University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 1
THE IMPACT OF FACUL TY INTERACTIONS ON ONLINE STUDENT SENSE OF
BELONGING: AN EVALUATION STUDY

by
Debra L. Hamada

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACUL TY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCA TION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCA TION

May 2019

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 2
Dedication

To my beloved mother, Harriet Ethelyn McCartney. Although you passed years before I
considered getting a doctoral degree, you were an ever-present inspiration to me while I was on
this journey. One of the last things I said to you before you passed was “Thank you for always
being in my corner,” and even though you are not physically here now, you are still in my corner,
cheering me on. Thank you; I hope I have made you as proud of me as I am of you as a mother.

To my treasured sons, Zachary, Benjamin, and Harrison. I have received no greater gift in life
than your births. I hope you find inspiration in my quest and passion for learning. Wherever your
journey in life takes you, never forget that the impossible is possible, that life is always better
when shared with family and friends, and that kindness costs nothing but holds amazing value.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 3
Acknowledgments
First, to Dr. Helena Seli, my committee chair, I give my deepest gratitude for your
endless support, wisdom, and guidance on this journey. I was and will remain in awe of your
brilliance, patience, and dedication. Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi and Dr. Jaimie Hoffman, my
sincerest appreciation goes to both of you for serving on my committee. And to the many
professors at USC Rossier School of Education who shared their knowledge and insight, I am
forever grateful. To Dr. Holly Ferguson, words cannot convey the admiration I have for you. Not
only did your guidance on my dissertation have an overwhelmingly positive impact, but I feel
truly blessed to have studied under you in two courses. Drs. Deanna Campbell, Sarah Lillo, and
Douglas Lynch, your conscientious guidance and exceptional instruction have left me forever
indebted to you as well.
Second, to my classmates, it has been a pleasure being on this journey with you. I will
treasure the friendships made for the rest of my life. Joseph Cortez, Karen Juday, Jonathan
Townsend, and Roger Wise: Without your constant support, this journey would have been far
more difficult. Thank you, and fight on!
Third, to my friends, for being so understanding of the many times I had to decline an
invitation to join you and for the constant encouragement, reminding me that by taking things
one step at a time, one bite at a time, I would reach my goal: Thank you.
Last, and most important, to my family for pitching in to help in so many ways that I
cannot begin to list them: The journey required me to take a hiatus from many of my familial
responsibilities. Your support made this possible, so I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 4
Table of Contents

Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 9
List of Appendices 10
Abstract 11
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice 12
Organizational Context and Mission 13
Organizational Performance Goal 14
Related Literature 14
The Importance of the Evaluation 17
Description of Stakeholder Groups 18
Stakeholder Group for the Study 20
Purpose of the Project and Questions 21
Methodological Approach 21
Definitions 23
Organization of the Project 24
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 25
Influence of Technology on Online Education Development 25
Benefits of Online Education 26
Challenges Facing Online Education 27
Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Versus Hybrid Delivery 28
Sense of Belonging Among Online Students 29
Asynchronous Learning Networks and Student Sense of Belonging 31
Measuring Sense of Belonging in an Asynchronous Learning Environment 32
Communication and Engagement Strategies for Fostering Sense of Belonging 32
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytical Conceptual Framework 34
Faculty Member Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 35
Knowledge and Skills 35
Knowledge Influences 36
Knowing Best Practice Engagement Strategies 37
Implementing Best Practice Engagement Strategies 38
Self-reflection on the Effectiveness of Best Practice Strategies 39
Motivation Influences 41
Self-efficacy Theory 41
Faculty Member Self-efficacy 42
Goal Orientation Theory 43
Faculty Member Goal Orientation 43
Emotion Theory 44
Faculty Member Emotions 45
Organization Influences 46
General Theory 46
Pokegama Lake University Faculty Member Specific Factors 46
Conceptual Framework 48
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 5
Chapter Three: Methodology 52
Research Questions 52
Participating Stakeholders 53
Survey Sampling and Criteria Rationale 53
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 54
Interview Criterial and Rationale 54
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 55
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 55
Credibility and Trustworthiness 56
Validity and Reliability 57
Ethics 59
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 62
Participating Stakeholders 63
Knowledge Related Quantitative Results 63
Motivation Related Quantitative Results 70
Organizational Related Quantitative Results 77
Knowledge Related Qualitative Results 80
Motivation Related Qualitative Results 89
Organizational Related Qualitative Results 92
Integrated Synthesis of the Results and Findings 100
Knowledge Related Integrated Results and Findings 100
Motivation Related Integrated Results and Findings 108
Organizational Related Integrated Results and Findings 111
Synthesis Summary and Gap Identification 114
Knowledge Related Influences 114
Motivation Related Influences 114
Organizational Related Influences 115
Chapter Five: Recommendations for Identified Gaps and Remaining Needs 116
Knowledge Recommendations 117
Motivation Recommendations 121
Organizational Recommendations 124
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 127
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 128
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 128
Level 3: Behavior 129
Level 2: Learning Goals 134
Level 1: Reaction 139
Evaluation Tools 139
Data Analysis and Reporting 140
Summary 142
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 143
Limitations and Delimitations 144
Future Research 144
Conclusion 145
References 147
Appendix A: Survey Instrument 163
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 6
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 170
Appendix C: Informed Consent and Information Sheet 173
Appendix D: Training Level 1 and 2 Evaluation 175
Appendix E: Blended Evaluation 176

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance
Goals

20
Table 2: Knowledge Influences and Assessments 40
Table 3: Motivation Influences and Assessments 45
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Assessments 48
Table 5: Knowledge Item Q1: Employment of Various Engagement Strategies
by Faculty Status

65
Table 6: Participants’ Reasons for Desiring an Increased Online-Education
Workload

72
Table 7: Participants’ Reasons for Desiring a Decreased Online-Education
Workload

72
Table 8: Pokegama Lake University’s Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey

73
Table 9: Comparison of General-Satisfaction Survey Items for the Online
Faculty Satisfaction Survey (OFSS) and the Survey of Pokegama Lake
University Faculty
76
Table 10: Requested and Received Instructional-Design Support

80
Table 11: Participants’ Comments Related to General Andragogy Knowledge

82
Table 12: Participants’ Comments About Knowledge Related to Discussion
Boards

84
Table 13: Participants’ Comments Related to Feelings of Belonging

85
Table 14: Participants’ Comments About Incorporation of Spiritual Activities 88
Table 15: Participants’ Comments About Their Future Roles in Online
Education
90
Table 16: Participants’ Specific Areas of Interest in Professional Development. 91
Table 17: Participants’ Comments on Instructional-Design Support 94
Table 18: Participants’ Comments on Formal Versus Informal Professional
Development
96
Table 19: Participants’ Comments on Their Past Experiences as Online
Students
98
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 8
Table 20: Participants’ Comments on Professional Development and
Technology
99
Table 21: Participants’ Comments on Professional Development Regarding
Sense of Belonging
100
Table 22: Metacognitive Knowledge from Quantitative Survey 108
Table 23: Summary of Knowledge Gaps and Remaining Needs and
Recommendations
118
Table 24: Summary of Motivation Gaps and Remaining Needs and
Recommendations

122
Table 25: Summary of Organization Gaps and Remaining Needs and
Recommendations
125
Table 26: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 129
Table 27: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 131
Table 28: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 133
Table 29: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program

138
Table 30: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 139

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 9
List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual framework: Interaction between the organization,
stakeholder groups and the organization’s goal.

50
Figure 2: Knowledge items Q1: Employment of various engagement strategies

64
Figure 3: Knowledge items Q4: Strategies employed in discussion posts.

67
Figure 4: Knowledge items Q2a-c

68
Figure 5: Faculty knowledge about department-mandated response times for
student-initiated interactions.

68
Figure 6: Self-imposed mandates for response times for student-initiated
interactions.

69
Figure 7: Knowledge item Q5: Ratings of the importance of a strong sense of
belonging among students.

70
Figure 8: Motivation items Q2d–e.

71
Figure 9: Past professional-development activities.

78
Figure 10: Organizational influence: Access to the internal professional-
development website.

79
Figure 11: Faculty ITDP Completion Rates Dashboard

141
Figure 12: Faculty Response to Training Program Impact Dashboard 141

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 10
List of Appendices

Appendix A: Survey Instrument 163
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 170
Appendix C: Informed Consent and Information Sheet 173
Appendix D: Training Level 1 and 2 Evaluation 175
Appendix E: Blended Evaluation 176

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 11
Abstract
This study employed a gap analysis framework to assess the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences impacting online teaching faculty in their efforts to effectively
communicate and engage students in manners that cultivate students’ sense of belonging. An
explanatory sequential research design was conducted to obtain quantitative and qualitative data
for analysis. Survey data were obtained from 49 faculty members, and data from seven faculty
members were obtained through interviews. The author presents the results and findings for each
phase, followed by an integrated synthesis. The evaluation identified knowledge, motivation and
organizational assets, as well as knowledge and organizational gaps or needs for which
recommendations and solutions are provided. Although no motivational gaps or needs were
identified, recommendations and solutions are included to sustain motivation in the face of
expressed concerns regarding workload constraints. Based on the results and findings, the
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) new world model was used as a framework for generating
solutions and recommendations for identified gaps and for creating an appropriate training and
evaluation process after solution implementation.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 12
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Although online education is becoming more prevalent in higher education (Allen &
Seaman, 2013, 2016), there are challenges that continue to exist, such as the students’ sense of
belonging. In 2014, approximately 5,800,000 students enrolled in at least one online course
(National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018). The overall state of higher education
has been molded over many years by the development and diffusion of technological innovations
into the educative process (Gopalan, 2016; Siemens, Gašević, & Dawson, 2015). This landscape
change, coupled with the students’ expressed preference for online education, has led to the
dramatic growth in online education enrollment over the last decade (Allen & Seaman, 2013,
2016). Additionally, face-to-face instruction is frequently blended with online instructional
design technologies as a result of technology advances and student preferences (Bonk, Kim, &
Zeng, 2006; Fletcher, Dowsett, & Austin, 2012; Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013).
Responding to student demands for increased online offerings has resulted in work environment
changes for higher education faculty and staff. The changing landscape of higher education
requires faculty who possess the requisite knowledge and motivation to deliver quality online
courses that ensure optimal student engagement and sense of belonging. To secure a sustainable
future, it is imperative that colleges and universities harness distance education offerings that
meet the expectations of students, faculty, and external stakeholders.
A survey of professionals, teachers and administrators by Kim and Bonk (2006) related
the importance of faculty members’ competency to the success and quality of future online
learning and programs. Selection criteria for this study stipulated that participants were either
active members of premier online education associations or had posted at least one syllabus at
the World Lecture Hall. Respondents asserted the importance of several factors that would
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 13
influence the success of future online programs. As related to faculty competence, a significant
number of participants (37) asserted that pedagogical and technical competence of faculty was a
significant challenge.
Organizational Context and Mission
Pokegama Lake University (PLU, a pseudonym) is a nonprofit, faith-based health
sciences’ university made up from several professionally based schools. The university, located
in the western United States, aims to provide quality health science education at the
undergraduate and graduate levels within a Christian ministry. Today, the average enrollment
among the schools is less than 10,000 students with nearly three-fourths of the student
population enrolled in graduate studies.
The organizational design of PLU consists of three leadership levels: governing board,
central administration and school administration. The governing board is made up of national
leaders dedicated to serving the faith-based denomination. Central administration is the
leadership that globally governs the entire campus operationally. Each of the eight schools have
organized administrative units with a Dean designated as the one in command. Historically,
efforts to develop quality online programs at PLU were decentralized to schools. This resulted in
the development of very few online offerings and those that were developed existed in a poorly
supported, unstable and ambiguous environment. Currently, there are approximately 20 programs
at PLU that are online; these may be synchronous or asynchronous. The percentage of overall
student distance education enrollment, including satellite programs, for fall of 2015 was 7% for
undergraduates and 3% for graduates. Considering PLU’s recent enrollment in online programs,
PLU has considerable room for growth. Owing to the changing landscape in higher education
and the current physical limitations of the campus, growth of quality online offerings is a
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 14
strategic goal for PLU. Responding to external demands to increase online educational offerings
while ensuring quality outcomes, including optimal student engagement and satisfaction, is a
contemporary challenge for PLU’s leadership. As a faith-based organization, cultivating spiritual
growth and wholeness into sense of belonging adds another dimension to the challenge.
Pursuing the goal of quality online education requires that leadership align the knowledge, skills
and motivation of human resources and the organizational infrastructure with the goal.
Organizational Performance Goal
The goal of PLU is that 100% of surveyed online students will report a high sense of
belonging to the campus community by December 2020, as measured by university survey of
online students. The goal is that the Likert-scale survey mean score will be at least 4.0.
Measuring and benchmarking sense of belonging can be conducted by employing the Online
Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS) created and developed by Bolliger and Inan (2012) or a
similar measure. The provost and associate provost for extended education established a goal of
improving quality in all aspects of online course delivery, and this organizational performance
goal is a critical component. In the fall of 2017, the University Online Steering Committee
formally adopted a charge related to sense of belonging among online students.
Related Literature
Since 2003, Allen and Seaman have produced an annual report reviewing trends in higher
education. The reports have consistently revealed an increase in types of offerings and
corresponding enrollment. From fall of 2002 to 2011 the number of students enrolled in at least
one online course rose from 1.6 million to 6.7 million (Allen & Seaman, 2016). Published in
2016, the last and final annual report from Allen and Seaman found that one in seven students
enrolled in college were taking programs that were fully online. This report also demonstrated
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 15
that while overall college enrollment is declining nationally, the number of students not enrolled
in online education is declining. In-other-words, the overall all percentage of students taking
online coursework increased while overall enrollment decreases. Allen and Seaman’s frequently
cited reports are supported consistently in literature; Picciano, Seaman and Allen (2010) stated in
a separate report an increase in online college enrollment as a percentage of total enrollment
from 9.6% in 2002 to 25.3% in 2008. Additionally, Lytle, Cross and Lenhart (2001)
demonstrated online growth at the University of Central Florida by relating a projected 58%
increase in online enrollment between 2000 and 2010.This data demonstrates that the market has
not only embraced online education but is also demanding it.
While the thorough definitions for sense of belonging differ among scholars, most agree
that sense of belonging relates to the connectedness or affinity a person feels toward a group or
system (Booker, 2016; McMillian & Chavis, 1986; Museus, Yi, & Saelua, 2017; Yuan & Kim,
2014). Sense of belonging is a resulting feeling, whether low or high, that is derived from
various types of interactions. Research on sense of belonging has attempted to identify campus
factors that foster a high sense of belonging (Byrd, 2016). Tinto’s (1987, 1993) early works
scrutinized on-campus student attrition; while not uniformly agreed upon, it served as the
foundation for most studies related to student attrition and sense of belonging.
As the landscape of higher education evolved to an increased number of online
modalities, the interest in having a sense of belonging among online students has intensified, as
has the research focused on online student sense of belonging. Three such studies are
representative examples: First, Rovai, Wighting, and Liu (2005) illuminated the difference in a
sense of belonging between on-campus and online students; their findings revealed a weaker
sense of belonging among online students. Second, the qualitative study by Thomas, Herbert,
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 16
and Teras (2014) is another example of increased interest in online students’ sense of belonging.
Findings from their study of nontraditional students demonstrated that online students place high
value on a sense of belonging. Third, Leece (2014) posited that the physical separation of online
students presents a challenge to nurturing a sense of belonging for them. Leece developed and
delivered a pilot program focused on engaging students with a welcome pack and developing a
sense of belonging was one of the four specific program objectives. The results demonstrated
positive outcomes, leading to the expansion of the pilot program. These studies reflect a focus in
literature on cultivating online students’ sense of belonging.
Interactions that promote sense of belonging fall into three main categories: student-to-
student, student-to-content, and student-to-faculty (Dixson, 2010; Ke, 2013; Rossi et al., 2015).
The nature, frequency, and depth of interactions influence student outcomes and experiences,
including a sense of belonging (Boling, Hough, Krinsky, Salem, & Stevens, 2012; Dixson, 2010;
Ke, 2013; Rossi et al., 2015, Szeto & Cheng, 2016;). The selection and employment of various
faculty engagement and communication strategies have been found to have a significant impact
on cultivating online student sense of belonging (Boling et al., 2012; Dixson, 2010; Ke, 2013;
Rossi et al., 2015; Szeto & Cheng, 2016). While faculty interactions significantly impact online
student sense of belonging, but they do not stand in isolation. For example, Byrd (2016) and
Norris and Barnett (1994) concluded that grouping students into cohorts throughout the duration
of an academic program contributed to a sense of belonging. Online students who possessed a
high sense of belonging exhibited increased academic performance (Booker, 2016; Freeman,
Anderman, & Jenson, 2007; Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007;), improved retention (Booker,
2016; Hausmann, Schofield, & Woods, 2009; Thomas et al., 2014: Yuan & Kim, 2014) and
overall satisfaction (Freeman et al., 2007; Liu et.al, 2007), all of which contribute to improving
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 17
the quality of online education. Faith-based higher education institutions typically integrate
spiritual wholeness into their educational missions (Rennick, Smedley, Fisher, Wallace, & Kim,
2013) and their measurement of a sense of belonging. An expansive 2005 study of freshman
conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute indicated that a significant number of
students from diverse—faith-based and non-faith-bases campus—are interested in spiritual
growth and expression (Astin et al., 2005). As suggested by Rovai, Baker, and Cox (2008), faith-
based institutions are uniquely positioned to more adequately support a Christian spirit for
students than their secular counterparts.
The Importance of the Evaluation
It was important to evaluate PLU’s performance in relationship to their performance goal
of providing quality health science education that delivers a high sense of belonging among
students for a variety of reasons. First, a high sense of belonging is associated with improved
academic outcomes (Booker, 2016; Freeman, et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2007), greater satisfaction
(Boling et al., 2012; Byrd, 2016; Freeman et al., 2007; Kizilecec & Halawa, 2015; Liu et al.,
2007) and improved completion rates (Booker, 2016; Hausmann et al., 2009; Thomas, Herbert,
& Teras, 2014; Yuan & Kim, 2014). For PLU, the potential to attain these positive student
outcomes and graduate a future professional workforce serves to cultivate mutually beneficial
alumni relationships.
Second, the enrollment increases in online education extends the long-standing concern
over on-campus student sense of belonging to the online environment; the problem of attrition is
greater in online environments than for on-campus programs (Boston, Ice & Gibson, 2011;
Kizilcec & Halawa, 2015). Evidence demonstrates a positive correlation between a sense of
belonging and attrition (Booker, 2016; Hausmann et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2014), therefore,
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 18
elevating the importance of optimizing online student sense of belonging. Booker’s (2016)
qualitative study of six black female college students reported that 100% of respondents
indicated that interactions with professors cultivated a sense of belonging. The qualitative study
conducted by Thomas et al. (2014), demonstrated significant findings among 24 of 50 student
and faculty respondents; these participants thematically supported sense of belonging as a
desired facet of online education. While Hausmann et al. (2009) reported mixed results on the
impact of intervention and sense of belonging among white and African American students, their
three-wave quantitative survey yielding 365 responses, demonstrated direct effects of sense of
belonging on institutional commitment and indirect effects on persistence (planned and actual).
From an institutional perspective, student retention is a critical factor to long-term sustainability
of higher education institutions (Boston et al., 2011). Evaluating the capacity of PLU’s
stakeholders to competently foster a sense of belonging among online students is critical to PLU
and their long-term sustainability in the market.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Beyond students themselves, there are three primary categories of stakeholders who
contribute to the goal of 100% of online students reporting a high sense of belonging: central
administration, academic advisors and online faculty. Central administration is made up of two
divisions: central administration and school administration. The central administration is the
leadership that globally governs the entire campus. The president, provost, vice presidents, and
all those subsystems reporting to them constitute campus-wide central administration; the Office
of Extended Education is one of these subsystems. Additionally, each of the eight schools has
organized administrative units with a dean designated as the person in command. Beyond the
dean, most schools have academic and student affairs deans, and the remaining leadership
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 19
structure varies with school size and academic offerings. Department chairs may be formally
recognized as part of the school’s administrative leadership depending on the individual school’s
organization and structure.
The second group of stakeholders is academic advisors. Academic advisors are assigned
to individual students upon acceptance into a program. Academic advisors regularly connect
with students in establishing and supporting a student’seducation journey. This interaction
influences a student’s sense of belonging.
The third group of stakeholders is made up of the university faculty. This group includes
full-time, part-time, adjunct, and clinical faculty who deliver and instruct coursework in all eight
schools. They are stakeholders in online education as they are responsible for developing and
delivering courses while playing a pivotal role in fostering sense of belonging in students
through interactions. Table 1 displays the organizational performance goal, and selected
stakeholder group performance goals.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 20

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contribute to achieving 100% of online students
enrolled in asynchronous programs reporting a high sense of belonging, only one stakeholder
group served as the focus of this study. The stakeholder group of focus was online faculty who
are the primary point of contact with online students. This group has significant influence over
online student engagement and interactions. They are pivotal in establishing contact and
continued interaction with online students. Failure of faculty in implementing regular
Organizational Mission

The mission of PLU is to provide quality health science education at the undergraduate
and graduate levels within a Christian environment.

Organizational Global Goal

By December 2020, 100% of online students enrolled in asynchronous programs will
report a high sense of belonging to the campus community as measured by university
student surveys.

Faculty

Advisors

Administration and
Governing Board

By December 2019, 100%
of online faculty in
asynchronous programs
will implement regular
communication and
engagement strategies that
foster student belonging as
measured by student
feedback.

By December 2019, 100%
of academic advisors will
meet with each student at
least once a term as
measured by review of
documentation.

By December 2018, the
administration will fully
fund professional
development workshops for
full-time and adjunct online
faculty in best practice
strategies for engaging
online students.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 21
communication and engagement strategies will negatively impact the quality of education
provided at PLU and will potentially lead to regulatory compliance issues when regular,
substantive interactions are not present.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which PLU is meeting its goal
of 100% of online students in asynchronous programs reporting a connection to the campus. The
analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
achieving this organizational goal. While a complete evaluation project would focus on all PLU
stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group of focus was the PLU faculty
members engaged in teaching online courses.
Questions that guide this study are as follows:
1. What are the online faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to implementing
regular communication and engagement strategies that foster students’ sense of
belonging in asynchronous online courses?
2. What is the interaction between PLU’s organizational culture and context and online
faculty’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to implementing regular
communication and engagement strategies to achieve a high sense of belonging
among asynchronous online students?
3. What are the recommendations for PLU’s practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Approach
This project employed a mixed methods explanatory sequential design for data gathering
and analysis. Creswell (2014) states that the primary intent of a mixed methods explanatory
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 22
sequential design it to facilitate a second phase qualitative data collection to provide deeper
meaning to descriptive data obtained in the initial quantitative phase. Two significant factors
contributed to the selection of a mixed method design. First, as a research institution, the cultural
context within PLU is to place greater appreciation and valuation on quantitative studies
compared to qualitative. Employing a quantitative phase aimed to increase the acceptance of
findings and recommendations among PLU stakeholders. Second, the evolution of online
education development at PLU is nascent. Establishing a new foundation for online
programming is critical. The literature is replete with support of Tinto’s (1993) premise that
faculty interactions significantly impacts student retention and sense of belonging; therefore,
identifying PLU’s faculty viewpoint is crucial. A mixed methods sequential explanatory
approach provided important descriptive and deep-meaning information regarding current online
faculty’s skills and competencies in fostering students’ sense of belonging and reflects upon the
detailed processes. It was vital to thoroughly understand the comprehensive viewpoint of PLU
faculty; a mixed method explanatory sequential study design provided the requisite information
for this evaluation study.
For the initial quantitative phase, a survey design was utilized to identify the faculty’s
attitudes and behaviors with respect to regular communication and engagement strategies with
students in asynchronous courses. All faculty, full-time, part-time, and adjunct, who teach online
courses were included in the survey. The quantitative approach generated rich data regarding the
online faculty members’ characteristics, beliefs, behaviors, experiences, and attitudes. This vast
data also facilitated a deep inquiry into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
impacting online faculty, thereby addressing the research questions posed by this study.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 23
For the subsequent qualitative phase, seven faculty members were selected from a list of
volunteers obtained from the quantitative survey process. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) refer to
this sampling approach as purposeful and convenient. Participant selection was stratified to
represent the schools within the university. Respondents from the quantitative survey represented
six of the eight schools. One school represented 51% of the initial quantitative sample (n=131),
therefore two individuals were selected from that school for the qualitative interview phase.
The data analysis unified relevant literature review and content analysis to identify
performance gaps and opportunities for improvement. Research-based solutions have been
recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Definitions
Provided in this section are terms and definitions used in this study.
Asynchronous modality: Educational delivery in which the instructor and student are not
interacting in real time and is supported by technology (Berjerano, 2008; Frantzen, 2014).
Distance education: The engagement of the learning process from disparate locations (Bejerano,
2008; Siemen, Gasevic, & Dawson, 2015).
Hybrid modality, also known as blended modality: Educational delivery that includes
attributes of both synchronous and asynchronous modalities in varying proportions (Berjerano,
2008; Frantzen, 2014).
Online education: As a form of distance education employing technology that is aided by
telecommunications tools and the Internet, online education enables access to educational
courses and programs in a flexible and location-independent manner (Bejerano, 2008; Siemen et
al., 2015).
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 24
Sense of belonging: The connectedness or affinity a person feels toward a group or system
(Booker, 2016; McMillian & Chavis, 1986; Museus et al., 2017; Yuan & Kim, 2014).
Synchronous modality: Educational delivery in which real-time interaction between the
instructor and student occurs and is supported by telecommunication tools and technology
(Berjerano, 2008; Frantzen, 2014).
Organization of the Project
This evaluation is arranged in five chapters. This initial chapter, Chapter One, introduces
the problem of practice that was highlighted in the study. The central concepts and terminology
associated with online education, specifically students’ sense of belonging in asynchronous
online modalities, are provided. An introduction to the organization of focus for the evaluation is
also provided—including a review of the organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders.
Chapter One concludes with a brief overview of the methodological framework and a delineation
of key terminologies. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature proximate to the evaluation
and addresses the technological influences on online education as well as the benefits and
challenges of online education. A review of the literature differentiating online modalities and
sense-of-belonging strategies is also provided in Chapter Two. Chapter Three relates the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements to be studied as well as the methodology for
the selection of participants, data collection, and analysis. Data gathered from surveys,
interviews, and document artifacts are presented and analyzed in Chapter Four. Solutions
supported by the literature, findings that serve to remedy the problem, and recommendations for
implementing the proposed plan and subsequently evaluating the plan are provided in Chapter
Five.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 25
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Distance education, as the name implies, refers to engagement in the learning process
from disparate locations (Bejerano, 2008; Siemen et al., 2015). As a form of distance education
employing technology, online education has been rapidly increasing in prominence since the
1990s (Allen et al., 2016; Bejerano, 2008; Siemen et al., 2015). Aided by telecommunications
tools and the Internet, online education enables access to educational courses and programs in a
flexible and location-independent manner (Bejerano, 2008; Siemen et al., 2015).
Influence of Technology on Online Education Development
The rapid and dynamic evolution of technology directly shaped the formation, adoption,
and implementation of online education. Gopalan (2016) suggested that Scantron usage in the
1970s was one of the earliest applications of technology in education. Technology has progressed
through multiple generations, advancing from siloed standalone personal computers to
networked systems that support advanced content management as well as learning management
systems in online education. This infrastructure, augmented by Web 2.0 interconnectivity, has
enabled the advancement of innovative and transformational online educational opportunities
(Siemen et al., 2015). The rapid development and diffusion have not been without challenges.
Swift diffusion has not allowed for adequate validation of outcomes, nor has there been sufficient
time and attention dedicated to ensuring technological competence of teaching faculty (Gopalan,
2016).
External governance in higher education is derived from federal agencies, accrediting
bodies, and state agencies and have served as catalysts for the creation of governance and
accountability systems. One major element of federal governance is the Higher Education Act
(HEA; U.S. Department of Education, 2017); an example of how the HEA extends to online
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 26
programs, and technology specifically, is in the recent amendment that requires that colleges and
universities to implement a mechanism for verifying online student identity (Mayadas, Bourne,
& Bacsich, 2009).
An important aspect of state governance within online education is the issue of physical
presence. States deem that colleges and universities are accountable to state authorities if they
are located within states’ physical boundaries (Mayadas et al., 2009). Currently, this is
contributing to a very complex system that requires institutions of higher education to obtain
state authorization to offer online education within other state boundaries.
Benefits of Online Education
A plethora of individual and institutional benefits are realized from the deployment of
online education. One of the most significant benefits—if not the most significant benefit of
online education—is the increased access it provides to students who might otherwise have been
denied a higher education (Kemp et al.; Shea, Pickett, & Li, 2005; Yamagata-Lynch, 2014).
Access is improved not only by removing geographic barriers but also by significantly
minimizing barriers caused by socioeconomic factors (Kemp et al., 2014). Beyond access, the
structure of online courses allows students to tailor their individual learning styles, in terms of
both cognitive processing (Giesbers, Rienties, Tempelaar, & Gijselaers, 2014b; Kemp et al.,
2014; Kirtman, 2009; Ni, 2013) and study schedules (Giesbers et al., 2014b; Yamagata-Lynch,
2014).
Like students, institutions of higher education have derived benefits by offering online
education courses and programs. Accessing a larger population of students through online
education provides financial, market, and mission advantages for institutions. Pursuing these
goals allows colleges and universities to expand online offerings. Institutional response has also
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 27
occurred because of the growing external demands from students for online options. In
discussing online education, one controversial issue has been the equivalence of quality between
online and traditional face-to-face education. On the one hand, researchers argue that online
education delivers quality outcomes equal to or exceeding those of traditional face-to-face
instruction (Driscoll, Jicha, Hunt, Tichavsky, & Thompson, 2012; Ni, 2013). On the other hand,
other researchers have reported that online education outcomes are inferior to those of face-to-
face education (Bettinger & Loeb, 2017; Kemp et al., Mayadas et al., 2009; Zimmerman, 2015).
Gopalan (2016) asserts that the rapid and dynamic evolution of online education has not allowed
for adequate valuation of the modality. This existing controversy necessitates a discussion about
the challenges facing online education.
Challenges Facing Online Education
One commonly reported implication of online education is the dehumanization inherently
created by reliance on technology (Kemp et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2007; Mayadas et al., 2009).
However, an emerging mitigating strategy is the inclusion of synchronous modality components
which diminishes this impact (Fletcher et al., 2012; Tyler & Zurick, 2014; Yamagata-Lynch,
2014). Institutions of higher education have long been challenged by student retention and
attrition. Findings frequently demonstrate that these are higher for online students than for face-
to-face students, yet both are frequently cited as a major challenge of online education (Bettinger
& Loeb, 2017; Ni, 2013). It is important to note that much of the reported data on online
retention rates fail to differentiate between asynchronous and synchronous modalities. Giesbers,
Rienties, Tempelaar, and Gijselaers (2014a) emphasized the importance of future research and
guideline development focused on synchronous online education. Bernard, Abrami, Wade,
Borokhovski, and Lou (2004) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to analyze the
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 28
equivalency merits between synchronous education and face-to-face instruction; while it did not
demonstrate firm support for an equivalency theory—which posits that synchronous modalities
are equivalent to face-to-face efforts—it stressed the importance of future research.
Faculty preparedness, training, and support to deliver online education are often cited as
barriers to successful online offerings. In their summation of contextual factors that influence
asynchronous learning network effectiveness, Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich (2005) posited that
faculty development and training, both initial and ongoing, are critical factors. The results of
Hiltz, Shea, and Kim’s 2010 focus group study involving faculty members from two universities
demonstrated that a lack of administrative support was a significant deterrence among faculty.
Hunt, Richardson, Hammock, Akins, and Russ (2014) had similar findings in their quantitative
study of faculty members. One of the research questions in this study sought to identify whether
interest in teaching online related to specific concerns and motivations. Results revealed that
interest was positively correlated with a concern over lack of training. Lloyd, Byrne, and McCoy
(2012) conducted a related quantitative survey for identifying perceived barriers to teaching
online among faculty and demonstrated similar findings. Beyond these major challenges related
to faculty development, training, and support, additional obstacles include lack of valuation
evidence (Deming, Gold, Katz, & Yuchtman, 2015); negative employer perceptions (Deming et
al., 2015); low academic performance (Bettinger & Loeb, 2017); faculty overload, exhaustive
development time for faculty, and technology glitches (Lloyd et al., 2012); allegations of
cheating (Owens, 2015); and lack of academic rigor (Zimmerman, 2015).
Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Versus Hybrid Delivery
The focus of this evaluation is asynchronous online education, but it is critical to
differentiate the three general types of online modalities: synchronous, asynchronous, and
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 29
hybrid. Asynchronous education, often referred to as asynchronous learning networks, is a
platform in which the instructor and student are not interacting in real time (Berjerano, 2008;
Frantzen, 2014). Conversely, synchronous education employs a real-time interaction between the
instructor and student supported by telecommunication tools and technology (Berjerano, 2008;
Frantzen, 2014). When instruction combines characteristics of both synchronous and
asynchronous modalities, it is termed hybrid or blended education (Berjerano, 2008; Frantzen,
2014). A leading professional organization, Online Learning Consortium, has posited more
definite definitions and has specified that online education equates to instances when 80% of the
course material is delivered via technology, hybrid learning occurs when 30–79% of learning is
online, and Web-facilitated learning occurs when 1–29% of face-to-face learning is supported by
telecommunications and Web 2.0 tools (Allen et al., 2016). Regardless of the platform, a
significant consideration in the effectiveness of online education is the ability to achieve a high
sense of belonging among students.
Sense of Belonging Among Online Students
Sense of belonging relates to the connectedness or affinity a person feels toward a group
or system (Booker, 2016; Museus et al., 2017; Yuan & Kim, 2014). The term social presence
often accompanies discussions surrounding sense of belonging. Social presence describes the
degree of connectedness among participants created within each interaction type, rather than the
interaction’s outcome (Kreijns, Kirschner, Jochems, & Hans van Buuren, 2011; Szeto & Cheng,
2016). Sense of belonging is a resulting feeling, whether low or high, derived from various
factors. Knowledge of the many forms of social presence within interactions and the impact each
has on instructional design is crucial to students’ sense of belonging (Tu & McIssac, 2002; Szeto
& Cheng, 2016). As discussed, the increased level of online educational offerings has elevated
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 30
the interest in the how online student sense of belonging can be developed and maintained.
These studies have simultaneously illuminated barriers as well. Salient barriers to cultivating a
sense of belonging among online students include the instructors’ poor awareness of effective
measures to build sense of belonging in online environments and the interpersonal challenges
innately created by technology (Liu et al., 2007).
Hoffman, Jayne, Morrow, and Kandice, (2003), as they developed a tool for measuring
sense of belonging, formulated five factors that contribute to sense of belonging: 1) perceived
peer support, 2) perceive faculty support, 3) perceived classroom comfort, 4) perceived isolation,
and 5) empathetic faculty understanding. This formulation categorized each factor as having
learning (academic) or non-learning origins. Hoffman et al. (2003) recognized that the complex
interactions of these factors result in varying levels of sense of belonging among students. As
pertinent to this study, Hoffman et al. (2003) articulated three underlying dimensions of the
student and faculty measures; “empathetic understanding, perceived faculty academic
support/comfort, and perceived faculty support and comfort” (p. 243).
Within online education, there is consensus that three categories of interactions exist
within instructional design: student-to-student, student-to-content, and student-to-instructor
(Dixson, 2010; Ke, 2013; Rossi et al., 2015). The nature, frequency, and depth of interactions
influence student outcomes and experiences, including sense of belonging (Boling et al., 2012;
Dixson, 2010; Ke, 2013; Rossi et al., 2015; Szeto & Cheng, 2016). Owing to the works of
Hoffman et al. (2002), interactions that impact sense of belonging need to encompass empathy
and understanding.
While faculty communications and engagement interactions significantly impact the
sense of belonging among online students, they do not stand in isolation. For example, Byrd
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 31
(2016) and Norris and Barnett (1994) concluded that grouping students into cohorts throughout
the duration of an academic program contributed to a sense of belonging. Regardless of how a
sense of belonging is achieved, studies have demonstrated that online students who possess a
high sense of belonging exhibit overall improved outcomes, making the assessment of students’
sense of belonging critical to institutions. Subsequently, innovative assessment mechanisms have
been developed to provide several tools dedicated to evaluating the level and impact of sense of
belonging. Two widely used tools for assessing online students’ sense of belonging include the
Sense of Classroom Community Index (Rovai, 2002) and the SLOAN Quality Scorecard
(Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Moore & Shelton, 2013). The vast amount of research employing
these or similar tools, is a testament to the importance of understanding the dimensions of online
students’ sense of belonging.
Asynchronous Learning Networks and Student Sense of Belonging
Delivering asynchronous online education shifted the learning world’s view of education
toward a constructionist viewpoint (Garrison, 2007; Rovai et al., 2005). Social presence,
cognitive presence, and teaching presence are the essential foundations of asynchronous learning
networks and represent the community of inquiry (COI) framework, which is the predominant
construct for online education (Bigatel & Williams, 2015; Garrison, 2007; Swan & Shea, 2005).
Additionally, three classifications of student interactions are brought together in courses to
facilitate a culture of inquiry, learning, and a sense of belonging. These are commonly
categorized as student-student interactions, student-to-content interactions, and student-to-
instructor interactions (Bolliger, Inan, & Wasilik, 2014; Ke, 2013). While all interactions have
the potential to impact a student’s sense of belonging, the interactions between students and
instructors surpass the other types in evoking a high sense of belonging (Dixson, 2010; Lundberg
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 32
& Shridan, 2015; Thomas et al., 2014). Rovai (2002) and Thomas et al. (2014) suggested that
interactions are also categorized as either task or socioemotional interactions, thereby
highlighting the importance of addressing the emotional needs of students, including their sense
of belonging.
Measuring Sense of Belonging in an Asynchronous Learning Environment
The paradigm shifts to online learning necessitated the development of novel assessment
mechanisms to measure the quality of online education, including tools dedicated to evaluating
the level and impact of sense of belonging. The Online Learning Consortium’s Quality Report
Card contains specific sense-of-belonging and community indicators designed to assess the
adequacy of peer interactions as well as the engagement presence of the program and institution
(Moore & Shelton, 2013). The Sense of Classroom Community Index (SCCI) developed by
Alfred Rovai provides a seminal tool for measuring and assessing student sense of community
(Swan & Shea, 2005). The SCCI focuses on four critical elements: spirit, trust, interaction, and
learning (Rovai, 2002; Swan & Shea, 2005). Frequent applications of these tools can be found in
numerous studies aimed at analyzing student sense of belonging in higher education. A review of
the many findings can help to identify promising practices for establishing a high sense of
belonging among students.
Communication and Engagement Strategies for Fostering Sense of Belonging in
Asynchronous Learning Environments
A one-size-fits-all instructional course design yielding an optimal sense of belonging for
students does not exist, but themes of best-practice strategies that are applicable to asynchronous
learning environments are articulated in the literature. Of prime importance to instructional
design is ensuring that the focus is on instructional methods and not on technological tools and
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 33
techniques (Rovai, 2002). Another overarching consideration is balancing task-driven and
socioemotional interactions. It is important that course design aligns student needs with the
appropriate balance between the two types of interaction, but with full awareness that
socioemotional interactions more directly cultivate a sense of belonging (Rovai, 2002). The one-
size-fits-all approach to faculty interactions—the focus of this evaluation study—is also not
optimal. Instead, engagement components should incorporate various modes that are tailored to
learners and entice interest (Vai & Sosulski, 2016). As further recommended by Vai and Sosulski
(2016), teaching components that are deemed engaging should be clearly presented, encourage
active student participation that goes beyond simple content absorption, be designed with
authenticity and meaningfulness, facilitate collaboration and reflection, and offer a variety of
learning strategies.
There are many additional examples of best-practice strategies that cultivate a sense of
belonging found in literature that faculty members have influence over. Strategies focused on
course design include incorporating ice breakers at the beginning of the instructional series
(Thomas et al., 2014), organizing students into cohorts (Boettlcher & Conrad, 2016; Byrd, 2016;
Rovai et al., 2005), intermingling synchronous and blended options within a course (Boettlcher
& Conrad, 2016; Rovai et al., 2005; Thomas et al., 2014; Yamagata-Lynch, 2014), facilitating
vicarious participation in on-campus cohorts (Thomas et al., 2014), offering periodic face-to-face
interactions (Byrd, 2016), and encouraging peer interactions (Boettlcher & Conrad, 2016;
Dixson, 2010).
While not specific to faculty communications and engagement, there are other best-
practice strategies that faculty influence and are shown to enhance students’ sense of belonging.
Examples of these strategies include methods focused on faculty development and preparation,
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 34
such as providing thorough and comprehensive training and professional development for faculty
(Arbaugh & Benbunan-Fich, 2005; Bigatel & Williams, 2015; Hiltz et.al, 2010; Hunt et.al.,
2014; Lloyd et al.,2012), developing and presenting clear and concise syllabi (Boettlcher &
Conrad, 2016; Rovai, 2002), scaffolding student learning (Boettlcher & Conrad, 2016; Rovai,
2002), and actively incorporating constructionist methodology into instructional design (Rovai et
al., 2005). Additionally, the organizational strategies of noncentric faculty best practices that
promote a sense of belonging include establishing providing institutional support through
tutorials, remedial support, writing support, and technology orientation (Rovai et al., 2005);
arranging for access to student lounges and cafés (Boettlcher & Conrad, 2016; Thomas et al.,
2014); mainstreaming online students into school leadership groups (Rovai et al., 2005);
integrating online students into student affairs (Rovai et al., 2005); and sharing culture with
online students (Byrd, 2016; Rovai et al., 2005).
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework establishes a systematic and methodical
approach to diagnosing, evaluating, and analyzing organizational and individual performance.
Isolating and establishing an understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on performance are fundamental to the gap analysis; each influence is carefully
identified in the analysis. The first influence, knowledge, is categorized as factual, conceptual,
procedural, or metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Knowledge must be
accompanied by effective motivation to achieve goals and effective performance (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011). The second influence, motivation, is of equivalent importance, as it is the
force that drives individuals to perform (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011). Lastly, the gap
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 35
analysis explores the organizational influences, such as processes, procedures and culture, which
impact goal attainment for individuals and organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The focused stakeholder group for this study was faculty members teaching in
asynchronous online programs; their goal is the implementation of regular communication and
engagement strategies that foster students’ sense of belonging in 100% of asynchronous online
courses. The goal is aligned with the organizational goal of delivering quality online education.
This study addressed faculty member knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in
terms of how each impacts faculty performance and contribution to goal attainment
Faculty Member Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Each assumed influence will be discussed in the sections that follow. First, is the
discussion of knowledge factors, followed by motivation factors, and concluding with
organization factors. After the discussion, each influence will be inspected using the
methodology discussed in Chapter 3.
Knowledge and Skills
The quality of online education improves when student interactions are significant and
relevant (Dixson, 2010; Lundberg & Shridan, 2015; Thomas et al., 2014). Evidence reveals that
faculty member interactions, as compared to student-to-student or student-to-content
interactions, yield higher engagement and satisfaction ratings among online students (Dixson,
2010; Lundberg & Shridan, 2015; Thomas et al, 2014). Evaluating whether faculty members
possess the knowledge and skills required to facilitate best practices for engaging online students
is essential to providing quality health science education online. The gap analysis framework
established by Clark and Estes (2008) was utilized in modified form to diagnose, evaluate and
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 36
analyze faculty members’ knowledge and skills impacting stakeholder and organization goal
achievement and performance.
Individuals’ knowledge and skill level directly impact their performance and subsequent
achievement of organizational performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Conducting a gap analysis to systematically evaluate knowledge and skills serves to improve
individual and organizational value, focuses goal efforts on critical endeavors, and streamlines
cost consumption to specific organizational needs (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The
following section examines knowledge and skill influences, supported by literary evidence, to
diagnose performance gaps for subsequent goal achievement.
Knowledge Influences
Consensus exists that knowledge is categorized as factual, conceptual, procedural, or
metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge is isolated and
answers questions inquiring about “what” (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011 Rueda, 2011).
Conceptual knowledge, also answers “what” questions but does not exist in isolation; conceptual
knowledge is more multifarious (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). An example of
conceptual knowledge within this gap analysis is a faculty member identifying best practice
interaction strategies. Procedural knowledge answers questions about “how to” and provides
methodology (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). As it relates to this analysis, an
example of procedural knowledge is a faculty member being able to implement, within the right
context, best practice engagement strategies. The last type of knowledge, metacognitive
knowledge, answers questions about one’s awareness of one’s own learning effectiveness
(Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). An example of metacognitive knowledge is a
faculty member’s ability to reflect on the effectiveness of his or her performance and transfer
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 37
learned knowledge to another process. Each of these knowledge typologies contributes to the
knowledge and skills linked to successful faculty members’ stakeholder goal achievement.
However, the following sections will focus on conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge influences.
Knowing best practice engagement strategies. Faculty members benefit from the ability
to discern what interactions and course design strategies are most effective at engaging online
students. A multitude of interaction activities for facilitating online interactions are available and
classified as student-to-student, student-to-content, student-to-faculty (Rossi et al., 2015; Ke,
2013; Kuh, 2003). Faculty members’ interactions have the most positive influence over student
engagement and therefore offer the greatest potential for achieving the goal of delivering quality
online education (Bigatel & Williams, 2015; Dixson, 2010; Lundberg & Shridan, 2015). Faculty
members need conceptual knowledge of the differences between interaction classifications and
the implications of faculty-to-student interaction.
Faculty members can benefit from understanding the implications of incorporating
collaborative activities into online course design. A standardized, uniform model for
collaboration activities within course design is not a realistic instructional design approach;
course design should enable multiple types of collaborative technique and strategies, such as
discussion posts, wiki pages, blogs, and video messaging (Boulos, Maramba & Wheeler, 2006;
Czerkawski & Lyman, 2016; Thomas et al., 2014). Knowledge of a variety of collaborative
activities allows faculty members to select options based on individual course needs and
requirements.
Video presentation has become the mainstay for presenting content to online students
(Hansch et al., 2015). To optimally incorporate video content into online courses, knowledge of
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 38
the various video presentation forms is necessary. These are commonly categorized as lecture
capture (also known as talking-head), picture-in-picture, voice-over, and Kahn-style (Chen &
Wu, 2015; Guo, Kim, & Rubin, 2014; Hansch et al., 2015). The findings of current literature on
best practices for video presentation have rendered mixed results. On the one hand, Vai and
Sosulski (2016) argued that recording face-to-face lectures for online courses is dry, and
therefore not recommended. On the other hand, Chen and Wu (2015) contended that capturing
face-to-face lectures for the use of online courses is superior to voice-over video. Additionally,
from their multi-designed study—literature review, platform and content review, and expert
interviews—Hansch et al. (2015) noted that experts disagreed as to whether scripting a video
was a good practice. Notwithstanding the debate over video creation, faculty need conceptual
knowledge for embedding video into course designs in order to ensure quality education and
optimal student engagement.
Understanding the interrelationships between synchronous and asynchronous interactions
allow faculty to appropriately balance these in course designs. Synchronous interactions
(optional or mandatory) elevate levels of student outcomes (Fletcher et al., 2012; Thomas et al.,
2014; van der Molen, 2016; Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). Improvements from synchronous activities
are not limited to cognitive outcomes; personalization, camaraderie and social connections are
also enhanced, thereby nurturing student connections and persistence (Mayer, 2011; Lundberg &
Shridan, 2015; Thomas et al., 2014). Understanding that synchronous activities have the
potential to result in increased student interactions and engagement will positively benefit faculty
members’ performance.
Implementing best practice engagement strategies. To select context-relevant and
appropriately timed strategies, differentiating the strengths and weaknesses among best practice
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 39
strategies and techniques is necessary (Bigatel & Williams, 2015; Dixson, 2010; Fletcher et al.,
2012; Thomas et al., 2014). Strategies that are universally effective across the spectrum of online
course delivery do not exist; rather a balance between content and social interactions yields high-
quality student engagement and course outcomes (Bigatel & Williams, 2015; Dixson, 2010;
Thomas et al., 2014). Building on conceptual knowledge, faculty members need procedural
knowledge to know how to select and implement best practice strategies. Specifically, it is
important that instructors incorporate active learning activities, as well as passive learning
activities into courses. Active learning includes activities such as discussion forums, group
projects, case studies; passive learning includes activities such as reading, watching videos and
taking quizzes (Dixson, 2010). In addition, faculty in their course building procedures need to
orchestrate regular incorporation of student-to-student, student-to-content and student-to-
instructor interactions (Bolliger, Inan, & Wasilik, 2014; Ke, 2013) to ensure that the essential
foundations of asynchronous learning are addressed—social, cognitive and teaching (Bigatel &
Williams, 2015; Garrison, 2007; Swan & Shea, 2005).
Self-reflection on the effectiveness of best practice strategies. Faculty members can
benefit from judging their effectiveness in optimizing student engagement using best practice
strategies. Metacognitive skills—such as self-reflection, self-awareness, and adaptation—
facilitate an individual’s ability to evaluate the effectiveness of their learning execution and make
decisions about the direction of future efforts aimed at improvement (Baker, 2006; Grossman &
Salas, 2011; Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Enhancements in individual learning capabilities
lead to improved individual and organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008, Grossman &
Sales, 2011). A faculty member’s ability to possess metacognitive awareness, knowledge, and
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 40
effective assessment skills enables the achievement of stakeholder and organizational goals for
student engagement and effective online learning.
Self-regulation of learning has a reciprocal relationship to future learning, thereby
contributing to further performance enhancements (Baker, 2006; Zimmerman, 1989). By
engaging in self-regulation, faculty members activate their ability to adapt prior knowledge,
monitor effectiveness, and positively influence future performance (Baker, 2006; Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon, 2006; Zimmerman, 1989). This cyclical process elicits an ongoing, positive
impact on a faculty member’s ability to successfully engage online students, contributing to the
delivery of quality education.
Table 2 provides a summary of knowledge influences and assessments that impact the
organizational mission and goals.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences and Assessments

Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment

Faculty members need to know
best practice engagement
strategies for optimal engagement
of online students.

Conceptual

Surveys from faculty members
assess ability to differentiate best
practices engagement strategies.

Faculty members need knowledge
of how to implement best practice
engagement strategies for online
students.
Procedural Faculty members will be asked
what current communication
strategies they employ.

Faculty members need to be able
to self- reflect on their
effectiveness in employing best
practice engagement strategies.

Metacognitive

Faculty members will be asked to
judge their own effectiveness in
optimizing student engagement
using best practice strategies.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 41
Motivation Influences
Knowledge must be accompanied by effective motivation if goal achievement and
performance effectiveness are to be achieved (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Motivation is
the force that propels an individual to move toward goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Mayer, 2011). Key indicators of an individual’s motivational level include active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Active choice, whether
decided upon individual or externally imposed, is a key element to motivation (Clark & Estes,
2008). Faculty members must actively choose to engage in activities that will lead to optimal
engagement of online students. Active choice must be accompanied by ongoing persistence and
sufficient levels of focused mental effort to drive performance to successful goal achievement
(Clark & Estes, 2008, Rueda, 2011). Many motivational theories exist that delve into an array of
influences affecting an individual’s active choice, persistence, and mental effort in each situation.
The following discussion is relevant to identifying the influences on faculty members’
motivation and will focus on self-efficacy theory, goal orientation theory and emotion theory.
Self-efficacy theory. As a major element of social cognitive theory, self-efficacy theory
posits that the more positively a person believes in his or her ability to achieve a performance
outcome, the more likely achievement becomes (Bandura, 1997, 2000, 2005; Pajares, 2006).
This positive belief influences individuals to actively decide to engage in an activity, persist in
that activity, and devote the necessary mental effort to performance. Conversely, feelings of
disbelief or doubt create motivational barriers, making the prospect of achievement questionable
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
Sources of self-efficacy include mastery experience, vicarious experience, social
persuasion, and physiological reactions (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2006). Most of a person’s self-
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 42
efficacy can be attributed to mastery experience; self-regulation evaluates the success or struggle
with a task or behavior and conveys belief about future performance (Bandura, 1997, 2005;
Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy is also influenced by observing others (vicarious experience), direct
or indirect environmental feedback (social persuasion), and internal emotional responses,
including mood, joy and happiness (physiological reactions) (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2006).
Believing that they can facilitate best-practice strategies that optimally engage online students
will assist faculty members in delivering quality online education.
Faculty member self-efficacy. To optimize student engagement, it is essential that faculty
members are confident in their ability to incorporate best-practice strategies into online
instructional design; doing so will enable the achievement of individual and organizational goals.
Regardless of outcome orientation, it is critical that faculty members possess positive self-
efficacy to ensure the active pursuit of the goal (Bandura, 1997, 2000, 2005; Pajares, 2006).
Additionally, individual positive self-efficacy from faculty members will contribute to the
collective self-efficacy of the entire faculty group (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2006), thereby
perpetuating the probability of stakeholder goal attainment.
Efficacious faculty members will persist and dedicate the necessary mental effort to
engage in activities and tasks that enhance abilities, thereby driving the goal attainment. Faculty
member persistence in seeking professional development focused on instructional design and
effective online teaching strategies receive higher satisfaction engagement ratings from students
(Arbaugh, 2000; Bigatel & Williams, 2015). Therefore, when faculty members possess positive
self-efficacy toward their ability to incorporate best-practice strategies into online instructional
design, stakeholder and organizational goal attainment is promising.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 43
Goal orientation theory. Goal orientation theory establishes a schema under which
individual goal engagement and interest influence motivation (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Pintrich,
2003; Rueda, 2011; Yough & Anderman, 2006). The intricacies of goal orientation theory need
further research, as mixed findings have been reported. However, agreement exists that there are
two distinct orientations: mastery and performance (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Pintrich, 2003;
Rueda, 2011; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Mastery goals have an intrinsic locus and cause
individuals to positively persist in self-development and self-regulation. Conversely,
performance goals derive from external loci, meaning an individual pursues a goal to receive
affirmation from others or to outperform others (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Pintrich, 2003; Rueda,
2011; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Mastery and performance approach goals are both associated
with improved outcomes. However, mastery goals are more adaptive and have significant
cognitive impact. Individuals can be orientated toward goals from mastery and performance
perspectives simultaneously (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Pintrich, 2003; Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Faculty members will be positively influenced to achieve optimal engagement of online students
in interactions when their orientation is aligned with the attributes of a mastery goal orientation.
Faculty member goal orientation. Faculty members should want to do more than the
bare minimum and go beyond showing the administration they are simply meeting the
requirements for regular interaction. Once established as a mastery goal, faculty members should
actively pursue cognitive growth (professional development) and expanded skills, leading to self-
directed efforts for continual performance improvement (Pintrich, 2003; Yough & Anderman,
2006). Intrinsically motivated faculty members who engage in online teaching create
opportunities to explore, engage, and master new instructional methods and technology (Bolliger
& Wasilik, 2009; Hiltz et al., 2010; Maguire, 2005; Shea, 2007). Continual improvement in
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 44
behavior and activities are demonstrated by faculty members who persist in mastering online
teaching strategies. When faculty members’ mastery leads to improved instructional design,
student satisfaction and engagement also increase (Bigatel & Williams, 2015; Dixson, 2010;
Lundberg & Shridan, 2015; Thomas et al., 2014). As student outcomes improve, faculty
members' performance satisfaction advances, thereby further motivating faculty member
behavior and supporting a mastery goal orientation (Pintrich, 2003; Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Faculty members who persist in achieving optimal instructional design and student engagement
directly contribute to achieving the stakeholder goal and, through modeling this behavior,
vicariously influence other faculty members to align with the goal (Bandura, 1997; Mayer, 2011;
Scott & Palinscar, 2006).
Emotion theory. Research has shown that emotions play an important role in motivation.
It is important to distinguish emotions from moods or affect; emotions are shorter lived, direct
responses to specific events, whereas both affect and mood are more generalized and not
connected to specific events (Lord, Klimoski, & Kanfer, 2002; Pekrun, 2011). Regarding
emotion, Pekrun (2011) posited that there are “two important dimensions describing
emotions . . . valence and activation” and that each dimension can be classified as positive or
negative (p. 24). Pekrun provides the following illustration of the dimensions: “positive
activating (e.g., enjoyment, hope, pride); positive deactivating (e.g., relief, relaxation); negative
activating (e.g., anger, confusion, anxiety, shame); negative deactivating (e.g., hopelessness,
boredom)” (p. 24). Faculty members, when experiencing positive activating emotions such as
joy, hope, and pride from teaching online, are more motivated to engage and persist at the task
optimally communicating and engaging online students.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 45
Faculty member emotions. Although not directly related to student engagement, the
dimension of emotion impacts the motivational level of faculty member behaviors toward online
education engagement. Although an in-depth discussion of all emotions and their contributions
to, and resulting outcomes on, motivation and learning is beyond the scope of this evaluation
study, generally, the presence of positive emotions heightens the desire to activate and persist in
learning and motivation (Lord et al., 2002; Pekrun, 2011). Faculty members who demonstrate
positive activating emotions regarding online instruction experience greater motivation to
optimally communicate and engage students, cultivating a sense of belonging and goal
attainment (stakeholder and organization). Table 3 provides a summary of the motivational types
and influences regarding the organizational mission and goals. Assessment tools to be employed
for measuring the influences are provided in brief as well.
Table 3
Motivation Influences and Assessments

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment

Self-Efficacy – Faculty members need to believe
they are capable of effectively utilizing online
strategies for effectively engaging students.
Written survey item “I feel confident about
my ability to utilize optimal strategies for
effectively communicating and engagement
strategies with online students to promote
sense of belonging”.
Goal Orientation – Faculty members should want
to do more than the bare minimum and go beyond
showing to the administration that they are just
meeting the requirement of regular interaction.
Written survey item “I want to continue to
learn about various ways to enhance online
student communication and engagement
strategies that promote quality education,
specifically sense of belonging.” (strongly
disagree – strongly disagree).

Emotions – Faculty members should experience
positive emotions in the process of teaching
online
Written survey items from the external
survey, Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey
(Likert type: strongly agree – strongly
disagree)
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 46
Organizational Influences
General theory. An organization’s ability to achieve optimal performance is influenced
by its practices, beliefs, resources and processes. Furthermore, the complex and dynamic
interaction among these components challenges the effective and efficient performance within
organizations (Clark and Estes, 2008). These organizational components and their exchanges
partially make up what is arguably the most significant organizational influence – culture.
Change processes are an expected consequence of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis framework, making the understanding of culture critical to this study. Culture is a
complex phenomenon, difficult to define, but can be described as unconscious, invisible and
belief-based (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011; Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996). Schein
(2010), as one of the most recognized authorities on organizational culture, guides the definition
of culture by framing is into three levels: (a) artifacts, (b) espoused beliefs and values, and (c)
basic underlying assumptions. Schein theorizes the importance of understanding organizational
culture through a process known as cultural analysis. Cultural analysis allows the decoding of
real meaning behind behaviors and practices in an organization and serves to illuminate
underlying culture. This study examined the organizational influences within PLU’s cultural
settings to determine the existence of any gaps.
Pokegama Lake University (PLU) faculty member specific factors. Many
organizational influences impact PLU’s ability to deliver quality online education, while
fostering student sense of belonging. The intangible, invisible beliefs and values that guide
behaviors and processes within an organization are referenced as cultural models; and the
tangible manifestations of that model are constitute cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Rueda, 2011). This study will focus on the two cultural setting influences and how they
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 47
impact PLU’s faculty members’ ability to create a sense of belonging through effective
communication and engagement strategies. The two cultural settings include lack of instructional
design support and insufficient professional development support for faculty.
From a cultural setting perspective, two specific factors may be at work to explain the
cause of organizational problems in developing and delivering online education at PLU, and the
subsequent development of a sense of belonging among online students. First, there is a lack of
instructional design support, both from a technical infrastructure and a human resource
perspective. The current instructional design staff is composed of three individuals whose
primary expertise is technical design rather than andragogy—adult education--theory. Another
qualified individual was hired over ten years ago to champion distance education at PLU,
however, soon after hiring this individual was charged with leading university assessment and
accreditation activities. Low numbers of online program enrollment and the criticality of
assessment and accreditation activities overshadowed a robust, centralized organizational effort
to build the infrastructure necessary to support quality online programs. Recent hardware and
software upgrades have ameliorated the technical infrastructure support to some extent, however,
subsequent training and utilization of those components remains deficient; which leads to the
second cultural setting influence.
This second cultural setting influence is a lack of centralized institutional support for
initial and ongoing professional training for faculty members. In 2016, an internal professional
development course was created on the university’s learning management system dedicated to
supporting the professional development of faculty members wishing to gain and advance online
instructional competencies. The belated effort is rudimentary but promising as developed,
however faculty member access and utilization of these internal materials is scarce, as is the
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 48
extent of support for outside professional development. Ameliorating both cultural setting
influences requires that leaders understand the current climate and are responsive to the
resources needs of the faculty members (Schneider et al.,1996). Table 4 shows the assumed PLU
organization’s cultural setting influences needed to support the faculty members’ abilities to
implement regular communication and engagement strategies that foster student belonging in
100% of students.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Assessments

Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Setting Influence 1: There is a lack of
instructional design support to faculty members
for the development of quality online programs.

Survey or interview question about faculty
members’ awareness of instructional design
department resources.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: There is a lack of
institutional support for professional development
of faculty.

Survey or interview question about
institutional support of faculty member
professional development.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Faculty Knowledge, Motivation
and the Organizational Context
In the prior sections, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
the faculty members achieving a high sense of belonging among online students were discussed
in isolation. This section presents a view of the interdependent relationships among these
influences as they relate to achieving the organizational goal of fostering a sense of belonging in
100% of online students thereby revealing the conceptual framework of the study. A conceptual
framework, also known as a theoretical framework, is constructed by a researcher through
exposure to literature, experiential knowledge, and external theories. It reflects the researchers’
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 49
individual views and beliefs about the phenomenon being studied (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Constructing a conceptual framework formulates, organizes, and justifies the
study for the researcher while serving as a navigational tool for the researcher and future
consumers (Maxwell, 2013, Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
A consensus exists in the literature demonstrating a significant correlation between
faculty-student interactions and positive student outcomes, including a sense of belonging
(Boling et al.; Dixson, 2010; Ke, 2013; Rossi et al., 2015; Szeto & Cheng, 2016). Clark and
Estes (2008) in their gap analysis framework suggest that understanding the gap in a
stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation, and the relationship between knowledge and
motivation can reveal why organizational goals are not achieved. Therefore, not only
understanding faculty members’ knowledge and motivation, but also exploring the synergism
among these influences and the organizational influences is fundamental to analyzing ability of
faculty members to implement regular communication and engagement strategies that foster
student belonging goal. Organizational influences must also be allied with the knowledge and
motivational factors if optimal organizational performance is to be achieved (Clark & Estes,
2008). Findings suggest that the quality of online educational outcomes is correlated with the
quality of instructional design (Bigatel & Williams, 2015; Dixson, 2010; Lundberg & Shridan,
2015; Thomas et al., 2014) and professional development (Arbaugh, 2000; Bigatel & Williams,
2015). Such cultural setting influences are additive influences and were assessed as part of this
study.
Clark and Estes (2008) assert that there is a synergistic and cyclic effect among the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers. At PLU, professional training and
instructional design support are instrumental to the knowledge levels of the faculty members.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 50
Knowledge plays an indispensable role in what an individual chooses to engage in, or
conversely, not engage in (Pajares, 2006). Additionally, a generalized pessimistic belief in online
education impedes individuals (in this case the PLU faculty members) from proactively engaging
in the development of online offerings (Pajares, 2006). The conceptual framework links together
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting the ability of the PLU
faculty members to achieve performance goals, which is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework: Interaction between the organization, stakeholder groups and
the organization’s goal.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 51
The interactive relationship between the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences is depicted in Figure 1. The organization is represented as a large circle conveying that
organizations, like circles, are never-ending systems molded by the dynamic relationships among
its components, the component’s attributes, and their relationships. The stakeholders, which are
the online faculty members in the case of PLU, constitute one of the components in an
organizational system. Fittingly, the PLU faculty group is represented by a smaller circle within
the organizational circle, which demonstrates a deeper meaning — that the faculty group does
not and cannot exist in isolation; they can only exist as a subsystem within the larger system. The
hierarchy created by the subsystem amplifies the interrelatedness of the influences. The geometry
succinctly shows the dependent relationship between faculty members’ knowledge and
motivation; an absence of either creates a void within the organization. Likewise, an absence of
instructional design support and professional development, as cultural settings, weakens the
organizational structure, leaving faculty members buoyant and without sufficient resources.
The narrow, directional arrow represents how the array of influences must converge and
harmonize for the achievement of optimal organizational output. The organizational output, for
example, the goal of delivering quality online education is represented in the rectangular box.
The demarcating geometric shape of the conceptual framework appropriately conveys the
steadfast, agreed upon, and foundational goal of delivering a high-quality online education at
PLU. It represents a vision and a metric by which the institution, its members, stakeholders, and
external partners will gauge performance when delivering quality online education.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 52
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine the faculty members’ knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational factors influencing their capacity to support the development of a
sense of belonging among online students in asynchronous courses. This chapter will present
research design and methods for data collection and analysis. This chapter begins by exploring
the research questions and methodology. The next section describes the data collection and
instrumentation approaches employed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the data
analysis approach applied in the study.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study that are pertinent to the discussion on the conceptual
framework are as follows:
1. What are the online faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to implementing
regular communication and engagement strategies that foster students’ sense of
belonging in asynchronous online courses?
2. What is the interaction between PLU’s organizational culture and context and online
faculty’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to implementing regular
communication and engagement strategies to achieve a high sense of belonging
among asynchronous online students?
3. What are the recommendations for PLU’s practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 53
Participating Stakeholders
The population of interest in this study was PLU online faculty members who are the
primary point of contact for online students. This group has significant influence over online
student engagement and the students’ sense of belonging (Boling et al., 2012; Dixson, 2010; Ke,
2013; Rossi et al., 2015; Szeto & Cheng, 2016). Their knowledge and motivation are critical to
the goal of implementing regular communication and engagement strategies that foster student
belonging 100% of the time and to PLU’s goal of delivering quality online education. Johnson
and Christensen (2015) recommend census sampling if the population is small enough to
facilitate data collection. They assert that census sampling will maximize overall understanding.
Thus, due to the modest offerings at PLU coupled with the study’s aim of understanding the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting online education, a census
sample was prudent and therefore employed.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Participants who are full-time, part-time, or adjunct faculty members
teaching online courses comprised the first criterion for this census sample. This was determined
by who was recorded as the formal teacher of record in PLU’s official administrative and student
information system. Regardless of employment status, each faculty member’s knowledge and
motivation influences the group’s performance and conceptually influences overall
organizational performance.
Criterion 2. Since the spring of 2016, there has been heightened attention toward online
education at PLU. Numerous conversations and discussions have occurred throughout the
organization centered on the need to improve both the quality and quantity of online offerings.
Therefore, only faculty members who have instructed courses since the start of the 2018
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 54
academic year (July 2017 through June 2018) were included in the census sample. This
facilitated feedback that is contemporaneous to the current environment. Limiting the time frame
to this most recent academic year also directed focus on current faculty members who are likely
to be instructing future courses and impacting goal achievement.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Using the above criteria, a nonrandom, purposive sample was developed from querying
the administrative and student information system. The resulting sample elements were 131
(n=131) and represented the entire asynchronous online faculty member population; participants
who are direct reports of the researcher were not included in this sample. Once identified, the
survey was sent to faculty members’ official PLU email address. At PLU, there is a high regard
for research and participation, so a high response rate was expected; however, participation
incentives were still implemented to garner a robust response rate (Fink, 2013). Three $25.00 gift
cards were secured from local favorite eateries and raffled off to participants. Upon the
conclusion of each survey, participants received a thank you message from the survey system
with instructions to email the researcher to be eligible for the raffle. These strategies were
implemented to generate responses in a rapid and economical fashion while producing plentiful
data for generalization (Creswell, 2014).
Interview Criteria and Rationale
Following the initial quantitative phase of the study (survey administration), the
qualitative phase, which included conducting semi-structured interviews with seven faculty
members who volunteered during the quantitative phase, was initiated. As stated earlier, this
sampling approach is categorized as purposeful and convenient (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 55
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Surveys. The survey had 53 survey items and is included as Appendix A. Twenty-six
items from Bolliger and Wasilik’s (2009) online faculty satisfaction survey (OFSS) were
included as “satisfaction affects faculty motivation” (p. 114). An analysis plan, as recommended
by Irwin and Stafford (2016), was constructed to map each survey item to overarching topics
within the study, thereby ensuring that the designed survey instrument sufficiently addresses the
topics posed by the research questions. The analysis plan and map links each survey item to the
research questions and to specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within
the conceptual framework.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Qualitative research involves the collection of many varied sources of data (Creswell,
2014). These data collection methods focus on gathering data that provide deep meanings and
reflect participant experiences (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study included
interview qualitative data collection methods. I conducted interviews with faculty members to
render relevant and meaningful data regarding their knowledge, motivation and experience
within the organization to implement regular communication and engagement strategies with
online students.
Interviews
Seven one-hour interviews were scheduled with seven PLU faculty members that were
selected from a list of 23 volunteers as they completed the quantitative survey. No faculty
member who has a direct reporting relationship to me was selected for an interview as they were
excluded from the survey distribution. I administered the interviews in a semi-structured fashion
to ensure a degree for uniformity in data collection and to afford exploratory freedom to myself
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 56
and to participants, which may uncover experiences and meanings not achievable otherwise
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviewees were requested to designate their preferred interview
dates, times, and locations to optimize their openness and willingness to engage in the process.
As recommended by Patton (2002), the questions were “open-ended, neutral, singular, and clear”
(p. 353). Aligning with Patton’s (2002) recommendation, to avoid constraining participants’
responses, dichotomous and singular response questions and prompts were avoided during
construction and execution. The interview protocol (see Appendix B) supports the collection of
meaningful data about faculty members’ experiences, attitudes, and feelings.
Although observations allow for the collection of data that can prosperously augment
interview protocols, this study did not include formal observations. Extensive observational
notes during the interviewing process were taken as part of the data collection (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Hypothetically, observing faculty members creating and responding to
interactions with students within PLU’s learning management system would have provided
valuable insight into their knowledge and motivation, and to the impact of organizational
influences; however, this would create one-on-one observation situations that would have been
highly intrusive. Creswell (2014) posited that intrusiveness was a limitation of observational data
collection.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Creswell (2014) posited that the researcher is the “key instrument” (p. 185) in a
qualitative research study. As such, the strategies employed to ensure that this study-maintained
credibility and trustworthiness relied significantly on my efforts as the researcher. This includes
ensuring that adequate rigor, careful attention to detail, and ethical conduct were demonstrated
and given the highest priority throughout the research endeavor (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 57
buttress internal validity, I utilized triangulation. Triangulation is the use of multiple data sources
and collection methods to compare findings (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). To further enhance internal validity, I sought feedback from interviewed participants to
ensure accurate interpretations were reached; this process is commonly referred to as member-
checking (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) or respondent validation
(Maxwell 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To optimize the transferability of the study results, I
made concerted efforts to develop rich and complete descriptions throughout the process
(Creswell, 2014; Maxwell 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As suggested my Merriam and Tisdell (2016), to further enhance credibility and
trustworthiness, I maintained a researcher journal to document how data were collected and how
decisions were made throughout the study. Furthermore, I continually reflected upon my bias by
reviewing this journal, which included memos detailing analytical notes, questions, and other
commentary. These transparent efforts offered insight as to how my personal biases, roles, and
assumptions shaped data analysis; this is known as reflexivity (Creswell, 2014; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are important considerations in survey construction and
administration. Validity assesses how accurately a survey fulfills its intended purpose, whereas
reliability assesses the degree of consistency in repetitive applications of a survey (Fink, 2013;
Salkind, 2017). While similar in concept, an important distinction between validity and
reliability is that while an assessment tool can be reliable, validity is not guaranteed; consistency
does not equate to accuracy (Salkind, 2017). As such, I ensured that measures are incorporated
that promote both validity and reliability.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 58
As this was a mixed-methods study, the quantitative survey data was combined with
interview data. This triangulation of multiple data sources increased internal validity (Creswell,
2014). To further support content validity, professional guidance was employed (Creswell, 2014;
Salkind, 2017). PLU’s director of extended education, who has a Ph.D. focused in educational
technology, provided feedback on the survey instrument. Additionally, pilot testing was
conducted to aid in establishing content validity (Creswell, 2014; Fink, 2013). Four faculty
members whom I work closely with were asked to pilot the survey. These individuals were not
involved in the study. These pilot participants provided honest and helpful feedback about the
survey to help ensure that the questions are clear. The exclusion of pilot participants from the
official study also served to improve overall validity by removing close colleagues in the final
survey process. I also conducted cognitive interviews immediately following the survey
administration to the pilot participants, as recommended by Irwin and Stafford (2016); this
allowed me to assess item alignment and design.
To determine and monitor potential response bias among respondents, wave analysis was
conducted on a weekly basis. As suggested by Creswell (2014), wave analysis refers to the
process of monitoring participant responses as they are received to detect variations over time
that indicate the existence of response bias. Additionally, PLU’s small organizational size
allowed me to contact non-respondents personally to aid in identifying any substantial variations
due to response bias (Creswell, 2014). This personal contact dampens the advantageous
anonymity surveys offer and was determined to be unnecessary because the wave analysis did
not indicate the presence of response bias.
With respect to the survey items from Bolliger and Wasilik’s (2009) online faculty
satisfaction survey (OFSS), validity was mediated through several measures during the creation
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 59
of the survey including: literature-based item construction, peer examinations from content and
psychometrics experts, and pilot surveys to 25 participants. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .85
demonstrated high reliability for the pilot and actual surveys.
These strategies were incorporated into the study to enable accurate, complete, and
reliable data gathering to identify what knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
impacts faculty members’ implementation of regular communication and engagement strategies
that foster students’ sense of belonging.
Ethics
Researchers have a responsibility to conduct studies in a professional and ethical manner
which includes protecting participants from harm and safeguarding the involved institutions from
impropriety (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In doing so, researchers consult with
and conform to the guidelines and directives of various groups, such as professional associations,
human subject committees, and institutional review boards (IRBs) (Glense, 2011; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). As the principal investigator of this study, I sought approval from two university
IRBs: The University of Southern California (USC) and Pokegama Lake University (PLU).
While IRB procedures of different institutions vary, all are obliged to ensure critical elements:
participants receive informed consent; participants understand that their role is voluntary and that
self-withdrawal can be done at any time without penalty; participants are not exposed to
unnecessary risk; the study benefits outweigh the risks; and the researchers are qualified to
conduct the studies (Glesne, 2011; Ruben & Ruben, 2012).
The quantitative phase approach of this study ameliorated many potential ethical
concerns regarding that phase and the data collected. This phase involved sending an anonymous
survey link to participants soliciting voluntary involvement. Employment of this anonymous
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 60
instrument served to encourage participation and diminish participant-researcher bias. To further
protect the organization involved in the study, a pseudonym was used throughout the study, and
any potentially identifying descriptors were excluded.
The qualitative phase of the study required careful ethical considerations while planning
for and conducting interviews. V oluntary participants were given appropriate informed consent
and an information sheet delineating the scope and purpose of the study. Permission to record
the interviews was obtained from each participant, and participants were reminded that they were
free to terminate their participation at any time. A detailed explanation of the use of participant
pseudonyms and the ethical standards of anonymity was given at the beginning of each
interview. Participants were not given any monetary or material gifts as reciprocity. As suggested
by Glense (2011), expressions of gratitude for their participation, including a statement of the
extreme importance of their contribution, were made at the time of the interview. Additionally,
written notes of appreciation were sent upon the conclusion of the interview.
All forms of data, paper-based and digital, was be archived only after all identifying
participant elements were removed or masked. Resulting data files, paper and electronic, have
been stored in my locked, private office. Paper documents are stored in a locked drawer and only
the researcher possesses a key to the drawers. Additionally, electronic files are stored on a
secondary storage device only accessible by me using a two-tier authentication measure.
My potential interest in the outcome of the research study is to identify the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational elements that influenced PLU’s faculty members in implementing
regular communication and engagement strategies that foster student belonging. The evaluation
of these elements serves to identify performance gaps and opportunities for improvement at
PLU. While this topic is of professional interest to me, I received no direct personal benefit. As a
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 61
member of PLU’s Distance Education Committee (DEC), and the University Online Education
Steering Committee (UOESC), I have a professional interest in PLU’s overall success in online
education, but it is important to reiterate that, as the principal investigator, I did not receive any
personal benefits from the study. Any potential bias arising from these roles or from my role as
an academic chair with positional authority over some faculty member participants was
ameliorated by the quantitative approach and anonymous survey design. Accompanying the
survey link and included in the interview consent was a clear explanation that the research was a
part of my doctoral studies and is independent of my formal roles within PLU. The explanation
also reiterated that individual faculty members or course identification would be removed from
all data collection, analysis, and presentation.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 62
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Chapter Four presents this study’s results and key findings. As stated in Chapter One, the
purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which Pokegama Lake University (PLU) is
meeting its goal of having 100% of online students report strong sense of belonging, as measured
by survey, to the university—which is addressed in the University’s Strategic Plan for online
education. Faculty members who taught online courses during the most recent academic—July
2017 through June 2018—year were the stakeholder-group of focus. As such, the study was
designed to assess and evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
impacted these faculty members’ abilities to implement regular communication and engagement
strategies to foster students’ feelings of belonging such that they reported belonging 100% of the
time (as measured by student feedback). The research questions that guided the study were:
1. What are the online faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to implementing
regular communication and engagement strategies that foster students’ sense of
belonging in asynchronous online courses?
2. What is the interaction between PLU’s organizational culture and context and online
faculty’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to implementing regular
communication and engagement strategies to achieve a high sense of belonging
among asynchronous online students?
To provide answers to these questions, a mixed method explanatory research design was
employed. For the quantitative phase, 131 faculty members were sent a survey, and upon
completion of this quantitative phase, seven faculty members were interviewed for the
qualitative phase.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 63
Participating Stakeholders
For the quantitative phase of the study, on May 9, 2018, 131 potential participants were
sent an anonymous survey link with an explanation of the study’s purpose and the survey
process. Reminders to participate in the survey were sent on the May 18, 22, and 29, as well as
on June 12, 2018. The survey officially closed on July 2, 2018, prior to the first qualitative
interview. Forty-nine faculty members completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 37%.
The participants’ demographic information shows that 46% were male. Full-time faculty
members represented 70% of respondents; 6% of respondents were part-time faculty, and 24%
were contract faculty.
At the end of the quantitative phase of the study, seven participants were selected for
qualitative interviews from a list of twenty-three respondents who had volunteered for qualitative
interviews upon completing the survey. Volunteers were first grouped by the six schools with
volunteers, and then randomly selected for interviews. This ensured that the schools that actively
offered online courses were represented. One school had significantly greater representation in
the survey sample than other schools so two individuals were included from that school for the
qualitative phase. As a result of the random selection with each school, the interviewees were all
either full-time or part-time faculty, and the sample included four men and three women. The
results of the quantitative and qualitative phases are given, and an integrated discussion follows.
Knowledge Related Quantitative Results
To assess the faculty’s knowledge of various communication and engagement strategies,
the survey included an initial set of items (Q1a–j) focusing on how frequently the participants
employed various strategies. This facilitated the identification of the faculty’s baseline
knowledge of existing communication and engagement strategies. For this set of survey items, a
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 64
Likert scale was used to convey frequency, and the scale provided the following choices:
regularly (at least weekly), sporadically (not weekly), rarely (less than weekly), and never.
Figure 2 conveys which strategies the faculty knew about and used. Table 5 3a-c demonstrates
the distribution of the same data by faculty status by providing the mean and standard deviation
for each item by faculty status. A Likert scale conversion was used for these items (1 - regularly;
2 - sporadically; 3 - rarely; and 4 - never). The response patterns are visually similar for full-time
and contract faculty; there are visible variations in the part-time faculty’s responses, but the
small sample size (three responses—6%) renders generalization improvident.

Figure 2. Knowledge items Q1: Employment of various engagement strategies.

60%
33%
38%
62%
57%
19%
87%
91%
39%
71%
21%
31%
23%
9%
6%
17%
9%
6%
22%
21%
11%
10%
19%
17%
19%
21%
2%
2%
30%
4%
9%
25%
19%
13%
17%
44%
2%
9%
4%
I use text-based (narrative) interactions with online
students such as posting articles, blogs, e-books.
I use audio based (recorded voice, narrated PointPoint
slides, recorded feedback on assignments using the LMS…
I use video based (video captured) interactions with online
students, such as recorded Zoom clips, ARC captured…
In a typical online course, I use time-released
announcements/content.
In a typical online course, I maintain virtual office hours.
In a typical online course, I incorporate optional
synchronous sessions.
In a typical online course, I build in opportunities for
students to interact with each another.
I build in opportunities for me to interact with students
In a typical online course, I incorporate spiritual activities
such as prayer, Bible-centered content, inspirational…
In a typical online course, I post and interact in discussion
threads.
Knowledge Items (Q1): Employment of Various Enagement
Strategies
Regularly - at least weekly Sporadically - not weekly Rarely - less than weekly Never
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 65
Table 5
Knowledge Item Q1: Employment of Various Engagement Strategies by Faculty Status
Item Faculty Status

Full-
time
Part-
time Contract
I use text-based (narrative) interactions with online
students such as posting articles, blogs, e-books. M 1.56 2.67 1.75

SD 0.9 0.94 1.01
I use audio based (recorded voice, narrated PointPoint
slides, recorded feedback on assignments using the
LMS microphone icon) interactions with online
students. M 2.3 1.33 2.42

SD 1.14 0.47 1.26
I use video based (video captured) interactions with
online students, such as recorded Zoom clips, ARC
captured video, MP4 files. M 2.13 2.67 2.25

SD 1.14 0.94 1.16
In a typical online course, I use time-released
announcements/content. M 1.94 3 1.17

SD 1.12 1.41 0.55

In a typical online course, I maintain virtual office
hours. M 1.94 1 2.25

SD 1.22 0 1.16
In a typical online course, I incorporate optional
synchronous sessions. M 2.73 3.33 3.25

SD 1.21 0.94 0.92
In a typical online course, I build in opportunities for
students to interact with each another. M 1.1 1 1.5

SD 0.39 0 0.87

I build in opportunities for me to interact with students M 1.09 1.33 1.08

SD 0.38 0.47 0.28
In a typical online course, I incorporate spiritual
activities such as prayer, Bible-centered content,
inspirational stories, wholeness activities etc. M 2.19 1 2.08

SD 1 0 1.04
In a typical online course, I post and interact in
discussion threads. M 1.4 1.33 1.42
SD 0.74 0.47 0.86

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 66
The outcomes for knowledge items Q1a (text-based interactions), Q1g (student-to-student
interactions), and Q1h (faculty-to-student interactions) reveal that a large majority of faculty
members (over 80%) reported that they implemented the strategy and presumably had the
knowledge to do revealing minor opportunities for improvement. The results for items Q1b
(audio-based interactions), Q1c (video-based interactions), Q1d (time-released announcements),
and Q1e (virtual office hours) reveal that the majority (over 70%) of faculty members engaged
with the strategies in those items; this demonstrates a moderate opportunity for improvement.
The results for the three remaining items—Q1f (synchronous sessions), Q1i (spiritual activities),
and Q1j (discussion threads)—represent performance gaps and are discussed in further detail It is
noteworthy that all results are based on self-reported data which is a limitation.
Item Q1f states, “In a typical online course, I incorporate optional synchronous sessions.”
The results reveal that 65% of respondents rarely or never employed optional synchronous
sessions, which facilitate a unique strategy for creating a social presence and cultivating a sense
of belonging. This reveals an opportunity to ensure that participants are knowledgeable of this
strategy for enhancing students’ feelings of belonging. Item Q1i states, “In a typical online
course, I incorporate spiritual activities such as prayer, Bible-centered content, inspirational
stories, and wholeness activities.” The results reveal that 39% of respondents rarely or never
incorporated spiritual activities into their courses. As PLU is a faith-based institution, this
demonstrates a significant concern.
Item Q1j reads, “In a typical online course, I post and interact in discussion threads.” The
results reveal the following response rates: 21% selected sporadically, 4% selected rarely, and
4% selected never, for a total of 29% negative responses. This may represent a significant
concern; as in asynchronous courses, discussion posts are a predominant avenue for content
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 67
processing, knowledge development, and interactions in asynchronous online courses(Boettcher
& Conrad, 2016). Additionally, weekly faculty-to-student interactions demonstrate external and
internal compliance with substantive interactions.
The survey items on knowledge (Q4) focus on all the participants’ strategies for
facilitating discussion posts (the respondents could select unlimited responses). The counts
represent the total usage of all participants; the participants provided 99 distinct entries. Two
participants’ narrative descriptions of their other strategies included either screenshots or other
graphics and links to websites. The fact that 46% of participants used text-based interactions may
indicate an opportunity to increase variety among the interaction types in the faculty members’
discussion posts. Figure 3 displays the results for the knowledge items in Q4.

Figure 3. Knowledge items Q4: Strategies employed in discussion posts.
The second grouping of survey questions (Q2) includes three questions related to
strategies that would enhance communications and sense of belonging; the Likert responses
includes the options of yes, sometimes, and no. Figure 4 shows these results. The responses to
knowledge items Q2a–c reveal mixed results: 56% of respondents affirmed that they include
personal introductions in their courses; 94% made themselves available for student
46
14
25
9
3 2
Knowledge (Q4) Strategies Employed in
Discussion Posts
text audio video ARC Voicethread other, specify
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 68
appointments; and 44% routinely provided global responses to student inquiries.

Figure 4. Knowledge items Q2a–c.
Knowledge items Q3 probed whether the participating faculty were knowledgeable about
a department mandated response time for student-initiated interactions. The results from Q3
revealed that 72% of the participants were knowledgeable of an existing mandated time frame
for responses. Slightly over a quarter of the participants (28%) indicated that they had no
knowledge of a mandated response time. Figure 5 displays these results.

Figure 5. Faculty knowledge about department-mandated response times for student-initiated
interactions.
56%
94%
44%
17%
4%
54%
27%
2%
2%
In a typical online course, I include a faculty biography
complete with photographs and videos about myself.
In a typical online course, I make myself available for
student meetings by appointment.
In a typical online course, when responding to a student
inquiry about content, I direct my response to the entire
class so all can benefit.
Knowledge Item (Q2a-c)
Yes Sometimes No
72% 28%
Knowledge Item: Q3 Does the Department
Mandate Response Time-frame to Student
Initiated Interactions
Yes No
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 69
In a follow-up question, survey item Q3.1, participants were asked to provide the specific
time frame mandated for student-initiated interactions. Twenty-seven responses were received:
eight participants reported having a time frame of 24 hours, seven reported having a time frame
ranging from 24 to 48 hours, seven reported having a time frame of 48 hours, one reported
having a time frame ranging from 12 to 48 hours, and one reported needing to respond twice per
week. A best practice strategy for online education suggests that faculty members’ responses as
part of an online course should occur within 24 to 48 hours (Clinefelter, 2012). Results revealed
that all mandates were within customary expectations for online faculty-student interactions.
Survey item Q3.2 focused on whether the participants, in the absence of a known
required response time for student-initiated interactions, self-impose a mandated response time.
This item represents the faculty members’ knowledge of the importance of expedient responses;
the results are shown in Figure 6. The affirmative responses to the item revealed that the specific
self-imposed time frames were all within 48 hours. A small number of respondents (five; 10%)
revealed that, in the absence of a department-mandated response time, they did not self-impose a
mandated response time.

Figure 6. Self-imposed mandates for response times for student-initiated interactions.
55%
6 affirmative
responses
45%
5 negative
responses
Knowledge Item (3.2): Self-imposed Response
Time (no department response time specified)
Yes No
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 70
Sense of belonging is critically important to students, faculty, and institutions. Survey
item Q5 focused on the participants’ understanding of the importance of a strong sense of
belonging. The results (extremely important, 55%; very important, 43%; and moderately
important, 2%), as displayed in Figure 7, demonstrate that the faculty members possess
significant knowledge of the importance of students’ feelings of belonging.

Figure 7. Knowledge item (Q5): Ratings of the importance of a strong sense of belonging among
students.
Motivation Related Quantitative Results
Two motivation items (Q2d–e) were included in the survey designed by the researcher
and were constructed as Likert-type responses with the options of yes, sometimes, and no; the
results are displayed in Figure 8. The first item addresses self-efficacy: “I feel confident about
my ability to utilize optimal strategies to effectively communicate and interact with online
students so as to promote their sense of belonging.” Affirmative responses indicated an overall
strong sense of self-efficacy among the faculty (81%) in terms of their ability to effectively
utilize optimal strategies for online student engagement. The second item addresses goal
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 71
orientation: “I want to continue to learn about various ways to enhance online students’
communication and interactions and to promote quality education—specifically, a sense of
belonging.” Because 96% of respondents responded affirmatively to this item, a strong mastery
orientation is inferred.

Figure 8. Motivation items Q2d–e.
The last original motivation survey item (Q11) focuses on faculty members’ future
workloads: Would they like to see an increase or decrease in teaching online courses, and why?
Thirty respondents (68%) responded to this dichotomous question that they would like to see an
increase in teaching online courses whereas 14 respondents (32%) favored a decrease; five
respondents did not provide a response. The narrative reasons provided by respondents for
desiring an increased online workload have been summarized in Table 6, while the reasons for
desiring a decreased workload are summarized in Table 7. The results demonstrate that, from an
organizational perspective, PLU has sufficient interest from faculty members to support the
delivery of online education. Additionally, efforts to ease the workload burden (which seven
81%
96%
19%
4%
I feel confident about my ability to utilize optimal
strategies for effectively communicating and
interacting with online students to promote a sense of
belonging.
I want to continue to learn about various ways to
enhance online student communication and
interactions that promote quality education,
specifically a sense of belonging.
Motivation Item (2d-e)
Yes Sometimes No
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 72
respondents identified as a barrier to their desire to teach online) could lead to an even greater
availability of motivated faculty to support online instruction.
Table 6
Participants’ Reasons for Desiring an Increased Online-Education Workload
Reason for Desiring a Workload Increase Responses
Satisfying and effective structure 8
Flexibility 7
Student engagement or reach 2
Future direction in higher education 2

Table 7
Participants’ Reasons for Desiring a Decreased Online-Education Workload
Reason for Desiring a Workload Decrease Responses
Excessive or time-consuming workload 7
Preference for face-to-face interaction 3
Ineffective learning structure 1

As described in Chapter Three, 26 items from Bolliger and Wasilik’s (2009) 28-item
Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey (OFSS) was included in this study. Although Bolliger and
Wasilik (2009) did not base this external survey on the motivation theories of self-efficacy and
goal orientation—which were foundational to this study—they did explore faculty members’
emotions related to satisfaction with online teaching and organizational influences related to
technology. The OFSS utilizes a 4-point Likert scale (1 - strongly disagree; 2 - disagree; 3 -
agree; and 4 - strongly agree) and facilitates the assessment of faculty members’ emotional
dimensions. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .85 for PLU faculty, indicating
the same high degree of scale reliability as the in the original study. A summary of the results of
these PLU survey items is given in Table 8. The technology related items will be discussed later.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 73
Table 8
Pokegama Lake University’s Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey (1- strongly disagree to 4-
strongly agree)
Item Responses M SD
The level of interactions with students
in the online course is higher than in a
traditional face-to-face class.

46 2.91 0.89
The flexibility provided by the online
environment is important to me.

46 3.52 0.66
My online students are actively
involved in their learning.

46 3.48 0.51
I incorporate fewer resources when
teaching an online course as compared
to a traditional course.

46 1.85 0.82
The technology I use for online
teaching is reliable.
46 3.33 0.56

I have a higher workload when
teaching an online course as compared
to the traditional one.

46

3.13

0.83
I miss face-to-face contact with
students when teaching online.

46 2.67 0.84
I do not have any problems controlling
my students in the online environment.

46 3.33 0.70
I look forward to teaching my next
online course.

46 3.41 0.72
My students are very active in
communicating with me regarding
online course matters

46 3.50 0.59
I appreciate that I can access my
online course any time at my
convenience.

46 3.72 0.50

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 74
Table 8, continued
My online students are more
enthusiastic about their learning than
their traditional counterparts.

46 2.72 0.86
I have to be more creative in terms of
the resources used for the online
course.

46 3.39 0.68
Online teaching is often frustrating
because of a technical problem.

46 1.91 0.63
It takes me longer to prepare for an
online course on a weekly basis than
for a face-to-to face course.

46 2.76 0.87
I am satisfied with the use of
communication tools in the online
environment (e.g., chat rooms,
threaded discussions, etc.).

45 3.24 0.65
I am able to provide better feedback to
my online students (compared to face-
to-face students) on their performance
in the course.

46 2.91 0.86
I am more satisfied with teaching
online as compared to other delivery
methods.

46 2.76 0.92
My online students are somewhat
passive when it comes to contacting
the instructor regarding course related
matters

44 2.07 0.66
It is valuable to me that my students
can access my online course from any
place in the world.

45 3.56 0.59
The participation level of my students
in the class discussions in the online
setting is lower than in the traditional
one.

46 1.89 0.64

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 75
Table 8, continued

My students use a wider range of
resources in the online setting than in
the traditional one.

45 2.96 0.85
Not meeting my online students face-
to-face prevents me from knowing
them as well as my on-site students.

46 2.48 0.89
I am concerned about receiving lower
course evaluations in the online course
as compared to the traditional one.

46 1.89 0.74
Online teaching is gratifying because
it provides me with an opportunity to
reach students who otherwise would
not be able to take course.

45 3.42 0.58
It is more difficult for me to motivate
my students in the online environment
than in the traditional setting.
46 1.98 0.54

As designed by Bolliger and Wasilik (2009), the OFSS includes two items that are
considered general-satisfaction questions: (a) “I look forward to teaching my next online course”
and (b) “I am more satisfied with teaching online than with other delivery methods.” PLU’s
faculty finding for these two items are provided in Table 9. Results reveal that the participants
alternated between agreeing and disagreeing, indicating the possibility that some faculty
members prefer other teaching modalities. Because emotion is an integral component of
motivation (Lord et al., 2002), the satisfaction demonstrated in the OFSS results could impact the
future performance of faculty members at PLU.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 76
Table 9
General Satisfaction Survey Items from the Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey (OFSS) for
Pokegama Lake University Faculty
Item

M SD
I look forward to teaching my next online course.

3.41 PLU

0.72 PLU

I am more satisfied with teaching online than
with other delivery methods.

2.76 PLU

0.92 PLU

One surprising and noteworthy item related to the faculty members themselves was the
item that stated, “The flexibility that the online environment provides is important.” The results
reveal a strong agreement (M = 3.52) from the respondents. While expectancy value theory was
not included as part of this study’s conceptual framework, nor was it expressly noted by Bolliger
and Wasilik (2009), this finding is founded in the theory; —PLU’s faculty find significant utility
value in the flexibility afforded by teaching online. Expectancy-value theory posits that the level
of active choice, persistence, and mental effort (i.e., motivation) a person puts forth to realize a
goal is derived from the person’s expectation of success and the perceived value of the result
(Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). The two-dimensional construct of the theory is important.
Expectancy refers to a person’s belief about whether they will be successful in achieving a
specific result, goal, or task. If a person believes that they can be effective when engaging in an
activity, this will positively influence them to actively decide to engage the activity, persist in
that activity, and devote the necessary mental effort to it (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). The
second dimension of the expectancy-value theory addresses value. The premise is that if an
individual attaches value to a goal, task, or activity, they will be more motivated to choose to
engage in the activity, persist with it, and work toward effective attainment of it (Eccles, 2006;
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 77
Rueda, 2011). There are four types of value constructs: intrinsic, attainment, utility, and cost.
Intrinsic value is something that holds personal meaning for an individual; attainment value
exists if a person feels the goal aligns with who he or she sees himself or herself to be or aspires
to be; utility value is achieved when an individual finds the task relevant and useful; and cost
value is a reflection of whether the individual determines that the expenditure of effort, time, and
energy is worth the end product (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Eccles posits that if a task aligns
with or supports an individual’s goals, they will exhibit greater motivation for this task.
Regarding this survey item, the respondents’ strong appreciation for the flexibility of online
education indicates relevance and usefulness to them under the utility value construct of the
expectancy value theory. While the noteworthy value of responses related to faculty flexibility
warranted discussion, a detailed analysis of the remaining OFSS item is beyond the scope of this
study. Overall, a general review of the data in Table 8 reveals that the faculty members agreed
that they were generally satisfied with their role in online education and the items related directly
to students also do not reveal an overwhelming dissatisfaction.
Organizational Related Quantitative Results
Cultural settings are tangible models of an organization’s cultures, which influence
individual and organizational performance (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). This
study focuses on two cultural-setting influences for faculty: (a) instructional-design support and
(b) professional-development support. Participants were asked to select the statement that best
described their past formal professional development. Figure 9 visualizes the item statements and
corresponding results, which reveal that 51% of the participants reported having no or less than
two formal training sessions; this indicates an opportunity to improve formal training efforts in
the future.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 78

Figure 9. Past professional-development activities.
PLU has developed a professional resource center for faculty as part of PLU’s learning-
management system; this center serves as a repository of professional-development content for
online education. Item Q10 focuses on participants’ access to that website. As shown in Figure
10, 64% of respondents reported having accessed their professional-development repository two
or fewer times. This lack of engagement—whether it is due to faculty members’ lack of
knowledge of the website or a choice to not access it—indicates the existence of a performance
gap. Although most respondents accessed the website few (if any) times, 21% reported accessing
it more than five times, which is an indication of the repository’s worth as a professional-
development strategy.
26% 21% 4% 28% 21%
Organizational Influence (Q6): Past Professional
Development Activities
No formal training; independent learning from various resources
1-2 formal training sessions offered at PLU
1-2 formal training sessions offered outside of PLU
More than 2 training sessions offered at PLU
More than 2 training sessions offered outside at PLU
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 79

Figure 10. Organizational influence: Access to the internal professional-development website.
Survey items Q7 and Q8 focus on access to organizational resources about instructional
design and usage of these resources. Item Q7 relates to how many times a faculty member had
requested instructional-design support; item Q8 relates to how many times a faculty member had
received instructional-design support. The means and standard deviations for these responses are
provided in Table 10 with and without outlier data adjustments (two outliers were reported for
each item—response was 20 and one 25 for each item). Data remaining after removing the
outliers still revealed significant dispersion with some respondents reporting values as high as
ten and others reporting zero; additionally, the mode for each item was zero. The proximity of
the means for the two items appears to indicate that the faculty members’ organizational-resource
demand is being met. However, the large standard deviations could indicate inconsistencies in
resource utilization.
34% 30% 15% 21%
Organizational Influence (Q10): Access to Internal
Professional Development Website
No past access I have accessed in the past 1-2 times
I have accessed in the past 2-5 times I have accessed in the past over 5 times.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 80
Table 10
Requested and Received Instructional-Design Support

Item Responses M SD
Q17. I have requested instructional-design
support ____ times.

35 3.31
2.15 adjusted
5.31
2.46 adjusted
Q18. I have received instructional-design
support _____ times.

37 3.49
2.40 adjusted
5.2
2.56 adjusted

Item Q9 focuses on organizational support—financial or otherwise—that the participants
received in terms of their professional development. The results reveal that 53% of the
respondents received some organizational support. Although slightly over half of the respondents
reported receiving support for professional development, the remaining gap created by those not
receiving support is significant. Elevating support to this additional group would promote
advancement of the knowledge, skills and competencies of the faculty which will then increase
performance and goal realization.
Knowledge Related Qualitative Findings
The knowledge related findings from the second phase of this explanatory study—
qualitative interviews--were derived from semi-structured interviews. Each influence’s findings--
knowledge, motivation and organization--are presented. Within each influence findings have
been thematically organized. Several interview questions were designed to explore the
knowledge influences impacting faculty members’ ability to optimally engage students in
interactions that foster sense of belonging. The questions aligned with the mental model within
the conceptual framework and included the following:
1. “In examining our organization’s Best Practice Guidelines, what do you believe are
the critical components of a quality online education program?”
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 81
2. “What current communication strategies do you employ in your online course?”
3. “Are there faculty-student interaction methods that you prefer over others?”
4. “Suppose you were a student in an asynchronous class. What type of faculty
interactions would you like to see employed?”
5. “In general, what does a sense of belonging mean for students in general, and
specifically for online students?”
6. “What advice would you give to someone who is teaching an online course for the
first time?”
Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge
All seven interview participants were asked the questions listed above during the
interviews and all demonstrated basic knowledge of student-interaction strategies as shown in the
below data presentation. Responses were categorized as general andragogy related, technology
related, discussion board related, general sense of belonging, and spiritual sense of belonging.
General andragogy. The responses in this category reveal the participants’ knowledge of
the importance of initial interactions and introductions (for both students and faculty). P1 stated,
“I began the course with an icebreaker,” and P5 said, “I [show] those introductory videos to the
students.” A further demonstration of knowledge is seen in the following response from P3:
I think that you have to be as an instructor or faculty member, you have to be present in
the course even though it’s online, and students need to see that. I think that starts with
simple things such as an introduction, a video about yourself, creating an environment
that is like a classroom where students can talk and engage, and they know who’s in the
class with them.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 82
Further examples of general andragogy knowledge demonstrate that the faculty members
understood the importance of feedback, orientation, course-design usability, and minimal-
engagement requirements. Table 11 includes comments from respondents that demonstrate this
knowledge.
Table 11
Participants’ Comments Related to General Andragogy Knowledge
Participant (Knowledge Type) Response
P5 (Feedback) “I give them written as well as scoring feedback on their
assignments”

P6 (Feedback) “During the course, usually, discussions is [occur] when I
provide them with feedback; I give them feedback on their
assignments.”

P6 (Orientation) “When they come here for the first time, I want them to be
able to recognize faces—to know who the faculty are—so
that’s one of the main reasons I started with orientation for
our program.”

P1 (Usability) “Another thing that I picked up was, for example, the use of
graphics—how graphics should not be ornamental.”

P2 (Usability) “Keep it simple, keep it organized, [and] keep the same
format.”

P6 (Minimal engagement) “Bare minimum is at least the standard that we have to reach,
but [I am] certainly hopeful we are going to try to exceed that
and reach for the stars.”

P2 (Minimal engagement) “Another guiding force for interactions, of course, is the legal
mandate to have substantive interactions every week.”

Technology. Each of the seven respondents referenced technology or the technological
features of the learning-management system which they had embedded into their courses and
engagement strategies. The technologies cited include ARC, Zoom, video capture,
announcements, Panopto, and the voice-over feature in PowerPoint. Some respondents conveyed
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 83
an affinity for video and audio usage. For example, P5 said, “I do several videos and audio
PowerPoints,” and P3 commented, “I feel like the options are limitless as to what kind of
technology you can utilize, [including] videos.” Others stated that they did not incorporate video.
When asked how much they think they use video versus text-based content, P2 said that using
video was “rare (about 5%).”
Discussion boards. Six participants specifically addressed their awareness of discussion
boards and their approach to discussion-board design and management. Of these six, four
referred to ensuring minimum weekly interactions. Table 12 includes comments regarding this
knowledge of weekly compliance. One participant (P7) even described a purposeful approach
that excludes the instructor’s interjection into the student discussion boards:
I want to get the students engaging each other very regularly, and on the discussion
boards, actually, I have a policy [that] I won’t enter into a discussion board. I’ll set it up,
and the requirement will usually be [to] write some thoughtful [posts,] and then [to]
comment on a classmate [‘s post]. Then, I will not actually enter into the discussion board
until [or] unless I’m explicitly asked [to do so].
It should be noted that P7 also reported achieving substantive interaction compliance in other
fashions.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 84
Table 12
Participants’ Comments About Knowledge Related to Discussion Boards
Participant Response
P1 “In my discussion board, I tell them that I want to see them
participating at least six times or five times a week.”

P2 “I have weekly discussion boards, so I interact with them.”

P3 “So, I tend to do announcements each week [in addition to the]
discussion board.”

P4 “The other thing I used was, like I said, quizzes, then
discussion boards.”

P5 “So, we get the discussion going, but—absolutely every
week—those students need to be interacted with.”

P6 “Bare minimum is at least the standard that we have to reach,
but certainly hopeful we are going to try to exceed that and
reach for the stars.”

General sense of belonging. All seven respondents provided comments directed at
defining a sense of belonging. Thematically, most agreed that the concept includes feelings of
importance and connectedness and stated that it relies on interactions among faculty members
and students. Table 13 summarizes comments that refer to feelings of importance, feelings of
connection, and interactions. Interestingly, three participants said that the students themselves
shared responsibility for cultivating a sense of belonging for themselves and their classmates.
Regarding this student responsibility, P1 said the following:
I try to create that sense of belonging [by] putting the [onus] on them as adults and
motivated learners and then demonstrating that I am also motivated [to ensure] their
success and [that] I’m doing what I can to . . . prepare a good course.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 85
Other participants commented on the same topic. P3 said, “There needs to be a component of
interaction [between] the students,” and P6 said, “All of my efforts [are] not really going to be a
failure; if that person doesn’t want to connect, . . . I have to be cognizant of that.”
Table 13
Participants’ Comments Related to Feelings of Belonging
Participant Response
P1 “The course [is] making [students] feel that [they are] necessary, [that they are]
important, and [that] the teacher cares about [them]. I try to convey that in my
course. I don’t tell them.”

P2 “I think the instructor’s response to the students [is] very important [when]
building that community online because that’s all they’re getting[:] your texts.”

P3 “Student[s’] sense of belonging, . . . means feeling that you have a place,
wherever that is, . . . that you aren’t an outsider, that there is something
specifically designed [with] you in mind (as an online student), and that you
aren’t an afterthought for [the] program.”

P4 “I think it means that they feel connected to their peers in a way [that], outside
the class setting, they’re maybe doing things together—they’re practicing.”

P5 “I have been absolutely blown away by what it is [like from] the teacher’s
perspective [, so] I feel almost more connected with them.”

P6 “They develop that relationship with each other—they know they have that
cohort—that group spirit is there, and you are there throughout the whole year to
observe how this is going on.”

P7 “This issue [relates to] feeling personally connected to the various personalities
that make up the university. I’m known by my instructor [and] my classmates
[and] that my voice and what I have to say somehow [contribute] to the
conversation and learning that’s happening. Yeah, I think that sense of personal
connection is really key.”

In addition to their universal recognition of the importance of personalization, the
respondents acknowledged the unique challenges of fostering a sense of belonging within online
education. P6 summarized one challenge as follows:
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 86
One has to recognize [that] online education is a personal choice . . . and [that] we place
ourselves into that situation; therefore, there should be certain expectations. It’s not the
same as on campus; you cannot reach the same level of interaction as on campus because
this is their own choice. This is why they elected to go to online, so—even though I make
every effort to . . . include them and figure out how to make sure they’re not feeling
isolated in any way, I have to remember [that] this is their choice. They want to be away,
and [they may not] desire to be so . . . connected; it may very well be that they just want
to check things off and be out of here. I have to respect that. All of my efforts [are] not
really going to be a failure; if that person doesn’t want to connect, . . . I have to be
cognizant of that.
P2 conveyed another poignant challenge:
Sense of belonging is [the feeling that,] when you come here, you feel . . . like it’s home;
you walk the halls, you know where everything is, you see people, and you recognize
them and . . . say hi. That’s a sense of belonging. That type is harder to do in an online
environment because you’re not walking any halls [or] seeing familiar faces.
Lastly, P2 revealed an understanding of the dehumanization (Kemp et al., 2014; Liu et
al., 2007, Mayadas et al., 2009) that can occur in online education: “The instructor’s response to
the students [is] very important [when] building that community online because . . . all they’re
getting is your texts . . . which is only [about] 10% of communication.” These findings
demonstrate that PLU faculty members comprehend the importance of a sense of belonging,
understand the factors that are necessary to cultivate it. PLU faculty are also acutely aware that
the challenges that are unique to the online environment need mitigation.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 87
Spiritual sense of belonging. The responses from one respondent were not considered in
this category’s evaluation as the courses taught by the instructor centered on religious studies.
Among the remaining six participants, two indicated that their course designs included
purposeful, instructor-led spiritual-growth activities, whereas the other four revealed that,
although they did not include such activities, their courses’ discussions boards or chat postings
facilitated such activities. Table 14 depicts participant comments regarding spiritual
incorporation of activities into their courses.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 88
Table 14
Participants’ Comments About Incorporation of Spiritual Activities
Participant
Response (Formal Incorporation of
Spiritual Activities)
Response (Informal Incorporation of
Spiritual Activities)
P1 “I have fortunately somehow
discovered these videos that are
very useful, and they’re free. One
company is the Skit Guys. These
are people who create videos for
worship experiences, and [those
videos] have spiritual messages.”

P2 “So, I would maybe put in a picture
of something I've done and then talk
about God's creation or something. I
have not done that yet, but I want to
find the time to do that, because I
think that would up my game.”

P3 “As an institution, we do a pretty
good job about putting a lot of
resources out there that students can
access no matter what, but we as
faculty. . . have to be very skilled
about figuring out where those
things are and tapping students into
[them].”

P4 “I haven't yet done that in the class
that I had because, again, this was
the first time around. Maybe
thinking more about that and
probably there again, that would be
something where I would hope the
university would then actually ... If
we ever did have some content rich
instruction on how to do this online
learning that maybe then there could
be specific discussion about, how do
you make it mission focused?”

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 89
Table 14, continued

P5 “Because of the kind of classes I
teach, [my students and I] share
every bit as much [in] the spiritual
domain as we do [in] the
physical, . . . sociocultural, . . .
professional, [or] educational
[domains].”

P6 “We have talked always about
delivering [the Pokegama Lake
experience] . . . but we have always
talked about it as a question.”

Motivation Related Qualitative Findings
The motivation related findings from the second phase of this explanatory study—
qualitative interviews--were derived from semi-structured interviews. Interview questions were
designed to explore the motivation influences related to goal orientation. Inductive findings
related to self-efficacy were identified during the interviews. A discussion of each of these
factors follows. Analysis and outcomes related to emotion theory were assessed during the
quantitative phase only.
Goal Orientation
To supplement the quantitative survey questions that address motivation, two interview
questions were included in the interview protocol to address that topic:
1. Moving forward, how do you see your role in online education changing, if at all?
2. What type of future professional development would you like to participate in?
Goal orientation theory was the basis for both questions, as both provide indications of
the faculty members’ desire to maximize their performance through improvement and learning
(Yough & Anderman, 2006). Six respondents revealed a desire to have increased or more mature
roles in online education; their responses indicate expressed goal setting aimed at increasing
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 90
knowledge as an avenue to improve their performance. The seventh respondent chose not to
address the question. Table 15 reveals the six respondents’ levels of interest in the evolution of
their roles in online education, and Table 16 depicts their specific areas of interest regarding
professional development.
Table 15
Participants’ Comments About Their Future Roles in Online Education
Participant Response
P1 “Hey, I’m going to learn something new; it’s going to be a good
experience.”

P3 “My goal is always that it’s as good or better. I don’t ever want our
students to be saying, “It’s not quite as good as a face-to-face
class.” [My] goal is [for] the students [to receive a] just as good, if
not better, level of education in the online world.”

P4 “Yeah, and I’d like to do more in our department. I just think we’re
at the point where we’re just trying to figure out what could we
offer online.”

P6 “Well, what I want to do, and I think I mentioned it, [is] to work
side-by-side with somebody’s who’s working on course
development.”

P7 “And so, I think I’m being asked to step into roles where I’m doing
more coaching, and when there’s a special request.”

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 91
Table 16
Participants’ Specific Areas of Interest in Professional Development.
Participant Response
P1 “I think that's something we should do here, that we should feature
online teachers showing how they organize their course so that
everybody sees and maybe says, oh wow, I didn't know about this.
I'm going to use this technique."

P2 “I think [about] how to [do] the technical stuff so that you know
how to do [it more easily].”

P3 “I would like to know more about [V oiceThread], and then there’s
tons of web-based resources.”

P4 “[I found the] State of Technology at [Pokegama Lake] University
presentation. . . to be inspiring.”

P6 “I want to work side-by-side with somebody’s who’s working on
course development.”

P7 “I just continue going back and refining that course over and over
again; every time, I learn a new technology or new way of doing it.
I’ll try to incorporate that the next time I teach the class.”

Self-Efficacy
As discussed in Chapter Two, high self-efficacy has a positive influence on an
individual’s motivation (Pajares, 2006). Although no specific interview questions were designed
to directly elicit responses regarding self-efficacy, many responses did reflect the existence of
positive self-efficacy. For instance, P1 commented, “I feel much better, I feel confident.” P3
declared, “I feel pretty comfortable in Canvas . . . but I feel really comfortable now that I can
provide a variety of tech.” P4 reflected, “I did it [the class] online, and in my estimation, it was a
success.” P5 demonstrated confidence by stating, “I do the best I can there; it doesn’t have to be
perfection”; similarly, P7 asserted, “My teaching experience thus far . . . has been overall
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 92
positive.” In total, five interview participants revealed a high level of self-efficacy and related
positive perceptions regarding their online teaching.
Despite the interviewees’ demonstrated self-efficacy, they voiced concerns regarding the
time requirements of online instruction. These concerns may represent fears and adversities that
are counterproductive to the motivations of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, 2000, 2005; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Three interview participants referenced excessive time
consumption in online instruction. When asked what advice the participants would give to a new
online instructor, P4 said, “I would say [to] somehow . . . [keep] closer track of how much time
you’re spending.” The implication here is that the time consumption is greater online than face-
to-face. P6 voiced similar sentiments, stating, “We need our faculty to be able to have that time
to come up with creative ideas.” P7 directly addressed the labor intensiveness of online
instruction: “I found it’s a lot more work, actually.”
Organizational Related Qualitative Findings
The organization related findings from the second phase of this explanatory study—
qualitative interviews--were derived from semi-structured interviews. The interview protocol
was not designed to explore the first organization factor, instructional design, but inductive
findings were identified. Questions aimed at exploring the lack of the professional development,
the second influence included:
1. What has been your formal or informal exposure to training and development for
online teaching?
2. Has any of your training been dedicated to students’ sense of belonging or to creating
the PLU experience?
A discussion of the findings for each influence follows.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 93
Instructional Design Support
None of the interview questions specifically focused on instructional design support;
rather, data from the quantitative phase was to be used to analyze this feature of the cultural
setting. However, inductively, several respondents referenced instructional design support during
the interview process. Thematically, most of their comments related to technology support or to
exemplar designs. Table 17 summarizes these inductive comments, by category, using five
interviewees’ comments. These comments provide insight into the expressed importance of
instructional design support for technology training and instructional design.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 94
Table 17
Participants’ Comments on Instructional-Design Support
Participant
Response (Technology
Services)
Response (Exemplar
Designs)
P2 “I did the commons [Canvas
templates]. You can look at other
universities’ templates and copy
from them.”
P2 “Training for some of this stuff
would be good [to have] on a video,
where you’re sharing the screen and
you’re narrating: “You go here, and
you do this, and you add that.” [I
would] keep that to five minutes or
so.”
P4 “Our technology services
[department] strongly encouraged
me to use Panopto and not Zoom.”

P5 “We have good . . . and ongoing
support, and, also, we have really
good [information technology]
people.”

P6 “They can do the techy stuff, and I
think we have great tech people here
who can do that. We need our
faculty to . . . have that time to come
up with creative ideas.”
“I wish so much [that] I could look
at one of those courses and . . . not
necessarily take it but get into the
system and see what it looks like.”
P7 “We’re using a template that [Bob’s]
team has developed.”

Professional Development
Considerable feedback was received regarding formal professional development from the
participants and the discussion of the responses has been categorized. The categories include
formal versus informal, informal (mentoring), experience as a student, technology and sense of
belonging. Each category is discussed.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 95
Formal versus informal. The responses regarding formal professional development
proved difficult to interpret as the respondents’ definitions of formal and informal were not
uniform. Although one participant (P4) frankly asserted a lack of formal support from PLU, that
person did acknowledge the existence of internally posted video-tutorial information; P4 just did
not view that as formal:
I know I get these little emails . . . through Canvas, inviting me to participate in some
Canvas stuff that I think is PLU. . ., but it’s always [at] times [when] I can’t attend. [It
was only] recently that I figured out that there was a way to watch [those sessions] after
the fact.
Contrasting P4’s second statement with the other participants’ responses, some view the
same Canvas postings as formal (as demonstrated in P3’s comment in the Response (Formal)
column in Table 18, which summarizes the response to the question regarding formal versus
informal professional development. Formal or informal, the expressed comments convey that
PLU faculty participate in various types of professional development.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 96
Table 18
Participants’ Comments on Formal Versus Informal Professional Development
Participant Response (Formal) Response (Informal)
P1 “I have some formalized
training in being [a]
specifically online
[instructor]. . . I listened to a
webinar [that an internal
administrator] or someone
else brought in.”

n/a
P2 “I now have several
formalized classes as opposed
to . . . informal hallway
[meetings that sound like,]
n/a
“I’m having this problem;
what can we do to fix it?”

P3 “I listened to a webinar [that
an internal administrator] or
someone else brought in, . . .
[but] beyond that, it’s just
been me seeking out
information.”

“I think it’s probably been
mostly informal.”
P4 “I hope I’m not being . . .
ungrateful, but I don’t know
that I’ve gotten a whole lot of
support or formal education
here.”

n/a
P5 “I have had actually experts
give me formal [training].”
“[I] got myself on as many
committees as I could to
really soak up [knowledge].”

P6 “They just have [a course]
available for free, for anybody
who wants to do it; if you
want, I can send you the link.
I haven’t opened it yet, but I
look for those opportunities.”

n/a
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 97
Table 18, continued

P7 “Other than what [Pokegama
Lake University] has been
offering . . . with [the]
educational technology
office.”
“It’s been mostly informal, I
would say, and it’s been trial
and error—. . . very
inductive.”

Informal (mentoring). Five participants referenced the role of internal mentoring in their
professional development. For instance, P1 exclaimed, “I had a couple friends here on campus
who are experts [and] who were teaching,” and P3 stated, “I started out co-teaching with another
faculty member, so she taught me the ropes.” Both comments are examples of the role
mentorship has played in the professional development of PLU faculty.
Experience as a student. Participants shared how their experience (five participants), or
lack thereof (one participant) as an online student had impacted their abilities to teach online. P7
clearly expressed that a lack of experience as an online student was a limiting factor, stating, “I
think this was probably my greatest hurdle to teaching online effectively is never having been on
the other side of it, taking an online class.” Table 19 summarizes the statements of the five
participants who had past student experience, positive or negative, in online courses, thus leading
to their current skills and abilities. This unexpected, inductive theme, demonstrates the
significant importance of online student experience in the development of skills and
competencies for online instructors.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 98
Table 19
Participants’ Comments on Their Past Experiences as Online Students
Participant Response
P1 “I did take a class as a student before I entered my master’s degree
[program,] and it was a very poor experience. I still got a lot of knowledge,
[however, and it was] very good in the sense [that] it strengthened [me] as a
teacher. . . . I decided to register [to complete] an entire master’s degree
[online].”

P2 “I designed it [based on] my experience as a student.”

P3 “Because I’ve experienced low quality and have had my students
experience low quality, . . . I know what that looks like.”

P4 “[I took] an online course through . . . . It was a failure in a sense that it was
just very poorly organized; the technology was really kind of bad. . . . The
other class that I took . . . more recently . . . was much better run, and I
really enjoyed that. [It] kind of inspired me to do some online stuff here
because that was such a positive experience.”

P6 “Based on my past experience taking classes online . . ., I take particular
care with my online courses--at least, I try to.”

Technology. Five respondents referred to the importance of developing faculty members’
technology skills. These comments were derived from the participants’ recognition of the
importance of instructors developing technological intelligence. They were not necessarily
references to their own perceived need for technology-related professional development.
However, the participants did express desires for future technology trainings by referencing the
need to be “willing to learn” (P3), “to know more about . . . expanding technology” (P4), and
“new technology . . .learning how to use it” (P6). Table 20 shows responses from the five
participants, including the expanded comments from the preceding quotes, related to technology
and professional development.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 99
Table 20
Participants’ Comments on Professional Development and Technology
Participant Response
P2 “That would be good for the non-tech-savvy people. With my experience, I
have quite a bit of tech [knowledge], so I can implement some of this stuff.”

P3 “I don’t think you need to be an expert in technology, but I think it’s
important to be willing to learn and to be actively finding new strategies for
utilizing technology in your courses and just being a learner. I think that’s
really important.”

P4 “I’d like to know more about the expanding technology. How do you keep it
cutting edge?”

P6 “Yeah, so that you can have quick access to the tech people.”

P7 “If everybody had a basic level of Canvas competency, teaching online . . .
would be easier. . . . [For] whatever new technology is being put out . . .
learning how to use it effectively . . . would be helpful.”

Sense of belonging. The participants’ responses regarding whether they had experienced
any past professional development on sense of belonging were brief and concise. Six participants
provided such responses, and all of them revealed that they had experienced little to no training
dedicated to cultivating a sense of belonging. Table 21 includes the responses to this question;
three of the responses (from P4, P5, and P6) do acknowledge an awareness of (or past
discussions regarding) the need to focus on spiritual growth in courses, but even these responses
are devoid of specific references to dedicated past trainings.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 100
Table 21
Participants’ Comments on Professional Development Regarding Sense of Belonging
Participant Response
P2 “No.”
P3 “I don’t. I think [I have used] components of it, but I don’t know if it’s ever
been called that. I think [I have seen] some of [those] things . . . addressed,
[and] last fall, I taught [a] class about innovations and excellence in online
learning. I pulled in components of interaction and teacher accessibility and
things like that, but I don’t know if I’ve ever seen it called “the sense of
belonging.”
P4 “If we ever did have some content-rich instruction on how to do . . . online
learning[, then] maybe . . . there could be specific discussion about [how to
incorporated objectives focused on] mission-focused learning.”
P5 “Not specifically, but I was on subcommittees [on] various [topics] from
distance learning, and [I was] also [on] the learning outcomes committee,
where we looked specifically at . . . mission-focused learning outcomes and
how to integrate [them].”
P6 “Not so much, [and I] mainly [have] the perspective of delivering [the PLU
experience], . . . primarily because that has been my huge burden from the
start.”
P7 “There’s been no direct [training on sense of belonging].”

Integrated Synthesis of the Results and Findings
The integrative synthesis of the results and findings from this study is provided by
research question; for each of the two research questions, the discussion is categorized by
influence (knowledge, motivation, or organizational). Within each influence, themes are used to
organize the data analysis. The first research question addresses the knowledge-related and
motivational influences: What are the online faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to
achieving the goal of implementing regular communication and engagement strategies that foster
students’ sense of belonging in asynchronous online courses?
Knowledge Related Integrated Results and Findings
The conceptual framework in Chapter Three depicts the knowledge influences that
emerged through a review of the literature as factors impacting faculty abilities to successfully
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 101
engage and communicate with online students. The knowledge influences that were the focus of
this student included: conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge. A discussion of the
integrated knowledge findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of this study follows.
Engagement strategies. In summarizing the four best practice frameworks for optimal
online teaching in college, Miller (2014) identified a theme among them: Course designs should
allow for variety in engagement strategies. Knowledge of many interaction strategies also
facilitates the tailoring of instructional design to course needs; this is in concert with Czerkawski
and Lyman’s (2016) assertion that each course design should be preceded by a needs assessment
for that course. The participants in this study demonstrated varied and expansive use of various
interaction strategies, both active and passive learning strategies, in their online courses, thereby
demonstrating their knowledge as a strong organizational asset. This study’ survey results
revealed that the majority (over 70%) of the faculty members employed text, audio, video, or
time-released strategies to establish student-to-student and faculty-to-student interactions.
Additionally, 94% of PLU’s faculty responded to survey item Q2b by stating that they made
themselves available for student appointments. The interviewees all exhibited an expansive
understanding like the one shown in this statement by P3:
There needs to be a component of interaction [between] the students. . . . [Faculty]
interaction [comes] first, [but] student interaction is [also] really important . . . whether
that’s discussion boards[,] V oiceThread[,] Arc[,] Zoom[,] or some kind of connection [in
which] the students are able to discuss and learn from each other.
Timely responses from faculty members are integral to their demonstrations of social
presence and caring (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016). As presented, there is general agreement that
faculty members’ interactions with online students should occur within 24 to 48 hours
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 102
(Clinefelter, 2012). Both quantitative and qualitative phases of the study also reveal that faculty
members have knowledge of the importance of timely interactions. The clear majority of faculty
members (90% in the quantitative part and 86% in the qualitative) reported that they possessed
or demonstrated this knowledge and consistently reported acceptable compliance which
significantly adds value to the human capital assets of the organization.
Researchers have formed a consensus that faculty interactions (e.g., meetings with
students) significantly impact the development of students’ sense of belonging (Boling et al.,
2012; Dixson, 2010; Ke, 2013; Rossi et al., 2015; Szeto & Cheng, 2016). With regard to basic
engagement strategies addressing the three foundational of asynchronous learning—social,
cognitive and teaching-- this study’s integrated findings reveal that faculty members possess
mature knowledge of optimal engagement strategies; there are only minor opportunities for
improvement. Overall, the quantitative and qualitative findings affirmatively answered this
study’s first research question and demonstrated sufficient faculty knowledge regarding optimal
engagement strategies, but the selected themes still warrant further discussion.
Faculty introductions and icebreakers. Quality Matters (2018) published its standards
for online education, including a metric for faculty self-introductions in courses. Icebreakers
(Boettcher & Conrad, 2016; Thomas et al., 2014) and personal introductions (Boettcher &
Conrad, 2016) are also best-practice strategies for online education. Although 73% of the survey
participants and five (71%) of the interview participants reported including such items in their
courses, over 25% of their courses were still devoid of this best-practice strategy.
Management of content inquiries. One best-practice strategy aimed at increasing student
interaction is to make public all responses to individual students’ content inquiries (Boettcher &
Conrad, 2016). Most of the survey respondents (54%) indicated that they only sometimes
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 103
engaged this strategy. None of the interviewees referenced this strategy in response to the
following question: “In examining our organization’s best-practice guidelines, what are the
critical components of an online education program?” This represents an opportunity to increase
faculty members’ knowledge of this strategy, thereby improving engagement, students’ sense of
belonging, and goal attainment.
Synchronous sessions. Researchers have commonly suggested that including
synchronous sessions in asynchronous courses improves learning and social outcomes for both
students and faculty members (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016; Giesbers et al., 2014a; Thomas et al.,
2014; Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). One such outcome relates to the students’ sense of belonging. In
this study, both the quantitative and qualitative phases indicated scarce usage of this best practice
strategy; it is important to note that PLU’s technological infrastructure does support conducting
synchronous sessions. As presented, 65% of the surveyed participants reported rarely (21%) or
never (44%) employing synchronous sessions, and all the interview participants reported that
their courses were predominately asynchronous, with few or no synchronous sessions. For
instance, P4 stated the following:
It was primarily asynchronous. However, the one thing I did offer to students was virtual
office hours. [However], nobody took me up on the virtual office hours. Once a week, I
would show up on the chat Canvas feature, [and] they could log on [for help], but nobody
ever did.
Additionally, P5 related, “I do several videos and audio PowerPoints . . . but nothing
synchronous for that population.” Harnessing synchronous sessions is one avenue for improving
online learning outcomes, including those related to sense of belonging (Boettcher & Conrad,
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 104
2016; Giesbers et al., 2014a; Thomas et al., 2014; Yamagata-Lynch, 2014), which remains an
avenue that PLU should consider for the fulfillment of organizational and stakeholder goals.
Sense of belonging. Sense of belonging, as defined previously, refers to the level of
connectedness or affinity that an individual develops toward a group or organization (Booker,
2016; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Museus et al., 2017; Yuan & Kim, 2014). Chapter Two extoled
the many benefits of students forming a positive sense of belonging, including improved
academic results (Booker, 2016; Freeman et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2007), greater fulfillment
(Boling et al.; 2012; Byrd, 2016; Freeman et al., 2007; Kizilecec & Halawa, 2015; Liu et al.,
2007), and improved completion rates (Booker, 2016; Hausmann et al., 2009; Thomas et al.,
2014; Yuan & Kim, 2014). The findings of both phases of this study demonstrate that PLU
faculty members understand the importance of students’ sense of belonging. The quantitative
survey results reveal that all the respondents felt that this concept was important; specifically, on
the Likert scale, nearly all of the respondents selected extremely important (55%), very important
(43%), or moderately important (2%). Likewise, all the interview participants demonstrated a
high appreciation for and understanding of students’ sense of belonging. Table 13 provides at
least one comment from each interview participant regarding the importance of personalization
when fostering students’ sense of belonging. The PLU faculty members also demonstrated
significant understanding of students’ sense of belonging in these additional comments pursuant
to a question about sense of belonging: “Interact with your students, make sure you’re
commenting, [and] personalize it” (P2); “I think communication is the most important thing”
(P3); and “I would say there’s got to be a period where we’re going to do an interactive activity
to try to build community” (P4).
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 105
Additionally, the interviews reveal that many faculty members recognize the integral role
that they play in influencing students’ sense of belonging. Although this is not the sole factor,
researchers have demonstrated a strong connection between students’ sense of belonging and
their interactions with faculty (Boling et al., 2012; Hoffman et al. 2003). The data from this study
reveal that PLU’s faculty members, due to their advanced appreciation for students’ sense of
belonging, are highly motivated to engage in communication and interactions that promote its
development. In doing so, they help attain stakeholder and organizational goals, as depicted in
this study’s conceptual framework.
Incorporation of spiritual activities. The use of spiritual activities, such as prayer and
devotionals, allows faith-based institutions to deepen students’ sense of belonging (Byrd, 2016;
Rennick et al., 2013; Rovai et al., 2008). Surprisingly, a significant number of survey
respondents and interview participants expressed that this task was a challenge. As presented,
39% of survey respondents reported rarely or never incorporating spiritual activities into their
online courses. Of the seven interview participants, only two purposefully directed the
incorporation of spiritual activities into their courses. P1 explained this process: “I have
fortunately somehow discovered these videos that are very useful, and they’re free. One
company is the Skit Guys. These are people who create videos for worship experiences, and
[those videos] have spiritual messages.” P5 reported the following purposeful strategy to
promote spiritual growth: “Because of the kind of classes I teach, [my students and I] share every
bit as much [in] the spiritual domain as we do [in] the physical, . . . sociocultural, . . .
professional, [or] educational [domains].”
The four remaining interview participants felt that incorporating spiritual activities was
challenging, but their definitions of the challenge were not uniform. P6 implied that the
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 106
challenge was institutional, saying, “We have talked always about delivering [the Pokegama
Lake experience] . . . but we have always talked about it as a question.” Conversely, P3 viewed
the challenge as being more at the faculty-member level:
As an institution, we do a pretty good job about putting a lot of resources out there that
students can access no matter what, but we as faculty . . . have to be very skilled about
figuring out where those things are and tapping students into [them].
As mentioned, one participant’s findings were not included in the analysis of the spiritual
activities, as the courses that participant taught focused on religious content. The remaining two
participants’ comments described sparse activities and plans for the further development of
spiritual activities.
PLU, as part of its mission, places a strong emphasis on cultivating spiritual growth and
wholeness among students and employees; this study’s results thus demonstrate a potential gap
in knowledge related to facilitating that mission. This provides an opportunity for performance
improvement and demonstrates a significant concern. Because PLU is a faith-based institution,
an essential part of its mission is to incorporate spiritual wholeness into all aspects of the
teaching process (Rennick et al., 2013). Improving the spiritual outreach in its online courses
will facilitate the organization’s mission while improving the quality of its online education,
including the students’ sense of belonging. As demonstrated in this study’s conceptual
framework, improving faculty members’ knowledge of strategies will facilitate this
communication and increase the attainment of both stakeholder and organizational goals.
Metacognitive knowledge. PLU faculty responded to several items during the
quantitative survey that asked for self-reflection about their teaching skills. It is noteworthy that
the self-reflection items were prompted by the survey instrument and not given as overt
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 107
statements from participants. Therefore, while this appears as an asset, metacognitive knowledge
and the process of self-reflection needs to be explicitly reinforced and engaged in consciously by
faculty members. Table 22 provides a summary of the items and responses. A 4-point Likert
scale was used for these items (1 - strongly disagree; 2 - disagree; 3 - agree; and 4 - strongly
agree). Although the data representing response averages and dispersion do not bear significance
to metacognition, the ability and willingness of PLU faculty to respond to these items
demonstrate their knowledge of themselves as learners, and the tasks and strategies they engage.
Individuals capable of employing metacognition enhance their abilities to learn and perform
(Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011 Rueda, 2011).

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 108
Table 22
Metacognitive Knowledge from Quantitative Survey
Metacognitive—Self-reflection Items M SD
I incorporate few resources when teaching an online course as
compared to a traditional course.

1.85 0.82
I have a higher workload when teaching an online course as
compared to the traditional one.

3.13 0.83
I do not have any problems controlling my students in the online
environment.

3.33 0.70
I have to be more creative in terms of the resources used for the
online course.
3.39 0.68

It takes me longer to prepare for an online course on a weekly
basis than for a face-to-to face course.

2.76 0.87
I am able to provide better feedback to my online students
(compared to face-to-face students) on their performance in the
course.

2.91 0.86
Not meeting my online students face-to-face prevents me from
knowing them as well as my on-site students.

2.48 0.89
I am concerned about receiving lower course evaluations in the
online course as compared to the traditional one.

1.89 0.74
It is more difficult for me to motivate my students in the online
environment than in the traditional setting.

1.98 .054

Motivational Related Integrated Results and Findings
Successful completion of tasks requires three key ingredients to ensure adequate
motivation: active choice, persistence and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Faculty motivation is critical for successful student engagement and communication aimed at
cultivating a sense of belonging among online students. Three motivational theories served as the
foundation for examining factors related to faculty motivation: 1) self-efficacy, 2) goal
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 109
orientation, and 3) emotion theory. This section discusses the integrated findings from the
qualitative and quantitative phases of this evaluation study. An inductive finding related to
motivation—faculty workload concerns—is included as well.
Self-efficacy. As discussed earlier, scholars have agreed that increasing an individual’s
self-confidence on a task makes it more likely that the individual will achieve the desired
outcome (Bandura, 1997, 2000, 2005; Pajares, 2006). Contrariwise, an individual’s motivation to
engage and persist in a task diminishes if the individual does not have the necessary self-
confidence (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). The quantitative survey results
reveal that the PLU faculty members possess strong self-efficacy when assessing their abilities to
utilize optimal strategies to effectively communicate and interact with online students so as to
promote a sense of belonging. All the respondents indicated that they were confident; 81%
answered the question in the affirmative (yes), and the remainder reported feeling confident some
of the time. Additionally, as previously discussed, the external OFSS provided a general
indication of the PLU faculty members’ emotions and general satisfaction. Their responses to the
two items on general satisfaction revealed positive results; the results of these two items can be
found in Table 9. Although, in the qualitative interviews, self-efficacy was not directly inquired
about, five of seven interviewees expressed self-efficacy in inductive comments; these comments
are provided in the qualitative discussion of self-efficacy. An integrated analysis of both phases
of this study concluded that PLU faculty members do feel confident in their abilities to engage in
optimal online student-communication strategies, thereby facilitating the achievement of both
stakeholder and organizational goals (Bandura, 1997, 2000, 2005; Pajares, 2006), as depicted in
the conceptual framework.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 110
Goal orientation. As discussed in Chapter Two, the proponents of goal-orientation
theory posit that establishing goals (mastery or performance orientated) drives individuals
towards the process of improving performance; Both goals, mastery oriented (which are
intrinsically oriented) or performance orientated (which are extrinsically oriented) positively
influences motivation (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011; Yough &
Anderman, 2006). Two specific items were included in both phases of this study to assess the
PLU faculty members’ goal orientation. The quantitative survey asked if the respondents wanted
to learn more about teaching online. In the qualitative interview, they were asked whether they
wanted to participate in professional development that was dedicated to online education. The
results reveal that an overwhelming percentage (96% in the survey and 86% in the interview) of
faculty members indicated a mastery goal orientation as they responded with a desire to engage
in further professional development about online teaching. The integrated results and findings
reveal that the faculty members are motivated to improve performance through goal setting
(Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Pintrich, 2003; Rueda, 2011; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Their
behavior thus supports the achievement of stakeholder and organizational goals, as depicted in
this study’s conceptual framework.
Countering Motivation: Concerns Regarding Time Consumption and Workload
Faculty members have identified workload and time consumption as perceived barriers to
online education (Hiltz et al.; 2010; Lloyd et al.). The totality of data from both of this study’s
phases indicate that PLU faculty members are
moderately concerned with the time consumption of online teaching and of this method’s impact
on workloads. The survey results reveal that 14 respondents (32%) would like to see a decrease
in their online teaching workloads; seven of these respondents provided excessive workload or
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 111
time consumption as their reasoning. The interview participants’ comments that are quoted
clearly demonstrate that three of those participants were concerned about time consumption. One
item from Bolliger and Wasilik’s (2009) OFSS can be commingled in the analysis of this
motivational factor. This item asks about whether, on a weekly basis, it takes longer to prepare
for an online course than for a face-to-to face course; the mean response (2.76) and standard
deviation (.86) reveal that the faculty members mostly agree that online teaching is more time-
consuming than in-person teaching. Boettcher and Conrad (2016) echoed many other researchers
by positing that online instruction involves significant time consumption; however, institutions
such as PLU often to not adjust faculty members’ workloads (Bower, 2001), thereby threatening
those workers’ motivation.
Organization Related Integrated Results and Findings
The following discussion addresses this study’s second research question: what is the
interaction between PLU’s organizational culture and context and the online faculty members’
knowledge and motivation in relation to achieving a high sense of belonging among students in
asynchronous online courses? As presented in Chapter Two, the following are two of the cultural
influences that this study focuses on: (a) a lack of instructional-design support for faculty and (b)
insufficient professional-development support for faculty. The following is a discussion of the
integrated findings and results for each of these factors and for their impact on goal attainment.
Professional development cultural setting. Scholars have agreed that engaging faculty
members in professional development focused on online education is a best practice, as it leads
to enhanced outcomes (Arbaugh & Benbunan-Fich, 2005; Bigatel & Williams, 2015 Hiltz et al.;
2010; Hunt et al., 2014; 2014; Lloyd et al., 2012). A collective analysis of the professional-
development data from both of this study’s phases reveals mixed results. The survey respondents
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 112
and interview participants had differing definitions of formal training, thus making it difficult to
perform a definitive assessment. Regardless, the data indicated a marginal lack of engagement in
organized professional development—due to either choice or availability—along with an overt
desire to engage in future professional development. Owing to the importance of professional
development, these results indicate an opportunity for PLU to provide additional support to its
faculty members.
Quantitatively, over half (51%) of the survey participants had experienced fewer than two
formal training sessions for online teaching; 21% had accessed PLU’s professional-development
repository, and 53% reported having received support (financial or otherwise) for online-teaching
professional development. The interview findings harmonize with this and indicated a lack of
uniformity in the definitions of formal training. The interviewees’ comments regarding
professional development were numerous. The comments were categorized to facilitate analysis:
formal versus informal, informal (mentoring), informal (other), experience as a student, and
technology. As mentioned previously, although inconsistencies exist with regard to the
interviewees’ definitions of regarding defining formal professional development, other prominent
themes were identified from the responses. Mentoring played a critical and pervasive role in five
interviewees’ past professional development, who stressed how important mentors were to their
skill development. Six participants also referred to the significant impact that their experience (or
lack thereof) as online students impacted their current behaviors as instructors (Table 19 provides
details). Thematically, they identified technology-related intelligence as being requisite for
teaching—and therefore also for professional development (Table 20 provides details); this
aligned with Boettcher and Conrad’s (2016) assertion that online-education outcomes improve
when faculty members engage in technology-focused professional development.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 113
Instructional design cultural setting. Overt efforts to provide instructional-design
resources improve outcomes, including those of student satisfaction and engagement (Bigatel &
Williams, 2015; Dixson, 2010; Lundberg & Shridan, 2015; Thomas et al., 2014). An integrated
review of this study’s survey and interview data reveals that PLU faculty members expressed
satisfaction with their instructional-design support; however, they also expressed a desire for
further support. The mean survey scores regarding requests for instructional-design support and
the fulfillment of those requests also indicates satisfaction; however, the standard deviations,
outlier adjusted and not adjusted, for both of the related data elements are high, thus potentially
indicating varying opinions. Results from the OFSS also revealed that survey respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that the technology available to them was reliable (M = 3.52)— Likert scale (1
- strongly disagree; 2 - disagree; 3 - agree; and 4 - strongly agree). Three interview participants
expressed accolades for the current support from the technology center, as seen in Table 17, but
one expressed a lack of support: “I hope I’m not being . . . ungrateful, but I don’t know that I’ve
gotten a whole lot of support or formal education here at [Pokegama Lake University] about
what to do online.” It is important to note that PLU’s instructional-design support comes from a
department with the word technology in its name; therefore, the participants loosely viewed
instructional design as being a technology-support service. They did not customarily make an
obvious differentiation between technological and pedagogical or andragogic support. The
principals of course design (although beyond the scope of this study) include the premise that
pedagogical considerations are precursors to technological considerations in course design
(Boettcher & Conrad, 2016). Consistent utilization of instructional-design resources would
promote standardization across PLU’s courses and programs, thus leading to courses that would
promote the best-practice standards of usability and accessibility (Quality Matters, 2018).
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 114
Synthesis Summary and Gap Identification
Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap-based analytical framework as the conceptual
framework this explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study sought to identify how knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences impact stakeholder and organizational goal attainment.
Faculty members were designated as the stakeholder group of focus with their specific goal as
implementing regular communication and engagement strategies that would foster full student
belonging, as measured by student feedback. These decisions drove the study design.
Conceptually and systematically, stakeholder goal achievement helps the organization attain its
goals of having 100% of online students express a connectedness to PLU and of delivering a
high-quality online education. Salient results and findings from triangulating the quantitative and
qualitative data were presented and further summarized here.
Knowledge-Related Influences
In total, the data reveal that the PLU’s faculty members possess foundational information
regarding engagement strategies; this knowledge supports the development of students’ sense of
belonging. Their isolated knowledge gaps include the incorporation of introductions and
icebreakers, the management of students’ content inquiries, the usage of synchronous
interactions, and the embedding of spiritual materials. Recommendations for solutions to these
gaps will be presented in Chapter Five.
Motivational Influences
Very limited motivational gaps were identified from the data obtained in this study. The
results not only revealed that the PLU faculty members were significantly motivated to engage
students in online education but also aligned with those of Bolliger and Wasilik (2009), in their
inaugural administration of the OFSS. These prominent results are not meant to overshadow any
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 115
motivational concerns that the participants expressed regarding their workload and time
commitments or their potential preference for non-online teaching modalities. Recommendations
for addressing workload concerns and their subsequent influence on motivation are included in
Chapter Five.
Organizational Influences
By triangulating the data to assess organizational influences, variability was revealed in
how the two cultural settings (instructional design and professional development) impacted the
faculty members. While no apparent lack of instructional design was identified, the existence of
a gap cannot be ruled out due to response variability. Three prominent themes regarding
professional development as a result of the qualitative phase of interviews were identified: (a) the
positive and impactful role of mentoring in professional development; (b) the influence that
experience, or lack thereof, as an online student has on faculty members’ current abilities and
competencies in online instruction; and (c) the influence that the acquisition and possession of
technical intelligence skills has on professional development. Recommendations to address both
cultural setting influences are include in Chapter Five.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 116
Chapter Five: Recommendations for Identified Gaps and Remaining Needs
Chapter Four presented the results and findings from each phase of this explanatory
study—quantitative and qualitative—followed by the presentation of integrated results and
findings. The data analysis conducted to develop the results and findings sought to answer the
first two research questions for this study:
1. What are the online faculty’s knowledge and motivation related to achieving the goal
of implementing regular communication and engagement strategies that foster
students’ sense of belonging in asynchronous online courses?
2. What is the interaction between PLU’s organizational culture and context and online
faculty’s knowledge and motivation as it relates to achieving a high sense of
belonging among asynchronous online students?
This final chapter, Chapter Five, addresses the third and final research question of this
study: what are the recommendations for PLU’s practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation,
and organizational resources? The following sections are categorized by each of these influences:
knowledge, motivation and organizational. Additionally, context-specific recommendations have
been formulated and included for each identified gap or remaining need. Extending from those
recommendations, a specific, multilevel training and development program has been created and
detailed in the sections that follow. The program, as designed, supports the learning necessary to
ameliorate performance gaps and organizational shortcomings identified during this evaluation
study. Once implemented, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Model, will be used
to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the program from the model’s four frames: reaction,
learning, behavior and results.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 117
Knowledge Recommendations
The Knowledge Table 23 represents identified gaps or remaining needs identified in this
study with the corresponding principle that provides theoretical foundation for its inclusion. The
final column in Table 23, represents the recommended strategies that will be employed to address
identified gaps or remaining needs. As suggested by Clark and Estes (2008), performance gap
resolutions are aided by ensuring that knowledge and skills are enhanced through the provision
of information, jobs aids, training or education. Selection of strategies for each gap or remaining
need was guided by Clark and Estes (2008) recommended conditions: 1) gaps created by the
absence of how a job should be performed are best resolved by information, job aids, or training,
2) gaps created by the absence of a novel solution are best resolved by continuing and advanced
education.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 118
Table 23
Summary of Knowledge Gaps and Remaining Needs and Recommendations

Declarative knowledge solutions. Although faculty members demonstrated basic
knowledge of communication and engagement strategies with online students, minor
performance gaps were identified. Specifically, faculty members teaching online courses need
further declarative knowledge about which types of interactions optimally engage students.
Declarative knowledge includes knowledge that is factual and conceptual; it is knowledge that
provides an understanding of terms, principles and models. Krathwohl (2002) differentiates
factual and conceptual knowledge by positing that factual knowledge is knowing foundations
within a domain whereas conceptual knowledge is understanding the interrelationship among
Knowledge Gap or
Remaining Need
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need to know best
practice engagement
strategies for optimal
engagement of online
students. (D)
How individuals organize
knowledge influences how
they learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Provide a job aid that
visually conveys the
functionality of various
engagement strategies that
promote student sense of
belonging in a concise,
easy to use format.
Faculty need knowledge
of how to implement best
practice engagement
strategies for online
students. (P)
To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and know when to
apply what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Provide a job aid that
supports and prompts the
integration of engagement
strategies that promote
student sense of
belonging.

Faculty need to be able to
self- reflect on their
effectiveness in employing
best practice engagement
strategies. (M)
The use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates
learning (Baker, 2006).
Provide training that
demonstrates how to
effectively assess, review,
and reflect on individual
performance using the job
aid.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 119
concepts. How individuals organize information influences how they learn and apply the
knowledge in their performance (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). This would suggest that
providing a job aid would assist individuals in identifying and understanding important
information. It is recommended then that faculty members be provided easily referenced
information that explains various engagement strategies.
Student engagement and correlated sense of belonging are significantly impacted by the
interactions students have with faculty instructors. (Bigatel & Williams, 2015; Dixson, 2010;
Lundberg & Shridan, 2015). Therefore, it is vital that faculty members possess the conceptual
knowledge of which engagement strategies are optimal for promoting student engagement.
Ensuring that faculty members possess foundational information on optimal engagement
strategies by way of a job aid will facilitate improving job performance which will lead to
increased student engagement and sense of belonging.
Procedural knowledge solutions. Successfully engaging students requires that faculty
members know how to procedurally implement various strategies, both technically and
contextually. Procedural knowledge refers to knowing how to accomplish a task and includes
elements such as methods, algorithms, techniques and contextual application of methods
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). To develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). This indicates that providing models of how and when to use various
engagement strategies will enhance learning and enable faculty members to optimally engage
students and promote sense of belonging.
Technology, at its rapidly changing pace, fundamentally transformed online education
and the requisite skill set required of instructors (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016; Gopalan, 2016;
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 120
Siemens et al., 2015). However, training and assessment of training efforts to ensure that faculty
members have sufficient technological competence has not occurred (Gopalan, 2016).
Additionally, training that limits skill development to a small set of stagnate strategies in the face
of continually evolving technology advances and student needs is derisory (Czerkawski &
Lyman, 2016). Modeling how to use successful engagement strategies through access to
demonstrative job aids will enhance learning for faculty members.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Faculty members need to be able to self-reflect on
their effectiveness in employing best practice engagement strategies with online students.
Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness and understanding of one’s own learning
developments (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The use of metacognitive strategies facilitates
learning (Baker, 2006). This would support that providing training to faculty members that
demonstrates how to effectively assess, review, and reflect on individual performance with the
assistance of a job aid would deepen learning and promote performance increased.
The purpose of reflection on one’s past, and in this case on one’s cognitive awareness and
understanding, is to enable opportunities for performance enhancement, either in the future or at
the time (Wilson, 2008; Larrivee, 2008; Ferraro, 2000; McCabe, Walsh, Wideman and Winter,
2009). Providing faculty members with training on how to conduct self-monitoring and self-
assessment will promote metacognition (Baker, 2006). As noted by Larrivee (2006), reflection
has long been a demarcation of requisite teacher competencies and considered an indispensable
practice for teachers. However, McCabe et al. (2009), in their qualitative study, illuminated a
different reality; their findings demonstrated that while teachers understood the importance of
critical reflective practice, it was often executed mechanically to satisfy task requirements.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 121
Developing tools that demonstrate the concepts and importance of a commitment to reflective
practice will promote learning and performance improvement among faculty members.
Motivation Recommendations
The motivation of faculty members to believe they are capable of goal attainment, and
their desire to seek mastery-oriented performance of the goal, was evaluated and although no
substantive gap or remaining need was identified, recommendations have been included as a
strategic measure to sustain motivation. It is recognized that in the face of high workload
demands, future challenges may deter motivation and curb persistence, therefore solutions to
reinforce existing motivation are included. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that there are three
indicators of motivation in task performance – choice, persistence and mental effort. Choice is
going beyond intention to start something. Persistence is continuing to pursue a goal in the face
of distractions, and mental effort is seeking and applying new knowledge to solve a novel
program or perform a new task. Table 24 also shows the recommendations for these influences
based on theoretical principles.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 122
Table 24
Summary of Motivation Recommendations
Motivation Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need to continue to
believe they are capable of
effectively utilizing online
strategies for effectively
engaging students.

Learning and motivation
are enhanced when learners
have positive expectancies
for success (Pajares, 2006).
Model successful strategies
through implementing a
job aid that demonstrates
exemplary course design.
Faculty should want to
continue do more than the
bare minimum and go
beyond showing to the
administration that they are
just meeting the
requirement of regular
interaction

Focusing on mastery,
individual improvement,
learning, and progress
promotes positive
motivation (Yough &
Anderman, 2006).
Institute opportunities for
faculty members to set
personal goals for
increasing and improving
engagement strategies
within their course designs.
Faculty members should
continue to feel
emotionally satisfied with
the process of teaching
online.
Positive emotional
environments support
motivation (Clark & Estes,
2008).

Build supportive structure
and cultivate team building
through mentoring.

Self-Efficacy. Faculty are confident that they are capable of effectively utilizing online
strategies for effectively engaging students. Pajares (2006) found that learning and motivation
are enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for success. Although confident,
implementing a job aid which models exemplar course design and optimal engagement strategies
will assist in sustaining motivation and performance. The recommendation is for the organization
to provide exemplar course designs on the learning management system that are accessible to
faculty members for practice and experimentation. Embedded, interactive feedback from
experienced peers will enhance the model.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 123
Bandura’s (1977) seminal theory on social learning extolled how modeling, either
deliberate or inadvertent, influences human learning. Modeling, as a vicarious experience, is a
significant source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, Pajares, 2006). Competent models serve to
demonstrate desired learning outcomes in a manner that decreases costs, reduces time
consumption and minimizes risk (Bandura, 1977). Bandura (2005) summarizes much of his
research findings and reinforces the value of learning from models by refuting several
misconceptions about modeling: models do not produce mimicry, rather exemplars serve to
convey underlying principles that are used contextually by the observer; models do not stifle
creativity; and models do not limit cognitive skill scope. Therefore, exemplars that model
underlying principles will support, in a cyclic manner, learning and self-efficacy of faculty
members.
Goal orientation. Faculty demonstrated a desire to do more than the bare minimum and
go beyond showing the administration that they are just meeting the requirement of regular
interaction. Yough and Anderman (2006) found that positive motivation results when individuals
focus on mastery, individual improvement, learning, and progress. Among the strategies for
promoting goal-oriented motivation are encouraging individuals to focus on self-improvement
without regard to standardized benchmarks (Yough & Anderman, 2006) and providing structures
that foster, in a nurturing environment, personal growth and accountability (Pintrich, 2003). The
recommendation then is to institute opportunities for faculty members to set personal goals for
increasing and improving engagement strategies within their course designs in a risk-free
environment.
An important differentiation within goal orientation theory is between mastery and
performance goal orientation. Both orientations can develop into drivers or barriers to the effort
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 124
an individual puts forth and sustains towards task completion. Drivers, such as the desire to
thoroughly understand a concept, lead an individual to approach a task, whereas barriers, such as
fear of failure, result in an individual avoiding a task. While both orientations have the ability to
increase performance, mastery orientation due to its intrinsic source is typically more impactful
and sustainable (Rueda, 2011). Instituting opportunities for faculty members to develop a
mastery orientation and set personal goals for increasing and improving engagement strategies
will serve to increase their understanding and ease with the process thereby increasing the
likelihood of task activation. Theoretically, creating an environment where faculty members
establish goal orientations for increasing and improving engagement strategies will result in
increased performance and ultimately increased student sense of belonging.
Organization Recommendations
The first cultural setting organizational influence, lack of instructional design support,
was identified as a possible remaining need and is therefore being included in the
recommendations and solutions. Questionability is the result of significant dispersion of
quantitative data results and sparse qualitative findings. Analysis of the second cultural setting,
lack of professional development of faculty members, identified a remaining need in this area.
The organizational influences that were the focus of this study are represented in Table 4.
Discussions regarding factors impacting the quality of online education, commonly conclude that
efforts to augment instructional design (Bigatel & Williams, 2015; Dixson, 2010; Lundberg &
Shridan, 2015; Thomas et al, 2014) and professional development lead to improved overall
outcomes (Arbaugh, 2000; Bigatel & Williams, 2015). As such, the focus of this study, student
sense of belonging, is one outcome that would be improved upon. Table 25 also shows the
recommendations of these influences based on theoretical principles.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 125
Table 25
Summary of Organization Gaps and Remaining Needs and Recommendations
Assumed Organizational
Gap or Remaining Need
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Setting Influence
There is a lack of
instructional design
support to faculty for the
development of quality
online programs
Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has
the resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their job, and
that if there are resource
shortages, then resources
are aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
The organization will build
an infrastructure that
provides organized
guidance and resources for
the effective and efficient
development and
dissemination of online
education programs.
Cultural Setting Influence
There is a lack of
institutional support for
professional development
of faculty.
Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has
the resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc)
needed to do their job, and
that if there are resource
shortages, then resources
are aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
The organization will
prioritize professional
development of faculty
members teaching in
online education programs.

Lack of instructional design support. A limited number of faculty members, whether
by choice or imposed limitation, experienced a lack of instructional design support for
developing quality online programs. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that effective change efforts
must ensure that adequate resources are available for individuals to accomplish their jobs and
that resource allocation must align with organizational priorities. This suggests that the
organization build an infrastructure that provides faculty with requisite guidance and resources
for developing, and subsequently disseminating to students, quality online programs.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 126
As organizational leaders build an infrastructure that guides and provides resources for
change, a clear vision needs to be established. Vision is an essential element for successful
change (Bolman & Deal, 2013; Kotter, 2007; Schein, 2010). Ensuring that instructional design
infrastructure elements are included in the organization's vision will lead to improved instructor
performance. Following a meta-analysis, Czerkawski and Lyman (2016) demonstrated the
criticality of instructional design by creating a four-phase instructional design framework. The
framework stresses the importance of a systematic process for instructional design that advocates
contextual and variable design of courses rather than a one size fits all approach. Such an
approach requires access to individuals with extensive experience and knowledge in instructional
design thereby suggesting the importance of including this resource as part of the organization’s
vision.
Lack of professional development. PLU faculty members report a lack of consistent
organizational support for professional development activities, internally or externally, that are
aimed at improving their competency and skill levels for online instruction. As discussed above,
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that effective organizational change relies on appropriate
resource allocation and alignment. This advocates that the organization establish professional
development as a top priority goal and ensure that resources are efficiently allocated to ensure
attainment.
Kotter (1995) puts forth that not removing obstacles to a new vision is an error causing
transformational change to fail. Additionally, Strebel (1996) highlights the importance of leaders
aligning their commitments and actions to create an enduring personal compact as part of a
successful change initiative. A pivotal study of over 2000 student participants conducted by
Bigatel and Williams (2015), which focused on measuring student engagement in online
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 127
programs, demonstrated the importance of ensuring faculty professional development. A
significant finding from their study was that instructors with professional development rated
higher on instructor behaviors that engaged students in courses than from those instructors who
received no professional development. This suggests that literature supports that organization
leaders should remove the barrier of insufficient professional development for faculty members
as a way to align their expressed goal of quality online education with resource allocation.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was used as the basis for creating the implementation
and evaluation framework for the proposed program. This model will measure the overall impact
of training and development efforts by assessing stakeholder behavior changes (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Building off the original Kirkpatrick Model, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) instituted modifications to align the model with the modern workplace and to shore up
oversights and misunderstandings that evolved during the original model’s usage in the last
many decades. The most significant, and overt modification, was a reversal in the order of the
levels. The New World Kirkpatrick levels are to be planned in reverse order and executed
ordinally. As inferred by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level Four and Three, of the new
model, focuses on if the training has impacted on-the-job performance in a measurable and
sustainable manner. Specifically, Level Four: Results, assesses “the degree to which targeted
outcomes occur as a result of training and the support and accountability package” (p. 12). Level
Three: Behavior, assesses the presence of critical behaviors that must be routinely performed to
ensure target goal attainment. Level Two and One, of the new model, focus on the participants’
level of learning, Level Two, and their reaction, Level One, to training. Once planned in reverse
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 128
order, the Kirkpatrick Model levels will be executed ordinally to evaluate the success of training
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The organization of focus, PLU, has established a goal of having 100% of surveyed
online students report a high sense of belonging to the campus community. The achievement of
this goal is impacted by faculty members’ implementation of regular communication and
engagement strategies that foster student belonging. Therefore, knowledge, skill and
organizational factors which influence faculty members’ abilities to optimally engage student and
cultivate a sense of belonging are critical to attaining this goal. It is desired that the
implementation and evaluation framework presented below will address the recommendations
presented in Table 25
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 26 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for PLU. Reaching the
outcomes stated below would be a clear indication that the expressed goals are being achieved.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 129
Table 26
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Decrease in third party
accrediting and regulatory
agencies that cite a lack of
substantive and regular
interactions between
faculty and students.
Reported citations Receipt of citation or
report following audit or
assessment.
Internal Outcomes
Increased sense of
belonging among online
students.
Number of students who
report a high reported
sense of belonging among
online students.
Annual survey of online
students which addresses
sense of belonging and
spiritual growth using
Bolliger and Inan’s’(2012)
Online Student
Connectedness Survey
(OSCS)
Increased spiritual growth
among online students.
Number of students who
report that positive
experience with spiritual
growth.

Annual survey on online
students which addresses
sense of belonging and
spiritual growth.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Outcome attainment is dependent upon key stakeholders engaging in
critical behaviors. The behaviors designated in Table 27 have been designed according to
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) recommendation that critical behaviors are “specific,
observable and measurable” (p. 51). Critical behaviors of faculty members include that faculty
members regularly select and identify appropriate engagement strategies, functionally and with
respect to student sense of belonging; faculty members engage in self-reflection; faculty
members model exemplar course design; faculty members engage a mastery performance
orientation and set personal performance goals; faculty members seek instructional design
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 130
support; and faculty member actively engage in professional development addressing online
education.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 131
Table 27
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Faculty regularly
identify the
functionality of
various
engagement
strategies that
promote sense of
belonging.
Number of occurrences
of embedding
functionality.
Collected during
course auditing.

Collected from
student sense of
belonging survey.
Semi-annual

Annual survey; 2020.
Faculty use
engagement
strategies that
promote student
sense of
belonging.
Students reports
measuring sense of
belonging.
Student survey Annual survey; 2020.
Faculty reflect on
their performance.
Faculty reports of
reflection.
Faculty survey Annual survey; 2020.
Faculty model
exemplary course
design.
Number of occurrences
of embedding
functionality.
Collected during
course auditing.

Semi-annual

Faculty set personal
goals for increasing
and improving
engagement
strategies within
their course
designs.

Number of faculty
engaging in goal setting
Faculty survey Annual survey; 2020.
Faculty regularly
seek support from
the instructional
design support.
Number of occurrences
of faculty members
requesting support from
instructional design team.

ETS Reports Semi-annual.
Number of occurrences
of faculty members
receiving support from

instructional design team.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 132

Table 27, continued

Faculty regularly
engage in
professional
development.
Number of faculty
trained in mandated
training program.

Number of faculty
reporting attending
professional development
not included in
mandatory training.

Reports from the
Office of
Educational
Effectiveness.

Faculty Survey

Semi-annual.

Annual Survey.

Required drivers. To ensure critical behaviors are engaged, processes and systems are
needed to ensure execution; these are termed drivers (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 28
summarizes the drivers that will influence faculty members’ performance of critical behaviors.
The drivers seek to augment the knowledge and motivation necessary for faculty members’
successful performance. Additionally, the drivers are designed to positively orientate
organizational influences and avoid potential performance barriers.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 133
Table 28
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported 1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Provide a job aid that
identifies various
engagement strategies
functionality and
advantages.

Ongoing 1, 2, 4, 6
Provide online course shell
templates on the LMS to be
used as job aids.

Ongoing 1, 2, 4, 6
Provide visual cheat sheet
(postcard) that prompts
faculty members on types
and frequency of weekly
interactions.
Ongoing 1, 2, 4, 6

Encouraging
Establish designated peer
mentors who are
experienced in online
education to mentor new
instructors.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
Establish community of
practice for online faculty
members to network and
offer peer support.

Ongoing 1, 2, 4, 6, 7
Rewarding
Select faculty members to
demonstrate exemplar
course designs focused on
student engagement at
Faculty Colloquium.

Annual and ongoing 4, 5
Select experienced faculty
members to serve as
mentors for online
instructors.
Ongoing 7
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 134

Table 28, continued

Monitoring
Follow-up on instructional
design effectiveness (work
review) through routine
audits of courses with
constructive feedback to
follow.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Survey faculty members
regarding satisfaction and
self-reflective practices.
Annual and ongoing 3, 5

Organizational support. The organizational influences of focus for this study, and
consequently the implementation and evaluation plan, focus on the potential lack of support for
instructional design and professional development. To adequately support the critical behaviors
from faculty members, the organization must provide appropriate levels of support. Specifically,
the organization should provide faculty guidance and resources for optimal instructional design;
this includes allocating an appropriate instructional design workforce and creating policies,
procedures and templates for direct assistance to faculty members. Organizational leaders must
also designate professional development as a top priority and mandate baseline training for all
faculty members prior to an online course being assigned for instruction. Additionally,
organizational leaders must commit financial support for the delivery of professional
development, internally or externally. Financial support would include release time for attending
professional development activities and a policy driven endorsement for increased workload
hour allocation for developing and teaching online course.
Level 2: Learning goals. Once the recommendations are implemented, the stakeholder,
faculty members, will achieve the following learning outcomes.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 135
1. Identify and differentiate various online student engagement strategies. (D)
2. Implement best practice student engagement strategies for online students. (P)
3. Reflect on individual progress towards optimally engaging online students. (M)
4. Be confident in their ability to successfully engage online students through interactions
that cultivate a sense of belonging. (Self efficacy)
5. Design mastery performance goals to the attainment continue increasing and improving
optimally engagement strategies within online courses. (Goal Orientation)
Program. To achieve the learning goals articulated, a comprehensive program that addresses
initial and ongoing faculty training and development will be provided. Additionally, various job
aids and models will be developed and made available for ongoing support for faculty members.
To augment ongoing support and facilitate faculty member recognition, a coaching and
mentoring program will be developed.
Initial Training and Development Program (ITDP). Develop a mandatory Initial Training
and Development Program (ITDP) process that must be completed by all online instructors. The
training will be hosted on the learning management systems and mimic an online course. The
contents will include training on the learning management system, functionality of available
technology applications for student interactions, and best practice guidelines for online education
as approved by PLU.
Ongoing Training and Development Program (OTDP). Enhance the IFOP faculty
development by creating an OTDP. This program will expand the ITDP content and require all
faculty members teaching online to engage at least four hours of development each academic
year. Equivalent external professional development may be substituted as reported.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 136
Exemplar resources. Select and make available to all faculty members, exemplar online
courses as models. Additionally, create a job aid that serves as a cheat sheet for faculty
interactions. The aid would mimic the Interaction and Teaching Guidelines from a sister
institution and specify the following minimal faculty interactive activity:
● Five times per week: Respond to emails and other student-initiated
communication
● Four times per week: Seek to build social presence and sense of belonging,
including spiritual renewal.
● Three times per week: Check participation and follow-up
● Twice times per week: Give them Information
● Once time per week: Grade work and provide feedback
A second job aid will list various interaction and communication technology applications
available at PLU with descriptions of functionality and applicability. Use cases will be included
for each technology to demonstrate context specific selection.
Coaching and peer mentoring recognition program. Create a team of experienced
online instructors to serve as coaches for less experienced faculty members. These coaches will
be recognized for their excellence by appointment from the Office of Extended Education. Once
appointed, coaches will be paired with new online instructors and serve as observers in new
instructor’s courses for a period of one year.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge is
often necessary as a precursor to applying the knowledge to solve problems. Thus, it is important
to evaluate faculty members’ learning for both declarative and procedural knowledge. It is also
important that faculty members value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 137
knowledge and skills on the job. However, they must also be confident that they can succeed in
applying their knowledge and skills and be committed to using them on the job. As such, Table
29 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 138
Table 29
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.

Method(s) or Activity(ies)

Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using discrete
questioning within the IDTP.

During asynchronous delivery on the LMS at
the end of each module, lesson or unit.
Knowledge checks using discrete
questioning within the ODTP.

During asynchronous delivery on the LMS at
the end of each module, lesson or unit..
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Procedural checks using discrete questioning
within the IDTP.

During asynchronous delivery on the LMS at
the end of each module, lesson or unit..
Procedural checks using discrete questioning
within the ODTP.

During asynchronous delivery on the LMS at
the end of each module, lesson or unit..
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre and post survey of faculty members from
initial mandatory training regarding attitudes.
Before and after training.
Pre and post survey of faculty members from
ongoing mandatory training regarding
attitudes.
Before and after training.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Post survey of faculty members from initial
mandatory training regarding confidence.

After training.

Post survey of faculty members from
ongoing mandatory training regarding
attitudes.

After training.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Post survey of faculty members from initial
mandatory training regarding attitudes.

After training.
Post survey of faculty members from
ongoing mandatory training regarding
attitudes.
After training.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 139
Level 1: Reaction
It is critical to determine to what extent faculty members found the training program
complementary, interesting and pertinent to their jobs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table
30 lists the methods that will be used to gauge participant reaction to the training programs.
Table 30
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing

Engagement

Data analytics in the learning management
system (DTP’s).
Ongoing; tabulated quarterly.
Completion of online module, lesson or unit
for DTP’s.
Ongoing; tabulated quarterly.
Attendance and module completion on
DTP’s.
Ongoing; tabulated quarterly.
Course Evaluation Two weeks after the course.
Relevance

Course evaluation Two weeks after the course.
Discussion within LMS modules (DTP’s). Ongoing.
Customer Satisfaction

Course Evaluation Two weeks after the course.

Evaluation Tools
During and immediately following the program implementation. During the
asynchronous program completion by faculty members, the learning analytics tool in the learning
management system (LMS) will collect data about the start, duration, and completion of modules
by the participants. These data will indicate the engagement with the course material. The LMS
will also administer various assessments during and after each asynchronous module.
Assessments will focus on both Level 1 and Level 2 evaluations. For Level 1, assessment items
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 140
will measure faculty members level of engagement, expressed relevance of material to their job,
and overall satisfaction with the program organization, delivery and environment. Level 2 will
include checks for understanding of declarative and procedural knowledge, attitude, confidence
and commitment. Appendix D provides examples of these assessment items.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately thirty-two
weeks after implementation (once a quarter for all faculty who have completed either DTP),
leadership will administer a survey containing open and scaled items using the Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Blended Evaluation approach to measure, from the online faculty members’
perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1), confidence and value of
applying their training (Level 2), application of the training to their ability to optimally engage
students, (Level 3), and the extent to which their performance has become more accurate and
timely with executing faculty-student interactions that cultivate student sense of belonging. The
thirty-two-week delayed time frame is selected so as to afford faculty members time to engage in
training during one term and apply new knowledge in a subsequent term. Appendix E provides
an example of the Blended Evaluation.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of 100% of online faculty members implementing regular
communication and engagement strategies that foster student belonging is dependent on their
purposeful engagement in professional development (Figure 11, Dashboard 1) and their response
to the following question as measured 32 weeks after training: My participation in the training
program enhanced my student interaction strategies (Figure 12, Dashboard 2). Similar
dashboards will be created to monitor Levels 1, 2 and 3.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 141

Figure 11. Faculty ITDP Completion Rates Dashboard.
Dashboard 2: Responses: My participation in the training program enhanced my student
interaction strategies?

Figure 12. Faculty Response to Training Program Impact Dashboard.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 142
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used to
develop the training and development program in response to identified performance gaps.
Following the New World Model, the process was initiated by defining Level 4: Results,
followed by articulation of Level 3: Critical behaviors, and subsequently, Level 2: Learning
expectations and Level 1: Reactions of participants. Building the program in reverse (Level 4
first) ensured that final outcomes were prominent during development which rendered a program
infrastructure that would benefit goal attainment. In this case, the outcome of achieving the
stakeholder goal—online faculty implementing regular communication and engagement
strategies that foster student belonging as measured by student feedback—was the driving force
for program development and evaluation.
Once the program commences, data will be gathered concurrently during the evaluation
process to formatively assess the reaction, as well as the level of learning, among faculty
members. A delayed evaluation will be conducted after program implementation as a summative
assessment measure. The process will expand the data gathering to assess the presence of critical
behaviors and results, in additional to reactions and learning assessments. These critical
behaviors and results are requisite to faculty members achieving their goal of optimally engaging
online students through interactions. As prescribed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s New World
Model (2016), conducting formative and summative assessments, will facilitate a systematic
analysis of the current programs’ success as well as providing valuable information for future
training and development programs.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 143
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework served as an excellent approach for
this problem of practice evaluation study. It advocates for the identification of “the active
ingredients of effective products and processes” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 1). In turn, this
identification enabled the tailoring of remedial solutions and strategies. As designed, this
framework facilitates the diagnosis of causes of performance gaps induced by knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences within a single organization. The process maximizes
the value to organizations and increases the likelihood of enhancing performance based on the
evaluation.
As a phenomenological research design, this case study strategy described, in rich detail,
the experiences of an isolated group (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), in this case the
PLU online faculty. This did impose a limiting requirement that the researcher have intimate
knowledge of the organization. Countering this limitation, however, the product of the data
collection, analysis, and recommendation formulation are bounded to PLU rendering high
valuation to the organization. On the other hand, this limits the generalization of findings, results,
and recommendations to other organizations.
Employing the organizational-specific methodology enabled the case study to be
completed independent of many external influences and variables. Beyond the time constraints
imposed by the researcher’s academic timetable, time constraints were inconsequential.
Additionally, minimal impacts on human or social resource consumption were encountered.
Other than the researcher, participation in the study—survey respondents and interview
participants—was all voluntary and minimal.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 144
Limitations and Delimitation
This study was limited by various factors. The nonexperimental design precludes
establishing true cause and effect relationships. However, vast amounts of descriptive data
generated from deductive and inductive approaches provided a framework for analysis and
recommendation formulation. Other limitations included the fact that participants self-selected to
participate in interviews and surveys; their responses were subject to social desirability.
Conducting this study within an academic degree program’s curriculum time table created an
additional limitation. Document analysis of course syllabi and course shells on the learning
management system would be beneficial to assess quality of interactions, however, not having
full access to these documents was a limitation.
Delimitations occurred in this study with regards to population determinations and
sampling decisions. Choosing only asynchronous courses as the population for sampling narrows
the scope of the study. PLU online synchronous courses will not be included in the evaluation,
thereby constraining the overall generalization of results to asynchronous PLU offerings. Time
and practicality limited the number of items included in both the survey and interview
instruments.
Future Research
Several opportunities for future research have emerged from this evaluation study. The
increased prevalence of online education, as presented in Chapter One, suggests an ever-growing
need to study the many facets of how online faculty and students optimize the online educative
process. As seen in Chapter Two, the concepts of student sense of belonging and community
have long been a concern in higher education; further research on how the phenomena exist and
thrive in the online environment is needed to identify, with greater certainty, strategies that foster
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 145
student sense of belonging. There is scant research surrounding faith-based institutions and
which online student interaction strategies are beneficial for extending their spiritual and mission
outreach; further research would be beneficial to all faith-based colleges and universities.
Further research, which would minimize the adverse impact of the limitations and
delimitations discussed in Chapter Three, is needed. Specifically, a future experimental design to
address student sense of belonging would render more generalizable cause-and-effect
relationships. Also, a future study design that excludes self-selection of participants would be
beneficial, as would the incorporation of a document analysis process and direct course
observations into a research design (from learning management systems), which would render
more objective data. With regard to PLU, a future study probing deeper into the organizational
cultural model influences would be beneficial, such as exploring how faculty members’
perceptions regarding the current organizational culture and infrastructure impact their abilities
to deliver quality online education. Additionally, a future study designed to increase the sample
size would allow for the exploration of variations by faculty status.
Imperative future research, at an organizational or industry level, should focus on
students themselves. While studies, such as this one, that focus on non-student groups are
informative, a true measure of student sense of belonging can only be derived by evaluating data
gathered from students themselves. Future studies that designate students as the stakeholder of
focus would be beneficial.
Conclusion
This evaluation study and dissertation sought to evaluate the degree to which the PLU
faculty is meeting its goal of all online students reporting a connection to the campus. The design
and analysis, based on Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, concentrated on the
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 146
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving this goal. For
practicality, one PLU stakeholder group was chosen as the focus group for the study: online
faculty.
Derived from a mixed-method, explanatory research design, integrated results and
findings for the knowledge influence revealed that the PLU faculty, for the most part, possesses
the necessary knowledge to implement regular communication and engagement strategies that
foster students’ sense of belonging in asynchronous online courses. Only minor performance
gaps were identified. Regarding the second influence—motivation—data and analysis concluded
that the PLU faculty is highly motivated to engage online students in hopes of cultivating sense
of belonging; notwithstanding, the faculty expressed concern over the excessive workload
demands presented by online courses, which could negatively impact motivation. Data and
analysis for the third and final influence—organizational—revealed mixed findings. While the
PLU faculty expressed receiving strong instructional design support, the data demonstrated large
dispersion. Regarding professional development, the PLU faculty demonstrated strong and
varied opinions, which necessitated categorization of data, and significantly impacted the
recommendations and solutions described in Chapter Four.
This mixed-methods study yielded regarding online teaching at PLU; quantitative data
from 49 respondents combined with deep, rich data from seven interviewees provide an
expansive view into the state of online educational offerings at PLU. Since the inception of this
study, PLU has engaged a comprehensive strategic plan to elevate the infrastructure and quality
of online education courses. If PLU continues to pursue its strategic plan and incorporate the
recommendations and solutions set forth in Chapter Four, its goal of offering quality online
education will be feasible and attainable.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 147
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in
the United States. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.
Allen, I., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. (2016). Online report card—tracking online
education in the united states. 2016. babson survey research group and quahog research
group. Onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-Report-Card-Tracking-Online-
Education-United-States-2015/. Accessed March, 31
Arbaugh, J. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in
internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9-26.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2005). Contextual factors that influence ALN
effectiveness. Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks, 1,
123-144.
Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., Lindholm, J. A., Bryant, A. N., Szelényi, K., & Calderone, S. (2005).
The spiritual life of college students: A national study of college students’ search for
meaning and purpose. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute,
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review. 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H.Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 148
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bejerano, A. R. (2008). The genesis and evolution of online degree programs: Who are they for
and what have we lost along the way? Communication Education, 57(3), 408-414.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61972913?accountid=14749
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., Borokhovski, E., & Lou, Y . (2004). The effects of
synchronous and asynchronous distance education: A meta-analytical assessment of
simonson's. Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
Bettinger, E., & Loeb, S. (2017). Promises and pitfalls of online education. ().Brookings
Insitution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/promises-and-pitfalls-of-
online-education/
Bigatel, P., & Williams, V . (2015). Measuring student engagement in an online program. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(2), 1-8. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=117762682&site=ehos
t-live
Boettcher, J. V ., & Conrad, R. (2016). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical
pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in
distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences.
The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118-126.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 149
Bolliger, D. U., & Inan, F. A. (2012). Development and validation of the online student
connectedness survey (OSCS). The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 13(3), 41-65.
Bolliger, D. U., Inan, F. A., & Wasilik, O. (2014). Development and validation of the online
instructor satisfaction measure (OISM). Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
17(2), 183.
Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online
teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (5th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bonk, C. J., Kim, K., & Zeng, T. (2006). Future directions of blended learning in higher
education and workplace learning settings. Handbook of Blended Learning: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs, , 550-567.
Booker, K. (2016). Connection and commitment: How sense of belonging and classroom
community influence degree persistence for african american undergraduate women.
Executive Editor, 28(2), 218-229.
Boston, W., Ice, P., & Gibson, A. (2011). Comprehensive assessment of student retention in
online programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(1).
Boulos, M., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of
web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical
Education, 6(1), 41.
Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 4(2), 1-6.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 150
Byrd, J. C. (2016). Understanding the online doctoral learning experience: Factors that contribute
to students' sense of community. Journal of Educators Online, 13(2), 102-135.
Chen, C., & Wu, C. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention,
emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108-
121.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clinefelter, D. (2012). Best practices in online faculty development. Learning House White
Paper. Retrieved from https://www.learninghouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Best-
Practices-for-Online-Faculty-Development_Web_Final.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering
student engagement in online learning environments. Techtrends, 60(6), 532-539.
Deming, D. J., Goldin, C., Katz, L. F., & Yuchtman, N. (2015). Can online learning bend the
higher education cost curve? The American Economic Review, 105(5), 496-501.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do
students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-
13.
Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses
deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 151
online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4),
312-331. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/41725516
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Ferraro, J. M., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (2000). Reflective
practice and professional development. ERIC digest. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED449120&authtype
=sso&custid=s8983984
Fink, A. (2013). Chapter 2: The Survey Form. In How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide
(5th ed.) (pp. 29-56). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Fletcher, G., Dowsett, G. W., & Austin, L. (2012). Actively promoting student engagement
within an online environment: Developing and implementing a signature subject on
‘Contemporary issues in sex and sexuality’. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
Practice, 9(3), 5.
Frantzen, D. (2014). Is technology a one-size-fits-all solution to improving student performance?
A comparison of online, hybrid and face-to-face courses. Journal of Public Affairs
Education, 20(4), 565-578. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/24369838
Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college
freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education,
75(3), 203-220. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/217667205?accountid=14749
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 152
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching
presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ842688.pdf.
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014a). A dynamic analysis of the
interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The
impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1111/jcal.12020
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D. T., & Gijselaers, W. (2014b). Why increased social
presence through web videoconferencing does not automatically lead to improved
learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 31-45. doi:10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.31
Glesne, C. (2011). But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162–183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gopalan, C. (2016). The impact of rapid change in educational technology on teaching in higher
education. HAPS Educator, 20(4), 85.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120.
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An
empirical study of mooc videos. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the First ACM
Conference on Learning@ Scale Conference, 41-50.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 153
Hansch, A., Hillers, L., McConachie, K., Newman, C., Schildhauer, T., & Schmidt, P. (2015).
Video and online learning: Critical reflections and findings from the field. Retrieved from
https://papers-ssrn-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577882
Hausmann, L. R., Ye, F., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2009). Sense of belonging and
persistence in white and african american first-year students. Research in Higher
Education, 50(7), 649-669. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61847154?accountid=14749
Higher Education Act, U.S.C., P.L. 89-329 (1965). Retrieve from
https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/HEA65_CMD.pdf.
Hiltz, S. R., Shea, P., & Kim, E. (2010). Using focus groups to study ALN faculty motivation.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 21-38.
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, P., & Salomone, K., (2003). Investigating "sense of
belonging" in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(3), 227-
256. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/196738708?accountid=14749
Hunt, D., Davis, K., Richardson, D., Hammock, G., Akins, M., & Russ, L. (2014). It is (more)
about the students: Faculty motivations and concerns regarding teaching online. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(2)
Irwin, C. W., & Stafford E. T. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Collaborative survey
development (part 1 of 3) (REL 2016-163). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 154
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141-184.
Ke, F. (2013). Online interaction arrangements on quality of online interactions performed by
diverse learners across disciplines. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 14-22.
Kemp, A. T., Preston, J., Page, C. S., Harper, R., Dillard, B., Flynn, J., & Yamaguchi, M. (2014).
Technology and teaching: A conversation among faculty regarding the pros and cons of
technology. The Qualitative Report, 19(3), 1-23. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1506155141?accountid=14749
Kim, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education.
Educause Quarterly, 29(4), 22-30.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation
Association for Talent Development.
Kirtman, L. (2009). Online versus in-class courses: An examination of differences in learning
outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 103.
Kizilcec, R. F., & Halawa, S. (2015). Attrition and achievement gaps in online learning. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale,
57-66.
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
85(1), 96-103
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 155
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Van Buuren, H. (2011). Measuring perceived social
presence in distributed learning groups. Education and Information Technologies, 16(4),
365-381.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for
effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(3), 341–360.
Leece, R. (2014) Building a sense of belonging for new student through the use of a welcome
pack. Journal of the Australian & New Zealand Student Services Association, (44), 50-
54.
Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007). Does sense of comunity matter? an
examination of participants' perceptions of building learning communities in online
courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9-24,87-88. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/231180604?accountid=14749
Lloyd, S. A., Byrne, M. M., & McCoy, T. S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online
education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 1.
Lord, R. G., Klimoski, R. J., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the
structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior. (Vol. 7). Pfeiffer.
Lundberg, C. A. 1., & Sheridan, D. (2015). Benefits of engagement with peers, faculty, and
diversity for online learners. College Teaching, 63(1), 8-15.
doi:10.1080/87567555.2014.972317
Lytle, J. S., Cross, C., & Lenhart, K. A. (2001). Analysis of large web-based courses at the
university of central Florida. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology &
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 156
Teacher Education International Conference, 1117-1119. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/16884
Maguire, L. L. (2005). Literature review–faculty participation in online distance education:
Barriers and motivators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1), 1-16.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oak,
CA: Sage Publications.
Mayadas, F. A., Bourne, J., & Bacsich, P. (2009). Online education today. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), 49-56. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61842678?accountid=14749
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McCabe, M., Walsh, S., Wideman, R., & Winter, E. (2009). The "R" word in teacher education:
Understanding the teaching and learning of critical reflective practice. International
Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 13(7). Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ940630&authtype=
sso&custid=s8983984;
http://iejll.synergiesprairies.ca/iejll/index.php/iejll/article/view/693/353
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal
of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
Means, B., Toyama, Y ., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended
learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-
47.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 157
Miller, M. D. (2014). Minds online: Teaching effectively with technology. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Moore, J. C., & Shelton, K. (2013). Social and student engagement and support: The sloan-C
quality scorecard for the administration of online programs. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 17(1), 53-72.
Museus, S. D., Yi, V ., & Saelua, N. (2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus
environments on sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 187-215.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Fast facts: Distance learning. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
Ni, A. Y . (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching
research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199-215. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/23608947
Norris, C. J., & Barnett, B. (1994). Cultivating a new leadership paradigm: From cohorts to
communities Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62633628?accountid=14749
Owens, H. S. (2015). Cheating within online assessments: A comparison of cheating behaviors
in proctored and unproctored environments (Ph.D.). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1737746138). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1737746138?accountid=14749
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 158
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. New perspectives
on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23-39) Springer, New York, N.Y .
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Allen, I. E. (2010). Educational transformation through online
learning: To be or not to be. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 17-35.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Rennick, L. A., Smedley, C. T., Fisher, D., Wallace, E., & Young, K. (2013). The effects of
Spiritual/Religious engagement on college students' affective outcomes: Differences by
gender and race. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 22(3), 301-322. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1651855421?accountid=14749
Rossi, D., Van Rensburg, H., Beer, C., Clark, D., Danaher, P. A., & Harreveld, B. (2015).
Learning Interactions: A Cross-Institutional Multi-Disciplinary Analysis of Learner-
Learner and Learner-Teacher and Learner-Content Interactions in Online Contexts,
Retrieved from http://hdl.cqu.edu.au/10018/1013373.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education
classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6(1), 41-56.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 159
Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., & Liu, J. (2005). School climate: Sense of classroom and school
communities in online and on-campus higher education courses. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 6(4), 361.
Rovai, A. P., Baker, J. D., & Cox, W. F. (2008). How christianly is christian distance higher
education? Christian Higher Education, 7(1), 1-22. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/61964110?accountid=14749
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative interviewing: The
art of hearing data (3rd ed., pp. 85–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/ reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 160
Shea, P. (2007). Bridges and barriers to teaching online college courses: A study of experienced
online faculty in thirty-six colleges. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2),
73-128.
Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Li, C. S. (2005). Increasing access to higher education: A study of the
diffusion of online teaching among 913 college faculty. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 6(2).
Siemens, G., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of
the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning.
Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 86-92
Swan, K., & Shea, P. (2005). The development of virtual learning communities. Learning
Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks, 239-260.
Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. Y . (2016). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous
learning environment: What effects are there on students' social presence experience?
Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 487-503.
Thomas, L., Herbert, J., & Teras, M. (2014). A sense of belonging to enhance participation,
success and retention in online programs. The International Journal of the First Y ear in
Higher Education, 5(2), 69-n/a. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i2.233
Tinto, V . (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. ERIC.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, (2nd ed.).
Tu, C. & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online
classes, American Journal of Distance Education, 16:3, 131-
150,DOI: 10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 161
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online
classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.
Tyler, J., & Zurick, A. (2014). Synchronous versus asynchronous learning-is there a measurable
difference? Proceedings Editor, Paul H. Jacques Rhode Island College, 52.
US Department of Education. (2017). Accreditation in the united states. Retrieved from (U.S.
Department of Education, 2017). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/accreditation.
Vai, M., & Sosulski, K. (2016). Essentials of online course design: A standards-based guide
Routledge: New York, N.Y .
van der Molen, J. (2016, March). Synchronous learning in an asynchronous learning
environment. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference (V ol. 2016, No. 1, pp. 1159-1162).
Wilson, J. P. (2008). Reflecting ‐on ‐the ‐future: A chronological consideration of
reflectivepractice. Reflective Practice, 9(2), 177-184.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2014). Blending online asynchronous and synchronous learning. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2), 189-212.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities
in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 220-232.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 162
Zimmerman, D.L. (2015). Accrediting online graduate programs in healthcare administration:
Issues and challenges. Journal of Health Administration Education, 32(4), 633–650.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 163
Appendix A
Survey Instrument
Demographics
o Male
o Female
o Decline to state
Appointment Status
o Full-time
o Part-time
o Contract
School
o SAHP
o SBH
o SD
o SM
o SN
o SP
o SPH
o SR
o SN
1.0 Course Design
Select one response Regularly – at
least weekly
Sporadically –
not weekly
Rarely – less
than weekly
Never
I use text-based
(narrative) interactions
with online students such
as posting articles, blogs,
e-books.

I use audio based
(recorded voice, narrated
PointPoint slides,
recorded feedback on
assignments using the
LMS microphone icon)
interactions with online
students.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 164
I use video based (video
captured) interactions
with online students,
such as recorded Zoom
clips, ARC captured
video, MP4 files.

In a typical online
course, I use time-
released
announcements/content.

In a typical online
course, I maintain virtual
office hours.

In a typical online
course, I incorporate
optional synchronous
sessions.

In a typical online
course, I build in
opportunities for students
interact with each
another.

I build in opportunities
for me to interact with
students

In a typical online
course, I incorporate
spiritual activities such
as prayer, Bible-centered
content, inspirational
stories, wholeness
activities etc.

In a typical online
course, I post and
interact in discussion
threads.

2.0 Course Design – section 2
Select one response Yes Sometimes No
In a typical
online course, I include
a faculty biography
complete with

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 165
photographs and videos
about myself.
In a typical online
course, I make myself
available for student
meetings by
appointment.

In a typical online
course, when responding
to a student inquiry
about content, I direct
my response to the entire
class so all can benefit.

I feel confident about
my ability to utilize
optimal strategies for
effectively
communicating and
interacting with online
students to promote a
sense of belonging.

I want to continue to
learn about various ways
to enhance online
student communication
and interactions that
promote quality
education, specifically a
sense of belonging.

3. Does the department mandate that you respond in a time from to student-initiated
interactions?
• Yes
• No
• I don’t know
3.1 If yes, what is that the required response time? _____________________
3.2 If no, do you self-impose a response time?
If yes, what is the self-imposed time requirement ______________
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 166
If no, if you were asked what an acceptable response time should be, what would be your
response? ____________________________
4. Regarding discussion posts only, check all of the types you have used in the past.
____ text
____audio
____ video
____ ARC
____ V oicethread
____ other, specify ______________________________________________
5. In your opinion, how important is it that students have a strong sense of belonging to the
University?
• Very important
• Somewhat important
• Somewhat unimportant
• Very unimportant
6. Which of the following best describes your past participation in professional development
related to online education:
• No formal training; independent learning from various resources
• 1-2 formal training sessions offered at PLU
• 1-2 formal training sessions offered outside of PLU
• More than 2 training sessions offered at PLU
• More than 2 training sessions offered outside of PLU
For the next two questions, please fill in the blank.
7. I have REQUESTED Instructional design support ____ times.
8. I have RECEIVED instructional design support ____ times.
9. Have you received support, financial or otherwise, for professional development of online
teaching skills?
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 167
• Yes
• No
10. Which of the following describes your usage of PLU’s Professional Development website
hosted on Canvas?
• No past access
• I have accessed in the past 1-2 times
• I have accessed in the past 2-5 times
• I have accessed in the past over 5 times.
11. With regard to your future workload, would you like to increase or decrease teaching online
courses, and why?
• Increase, ____________________________________
• Decrease, _____________________________________

12. MOTIVA TION (as measured by satisfaction) (extrapolated from Bolliger and Wasilik, 2009)
Item Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
The level of interactions with students in
the online course is higher than in a
traditional face-to-face class.

The flexibility provided by the online
environment is important to me.

My online students are actively involved in
their learning.

I incorporate few resources when teaching
an online course as compared to a
traditional course.

The technology I use for online teaching is
reliable.

I have a higher workload when teaching an
online course as compared to the
traditional one.

I miss face-to-face contact with students
when teaching online.

I do not have any problems controlling my
students in the online environment.

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 168
I look forward to teaching my next online
course.

My students are very active in
communicating with me regarding online
course matters.

I appreciate that I can access my online
course any time at my convenience.

My online students are more enthusiastic
about their learning than their traditional
counterparts.

I have to be more creative in terms of the
resources used for the online course.

Online teaching is often frustrating
because of technical problem.

It takes me longer to prepare for an online
course on a weekly basis than for a face-
to-to face course.

I am satisfied with the use of
communication tools in the online
environment (e.g., chat rooms, threaded
discussions, etc.).

I am able to provide better feedback to my
online students (compared to face-to-face
students) on their performance in the
course.

I am more satisfied with teaching online as
compared to other delivery methods.

My online students are somewhat passive
when it comes to contacting the instructor
regarding course related matters

It is valuable to me that my students can
access my online course from any place in
the world.

The participation level of my students in
the class discussions in the online setting is
lower than in the traditional one.

My students use a wider range of resources
in the online setting than in the traditional
one

Not meeting my online students face-to-
face prevents me from knowing them as
well as my on-site students

I am concerned about receiving lower
course evaluations in the online course as
compared to the traditional one

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 169
Online teaching is gratifying because it
provides me with an opportunity to reach
students who otherwise would not be able
to take course

It is more difficult for me to motivate my
students in the online environment than in
the traditional setting

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 170
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to take time out of your busy schedule to meet with me and
discuss your experiences with online education. I am very grateful for your willingness to share
your time and thoughts today. I anticipate that this should take about an hour, however, I have
allotted for an hour and a half, if needed. Of course, if you would like to continue our discussion
beyond this time frame, I would be happy to schedule additional time to do so.
I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at USC and this interview is part of my
research for my dissertation. My dissertation focuses on a problem of practice and uses a gap
analysis framework. The study of focus is on identifying factors that impact the delivery of
online education and specifically, cultivating a high sense of belonging for online students.
Today, I am here, not as an PLU faculty member, rather a doctoral student. Your
responses will aid me in conducting the study and developing recommendations for improving
experiences for our online students. All information you share with me will be confidential as
facilitated by deidentification and secure storage. I would like to ask your permission to record
the meeting so that I can accurately capture your thoughts and opinions. All recordings will be
destroyed once the interview is transcribed and the source of data will only be known to me. No
identifying information will be archived on the transcripts. If you would like, I will provide you
will a copy of my analysis and results, so that you are fully aware of how your data was
incorporated into the analysis and presentation.
Question 1: Can you describe your teaching experience with online education?
• Probe for detail: How many courses? How long ago? Were any courses taught with
synchronous components?
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 171
Question 2: What influenced you to become involved in online education?
Question 3: Thinking back to the first time you taught an online course, how has the process
changed for you since then?
Question 4: In examining our organization Best Practice Guidelines, what do you believe are
critical components of a quality online education program?
• Probe for detail: How do you feel about using these strategies?
• Probe for detail: How often have you engaged these strategies?
Question 5: What current communication strategies do you employ in your online course?
Question 6: Are there faculty-student interaction methods you prefer over others?
• Probe for detail: Probe question if needed for more detail (why, what is it about that
method?)
Question 7: Suppose you were a student in an asynchronous class, what type of faculty
interactions would you like to see employed?
Question 8: From your perspective, what do you believe a sense of belonging for students
means, in general?
• Probe for detail: Specifically, what does this mean to you for online students? What
factors contribute to a sense of belonging with online students?
Question 9: What advice would you give to someone teaching an online course for the first
time?
Question 10: Moving forward, how do you see your role in online education changing, if at all?
FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 172
Question 11: We’ve talked about online education in general. Now, I’d like to talk about
professional development for online faculty. What has been your formal or informal exposure to
training and development for online teaching?
Question 12: Has any of your training been dedicated to student sense of belonging or creating
the PLU experience?
• Probe for detail: Do you feel it is possible to extend the PLU experience to online
students?
• Probe for detail: Why do you feel this way?
Questions 13: What type of future professional development would you like to participate in?

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 173
Appendix C
Informed Consent and Information Sheet
INFORMED CONSENT

TITLE: THE IMPACT OF FACULTY INTERACTIONS ON ONLINE
STUDENT SENSE OF BELONGING: AN EVALUATION
STUDY

WHY IS THIS STUDY BEING DONE?

The purpose of this graduate student research is to evaluate influences impacting the ability of
online faculty members to engage in implementing regular communication and engagement
strategies that foster students’ sense of belonging in online courses. You are invited to be in this
study because you have taught an online course during the academic year 2017-2018 as either a
full-time, part-time or contract faculty and completed the online survey portion of this study.
Approximately 6-8 subjects will participate. Your participation in this study may last up to one
hour in-person for the interview and one hour over the next two months reviewing the transcript.

HOW WILL I BE INVOLVED?

Participation in this study involves the following:
Interviews will be scheduled for one hour; however, you are welcome to additional interview
time if you so choose. The interview will be semi-structures with a combination of open ended
and direct response questions. Questions will be similar to the survey questions but will further
explore your online teaching strategies and organizational resources. Transcripts from the
interview will be made available for your review upon your request.

WHAT ARE THE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE RISKS OR DISCOMFORTS I
MIGHT HAVE?
• Uncomfortableness answering survey/interview questions.
• Risk of breach of confidentiality.

WILL THERE BE ANY BENEFIT TO ME OR OTHERS?
Although you may not personally benefit from this study, your participation may help practitioners
better identify/provide insights into improving communication and engagement strategies with
online students foster a sense of belonging. This benefit, in turn, improve the overall quality of
online programs.

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS AS A SUBJECT?
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may refuse to participate or withdraw
once the study has started. Your decision whether or not to participate or terminate at any time

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 174
will not affect your standing with the researchers. You do not give up any legal rights by
participating in this study. If at any time you feel uncomfortable with an interview question, you
may refuse to answer questions. All audio files will be destroyed after the transcription process.

WHAT COSTS ARE INVOLVED?
There is no cost to you for participating in this study.

WILL I BE PAID TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY?
You will not be paid to participate in the interview portion of the study but you have a choice of
participating in a drawing for one of three $25.00 gift cards.

WHO DO I CALL IF I HAVE QUESTIONS?
Call [deleted to maintain anonymity] or e-mail [deleted to maintain anonymity] for information
and assistance with complaints or concerns about your rights in this study.

SUBJECT’S STATEMENT OF CONSENT
• I have read the contents of the consent form and have listened to the verbal explanation given
by the investigator.
• My questions concerning this study have been answered to my satisfaction
• Signing this consent document does not waive my rights nor does it release the investigators,
institution or sponsors from their responsibilities.
• I consent to having the interview recorded and transcribed, understanding that all audio
recording will be destroyed after the transcription process.
• I may call Debra Hamada, Student Researcher, during routine office hours at [deleted to
maintain anonymity] if I have additional questions or concerns.
• I hereby give voluntary consent to participate in this study.

I understand I will be given a copy of this consent form after signing it.

Signature of Subject Printed Name of Subject

INVESTIGATOR’S STATEMENT
I have reviewed the contents of this consent form with the person signing above. I have explained
potential risks and benefits of the study.

Signature of Investigator Printed Name of Investigator

Date

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 175
Appendix D
Training Level 1 and 2 Evaluation
Q1 With regards to this module, please select the response that best reflects your opinion.

Definitely No Probably No Probably Yes Definitely Yes
This module held
my interest. (1)
o o o o
What I learned in
this module will
help me on the
job. (2)
o o o o
I will recommend
this program to
my co-workers.
(3)
o o o o
Q2 What are the major concepts that you learned during this module?
_______________________________________________________________

Q3 With regards to this module, please select the response that best reflects your opinion.
Definitely No Probably No Probably Yes Definitely Yes
This module held
my interest. (1)
o o o o
What I learned in
this module will
help me on the
job. (2)
o o o o
I will recommend
this program to
my co-workers.
(3)
o o o o

FACUL TY AND ONLINE STUDENT INTERACTIONS 176
Appendix E
Blended Evaluation
Q1 With regards to the recently completed DTP, please select the response that best reflects your
opinion.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I believe it will be
worthwhile for me
to apply what I
have learned on
the job.
o o o o
I feel confident
about applying
what I learned
back on the job.
o o o o

Q2 Using the rating scale select the rating that best answers the statement.
Q3 Describe any challenges you are experiencing in applying what you learned to your work,
and possible solutions to overcome them.
Q4 How has your participation in this program benefited the organization?
Q5 My participation in the training program enhanced my student interaction strategies?
○ Yes
○ No

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

The impact of advanced technologies on the workplace and the workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis

PDF

Preparing millennial students for a multigenerational workforce: an innovation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Judiciary employees engagement and motivation: the impact on employee and organizational success: an evaluation study

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

Using digital marketing to reach students in graduate school admissions: an innovation study

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Curriculum and assessment alignment, instructional practices, and the impact on Hispanic/Latino students advanced placement exam achievement

PDF

The implementation of data driven decision making to improve low-performing schools: an evaluation study of superintendents in the western United States

PDF

Advisor impact on student veterans at a post-secondary institution: an evaluation study

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Hamada, Debra L. (author)

Core Title The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 01/29/2019

Defense Date 10/31/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag distant education,faculty interactions,OAI-PMH Harvest,online education,sense of belonging,sense of community

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair)

Creator Email dhamada@usc.edu,dhamada1116@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-114818

Unique identifier UC11675562

Identifier etd-HamadaDebr-7026.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-114818 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HamadaDebr-7026.pdf

Dmrecord 114818

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hamada, Debra L.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA