors relate to standard change models that
35
indicate structural support, such as training, as having a major impact on the success of
change. One question that has yet to be answered is what structural frame influences
success most in educational institutions. While compulsory implementation may be
desirable in some settings, educational institutions may not be as accepting of these
frameworks. Especially in regards to the development of curriculum and teaching
modalities, perceived compulsion may actually dissuade some faculty from
implementation.
The diffusion of innovations model adds several other components in the
evaluation process. This model views implementation of a new technology as a process in
which the technology spreads through the organization with units or individuals have a
choice as to whether implementation should occur (Keller, 2005). The key factors in their
choice relate to the current performance gaps in the learning process and the ability of a
new technology to improve service (Keller, 2005). This factor may again be problematic
given that some reports indicate that online education does less well (Lightfoot, 2005).
The implementation decision might then also be related to what gap is being evaluated. If
the gap is viewed as one of access, student demand or enrollment growth, online learning
may be seen in a positive light. However, perceptions may differ greatly if student
success, retention and teacher beliefs on effectiveness are primary. Regardless, both the
perceived gap, and beliefs about the technologies ability to bridge these gaps will be
needed in any implementation evaluation.
The technology acceptance model adds an important perspective in the evaluation
of the implementation of online educational programming. While the disruptive
36
innovation model focuses on the technology itself and its consumers, the technology
acceptance model focuses on the intended users. The faculty, in this respect, becomes the
primary unit of evaluation and their view of the online format is paramount in the
decision to implement. This is a valuable distinction, because faculty may have a
tremendous seat of power over matters of curriculum development. In this manner, the
addition of the technology acceptance model allows an extra focus on the faculty
perceptions of online learning and adds depth to the investigation of online education.
Ely’s Eight Factors and Online Education
Theories on the implementation of educational technologies have also identified
other characteristics that may impact successful implementation. Ely (1999), through his
research, has indicated eight factors thought to relate to the successful implementation of
educational technology. He first notes that there must be dissatisfaction with the current
processes (Ely, 1999). Similar to discussions on perceived usefulness, this criterion
depends largely on which goals of the institution are being evaluated and may be very
specific to each institution. Faculty and administrators may view satisfaction levels from
frameworks related to outreach, increased access, student success, or learning. In this
manner, dissatisfaction may be an appropriate measure to investigate to determine why
differences in implementation occur and whether the goals of the institution or individual
departments affect this assessment. There may be some overlap in this assessment and the
framework offered by Christensen (2008). Individual institutions may have different
levels of satisfaction with their current enrollment and their student‟s level of success. A
high level of dissatisfaction with current functioning, while not part of the disruptive
37
innovation model, may instigate the search for alternative consumer populations for
whom the college can serve.
In addition, dissatisfaction with the current performance of a product is a complex
evaluation in the context of a school setting because educational effectiveness is affected
by external factors such the socioeconomic status of the surrounding community and
other contextual factors that may enhance or detract from one‟s ability to be successful in
an educational system. If problems in performance are thought to be related to factors
outside the control of the school, dissatisfaction with current performance may not trigger
a need for change within an institution (Knight, 2002). Knowing that a judgment of
satisfaction is extremely context-specific makes it important to evaluate the origins of
these perceptions and work to identify specific factors that may be important in the
decision as to whether to initiate change.
Another of Ely‟s (1999) criteria is the existence of the knowledge and skills
required to implement the innovation. In the case of online learning, the ability to
effectively use course management systems and implement online pedagogy would be
necessary conditions. This is yet another condition that may vary between departments
within organizations and between colleges. Departments such as Computer and Office
Applications Technology may be readily adept at converting their teaching practices to
the online world, whereas other departments may not. Likewise, institutions develop
organizational cultures, and these cultures may affect the institution‟s readiness to change
and also the value of technical skills. If there is a gap in technological skills on the
campus, it will be difficult to create the motivation to implement online teaching.
38
Ely (1999) also sees the availability of resources, the availability of time to
implement and the existence of incentives as factors in successful implementation. The
availability of resources and incentives link directly to literature on school change models
in that both of these factors indicate the level to which the institution has dedicated itself
to the implementation. This also feeds into the acceptance model‟s view of social
influence by demonstrating emphasis of the college and its administrative leadership. The
availability of time could also be a measure of institutional dedication, especially if that
time is in the form of compensated release time dedicated to furthering implementation
efforts. Each of these factors may represent powerful factors related to successful
implementation. They also point to a need to investigate the leadership and power
structures of an organization. The perceptions of key leadership can affect the decision to
create the resources that would make the environment accepting to the implementation of
online education. Likewise the structures of the organization will determine whether
those supporting implementation are in a position that has sufficient power to allow
resources to be effectively distributed and utilized.
Participation is also noted as a powerful factor in implementation of technologies
(Ely, 1999). In an educational institution, shared decision-making and involvement is
indicative of participation (Ely, 1999). Given the shared and diffuse power structures of
educational institutions, it is no surprise that this factor would be especially meaningful.
In fact, Surry, Jackson and Porter (2006) found a significant difference in the perceived
degree of importance for each of Ely‟s factors when educational level is considered. In
general, those with Master‟s or Doctorate degrees viewed participation as more important
39
than those with lesser educations (Surry, Jackson & Porter, 2006). Given the make-up of
faculty, one would expect the degree of participation and use of shared governance
methods to impact the development of innovations. The structural realities of institutions
of higher education and the proposed participation factor makes it essential to determine
the manner in which faculty and administrative leaders have participated in the decision-
making process and how that has impacted the overall implementation of online
educational programming.
Another measure of institutional dedication is commitment, defined here as
concrete evidence of institution‟s support (Ely, 1999). In this manner, items such as
mission statements and educational plans may be valuable evidence of institutional
commitment and the degree to which the college views online learning as an important
part of achieving institutional goals. The careful review of college planning documents
and institutional missions may reveal the relative importance of expanding access to
higher education and the role that the institution believes technology will play. The
provision of concrete evidence also aligns with the social factors described in the
technology acceptance model. Descriptive documents expressing the importance of
online education to the college would portray a strong level of importance to all faculty
and may impact their view of online learning.
The last of Ely‟s (1999) factors is leadership. Ely (1999) states that one should
look beyond administrative leadership to project leadership in order to determine the
impact of the leadership of those directly involved in implementation. This once again
highlights the need to determine the faculty view of online education. The diffusion of
40
power throughout colleges dictates a need to investigate various leadership groups to
determine the manner in which they impact the implementation process.
Through these eight conditions, one may gain a clearer understanding of how
educational technologies are implemented. This model moves beyond the technology
acceptance model and describes the ways that individuals and college structures can
impact the acceptance and application of new technologies. The use of these models
together is warranted given the complex social systems that exist in educational
institutions. However important a clear framework may be, there is also literature
available describing the manner in which individual factors impact change in education
institutions outside a broad model.
Institutional Factors and Technology Implementation
In addition to the models reviewed above, there is a significant literature base that
has sought to determine the independent impact of certain factors on implementation.
Organizational components are especially pertinent in this type of literature, given that
implementation is to be viewed at the institutional level. Possible institutional factors
include the speed at which an organization adopts a new technology, whether the firm
stays in a niche, and organizational memory (Lawless & Anderson, 1996; Moorman &
Miner, 1997). Lawless and Anderson (1996) state that firms that are first to implement a
new technology often gain a competitive edge over other groups that can be maintained.
In education, this may mean that those schools that have already implemented online
learning strategies may be able to stave off competition successfully from those schools
now entering the online market, or at least to experience a short-term competitive
41
advantage or them. An institutional niche may seem an oddity in a study of educational
organizations, but some schools are better known for specific aspects of curriculum,
programming or services. If a school is able to establish this niche, it may impact the
institutional culture and the manner in which online learning is viewed, thereby building
momentum behind innovative initiatives. Organizational memory is also an important
characteristic because institutional beliefs, knowledge, values and norms impact
behavioral routines (Moorman & Miner, 1996). If the memory is not supportive of the
innovation, then it is less likely that it will be successful (Moorman & Miner, 1996). In
the same manner, if the institutional knowledge runs contrary to the new innovative
models, then change will be slow (Fichman & Kemerer, 1997).
In addition to the noted organizational characteristics, the process of
implementation within a college is important. Cook, Holley and Andrew (2007) argue for
an informal model of change in which institutions allow an inspection period and allow
individual groups to begin implementation. Then through institutional support, these
groups can grow until a tipping point is reached in which the whole institution has been
successfully changed (Cook, Holley, & Andrew, 2007). This is an important aspect of
implementation because it relates to the need to act on the primary educational unit, the
department. Given the diffuse structure of educational institutions, small groups of
implementers at the department level may help in the overall institutional acceptance of
new technologies. However, this model may lead to lopsided implementation in which
only segments of the institution are accepting of the new technologies and teaching
methods. The belief that educational institutions are slow to change may also impact this
42
type of model. By allowing a go-at-your-own-pace review of new technologies, the
college may be faced with an uphill battle to create institutional change and may create a
system in which implementation is dependent on key initiators.
Another organizational consideration is the manner in which the organizational
leadership decides the importance of implementing online learning. Because of the
relative novelty of online learning systems, it is unknown what the true cost will be
(Revill, 2002). In fact some research suggests that online learning may be even more
expensive when compared to larger classrooms (Smith, & Mitry, 2008). In this manner,
institutions may need to see significant benefit from online learning to counteract the lack
of knowledge about its potential costs. Issues related to student access, marketplace
competition and the overall desire for technological innovation may be important aspects
in this evaluation that should be considered by educational administrators. As a result,
these are factors that should be investigated in order to determine their contribution to the
development of online programs within a college.
Knowing the vision and values of an organization is important in a change
paradigm. Mills, Bettis, Miller and Nolan (2005) state that problems in initiating change
are often related to an administration‟s ineffective attempts at framing change in a
manner that facilitates definitive goals and a shared framework. The impact of
organizational dedication to developing innovation is enhanced by the institution‟s ability
to frame the change in a manner reflective of the social culture of the organization. This
may be a difficult endeavor given the diffuse organizational structures of educational
institutions and the possibility that some groups may have different goals and priorities.
43
The ability of the institution to find shared meaning and a united goal that drives a change
may be an important factor in enhancing implementation of new educational
technologies. Faculty perceptions regarding online learning may be affected by a clear
message as to the benefits of online education and the purpose it serves on the campus.
The use of professional development may relate to the development of shared meaning.
Knight (2002) states that engagement of individuals in professional development
activities and reflection on those activities is an important social process that can lead to
successful change in educational institutions.
Another important factor in implementation is the model that the organization
uses to define its process. Jones and O‟Shea (2004) recommend a process that combines
deliberate and emergent processes. In this manner, the institutional leadership defines the
overall goal of the institution and works to set in place the initial structures needed to
begin the change process (Jones & O‟Shea, 2004). This top-down effort can demonstrate
the institution‟s dedication to change. Jones and O‟Shea (2004) then recommend an
emergent strategy in which the school seeks to respond to problems that arise and to give
support to those working to implement change on the departmental level. This
recommendation ties into the diffusion model of innovation, which would see a point at
which enough momentum behind the change has occurred to reach a tipping point at
which the entire institution becomes dedicated to the implementation of change.
Administrative leadership is also an important factor in successful
implementation. Nichols (2008) states that while a sense of ownership is important at all
levels, its sense at the top levels was seen in all of the successful implementations that he
44
evaluated. However, Nichols (2008) also points a need to evaluate the culture of the
organization and identify the true centers of power. In educational institutions these
centers of powers may reside within the administration or the faculty ranks. In this
manner, it is essential to determine where these powers reside, their level of agreements
on the benefit of e-learning and the overall impact that these relationships have on
successful implementation.
The culmination of this research indicates a need to investigate the college from a
holistic approach in which the institutional structure and culture, and the perceptions of
individual leaders on campus are carefully reviewed. Even though the institution is
clearly the focus of analysis, it does not exist in isolation. External governmental
organizations, political groups, communities and economic markets all may have a
substantial impact on the manner in which the day-to-day operations are conducted. In
order to fully understand technology implementation, one must also evaluate potential
external pressures that may motivate or encourage change at the institutional level.
Marketing and the College Mission
Online formats have also enabled institutions to reach out to students who have
previously been beyond the reach of the college boundaries. This is an important benefit
in the community college system since the California Educational Master Plan calls for
the expansion of higher education to meet the needs of all Californians (Thelin, 2003).
Community Colleges play an important role in this goal as the only public colleges in the
state offering open enrollment regardless of background (Thelin, 2003). The degree to
which individual colleges have taken on the mission to increase access to higher
45
education may represent a factor impacting the implementation of e-learning. Online
education allows institutions to reach out to students who may not have been able to
attend traditional college courses. This fits with aspects of the disruptive innovation
model, in that alternative markets are necessary for the development of sustained
innovations in the new technology.
The push to increase access has diminished the importance of service area
borders. Just as private institutions have sought to reach out to students from outside
specific areas, the online offerings at community colleges now make all community
colleges competitors regardless of regional location. Folker (2005) also notes that online
education has created the loss of geographic monopolies in education. Prior to the
development of distance education programs, community colleges were restricted to their
immediate service area or roughly the areas from which students were willing to
compute. With improvements in technology, students are now able to interact regardless
of locale. This has also led to increased competition for students from institutions that
had not previously been regional competitors. As the number of students enrolling in
online programming increases, institutions will be forced to develop competitive
programming in order to sustain college enrollment. Enhanced competition may become
a driving force for the creation and expansion of online programming.
The combination of technology improvements and the need to maintain a
competitive edge has created a strong market demand. Folkers (2005) notes that there are
several contributing factors to market demand for online education, including the
continued need for lifelong learning due to change in workplace requirements. In an
46
increasingly knowledge-based global economy, many who could have maintained
workforce competence with on-the-job training must now expand their skills through
continued education.
In response to workforce and global economic demands, private institutions have
begun to develop online programming, and this commercial involvement has both
responded to and created a heightened demand in the public education sectors (Scanlon &
Buckingham, 2004). Whereas local institutions previously had a built-in clientele, private
online colleges are now able to offer programming that can compete with local public
institutions and that have the added convenience of allowing students to seek education
on their own schedule and in their own homes. Funding calculations for public two-year
colleges make sustainable enrollment a major priority. Public colleges receive yearly
budgets based on the number of fulltime equivalent students enrolled at the institutions.
When private institutions enroll students who may otherwise attend a public institution,
the public institution is at risk of losing funding. In order to compete with these private
institutions, public colleges have sought to offer their online programming to remain
competitive and to ensure that local students who need greater flexibility can still utilize
their local college as their first choice in higher education.
Competition generated from student demand and the private sector‟s push to
profit from the development of online course management systems has generated a rush
to establish on-line curriculum in order to maintain a competitive edge in the educational
marketplace (Lightfoot, 2005).While the need to compete with private ventures and other
public colleges motivated the initial impetus for the developing online education, other
47
factors promote their growth. Drivers of the overall growth in online learning do not
explain variations in growth across the community college system. It is often noted that
educational institutions are slow to change, although not uniformly so. It is necessary to
investigate the degree to which educational institutions are resistant to efforts to
implement innovations and determine whether these organizational constructs are partly
responsible for the manner in which online education is being implemented across higher
education.
Complexities of Higher Education Systems and Institutions
Higher education is a complex system that must respond to both internal pressures
from faculty, staff and students as well as to external constituencies such as community
organizations, legislators, and business leaders. Despite mounting pressures from all of
these groups, institutions of higher education have remained largely unchanged (Tagg,
2008). Even when changes do occur in individual colleges or universities, they often rely
heavily on the work of individual faculty members to maintain change efforts and they
rarely have any effect on the overall institutional structure (Tagg, 2008). There are a
multitude of reasons why institutions of higher education are resistant to change, but it is
clear that colleges and universities are comprised of organizational structures that often
make large scale change a slow and difficult process. In order to better understand the
process of change in higher education, the unique structures of these organizations will be
explored with special emphasis given to organizational power structures, institutional
culture, academic freedom, and the impact of campus leadership.
48
Colleges and universities have unique structures when compared to other
businesses and organizations. The leadership of educational institutions is often diffuse,
with different departments within the institution having significant control over their own
activities. These departments along with separate administrative structures dealing with
student services, academics and fiscal activities, create divisions within the college.
These divisions can often choose to respond to change in very different ways. This
institutional structure can be described as loosely coupled (Weick, 1976). In loosely
coupled systems, separate units within the educational organizations interact with one
another, but have their own discreet identity with their own value system and directional
goals (Weick, 1976; Tagg, 2008).
The result of a loosely coupled system is that institutional-wide change is
difficult. Weick (1976) indicates that that change is difficult in loosely coupled systems
because each independent unit can respond differently to external pressures regardless of
the manner in which other institutional units may respond. Each unit is responsible for
determining its own goals, mission and internal values (Weick, 1976). Individuality runs
counter to institutional-wide values that enhance a singular direction during a change
process. Without a central organizational structure that dictates the values and directions
of the institution, it becomes difficult to align values such that each loosely coupled unit
buys into a central change (Weick, 1976; Tagg 2008). Each unit may also interact with
different units to varying degrees. As these units create clusters around shared values,
distinct subunits may develop. This has some benefits in that it protects the institutions
from fads that could result in the institution deviating from its central mission or that lead
49
to diminished institutional effectiveness (Weick, 1976). However, loosely coupled
systems may also protect the institution from a change that could be beneficial to student
success on a system-wide basis.
The importance of recognizing loosely coupled systems within educational
institutions is that it allows for a more accurate analysis of institutional change. Within
the constructs of online education and the acceptance of technological innovations,
analysis of loosely coupled systems enables one to determine whether acceptance of
innovation is occurring on a unit-by-unit level or through a broad institutional change in
values. Given the degree of variability with which colleges and universities have
implemented online education, it stands to reason that individual departments and units
may have a substantial impact on college-wide implementation. Those may indicate a
model of implementation that is supported primarily by the sustained efforts of individual
faculty or administrative leaders. The nature of the structure of colleges and universities
is also directly tied to culture reality within these institutions.
Kezar and Eckel (2002) state that the use of culture as context-based data allows
one to determine why different change strategies are effective in some situations and not
in others. They recommend that those involved in the study of change pay special
attention to the mission of the institution, to the manner in which faculty are socialized to
the mission and corresponding values, and to the impact of leadership on these processes
(Kezar & Eckel, 2002). Consistent with evidence suggesting that educational institutions
are loosely coupled systems, Tierney (1990) states that departments have become the
basic element of the higher education system. In this regard, these departments act as
50
autonomous entities with their own decision-making capabilities and values (Tagg,
2008). This cultural reality means that a simple evaluation of administrative leadership
will not enable a thorough understanding of institutional change.
In addition to being department-based institutions, colleges and universities are
also dedicated to a system of collegiality that is firmly based on academic freedom and
shared governance (Tierney, 2002). The tenants of academic freedom allow for a free
flow of creative ideas and an assurance of quality teaching that allows for instruction on
controversial subjects (Tierney, 1990). Adherence to academic freedom reinforces the
loosely coupled system because it allows each instructor control over his or her own
curriculum. The impact of independent control over curriculum is that the
implementation of new teaching models may be diffuse and varied in nature, as the social
structure is not adept to organization-wide adaptations (Elton, 1999). This may be an
important factor in the implementation of online teaching models, as there has yet to be a
consensus on the quality of online instruction. Absent this unifying value for online
education, it is anticipated that individual institutions as well as departments within those
institutions may differ in their degree of implementation. Assessment of these differences
may garner valuable insight into the nature of educational change and the factors that
support its development.
The abilities and techniques which campus leaders use to deal with changing
environments contribute to an institution‟s ability to embrace or confront change. Schein
(2004) reports that educational leaders have the ability to effect institutional culture
through many means, including role modeling, teaching, allocation of incentives and the
51
recruitment of personnel for the college. In a social structure that is already resistant to
change, a leader can still affect the degree to which a college mobilizes to enact or
confront change efforts. Neuman (1995) also supports the ability of leaders to effect
change on campus, especially through the use of resources to promote institutional goals
(Neuman, 1995). This is especially important for online education efforts because fiscal
incentives to adapt curriculum may sway faculty towards a change in teaching mode.
When evaluating the benefit of implementing a new teaching modality, a resource
incentive may be a means by which to emphasize institutional support of the new model
as well as to counter the perceived cost of implementation, such as the time to develop
new curriculum and the effort to evaluate efficacy of the new modalities.
However strong leadership may be within the college, there must be some
recognition that there are several power groups within an institution (Nuaman, 1995). In
order to truly understand the effects of leadership during educational change efforts, one
must place it in its contextual frame (Nuaman, 1995). This means that any evaluation of
change must seek to identify leaders that exist through formal positions and also those
who have garnered power through informal means. In this manner, faculty leaders and
those with academic influence may have as great an impact on the trajectory of a change
process as those administrators in formal leadership positions. This is especially true of
those changes that directly involve the creation or modification of curriculum or teaching
processes.
Despite the tendency for educational institutions to be resistant to change, models
of successful change have been developed that indicate pertinent change factors. Elton
52
(1999) comments that change can progress through stages and that there are important
factors contributing to success at each level. In early stages, it is important for those with
power to push the change process. Elton (1999) states that this can often be in the form of
financial resources or pressures from external organizations. Once the change process is
set in motion, small groups are often assembled and begin to develop more momentum
and a greater constituency through the use of pressure and support (Elton, 1999). In this
respect, the change process needs action at the top and bottom of the institution in order
to be successful (Elton, 1999). Collis (2001) concurs with this framework and further
states that pressure from above must be flexible and relevant to the actual work of those
in the organization. By connecting change to the meaningful and required activities, one
can assist in furthering institutional change. Given the diversity of subjects taught within
an institution, creating meaningful change that impacts all departments may be difficult.
Absent a single factor that is meaningful to all faculty, it may be necessary for individual
meaning to be created for subunits within the college. This need may explain some of the
disparity in the development of online learning within seemingly similar institutions.
In spite of models that describe the use of external pressures to initiate change, a
recent study has indicated divergence in many educational institutions. El-Khawas (2000)
found that external initiatives were rarely identified as the impetus for change. Heavy
pressure from external institutions, such as accrediting or governmental agencies, was not
often able to lead to institution-wide change in how schools teach and students learn (El-
Khawas, 2000). In addition, educational institutions rarely changed as a result of a single
triggering event or from pressures from accrediting agencies or governmental
53
interventions (El-Khawas, 2000). The most frequent cause of change was an awareness of
the ineffectiveness of current practices (El-Khawas, 2000). This is important in online
education because doubts about the effectiveness of online education may impact the
efforts of those who may typically represent the institution‟s change agents. Similarly,
middle managers can be the most frequent initiators of change in universities that were
attempting to change learning models. Those involved in the classroom, but those who
also have power to affect change as middle managers, would be viewed as primary
change agents because they may be the first people able to identify a need for change and
the potential benefit of new learning models or innovations.
Literature on the culture, organizational and power structures helps to give
direction on the manner in which change should be investigated at the college level.
Combined with recommendations from successful change models, the literature base
offers several factors, which should be evaluated in order to determine their impact on the
acceptance and successful implementation of online education. Specifically, leadership
factors such as acceptance of online education, dedication of resources and inclusion of
online education in institutional planning should impact successful implementation. Due
to the diffuse leadership structure of higher education institutions, faculty awareness and
acceptance, beliefs in the effectiveness of online education should also be investigated.
This type of investigation should also seek to determine whether individual departments
have sought to develop online programming at a rate that is divergent from the rest of the
campus. Through these evaluations of institutional structure, campus power systems, and
leadership beliefs and practices, one can garner a great deal of evidence on what aspects
54
of college culture and leadership impact the acceptance of technological innovations as
an educational change.
Summary –The Integration of Factors
It is clear from the literature that a change as broad as the implementation of a
new technology that changes teaching and learning is beyond a simple explanation
offered by a single model. The combination of theories and research on technology
implementation, marketing and economic demand and learning organizations helps to
establish a thorough framework with which to evaluate the manner that individual
institutions have sought to implement online education. The disruptive innovation,
technology acceptance model and Ely‟s eight factors help to explain how and why
individual users and organizations implement technology. Through these works, it is
evident that perceptions of usefulness, ease of use and the comparative quality of the new
product are essential in the decision to implement new technologies. In addition the
availability of a market for the new product and the characteristic of those markets may
also impact the implementation of online education. From studies on change in
educational institutions and frameworks describing organizational structures, culture and
leadership, it also appears that the location of power in the institution and the views of
individual leaders are also important to institutional change. In addition the culture and
values of the institution may determine whether an institution is motivated to implement
online programming. Together these factors indicate a need to study potential factors of
success in online implementation that should be investigated in the current research
study.
55
The overlap and interaction of the presented theories indicate that developing an
online program involves both a decision to initiate online education and the methods
though which online educational programming is implemented. Factors that relate to both
these areas include the organizational leadership, the perception of online education by
college constituent groups, the culture of the organization, the characteristics of the
institutions and the resources dedicated to online learning. The interaction between these
types of factors is important in determining the manner in which individuals can impact
the college structure and, reciprocally, how the college structures can impact the roles of
individuals. The cumulative interplay between these factors relates to the college‟s
overall culture and its willingness to promote new technologies, such as online learning.
Based on the literature and how it applies to online education, this study has
developed a conceptual model to describe the factors that relate the process of
implementing an online program. The decision to implement is the first step in the
development of online programming. The decision can come from a top-down decision
or an emergent strategy developing through grass-roots efforts. Top down decisions to
begin online programming may be impacted by the assessment of organizational need. In
this manner the institutional characteristics of the college are important in the decision-
making process. Emergent strategies may also be determined by a needs assessment, but
it is suggested that this takes place at a faculty level. This level matches with the
literature suggesting that the perceptions of end users are essential in the decision-making
process. Upon determination of the need for online education, there are additional factors
that may indicate the level of success in the implementation process. Among these factors
56
are the organizational leadership, perceptions of faculty and administrators, culture of the
organization, institutional characteristics and the resources dedicated to the
implementation of online education. The interactions of these factors at the various stages
of implementation are thought to be related to the overall effectiveness of the
implementation process. In this manner, a qualitative evaluation of these factors can offer
the depth needed to determine the relationship between factors and their overall
relationship to the decision to implement online educational programming and the
relative success of the implementation process.
57
Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Implementation
Implementation Factors Decision to implement
58
Chapter 3: Methods
Introduction
Online education has seen tremendous growth over the past several decades (UC
College Prep, 2006). Expansion in the use of online curriculum has been seen in the
public and private sectors of higher education, creating circumstances in which colleges
are forced to compete with other institutes of higher education regardless of locality
(Folkers, 2005). Increased demand for online education has set the field for potential
improvements in the quality and quantity of educational offerings, potentially
dramatically enhancing access to higher education (Christensen, 2008). Despite the
growth in online offerings and the seemingly universal demand for e-learning programs,
there is great variability in the rate to which colleges have implemented online learning
programs. While many studies have investigated the reasons for implementing online
education, there is a dearth of literature focusing on the reasons for such differentiation in
its implementation.
Institutions of higher education are well known as organizations that are resistant
and slow to change (Tagg, 2008), and yet some colleges have managed to successfully
meet the demand for online education and implement the corresponding new and
innovative technologies. Given the inconsistent manner in which online learning
programs are being implemented, there is a need to investigate the possible factors that
relate to an organization‟s ability to implement online learning programs. Knowledge of
technology adoption models and organizational leadership features that are associated
with successful implementation of online curriculum will allow other institutions of
59
higher education valuable insight into how to improve their own implementation
processes. In addition, the lessons learned in this investigation may serve to inform other
educational change research and give a full picture of the nature of the variability to
which new learning and teaching methods are adopted on college campuses.
In addition, determining successful strategies for technology acceptance may add
to literature on higher education leadership. Current leadership literature suggests that
key individuals may be responsible for initiating and sustaining institutional change
efforts (Tagg, 2008). Determining how campus leaders act to develop strategies and
ensure their success can assist future efforts to develop effective change strategies and
learn the manner in which leaders work with campus constituencies to build a culture
supportive of change.
Based on theories of implementation of innovations and the initiation of change in
higher education, this study has developed five research questions to address the issues
related to the variance in implementation of online learning programs in higher education
and the manner in which organizational leadership relates to change efforts. Based on the
suggested conceptual model of change, this study asks the following questions:
1. How do differences in organizational leadership relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
2. How do personal perceptions of online learning relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
3. How does the culture of the institution relate to the initiation and implementation of
online educational programming?
60
4. How do institutional characteristics relate to the degree of implementation of online
educational programming?
5. How does the support dedicated to online educational relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
The central theme of the first research question is to determine the manner in
which institutional leadership factors relate to the implementation of online educational
programming. Literature suggests that the leadership of an institution can impact the
ability of an organization to initiate and successfully implement change. Neuman (1995)
indicates that individual leaders can affect change, but that it is necessary to analyze the
culture of the institution and work within those constructs. In the context of community
colleges, it is clear that there are multiple loci of leadership and power. The faculty and
administration both have the ability through formal and informal power sources to impact
the development of new programming. To this end it is necessary to determine how
different leadership models within the sampled organizations relate to the initiation and
implementation of online programming.
Wieck (1976) indicates that in loosely coupled systems, many individual units
have discreet identities, values and goals. The investigation of both faculty and
administrative groups will allow for a thorough understanding of the decision-making
processes at each institution and the manner in which their associated leadership
structures impact the decision to develop and growth of online learning at each campus.
This requires an analysis of the formal and informal leadership structures and their effects
on establishing online programming. Models of change indicate that power structures of
61
an organization are important in the development of change in an institution. In this
manner the formal and informal structures of an organization are linked to the ability of
the organization to implement online educational programming.
The organizational leadership may also relate to the reasoning for
implementation. The need to compete (Lightfoot, 2005) or market demands (Elton, 1999)
at each institution may have varying degrees of impact on institutional change depending
on the manner through which the organizational leadership makes decisions. Christensen
(2008) indicates that organizations most likely to implement disruptive technologies are
those that have not already established a secure consumer base using traditional
technologies. Likewise, literature on market demand would support the view that
organizations with a financial need would be more likely to attempt to change practices to
garner a greater customer base. In addition, some colleges may have reached a point at
which their local markets are saturated or are no longer able to accommodate students in
a traditional face-to-face class. This may also impact the manner in which online
programs are implemented on college campuses. In this respect, the manner in which
leadership models decide to implement online programming can affect the overall
success of the implementation efforts.
The second research question focuses on the manner in which the perceptions of
faculty and administrators relate to the implementation of online educational
programming. Each group has a unique ability to effect change as it relates to the
implementation of online learning. Faculty members, as end users, have a great deal of
power in deciding whether to use online curriculum. In this manner, their perceptions
62
could drastically effect he implementation of online learning. The technology acceptance
model (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003) indicates that the perceptions of end
users on the value, ease of use and usefulness impact the willingness to implement new
technologies. Administrators, on the other hand, have the ability to effect change through
decisions related to the priorities of the college and the manner in which resources are
allocated. In this manner, their perceptions about the overall value to the institution at a
macro-level are important to the decision to implement online learning and the degree of
support offered to grow the program.
The diffusion of innovation model indicates that there must be a level of
dissatisfaction with current practices and a perceived performance gap in order for
individuals to work towards adopting new technologies. Ely (1999) and the technology
acceptance model concur with this view and indicate that individual beliefs are important
in the change process. In this manner, the perceptions of faculty and administration are
important in the implementation process and could impact one another and relate to the
degree of implementation.
The third research question addresses the culture of the organization. The manner
in which the culture of an institution supports change and online learning is important to
the implementation process. Ely (1999) indicates that the degree to which technologies
are perceived to be important can affect the decision and success of change. The culture
of the institution and the importance of change initiatives can be revealed through the
planning documents and the manner in which resources are allocated. In addition, the
manner in which different power structures assert power may also affect implementation.
63
To this end, the size of the faculty and its relative power may relate to the implementation
of online educational programming.
The literature provided in this study also indicates that institutions of higher
education have unique cultural practices and structures. One major area of focus is on the
department as the primary unit within educational organizations and the ability of the
faculty to determine issues related to teaching and curriculum development. Even though
academic freedom and faculty leadership are seen across all institutions of higher
education within the United States, they may exist to varying degrees. This view, along
with the ability of faculty to participate in the decision-making process, makes an
investigation of faculty involvement in the curriculum development process essential.
However, colleges have multiple goals and missions. As a result, the values of the
institution and perceptions regarding the relative prioritization of access and student
success may impact implementation. The manner in which organizational leaders work
within the cultural context to assist change may also be an important factor.
The fourth research question addresses the institutional factors that may relate to
the decision to initiate online educational programming and the ability of an organization
to conduct a successful implementation process. Literature has noted several factors that
may relate to the ability to change generally and specifically to implement new
technologies. The size of an institution is thought to be related to technology acceptance.
Christensen (2008) indicates that smaller firms are better suited for implementing
disruptive innovations, such as online education. Other factors such as financial resources
could be related to either success or failure to implement. Whereas lesser funds may
64
serve as a motivator for change (Christensen, 2008); greater funds may allow for needed
funds to support change efforts (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). Facilities may
also impact implementation. Lack of facilities may be an impetus for online development
to accommodate increased need. However, a surplus of space may be indicative of a
struggling college and the need to compete through new mechanisms or models
(Christensen, 2008).
The last research question focuses on the resources and personnel dedicated to
implementing online educational programming. The technology acceptance model and
Ely‟s model note that institutional support is a primary indicator of successful
implementation (Ely, 1999). Specifically, the ability of the college to garner resources
and provide incentives will enhance change processes. Based on this research, it is
important to determine the monetary and personnel resources dedicated to online learning
at each campus and to determine the manner in which these resources relate to the ability
of the institution to implement and online educational program.
Together, the answers to these questions will help to better understand the relative
importance of different aspects of college structures, institutional culture, and
organizational leadership on the implementation of online learning programs. The results
of this study will help to determine the manner in which the overlap between the factors
of each research question relates to the implementation of online learning. Specifically,
the study may indicate the how different leadership models and organizational values
work to determine whether to initiate, implement and sustain online educational
programming.
65
Table 1: Research Questions and Related Factors
1. How do differences in organizational leadership relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
Initiation Implementation
Position of leader Position of leader
Market demand Market demand
Competition Competition
Reason for initiation
2. How do personal perceptions of online learning relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
Initiation Implementation
Faculty perceptions Faculty perceptions
Administrative perceptions Administrative perceptions
Uniformity of belief Uniformity of belief
4. How does the culture of the institution relate to the initiation and implementation
of online educational programming?
Initiation Implementation
Faculty power College mission
Administrative power College plan
Faculty power
Administrative power
4. How do institutional characteristics relate to the degree of implementation of
online educational programming?
Initiation Implementation
Size of institution Size of institution
Financial status Financial status
Facilities capacity Facilities capacity
Need to compete Need to compete
5. How does the support dedicated to online educational relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
Initiation Implementation
Incentives Incentives
Personnel Personnel
Budget Budget
To address these research questions, a comparative case study of three two-year
community colleges in the California Community College System was conducted.. Based
on the research questions proposed, this method leads to a sample in which the size and
structural characteristics of the sample set vary greatly. This allows the study to
66
determine which independent variables relate to the overall implementation of online
educational programming.
The study uses mixed methods in which quantitative data is used to determine
institutional factors such as the size and fiscal status of each institution, and qualitative
data is used to address the research questions. Qualitative methods are the primary means
of data collections, consisting of college document analysis and interviews of campus
leaders from the faculty and administrative ranks.
System Description
To address the primary research questions, this study seeks to investigate a
sample of California community colleges. Community and junior colleges are prolific,
with more than a thousand colleges throughout the country, which enroll nearly half of all
the nation‟s undergraduate students (American Association of Community Colleges,
n.d.). In addition, two-year colleges serve a role of increasing access to higher education
for the nation‟s citizenry. Given the number of students that these institutions serve and
their efforts to increase access to higher education, community colleges represent a
critical area in need of investigation. The research questions developed for this study
allow for an in-depth study of the manner in which the central characteristics of each
college impact its ability to change and implement new innovative technologies. The
breadth of the study adds significant strength, in that it will allow for inferences to be
made across institutions that may allow for application to other areas of higher education.
Given that little attention has been paid to the manner in which these organizational
67
actors converge to impact implementation practices, the breadth and depth of this study
appropriately allows for a detailed introductory analysis.
The California Community College System is a large system of two-year colleges
offering Associate Degrees and technical certificates. The programs offered range from a
single semester to full sixty-unit degrees. In addition, the colleges within the system offer
transfer curriculum that can lead students on to four-year colleges and universities. As
such, the system represents a gateway to higher education through the two-year colleges
and on to four-year degree granting institutions.
The community colleges in California are open access institutions with limited
requirements for entrance. In addition, California high school students can take
community college courses for free, provided that they have a signed release from their
secondary school. As open-access institutions, the system provides education to a diverse
student population with a range of educational skills and reasons for seeking higher
education within the system. The diversity of the students seeking services at the
community colleges leads to diverse missions and objectives within each district and
college.
The colleges in this study were sampled from a single district within the
California Community College System. As indicated in Figure 1, in a multi-college
district, there exist standard structures through which each college must navigate. All
colleges report to the same Chancellor and Board of Trustees. The colleges all work
under the same general processes regarding hiring, curriculum development and payroll.
68
Outside of District policies, each college has the ability to create decentralized processes
to best serve the needs of the individual college.
The colleges divide into the divisions of Academic Affairs, Student Services and
Administrative Services (See Figure 1). Employees within the colleges fall into these
three categories. Classified staff represent a wide range of support services and work in
each division. Administrators provide management in each division and centralized
management through the President of the college. Faculty provide instruction in the
college and work in various faculty leadership and support roles that are defined by the
college.
Figure 2: Organizational Structure
The faculty is represented by the American Federation of Teachers. The faculty
union provides representation during contract negotiations. The contract also provides
general rules and regulations through which faculty roles are defined. For example, as it
Board of Trustees
District
College
Academic Affairs Student Services Administrative Services
Academic Senate
69
relates to online education, the contract defines the limits on the number of students that
faculty new to teaching online can take in their class. As a result, the contract can have
powerful implication on the manner in which online education can be offered.
The power structures of community colleges in California are partially determined
by state laws. Assembly Bill 1725 mandates shared governance in California Community
Colleges and gave faculty groups, such as the Academic Senate, primary responsibilities
related to recommendations involving academic and professional matters. These matters
include: curriculum, including establishing prerequisites, degree and certificate
requirements, grading policies, educational program development, standards or policies
regarding student preparation and success, college governance structures, as related to
faculty roles, faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, policies for faculty
professional development activities, processes for program review, processes for
institutional planning and budget development, and other academic and professional
matters as mutually agreed upon (Academic Senate for the California Community
Colleges, n.d). Based on these areas, it is clear that faculty have a great deal of say in the
development of online programs and course offerings. Curriculum, educational program
development, and degree and certificate requirements are all areas involved in the
development of online programming. As such, faculty have a great deal of power in the
development of online education.
All colleges in the district are accredited through the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges. The ACCJC confers accreditation status to two-year
institutions in California and oversees compliance of accreditation standards meant to
70
ensure educational quality (Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,
2002). The standards involve the provision of student services and educational
programming, along with the manner in which controls are put in place to assure
institutional quality. In fact, ACCJC has specific processes for approving online
programming when the college reaches the point at which a program can be completed
50% or more online (Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,
2009).
A large portion of the accreditation standards focuses on the creation and
implementation of college plans. The standards state that college presidents are
responsible for "ensuring that educational planning is integrated with resource planning and
distribution to achieve student learning outcomes (Accrediting Commission for Community
and Junior Colleges, 2002).” Based on this standard it is clear that planning at the college
level is meant to be more than visionary statements. Planning should be the vehicle through
which priorities are established and resource decisions are made. As such, the educational
plans of a college send an important message that indicates the areas that a college will focus
its resources in an attempt to improve educational quality.
This study employs a purposeful sample. In order to limit the number of external
factors that may impact the degree of implementation, a single college district was chosen
from which all sampled colleges will be drawn. This sampling method allows the
researcher to limit many of the confounding variables that can be associated with
independently run colleges or those from different structures. One major benefit is that all
campuses within the district must respond to the general planning structure of the district
including common goals and values for all campuses. This limits the differences between
71
the institutions to the specific organizational and cultural factors that develop at the
college level. The use of a single district also ensures that there is a degree of similarity in
the funding processes for each institution. In addition, all colleges within the district are
located in the same urban area. While variations in student and community demographics
exist, there remain broadly similar market demand and levels of competition.
College Sampling
Within the single district that is being investigated, a maximum variation
sampling technique will be used. Initial investigation of the community college district
revealed that college campuses had varying degrees of online education implementation.
Specifically, the range within the district varies from twenty-two sections offered per
semester to over one-hundred. In addition, one college‟s online enrollment represents
more than 25% of the college‟s total enrollment. This range is indicative of the variance
across the higher education system. This variation allows the study to investigate
common and divergent factors that may lead to information on how they impact online
implementation. Within this sample there is also a diversity of college size and financial
status. Variability in this sample increases the ability to evaluate structural and human
factors that may play a role in the implementation of online education.
Quantitative measures used in college sampling and for initial analysis were
drawn from the district student information system. This system is the primary district
data warehouse for all college-level data regarding students, faculty, and finances. The
data was used as a primary means for determining the colleges to be used in the study
72
sample. Based on this preliminary data the following colleges were selected for inclusion
in this study.
Table 2: Institutional Selection Characteristics
College Prolific Crossroads Upstart
Online Sections 231 114 20
College FTES 7,537 22,983 15,323
Credit Student
Headcount
9,216 22,885 19,960
As described in Table 2, College Prolific offers more online courses than any
other college in the district with 231 sections offered in fall 2009. Although College
Prolific has the largest online enrollment in the district, it is one of the smaller colleges
with only 9,216 students representing 7,537 Fulltime Equivalent Students (FTES).
College Crossroads has moderate implementation with 114 online sections offered in fall
2009. However, this college is the largest in the district with 22,885 students in fall
representing a total FTES of 22,983. College Upstart has a low level of implementation
with only 20 sections of online courses offered in fall 2009. This college is the second
largest college in the district with 19,960 students representing 15,323 FTES. Together
these institutions offer a range of institutional characteristics appropriate for the stated
methodology. The total FTES for online enrollment ranges from 96 to 697, representing
adequate variation in online implementation to fully investigate factors that impact
implementation.
This sampling design fits with the frameworks used for this study. Christensen
(2008) indicates that those colleges (firms) that are already the most successful are less
73
likely to implement inferior (disruptive) technologies. In the study sampling, there are
colleges that lead the district in terms of enrollment and budget and one that is in the
lowest in both categories. The sample will allow an evaluation of Christensen‟s (2008)
theory. In addition, the technology acceptance model states that a perceived performance
gap and the degree to which a system is felt to be useful affect overall implementation.
The value of this within an educational institution is that performance gaps and
usefulness may differ depending on whether the college views access or quality as its
primary goal. The use of these diverse institutions will allow the study to investigate the
cumulative impact of each college‟s goal and status.
A potential weakness of the sampling methodology is that it is partially based on
convenience. The researcher has a great degree of access to the college-level data and to
those employed at the colleges within the district. While a convenience sample is a
weakness, Patton (2002) states that it is acceptable when convenience is not the primary
reason for the selection. In this case, there are multiple colleges that the study could have
investigated within the district, but other criteria were carefully selected in order to
provide the most appropriate sample for this investigation. In this manner, the sampling
methodology fits with the general research design and will enable a thorough
investigation of the research questions.
Initial contacts with each college began with the college research offices. The
researchers of each campus gave consent for research to be conducted and directed the
study investigator to each college president. Each president authorized research to be
conducted and signed a letter of support for use in recruiting faculty and administrators
74
needed to complete the study design. Documentation was provided on the purpose of the
study and the potential benefit to colleges choosing to participate. Each college was
informed that all institutions and individual participants will be kept confidential.
Following the approval process at each college, the investigator began the process of
choosing administrative and faculty members to interview.
Methods and Instrumentation
In order to fully investigate the colleges in this sample, this study employs both
quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Included in the quantitative measures are
enrollment, faculty, and financial data for each campus. The total college fulltime
equivalent students (FTES), enrollment and budget were used to determine how the size
and financial attributes of the college affect implementation. The number of online
sections offered and online enrollment were used in order to determine the degree of
implementation on each campus. These data offer a quantitative picture of how
successfully online educational programs have been implemented as well as a means of
evaluating some general campus-wide aspects of the college in general. These data are
important in the analysis of the college structure as well as in determining the overall
effectiveness of each institution in implementing online educational programming.
While quantitative measures of success are useful and assist in categorizing
factors thought to impact implementation, a deeper understanding of the implementation
process is required. In order conduct a thorough investigation of implementation factors
and the manner in which they interact, qualitative measures were used as the primary
means of data collection for this investigation. Faculty and administrative interviews and
75
college document analysis enable a thorough examination of the structural and human
resource factors that impact college implementation of online education.
Interview Participants
This study employs central interview protocols, which are geared towards the
administrators and faculty. Because the structural components and power relationships
inside each campus are important to the research questions, these protocols allow for the
perspectives of each group to be included in the dataset. In addition, the use of both
groups assists in the ability to evaluate the campus culture and its impact on
implementation. Administrators provide insight into the college planning structure and
the manner in which online educational programming is incorporated with standard
planning and governance processes. Table 3 offers a summary of the interview
participants at each campus.
Table 3: Interview Participants
Interviewees Prolific Crossroads Upstart
Vice President
Vice President of
Academic Affairs
Vice President of
Liberal Arts and
Sciences
Vice President of
Academic Affairs
Dean
Dean of Distance and
Instructional
Technology
Dean of Academic
Affairs
Dean of
Academic Affairs
Curriculum Leader Curriculum Chair Curriculum Chair ----------------------
Department Chair
Chair of Arts and
Humanities
Chair of
Philosophy
Chair of
Philosophy
Teaching Faculty ------------------------
Philosophy
Instructor
Philosophy
Instructor
Online Faculty
Leader
Chair of Online
Education Committee
Distance Education
Coordinator
Chair of
Educational
Technology
Committee
At each college, the Vice President of Academic Affairs and the administrator in
charge of distance education were interviewed. These two representatives have been
76
chosen because they offer valuable information regarding the goals and values of the
academic programming and its relationship to online programming. The administration of
the college is uniquely situated to participate in the college planning process at a global
level. The high levels of interaction with the college president and with college shared
governance and planning structures provide these persons valuable information on the
relative importance of online education and its relationship to the college‟s mission,
values and goals and its integration with the general college culture.
At each college, the Vice President of Academic Affairs was available for
participation in this study. However, each campus had different structural systems related
to administrative leadership in online education. At College Prolific, the Dean of
Distance and Instructional Technology was interviewed. At College Crossroads, a Dean
of Academic Affairs, who has been placed in charge of online education, was
interviewed. At College Upstart, a Dean of Academic Affairs, who has been placed in
charge of online education, was interviewed. Each of these individuals represents the
administrative experts in online education for each college and has the requisite
knowledge of the college‟s decision-making systems.
Due to the dispersion of power among faculty, this study sought to interview four
faculty representatives at each campus. The first representative occupied an online
educational leadership role, either through a formal position in the organization, on a
distance education committee, or an informal leadership position related to online
learning. Given the anticipated variation in online implementation, this method allowed
the protocol to incorporate faculty leadership regardless of the organizational structure
77
within the college. At College Prolific and College Upstart, the faculty representatives
held positions on each college‟s governance committee related to online education or
educational technology. At College Crossroads, the faculty member held a position as the
Distance Education Coordinator.
The second faculty representative occupied a leadership role related to the
development and approval of curriculum on the campus. While this may not be directly
related to online learning, the processes through which curriculum is approved and the
perceptions of online learning for those involved in the process are thought to be
essential. At College Prolific and College Crossroads, the Chair of the Curriculum
Committee was interviewed. At College Upstart, the Chair was unavailable for an
interview and did not respond to email or phone calls regarding scheduling of the
interview.
In order to create a greater degree of consistency across all campuses,
departmental faculty members were all selected from the same discipline. The online
offerings of each college were compiled. Based on this data, three disciplines were found
that had online offerings at each college. A random selection tool was used to choose a
single discipline to focus on in the study methods. Philosophy was randomly selected as
the discipline of concentration for this study. The third faculty representative occupied a
departmental leadership position related to the Philosophy discipline. The diversity of the
institutions revealed that only two colleges had Philosophy departments with formal
chairs. At College Upstart and College Crossroads, the Department Chairs of Philosophy
78
were interviewed. At College Prolific, the Department Chair of Arts and Humanities who
oversees Philosophy was interviewed.
The fourth faculty interview was with a faculty member who was actively
teaching an online course in the Philosophy Department. At College Crossroads and
College Upstart, several faculty members met this criterion. A random selection process
was initiated in order to select an appropriate teaching faculty member. At College
Prolific, only one faculty member met these criteria. Although several contact attempts
were made, the faculty member was unavailable for interview. However, the faculty
leader at College Prolific was also an online instructor and was able to fill some of the
gaps caused by the inability to interview the Philosophy instructor.
The complete panel of administrative and faculty interviewees provides detailed
information on the manner in which online courses are offered at each campus and the
development of online educational programming. The panel of interview participants are
summarized below.
Interview Procedures
Each of these individuals was interviewed using a semi-structured interview
protocol. Participants were given a summary of the purpose of the investigation that
included information on his or her voluntary participation in the research. In addition,
information was provided on the potential benefit to the institution and the degree to
which information will be shared with the college to assist in its implementation process.
Statements indicating that the data gathered from individual participants will be kept
confidential were also provided. The interviews lasted between thirty and ninety minutes
79
depending the depth with which each administrator answered the interview questions.
The protocol allowed for an investigation of central research questions related to topics
developed from the theoretical frameworks.
Interviews were scheduled with participants or with his or her corresponding
administrative assistant. Preliminary information was provided on the background of the
study and the purpose of the interview. In addition, details were given on the general
topics that were addressed in the interview protocol. Participants were told that
interviews will last for approximately one and a half hours. Each interview began with an
introduction and a brief description of the study and its purposes read from a script. A
statement of confidentiality was provided to participants to assure them that all data
collected will remain confidential. In addition, the investigator requested permission to
create an audio recording of the interview for later analysis.
The semi-structured format allowed the investigator to ask follow-up questions
related to the areas of focus revealed by each participant. As anticipated, each campus
had distinctive characteristics and the use of a semi-structured protocol enabled the
investigation of emergent themes for use in data analysis. The investigator initiated the
interview protocol. In addition to the audio recording, detailed notes were taken
throughout the interviews. The investigator asked follow-up questions and took
additional notes as emergent themes developed. At the conclusion of the interview, the
participants were thanked and asked about the possibility of a short telephone follow-up
to clarify any issues that arise during data analysis. The detail of the interviews did not
require any follow-up at this point.
80
Administrative Interview Protocol
The main focal point of the administrative interviews was to determine the
manner in which the organization has prioritized online education on each campus. To
this end, the study investigated the administrative perspective on the relationship between
the college mission and online education. Relative to this, the study sought to determine
the manner in which resources have been given for further online development. Given the
potential impact of college culture, it was also be important to determine the
administrative view on the manner in which online education fits within the culture and
whether the culture is supportive or inhibiting of change. The semi-structured interview
questions can are located in Appendix A. These questions focus on perceptions and use
of online curriculum, availability of professional resources dedicated to online learning,
the structural location and power related to online programming, the decision-making
capability of faculty and administrators related to initiation of online programming and
the degree to which online learning supportive of the college mission, goals, enrollment
and access.
Faculty Interview Protocol
Faculty offer several unique perspectives. First, all curriculum approval is
conducted by faculty committees. In this respect, faculty have significant control over
whether online programming is able to be implemented on each campus. Second, as the
end user, faculty have a unique ability to judge the quality of online education and the
potential cost related to its implementation. To this end the faculty will be able to give
valuable perspective on the utility of online programming and the manner in which online
81
systems relate to the pedagogy used on the campus. Finally, an investigation of faculty
perspectives will assist in determining whether faculty and administrative views of online
learning are in agreement and whether this will impact the degree of implementation. The
semi-structured interview questions can are located in Appendix A. These questions
focus on perceptions and use of online curriculum, the curriculum development process,
availability of professional resources dedicated to online learning, the structural location
and power related to online programming, the decision-making capability of faculty and
administrators related to initiation of online programming and the degree to which online
learning supportive of the college mission, goals, enrollment and access.
Document Analysis
In addition to interview protocols, document analysis was used for triangulation
and confirmation of data collected through qualitative interviews. The focus of this
analysis was on college planning documents. This analysis gives information regarding
the relative importance of improving access versus enhancing student success and the
manner in which technological innovations are seen as a priority for the college. All
college planning documents are public domain and were accessed without any additional
approval from college representatives. Each document was reviewed and coded relative
to the structural location and power related to online programming, the decision-making
capability of faculty and administrators related to initiation of online programming and
the degree to which the college prioritizes access, student success, and educational
technology.
82
Data Analysis
At the completion of data collection, analysis of qualitative findings was initiated.
All interviews were transcribed and coded based on relative research question subtopics.
All data elements were categorized using this method and labeled with the theoretical
frameworks that they support or disconfirm. The coding allows for the systematic
evaluation of factors related to each college‟s implementation status. Overlaps between
successful implementation were used to confirm elements that were related to the ability
to support implementation, while those found in colleges with low levels of
implementation were considered to be less related to implementation. Overlaps between
data elements were investigated to determine the relationship between implementation
factors and the manner in which interaction effects impact implementation.
All factors identified in the research questions were arrayed in a gross grid along
with the college‟s level of implementation. In this manner, a visual representation of the
factors unique to successful versus unsuccessful implementations was created. This
further qualitative coding of interview data was used in order to expand on these central
findings. Triangulation of faculty and administrative interview data, quantitative data,
and documentation assisted in the confirmation of individual findings. Based on these
techniques, final inferences were made and possible implications identified. The study
utilizes of a cross grids to demonstrate factors that are universal across all colleges as
well as those that are divergent. Divergent independent variables allow the investigator to
explore each variable and the manner in which they relate to institutional success in
developing online programming.
83
Delimitations and Limitations
The delimitations of this study include a focus exclusively on community
colleges. The current trends in expansion of online education in the K-12 and university
systems will not be accounted for in the current study. The singular focus on two-year
institutions may limit the degree to which the finding can be applied to other areas
experiencing growth in online programming. However, given the variability of missions
and structure between K-12, two-year colleges and universities, a focus on a single type
of organization is fitting. The concentration on community colleges is appropriate given
its mission to improve access to higher education and reach out to underrepresented
populations in higher education, as well as the total number of higher education students
that these institutions serve.
In addition, this study does not seek to determine the actual effectiveness, quality
or benefits of online learning. The qualitative methods only seek to identify the
perceptions of the quality of online education regardless of what other evaluations of
online systems have determined. While this is a weakness of the study methodology, an
investigation of efficacy was beyond the scope of the research questions and was not
feasible in the current investigation. The theoretical frameworks only speak to the
perception of usefulness and expectancy, and this may vary greatly with the actual
abilities of online systems. In this manner, the perceived benefits are more fitting the
research questions than the empirically validated quality of online education.
The use of a single district allows for control of some factors related to
implementation, but may also limit the ability to apply the current findings to other two-
84
year institutions within California as well as in other states. It is the position of this paper
that the chosen district is representative of other districts within the community college
system. However, variations in governing structures and power systems between districts
and within single-college districts may represent confounding variables that limit the
application of the current findings to other institutions. In spite of this, there is significant
potential value in the findings and methodological focus. While some variables may not
be explored, the conceptual research indicates that multiple variables will contribute to
the overall ability to implement new technologies. In this respect the current study will
add to the literature in a way that allows educators in many organizations to apply these
findings.
A major limit of this study is that the qualitative investigation is focused on
relatively few individuals on campus. While efforts have been made to ensure that the
investigation is focused on those most knowledgeable of and influential in the
implementation process, it does not attempt to determine the overall faculty view of
online education. Given that individual instructors have the ability to choose whether
they want to use online methods on an individual level, their views are important.
Lacking this information makes it difficult to determine whether the college has reached
a tipping point at which the majority is now in favor of online programming. However,
the relative novelty of online education indicates a need to investigate implementation at
a more basic level. The current methodology allows one to determine how leadership and
organizational factors impact online education implementation in a way that may allow
the results to be used to better situate a campus for the implementation process. Future
85
research should focus on the broader perceptions of faculty using the findings of this
qualitative study as a guide for developing tools to measure identified factors.
86
Chapter 4: Results
Overview
A qualitative analysis of each interview was conducted and relevant data was
categorized based on the study research questions and subtopics. The general findings
indicate that many of the hypothesized factors do relate to the degree of implementation
of online education. In addition, there are several areas in which these factors overlap to
impact one another.
The organizational leadership of the colleges proved to be related to the ability to
implement online learning. Most importantly, it seems that colleges require different
types of leadership in different stages of the implementation process of online learning.
Faculty leadership is indicated in the introductory stages when there is a need to develop
faculty support and usher the new modality through the college curriculum processes,
which are overseen by faculty members. However, administrative leadership was
indicated in later stages when efforts were more focused on the need to garner and
coordinate resources. In addition, the relative power of the faculty and the degree to
which values are shared appear to relate to implementation. To this end, colleges with a
consolidated faculty body that is supportive of change are more likely to be successful.
The faculty and administrative views both related to the degree of
implementation. Administrative views appeared to be related to the degree of resources
provided for online education, with greater administrative support leading to more
resources allocated for online programming. The faculty support was connected with
initial efforts to begin the development of online education and sustained efforts to
87
continue to build the program to meet the needs of the college. In the college with the
least online course offerings, it was clear that faculty resistance to online learning or
technology in general was a prime reason for the institution‟s lack of online development.
In later stages, it appears that support for online learning among faculty was essential in
continued growth efforts.
Whereas it has been noted that there is a need for a faculty leader in the initial
stages of implementation, not any leader will do. The faculty and administrators all
described leaders who were able to grasp the culture of the college and work within its
structures to garner support for online learning. This was not done through the provision
of formal power through the organization, but through the development of informal
relationships and the use of expertise and persuasion. In this manner, the person is more
important than the position in developing successful leadership for online programming.
The organizational culture was related to the success of implementation efforts,
but this trend was exhibited more in the responses from individuals than in the college
planning documents. Curriculum was approved in rather uniform ways across the
colleges. However, the availability of a campus leader to support online courses through
the approval process was indicated as an important tool in advancing online learning.
While there were different degrees to which colleges expressed the values for access and
online education in planning documents, the greater variation was in the expressed value
among interview participants. Greater expressed support for online learning and shared
value across all college constituencies was exhibited in the college with the most
successful online program.
88
Institutional factors also relate to implementation. As predicted by Christensen
(2008), smaller colleges which have not already established a large consumer base are
more likely to embrace online learning and work toward successful implementation. A
greater availability of funds did not appear to enhance the ability to implement online
learning. This may be a result of the relationship between size and fiscal standing, with
the largest schools also having the larger financial balances. While it was anticipated that
having full usage of facilities would increase the desire and consequential ability to
implement online learning, this was not seen. In fact, the college with the most available
on-campus space had the largest online program.
As predicted, institutional support was positively related with the implementation
of online learning. Greater personnel and other resources enhanced the ability to grow
online programs, and lesser resources were implicated as barriers in schools with less
successful online programs. While incentives were thought to be related to increasing the
desire to participate in the development of online learning, this relationship did not
appear to be this simple. Incentives had varying degrees of effectiveness, and the manner
in which incentives were offered may be more important than the actual provision of
incentives in general.
Together it appears that many of the factors presented in the research questions
were related to implementation. In addition, the interactions between these factors also
relate to the degree of implementation and the ability to develop a robust online program.
The following sections address the research questions individually and describe the
89
manner in which each relates to the decision to implement and the success of
implementation efforts.
Organizational Leadership
The organizational leadership structures of each institution are thought be related
to the manner in which online education is implemented and whether the implementation
is successful. The first research question asks:
1. How do differences in organizational leadership relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
The organizational structures of each institution are similar with each college
divided into divisions of Administrative Services, Student Services and Academic
Affairs. Generally, student service divisions concentrate on providing nonacademic
services, such as admissions, counseling, and tutoring. Administrative Services oversees
areas needed to continue operations of the college, such as fiscal operations, information
technology and other areas that do not provide direct services to students. Academic
Affairs oversees the provision of all academic offerings. Some institutions split the duties
of Academic Affairs into areas focusing on general liberal arts and sciences and
workforce or vocational education. The position of online education was similar among
all institutions in that all online education was ultimately under the responsibility of the
Vice President of Academic Affairs. The position of online education under Academic
Affairs was fitting in that all departments offering academic courses fall under Academic
Affairs.
90
Having Academic Affairs oversee online education is appropriate given that this
division is responsible for scheduling of courses and the development of online
programming. However, there are some instances in which other divisions are needed to
successfully implement online programming. Some colleges noted that the provision of
Student Services was an essential component of online programming. This was seen in
the Educational Master Plan for College Crossroads, which stated the need to develop
online counseling for distance education and traditional students. Despite the seeming
need for the inclusion of Student Services, all colleges had their primary leadership
placed under Academic Affairs. College Prolific has been successful at completing some
degree of integration between Academic Affairs and Student Services for online students,
but this has not been the case at other institutions.
Although the general structure of each college was similar, the leadership role for
online education varied greatly. The data shows that both formal and informal leaders in
online education emerge in their institutions. These leaders have varying degrees of
success. While the style and abilities of individuals may play a role in the success of
individual leaders, there are a great number of interactions between other factors as well.
The position of the leaders at each college is one such factor. The role of online education
leaders differs depending on whether the formal role is that of a faculty member or
administrator.
At Prolific there was a complete Department of Online Education headed by a
Dean of Distance and Instructional Technology whose only responsibility was overseeing
online programming. This was an effective model in that he was able to develop
91
comparable services to online students and provide faculty assistance in every aspect of
online learning. Prolific Vice President states, “We have online counseling, online
library, online learning center, both support services as well as courses to support the
online student.” The Dean of Distance and Instructional Technology at Prolific indicates
the importance of having an administrator to accomplish this, stating, “I think at this
point, [being an administrator] has enhanced my ability to [create a whole program].”
In addition to a full-time Dean of Distance and Instructional Technology, Prolific
also has several classified support staff. The Dean oversees the development of online
educational programming, ensures that systems are appropriate to address the college‟s
online educational needs and supervises support staff and faculty training. In addition to
the online educational staff, there are multiple faculty members that assist in the training
of faculty in online learning tools. The faculty and administrators voice strong support of
the administrative leadership. The Vice President states “…it seems like the natural
progression from this faculty leadership position to administration.” The Dean also
indicates:
The program has grown and the college has matured in its understanding and use
of instructional technology and so now there are things that I hope to be able to do
as an administrator that would have been difficult to do as a faculty member.
While the college is clear that the dean position is needed and valuable, individual
comments also detail the fact that the success of online programming could not have
begun without a faculty leader. The current Dean of Distance and Instructional
Technology states, “At the same time if I‟d taken on [the Dean‟s] role much, much
earlier, I don‟t know that we would have had the foundation to build on.”
92
A faculty member also comments:
…I bet it worked out much better that he started from where he was, because he
knew exactly what had to be done. I think he had insight and he knew from his
own experience how to solve the problems that needed to be solved…
The curriculum chair concurs, noting, “Yes, I think that [being a faculty member] really
helped and if he had been a dean, he would have had to locate a faculty member who
would have the trust of the brothers and sisters in the classroom.” The comments indicate
a need to have a faculty leader in the initial stages of online education, but it also points
to the need to use these faculty leadership positions to develop administrative leaders
who already have the confidence of the faculty.
Crossroads has one faculty member responsible for online educational
programming as a Distance Education Coordinator. This faculty member is given .8
release time, which means that 80% of his or her teaching assignment is reassigned for
specific non-teaching activities. This individual is responsible for training faculty
members on online education, technical support for faculty and students, and for assisting
faculty in the online curriculum development process. In addition, the faculty lead is
responsible for providing expertise in online learning during educational planning. The
faculty lead reports problems with having a sole faculty lead that involve a lack of time to
complete needed work and the power needed to make decisions. The director reports,
“…at the beginning of every semester and when all our short-term classes start, I would
say I put in at least eighty to ninety hours a week because I am also 24/7 student
support.”
Some faculty report a need for an administrative role to support online learning
and to develop a college-wide vision. The Distance Education Coordinator states that the
93
role does not allow for the review of online teachers and states, “It is not appropriate for
me to see the results [of evaluations], technically, which is why there should be a Dean of
Distance Education.” This sentiment is echoed by some administrators who believe that
the program has grown to a point at which more administrative leadership is needed. The
Vice President indicates, “In general, an administrator is a more reliable employee than
an instructor on special assignment…they don‟t adhere to the same hours, you can
manage them efficiently.” The need for an administrator of online learning seems to be
related to the size of the program, the workload and the need for additional leadership
power to develop a college-wide vision that has been lacking at Crossroads.
Although there is some support for an online administrator, faculty noted
concerns about having an administrator in charge of online learning. One faculty member
mentions, “I tend to try to keep the number of administrators to a minimum.” This may
relate to a division between faculty and administration in which there is a struggle for
power. One faculty member comments:
Yes, I think [it should be a faculty leader], because there are a fair number of
people that unfortunately view administrators as the enemy and perceive that
faculty view administrators as the enemy, and so when one tries to dictate to the
other, there‟s a lot more resistance even if that dictation makes sense.
The division between the desire for an administrator or for a faculty member as a leader
may relate to the size of the online program and the needs related to that program. It is
clear from faculty comments that an initial administrative leader would have difficulty in
developing faculty support and some maintain this view. The Philosophy Chair states:
I think it should be a Faculty Coordinator myself….I think when you start
creating new [administrative] positions…the whole structure becomes so top
94
heavy that from our perspective as faculty, and especially as a Chair, we get so
many new initiatives and brand new tasks…
An Academic Dean further clarifies stating, “…I don‟t think you can grow a program
organically like this without having it start with faculty.” These statements point toward a
division in which a lack of support and coordination is noted as a problem in furthering
the development of online program, but there also exists resistance to more formal
administrative leadership.
Upstart College has a diffuse leadership model that includes administrative and
classified staff positions. The administrator oversees multiple areas that include online
education and areas in which academic programming and student services overlap. The
Dean indicates, “The specific area is curriculum and educational support services and that
includes distance education, Title V grants, the library and the center for academic
success.” The Dean reports the problems related to developing an online program
stating:
I don‟t think power rests fully on an individual. I think it rests with a group of
individuals. I would not be effective if I did not have a team of very passionate
and very energetic faculty who are also just as dedicated to distance education. I
could be, really, you know, a great cheerleader for distance education and see the
value, but if I don‟t have faculty behind me, I‟m just, you know, shouting to the
wind.
The need for faculty support goes beyond building support as some indicated a
need for a faculty leader to push the online agenda. A faculty member states:
There was a faculty, and I didn‟t know that until recently, that he got full release
time for what he was doing to bring distance education to Upstart, and all of a
sudden after a year or two, Upstart stopped giving reassigned time to that faculty,
and he pulled out and that was it. Distance education would have had no support.
We need to get support from administration.
95
These problems indicate a need for a faculty leader to help guide individuals through the
curriculum development process and to assist in educational and pedagogical questions.
In addition, Upstart uses grant monies to cover the cost of some staffing related to
the development of online learning programs. While this assists the college in
development of its programming, some suggest that the college has not fully embraced
online programming by using its own funds to grow online education. Upstart has the
smallest of the online programs and has noted difficulty in developing faculty support for
the initiative and in recruiting faculty to develop online curriculum. A faculty member
notes, “They want to show that we have accomplished something in the short-term. With
distance education that requires more time, more resources and it‟s not going to happen
so rapidly.” The need for additional resources is telling when matched with the fact that a
faculty leadership position had been requested and not filled. The lack of faculty leader
may be one potential reason for this resistance.
The position of leadership was one of the most interesting findings. Current
leadership on the three campuses is diverse and offers a great deal of information for
analysis. Leadership includes a full-time dean, a dean for whom online education is one
duty, a grant-funded classified staff member, and a faculty member with partial release
time for online program leadership. In addition, inquiries about past leadership practices
indicated changes in leadership positions that ranged from increases in faculty release
time to the promotion of a faculty leader to a dean. With the inclusion of past leadership
models, it is possible to describe the manner in which different leadership positions
96
impact the development of online educational programming and any critical periods that
may need specific leadership positions to assist in overcoming institutional barriers.
The structures of the different colleges seem to indicate disagreement as to the
best leadership model for online educational programming. Upstart, with only a part-time
administrator, describes the need for a faculty leader. Crossroads, with a faculty leader,
indicates a need for an administrator, but describes faculty resistance to this notion. The
historical trend of Prolific gives some additional information about the use of different
leadership positions. The Dean of Distance and Instructional Technology at Prolific was
formerly a faculty leader in online education. He reports a trend in which his assignment
gradually grew as the need for more support of online programming grew. At a point at
which online education became more self-sustaining, the college voiced a need to have an
administrator to oversee online education, aspects of training and budgeting.
This data suggest a need for a faculty leader in the beginning stages of online
educational development. The faculty role in curriculum design and pedagogy reveals a
need for faculty leadership to assist in gaining buy-in and assisting in development
processes. Statements supportive of this need come from Prolific, the only college having
had both faculty and administrative leadership. Individuals noted that curriculum
development in community colleges is under the auspices of the Academic Senate and
the responsibility of faculty. As such, a faculty member is well situated to guide online
curriculum through the process and to interact with faculty on a collegial level. Prolific
Curriculum Chair describes the benefit of having a faculty leader, stating:
97
[If] Senate doesn‟t want to approve this at this time, [the faculty leader asks] what
do I need to do so the Senate will approve it. Well, you‟ve got to do this, this and
this, and he‟s back next month with it done.
A Prolific Department Chair concurs, stating:
…I bet [being a faculty member] worked out much better…because he knew
exactly what had to be done. I think he had the insight and he knew from his own
experience how to solve problems that needed to be solved, and he solved the
problems first hand, whereas otherwise you are taking it out of a manual and
probably it‟s not as personal, and you probably don‟t understand the problems as
thoroughly…
It appears that as the college‟s online educational program expands, so does the need for
administrative oversight. Prolific highlighted this need in its development process.
However, this pending need is also noted by Crossroads, which appears to have grown to
a point at which an administrator is needed.
The need for a faculty member in the introductory phases of online development
is supported by the structure at College Upstart. This college has an academic dean who
has online learning as part of her responsibility. There is no faculty member in charge of
online education. Upstart struggles with developing online education from the ground up.
Although there is administrative support for developing online courses that will allow a
complete degree to be completed on online, the faculty seems to be limited in its efforts
to develop online curriculum from the ground up.
Crossroads has a faculty leader overseeing online education and an academic dean
who has online education as one of her areas of oversight. Some concerns are noted with
this model as some have indicated that there is a need for greater release time for the
faculty leader to provide a greater vision for online education and guide its
implementation. Crossroads Curriculum Chair states:
98
This is part of the reason why [the faculty director] is so ridiculously overworked
in this area, because she is the one contacted, normally, faculty wise. She can‟t do
some of the other things I was talking about because she is far too busy doing all
of these other things.
Organizational leadership is strongly related to the implementation of online
educational programming. There is need for specific leaders during different stages of
implementation in order to address the needs of the institution within the cultural context
of the institution. In addition, it appears that implementation occurs best through
emergent means and with faculty leading the way. Knowing this, it is important to ask
how administrative leadership can enhance and lead this emergent process. Neuman
(1995) indicates that administrative leaders can effect change when working within the
context of the institution. In this manner, it is important to determine how leaders can
continue to be effective in developing online educational programming.
Perceptions of Online Education
Individual beliefs and efforts can impact the manner in which change is initiated
and received. Furthermore, individual characteristics can affect organizational factors. To
address these factors this study asks:
2. How do personal perceptions of online learning relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
The beliefs of administrators may impact the degree to which resources are
allocated to online programs. Faculty leadership efforts may work to diminish resistance
and lead to a complete college vision. In this manner, there is a great deal of interplay
between institutional and individual factors that may relate to the degree of
99
implementation. Investigating these individual characteristics and beliefs can give greater
clarity to the institutional situation and the manner in which factors relate.
Administrators are in a unique position to push college agendas and to provide
impetus for change. Administrators gain power through their formal positions
(Northouse, 2007). This power allows them to garner resources, such as funds and
staffing, to assist in developing programming and services. Administrators also have the
ability to gain power through the use of persuasion and through the informal relationships
that are developed between individuals (Northouse, 2007). In both cases, administrative
leaders may have the ability to initiate, accelerate or hinder the development of online
learning. In this respect, the views of administrators can have an impact on the
development of online learning. The views of administrators did seem to impact the
capacity to develop online programming among the three colleges. However, the
importance of the administrative view may be important only if these views are generally
known to the college community.
Upstart indicates high support of online education from administrators. The Dean
and Vice President both describe the need for online education in order to improve access
to students, initially to those already attending the college and later for those who may
have traditionally been denied access. The Dean states:
[The college] values the idea that students do have access to all of the resources
and that‟s why they are putting resources and energy into trying to be able to offer
the courses that we do and make it available to anyone, anywhere.
The Vice President concurs, reporting:
I think, once our current development efforts are completed and we have a full
program online, then we will see a new population, and that‟s a population we are
100
interested in reaching out to because they have essentially been disenfranchised
and they haven‟t been given access yet.
In this manner, administrators voiced the need for online programming to be developed
from the top down in a way that would provide a complete online degree. This complete
vision would support an intense development of online curriculum that was not seen at
the college. These results demonstrate that faculty support alone is not sufficient for the
development of on online program
However, it appears that the lack of impact resulting from these supporting views
comes from the relative lack of campus-wide knowledge of administrative support.
Faculty who are involved in online curriculum development did not speak of the
college‟s vision to create a full program, nor of its administrative support. In fact, they
voiced concerns over the lack of resources dedicated to online programming. It seems
while a positive administrative view might be related to development, faculty support is
also strongly related and may be more important to the overall success of implementation
efforts.
Crossroads, on the other hand, demonstrated a bifurcated view of online learning.
One dean expressed strong support of online education while the Vice President
expressed relatively little support for online education as a quality educational program.
The Dean states, “[Online education] makes it possible for people who have too many
family responsibilities, physical disabilities, work schedules…to have another route to
higher education…” The Vice President voices concerns regarding quality stating:
I‟m not a strong advocate for online instruction. I think that a lot of teachers
looking at online initially looked at it as, you know, being able to stay home in
101
their pajamas and do a lot less work…You have to get extraordinary people to
make it comparable…
In addition, recent contractual issues have made it more difficult to maintain appropriate
average class sizes when faculty begins to teach online. The dean states, “the [twenty-five
student cap] affects my supervisor‟s willingness to approve new classes.”
It would appear that the concerns about the quality of the education and contract
issues have limited the efforts made by administrators to advance online programming.
While the college has responded to college needs as the program has grown by increasing
resources for online programming, the college administration has not clarified a vision
for online education that moves the college forward to the next level. While the need for
complete programs online is expressed, there are no direct moves to create incentives for
faculty to develop the specific courses needed.
Prolific has shown tremendous dedication to online education through the hiring
of a Dean of Distance and Instructional Technology. This Dean expresses support for
online programming as it relates to access, student success, and the growth of the college.
He states:
I think it is a priority and I think one of the reasons why we‟ve had support for the
growth of distance learning programs is the fairly early realization that we are
reaching students that did not have access to our educational programs without
distance learning.
The Vice President concurs with the need for outreach to advance the college‟s efforts to
grow as an institution. In addition, the Dean expresses a firm vision for the future of
online education that goes beyond the development of traditional college offerings and
seeks to expand online education to international students who reside in their respective
102
home countries. This focus is especially important because international tuition does not
fall under the normal funding sequence and results in monies for the college beyond its
state allocations.
Unique to Prolific is a sense that the administrative view of online education is
widely held throughout the college. The Vice President of instruction expresses the need
for online education and the related belief that the online and other outreach programs
represent one of the few means through which the college can grow. In addition,
administrators expressed the relative acceptance of the need to develop new distance
education programming to expand the college‟s student base. These views were echoed
throughout the campus with one faculty member stating, “I think [distance education]
plays a large role and think most of the role is about student enrollment…It makes the
schools more money…” The unified perception of the importance of online education
may play a large role in the overall success that Prolific has had in implementing a robust
program.
These findings support the impact of administrative views. Specifically, it is clear
that administrative support can lead to greater allocations of resources. In colleges such
as Prolific administrators have garnered resources to advance professional development
and provide incentives for furthering the development of online curriculum. However, the
results at Upstart do indicate that administrative support is not the sole factor needed for
online educational development. While administrative views are important, it appears that
other factors are needed in order to advance online education as a college-wide value.
103
Also noted in the data is that there is a clear assessment of need in determining
higher-level administrative support. Crossroads has only minor support, because there is
limited need to implement online to grow as an institution, The college does not get in the
way of faculty development, but does not actively engage in the promotion of online
education. Upstart sees online education as needed in order to remain relevant, but has no
immediate need to develop online programming. Prolific needs online learning to grow as
an institution and in this manner it was easy to express the value of online learning in a
way that the entire college could get behind.
Positive faculty views on online education are essential in the development of
online programming. As the direct users of online educational technology, faculty views
on the usefulness, quality and ease of use of online tools and the dissemination of online
curriculum are important factors in the developmental processes. The current
methodology sought to gain insights on faculty views by interviewing those faculty that
are involved in the development of online curriculum and also faculty leaders who have a
global view of the curriculum development process. Through these individuals it is
possible to garner information related to how faculty value online education and to
determine reasons for resistance in some segments of the faculty population.
Upstart College has the least online programming of the colleges sampled. This is
in spite of administrative support and wide incentives for developing online curriculum.
The faculty at Upstart voiced the importance of online education and its benefit from a
personal perspective, but they lacked an overall college view of the need for online
programming. In addition, the faculty described wide resistance to online learning. One
104
faculty member states, “…faculty are resistant here at Upstart. Most of our faculty are
demographically older faculty and maybe they were resistant to technology period. It
doesn‟t matter if it‟s just distance education or technology in the classroom.”
Crossroads has a number of faculty voicing great support for online education.
Those teaching online courses report that online is beneficial to their students. In
addition, the faculty voiced the benefit of online education to the department stating, “We
increased our semester section offerings by about 35% in the span of, maybe, two years,
mostly by offering new online courses. It was really a significant jump.” The ability of
online courses to fill when face-to-face courses were not able to, points to the
attractiveness of online education to students. Faculty echoed this finding, stating that
students need the flexibility that online education offers to complete their courses in a
timely and convenient manner.
Some resistance to online learning still exists. Even those teaching online courses
made statements about the missing components of online education. One faculty member
states, “…I miss the interaction with the students on a personal level. I miss the
spontaneity of [face-to-face]…when someone has sparked a question which takes the
discussion in a different direction, because on some level, module lectures are static…”
In addition faculty leaders expressed the segments of that faculty are resistant to online
education due to concerns related to ensuring proper student identification, course
integrity and cheating. In addition to the general concerns about online education, the
faculty indicated concerns related to structural systems related to online education. The
district incentive to develop new online courses seemed to be diminished because of the
105
requirement that the course materials belong to the school. Concepts related to ownership
of intellectual properties were an important factor related to faculty views.
Prolific had the most faculty support voiced. In fact, the faculty view regarding
the vision for the college‟s online programming was remarkably consistent and matched
those of the administration. The faculty had some resistance to online programming, but
it was confined to specific departments. Whereas some colleges expressed concerns
regarding the integrity of online courses and the ownership of intellectual properties,
those at Prolific seemed to have already resolved these concerns and were working to
improve online learning within the existing structures.
It is clear that the faculty view of online education is a tremendous factor in the
development of online programming. The Faculty is the sole group responsible for the
development of curriculum. As such, a negative view of online education in the general
faculty body could stop online programming quite radically. The nature of departmental
divisions allows for the staggered development of new curriculum. This was seen in all
colleges as departments were first initiators and the support for online learning spread. In
this manner, the views of individual faculty members are important, but so are the
cumulative views of the faculty in general and the manner in which these views turns into
a cultural support of online learning.
At Upstart, the culture of the campus seemed actively resistant to online learning.
Crossroads appears to be at a turning point in which the culture is not fully supportive,
but many individuals have grown to support online learning have begun to sway the
general faculty. In this case, what seems to be missing is the cultural vision of online and
106
the manner in which it impacts the general college mission. Prolific demonstrates a
concrete cultural value emphasizing the need for online education as a college goal. The
vision seems to be widely accepted and the faculty seems to drive the college forward
toward making this vision a reality. This cultural acceptance and promotion of online
education is more than just faculty views; it is the combination of a critical mass of
faculty support, the use of administrative support to provide needed resources and the
creation and support of a college-wide vision of what online education should be. In
addition, online education should represent a piece of the larger college vision that is
fully integrated.
The cumulative results of the study indicate that there are multiple factors that
lead to the successful implementation of online education. These factors represent the
individual attributes of those involved in the production of online curriculum, as well as
those in college leadership positions. In addition, structural features of the institutions and
the manner in which online educational leadership is situated in the college also impact
the ability to develop a successful online educational programming. The overlap between
these factors indicates that there are specific periods for which some factors play a more
important role than others.
The data suggests that support for online education is needed by both faculty and
administrators. However, it is clear that faculty support is the most essential in the initial
stages of development. Jones and O‟Shea (2004) state that there should be top-down
support, but that an emergent strategy from end users is most successful. The faculty
power related to curriculum development further emphasizes this need. It is clear that
107
faculty must have an adequate degree of support in order for the online programming to
begin to get off the ground. The lack of this support at Upstart demonstrates that
administrative support absent faculty support is ineffective.
The size of the faculty may play some role in the diffusion of support. At Prolific,
the relatively small faculty is supportive of online education. The small size may make it
easier to consolidate support for online education. At Upstart, the large faculty is
generally unsupportive and the described lack of trust of administration may make the
administrative top-down efforts less effective. Crossroads, on the other hand, has
divergent support. The large faculty body makes it possible for some departments to
initiate through an emergent means without ensuring the support of the entire faculty.
Unfortunately, to have a college-wide initiative to support online education there is a
need for further college-wide support. In this manner, there is a need for both
administrative and faculty leaders to work to develop a shared value for online education.
As previously indicated, it is yet undetermined how administrative views gain be
harnessed to gain faculty support and drive the process. Because of the distrust of
administration, this is an important factor. Prolific represents the only college sampled
with consolidated support for online education at all levels. However, it was clear from
the responses of faculty and administrators that there was an essential need for online
education. In situations where online education is not necessary to continue to be
successful as a college, there is a need to determine other ways to consolidate support and
develop a shared vision for and value of online education.
108
Organizational Culture
It has already been noted in previous sections the manner in which institutional
culture and values play a role in mediating other investigated factors. This section seeks
to further this investigation by asking:
3. How does the culture of the institution relate to the initiation and
implementation of online educational programming?
The power structures of the colleges are indicative of the college culture and the
power that each group has. All sampled colleges have Academic Senates and shared
governance committees that deal with online education development. In this respect, the
power structure of each college places faculty leadership at the locus of control in the
development process of online programming. However, the degree of power that each
faculty group has on the individual campuses and the manner in which they exert this
power does have some impact on the development of online education. Crossroads has a
strong faculty presence in its decision-making processes. This seems to be partly due to
the size of the faculty. With over two hundred full-time faculty members, the faculty is
able to yield a great deal of power. However, the consequence of this size is a difficulty
in developing a vision that all faculty can stand behind. In terms of online education, this
has resulted in fragmented support of online programming. The Distance Education
Coordinator states, “I think that often times faculty who don‟t teach online and have
never taken the training think of it as like a schlocky type of teaching and that anyone can
do it and how easy it is and the students aren‟t really learning.” The size of the faculty
lends itself to having segments of the faculty supportive and others resistant to online
109
learning. In this manner, ground-up efforts to grow online programming can still be
successful, but there may be difficulty in developing a shared vision for the direction of
online learning for the campus.
The impact of the size of the faculty on power is also seen at Upstart where
fragmentation also occurs. Specifically, individual departments have demonstrated a
greater propensity to develop online curriculum than others. Some departments have even
shown active resistance to technology in general. An online faculty member states:
I remember last month, I was in a hiring committee for one of those departments
and it was amazing that in the hiring committee, most of the people mentioned
that „we don‟t want to see our applicants use any technology during their
interview, because that is not our focus here.
Prolific, on the other hand, shows active faculty involvement in the development
of online curriculum, and there are few departments who are actively resistant to the idea
of online programming. Reports indicate that faculty members as a group are behind the
development of online programming. A chair states, “It is the same education. I don‟t see
it is all that different…It allows accessibility, and I also think it fits right into the way our
society is right now.” The Dean of Distance and Instructional Technology agrees, stating,
“I think [online education] is crucial…” The faculty and administrators echoed the same
sentiments, indicating that online learning is effective and needed in order move the
college forward. The smaller size of the faculty has given a greater degree of flexibility
and is better able to come together behind a shared vision. This shared vision may be the
essential component in moving beyond grassroots efforts and towards a college-wide
comprehensive online program.
110
The size of the faculty does seem to relate to the ability to initiate a change effort.
A larger faculty is able to exert a great deal of influence, but smaller colleges are able to
more easily consolidate faculty power toward a single vision. In larger institutions, the
faculty members are able to work independently and develop individual courses and even
some department level programs, but the development of a college-wide program is
hindered by factions that are resistant to online learning.
The approval of online curriculum across all campuses was quite similar in
structure with important differences in the application of college and district rules.
California Education Code dictates that faculty will have important leadership roles in 11
key areas. These areas, often referred to as the 10 + 1, include curriculum development as
a major component of faculty leadership (Academic Senate for the California Community
Colleges, n.d.). All sampled colleges have a faculty curriculum committee with the
primary responsibility overseeing the development and approval of new curriculum.
These committees report directly to each college‟s academic senate. Following approval
of any new curriculum, the college forwards the results to the district and the state.
The colleges all followed the same basic process, beginning with discipline
experts. The faculty members with expertise in the discipline begin the process of
developing a new course and related pedagogical needs. The department chair is
responsible for reviewing the proposed courses and forwarding it onto the curriculum
committee. The curriculum committee reviews the new course to ensure appropriate
development and to confirm the department has addressed all issues of content and rigor.
The committee also invites the discipline members to the Curriculum Committee meeting
111
to respond to any questions in person. In addition to new course development, faculty are
required to update their curriculum every six years or any time a major change is
required. This process involves updating the Course Outline of Record, which is the
central document used in developing articulation agreements with other colleges and with
four-year colleges and universities. Updating the Course Outline involves documenting
changes that range from the use of a new text book to changes in the modality in which
the course is to be added, such as adding the ability to take a course online or as a hybrid.
All colleges have also developed additional mechanisms to deal specifically with
online course development. Each has developed specific forms that ask which online
tools and pedagogical techniques will be used in order for students to receive instruction
that matches the rigor of face-to-face courses. The faculty report that this increased
scrutiny has assisted in expediting the online course development process. This is
explained by a faculty member at Upstart who states:
…when I first got on board, when someone was coming with the distance
education, and I was the first distance person on curriculum committee, when
someone was coming with a plan, everyone was asking them questions. It was
horrible…I created a guideline for curriculum…this form has helped a lot…
A built in mechanism to assure the quality of online course work answers many
objections up front and may decrease resistance. At Crossroads a faculty member states:
…I think as an entire faculty, we are much more vigilant now about what takes
place [with online curriculum]. In fact, I feel far more secure with the quality of
our online classes at this date than some of our regular classes.
These sentiments indicate that with new modalities, it is important to have systems that
can justify the quality of the product. This fits with the technology acceptance model,
which indicates that the quality and usefulness of a new technology is important in the
112
implementation of new technologies (Venkatesh et. al, 2003). In this case, a structural
design to assure quality is able to extend the knowledge of the quality to a larger
population in a way that fits within the existing frameworks of the institutions.
In addition to structural developments, the use of human capital was shown to be
successful. At Prolific, the faculty liaison worked with the curriculum committee and
department faculty to ensure that the process moved successfully and that all questions
were answered. By assisting on the front end prior to department submitting, the liaison
was able to make sure that course materials adequately address the college requirements.
By working with the committee, he was able to bridge the gap between their
requirements and the departmental requests. The Curriculum Chair indicated that the now
Dean of Distance Education was able to address people‟s concerns stating, “I think a big
part of our success is [his] diplomatic skills. He is really good at taking in everybody‟s
stuff and trying to answer everybody‟s concerns.” Another faculty member states, “Well,
he managed to get approved what needed to be approved, but I don‟t think he did it
through having power. He did it through being very courteous, professional, persistent
and calm.” The descriptions point toward the use of personal characteristics and
relationships to navigate the political and structural structures of the college in a manner
that assists the development of online education by ensuring that those with power are
aware of its benefits and feel that their personal concerns are being addressed.
The uniform manner in which all colleges approved online programming indicates
that the process itself has a minimal effect. However, it does appear that the development
of some form of quality assurance, such as those seen at each campus, is necessary to
113
give greater credence to online learning and the associated curriculum and pedagogy. In
addition, it appears that it is essential to have a faculty liaison available to assist
interested individuals in developing online curriculum and guiding it through the college
approval processes.
The planning agendas and stated missions and values indicate importance of
online education to the general college. None of the colleges mention online learning
specifically in their mission. However, each college mission addresses the need for online
education in some manner. The least specific association with online education in the
mission came from Upstart, which states that “student access and success” are the
primary mission of the college. Access to higher education is greatly heightened by
online education because it allows students the flexibility to attend college at times
convenient to the student. This view was espoused by faculty and administrators that
were interviewed. However, the mission does not identify online education as a means of
attaining increased access. The lack of specific dictates related to online curriculum may
indicate that online learning is not the college‟s primary means for improved access, or at
least not a well known means of addressing student access. The level of faculty resistance
may be somehow related to the lack of an institutional indication of the importance of
online learning. However, it is beyond the scope of the data to determine whether the lack
of a specific online objective is a result of the faculty resistance or whether the resistance
has limited the college‟s ability to agree upon a shared mission.
The mission at Crossroads is more specific in that the college seeks “…quality
education, using the latest in education technology.” This combined with the desire for
114
increased access, noted in the college mission, leads one to believe that the college is
actively seeking to utilize technology to improve its college. However, Crossroads has
not indicated that technology will advance access. The college also focuses on student
success and indicates that quality programming is a primary mission of the college. In
this manner, it is difficult to determine whether educational technology is thought to be
linked to educational access in addition to quality of programming. In addition, the
mission does not specifically mention online learning as one of the technologies
determined to be used for offering quality education. While the mission is more concrete
in relationship to online learning than at Upstart, online education is still not specifically
mentioned as a primary means through which the college is attempting to further its
institutional mission.
Prolific has the strongest focus on access and indicates that there is a need to
adapt to the changing needs of the student population. Although the mission does not
specifically mention online learning, the focus on change and adaptation fits with the
views often espoused by the faculty and administrators, that indicate that the college has
always has needed to seek new ways of offering educational opportunities. The need to
be future focused and adaptable may relate to the college‟s willingness to engage in
change endeavors.
The development of educational planning occurs in varied ways across the colleges
and the resulting plans appear just as diverse. Some colleges have only several broad goals
with few objectives noted. Other colleges have detailed implementation plans with hundreds
of objectives leading to the successful completion of the college‟s goals. Regardless of the
plans construction, it is clear that these objectives do indicate the focus and priorities of each
115
college. Based on the Accreditation Standards (Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges, 2002), these planning objectives must be tied to the actual operations of the
colleges, including the manner in which resources are allocated. As such, the planning
documents represent essential data for use in determining the importance of campus
initiatives such as online educational programming.
Upstart College reports only one objective related to online education and this
objective refers to the need to develop online tools for use at the college. This objective does
not describe the goal indicated by the college administration that the college recruit faculty to
create online courses that lead to the creation of a degree program that can be completed
entirely online. The absence of goal related to creating online courses or online programming
may be connected to the relative lack of online courses at the college. The college planning
documents represent an opportunity to develop a shared vision for the college. The absence
of objectives related to online learning may relate to the relative lack of online courses at
Upstart. The comments from faculty support the relative lack of knowledge related to the
college‟s goals for online program and may relate to the inability to develop a robust online
program.
Crossroads differs from Upstart in that there are multiple objectives related to online
learning. These objectives focus on the development and expansion of innovative modes of
education, of which online education is one. These objectives fall under the college‟s broader
goal of improving student success. In this manner, online learning is seen as one means
through which to improve educational quality. This connects online learning to the general
college programs because online learning is described as one of several objectives that lead to
improved institutional success and educational quality. In addition, there are objectives that
116
indicate that the college is to ensure that all modes of education provide equitable quality and
student services. This objective ties the need for improved online educational programming
to the development of improved educational quality college-wide.
Although Crossroads planning agenda does note the need for online education, it does
not detail the importance of online programming as an independent system. While this may
be a good way of tying the college‟s institutional success initiatives to the values of online
learning and other educational technologies, it creates a system in which online learning is
described as more of a modality than an independent means of providing a full educational
program. This notion is supported by faculty members who note a lack of a vision for
distance education and may relate to the greater ability of the college to offer courses without
directly seeking to develop a full online program.
Prolific reports only five goals and objectives for the college. One of these five
objectives is to offer diversified educational modes, and it specifically calls for increasing
student services online. The concentration on online education is evident as one-fifth of the
college‟s goals are focused on online learning. The clarity of the goal seems to have assisted
in the sharing of the college‟s vision as many faculty and administrators were able to describe
the college‟s position on the expansion of online learning and its importance to the future of
the college.
Overall the culture of the college can impact the implementation process in several
ways. The power of the faculty may be related to the afore mentioned need for a faculty
leader during the initial stages of implementation. In addition, the cultural norms related to
academic freedom and the manner in which courses are approved supports the need for
emergent strategies rather than top down methods. Lastly, a clearly stated message on the
117
need for online education can help to consolidate support. These factors combined indicate
the need to know the culture of the institution and to create implementation strategies that fit
within the cultural norms.
Institutional Characteristics
The characteristics of the institutions can impact the need to implement online
education and the degree to which implementation efforts are successful. To that end, this
research study asks:
4. How do institutional characteristics relate to the degree of implementation of
online educational programming?
The size of a college has the potential to impact an institution‟s ability to
implement new teaching methods, learning styles and technologies. On one hand, a large
college has many positive aspects that would support the development of new programs.
Economy of scale can allow a large college to divert funds to new areas with minimal
impact to traditional programming. Larger colleges also have bigger student populations
and service areas to reach out to. However, Christiansen (2008) notes some problems
with large organizations. Large colleges already have a large market share and a quality
product that is being offered to their service area. Christensen (2008) states that when a
disruptive technology, such as online education, enters the market, those who are already
performing well are less likely to make an effort to embrace an inferior product. Smaller
organizations, on the other hand, have the potential to use the new product to grow and,
as the product improves, become more competitive with larger organizations.
Crossroads, the largest college in the sample, serves more 30,000 students per
semester, including non-credit and public service academy students. While the college
118
offers more than 2,000 courses each semester, only 114 are online. While this represents
a large number of online courses, its online programming is proportionally smaller than
other colleges. The college‟s size is also reflective in its faculty population which boasts
nearly a thousand instructors, two hundred seventy of which are full-time. The large
faculty population impacts the ability to implement new programming. As previously
stated, larger organizations seem to be harder to unite behind a shared vision of change
and can have fragmented change efforts. This is seen at Crossroads which has some
departments that have found benefit in online programming. A chair states, “Whatever
we schedule for an online course, it will always fill no matter what.”
However, some departments have been resistant. Quantitative data suggests that
there are departments which have not offered any courses online. The fragmented change
allows for some growth in online programming, but does not support a top-down effort to
create strategic development on a united online program. In this manner, the college
supports online education in an effort to maintain a competitive advantage without
embracing a true disruptive innovation capable of changing the way in which
programming is offered. This trend is emphasized by a faculty member who states, “I
don‟t see any college vision for how online should be done.”
The findings at Crossroads are partially confirmed at Upstart. Upstart is also a
large college serving nearly 20,000 students each semester. Upstart has the smallest
online program with only twenty sections offered each semester. Similar to Crossroads,
Upstart notes problems with getting a large faculty population behind a shared vision. An
119
online faculty member states, “Most of our faculty are demographically older and maybe
they were resistant to technology.”
Upstart, unlike Crossroads, has attempted to initiate a top down process for
developing a complete online program leading to degree completion. However, Upstart is
missing much of the grass-roots effort seen at the other colleges, and this has delayed the
overall growth of the program. A faculty member states:
It‟s such a political campus and when you want to do things, politics slow down
the whole process and sometimes you don‟t get the support you need to get from
faculty, administration, union, you don‟t get the support you need to get.
The experience of Upstart demonstrates the difficulty in getting a large school to move
towards a change initiative. While there are efforts, the college can remain resistant
because it is succeeding in its current efforts at providing education through traditional
means.
Prolific is the smallest of the sampled colleges, with under 10,000 students each
semester. In addition, the college has noted problems with recruiting students to the
college campus. The Vice President states:
I think [Prolific] will always have to work hard to get its enrollment and growth.
It won‟t be a natural consequence of teenagers coming here because this is the
natural place for them to go if they didn‟t get into a four-year college or
university.
The college believes that part of the problem is the location of the college. An anecdotal
description was offered:
The worst example for me was an EMT guy who was putting somebody in the
back the ambulance and said, „You know, I have worked in this area for twenty
years and I never knew this college was here.‟ As a consequence it has been
distant from the community and not deeply rooted to the community.
120
This may represent a dominant framework for small colleges. While there is an ample
population from which the school can draw, the school has struggled to grow and remains
small. As a struggling small school, there is incentive to develop new methods to reach
out to students, such as Prolific‟s online education program.
The college‟s inability to recruit students to the main campus was a defining
factor in its need to develop an online program. Fitting with Christensen‟s (2008) model,
the small stature of the institution allowed it to embrace the disruptive technology of
online education. The Dean of Instructional Technology states:
I think [access] is a priority, and I think one of the reasons why we‟ve had support
for the growth of our Distance Learning Program is the fairly early realization that
we are reaching students that did not have access to our educational programs
without Distance Learning.
The college has successfully managed a ground-up initiative to develop online courses
and supported the development of specific courses that lead to the completion of a degree
program. All interview participants made similar statements supporting the importance of
online education to the college. A faculty member states, “It adds value to our students. It
lets us grow and we‟re small, so that‟s very hard to support a full college experience.”
Another instructor states “I think it is going to play a large role, and I think most of the
role is about student enrollment.” The small size allows for the dispersal of the college
vision and the development of a shared direction for online learning.
The data suggests that the size of a college may impact the development of online
programming and institutional change. Whereas the two larger colleges have exhibited
either limited implementation or an inability to develop a shared vision of online
education, the smaller college has united behind a vision and the need to develop online
121
programming in order to survive and grow. As suggested by Christensen (2008), those
institutions with smaller shares of the market are more willing to adopt new disruptive
technologies. The larger colleges do not have as great a need to adopt new methods to
reach out to student populations.
The financial status of an organization may impact an organization‟s ability to
implement new programming in many different ways. In the case of online learning,
there are costs associated with the development of the technology needed for online
curriculum. In addition, there is a potential need for financial incentives or other in-kind
costs associated with the faculty time needed for curriculum development. It was
hypothesized that greater financial assets would allow for easier implementation of new
programming; however, the data pointed in the opposite directions.
Both large colleges, Upstart and Crossroads, have significant financial reserves
now and have had for many years. Their individual rates of growth have allowed them to
take advantage of the growth funding provided in the state funding formula. The state
funding formula allows for growth, usually around 3% or less, that is determined by the
state budget for each fiscal year. These large colleges have been able to garner funds
through increased student enrollment.
Fiscal reserves were thought to have represented an asset that would improve the
college‟s ability to implement new programming. This, however, did not appear to be the
case. Because both colleges have successfully grown using their traditional programming,
there was minimal need to grow using online education. The Vice President of
Crossroads responds to the question regarding online education‟s impact on enrollment
122
by stating, “If you look at [Crossroads], the answer is no…I have no doubt that [if we had
the space and the facilities and offered the class on campus, they‟d fill just the same].”
Because growth funds are limited, it is more fiscally reasonable to provide standard
instruction and grow with limited increased costs. In addition, some faculty may feel less
compelled to move into a new teaching method without an institutional directive. In this
manner, a successful face-to-face program may push colleges away from enacting a new
learning modality.
Prolific represents a different financial situation. The college had recently
balanced its budget through growth funds, but it had previously run regular deficits. It
was also indicated that the college had struggled with growth using traditional
programming. A faculty member states, “My online classes fill weeks before the semester
starts and my face-to-face classes usually fill the first day of class…” In this manner, it
would seem that financial surpluses had very little to do with the ability to implement
new programming and that willingness to embrace change may be more related to the
college‟s ability to increase revenues with traditional or new programming.
This trend was seen on a smaller scale within the departments of Crossroads as
well. The ability to fill classes is directly related to the number of sections that a
department is able to offer. In this manner, there is an incentive to offer classes that are
highly attractive to students. The Philosophy department at Crossroads saw an immediate
benefit to online education. The Department Chair indicates:
I mean, we tried to teach, and I probably tried to teach this in 1999, years ago, I
tried to teach bioethics. I solicited the Nursing Department, I put up flyers
everywhere and a week before the semester, I had three students….Come eight
123
years later, we decide, we haven‟t run that in a long time, let‟s see if it will fly
online. It filled within two weeks.
Despite concerns over quality, the department chair was able to use online education to
help grow his department quickly over a few years.
The experiences of Prolific and the Philosophy department at Crossroads
demonstrate the impact of alternative populations. Similar to Christensen‟s (2008) theory,
these groups were unable to compete in a traditional market, but they are able to grow by
reaching out to an alternative population that may need the flexibility of online
programming. The implementation of online curriculum saw immediate benefit that
promoted further growth in those areas.
Colleges have several limiting factors related to course offerings. Not least among
those factors is facility capacity. Campuses can support only the number of courses that
will fit their physical facilities. However, the availability of online programming can
overcome this limitation. It was hypothesized that colleges that had reached the capacity
of their facilities would have a greater need to implement online learning, as this would
be the only effective means of continued growth. The data suggested an alternative trend
related to the ability to fill traditional classes, the need for alternative populations through
outreach and the state‟s funding formula.
Crossroads has reached a critical capacity on its campus and has even developed
two satellite campuses and an extensive outreach program in which college courses are
held at local high schools. The Vice President of Crossroads states, “Well, one of the
advantages of online is that, you know, we‟re a growing institution and often we don‟t
have space…Space is often a problem with us...” In spite of this, the college has not made
124
online programming a priority on the campus. Some faculty commented on the lack of
vision when it comes to online education. In addition, the Vice President described a
vision in which online resources become more of a subsidization of traditional offerings
than a standalone program. He states:
I think it‟s important when it becomes hybridized and you know teachers
do some things online and have some exercises online and resources
available online… as a supplement to face-to-face. I‟m never comfortable
when people take tests online.
In spite of the capacity concerns, the lack of an administrative emphasis for online
learning has led to the college‟s continued focus on traditional programming.
This trend may be related to the limited growth funding provided by the state. The
college is provided incentive to grow only at a slow pace. In this manner, there is a need
to offer a small number of additional courses each year. This is expanded by the fact that
the traditional offerings were providing growth through increased class sizes. The
average class size for the district has increased 34.2 to 36.2 in the last five years. The
increased efficiency in traditional classes and the growth in online learning through
grassroots faculty initiatives are more than sufficient to capture state growth funds and
there is limited need to develop a robust online program.
College Upstart demonstrated similar results. Although anticipating a decrease in
offerings due to budget decreases, the college had previously been at capacity. The Vice
President states, “I would say our progression is based on the lack of classroom space
more than a specific demand for distance education.” They too felt that facilities were
related to the need for online courses, but also noted that the need for online learning was
more related to student need. While new buildings have increased capacity, the Vice
125
President notes, “It‟s a different modality and we are developing it because
philosophically we need to reach students who wouldn‟t be able to benefit from those
fantastic new buildings.” In spite of the issues related to capacity and the suggested
meaning of this issue as it relates to developing online programming, the college has yet
to develop a full online program.
College Prolific further explained this trend, indicating that there was a large
amount of space available on campus. The college, once again, highlights that growth
necessitated outreach and non-traditional offerings. Because the college had had limited
or no growth for several years, the development of successful online programming was
necessary to increase the college‟s funding base. The Vice President indicates that
“[Prolific] is a school that has tradition of doing things new or innovatively. There is a
willingness on the college‟s part to do something new.” His statements make it clear that
the need to grow was more important than restraints related to facilities.
This pattern indicates that space limitations are not a necessary component. In
fact, the college with additional facility space has the most successful program as a result
of its efforts to overcome its limitations in attracting students through traditional means.
This fits with Christensen‟s (2008) model in which those organizations that have already
cornered the market have less motivation to adopt new technologies. In this case, Prolific
has capitalized on the need for online courses, to overcome other institutional limitations.
The results indicate that some institutional characteristics relate to the decision to
implement online education and the relative degree of success for those implementation
efforts. The facilities being at capacity did not greatly affect the degree of
126
implementation, because colleges are only set up to grow in small increments. Lastly, the
college‟s financial status did not relate directly to implementation. The size of the college
had minimal impact on the implementation process as a direct factor. However, the
smaller college represented a college that is struggling to grow and has limited market
share. In this respect, as indicated by Christiansen (2008), this organization had an
impetus to change in order to compete with larger organizations. This fits with the ability
of the smaller institution to develop a college-wide focus on implementing online
programming and developing consolidated values.
Institutional Support
Literature supports the relationship between institutional support and the
implementation of new technologies. In this manner, this study seeks to determine:
5. How does the support dedicated to online educational relate to the initiation
and implementation of online educational programming?
The resources dedicated to online learning did appear to relate to the degree of
implementation. At the most successful school, Prolific, there was a Dean of Distance
and Instructional Technology and two classified staffers working solely on online
programming and assisting faculty in the process of developing online curriculum. In
addition, the college has had periods in which another faculty member has had release
time to develop online pedagogical training seminars. Finally, many faculty were
involved in the training of faculty in online teaching techniques and the effective use of
technology. Stipends are offered as incentives for more faculty to get involved and to
develop training seminars for other faculty members. This plays a dual role of involving
127
many faculty in the process as experts and allowing for a great deal of professional
development designed for and by faculty on campus.
It should be noted that the level of staffing dedicated at Prolific may have in fact
resulted from the need created by having a large online programming and not the other
way around. However, the college had demonstrated a dedication to online programming
beginning in 1999 when the first distance education director was selected from the
faculty ranks. As is suggested later, it may be this faculty position that is integral in the
early development stages of new technologies. Regardless of the historical context, the
current staffing provided for online education appears to be a factor in assisting new
faculty members who wish to develop online curriculum. The Curriculum Chair notes,
“The truth is, that there is probably a bigger support network if you‟re an online
instructor than there is you‟re an on-ground instructor…The [Dean of Instructional
Technology] is here and he‟s been here from the beginning…”
Crossroads, although having a large number of online courses, has minimal
support with only one faculty director with 80% of her time dedicated to online
education. Faculty and administrators indicate need for additional support. A Dean of
Academic Affairs states, “ I would like to see another faculty member at 40% and
possible in the future, a staff member…we need a staff member who could deal with the
technical support…” It appears that with absence of technical and clerical support, the
online education director focuses mostly on assuring the proper usage of the online
course system, training of faculty new to online teaching and assisting students and
faculty with troubleshooting. Given the experience of Prolific, it may seem that while a
128
faculty liaison is needed in the introductory stages of online education, further clerical
and perhaps administrative support may be crucial to further develop the vision of the
online program and implement a full set of online educational offerings that lead to
degree completion. The absence of support may also have some implications related to
the development of a larger college vision for online education. A faculty member notes:
I don‟t see any college vision for how online should be done…I don‟t know of a
top-down level that has been applied…[the coordinator] can‟t do those other
things [leadership and vision] that I was talking about because [the director] is far
too busy doing all of these other things [operational items].
College Upstart has even more limited staffing with a Dean in charge of online
education as only one aspect of her duties. Classified staffing is available for support
under grant funding, but no faculty director is available to guide the process from the
educational side of online offerings. The need for additional staffing has been noted with
one faculty member commenting, “…we recommended a [faculty] coordinator two years
ago before the budget got that ugly, we recommended someone and we didn‟t get
anywhere.” While Upstart has expressed a vision of a complete online programming
culminating in a degree, the college has not exhibited the ground up curriculum
development that has been seen in the other colleges. The lack of appropriate staffing
may be one factor related to this delay.
The results indicate that the resources dedicated to online learning do have a
positive impact on the ability of a college to develop an online program. However, it is
also clear from other subtopics that the resources have to be of the right type to influence
the rate of development. Faculty support being present is a related factor in successful
implementation, as faculty members are the group responsible for the development of
129
online curriculum. It would seem that the amount of resources may be most important as
a supplement when online development has already begun to assist those faculty who are
working to advance the program.
The resources dedicated to online education and to educational technology in
general seem to have some role in the degree of implementation. Prolific has dedicated a
great deal of resources toward of technological hardware and software. The Vice
President indicates:
We have a program here called ADX, which is an instructional support to
supplement [all classes], but it is online and takes about an hour to operate it…So
it is a one-hour training session…[faculty] take that and post their syllabus online
and they get $250.
In addition to the resources used to develop the college‟s online infrastructure, the
amount of funding provided for professional development is great, with a series of
workshops being offered regularly throughout the semester. The college Vice President
states:
We do a thing called a Tech Fair…all these little courses are taught by people,
mostly by campus faculty…So we pay them a stipend to do the little teaching
seminars and people take those courses have created a huge community of people
who are in tune with technology…
The college has also created a system of support using staff that includes a Dean, three
classified staff members, and a faculty member that work on online teaching training
programs. The relationship between resources and the ability to develop a robust program
is apparent, but the need to do so in a way fitting of the college culture is also clear. The
use of internal training to create a “community” of learners does appear to be a factor in
spreading the knowledge of online learning and its importance to the college.
130
At Crossroads, fiscal resources come in the way of staffing and in the cost of
using a course management system. Technological tools such as laptops for online
instructors do not rise beyond what is spent on traditional instructors. The support is
provided by a single faculty coordinator on reassigned time. The lack of institutional
resources was noted by teaching faculty who state:
[The coordinator] needs classified support who is tech savvy enough to answer
simple sort of, how do I upload a lecture onto the module, so she doesn‟t get
bothered with it…[The coordinator] needs classified support who can help take
care of adding additional students and making sure, when students are added, they
can access the site, and to answer student questions…because right now [the
coordinator] is doing all of that.
While the comments seem to focus on the need for personnel, the faculty gave a clear
message that resources are not being focused on online learning.
Similarly with Upstart, there are limited resources expended on distance
education. The college has a grant-funded online specialist, an instructor on special
assignment, and a specially funded staff position that works on the budget for their online
related grants. A faculty member states:
Upstart wants to do [online education]. That‟s our goal. That‟s our mission, but
are we really aren‟t there yet, I‟m not sure. No, we still need time. The college is
really not putting so much funding into it because they see faculty resistance.
In addition, much of the expenditures come as grants. The Dean overseeing online
education notes “…I was talking with [the Vice President] yesterday, and we need to start
institutionalizing our Title V grant and so, for example, our online specialist is currently
100% funded by the grant.” In this respect, the college has not yet demonstrated,
through college funding, the importance of distance education. The comments by the
faculty members, which indicate a seeming lack of support arising from faculty resistance
131
might be creating a paradox in which more support is needed to develop the online
program and diminish faculty resistance, but the resistance itself is acting as a deterrent to
increased funding.
Incentives for the creation of online curriculum had varied results across the
colleges. The district provides for a stipend of $1,000 for the development of a new
course, one not previously offered online in the district. This funding is for the initial
development of the course outline and the efforts to approve the course through the
college‟s and district‟s curriculum structures and through the Academic Senate. However,
the stipend stipulates that the District would in fact “own” the course and have the ability
to use the materials to assist other faculty members in teaching the course. At Crossroads,
this raised issues related to ownership of intellectual property and few faculty taking
advantage of this incentive. Faculty at Crossroads state:
I took [the money] and found later to my chagrin, holly crap, that the course is no
longer mine and the college can steal the lectures or not steal, but they can use the
lectures and give it to some other professor and say, „hey, teach this course‟ and
so the intellectual property is no longer mine what so ever… I did a hell of a lot of
work. Its plagiarism to a certain extent.
Another faculty member comments, “This is a discussion that took place ten years ago.
It‟s a way of phasing out faculty…The shell is already there and just have someone
monitor the course without specialization of the topic…” The concept of intellectual
property was noted as a primary concern that led to the underutilization of the online
course development stipend. Crossroads offers an example of the importance of the
manner in which incentives are offered. On this campus, the financial incentives were not
great enough to overcome concerns related to losing intellectual property.
132
Another district incentive that is diffusely used is the ability to get additional pay
if the course enrollment surpasses the traditional on campus class limit of 45. These
“supersized sections” allow a faculty member to receive additional money that does not
impact their contractual load. However, each instructor is only allowed one per semester,
and the stipend must be approved prior to offering the course by the Vice President of
Academic Affairs and the course instructor. At Crossroads, the Dean reflects on this
agreement, stating:
I don‟t think that pedagogically it is a good idea to have a class that big. We
haven‟t done [the supersized classes] on this campus, so, fortunately, the contract
leaves it up to the campus…it makes sense from a financial perspective…but I
don‟t think it‟s better for the students and I am pleased that, so far, we haven‟t
done it.
Prolific, on the other hand, has taken advantage of the incentives to develop online
courses. The Dean states, “I mean, I‟d have to look at the list to tell you exactly, but I‟d
say we have 200 online courses. So all those classes or most of those classes instructors
are paid a stipend…” In addition, the Dean, who was formerly a faculty director, has
worked to assure the faculty that the District has never exerted its ownership rights. He
states:
Different colleges have different strategies for dealing with that issue. I, in my
own opinion, have found that our Union contract is pretty gray in terms of
language. It does say if you develop a course and receive any additional
compensation from the college, or use the college equipment and your office and
so on, then the college owns the course. I kind of looked further than the language
of the contract into kind of the spirit, and Prolific offered an online course
development stipend long before it was in the contract…We did that to encourage
faculty to start teaching online, to develop online courses. So I thought, to take
their content, their intellectual property, and give it to another instructor to use
would have the opposite effect…I have never taken content…
133
This seems to have increased the usage of the stipend and the accompanying
development of online curriculum.
Furthermore, Prolific has developed another incentive for curriculum
development and course planning for its international program. The Dean states:
Now, we are developing a kind of special set of courses for international
students…so we have to be much more professional, more kind of slick
interface…the classes also need to be much more standardized in terms of the
template and the use of tools being the same within classes. We have picked some
of our best instructors…pay them voluntarily…if they agree to do this…we can
then offer their template if you want another teacher to use it…
This effort appears to indicate that concerns of intellectual property at Prolific are less
severe than at Crossroads. This may also relate to the collegial culture of the college in
which all those interviewed seemed to have the same shared vision of the future of the
online program at the college and its benefit to the college.
The use of incentives to teach other faculty how to use educational technology
was a unique occurrence at Prolific. In addition, the provision of technological hardware
to faculty as incentive also seemed to entice faculty to technological techniques necessary
for online education. This method seemed to be effective in that faculty reported being
generally aware of the incentives and actively using them. The college also seemed to
combine online teaching and educational technology in its professional development and
incentives. By making this connection, the college has lessened the division between
online and face-to-face teaching. This type of incentive appears to be effective in that it
unites the faculty while providing training relevant to online teaching and learning.
Upstart faculty did not indicate awareness of the stipend offered through the
contract. However, the use of grants to create additional incentives was actively being
134
used, and the stipends were larger than those contractually noted. The college provides
academic development grants in which two faculty members and a chair are provided
stipends for developing a single course. The college is selective in choosing courses that
lead to a degree. The Vice President comments:
Our plan is to have a fully online program and although people, faculty, are
developing courses whenever they want to and in whatever disciplines they want
to, the courses we are targeting, are not restraining that, but the courses we are
targeting and pursuing are the ones that will complete the Liberal Arts Degree…
The heavy usage of incentives at Prolific would support the use of incentives, but
the relatively ineffective use of incentives at Upstart would indicate that the manner in
which incentives are offered are as important as the incentive themselves. The need to
allow for faculty development from the ground up and to support their initiatives may
relate to increased development. In fact, the focus on faculty development at Crossroads,
has led to greater course development absent incentives than the incentive-laden process
at Upstart. These results indicate that incentives can be effective, but not as the sole
reasons to support online education.
The data indicates that institutional support is related to the degree of
implementation. Specifically, the funds and personnel dedicated to online education are
related to greater implementation. However, the support does not work in isolation. The
degree of administrative support is related to the support given. In addition, institutional
support for online education may not be sufficient if the faculty is not already at least
minimally supportive of online implementation efforts.
135
Summary of Findings
The data suggest that both institutional and individual factors relate to a college‟s
success in implementing online educational programming. Table 4 provides a brief
summary of these findings and provides a platform from which to discuss the possible
interactions of these factors and the manner in which the cumulative results relate to
implementation efforts.
Table 4: Results
Factor Prolific Crossroads Upstart Relationship to
Implementation
Online Implementation High Moderate Low -----------------------
How do differences in organizational leadership relate to the initiation and implementation of
online educational programming?
Position of leadership Administrative
(formerly faculty)
Faculty Administrative Dependent on stage
of development
Power Structure Small Faculty
(Consolidated -
Support)
Large Faculty
(Segmented-
Support)
Large Faculty
(Segmented-
Resistance)
Consolidated support
relates to successful
implementation
How do personal perceptions of online learning relate to the initiation and implementation of
online educational programming?
Administrative Views Positive Bifurcated Positive Dependent on stage
of development
Faculty Views Positive Bifurcated Negative Highly related to
implementation
How does the culture of the institution relate to the initiation and implementation of online
educational programming?
Course Approval Additional form Additional form Additional form No difference
Mission and Planning Concentration
on technology
Some mention of
technology
Limited mention of
technology
Focus relates to
implementation
How do institutional characteristics relate to the degree of implementation of online educational
programming?
Size Small Large Large Small size relates to
motivation to grow
and adaptability
Financial Standing Balanced High Reserve High Reserve Less fiscal means
relates to motivation
to change
Facility Capacity Available Space No Available
Space
Some Available
Space
Limited relationship
(confounded)
How does the support dedicated to online educational relate to the initiation and implementation of online
educational programming?
Online Personnel 4+ employees 1 employee 1.5 employees Increased personnel
related to
implementation
Online Fiscal Resources Large Minimal Minimal More dedicated
resources relate to
implementation
Faculty Incentives Large Limited Large Minimal impact
136
Based on the summary of presented in Table 4 it is possible to describe related
factors and their relative importance. The organizational leadership is related to the
degree of implementation. The data suggest that strong faculty leadership in the
introductory stages of implementation is needed in order to begin the development
process. The culture of the community colleges places a heavy emphasis on the power of
faculty in curriculum development processes and this makes it less likely for an
administrator to be able to garner the requisite faculty support to push the implementation
of online programming. Data indicate that faculty leaders are better able to impact the
perception of online learning with the faculty ranks and are more successful at navigating
the college‟s faculty led curriculum structures. This may suggest that the lack of faculty
support in some colleges may be related to the absence of faculty leadership to oversee
online learning.
The data also indicate a relationship between the stages of implementation and the
need for administrative leadership. The introduction of online education requires the
development of faculty support and of ground-up efforts to create curriculum. These
periods are best led by faculty and require minimal administrative leadership. However,
as programs grow so do requirements for the budget oversight, growth in support staff
and the needs to develop plans for capital outlays related to technology needs. These
periods may be best led by an administrator. This factor may be related to the delays now
seen at Crossroads in developing a complete program.
The perceptions of administrators and faculty were shown to be related to the
implementation of online education. The perceptions of administration were divergent.
137
Colleges with heavy administrative support for online education were found to be both
successful in one case and unsuccessful in another. This divergence points to the
importance of other factors and the possible relationship between other factors and
administrative support. The most successful college had the support of both faculty and
administrators, while the least successful had the support of only the administration.
Crossroads showed bifurcated administrative support and has shown moderate success.
The data may indicate the importance of administrative support in some areas of the
implementation process, but also indicate that it is not sufficient for the development of a
robust online program.
Faculty perceptions also showed a positive relationship with successful
implementation. This fits with the literature indicating the importance of the views of
end-users and their acceptance of new technologies (Venkatesh, et al, 2003). In addition,
community colleges have structures built-in to provide power to the faculty as it relates to
issues of curriculum. This additional power provides an even greater emphasis on the
views of faculty as the sole group able to create online curriculum.
The culture of the institution was a factor that integrated with other areas in a
manner that related to implementation. Related to the size of the institutions is the size
and consequential power of the faculty. The larger colleges had large and powerful
faculty groups. This would be thought to be related to the ability of the faculty to push
through change initiatives such as online learning. However, the data suggests that the
size of the faculty relates to segmentation in which larger groups are able to develop
independent perceptions of online learning without necessarily impacting the views of
138
other faculty groups on campus. At Crossroads this was certainly the case with some
departments showing active support and others active resistance. The data shows that the
reverse was true at Prolific which had a consolidated and positive view of online
learning. The smaller size of the faculty body lends itself to the development of a shared
vision and limits the ability to develop diffuse perceptions of online education.
In connection with the consolidation of power and perception of faculty, is the
development of a college mission and master plan and its inclusion of online learning as a
goal. The data indicate that the inclusion of online learning or the use of educational
technologies in the college mission or planning agenda is positively related to successful
implementation. There are two possible ways in which this relationship may occur. The
inclusion of online education in the agenda may direct the college to provide additional
funds and to concentrate efforts more heavily on the provision of online programming
and may provide evidence of the importance of the online learning to the college.
However, the inclusion of online learning in the planning agenda may be the natural
consequence of faculty support and a shared vision for the college that has already
existed and is being formalized through the development of the college plans. In this
manner, it is difficult to determine whether support drives the planning agenda or the
planning agenda increases support. Regardless of the direction, it is clear that the
development of a shared vision for online learning is related to the degree of faculty
support.
The development of online curriculum a critical area and the process for approval
was originally hypothesized to be an important factor in the development of online
139
learning. However, the approval process was similar across all colleges with varied
results. The data suggest that the process itself has limited impact on development,
provided that there are some safeguards to ensure the integrity of courses. This may be a
result of the faculty belief that individual departments are the experts in the content and
pedagogical matters in their own areas. The importance of curriculum development
appears to occur in the initial decision of a faculty member to engage in the development
of online curriculum and in the online leadership‟s ability to provide all necessary
information to the committee in making its decisions.
The institutional characteristics also related to implementation and overlapped
with multiple other factors. Both the size of the institution and its financial reserves were
found to be negatively related to the development of online educational programming.
The ability of smaller colleges to be more successful in implementing online learning fits
with Christensen‟s (2008) model of disruptive innovations. His model indicates that those
organizations with the least market share ware those that are most willing to adopt new
and possibly less effective, technologies (Christensen, 2008). The data support this view,
as the smallest college had not been able to reach a traditional community college
population through face-to-face offerings. This created a need to develop new means to
reach out to both their traditional and new populations of students through online
offerings.
While one might believe that additional financial resources might enable a college
to expand online programming more effectively, this was not supported by the data. The
colleges with the greatest resources actually spent less on online programming than the
140
college with the least resources. This overlaps with the concepts indicated in the
relationship between the size of the college and the adoption of online education. The
institutions with greater financial resources had developed their balances through growth,
mostly in traditional enrollment. This standing is indicative of their success in traditional
offering and does little to indicate the need for online offerings. The institution with
limited resources had not had success in traditional offerings and was therefore more
likely to need to adopt online education as a way of increasing its ability to grow and be
successful as an institution.
The availability of facilities to house traditional courses also appeared to be
related to the size of the college. Larger colleges were more likely to be at capacity on
campus, because they had been successful at reaching large student populations through
traditional means. Whereas it might be assumed that space limitations would increase the
push for online learning, the data suggest that it only does so to a degree. Because the
larger institutions have been successful in traditional course offerings, they were able to
continue to grow through increases in class sizes on campus and limited to moderate
online offerings. The State funding formula only promotes small incremental growth
which would not support these larger colleges implementing a large full-range of online
programming when they have been successful through traditional means. The smaller
college, already having had difficulty in maintaining its student body and growing, has an
incentive to develop online programming to ensure that it gets its share of State growth
funding and becomes more successful as an institution.
141
Lastly, institutional support was strongly related to success. Several factors
showed a clear positive relationship with successful implementation of online educational
programming. The dedication of resources through increases in online budgets and the
hiring of additional online personnel reveal the importance of providing financial backing
of online learning. As indicated by Ely (1999) institutional backing through the provision
of time, personnel and budget are important factors in an institution‟s willingness to
adopt a new technology. In addition these factors indicate an institutional dedication to
the adoption of the technology and represent a concrete example of the value of online
learning to the college.
The provision of incentives was thought to be an important factor in expanding
interest in online learning and increasing the faculty desire to develop online curriculum.
However, this was not supported by the data. The college with the least online
programming was providing heavy incentives for the development of online curriculum
and was experiencing limited success in growing the program. Crossroads was able to
develop a moderately-sized program in the near absence of fiscal incentives. These
diverging data indicate that incentives have a more complex relationship with
implementation than may have been originally believed. The manner in which incentives
are provided may be as important as its provision. In addition, there may be a large
overlap between the value of incentives and the faculty perception of online learning. If
faculty groups are not supportive of online learning, the long-term benefit to developing
online programming may be minimal and the short-term incentive may be insufficient
when combined with the lack of long-term benefits.
142
Overall, it is clear that the factors and their interaction relate to the development
of online educational programming. In addition, these factors impact one another in ways
that can support the development of online learning or create an environment of
resistance. The initial status of an institution, described in the institutional characteristics
are related to the degree to which the institution is supportive of change as well as the
need for online education as an institution. The factors also relate to the institutional
culture, the size and power of faculty groups and the ease with which the institution can
develop a shared mission for online education. Together, the culture of the institution and
its characteristics are indicative of the college need for online programming and the
relative degree of faculty and administrative support. The support of these groups and the
organizational leadership interact to determine the overall value for online education and
the degree to which resources are dedicated. Cumulatively, these factors overlap and
interact in a manner that relates to the decision to implement online programming and the
institutional success in the implementation process.
143
Chapter 5: Conclusions
Based on the results of the sample, it is clear that there is significant overlap in the
manner in which the suggested factors relate to the implementation of online educational
programming. While the research questions focused on the several factors, it is clear that
these factors do not exist independently. In fact, the reciprocal relationship between the
research questions yields more depth than the individual categories alone. The findings in
this study lead to a model of implementation in which the suggested factors interact to
effect change and implement online educational programming.
Figure 3: Decision to Change
The decision to implement online education is related to multiple factors
suggested in the research questions. First, the size and status of the institution are related
to the need for online education. As described by Christiansen (2008), smaller institutions
with less market share have a greater need and thus more likely to adopt disruptive
technologies like online education. It appears from the data that these struggling
institutions have an impetus to change in general and that this integrates into the
organizational culture. This was seen at Prolific, where respondents indicated that the
Decision to implement online programming
Organizational Culture
Small/
struggling
college
Large/
successful
college
Institutional Characteristics
Supportive of
change
Complacent-
Need for
additional
impetus for
change
Perceptions of Online Education
Positive
administrative support
Positive faculty
support - consolidated
Positive faculty
support divergent
144
college had always struggled with traditional methods and had had to use non-traditional
modes of education to reach students for some time. This cultural recognition of the need
to change makes these types of institutions more prone to accept new methods and
technologies. This culture also relates with the size of the institution in its relationship
with the size of the faculty. The smaller faculty size makes it easier to reach a
consolidated view of online education and more supportive administrative and faculty
groups.
The larger more successful colleges have little impetus to make drastic changes in
the manner of providing education. However, both sampled colleges of this type still
have attempted to implement online educational programming. Absent the larger cultural
need to change as a survival mechanism, these colleges have had to determine other
possible needs for online learning. At Upstart, this need came from the need to remain
relevant. At Crossroads, the need to remain competitive was a primary factor for
beginning to implement online learning. These types of need did not necessitate a
consensus on campus and led to emergent and grass-root efforts to implement online
programming. This was successful, to some degree, at Crossroads where individual
departments were able to go through similar decision-making processes independent of
the broader faculty. The large size of the institution allowed this desegregated expansion
of online education. Upstart lacks even the lower levels of support needed to begin
emergent processes.
With the decision to implement online educational programming made, it is
possible to turn attention to the factors related to the degree of implementation. While
145
this section discusses these factors in isolation, it should be noted that those factors
related to implementation also play a role in the future development of online
programming.
Figure 4: Implementation of Online Education
There is a great deal of overlap between these implementation factors. High
institutional support in way of resources and personnel is associated with success in the
implementation process. However, support does not occur in isolation. High levels of
administrative support and faculty support can push an institution to developing more
Organizational Culture
Support of Online education
Institutional vision for online
High
Implementation
Lower levels
Implementation
High
Institutional
Support
Positive
administrative support
Positive faculty
support - consolidated
Positive faculty
support divergent
Organizational Culture
Diffuse support of
online education
Organizational Leadership
146
online resources and this leads to a cultural acceptance of the value of online learning and
a consolidated vision for success. Divergent support of the faculty, on the other hand,
leads to emergent and diffuse development at the department level and to no clear
institutional value for online education. With no clear vision, it is not a guarantee that
needed resources will be allocated.
Overlapping all of these factors is organizational leadership. The data suggests
that individual leaders can interact with these factors to effect change in institutional
culture, support and degree of implementation. It is clear that faculty leaders can garner
the support of faculty and work within the both emergent and top-down processes of
implementation. Especially in the initial stages, this leadership is essential. With the
addition of administrative support, institutions can develop methods to support
implementation developing from the faculty ranks and as an institutional value. What is
not clear is the relative impact of administrative leadership on this process. The role of
formal administrative leaders should include the ability to develop faculty support and
harness the same manner of implementation as faculty leaders. However, this was not
seen at any sampled college. With a general framework for change established, it is now
possible to turn to the relative impact of the areas addressed in research question.
Organizational Leadership and Perceptions of Online Education
The leadership of the institution is one of the most important factors in the
college‟s ability to work toward change and implement online learning. Leadership
factors include the structural position, individual perception and the skills of each leader.
The results of this study indicate that both faculty and administrative support are
147
necessary for the development of a full and robust online educational program. However,
it appears that the support of each is needed for different reasons and at different times in
the development of the programming. The specific nature of faculty and administrative
positions give each group benefits and abilities that assist the creation of new curriculum
and programming in very different ways.
Faculty serves as the originators of all curriculum and is responsible for its
development in all modalities. As such, initial adopters represent leaders in the
development of online learning that can impact overall faculty perception of online
learning. A primary concern in this regard is the quality of the educational programming.
Faculty need to be assured that the educational products they are creating and selling are
sufficient to lead to appropriate levels of student success. This aligns with the
Technology Acceptance Model‟s description of performance expectancy, which states
that the degree to which the users believe that the new technology will be useful or
improve performance will impact the acceptance of new technologies (Venkatesh, et al,
2003). It is clear from the statements of the faculty interviewed that some faculty on each
campus believe that online education can help students meet their educational objectives.
The view of faculty in regards to usefulness is necessary in the origination of online
programming. If faculty believes that online programming does not meet minimum
standards of quality, it will not put forth the effort to develop new curriculum.
In addition to perceived quality, the Technology Acceptance Model indicates that
perceived ease of use of a product impacts the willingness of an individual to adapt that
technology (Venkatesh, et al, 2003). This is also the case in online education. Faculty, as
148
the primary users of the technology, need to feel that the online tools are easy enough to
use to warrant putting in the effort to develop curriculum with them. Together, perceived
usefulness and ease of use greatly affect faculty perceived value and in turn faculty
participation.
The need for a positive faculty view is highlighted in the difference between the
development at Upstart and the other sampled colleges. As originators of curriculum,
faculty must support online education in the initial development stages. At Upstart, while
there is heavy administrative support, the college lacks a ground swell of faculty support
and faculty leadership to further the developmental process. The initial phases are
certainly fueled by faculty support as indicated at Crossroads and Prolific. The bottom up
development of online learning is related to the positive perceptions of online education
by at least a select group of faculty originators; indicating the importance of faculty
views.
The roles of administrators are vast and include the ability to construct a vision
for the future as well as to distribute resources in a manner that supports this vision. In
this manner, the views of administrators are important in that they can provide the
support necessary to develop the infrastructure needed for online programming. This
aligns with Ely‟s model that indicates that institutional support is a needed factor in
adopting new technologies (Ely, 1999). The results of Crossroads support this notion.
The faculty support and some administrative support were able to advance online
programming to a degree, but not to the extent demonstrated at Prolific. In order to reach
149
a fully developed program, an advanced level of administrative support is needed to
ensure proper resource allocation.
The difference in the need for faculty and administrative support seems to be in
the timing of the support. Faculty support is needed for origination of online
programming, whereas administrative support is necessary to advance programming to a
level of institutionalization. This is clear at Prolific, where an advanced level of online
education is supported throughout the college by all levels of administration. At
Crossroads, a lack of top level of institutional support may be limiting the adoption of
online programming. Reciprocally, at Upstart, high levels of administrative support have
been relatively ineffective in the initial stages, thereby lending support to the notion that
administrative support is more necessary later in the developmental process. The top
down nature of administrative support seems to be most effective when faculty support
has already met a sufficient level and curriculum development has already occurred
through bottom-up or grass roots efforts.
College leadership, whether it be faculty or administrative, plays a role in any
change initiative. There is an ongoing and important need for individual leaders to step
up and guide the institution through change. It was clear from the results of this study that
online education was no different. Both faculty and administrative leaders were needed in
order to push the college toward the change of initiating online educational programming.
The individuals on each campus served roles that not only sought to manage the change,
but also served as experts available to define online education and its benefits and to
assuage the concerns of others in regards to the quality and need for online programming.
150
The administrative leaders, as previously stated, have an impact on change
initiatives, especially as they relates to budgetary and staffing issues. In this respect, the
perceptions of these leaders can play a tremendous role in the overall development of
online programming. Knowing that high-level leaders are not supportive of online
learning can diminish the willingness of faculty to put forth the effort. At Prolific, the
leadership from top to bottom expressed a belief that online education is important to the
future of the college. This perception tended to be shared throughout the campus, and the
knowledge of this perception seemed to be present even when the perceptions of
individuals differed. At Crossroads, there was a bifurcation in administrative leadership
perceptions. Whereas there was general support of online education at the dean level,
there was a reluctance to push the development of the program further or faster because
of the belief that higher administrators had a less positive view. This tepid perception of
online education at the vice president level could be seen in faculty comments, such as
those expressing doubt that more staffing would be allocated to online development. The
loss of high-level support also seemed to diminish the push to have a forward-thinking
vision of online education.
While the preceding examples indicate the importance of administrative
perceptions, the case at Upstart demonstrates that administrative support is not a
sufficient requirement for the development of online education. Despite high levels of
administrative support at the vice president and dean levels, there has been minimal
curriculum development. As discussed previously, this indicates a need for a faculty
leader to bridge the gap between administration and teaching faculty and to further
151
faculty support. However, this case also indicates a lack of initiative to share the positive
administrative perceptions of online education with the rest of the college. Without
widespread knowledge of leadership perceptions, these perceptions may have minimal
impact.
The structure of each organization was sufficiently different as to provide a
comparison of how online educational leadership positions within the college impact
implementation. Crossroads has a faculty leader that is external any other structure.
Prolific also had this structure at the conception of its online programming. The benefit of
a faculty leader has already been described as allowing for the leader to collaborate with
faculty in the development and approval of curriculum. However, there are weaknesses
built into the structure of each college that make it difficult for formal leaders to use
power. For instance, the development of curriculum can‟t be mandated. It is the
responsibility of faculty chairs and leaders in the discipline to develop as deemed
necessary. A faculty leader has no direct power to force faculty to develop online
programming.
Despite the concerns regarding formal power, faculty leadership in the initial
stages of development seemed especially important. The ability to work within faculty
structures as a peer appeared to be the most successful leadership structure. Working
within the Curriculum Committee, Academic Senate and other faculty decision-making
structures appeared to allow faculty leaders a great deal of influence. In addition, a
faculty leader appeared to garner more trust with other faculty members than an
administrator would enjoy.
152
Administrative leadership was seen at Upstart in early stages, and this structure
appeared to be less successful. A top-down strategy in the initial development stages
created a slow and purposeful effort, but one with far less faculty involvement than
necessary to advance a robust online program. This pattern lends further support to the
claim that a faculty leader is needed in early developmental stages. The lack of a liaison
between the administrative leader and the faculty may decrease the degree of faculty
support of the online initiative. Administrators also face the same challenges as faculty in
their inability to force the development of online programming. This indicates that both
faculty and administrators need to use less formal forms of power and influence in order
to push online programming forward.
Administrative leadership in later developmental stages appeared to be more vital.
The history of development at Prolific indicated that online programming reaches a point
at which it can no longer be efficiently sustained by faculty leadership. The need to have
individualized budgets for online programming and to develop a structure of student
support services requires an administrative leader. In these later stages the administrator
can more successfully garner resources needed to advance online education. This is
indicated both by Prolifics‟s actions and by the faculty statements at Crossroads
indicating the need for an online administrator.
The combined impact of these results indicates that there is a need for both faculty
and administrative leadership, but at different time periods of the developmental process.
As previously described, the beginning stages of online curriculum work best in a
bottom-up manner in which a ground swell of faculty members develop online
153
curriculum for their own interests. The faculty leader may be more successful speaking in
faculty terms and describing the benefit of online education in a manner that embraces
this ground swell and nurtures its development. Later in the development of online
education, there is a sufficient number of faculty developing curriculum to continue the
creation of an online program. However, there may be a need for a more centralized
vision of a complete online program and a college commitment to develop a complete
online program leading to a degree or some other program completion. At this stage an
administrator is best fit for leadership so that a broader vision of online education can be
developed that cuts across academic departments.
In addition to the college characteristics and individual beliefs, it appears that the
nature and quality of the leadership at each institution was strongly related to the degree
of implementation. The case at Upstart brings up an important factor in the development
of online educational programming. It is necessary but not sufficient to have faculty and
administrative leadership that have positive views of online education. These perceptions
have to be shared with the college. One way this is done is through the college‟s goals
and mission, which will be addressed in a later section. Another way in which
perceptions are relayed are through the work of individual leaders in spreading their
message regarding the positive aspects of online education to the rest of the campus. This
effort requires individual leaders who not only have a positive perception of online
education, but who also have the skills to navigate the structural and political aspects of
the college and to sway the opinion of others. In this respect, the impact of online
154
leadership becomes more than a structural consideration and focuses on the individual
leadership skills of the individual occupying those positions.
Even at Prolific, where an administrator in is currently charge of online education,
the developmental process began with a faculty leader. In examining the comments
regarding these faculty online leaders, it is clear that the leadership characteristics of
faculty members are essential. Leaders need to be able to understand the culture of the
organization, especially as it relates to the power relationships through the college. In
particular, the roles of department leaders, the curriculum committee and the Academic
Senate and the related interpersonal dynamics of these groups need to be understood.
Current literature already supports the need to analyze the culture of the institution and
that individual leaders can transverse the institution to affect change (Neuman,1995).
The results of this study indicate that the online leader should have several
characteristics that are important to advancing the online educational program. First, the
leader should know the structural processes of the college and work within these
structures. By working inside the system, online curriculum is viewed as part of the
general curriculum process, and those in leadership positions do not feel threatened by
the effects of change. Second, the leader should work to assist the development through
each segment of the approval process. This includes answering questions regarding the
quality of online education and approaching those who are resistant to online education.
Lastly, the leader‟s personality and technical abilities should be well known to the
campus community. A general understanding and knowledge of a leader‟s positive
individual characteristics is related to the degree to which the faculty appreciate his
155
efforts and support the broad development of online learning. This is seen at both Prolific
and Crossroads, and these leaders have been able to successfully address faculty concerns
regarding online education.
These characteristics point toward leadership theories related to champion leaders.
In these theories, leaders are able to actively and enthusiastically promote new
technologies through critical stages of development and implementation (Howell &
Higgins, 1990). The champion leadership also links with social influence literature and
describes the need for key leaders to be able to promote innovation by building informal
relationships to persuade others to embrace change (Howell & Higgins, 1990). In cases
examining business adoption of new technologies, the champions were most likely to be
found in management roles, as these roles give more freedom in the manner in which
processes are conducted than do lower roles which have to respond to managerial
mandates (Howell & Higgins, 1990). In community colleges, the faculty have a great deal
of control over many areas including the manner in which courses are offered and this
ability makes their position within the institution a key area for the involvement of a
champion. The peer-to-peer roles allow faculty leaders to use social influence to advance
change in the institution, as seen at Prolific and Crossroads.
The key characteristics of champion leaders were noted by others when
describing the faculty leaders at Prolific and Crossroads. Chrusciel (2008) describes a
champion as one who has an intrinsic need to be a leader, either through a desire to take
on new challenges, an eagerness to learn or some other internal motivation. In addition,
these individuals tend to be accepting of change, socially persuasive, and someone who is
156
a recognized and respected part of the organizational culture (Chrusciel, 2008). These
factors seemed to be present in the successful colleges, and each of the faculty leaders
had been early adopters of online learning. In addition, the faculty comments regarding
the need for a faculty member, peer, or “brother or sister in the classroom” indicate that
there is a need for online learning champions to be a respected part of the culture in the
main user group.
The impact of a champion leader is the continual development of support for the
creation and use of online education. This has been seen at both Prolific and Crossroads,
where faculty support has reached a critical mass that is willing to provide ongoing
support to the development process of online education. However, it has been noted that a
faculty champion reaches a point at which there is a need for more formalized power.
Because faculty leaders do not have the ability to use formal power to push initiatives, an
administrative position may be needed. This position may require the same characteristics
to push the online educational initiative, but no college had reached a sufficient
developmental level to assess this.
While the leadership characteristics of these faculty leaders were noted, there was
not a similar trend related to administrative leaders. Possibly related to the need for a
faculty leader, there was limited insight into the manner in which administrative leaders
can work to advance the change process. This indicates a need to determine the manner in
which administrators can enhance the change process. Similarly, the lack of effective
administrative leadership leads one to question whether the cultural diffusion of power
has hampered the efforts of administrative leadership or whether this level of leadership
157
is lacking in ability to implement change efforts and navigate the cultural context of the
institution.
The overall results indicate that leadership perceptions are factors in the relative
success of online programming. However, it appears that the manner in which those
perceptions are broadly shared with the rest of the institution and the ways in which
leadership skills are used to gain support are even more important. Knowing the
importance of individual leaders and the manner in which they interact with college
constituencies, it is clear that the personal characteristics of individuals may be the key to
developing online initiatives. In addition, previous conclusions have supported that a
faculty leader is most suited in initial development stages.
Institutional Characteristics and Support
Some of the attributes of the colleges appeared to have some impact on both a
college‟s willingness and its ability to implement online educational programming.
Specifically, the college‟s size and available facilities were reported as influencing the
decision to implement and advance online education as an institutional priority. These
factors do not appear to be requisite conditions; rather they are factors capable of
influencing the college‟s decision to implement or its willingness to fund a substantial
online program.
It was anticipated that fiscal attributes would be an important factor in the
development of new programming. However, it appears that the total amount of financial
reserves and available resources had minimal impact. Crossroads and Upstart, with the
most financial ability, have provided less institutional support than Prolific, which has the
158
least financial reserves. There is a need for resources to develop the requisite
infrastructure and to provide incentive for the creation of online curriculum. The results
from Prolific indicate that the flexibility of internal budgets allows a college to allocate
resources in a manner that meets their college planning objectives. In this manner, the
total available funds are less important than how the college prioritizes its goals and if it
allocates these funds in a manner reflective of these institutional objectives.
The size of the college does appear to be at least somewhat influential in a college‟s
decision to implement online educational programming. Prolific is a small college that
has had difficulty in growing. The college‟s Vice President described the college as
always having to reach out through non-traditional methods to gain more students. In this
manner, online education was yet another venue through which the college could attempt
to gain students that had not been willing to come through traditional course offerings.
This type of description, echoed throughout the school, indicates a need for small
colleges to compete through new methods of teaching and outreach to advance the
college‟s objectives. This need is heightened by a funding model that gives additional
funding to institutions which are able to grow and reach out to new student populations.
The small college phenomena fit with Christensen‟s (2008) model of disruptive
innovations. Christensen (2008) states that institutions who already have a large share of
the market and who are functioning efficiently are less likely to adopt a new technology
with lesser quality because they are already successful using current methods or
modalities. Small colleges such as Prolific have difficulty competing with larger colleges
that already have large market shares cornered. This means that they have to reach out to
159
new populations in order to grow. The results also lend support to Christensen‟s (2008)
model, because Prolific‟s effort has been successful in promoting college growth and
now occupies a large proportion of the online educational programming throughout the
district.
The same phenomenon was seen on a smaller level within the colleges. Each
college represents a microcosm of the educational systems in which the colleges exist.
There is competition among departments for students, resources and faculty and staff
growth. The Philosophy Department at Crossroads described this best in indicating that
several times they had tried to offer courses through traditional means and not been able
to attract enough students to allow the course to be held. Upon offering the course online,
it filled. This gave the department an incentive to offer more online courses in order to
gain the ability to grow. The efforts of the small departments combined with the small
colleges give weight to Christensen‟s (2008) claims and supports a small size as a
positive factor in developing new programs.
The size of the college may also have another impact on online offerings. As
described previously, faculty perception is important in the development of online
programming. In all colleges, some faculty were supportive while others were resistant.
At successful colleges, the number of resistant faculty were few; colleges with less online
implementation had a greater number of faculty that were resistant to the change. It
would seem that for colleges to be truly successful, they have to reach a tipping point at
which faculty support can maintain further development throughout the institution. At
small colleges it may be easier to gain momentum as there are fewer faculty to convince
160
of the benefits of the change. At Prolific it is clear that the faculty and administrators
share a relatively clear vision of online education and its benefits to the college and the
students. The same can not be said for the larger colleges. The lack of a shared vision
may be related to the difficulty in getting a large faculty body to agree on a direction for
change. Similar to steering a large ship, it may take a longer period of time and many
small corrections to make change.
The facilities of each institution appear to be a contributing factor, but only to a
small degree. Crossroads was the only college at complete capacity with on campus
space. The college had worked to expand offerings through offsite locations and also
through online education. However, the state allocation of funds provides for only
minimal growth funds, if any, each year. As a result, colleges have incentives to grow
only a small degree each year. This may explain the steady, but small growth in the
online programming at Crossroads. Upstart similarly reports some capacity issues, but the
completion of new buildings and the need to cut programming through the budget crisis
have led to few capacity issues. Prolific reports a great degree of capacity, but difficulty
in recruiting students to the campus. The combined results indicate that facilities‟ issues
may influence some colleges to expand online programming as a result of inability to
grow on campus, but this is not a strong factor in other colleges. In fact, a pure facilities-
driven model may lead to only slow development; in some cases, other circumstances
may impact facilities‟ capacities in a way that diminishes the need for online educational
programming.
161
The conclusions regarding facility capacity run contrary to what was expected.
Outgrowing its ability to serve its market was thought to be an important factor in a
college‟s push to develop new modalities. However, as suggested by Christensen (2008)
it is the smaller and less competitive colleges that may have a distinct advantage in
developing new programming and adopting disruptive technologies. While Crossroads
had an incentive to build online education, because of facility capacity issues, it had
always been successful using traditional offerings, and it had the ability to continue
growing using offsite centers and traditional courses offered in a variety of venues. It is
those colleges which need to find another route for success, such as Prolific, that embrace
new modalities.
The institutional characteristics and their relative impact on the development of
online educational programming may indicate the importance of competition among
institutions and its impact on the desire to begin new programming. Competition is
thought to be an important factor in embracing change. Both Folker (2005) and Lightfoot
(2005) have indicated that there is increased competition in the educational market place
as a result of online education and of for-profit institutions. Folkers (2005) also indicates
that the development of online education has broken down geographic monopolies and
that institutions that had once been isolated are now competing with one another. This
does appear to be the case, in that Crossroads and Prolific discuss the need to remain
competitive in spite of their geographic separations.
Lightfoot (2005) states that the need for a competitive edge may lead a group to
develop online education without determining its overall effectiveness. While the results
162
do not indicate this extreme trend, it is clear that online curriculum often precedes the
development of online student services or other structural mechanisms that improve the
online student experience. In all colleges, the bottom-up faculty development of
curriculum led to the need to develop greater infrastructure, with the most productive
college, Prolific, having developed the most online services for students. This later
development of structures is not related to competition, but rather to the need of colleges
to provide equivalent services and quality to online students.
Christensen (2008) states that the competition comes from those with lesser
market shares having a need to reach out to new populations in order to grow. While the
developmental trend in online educational programming does seem to point in this
direction, the intricacies seem to indicate that the competitive situation is more complex
than is first seen. While the small college has been more successful in developing online
programming, none of the colleges report growing through new populations alone. Each
college reports that online students for the most part take standard courses as well and
that the online programming has not engaged completely new populations, because
online programs currently lack the ability to offer a complete degree or program online.
The impact of competition appears to be in bringing focus to online education as a
student need and in identifying other colleges that have met this need. Crossroads
exemplifies this in that the college has sought to maintain a competitive edge with other
colleges which have been more successful in implementing online programming.
However, while the need to remain competitive is a factor in focusing on online
education and in seeking its expansion, it does not seem sufficient to lead to the
163
development of online programs in isolation. At Crossroads, the need to remain
competitive has driven the college to develop only enough online programming to
maintain its status whereas those with lesser market shares are seeking to expand their
status through the use of online education.
It does appear that the future of online education will be impacted by competition.
Prolific is working to develop an online educational program for international students.
The impact of this would be more funding for the college, as international student tuition
is not considered in the state funding equation. The competition for these students or
other new revenue systems may impact the development of quality online programs in
the future. Truly new populations will not have the knowledge of college reputations that
local populations have, and each college will have to justify the quality of its program to
these new populations. In this respect, future investigations in the future should look at
competition and its impact on quality programming, including student services.
Organizational Culture and Goals
The mission of each college as it relates specifically to the use of online
modalities seemed to have little impact on the development of online education.
Although the missions did not specifically address online education, the concentration on
access does appear to be a factor in building cultural consensus related to online
education. The data indicate that two types of access are important. All colleges felt that
online education was allowing current students greater access. Students, through online
education, could take more classes and were offered a greater degree of flexibility to
continue with their higher education. However, only Prolific felt that the online program
164
had reached a significant number of students who would not have attended the college
through traditional courses. Its push to develop and reach out to these new populations
may be a factor in its great concentration on online learning. The college‟s previous
inability to expand using traditional methods may relate to the college‟s focus on online
learning as a method of increasing access.
Those colleges with a stronger concentration on access had built larger online
programs. This could be related to the ability of online education to provide greater
access to new populations or greater access for existing college populations. There was
also a connection between the manner in which access is described and the development
of online programming. Crossroads had indicated a loose connection to educational
technology in the mission, and Prolific had indicated a need to adapt to the changing
needs of the student body. The concentration on change may relate to cultural willingness
to adopt online education as a central feature in their educational programming.
The ability of a mission to provide focus to the institution is important, but it
occurs only in a broad context. The concepts espoused in the mission may be indicative
of cultural values, but may not necessarily portray how widely held these values are. The
shared values seem to be clearest at Prolific. The manner in which these values became
shared is unknown, but it is reasonable to expect that they were either developed through
a process inclusive of many constituencies or that they were widely distributed and
explained in many college venues. The ability to share this focus may represent a factor
that can enhance change initiatives, such as online education.
165
The strategic or educational plans were clearer on their connections to online
education. These plans indicate the focus of colleges and are meant to provide direction
through which actual action takes place. Those colleges with specific objectives related to
online learning had the largest online programs. Specifically, Prolific, which had one of
five objectives related to online education and increasing online tools has the most
successful online program.
The college mission and plans give insight into the values of the institution and
the cultural importance of different initiatives. In terms of online learning, a cultural
value of access is needed in order to expand the development of new programs. However,
the value should also be accompanied by a knowledge that online learning is the most
efficient and effective way to reach new student populations. Prolific was the only
example of this. It may be that the expansion of online tools and quality may give other
incentives to create online learning, but this study revealed the ability to reach new
populations as a significant factor in promoting online education.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, there are several recommendation. Literature
has suggested that educational institutions are difficult to change (Tagg, 2008). This
study has shown three colleges all at different stages of change. One of the missing
factors is the degree to which administrative leadership can impact change. While the
faculty leadership data indicates that these leaders can navigate the cultural system to
enhance the implementation process, the same can not be said for administrative leaders.
Neuman (1995) suggests that administrative leaders can work to gain social support and
166
effect change. There needs to be further investigations to determine why administrative
leadership is not as effective as it may be.
This case study has indicated the importance of faculty leaders in the development
of online education on community college campuses. As the end-users of online learning
technologies and as the developers of curriculum and pedagogical techniques, faculty are
the first line in the effort to develop online program. In addition, divisions between
faculty and administrators make administratively driven initiative unlikely. Therefore, it
is recommended that colleges in initial stages of development create the opportunity for a
formal faculty leadership positions dedicated to online education.
The interdependence of faculty and administrative support is an area that needs
further investigation. While Upstart has relatively low faculty support and higher level
administrative support, Crossroads has lower administrative support and larger faculty
support. Understanding that one can develop independent of the other begs the question
of whether one can substantially impact the other. In the case of Prolific, it is clear that a
concerted effort is being made through professional development, resource incentives,
and a concrete vision. However, it was a faculty member who organized much of these
efforts. Further investigations should focus on the ability of each group to influence the
other through factors such as leadership characteristics and the use of strategic planning
mechanisms. By looking further into administrative leadership and successful models, it
may be possible to determine what is currently lacking in current organizational
leadership that may allow for a more productive method for the implementation of
change.
167
This study sampled from a single community college district. Future research
should also focus on whether initiatives arising from the District or Board of Trustees
will impact the implementation of online programs. In addition, the unique funding
formulas for community colleges make them significantly different from institutions that
receive monies primarily from tuition and student fees. It may be necessary to determine
whether factors indicated in this study related to competition are shared at these other
institutions.
While this study focused on the general factors supporting the development of
online educational programming, it is clear that the personal and leadership
characteristics of those leading the change initiative are essential. In order to fully
understand these characteristics and their impact on change initiatives, it is necessary to
conduct additional studies indicating the relative strengths and weaknesses of different
leadership skills and techniques. In addition, the findings regarding the need for faculty
leadership should be looked at closely and replicated in other change initiatives to
determine their relative validity and whether their impact cuts across various
circumstances.
Lastly, this study interviewed only a select group of individuals on each campus.
Using the suggested factors in this study as a base, it is recommended that studies be
conducted to assess the general perceptions of college faculty and the manner in which
college leadership impacts their views. It has been suggested in the results of this study
that faculty leaderships in initial developmental stages can impact the rate at which online
programming are implemented. The qualitative evidence among key faculty gives ample
168
evidence of this. However, future studies should determine the relationship between
faculty perceptions and leaders on a broader scale with special attention paid to those
individuals who have been resistant to online learning. Through these recommendations,
it may be possible to build on the results of this study.
169
References
Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges (n.d.). Local Senates
Handbook. Retrieved on January 14, 2010 from
http://www.asccc.org/localsenates/Hb.htm
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (2002). Accreditation
Standards. Retrieved on December 12, 2009 from
http://accjc.org/pdf/ACCJC_WASC_Accreditation_Standards.pdf
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (2009). Accreditation
Standards. Retrieved on January 13, 2009 from
http://accjc.org/pdf/Distance%20Education%20and%20Correspondence%20Educ
ation%20Manual%20August%202009.pdf
Adams, J. (2008). Understanding the factors limiting the acceptability of online courses
and degrees. International Journal on E-Learning, 7,4, 573-587.
Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the
emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 667-688.
American Association of Community Colleges (n.d.). Community college fast facts.
retrieved on April 14, 2009 from http://www2.aacc.nche.edu/research/index.htm.
Borthick, A., Jones, D. & Wakai, S. (2003). Designing learning experiences within
learners’ zones of proximal development (ZPDs): enabling collaborative learning
on-site and online. Journal of Information Systems, 17, 107-135.
Brewer, S. & Klein, J. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in
an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology
Reseearch and Development, 54, 331-354.
Chen, C., Olfman, L. & Harris, A. (2005). Differential impacts of social presence on the
behavior modeling approach. International Journal of Technology and Human
Interaction, 1.2, 64-85.
Chickering, A. & Reisser, L. (1993). The seven vectors. From Education and Identity,(2
nd
ed.). United States: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc.
Christensen, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way
the world learns. United States: McGraw-Hill.
Christensen, C. & Bower, J. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment and the failure
of the leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 197-218.
170
Choi, I., Land, S. & Turgeon, A. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to
facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional
Science, 33, 483-511.
Chrusciel, D. (2008). What motivates the significant/strategic change champion(s)?
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 148-160.
Cicciarelli, M. (2007). Behavioral, cognitive, and humanistic theories: which theories do
online instructors utilize? International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education, 3.4, 1-12.
Collis, B (2001). Linking organizational knowledge and learning. In Ed-media 2001
World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications.
Cook, J., Holler, D. & Andrew, D. (2007). A stakeholder approach to implementing e-
learning in a university. British Journal if Educational Technology, 38, 784-794.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, 319-340.
Day, J., Janus, A. & Davis, J. (2005). Computer and internet use in the United States:
2003. Retrieved from the US Census Bureau April 15, 2009
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/computer.html
Du, J., Havard, B., Adams, J. & Li, H. (2005). A project-based learning approach: Online
group collaborative learning. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education, 1.
El-Khawas, E. (2000). The impetus for organizational change: An exploration. Tertiary
Education and Management, 6, 37-46.
Elton, L. (1999). New ways of learning in higher education: Managing the change.
Tertiary Education and Management, 5, 207- 225.
Ely, D. (1999) New perspective on the implementation of educational technology
innovations. Eric no. ED427775.
Fichman, R. & Kemerer, C. (1997). The assimilation of software process innovations: An
organizational learning perspective. Management Science, 43, 1345-1363.
171
Folkers, D. (2005). Competing in the marketplace: Incorporating online education into
higher education- An organizational Perspective. Information Resources
Management Journal, 18.
Gibson, S., Harris, M. & Colaric, S. (2008).Technology acceptance in an academic
context: Faculty acceptance of online education. Journal of Education for
Business, July/August 2008.
Gunter, G. (2007). The effects of the impact of instructional immediacy on cognition and
learning in online classrooms. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2.
Havard, B., Du, J. & Olinzock, O. (2005). Dynamic task-oriented online discussion for
student learning: A practical model. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education, 1.
Howell, J. & Higgins, C. (1990). Champions of technological innovations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35.
Jones, N. & O‟Shea, J. (2004). Challenging hierarchies: The impact of e-learning. Higher
Education, 48, 379-395.
Keller, C. (2005). Virtual learning environments: Three implementation perspectives.
Learning, media and Technology, 30, 299-311.
Kezar, A. & Eckel, P. (2002). The effects of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The
Journal of Higher Education, 73, 4, 435-460.
Knight, P. (2002). Learning from schools. Higher Educations, 44, 283-298.
Lawless, M. & Anderson, P. (1996). Generational technological change: Effects on
innovation and local rivalry on performance. The Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1185-1217.
Lee, K. (2007). Online collaborative case study learning. Journal of College Reading and
Learning Association, 37.2, 82-101.
Lee, H. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of technology: Four categories of concerns. In:
Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development [and] Practice
Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (24th, Atlanta, GA, November 8-12, 2001).
Volumes 1-2; see IR 021 504.
172
Levin, B., He, Y. & Robbins, H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers’
reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case discussions.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 439-460.
Lightfoot, J. (2005). Integrating emerging technologies into traditional classrooms: a
pedagogic approach. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32, 209-225
MacFadden, R. (2007). The forgotten dimension in learning: Incorporating emotion into
web-based education. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 25, 85-101.
McPhee, S. (2006). En Route to the Baccalaureate: Community College Student
Outcomes. American Association of Community Colleges, RB06-01, Retrieved
on January 14, 2010 from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Briefs/Documents/09162006enroute.pdf
Mills, M., Bettis, P., Miller, J. & Nolan, R. (2005). Experiences of academic unit
reorganization: Organizational identity and identification in organizational
change. The Review of Higher Education, 28, 597-619.
Moorman, C & Miner, A. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product
performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 91-106.
National Governors Association. (2001). The State of E-Learning in the States. Retrieved
October 5, 2008 from http://www.nga.org/cda/files/060601ELEARNING.pdf.
Neuman, A. (1995). Context, cognition and culture: A case analysis of collegiate
leadership and cultural change. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 2
251-279.
Nichols, M. (2008). Institutional perspectives: The challenges of e-learning diffusion.
British Journal of Educational Technology,, 39, 4, 598-609.
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publishing.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Provasnik, S. & Planty, M. (2008). Community colleges: Special supplement to the
condition of education 2008. National Center for Educational Statistics 2008-33.
Retrieved on January 14, 2010 from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/
3e/7f/71.pdf
173
Revill, D, (2002). Digital developments in higher education: theory and practice-a
review. New Library World, 103,3 98-102.
Sadik, A. (2007). The readiness of faculty members to develop and implement E-
Learning: The case of an Egyptian university. International Journal on E-
Learning, 6, 433-453.
Scanlon, M. (2004). Home learning and the educational marketplace. Oxford Review of
Education, 30, 287-303.
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. United States, Jossey-Bass,
Inc.
Smith, D. & Mitry, D. (2008). Investigation of higher education: The real costs and
quality of online programs. Journal for Education for Business,
January/February 2008.
Surry, D., Jackson, M. & Porter, B. (2006). An analysis of the relative importance of
Ely‟s eight implementation conditions. Eric # ED491620.
Tagg, J. (2008) Changing minds in higher education: Students change, so why can’t
colleges? Planning for Higher Education, 37, 1, 15-22.
Tanner, J. Noser, T., Totaro, M &Bruno, M. (2008). Business school administrators’ and
faculty perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Proceedings of the
Academy of Educational Leadership, 13, 76-80.
Thelin, J. (2003). Higher education’s best-made plans: A historical perspective. The
Review of Higher Education, 26, 2.
Tierney, W. (1990). Assessing academic climates and cultures. United States, Jossey-
Bass Inc.
UC College Prep. (2006). The state of online learning in California: A look at the
current K-12 policies and practices. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from
http://www.napavalley.edu/Projects/1245/State_of_Online_Learning_in_Californi
a.pdf.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
Vonderwell, S. & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online
learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 2.
174
Walton, M. & Archer, A. (2004). The web and information literacy: scaffolding the use
of web sources in project-based curriculum. British Journal of Education
Technology, 35, 173-186.
Wang, S. & Lin, S. (2007). The application of social cognitive theory to web-based
learning through NetPorts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 600-
612.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
Wilkes, R., Simon, J. & Brooks, L, (2006). A comparison of faculty and undergraduate
students’ perceptions of online courses and degree programs. Journal of
Information Systems Education, 17, 131-140.
Zandberg, I. & Lewis, I.. (2008). Technology-Bases Distance Education Courses for
Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 2002-03 and 2004-05.(NCES 2008-
008). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC..
Zembylas, M. (2008). Adult learners’ emotions in online learning. Distance Education,
29, 71-87.
175
Appendix A
Administrative Interview Protocol
Professional Background:
1. What is your current job title?
2. How long have you worked in education?
3. What has been your experience with online education?
Human Factors:
1. What is the primary focus of your college mission?
a. How is access valued on your campus?
b. How is online learning supportive of your college mission?
2. What is your impression of online education?
3. How important is online education to the future of your college?
4. How has online education impacted college access?
a. Who does online education serve?
5. How has online education impacted enrollment?
6. How has online education impacted student success?
7. What was the primary reason for beginning online education?
Organizational Factors:
1. What is the current space utilization of your facilities on campus?
a. How did this relate to the decision to implement online education?
2. What is your impression of the course management systems used on your
campus?
a. Does your college endorse a single system?
3. What professional development opportunities are available for faculty related to
online learning?
4. Is reassigned time available to faculty for the development of online learning?
a. How is this utilized?
5. How many faculty, administrators and/or staff are available for the support of
online education?
6. What decision-making capabilities does the online educational leadership on your
campus have?
a. How has this impacted the college‟s ability to implement online
education?
7. How are incentives utilized to promote the development of online programming?
176
Appendix B
Faculty Interview Protocol
Professional Background:
1. What is your current job title?
2. How long have you worked in education?
3. What has been your experience with online education?
Human Factors:
1. What is the primary focus of your college mission?
a. How is access valued on your campus?
b. How is online learning supportive of your college mission?
2. What is your impression of online education?
a. What is your impression of online pedagogy?
3. How important is online education to the future of your college?
4. How has online education impacted college access?
a. Who does online education serve?
5. How has online education impacted enrollment?
6. How has online education impacted student success?
7. What was the primary reason for beginning online education?
Organizational Factors:
1. What is your impression of the course management systems used on your
campus?
a. Does your college endorse a single system?
2. What professional development opportunities are available for faculty related to
online learning?
3. Is reassigned time available to faculty for the development of online learning?
a. How is this utilized?
4. How many faculty, administrators and/or staff are available for the support of
online education?
5. What decision-making capabilities does the online educational leadership on your
campus have?
a. How has this impacted the college‟s ability to implement online
education?
6. What is the process for developing and approving online pedagogy?
7. How effective are incentives utilized to promote online programming?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives
PDF
The effects of online courses for student success in basic skills mathematics classes at California community colleges
PDF
Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students
PDF
Factors affecting the success of older community college students
PDF
The global citizenship initiative: a case study examining the leadership of Pacific Coast Community College implementing organizational change in response to globalization
PDF
What motivational factors influence community college students' tendency to seek help from the writing center?
PDF
Persistence among low income community college students
PDF
Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences
PDF
The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions
PDF
African American engineering students at River City Community College: Factors that improve transfer to four-year engineering degree programs
PDF
Cyber-harassment in higher education: online learning environments
PDF
The perceptions of principals towards proprietary online teacher credential programs and their effect on hiring
PDF
Organizational framing: evaluation of a community college law enforcement training center
PDF
Implementing field-based online graduate professional programs: a promising practice study
PDF
Factors that promote or inhibit the involvement of African American parents in a community college early childhood education program
PDF
The role of leadership in the implementation of technology in mathematics at the community college
PDF
Balancing the pros and cons of a new community college "grow-your-own" leadership program
PDF
Financial stability and sustainability in online education: a study of promising practice
PDF
A learning model of policy implementation: implementing technology in response to policy requirements
PDF
Achieving equity in educational outcomes through organizational learning: enhancing the institutional effectiveness of community colleges
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cornner, Ryan Michael
(author)
Core Title
Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/02/2010
Defense Date
06/22/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
community college,e-learning,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,online education,organizational response
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee chair
), Dwyer, David C. (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
cornner@usc.edu,cornnerm@elac.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3251
Unique identifier
UC1122973
Identifier
etd-Cornner-3933 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-360483 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3251 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Cornner-3933.pdf
Dmrecord
360483
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Cornner, Ryan Michael
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
community college
e-learning
online education
organizational response