University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

An Examination of Factors That Affect Online Higher Education Faculty Preparedness
by
Sharon Elizabeth Owen

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Sharon Elizabeth Owen 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Sharon Elizabeth Owen certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Helena Seli
Brandon Martinez
Monique Datta, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of self-efficacy, faculty behaviors and
actions, and environmental factors related to online higher education faculty preparedness. The
mixed methods study explored practices for faculty preparation, resulting in quality online
instruction to facilitate change for improvements and desired best practices within the targeted
institution as a learning organization based on data-driven decision-making and gathered
research. Participants included appointed adjunct online faculty members in graduate-level
professional degree programs. This study formulated three recommendations from emerging
findings related to prior experience, current and relevant instructional practices, and student
engagement. Recommendations included elevating prior experience as primary criteria within
recruitment, vetting, and appointment processes, supporting systematic assessment practices and
evaluation to contribute to program curricula with a robust community of practice, and
expanding student engagement opportunities formally and informally inside and outside the
online classroom. The study also contemplates areas of exploration for future research
concerning personal, behavioral, and environmental factors continuing to affect ongoing
academic operations in the online higher education domain.
Keywords: online, higher education, faculty, self-efficacy

v
Dedication
To my family, friends, and colleagues, be brave, stay curious, and support one another skillfully.

To my niece Olive and nephew Eliot Eiler, I trust this effort provides a positive role model of
perseverance and illuminates opportunities. You have the wits, tenacity, and creativity to
accomplish anything you wish. Pay attention and surpass all expectations with gusto!

vi
Acknowledgments
Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a tribe to shape a scholarly practitioner’s
mind and change a community of practice.
Thanks to those who supported my lifelong educational journey, I extend my heartfelt
gratitude.
Thanks to my parents, Roy and Nancy Owen, my aunt Lib Bandy, and my trailblazing
cousin Kyes Stevens—undoubtedly inspired by our paternal grandmother Frances Wilson Owen,
the first woman in our family to receive an advanced degree.
Thanks to my husband, Scott Glennon, I genuinely appreciate your unwavering love and
support. Thanks for making my life easier while complicating yours every day.
Thanks to the mentors who smartened and steadied my professional path, Dr. Lorely
French, Lauren Belaustegui-Ohlin, Jennifer Baker, and Dr. Melinda Thomas.
Thanks to my USC Rossier School of Education dissertation committee members and
faculty, Dr. Monique Datta, Dr. Helena Seli, Dr. Brandon Martinez, Dr. Alexandria Wilcox, and
Dr. Adam Kho, who adroitly guided and encouraged me while modeling engaging teaching and
learning best practices.
Thanks to the faculty who contributed to the tree of knowledge of this study, I trust your
planted seeds of wisdom and professional best practices continue to flourish with deep roots over
time.
Thanks to my fellow OCL Cohort 15 colleagues, beloved Hecuba sisters, organizational
change superheroes, and lifesaving boat mates including Candice Clawson, Trina Gregory, Patty
Vignolo, Amelia Williams, Rebecca Wolf, and Jason Womack, Fight On!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.................................................................... 2
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 4
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 8
Background Information on Distance Education................................................................ 9
Online Higher Education Faculty Preparedness Factors .................................................. 13
Personal Factors ................................................................................................................ 14
Behavioral Factors ............................................................................................................ 24
Environmental Factors ...................................................................................................... 26
Emerging Issues and Changing Practices ......................................................................... 32
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 34
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 37
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 38
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 38
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 38

viii
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 39
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 40
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 40
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 41
Participants........................................................................................................................ 42
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 43
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 44
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 45
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 47
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 48
Chapter Four: Results and Findings.............................................................................................. 50
Participants........................................................................................................................ 50
Results and Findings for Research Question 1 ................................................................. 53
Interview Findings ............................................................................................................ 56
Discussion for Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 58
Findings for Research Question 2 ..................................................................................... 59
Discussion for Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 62
Findings for Research Question 3 ..................................................................................... 62
Discussion for Research Question 3 ................................................................................. 68
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 68
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion......................................................................... 70
Discussion of Findings and Results .................................................................................. 70
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 72
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 81
Connection to the USC Rossier Mission .......................................................................... 81

ix
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 82
References ..................................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix A: Survey Items.......................................................................................................... 105
Appendix B: Interview Questions............................................................................................... 108

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 39
Table 2: Interview Participants ..................................................................................................... 52
Table 3: Faculty’s Self-Reported Confidence Ratings .................................................................. 55
Table 4: Advice for New Online Faculty ...................................................................................... 67
Table 5: Integrated Recommendations.......................................................................................... 79

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 36
Figure 2: Success Factors.............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 3: A Simplified Version of the Burke-Litwin Change Model ............................................ 77

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The growth trend in online graduate programs continued due to external factors and
increased demand (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021; National Student
Clearinghouse Research Center [NSCRC], 2020a, 2020b, 2021). Specifically, in 2020, graduate
programs and schools offering fully online programs experienced enrollment increases of
approximately 7% (Amour, 2020; NSCRC, 2020a, 2020b, 2021). Additionally, events related to
COVID-19 caused colleges and universities to move their coursework in a swift modality shift
from campus-based, onsite instruction to remote learning (Brooks & Grajek, 2020; Fernandez &
Shaw, 2020; Hodges et al., 2020; Marasi, 2020; Online Learning Consortium, 2021). Faculty
were central players in this online higher education domain (Rapanta et al., 2020), where
perceptions of poor quality remained (Busteed, 2021; Fain, 2019; Hemelt & Stange, 2020). The
sector’s growth, varied design and development efforts, and perceived inferior quality required
better-prepared faculty to teach online (Bączek et al., 2021; Kaufmann & Vallade, 2020;
McKenzie, 2020; Rafique et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2017). Scholars found that motivation, prior
experience, and technical knowledge contribute to faculty success in the online higher education
classroom (Hampton et al., 2020; Hunt et al., 2014). Therefore, it was essential to consider self-
efficacy for online teaching, faculty capabilities, and the online teaching environment to improve
the overall learning experience (Martin et al., 2019; Scherer et al., 2021). Lessons learned from
faculty experiences apply to the future of online higher education, reflecting best practices
(Miyagawa & Perdue, 2020; Sands & Shushok, 2020).
Context and Background of the Problem
Outside of the impact of COVID-19 and drawing from gathered research findings, online
classroom experiences may manifest themselves as an irreversible trend in faculty self-efficacy
2

and self-selection to teach in their preferred modality despite growth in online course offerings
(Brown et al., 2020; Jaschik & Lederman, 2019; Young Doo et al., 2020). This trend reshaped
the online higher education landscape for multiple reasons: black swan events, economics,
deliverability to working students, mobility, and future workplace applications (Saunders et al.,
2020). The lack of professional development practices may also lead to a more significant gap in
faculty’s technical skills in a more digitized, virtual learning environment (Pomerantz & Brooks,
2017). A decrease in attention to online faculty’s self-efficacy, technical prowess, and
professional development may result in a greater challenge in the ability to meet student-learning
outcomes for future curricula (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017).
This study delved into online faculty’s preparedness at Class Best College (pseudonym)
within a large, private Top Tassel University (pseudonym) located on the West Coast in the
United States. The college offers fully online graduate-level professional studies programs in
various applied management disciplines, using an instructional design-driven curricula
development and management model. Faculty serve as the critical component within course
design and development, instruction, and learning outcome assessment processes. Class Best
College faculty taught online before, during, and after the university’s COVID-19 response while
other university faculty modified their courses for online delivery per mandated requirements.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of self-efficacy, faculty capabilities,
and environmental factors related to online higher education faculty preparedness. The study
explored and supported professional development practices for faculty preparation, resulting in
quality online instruction. The aim was to advocate, collaborate, reciprocate, and facilitate
change for improvements and desired best practices within the targeted institution as a learning
3

organization based on data-driven decision-making and gathered research. The study addressed
these research questions:
1. How do sources of self-efficacy for online teaching impact faculty preparation?
2. How do faculty prepare for teaching online?
3. How does the online environment impact faculty preparation?
Importance of the Study
The problem of adequate faculty preparation for quality online instruction was critical to
address because online graduate higher education course offerings continued to expand under
normal and abnormal circumstances for program continuity (Dill et al., 2020; Jaschik &
Lederman, 2018, 2019, 2020b; Neelakantan, 2020; NSCRC, 2020; Seaman et al., 2018). On
average, individual educational institutions moved more than 500 courses to remote instruction
between February and April 2020 (Legon et al., 2020). Williams June (2020) reported how
colleges dealt with remote learning in spring 2020, where many faculty (roughly 60%) rated their
online courses worse than non-emergency teaching efforts. A majority (66%) of faculty found
their experience to be mostly or somewhat favorable, even while their prior online teaching
experience was an even mix of experience (50% not at all or not very experienced and 50%
slightly experienced).
Furthermore, due to the pandemic, differences existed between curricula intentionally
designed and taught online, and courses or programs moved to remote learning with video
conferencing and learning management system hosting. Therefore, faculty’s lack of preparedness
to instruct online also stemmed from coursework not designed for online delivery (Marcy, 2021),
where learning assets align with student learning outcomes and instructional practices. A
4

misalignment with content delivery, instructional quality, and a learning equity gap may still
exist in this environment (Lederman, 2020c).
As noted, many college and university faculty were underprepared to teach online
courses. Researchers found online faculty preparedness depends on their prior experience,
technical knowledge, and motivational factors (Hampton et al., 2020; Hampton & Yin, 2016;
Hunt et al., 2014). Accordingly, this set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes played a significant
role in online faculty success (Bunk et al., 2015; Sheffield et al., 2015). Faculty perceptions and
professional development practices vary and underscored the need for further support in this area
(Jaschik & Lederman, 2020; McGee et al., 2017; Rhode et al., 2017). Thus, external factors
created a demand for and required remote instruction (Borray, 2020; Budd, 2020; Burke, 2020)
while growth in the online graduate sector continues (Redden, 2020).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study’s theoretical framework was the social cognitive theory (SCT). SCT lends
itself to self-development, adaptation, and change (Bandura, 2001). Specifically, the theory
posits the interconnectedness between people, their environment, and their behavior. Self-
efficacy is a central tenet of this theory and binds individuals and their actions. Central to the
self-efficacy model is how individuals conduct behaviors to attain targeted performance
(Bandura, 1977, 1997).
Applying SCT to this problem of practice allowed for the examination of faculty
preparation in a social context. The theory posits the interconnectedness between people (e.g.,
faculty, staff, and students), their environment (e.g., online courses, academic programs, and
institutions), and their behaviors (e.g., self-regulation, teaching). SCT also accounts for
motivational activity and beliefs where experiences play a role in subsequent behaviors. Faculty
5

may adopt and adhere to personal standards, monitor, regulate their actions, and perform in a
way that brings them a sense of satisfaction and self-worth (Bandura, 2001). It was vital to
recognize self-efficacy’s influence via individual capabilities and the environmental aspects of
online teaching and learning experience (Bandura, 1997).
Approaching this problem of faculty preparation for quality online instruction through a
pragmatic lens lent itself to common-sense solutions to issues while focusing on continuous
improvement and best practices (Saunders et al., 2020). The online faculty’s engagement and
familiarity with educational products were essential to students’ learning, online experience, and
success outside the classroom. This study was pivotal to recognizing what influences faculty
preparedness and how this occurs and understanding that faculty’s self-efficacy, technical skills,
and prior experience were substantial in their professional development and success.
This research design utilized mixed methods to explore the problem of practice. The
quantitative part allowed an overview of the faculty’s viewpoints and self-reported assessment of
their instructional practices, technical skills, and self-efficacy factors gathered via survey. The
qualitative narrative analysis portion supported data collection using the online faculty’s stories
and experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Based on the appointment model utilized at the
study organization, the study’s participants included adjunct online faculty members teaching in
master’s level professional degree programs from Class Best College within Top Tassel
University. Interview findings supported understanding the problem and addressing the study’s
research questions. Through purposeful sampling, protocols ensured equitable representation of
online faculty perspectives and academic programs.
6

Definition of Terms
Key concepts explored for this study were online learning, self-efficacy, motivation, prior
experience, and technical knowledge.
Online learning originates from effective instructional design and planning, using
systematic design and development approaches (McCormick, 2021). Online learning manifests
as distance learning, distributed learning, blended or hybrid learning, and mobile learning.
Self-efficacy relates to individuals’ beliefs in their capacity to execute behaviors
necessary for specific performance. Further, self-efficacy reflects individuals’ confidence in their
ability to apply control over their motivation, behavior, and social environment (American
Psychological Association, 2021; Bandura, 1977; 1997).
Intrinsic motivation functions as motivation marked by inherent satisfaction for
autonomy and competence without rewards, while external motivation relates to reward-driven
behavior and activities (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Moller, 2017).
Prior experience plays a role in subsequent behaviors. Adoption and adherence to
personal standards can bring a sense of satisfaction and self-worth (Bandura, 2001).
Technical knowledge expresses itself differently for faculty in the online classroom,
including various resources, tools, and communication platforms used for student engagement
(Wiesenmayer et al., 2008).
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One introduces the
study and its importance with background information on the problem. Chapter Two highlights
the relevant literature and the conceptual framework for the study. Chapter Three supplies the
7

research methodology. Chapter Four provides the results and findings. Chapter Five details the
proposed recommendations and opportunities for future research.

8

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review examines several major research areas connected to faculty
preparedness to teach online higher education courses. The review begins with an overview of
distance education, including historical context. Various distance education and online learning
strategies exist within the realm of distance education, supported by other key terms. The
literature review builds on the background information presented and then moves to online
higher education faculty and the interrelated personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that
affect faculty preparedness in the online environment. This section highlights ideas, theories, and
seminal research. The literature review also contains a brief discussion of emerging issues,
changing practices, and consideration for the potential for future improvements. It concludes
with a perspective on the guiding conceptual framework.
At the time of this writing, mandated responses to COVID-19 for higher education
institutions’ faculty and student safety remain in place. Evaluations, reflection on instructional
practices, the required modality shift to online coursework, and other accommodations from
2020 and 2021 within higher education institutions located domestically and abroad are emergent
and evolving (Rahiem, 2021; Rizun & Strzelecki, 2020). Many colleges and universities
executed continuity plans for spring and summer semesters in 2021 with speculative campaigns
to return to restricted or limited campus-based activities for the fall 2021 semester (Burke,
2021b). Continued health concerns and COVID variances also impacted some institutions’ start
of the spring 2022 semester. Anticipated assessments of educational practices are not yet
available for the current semester.
9

Background Information on Distance Education
Distance education serves as an umbrella term for content delivery and instruction
through which the means and modes of faculty and student engagement vary. Seaman et al.’s
(2018) definition of distance education uses technology to deliver instruction to students
dispersed from faculty. In other words, distance education occurs as a planned activity where
teaching happens in a different locale from learning. This act requires communication via
technology or institutional organization (Siemens et al., 2015). Interaction between students and
faculty may occur synchronously, meaning engagement occurs simultaneously or
asynchronously, meaning engagement does not happen at the same or concurrent time (Brown,
2021).
Looking back, distance education in its preliminary stages was rudimentary. The process
began with correspondence courses completed by mail with a time-elapsed exchange between
students and faculty (Kentor, 2015). Then, a model where content moved to radio and later to
television and interactive video developed (Kentor, 2015). Over time, the distance education
system transformed to its most current form as online education (Craig, 2015; Kentor, 2015;
Siemens et al., 2015). Pioneers in this field, such as Carnegie Mellon University, the Open
Learning Initiative, and others (Kentor, 2015), defined best practices in the early days of online
content delivery.
Types of Distance Learning
Variation exists within the sector of online education and its current iterations. Allen and
Seaman (2013) categorized online education as distance education that delivers most content
online. It may be helpful to note that while distance education and online education serve as
broad categories, the terms distance learning and online learning reflect distance and online
10

education outcomes. The following section defines descriptive terms, systems thinking, learning
types, and related online teaching and learning outputs.
Computer-mediated learning (CML) depicts activities where individuals learn
interactively formally, informally, synchronously, or asynchronously. Learners engage with
content via computer when the materials and pedagogy leverage technology (McFarlane, 2011).
This learning may occur via the methods and models described in this section, including
distance, online, electronic, virtual, distributed, blended, and mobile learning.
Distributed learning (Kirkley, 2012) aims for students to learn material over a long,
allocated period. This learning approach also relates to distributed learning environments that
allow interactive, learner-centered experiences using various resources. Correspondence courses
serve as one example of distributed learning practices.
Blended learning combines face-to-face learning and instruction with technology-based
practices (Ifenthaler, 2012a; Siemens et al., 2015). Often blended learning and hybrid learning
interchange in their instructional settings. Synonyms for this learning type include blended
online learning, flexible learning, hybrid learning, mixed-mode learning, and mixed eLearning.
Mobile learning refers to using mobile devices, often smartphones, or tablets, which
allow for any time or anywhere learning activities (Castillo et al., 2012). In essence, information
and knowledge are available to end-users just-in-time, on-demand as learning activities occur.
eLearning or mLearning are alternative names for this type of learning.
Siemens et al. (2015) represent online learning as a form of distance education where the
following occurs: (a) technology mediates the learning process, (b) one uses the internet as the
means and mode to deliver teaching, and (c) both students and faculty do not gather at the same
time. The scholars placed a point of distinction to contrast traditional distance education
11

instructional methods, as did Bowen (2015), for its non-static nature of learning. Sunal and
Wright (2012) likened this definition of online learning to focus on electronic technologies to
engage learners and facilitate learning. Similarly, McCormack and EDUCAUSE (2021) take a
comprehensive view of online learning from effective instructional design and planning, using
systematic design and development methodologies. Tamim (2020) concurred with the
established systems approach and showed how systems thinking defined online education
systems’ complexities for learning. The coursework offered under this umbrella may use course
or learning management systems (LMS) such as Blackboard, Canvas, and Moodle to house,
organize, and maintain content.
Tangential to online learning activities in higher education institutions, more extensive
enrollment options such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) also exist. Their enterprise
stemmed from the growing use of open educational resources (OERs) and utilized free digitized
materials and content for educators, students, and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching,
learning, and research (Mooc.org, 2021). As a non-profit model, edX served as a foundation for
learning and education, founded by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) (Mitchell et al., 2015). Alternatively, Coursera, a for-profit option originating
from Stanford University, drove innovation and challenged the business model to monetize
MOOCs (Bowen, 2015; McKenzie, 2021b).
Several higher education institutions outsource their online content design and program
management activities. For example, 2U appeared in 2012 as an online education provider to
multiple universities, which grew to more than 75 in 2021 (2U, 2021). While elite schools within
Top Tassel University utilize 2U’s curricula development, support, and maintenance services,
that organization and its products and services were not a focus of this study.
12

Returning to systems and strategy, the underpinnings of structured learning environment
design are associated with instructional design. Ifenthaler (2012b) defined instructional design as
methodical and cyclical: the approach is systematic, analytical, planned, developed,
implemented, and within the physical or virtual settings in which learning takes place. Learning
environments, instructional systems design, and instructional technology are all terms associated
with instructional design. Instructional design (ID) techniques appear in the classroom and the
workplace. The ID discipline centers on creating learning experiences. These experiences target
the acquisition, application, and execution of gained knowledge and skills (Association for
Training and Development, 2020). In some higher education organizations, faculty may be solely
responsible for learning design and instruction in their classrooms. Other models exist within
colleges and universities where ID professionals support faculty in developing their learning
design for students’ experiences for in-person and online higher education coursework (Beirne &
Romanoski, 2018; Booth, 2018; Olesova & Campbell, 2019). Widening the lens to include
instructional designers is not a primary motivation of this study or literature review. However,
instructional design support provides further context to higher education institutions’ processes
and teaching and learning practices (Saunders et al., 2020).
Given the larger context and backdrop of the different modes and means of online
learning and related instructional design and curriculum development approaches, it is possible
to reset current teaching and learning practices among the noted growth trend in online higher
education (Brown et al., 2020). The next section of this literature review emphasizes online
higher education faculty, the stakeholders for this study, and the elements faceting online
learning, including faculty’s self-efficacy, prior experience, and technical knowledge.
13

Online Higher Education Faculty Preparedness Factors
With faculty as central players within the online higher education domain, how do self-
efficacy, faculty behaviors, and environmental factors affect their performance? This section of
the literature review deliberates that question to examine major research areas related to faculty
preparation to teach online higher education courses. The first part begins with personal factors,
including the faculty’s motivation to teach online. The next facet relates to faculty’s technical
knowledge and technology acceptance and adoption practices. A dimension related to faculty’s
subject matter expertise and prior experience connected with their online course preparations and
professional development follows.
Another aspect of this literature review is faculty’s self-efficacy and satisfaction in online
coursework. Further consideration surfaces in the following literature review segment, focusing
on the behavioral and environmental factors that affect faculty preparedness, including
professional development and pedagogical practices. Together, these elements contribute to
faculty preparedness and support faculty’s success in the online higher education classroom
when present.
The concluding section contemplates potential improvements in the online learning
environment experience based on current and emerging issues and instructional best practices.
This part reflects earlier findings of the historical context and past research, challenges and
barriers, stakeholders’ characteristics, and underlying reasons to continue studying this practice
problem in the literature. Promising approaches and developing strategies for addressing the
situation may surface from the information discussed throughout this literature review and
further research.
14

Personal Factors
The first segment focuses on the personal factors of online faculty, including motivation.
Technical knowledge and related technology acceptance and adoption practices follow. Next,
there is a review of subject matter expertise and prior experience dynamics. Online course
preparations and professional development receive further attention. The section culminates in a
greater concentration on faculty’s self-efficacy and satisfaction in online coursework.
Motivation
Motivation is a central element to successful faculty performance in the online classroom.
With this expanse of potential causal factors, evidence reveals that motivation manifests itself in
several ways throughout the literature. Hampton and Yin (2016) discussed the role of motivation
and its sources for teaching faculty in their earlier research meta-analysis. They found
contributing factors stemmed from demographic traits, personal characteristics, levels of
teaching, values, prior teaching and learning experiences, social and cultural contexts, and
working environments. In agreement with Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011), who determined that
motivation was intertwined with learners’ sense of identity, Hampton and Yin (2016) concluded
that motivation originates from diverse sources via a wide array of approaches. From a
motivational viewpoint, one motivational driver can be the sense of who people are and how they
relate socially to the world, allowing them to align with what they want to be in the future. While
aligned with social cognitive theory, status alone is not the sole cause of faculty motivation.
Bunk et al.’s (2015) study showed the importance of excitement in positive attitudes (i.e., faculty
motivation) concerning distance or online education. In their participant survey, results indicated
that feelings of excitement versus fear mediated the relationships between online teaching
experience and the outcome variables, which underscored why and to what extent online
15

teaching experience related to outcomes. Hunt et al.’s (2014) study, often cited by fellow
researchers, found that faculty who possessed knowledge teaching a course entirely online were
more motivated by various factors. These factors included flexibility in delivery, personal
interest, financial stipends, reassigned time, the opportunity for innovation, and the ability to
meet student interests and student needs. Their participant survey focused on technology-,
student-, pedagogical-, and institution-related concerns. All surveyed categories of interest
strongly and positively correlated with all types of faculty motivation.
Similarly, McGee et al. (2017) investigated the characteristics of experienced online
faculty members. They cited the lack of incentives or motivation as a challenge for faculty’s
success in the online classroom. Their modified Delphi survey results showed top-ranked
elements that support online faculty developing expertise, including the recognition,
encouragement, and reward (i.e., motivation) for faculty teaching online at their home
institutions. Remaining focused on faculty, researchers inquired deeper into other factors that
affect faculty motivation. Alsharif and Qi (2014) concentrated their research on the effects of
faculty attitude, enthusiasm, and teaching styles. They emphasized these elements’ existence in
conjunction with faculty’s critical reflection and ongoing assessment and instructional
refinements to support students’ learning goals and educational outcomes. The highest
correlation occurred between instructor enthusiasm and student intrinsic motivation in their
three-year study of distance and onsite education pharmacy doctoral students. Concerning
motivation, colleagues Snook et al. (2019) dove deeper into faculty categories and their status.
Their work locked in on the differences between adjuncts or sessional educators and full-time,
tenured healthcare faculty in Iceland. Survey results from the tenure-track and sessional faculty
indicated different connectedness levels and a motivating propensity for sessional faculty to
16

improve their teaching by trying new instructional methods. Digital methods surfaced as
effective means for professional development akin to the learning environment where they
taught.
The digital or online learning environment’s size and shape are elastic. Courses and
programs may scale to fit enrollment needs and targets, which serve as motivational drivers and
levers to student engagement. Young Doo et al. (2020) considered faculty’s interface and their
associated motivation to teach within MOOCs as larger-course enrollment options. A mixed-
methods study of an online survey and interviews informed the intrinsic motivation factors of
MOOC instructors. Asynchronous communication functioned as the primary mode of content
instruction with limited student engagement. Instructors perceived that MOOC teaching
positively influenced their professional development. Hew (2016) examined the strategies of
highly rated MOOCs to decide what worked to promote and sustain engagement, in other words,
what kept learners and faculty motivated. This qualitative study engaged participants and
underscored instructors’ roles, course resources, and academic practices in successful online
learning in the broader online course format. Chickering and Gamson (1987) noted active
learning opportunities surfaced as essential, along with effective teaching practices, to include
contact between students and faculty, communication between students, active learning, receipt
of prompt feedback, respect for diverse students, and their ways of learning. While faculty’s
motivation varies with their level of experience and comfort with the online environment, it is
also essential to explore the impact of technical knowledge on faculty’s online classroom
experience.
17

Technical Knowledge
Technical savviness, including accepting and adapting to technology, is central to the
online faculty’s successful navigation and online classroom structure for instruction. Technical
knowledge manifests itself in diverse ways for faculty in the online classroom. Faculty may
organize their knowledge differently as functions of their experience, the nature of their
knowledge, and its role in their work (Elliot, 2018). Reflected in the Chronicle remote teaching
survey (Williams June, 2020), 37% of faculty reported technical obstacles caused by
unfamiliarity or lack of knowledge of the required tools and learning management systems for
instruction and student engagement, thus impeding their performance. Other industry experts
noted expedited technology transition challenges during the period of educational responsiveness
to COVID-19 (Brooks & Crajek, 2020; Lederman, 2020a).
Technology use, acceptance, and adoption rates provide insight into online faculty
preparedness. Cherry and Flora (2017) charted accredited radiologic technology program faculty.
Their findings gathered via the virtual learning environment (VLE) effectiveness model showed
that faculty’s effectiveness in online courses improved with their competent use of technology.
Technological self-efficacy begot technical consumption: radiography faculty members were
more likely to use technology-enhanced learning methods when they possessed technological
self-efficacy. Buchanan et al.’s (2013) study identified faculty’s perceived usefulness of the
learning technology (LT) tools, along with structural constraints within the university setting, as
primary barriers to technology adoption in the online classroom. Their survey-based study found
Internet self-efficacy significantly related to technology adoption among university faculty in the
United Kingdom. Lower technology use rates corresponded with the less perceived usefulness
and inhibiting conditions of the LT tools by faculty (Buchanan et al., 2013). Bove and Conklin’s
18

(2019) study highlighted two characteristics central to faculty’s comfort with technology in the
online classroom and the LMS. The researchers focused on usefulness and ease of use through
the lens of the seminal technology acceptance model (TAM) devised by Davis (1989) since
TAM provided a framework to assess technology attitudes. In essence, TAM proposed that if
users found the technology easy to use, they perceived it helpful. Huang et al. (2019) explored
Chinese English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ attitudes about technology adoption and
use. The research team also leveraged the TAM (Davis, 1989) and dug further into technology
acceptance’s psychological tenets. This qualitative study established that the faculty interviewed
kept a positive attitude toward technology. Overall, they figured out the teachers’ perception of
technology utility as the highest in two areas: context to student motivation and engagement and
providing additional information sources relevant to their work. One significant difference in this
work’s findings to other studies was the Chinese university system’s learning and organizational
culture.
Continuing with the through-line topic of technology and acceptance and potential
barriers or challenges, Buchanan et al.’s study (2013) identified faculty’s perceived usefulness of
the learning technology (LT) tools, along with structural constraints within the university setting,
as primary barriers to technology adoption in the online classroom. Their survey-based study
found internet self-efficacy significantly related to technology adoption among faculty at a
university in the United Kingdom. Lower technology use rates corresponded with lessened
perceived usefulness and inhibiting the LT tools’ conditions (Buchanan et al., 2013). Similarly,
Pomerantz and Brooks (2017) found faculty play critical roles in shaping technology’s
experience for their students in the online classroom. Their work with the EDUCAUSE Center
for Analysis and Research (ECAR) study of faculty and information technology revealed that
19

when faculty were not supportive of the benefits or capabilities of LT, they tended not to use the
LT tools. This non-use created a gap between student experience and faculty practice in the
online classroom.
During the COVID-19 pandemic and related academic sessions, other gaps surfaced.
Conditions forced a shift to digital materials and increased use and reliance on LT in practice for
both faculty and students (Brooks & Grajek, 2020; Selingo et al., 2021). Completed fall 2020
semester evaluations lent more insights into the challenges and advantages of online faculty
technology and technology adoption practices. Fox et al. (2021) reported online faculty
members’ increased contact with digital tools allowed them to experiment with different
approaches and instructional strategies to support struggling students. Highlighted beneficial LT
included various asynchronous materials, modular content and learning outcomes, engagement
and collaboration tools, holistic assessment, individualized student outreach, and online
proctoring tools for exams (Fox et al., 2021).
Online faculty commonly used videoconferencing tools and an LMS as standard practices
during the pandemic. Furthermore, in 2020, videoconferencing experienced the most significant
exposure to new adopters, with 85% of faculty surveyed reporting novice use (Fox et al., 2021).
The findings from this team (Fox et al., 2021) showed faculty who relied heavily upon video
conferencing without integrating other digital strategies and LTs struggled slightly more and
rated their experience more negatively (21%) than those who took a comprehensive approach to
online instruction (47%). Overall, despite the newness in technology adoption processes in this
targeted period, faculty rated elevated satisfaction levels with a range of digital tools and LT.
These examples highlight how online higher education faculty’s ability to accept, adapt to, and
use technology effectively affects their classroom performance. The effects of self-efficacy and
20

satisfaction on online faculty’s success in the online classroom build on their motivation and
technical knowledge.
Self-Efficacy and Satisfaction
Self-efficacy binds individuals and their actions in a social context. Bandura’s (1977,
1997) seminal work determined self-efficacy stems from the belief that individuals can execute
necessary behaviors to attain specific performance. It is essential to acknowledge the
interconnectedness between people, such as faculty and students, their environment, such as the
online learning space, and their behavior, such as self-regulation, teaching, and practices related
to student engagement (Bandura, 2001; Cherry & Flora, 2017). These adaptation elements, self-
development, attitude, and change cause higher education faculty to struggle or thrive within
their online teaching environment.
Self-efficacy postulates that individuals conduct certain behaviors to fulfill specific goals
and is associated with persistence and motivation. With achieved performance, online higher
education faculty may also experience satisfaction for meeting challenges. Marasi et al. (2020)
correlated the overall satisfaction of faculty with their online instruction experience. Their study
focused on higher education faculty in the United States based on Herzberg’s two-factor theory
(Herzberg et al., 1959). They found job-related motivators such as flexibility and reachability
addressed satisfaction the most (Lederman, 2020b; Marasi et al., 2020). Akbarilakeh et al. (2019)
considered faculty members’ attitudes toward the use of eLearning and their success with its use
within health-related curricula. While based on work completed at the University of Colorado,
the researchers’ cross-sectional study focused on faculty within the Shahid Beheshti University
of Medical Sciences. Primary factors measured included feelings of self-efficacy, perceived
enjoyment or sense of interest, perceived usefulness, intention to use, and satisfaction with the
21

use of eLearning. Overall, findings proved positive attitudes a general sense of pride with
eLearning. Gaps in organizational support and access left the most substantial number of faculty
unsatisfied with eLearning. Saunders et al. (2020) reviewed staff attitudes related to distance
learning with a tighter focus on the challenges, opportunities, and impacts of discipline-specific
practices in engineering curricula at the University of Manchester. Their study to convert
program content for the online modality engaged a large audience, including academic staff,
faculty, and instructional designers. Results revealed several challenges and opportunities as they
gathered pedagogy, technology, institutional practices, and their staff and internal support to one
another.
The transition from traditional, face-to-face instruction to online instruction is an
opportunity for more faculty growth because of development in the online higher education
space. Hampton et al. (2020) examined the level of teaching self-efficacy and satisfaction in
online nursing faculty study. The team confirmed professional development and increased
experience teaching online facilitated greater levels of faculty self-efficacy. Further, those who
received mentoring, technical support, and course development time were significantly more
satisfied. Horvitz et al. (2015) reviewed faculty’s challenges in transitioning to teaching online.
Using the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), they measured self-efficacy for online
faculty, a model developed and validated by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). Factors that
most highly influenced faculty self-efficacy included perceptions of student learning, online
teaching satisfaction, and online teaching longevity. They suggested directions for professional
development training and support interventions.
The transition to online teaching and learning is not without faculty and student
challenges (Lederman, 2020c; Mitchell et al., 2015). With consideration to opportunities and
22

boundaries, Neroni et al. (2018) focused on distance education students of all ages at the Open
University of the Netherlands in a study conducted over 14 months of learning. Their mixed -
model results showed students’ performance goal orientation as a positive predictor of their
academic performance. The team also found that performance and work avoidance tendencies
were negative academic predictors for students’ success. While this research centered on online
students, the study supplied insights applicable to online faculty and other adult learners to tie in
self-efficacy practices for heightened success potential.
Furthermore, to tie action with potential success, Vilppu et al. (2019) also zoomed in on
the effect of brief online pedagogical training on university teachers’ interpretations of teaching-
learning situations. A theme appears in that professional development, institutional support,
modeling, and feedback contribute to online faculty satisfaction and increased self-efficacy in
their teaching practices. It is necessary to consider how online faculty members’ prior experience
manifests in their faculty preparedness.
Prior Experience
Prior experience plays a role in subsequent behaviors. Faculty members adopt and adhere
to personal standards, monitor, regulate, and take actions that bring them a sense of satisfaction
and self-worth (Bandura, 2001). There is variation in how prior experience affects online faculty
preparedness within the literature. Adnan and Boz (2015) confirmed that prior online learning
experience helps faculty teaching in this environment. Their qualitative study of mathematics
faculty in Turkey documented that those with previous experience had a more positive outlook
about using online tools and technologies to teach math. Their interviews also revealed the
benefits of a hybrid approach, using online and face-to-face classroom elements. Similar to
Bandura’s (2001) viewpoints, Elliot et al. (2018) noted the role of experience in analogous
23

contexts as a considerable influence on learners’ success. The authors acknowledged how
experts created and made meaningful schema based on their previous experiences, a step that
novices cannot, which applied to students and faculty. The context provides a frame to consider
pandemic-related actions at higher education institutions. Brammer and Clark (2020) discussed
the instructional shift in business schools in Asia, Australia, and the United Kingdom due to the
COVID-19 response. Their faculty’s prior experience collectively provided a continuity of
instruction, where faculty adapted their existing pedagogical and assessment practices to the
online modality. However, this intense effort significantly increased faulty workload pressure,
affected quality assurance practices, and challenged governance models.
As a counterpoint to the other studies presented, Badia et al. (2017) investigated the
factors that influenced fully online teachers in their faculty study at the University of Catalonia
in Spain. Their results in this area contrasted with others. They concluded that because limited
research related to prior experience existed and drawing from their findings, they could not
correlate the experience factor with faculty’s success in the classroom. Their study revealed that
gender, education level, and subject areas taught did not affect online faculty teaching success.
Instead, factors such as age, online teacher dedication, academic background, and teachers’ roles
prevailed over prior experience as determinants to online teaching approaches and instructional
preferences.
Pivoting to more recent data and the influence of COVID-19 on online education, the
Chronicle’s remote teaching survey completed by Williams June (2020) also revealed most
faculty (74%) felt somewhat or very confident in their ability to teach entirely or primarily online
in fall 2020. These results followed faculty’s recently gained and prior experience teaching in the
online modality. While higher education faculty’s experience levels with the online environment
24

vary, it is essential to explore the impact of environmental factors on faculty in the online
classroom, with greater attention to organizational considerations.
Behavioral Factors
Behavioral factors provide further insights into the facets of online faculty preparedness.
The following section delves into select pedagogical practices and related professional activities
as behavior can signal future success. Vital to Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy model is how
individuals conduct behaviors to attain targeted performance. Application of pedagogy and
professional development encompasses various events, including supporting organizational
routines, creating space for humanization, causing disruption, leading innovation, widening
professional development within learning organizations, and using mentorship models for online
teaching and learning within higher education institutions.
Digital Pedagogical and Design Practices
In an arena of evolving instructional strategies, pedagogy forms a foundation to sound
educational practices for faculty to follow. Digital strategies may incorporate learning methods
such as hyflex content (Beatty, 2021; Stachowiak, 2021), a design model that bridges hybrid
learning with flexible course structure for classroom sessions online, offline, or a combination of
both (EDUCAUSE, 2010). A flipped classroom model (Brame, 2013) may also serve as an
alternative example of a blended approach where students interact with new material outside of
the classroom and then engage with one another to assimilate their knowledge collectively in
structured activities. Limperos et al. (2015) and Kaufmann and Tatum’s (2017) research centered
on a school of practice where multimodal content and replication positively influenced students’
online environment. Another pedagogical trend focuses on the humanization of content within a
digital realm. Mehta and Aguilera (2020) concentrated on inclusive design and its benefits and
25

challenges in the online domain. The creation of participatory media intersected with
racialization issues while faculty influenced or constrained material, structural, and institutional
realities. The scholars raised caution to the potentially negative impacts of universal design on
students if online faculty are not mindful of expanding their course design, development, and
instructional efforts.
Challenges may also lend themselves to teaching innovations. Tate et al. (2018) delved
into the organizational routines of teaching and implementing a flipped classroom model to
redistribute content across learning modalities in their study of new learning technologies and
supporting pedagogy in New Zealand. Their research found significant pain points related to
organizational change and risk around pedagogy, ranging from content and curriculum to
learning assessment to digital content management. Other challenges surfaced within program
management, including coordination, supporting processes, and student recruitment for the new
model. The more engaged and involved the faculty were with the change, the more comfortable
they felt. Their work underscores the relationship between faculty behavior and performance.
Continuing to reflect on current circumstances, the faculty’s response to disruption can foster
innovation. The impacts and effects of COVID-19 opened dialogue into areas of need and
attention, such as faculty’s ability to deal with students’ perceptions and reality under strain and
stress, highlighted in recent studies of transitioning to online chemical engineering programs in
Algeria and medical programs in Poland (Bączek et al., 2021; Blizak et al., 2020). Managing
online classroom activities and structured learning beyond normal circumstances and
expectations from a pedagogical perspective remained paramount to faculty, despite the
challenges to keep students connected and engaged with the rigorous professional program
curricula. This grounding in pedagogy extends to continuous, ongoing professional development
26

efforts to keep online faculty engaged, informed, and effective in the online classroom and
learning environment.
Environmental Factors
This segment focuses on environmental factors that affect faculty preparedness, such as
internal support and professional development, such as organizational structure in the online
higher education domain. Other mitigating or extenuating external factors presented in this
section include environmental factors that may affect faculty preparedness under unusual
circumstances. An area receiving attention is the potential impact of organizational structure on
online faculty preparedness.
Organizational Structure
Organizational structure varies across professional domains, including higher education,
and influences administrative activities. An organizational structure defines how activities
support goals, aims, decision-making, communication, and workflows (SHRM, 2015). Within
higher educational institutions, centralized, vertical, or divisional structures such as colleges,
schools, divisions, and departments exist along with more decentralized or horizontal units for
functional activities such as policy, first-year experience, knowledge transfer, service learning, or
student services (Brescia et al., 2016; Keeling et al., 2007). However, other types and models
such as matrix or integrated organizational structures or those structures centered on and aligned
to students’ learning experiences may exist to support ongoing academic operations (Keeling et
al., 2007). Structural factors affect internal constituents, including faculty, and while not unique
to online higher education institutions, often amplified due to technological inflections
(McFarlane, 2011). Alemu and Shea (2019) approached direction taking and decision-making
through higher education institutions’ organizational structure diagnoses. Their multi-faceted
27

study supplied a means of evaluation and underscored the need to treat organizations differently,
recognizing variables in size, structure, function, and performance. The variables investigated
ranged from leadership and employees to the culture of professionalism and care to
organizational policy. These aspects aligned most closely with the ability to function effectively
tied to the organizational structure formed via leadership practices. Concerning faculty
performance, Alemu and Shea (2019) confirmed that a higher education institution’s
infrastructural design and leadership created the potential work path to achieve the desired tasks.
Sometimes, gaps in communication and ability surfaced from issues attributed to organizational
structures.
Turning to another organizational structure area, issues inside higher education
institutions surface from within their functional units via horizontal forces such as ingrained
collective practices. With more attention given to information technology (IT)-related elements
within the organizational structure, Matern (2019) named the need for increased communication
to support stakeholders, including online faculty. Pain points surfaced in a particular case
involving Harvard Business School and the launch of its HBX program in 2014. With the
eLearning platform in use, its administrative support and users collaboratively tested the learning
and student engagement practices and the system’s capacity. Continuing to discuss
organizational structure challenges, Engel-Hills et al. (2020) investigated how organizational
structure influenced and inhibited compliance and ethical work within South African technical
higher education institutions or technikons. Their study tracked the use of value-based decision-
making and monitored relationship mapping to create its institutional accountability hierarchy.
Of note, the study recognized the complex structure and intersection between academics and the
technical fields of practice of faculty and the institution’s strategic direction. Alternative
28

scenarios presented were hypothetical, with proposed rebuilding or establishing advanced
techniques offered. The tension and reality of stakeholders and faculty’s situation reflected
practical issues, providing space to explore other supporting functions and organizational
departments.
With an understanding of broader organizational structure challenges or those specific to
internal functions such as IT, other challenges may surface when higher education institutions
transition from face-to-face instruction to online teaching and learning course offerings.
Saunders et al. (2020) considered the opportunities, challenges, and effects of engineering
programs redesigned for online learning. While reviewing recrafted distance education curricula
within a research-focused university in the United Kingdom, concerns surfaced. Primarily
affected were pedagogy, technology, and the institution’s faculty and students. In this instance,
the presence of academic support staff (i.e., instructional designers) created a reprieve to
faculty’s workload concerns. However, further integration of the online curricula created other
faculty preparation strains and challenged their knowledge of the required technology to support
the online engineering coursework. Menon and Seresh (2020) devoted their research to higher
education institutions’ organizational traits and qualities, emphasizing agility and the factors that
make this flexibility possible at scale. Using the total interpretive structural modeling (TISM)
model, the researchers encountered and measured factors that made agility instrumental to higher
education institutions with their work conducted in India. These factors included the ability to
gauge the environment, organizational structure, information communication technology (ICT)
adoption, organizational learning, human resource strategies, leadership, preparedness for
change, and stakeholder collaboration. As shown throughout this section, higher education
institutions’ organizational structure is one aspect of online faculty preparedness’s environmental
29

factors. Faculty professional development is an additional environmental factor to assess and
deconstruct in the context of readiness for quality online instruction.
Professional Development
Professional development activities extend faculty’s expertise and experience within the
constructs of the online classroom. Rhode et al.’s (2017) study found that self-assessment of
crucial attributes and skills needed for online teaching such as experience and attitudes, learning
management system proficiency, and access to technology contribute to faculty professional
development efforts for online classroom success. Their study reflected faculty who completed a
self-assessment and received a personalized framework for professional development. Overall,
areas of greatest professional development needs tracked in this study included more effective
student communication techniques via the LMS. Kane et al.’s (2016) associated research
revealed faculty longevity led to student satisfaction over professional development activities
alone. This study’s selected faculty participants stemmed from specific criteria in an archived
data set of an online public university in the United States. The researchers extrapolated that
ongoing professional development activities served as a tool for faculty retention, which
supported faculty’s experience and students’ satisfaction within the online classroom. Kunst et
al. (2018) studied Dutch teachers in vocational education and examined the relationship between
their goal orientation profiles and participation in professional development activities for
classroom preparation and instruction. The researchers proved that faculty with a high learning
and performance goal-oriented approach scored much higher on their success-oriented profile.
In contrast, faculty members with a high-avoidance profile were much less apt to ask for
feedback or acquire information as part of their professional development activities. Of note,
individual characteristics related to age, work experience, and gender created distinguishing
30

factors in faculty’s goal orientation profiles. Delving deeper into supporting systems and
infrastructure, Mohr and Shelton (2017) identified essential professional development activities
for higher education online faculty. These events may be most effective when offered through a
teaching and learning center. Using the Delphi method, this multi-round survey of educational
experts named a set of best practices. Results fell within four categories: faculty roles, online
classroom design, learning processes, and legal issues to address faculty teaching’s ongoing
professional development needs online. Professional development practices contribute to online
faculty’s onboarding efforts and the continuous refinement of their teaching and learning
practices within the online classroom. In sum, individual faculty performance often drives self-
efficacy and satisfaction.
With ranges of professional development and in-service models for faculty and teacher
preparation and ongoing education in place, gaps may continue to exist within systems or across
curricula (Bernstein, 2019). Training may not be available to all faculty members via convenient
formats, effective delivery, or appropriate times (Bernstein, 2019). Several studies noted ways to
address faculty challenges via peer mentoring, highly designed professional development events
and training, and unstructured conferences (Bernstein, 2019; Olesova & Campbell, 2019; Vaill &
Testori, 2012). Bernstein monitored the unconference model’s use to bring faculty together from
different institutes within a geographic region. In this case, participants were all attendees from
California for peer-to-peer learning via the Online Education Initiative (OEI). The educators
faced a common goal with finding ways and showing strategies to address deficiencies between
face-to-face and online student learning performance and student success rates. Two outputs
from the faculty’s collaborative work included developing an online course rubric for improved
31

course design and learning assessment and creating a mentoring program that partnered more
seasoned online faculty with those new to online teaching.
Other approaches to faculty professional development, such as Vaill and Testori’s (2012)
work, tracked the efforts of faculty transitioning to online education at Bay Path College in
Massachusetts and acknowledged faculty found themselves underprepared in roles as learning
facilitators in the online modality. The researchers reflected on the needs of novice and
experienced online faculty who benefit from organized, professional development happenings to
keep their skills sufficient to support classroom activities and student success. Ultimately, Vaill
and Testori determined a positive correlation between solid training (i.e., professional
development) and online faculty support. The school’s Center for Distributed Learning (CDL)
was essential in setting up and supporting three primary modules: (a) an orientation aimed to
supply pedagogical and technical information, (b) a mentorship program to pair faculty learning
and increased communication at the peer level, and (c) ongoing faculty support services to
ensure positive experiences for students and educators. Olesova and Campbell (2018) examined
instructional design principles and online instructional methods via mentorship to improve online
courses at a mid-Atlantic university in the United States. The team leveraged a highly
collaborative model at this institution to utilize networking capabilities across a broader range of
faculty, prior experience, and abilities. Efforts centered on efficiency, competency, motivation,
working relationships, and open-mindedness. A key takeaway from this work is the
interconnectedness of the online course design to its execution. Furthermore, the possibility that
partnerships and peer engagement across functional areas could provide academic staff,
including instructional designers and faculty members, greater opportunities for collaboration
and support for refined teaching and learning practices remain promising in the online domain.
32

The following section looks more closely at emerging issues and potential solutions based on
changing practices within this field of online education.
Emerging Issues and Changing Practices
This literature review segment recognizes emerging issues for potential changes, impacts,
and improvements within the online teaching and learning environment experience based on
contemporary events, acknowledging that challenges and barriers exist. This section identifies
online faculty as primary stakeholders in the online teaching space and their contributing
characteristics and underlying reasons for this problem of practice. Furthermore, this part
preludes to future opportunities and forward-thinking, recognizing that internal and external
elements along with personal, behavioral, and environmental factors continue to affect ongoing
educational operations at the time of this writing.
In recent years, the response to COVID-19 brought additional issues to light, such as
faculty and student well-being, including loneliness and other mental health issues (Burke,
2021a; Kaufmann & Vallade, 2020; Williams June, 2021). Data collected for New Way and
Third America higher education interest entities in December 2020 showed that most students
surveyed were concerned about their mental health, increasing from summer 2020 (Burke,
2021a; Global Strategy Group, 2020). Kaufmann and Vallade (2020) underscored the importance
of faculty’s ability to build and keep rapport and climate with students in their research. They
advocated for further investigation into communication and learning theories to enhance the
online learners’ experience. Addressing mental well-being was a theme Williams June (2021)
probed further in their research, tracking students’ struggles such as stress, anxiety, depression,
loneliness, and thoughts of suicide at increased rates during the pandemic and faculty’s ability to
respond throughout 2020.
33

Aside from personal challenges, technology, accessibility, and digital divides surfaced as
barriers to online teaching and remote learning (Baticulon et al., 2021; Coman et al., 2021;
McKenzie, 2021b; Sutton, 2020). Baticulon et al. (2021) discussed the obstacles to online
learning from medical students’ perspectives in the Philippines. Tensions surfaced with the
adjustment in learning modality, requirements for juggling school and personal responsibilities,
and poor communication between faculty and students. Faculty-driven, student-centered
interventions proved invaluable during the pandemic to support students’ ability to overcome
their challenges. Coman et al. (2021) considered the challenges Romanian students experienced
during the pandemic. Their hierarchy of highest-rated challenges with technology issues
continued with faculty’s technical abilities, online adaptability, and communication concerns. As
technology issues were difficult to address, several recommendations prepared faculty
systematically for online instruction via professional development and other technical support
services.
Other services suffered or experienced gaps during the shift to online remote learning.
McKenzie (2021a) chronicled enduring issues with the ability of faculty to support students with
accessibility requests and concerns, including students with eyesight impairments and other
visual limitations. The dependency on graphic materials continued to strain blind students when
accommodations were unavailable for online coursework. Video conferencing software,
including screen-sharing tools, often disadvantaged these students for informational resources
where screen-reading technology failed to address content gaps. Similarly, the Association on
Higher Education And Disability (AHEAD, 2020) surveyed students with disabilities and
reported more difficulties experienced during the online learning transition than their peers in the
same timeframe and circumstances.
34

Spanning from learning tools and technology challenges, perceptions, and experiences
about online learning caused more reflection on best practices and formal and informal online
education approaches (Lederman, 2020d; Wang et al., 2020). In March 2020, Lederman (2020a)
curated a range of insights from higher educational professionals’ perspectives. Thought leaders
in the higher education space postulated the need for increased leadership, improved technology
and tools, and a renewed focus on outcomes to address the rapid online modality shift. Perceived
usefulness (Wang et al., 2020) also surfaced as a more significant consideration for educators to
weigh and balance students’ evaluation and satisfaction of online learning practices. Finally, in
finding a better way to address barriers, increased partnership with faculty, staff, and other
educational professionals such as instructional designers and technicians, may help all involved
in the online teaching and learning higher educational system (Bao, 2020; Dhawan, 2020). The
concluding part of this literature review draws on and from a conceptual framework targeted on
Bandura’s social cognitive theory with further consideration to personal, behavioral, social, and
environmental factors.
Conceptual Framework
A research study’s conceptual framework determines how to explore a problem best and
define the relationship between different variables (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). This study’s
theoretical framework was the social cognitive theory (SCT). SCT lends itself to self-
development, adaptation, and change (Bandura, 2001). The theory postulates the
interconnectedness between people, their environment, and their behavior. Further, self-efficacy
is a central tenet and binds individuals and their actions. The self-efficacy model shows how
individuals conduct behaviors to reach targeted performance goals and aims (Bandura, 1977,
1997).
35

Applying SCT to this problem of practice allowed for an examination of online faculty
preparation in a social context. The theory postulates the interrelation between people such as
faculty, staff, and students, their environment in the context of online courses, academic
programs, and institutions, and their behaviors such as self-regulation and teaching. SCT also
accounts for faculty’s motivational activity and beliefs where experiences contribute to their
ensuing behaviors. Faculty may adopt and adhere to personal and professional standards, monitor
and regulate their actions, and perform in ways that bring them a sense of satisfaction and self-
worth (Bandura, 2001). It was paramount to recognize self-efficacy’s influence via individual
capabilities and the environmental aspects of online teaching and learning experience.
Approaching this problem of practice of online faculty preparation for quality instruction
through a pragmatic research lens lent itself to common-sense solutions while focusing on
continuous improvement and developing best practices (Saunders et al., 2020) for future
adoption and implementation. Online faculty’s engagement and familiarity with educational
products remain essential to students’ learning, online experience, and success outside of the
classroom. Acknowledged throughout this literature review and for this study, several items were
crucial: (a) recognizing what influences faculty preparedness, (b) acknowledging how this
preparedness occurs, and (c) understanding faculty’s self-efficacy, motivation, technical skills,
and experience as substantial components of their professional development and success.
The following schema (Figure 1) represents an approach to online faculty preparedness in
alignment with social cognitive theory. Personal, social, environmental, and behavioral factors
interconnect and interrelate. Driven by individual factors and characteristics, including greater
motivation, sharpened technical skills, leveraged prior experience, and increased self-efficacy,
faculty may access and take advantage of their online teaching and learning environment. This
36

supporting structure and its organizational culture of which faculty interact are captured and
categorized as social and environmental factors in the illustration. Thus, together, these elements
allow faculty to reinforce behavioral factors such as informed pedagogical practices and refined
professional development in an improved online teaching and learning environment with
increased preparedness. The potential for additional, emerging best practices and positive change
within this field provides a catalyst for further research and resolution to the problem of practice.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

37

Conclusion
External factors and anticipated demand continued to drive the need for more and better-
quality online courses (Kaufmann & Vallade, 2020; McKenzie, 2020). It is possible to promote
faculty’s self-efficacy and related satisfaction to teach online, leverage prior experience, and
increase technical knowledge (Hunt et al., 2014). In tandem, these actions may bolster faculty’s
success in the online higher education learning environment. The role of self-efficacy, individual
faculty capabilities, and the online teaching and learning experience’s environmental factors
remain central to faculty preparedness for quality online instruction.

38

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of self-efficacy, faculty capabilities,
and environmental factors related to online higher education faculty preparedness. Chapter Two
reviewed relevant literature regarding the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors central
to online faculty preparedness. In alignment with the conceptual framework based on Bandura’s
social cognitive theory, this chapter recalls the primary research questions of the study. This
section overviews the research methodology and details the study’s mixed-method approach,
participants, data collection, and analyses, concluding with acknowledging the study’s
limitations and delimitations.
Research Questions
1. How do sources of self-efficacy for online teaching impact faculty preparation?
2. How do faculty prepare for teaching online?
3. How does the online environment impact faculty preparation?
Overview of Design
This study utilized mixed methods research, data collection, and analysis. I gathered data
using a survey and interviews for the first research question. The survey captured self-efficacy
factors and sources as ratings. Interviews allowed for more in-depth question-asking of faculty
about the impact of self-efficacy on their work from online higher education faculty at the
study’s targeted institution, Class Best College. The interview questions probed further into self-
efficacy-related factors and their impact on Class Best faculty.
The study integrated queries into the interview protocol and survey items to gather
qualitative and quantitative data for the first research question. The interview questions and
survey items captured facets of self-efficacy for online teaching. For the second and third
39

research questions, completed interviews compiled data via qualitative means. Interviews of
online higher education faculty at Class Best College allowed for more in-depth inquiries and
insights into online faculty’s prior experience.
Research Setting
The study’s target audience was over 90 currently appointed adjunct online faculty
members in graduate-level professional degree programs from the regionally accredited Class
Best College within the private Top Tassel University. The college offers online graduate-level
professional studies programs in various applied management disciplines using an instructional
design-driven curricula development and management model. The Class Best faculty taught
online before and during the university’s COVID-19 response, providing a baseline to
instructional practices for intentionally designed and delivered online curricula. This research
setting allowed for the investigation of self-efficacy for online teaching, faculty capabilities, and
environmental factors related to higher education faculty preparedness. See Table 1 for details.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions
Method 1
(Survey)
Method 2
(Interviews)
RQ1: How do sources of self-efficacy for online teaching
impact faculty preparation?
X X
RQ2: How do faculty prepare for teaching online?
X
RQ3: How does the online environment impact faculty
preparation?
X

40

Research Setting
The study’s target audience was over 90 currently appointed adjunct online faculty
members in graduate-level professional degree programs from the regionally accredited Class
Best College within the private Top Tassel University. The college offers online graduate-level
professional studies programs in various applied management disciplines using an instructional
design-driven curricula development and management model. The Class Best faculty taught
online before and during the university’s COVID-19 response, providing a baseline to
instructional practices for intentionally designed and delivered online curricula. This research
setting allowed for the investigation of self-efficacy for online teaching, faculty capabilities, and
environmental factors related to higher education faculty preparedness.
The Researcher
I am employed as staff and lead project-based, virtual teams for online graduate-level
curriculum design, course development, and program management at Class Best College for this
study’s context, research interests, and professional environment. In addition to responsibilities
at Class Best, I was actively engaged in collaboration with teaching faculty and administrative
staff from another college within Top Tassel University to launch a new, applied professional
master’s degree in the fall semester of 2021. I direct a team of instructional designers and
faculty, geographically dispersed and actively involved in creating a roadmap to support an
internal, collaborative alternative to the university’s external online program management
(OPM) model.
Even before COVID-related events, I reflected on the preparedness of higher education
online faculty and their classroom success. This study approached the problem of practice
through a pragmatic lens, where faculty aimed to find common-sense solutions to issues while
41

focusing on continuous improvement and best practices (Saunders et al., 2020). In the spirit of
the late Justice Ginsburg’s ethos, managing positive, incremental personal, value-oriented, and
ethical changes is something I value in supporting progress toward more extensive, enduring
organizational change efforts. This viewpoint meshed with my axiology to reflect the vital role
of ethics and values, as defined by Saunders et al. (2020). Additionally, my position placed me
vis-à-vis with faculty during academic program design, development, learning assessment, and
course revision processes. Class Best College strove and continues to strive for inputs of quality,
value-added experiences, diversity, equity, inclusion, and access during this effort, with the
output reflected in its curricula. The faculty’s engagement and familiarity with its educational
products were essential to students’ learning, online experience, and success inside and outside
of the classroom.
Data Sources
This research design used a mixed methods study to explore the problem of practice. The
quantitative component used a survey to overview the faculty’s viewpoints and self-reported
assessment of their instructional practices, technical skills, and motivational factors gathered via
census from a targeted group of participants. The qualitative narrative analysis portion supported
data collection using the online faculty’s stories and experiences. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
detailed the value of interviews as a research strategy for gathering and extracting insightful
information for a problem of practice. Due to the appointment model in place within the
organization for this study, the study’s participants included adjunct online faculty members in
master’s level professional degree programs from Class Best College within Top Tassel
University. Following Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) recommended best practices, the study’s
selection of faculty interview participants helped me understand the problem and address the
42

research questions. The protocol supported the fair representation of online faculty perspectives
and academic programs through purposeful sampling.
Method 1 Survey
A survey gathered data for the first research question. The survey captured self-efficacy
(SE) factors for online teaching as ratings on an interval scale from 0 to 100 for 16 traits. The
survey also considered other motivational factors and technology acceptance factors for
information gathering purposes within the context of rated items. Two questions captured
demographic data for the faculty participants. Additionally, two open-ended questions allowed
participants another way to reflect and share their experiences at the end of the survey.
Method 2 Interviews
I gathered data for the first, second, and third research questions via semi-structured
interviews. Drawing on emerging theoretical and conceptual frameworks, as the researcher, I
explored the concepts of self-efficacy for online teaching, prior experience, and environmental
factors through qualitative interviews. Designed questions captured answers about how self-
efficacy affects the actions of online higher education faculty. Inquiries also asked what factors
have an impact on online higher education faculty. Other prompts sought to understand how
prior experience factors in online higher education faculty preparation and success.
Participants
The study’s participants were currently appointed adjunct online faculty members in
graduate-level professional degree programs from the regionally accredited Class Best College
within the private Top Tassel University. The study participants’ sample criteria and
characteristics included faculty in good standing who have taught at least two online courses in
the past academic year. A minimum amount of collective teaching experience was not required
43

for this study to investigate this prior experience dynamic. However, based on hiring practices, I
anticipated that faculty had taught at least two courses in the past academic year to provide more
recent exposure and context to the online learning environment. The survey utilized census
results captured and responses received. I selected the interview participants from voluntary
responses. Then, 13 faculty participants were chosen through purposeful sampling to help me
understand the problem of practice and address the research questions. I achieved proportionate
faculty representation with participants from each master’s degree program.
Instrumentation
The first research question gathered data using a survey. The survey captured self-
efficacy factors as rated items. Most of the survey items used an interval scale via the slider
feature available in Qualtrics, an online survey administration tool. Optional, open-ended
questions allowed survey participants another way to reflect and share their experiences. The
concise protocol encouraged participation to relieve potential survey fatigue (Robinson & Firth
Leonard, 2019). Peer review and pilot testing ensured that easily understood items and the survey
completion manageable via mobile device. The survey items explored the concepts of self-
efficacy and prior experience through the survey with a lesser focus on technology. I adapted
survey items from Bandura’s social cognitive theory tools as part of the survey development
process. Consideration for Davis’ (1989) TAM and the proprietary Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy
Scale (TSES), a model developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), supplied points of
reference during the survey item development phase.
The interview protocol used semi-structured questions. This approach afforded the
highest flexibility in interviewing conduct while supporting quality, timing, and consistency
across faculty interviewees. Three sections made up the question set that aligned to the research
44

questions and their area of focus noted to connect to the study’s theoretical and conceptual
frameworks. The interview protocol had 15 questions and related prompts.
Data Collection Procedures
The single-stage survey design used Qualtrics for facilitation, electronic distribution, and
results collection. All related communication, including recruitment emails to all Class Best
faculty with invitations to participate and subsequent reminders, was sent as electronic
correspondence. The Class Best’s faculty support and development director and their designee
facilitated the communication process as they have full access to faculty email addresses. This
team dispersed information about the study, the principal researcher’s intent and aim of
information gathering, and supplied a direct link to the Qualtrics survey in communication. The
inclusion of this team also addressed any concerns of potential conflict of interest or coercion.
The study followed the recommended communication protocols (Pazzaglia et al., 2016) to send
invitations, reminders, and survey content to targeted participants. A pre-determined schedule
supported the survey introduction, the initiation, and targeted completion over 2 weeks once
receiving the university’s internal review board (IRB) approval. The location of data gathering
for survey information was online via the Qualtrics tool. Study protocols reflected the details of
the survey content and approach. Appendix A provides a complete listing of survey items,
research question mapping, and other item details.
I completed the logistical procedures for collecting data for the interviews as
straightforward as possible. I secured 13 online faculty members to complete the interview
protocol as the qualitative data collection's qualitative portion and reach a point of saturation for
data. Volunteers responded to the survey with interest to take part in an interview. I then asked
prospective interviewees for interview participation by email. Once confirmed as interviewees, I
45

scheduled and conducted the 1-hour personal interviews using Zoom, a video conferencing tool.
I allotted time to review participant consent in the study. This approach allowed me to
automatically record the sessions and create audio transcripts with embedded features. Zoom was
a required tool for Class Best faculty, so alternative arrangements to interview via telephone
were engaged only under extenuating circumstances. I used captured audio and video recordings
with explicit participant permission. However, recordings had preset retention of 365 days. Once
Zoom created transcripts, the interview recordings were retained for the requisite time and then
permanently destroyed. I initiated the Zoom recording feature after receiving consent from the
faculty. Protocol documentation for the interview questions reflected an overview of the study
and all question prompts. Appendix B supplies a complete listing of interview questions,
research question mapping, and other item details.
Data Analysis
I managed survey responses via Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel. The descriptive analysis
reflected standard measures such as mean, median, and mode, using these elements to determine
response levels. Reactions to the first multi-item question assessed the various aspects of self-
efficacy and confidence for teaching online based on the respondent’s current position and
knowledge. Question two provided a summary view into faculty’s self-perception and opinion of
their primary driver for success in the online environment. Questions three and four provided
select demographic information to allowed me to capture years of teaching experience relevant
to the prior experience component of the study as well as insight into the faculty’s primary
teaching assignments for sorting purposes and the potential relationship to any variations,
findings, or trends by the academic program. Open-ended questions five and six allowed survey
participants to reflect on the online learning environment and personal experiences, observations,
46

feedback, or emotions that they may have considered arriving at their estimate of preparation,
confidence, or ability levels. The approach to the data captured included descriptive statistical
analysis based mainly on the traits of research detailed by scholars Merriam and Tisdell (2016).
Thus, I extracted and examined themes and categories to analyze participants’ input, text, and
language from closed- and open-ended answers provided. I used open coding to explore the
open-ended questions to apply codes related to the study’s conceptual framework. The survey
primarily sought to collect data about faculty and provided a baseline to other participants when
data was assessed holistically with interview responses during the qualitative data phase.
I analyzed responses to the semi-structured interview protocol qualitatively. The faculty’s
interview responses were reviewed and assessed through the study’s conceptual framework filter.
In tandem with the research questions and the broader concepts, including the role of self-
efficacy, faculty capabilities, and environmental factors related to online higher education faculty
preparedness, I discovered themes through the inductive process.
I evaluated interview transcripts as part of the data analysis procedures. The recorded
audio-visual text and document artifacts were first transcribed through video-conferencing
compatible software and then segmented into manageable subsections. The themes were
identified and then compared against the other samples to conceptualize and contextualize
thought patterns and ideas. As data were filtered and categorized by theme, I developed and
utilized a codebook to flag key themes found within the data set (Bernard et al., 2017). The
coding process supported a deeper dive into the faculty’s responses to garner connection and
meaning relevant to the study.
47

Validity and Reliability
The survey instrument did not precisely match existing tools. I adapted and developed
survey items from those found related to the study’s conceptual framework with original survey
items. This approach left room for error or reduced an ability to maximize validity and reliability
fully; however, it was deemed necessary not to ask for extraneous items or retain existing items
outside the intended purpose and study scope. Because of the appointment model in practice at
the Class Best, I targeted online teaching faculty currently engaged within the organization.
While purposeful sampling would be ideal, census and convenience sampling of survey
responses were more likely due to the critical number of reliable results for the sample size of 67
to 80 for the targeted 80 to 100 faculty population. In partnership with the director of faculty
support, I recruited participants. However, all faculty were accessible to me, and this research
was pre-approved by the college’s dean for faculty to participate in this student project. The
Class Best chief academic officer and the dean granted study permission in spring 2021.
The research and data gathering design supported credibility and trustworthiness through
interviewee transcript review, interview volume, accurate records, process notes, consistent
procedures, and interview protocols (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Elements such as these lent credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Interview length and quantity provided sufficient data, using a standardized question set, format,
and approach. Recorded and transcribed interviews allowed information gathered by me as the
researcher to be closely checked and tracked. Additionally, triangulation of data occurred for
those study participants who completed the survey portion of the quantitative portion and
contributed to the qualitative part with their ideas and perspectives shared orally. While I devised
transcripts via innate Zoom tools and its Otter.ai technology, a review of transcripts by
48

participants as needed was another way to ensure accuracy and support the credibility and
trustworthiness of information captured.
Ethics
This mixed methods research approach gained informed consent before data collection
per research protocols. Following the guidance of Rubin and Rubin (2012), I respected the
participants, did not pressure the participants, and did not harm the participants as participants’
input is valuable. As study participants, I provided faculty with a copy of the university’s
institutional review board information sheet for exempt studies. Faculty’s insights and feedback
remained anonymous as their participant information remained confidential in the study results.
Given the scope of this study and its targeted participants, gathering subjects was
straightforward. As approved by the dean, all participation was voluntary as contributions to a
student project. I masked the names of participants and their identifying traits from the study’s
published results. All participants were considered peers at a lateral level to avoid issues or
concerns with coercion. Per Glesne’s (2016) guidance, I was clear about the study’s purpose to
support faculty’s instructional practice and professional development success. The university’s
internal review boards guided the study proposal, review and approval, and subsequent process
steps. Furthermore, no data were collected or assessed before the IRB’s confirmed approval.
This research serves the interests of faculty members currently teaching online, ground
faculty interested in teaching online or hybrid courses, and other educational entities considering
online curricula. This research aimed to find ways to prepare faculty for quality online
instruction. Harm to participants might have occurred if the results did not align with the
college’s organizational goals or objectives. This research required a continuous bias check.
Insider perspective into this process is a potential barrier to objectivity. The research questions,
49

models, assessments, and research approach dictated impartiality while supporting professional
colleagues during the inquiry process. The questions elicited potential positive change for the
participants within the designed protocol and framed the study’s scope. There was value in
engaging other stakeholders in the inquiry process to ensure consideration of all needed
perspectives. Once compiled, interested participants and organizational leadership received the
study’s results.

50

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of self-efficacy, faculty capabilities,
and environmental factors related to online higher education faculty preparedness in alignment
with a conceptual framework based on Bandura’s (1977, 1997, 2001) social cognitive theory.
This chapter focuses on the study’s mixed-method approach conducted at Class Best College and
related analyses and emerging themes concerning the following research questions:
1. How do sources of self-efficacy for online teaching impact faculty preparation?
2. How do faculty prepare for teaching online?
3. How does the online environment impact faculty preparation?
Participants
The study’s participants were currently appointed adjunct online faculty members in
graduate-level professional degree programs from the regionally accredited Class Best College
within the private Top Tassel University. The participants’ sample criteria and characteristics
included faculty in good standing who have taught at least two online courses in the past
academic year. The faculty did not require a minimum amount of collective teaching experience
to investigate their prior experience dynamic for this study. However, I expected that faculty who
had taught at least two courses in the past academic year to supply more recent exposure and
context to the online learning environment.
Survey Participants
The single-stage survey was conducted electronically over 2 weeks in fall 2021 and used
census results to capture responses received. The survey yielded a 47.3% response rate, with 44
responses from 93 faculty. All Class Best degrees offered were represented with faculty from
Program A (9.76%), Program B (12.20%), Program C (34.15%), and Program D (43.90%).
51

Interview Participants
Selected interview participants derived from voluntary responses in the secondary phase
yielded 13 completed interviews. I conducted interviews between early October and mid-
November 2021 with Class Best faculty from Program A (8%), Program B (23%), Program C
(23%), and Program D (46%). The demographics of the interview participants were 38% female
and 62% male by gender and 15% Asian, 23% Black, and 62% White by race. Table 2
summarizes interview participants, their program associations, and collective experience.

52

Table 2
Interview Participants
Interviewee Association Professional experience Teaching experience
Juniper Program D Full-time (FT) industry
practitioner; terminal
degree
Multiple programs associations;
various courses; Time at Class Best
College (CB): 4 years
Heath Program C FT industry practitioner;
terminal degree
Multiple program associations;
various courses; CB: 1 year
Laurel Program D FT industry practitioner Various courses; CB: 4 years
Palmers Program A FT industry practitioner;
terminal degree
Multiple program associations;
various courses; CB: 2 years
Flax Program D FT industry practitioner Multiple program associations;
various courses; CB: 3 years
Aspen Program D FT industry practitioner Multiple program associations;
various courses; CB: 4 years
Yew Program C FT industry practitioner;
terminal degree
Multiple program associations;
various courses; CB: 1 year
Sage Program B FT industry practitioner;
terminal degree
Various courses; CB: 1 year
Cypress Program D FT industry practitioner;
terminal degree
Multiple program associations;
various courses; CB: 3 years
Mulberry Program B FT industry practitioner Various courses; CB: 4 years
Buckthorn Program B FT industry practitioner;
terminal degree
Multiple program associations;
various courses; CB: 4 years
Willow Program C FT industry practitioner Singular program associations;
various courses; CB: 1 year
Birch Program D FT industry practitioner Singular program association; various
courses; CB: 2 years

53

The subsequent sections present the data gathered from the Best Class survey results and
interview findings on how self-efficacy for online teaching, faculty capabilities, and the online
environment impact faculty preparation and success.
Results and Findings for Research Question 1
The first research question, survey items, and related interview probes focused on how
self-efficacy sources for online teaching impact faculty preparation. This research question
aligned most closely with faculty as people and considerations for their professional practices,
including continuous improvement, goal setting, knowledge-sharing, motivation, prior
experience, reflection practices, and comfort with technology. Results and findings for this
research question and its theme of self-efficacy building on expertise and affecting professional
best practices follow.
Survey Results
The survey results aligned the social cognitive theory with how online teaching self-
efficacy sources impact faculty preparation. The survey sought to establish the most critical
personal factors related to preparation sources for success as online faculty. The individual
elements ranked from most to least important included prior experience (41.46%), overall
confidence (29.27%), familiarity with the online environment (12.20%), professionalism
(7.32%), other (7.32%), and technical skills (2.44%). Figure 2 illustrates the most critical
personal success factors rated by Class Best faculty in their order of importance.

54

Figure 2
Success Factors

A pivotal survey item tracked the self-reported confidence levels of faculty to teach
online based upon their prior experience, current knowledge, and position, which yielded high
values on the 0-to-100-point interval scale. For the 16 confidence factors, on a scale of 0 to 100,
the means ranged from a low of 90.66 for using available learning technologies to 99.29 for
teaching a subject matter, course, or content of personal or professional interest. The lowest self-
reported individual factor landed at 15.00 for asking questions or shadowing fellow faculty, a
factor which also recorded the largest standard deviation (SD) of 18.47. The item with the
smallest standard deviation of 2.20 leveraged prior professional or teaching experience.
Confidence levels at 100.00 were collectively self-reported by surveyed faculty for all 16 factors.
55

Table 3 displays the overall results of Class Best faculty’s self-reported confidence levels across
the factors and includes the minimum, maximum, means, and standard deviation.

Table 3
Faculty’s Self-Reported Confidence Ratings
Factor Min. Max. Mean SD
Teach a subject matter, course, or content of personal or
professional interest
90.00 100.00 99.29 2.29
Leverage prior professional or teaching experience 90.00 100.00 99.20 2.20
Plan weekly synchronous sessions using video technology 75.00 100.00 98.20 5.15
Make subject matter interesting and understandable 85.00 100.00 98.12 4.11
Maintain a climate conducive to learning 85.00 100.00 97.46 4.43
Engage students 80.00 100.00 96.98 5.06
Access needed faculty support staff and services 70.00 100.00 96.61 7.84
Measure and evaluate student performance 70.00 100.00 96.24 6.13
Receive feedback on instructional plans or practices 50.00 100.00 95.98 11.53
Instruct students who are racially and ethnically diverse
and/or come from diverse backgrounds and experience
75.00 100.00 95.54 7.12
Analyze and solve learning problems 70.00 100.00 94.80 7.77
Complete related professional development 50.00 100.00 94.78 10.38
Create a different learning experience from my current
teaching practices
50.00 100.00 93.61 10.26
Maintain effective working relationships with other faculty,
staff, and administrators
50.00 100.00 93.00 12.94
Ask questions of or shadow fellow faculty 15.00 100.00 91.33 18.47
Use available learning technologies 70.00 100.00 90.66 9.80
56

Interview Findings
A theme of prior experience emerged from the interview findings, and its effect on
professional best practices appeared. Additional facets for faculty’s previous experience,
professional industry current and relevant knowledge and connections, a focus on continuous
improvement, and comfort with technology ensued. The following subsections highlight findings
aligned with the first research question around sources of self-efficacy.
Prior Experience
According to the participants, prior experience served as an element to support self-
efficacy for online teaching, affecting faculty preparation and success. All interviewees
demonstrated multiple years of professional experience in their fields before teaching and before
teaching online. Eight of the 13 (61.54%) participants taught at other institutions before teaching
for Class Best College.
The participants’ prior experience bridged their professional capacity and industries as
real-world context to the classroom. Juniper remarked, “That is my inspiration to teach. So,
whenever I teach, I always relate to what’s happening in the industry and what’s happening [at]
work.” Laurel shared, “I think I bring realism to [the classroom]. You know the facts and what’s
really out there in the professional world still being an active consultant right now dealing with a
lot of clients.” Heath agreed and commented, “You have to know the industry, how the industry
works, the … challenges the industry has, what we are going through to be able to teach that …
and help the students face that when we go [out there].” Being able to contribute just-in-time
industry-relevant knowledge and lessons with students “makes my heart swell. I think it’s just a
wonderful feeling that what I’m sharing is useful and practical,” Aspen shared. Still, others did
not view themselves as the central expert based on their prior experience but rather as a guide to
57

students’ learning. Willow mentioned, “I don’t see myself as a subject matter expert in what I
teach. No matter what it is that I’m teaching, I see myself as a facilitator.” These insights support
earlier findings of the relevance of prior experience.
Reflective Best Practices
Beyond prior experience and industry knowledge, participants reported continuous
improvement and reflective best practices as actions supporting self-efficacy for online teaching
to affect faculty preparation and success. More than half of the interview participants (61.50%)
closely tracked their course data, including student and faculty peer feedback received via
surveys and reviews to adjust their course delivery and instructional practices. This evaluative
step occurred between course preparation cycles before approaching another course offering. As
Juniper stated, “I would like to find a way to fine-tune my teaching—just to make it one step
better—that’s all it is.” Similarly, Palmers noted, “I try to reflect on what worked well in the
past, what didn't work well, what maybe didn’t if I wasn't able to quite convey what I wanted to
about the topic.”
Some faculty extended their reflectivity from their prior experiences as online students
and educators at other institutions to efforts carried forward into the Best Class environment,
connecting their current work to future goals and motivators. Flax commented, “if I didn’t think
it was fantastic, I wouldn't have pursued the online teaching piece. But seeing how it has evolved
… and looking forward to how it's going to evolve … that’s pretty exciting.” Yew
acknowledged, “I always establish a goal of continuous improvement and accepting and learning
new ways to teach because that will allow me to be the best [as] perceived by students.”
Reflective activities were commonplace among the faculty interviewed and connected
continuous improvement and best practices.
58

Technological Comfort
In addition to reflection on best practices and continuous improvement, faculty reported
comfort with technology as a critical trait to support self-efficacy for online teaching in
impacting their preparation. One hundred percent of participants claimed to be moderately or
highly technology-savvy and open to new and adapting technology while acknowledging its
limitations. Sage expressed being “wildly accepting” of new or changing technology, and even if
“not inclined to be an early adopter, but if [technologies are] easy to use and they add value, then
I’m all for it.” Laurel said, “I’m very technology willing—[open] to try anything kind of thing,
and I’m not averse to it” and would “rather dive in and use [technology]” than utilize outside
resources for support such as tutorials, support staff, or job aids. Buckthorn added, “technology
can be fickle, and so it's really important to know that.” Cypress noted another challenge, “I
mean the only issue that I have is that there’s just so much and so much new … it would take a
lot to keep up with it” in the space of consistently changing technology. These sentiments and
mindsets were held among the interviewees and supported earlier claims in the literature about
the importance of technical prowess.
Discussion for Research Question 1
Support was present for the emergent theme that sources of self-efficacy build on
faculty’s prior experience and affect their professional best practices. All faculty highlighted
examples of their vast professional and industry expertise, demonstrated confidence levels in the
online environment, noted self-reflection and assessment processes, and expressed general
openness to technology as key facets to their teaching success. These success factors aligned to
the literature even if prioritized essential elements manifested themselves in a slightly different
order from past research for Class Best faculty. The study’s faculty gave their highest marks for
59

prior experience and overall confidence over lower-ranking factors such as professionalism and
technology as contributing factors to their preparation and success.
Findings for Research Question 2
The study’s second research question probed how faculty behavior and actions impact
preparation. Behavior-related codes included faculty’s preparing for new and existing courses,
using resources, becoming aware of their students, and making connections. Common ground
existed within the sub-set of interview participants for these preparation and success factors. As a
result, a theme formulated from the impact of online faculty capabilities on course preparations,
resourcefulness, and student connection.
As noted, a theme from the interview findings of faculty preparatory behaviors and
actions surfaced. Faculty action surrounding course preparations, resourcefulness, and student
connection emerged. The following sections focus on alignment with this theme and
acknowledge the discoveries made.
Course Preparation
Faculty members showed well-vetted and consistent course preparation practices. All
interview participants noted using new and existing course preparation processes, including
reviewing pre-formulated, instructionally designed Class Best curricula. The faculty members
examined the content for familiarity, reading articles, viewing multimedia, reviewing lecture
notes, assignments, and activities in advance. This preparation provided a baseline and extended
the content or broadened their instructional approach as Palmers described, “I spent a lot of time
reflecting on what more I can bring to the table, and how I can present that same material in a
different way.” Buckthorn similarly grounded their preparation to “get a hold of the whole thing.
I do enough reading as I need to, and then I shape the design of the online session.” Cypress
60

considered their preparations: “I … bring in my experience and my perspective, [to] see how that
would fit in. So, one of the tools I use a lot is a mind map. I will use that to organize.”
With various tools supporting reflective course preparation, faculty recognized their
central role in the students’ learning experience. As Heath noted, “students ask you questions—
you need to be the expert in what you do.” Mulberry concurred and referred to their preparation
as the mentor model because “I’m not going to ask you to do something I'm not going to do
myself.” Flax extended this line of extensive preparation, “thinking ‘lifelong learner’ helps, not
wanting to get into a rut helps, but also wanting to feel like you’re the master of your course,
[you can] expand your horizons to expand [the students’] horizon.” Faculty reflections captured
were less modality-driven than some earlier observations and assumptions, showing the value of
good course preparation strategies is not environmentally bound.
Resourcefulness
Beyond the college-provided curriculum as part of their course preparation practices,
faculty used various resources and conducted more research. Each interviewee commented on
external sources they used for course preparation. These sources included the Top Tassel
University library or relevant professional and industry materials, presentations, viable source
publications, and fellow practitioners.
Laurel layered another resource into their course readiness process. They utilized fellow
practitioners as guests from the industry to speak to the targeted content directly in areas where
they were not an expert. Aspen followed a parallel practice, especially with niche or highly
nuanced content within their field of professional practice. Sage integrated a similar strategy to
gain from others, “When I first began and was brand new to this space, I spoke with three
different faculty about how they would approach it.” They went on to attend a college-hosted
61

faculty session on best practices, taking away “some good little insights and tips [where] they’ve
really thought through, how to how to make this virtual you know set of adjunct faculty as
effective as possible.” Yew leaned on related workshops as resources and stated, “I always sign
up for those workshops. Perfection is an elusive quest for me. The more I learn … the better we
become. Especially in the online environment, there are so many new things … coming out each
day.” That aptitude for currency showed in Willow’s teaching practices as well: “I want to relate
the contents of teaching to what’s happening right now in our present time, what I call the state
of the union.” Utilizing centralized and external resources across modalities with practical,
humanized applications was typical within the faculty’s preparation methods.
Awareness and Connection
Beyond provided materials and leveraged resources, a bond between industry and
practice existed in the faculty’s teaching preparation activities. This connection carried over into
the familiarization and categorization of students. Faculty actively took measures to get to know
or become aware of their students’ industries and professional interests to showcase relevant
examples, timely events, applications of concepts, and more. Heath elaborated on the power of
informal networks and classroom engagement to share industry news and make concepts
applicable to the students’ workplace. This ability to customize or tailor to their student audience
via resources was also a frequent practice for Juniper, especially knowing the makeup of the
course and the organizations and industries the students represent. Birch actively searched for
this information about their students when they “look[ed] on LinkedIn to see who and what
they’re doing, then I know I know what industries I’m working with, how can I make it
applicable for this particular [class].”
62

Getting to know students and becoming aware of their interests and challenges served as
a first step and rapport building, which led to trust and connection. Mulberry kept the lines of
communication open with their students: “I’m mindful now [of making] sure that I keep up with
things on helping the students so as a teacher—listening—and making sure that I’m available.”
This central tenet of faculty availability and listening to students’ voices resonated with
numerous faculty interviewed as valuable and operational practices.
Discussion for Research Question 2
This section revealed a range of faculty behaviors and actions, including their course
preparations, resourcefulness, and ultimately, faculty/student connection. All faculty commented
on their rigorous preparation activities for new courses. They also shared how they stayed
current and on track with classes they often taught to remain relevant and engaging. The range of
resources used for preparations included fellow practitioners, internal and external to the
organization, and industry publications and other sources or related professional knowledge. In
addition, interest in students’ backgrounds and professional experiences largely influenced the
faculty’s preparation. Many tailored their live session content and modified examples to appeal
to students’ interests, organizations, and fields.
Findings for Research Question 3
The third research question of this study considered how the online environment affects
faculty preparation. Coded responses related to the online environment: assessment of the
environment itself, student engagement within the online environment, and faculty’s self-
assessment of their teaching success within the online environment. A theme appeared around
the online environment affecting levels of student engagement and, relatedly, faculty’s
definitions of teaching success concerning their students.
63

Faculty defined the online environment via the vehicle, including the learning
management system (LMS), its features and platform, and related tools such as Zoom, a
videoconferencing service used for synchronous instruction and timebound student-faculty
interaction. All faculty found challenges and opportunities within the online environment to the
benefit and detriment of students and faculty. More than half of the faculty (61.53%) interviewed
remarked on flexibility as an advantage for the online environment for them and their students,
including reduced commute time and associated tasks such as parking or shuttling through
campus for increased convenience.
Environmental Descriptions
Beyond the convenience factor, faculty described their online environment in the context
of their work, available tools such as Zoom, and student interaction and engagement. Laurel
defined the environment as virtual, bound to the LMS used at Class Best. Aspen described their
online environment as the Zoom-based, synchronous interface with students. Mulberry reported
an “almost freestyle” online environment, using the LMS and interactive communication tools.
Their classes had “no right or wrong … so it’s free, but it’s diverse that way and inclusive …,
which works well, I would say, for 98% of the students.” Three interviewees (23.07%)
considered their current online teaching environment to be on par with their ideal teaching
environment. Juniper commented, “Everything we can do online and get more benefit [with]
multiple ways of teaching opportunities [providing] different ways of engagement.” In contrast,
three others (23.07%), such as Yew, sought greater use of hybrid/hyflex strategies or more in-
person learning opportunities to match their criteria for engagement via preferred instructional
practices such as teambuilding exercises. They shared, “hybrid is almost similar to my traditional
64

face-to-face [classes] in terms of achieving student outcomes … student engagement, and also
student success.”
Effects of Student Engagement
Student engagement manifested in diverse ways from the faculty’s experiences within the
online environment. This student engagement presented both opportunities and challenges. Yew
commented positively of their position as an educator, “personally [I] believe a faculty member’s
passion is what helps to keep students actively engaged, so I keep the same mindset that I have
for an in-person lecture in my online environment.” Willow also defined their online
environment as “very engaging.” Cypress mentioned engagement as motivating: the “biggest
thing for me is just the engagement with the students, I think that you know, for the most part,
there you know—great, they’re in earnest.” Heath found they took an extra step to ensure equity
of student engagement. They noted, “my job is to make sure that I level the playing field for all
of them to learn and level the playing field for all of them to engage between each other,
regardless of their levels of experiences.”
Other faculty such as Palmers admitted some challenges within the online environment:
“student engagement would probably be the one area that I have a little bit of difficulty with—I
think everybody does.” Sage concurred, “From an instructor's point of view … you have to work
that much harder to keep [student] engagement.” Flax also commented on the dynamics of
student engagement in the online environment as a critical challenge from students who are
participatory to those who may hold back from engaging in class:
You get a very good sense right out of the gate of who’s going to be super engaged. So
that’s one challenge. The other challenge is actually quite the opposite: you have two or
three, or maybe, hopefully, 25% of your classes extraordinarily engaged, which is
65

intimidating to the 25% who actually do not want to be engaged at all but do want to
learn, and so you’re trying to [do that]—draw people out.
Faculty commented that the ability to sort students into small groups via breakout rooms
became a standout feature to support student engagement in a meaningful way. Willow
commented how breakout rooms could change things up from a more traditional classroom
where students might only ever dialogue with those sitting closest to them in a physical setting
and validated, “[Students] don’t have an option when we do [random] breakout rooms.
Sometimes I have them choose, so … they really are immersed [in a] community environment,
[as] an agent within the class. So, I love that aspect.”
However, technology advantages also partnered disadvantages if tool settings could not
be configured in advance or needed other live-time manipulation. Laurel suggested an assistant
(“a producer”) could improve the faculty’s ability to facilitate a live session without technical
considerations, allowing them to focus on content and student engagement. The ability to focus
on the end goal of learning surfaced as a shared understanding and definition of teaching success,
which did not fully align to findings in the literature.
Faculty Definitions of Teaching Success
Faculty defined teaching success in a meaningful way within the online environment.
Success resonated with the faculty interviewed—not for the faculty themselves but focusing
entirely on their students. They set goals to supply timely and meaningful feedback to their
students. They listened for the “Aha!” moment signaled by their students. They strove for their
students to gain value from their learning interactions and experience overall. They monitored
their students’ progress toward learning outcomes and goals. They sought engagement. For
example, Laurel said, “it is people, not process that we really want to focus on—communication
66

and building relationships—and that’s what gets you to success, not the fact you know what a
[certain concept] is.” Heath summed it up as their students “[seeing] me as an example that leads
by example.” Birch reflected pragmatically on teaching success: “if the students are learning the
material that you teach, I mean ultimately, you wouldn’t have the job if you didn’t have a student
and the student wouldn’t be there if they didn’t want to learn something.” Juniper commented on
faculty satisfaction when students were satisfied, stiving “so that momentum is continually going
for all [8] weeks. That’s my success. I’m satisfied; they are satisfied.” Aspen remarked on the
acts of teaching success as those when “students come back and maintain that relationship in a
way that is still, you know, looking for some support and advice and professional perspective—I
think that’s [a] success.”
Faculty pondered the lack of motivation or success in the online environment. For some,
this state equated to work-life balance. Their overall performance, contributions and relevance,
and the viability of the degree program were central factors for other faculty. For example, Flax
stated, “You’re putting your program in jeopardy. You’re not sharing the information that is
going to make people as successful as possible” as a consequence of low motivation. Juniper
shared, “It is [a] logical transition from one job to another, doing things differently. … I said I’ll
quit if I feel that I’m not doing any [thing to add] value or relevant.” Similarly, Laurel noted,
“You have to have your own personal bar. … I don’t want just to do. … I want to do it because
[teaching] brings meaning and this purpose for both me and the [students] that are attending.”
Motivational considerations remained as the faculty interviews concluded with additional
reflection and guidance to future practitioners. Table 4 captures suggestions made to new faculty
teaching in the online environment. Consideration and adherence to this advice may foster future
teaching preparations.
67

Table 4
Advice for New Online Faculty
Interviewee Words of advice
Juniper It doesn’t matter if you have a PhD or publications, [that] doesn’t matter, but …
you have the expertise and the knowledge in the field you are teaching. So, if
anyone has questions, [you] have some answers for them.
Heath Don’t treat your student just as a student: You have to get to know them
personally, engage with them, and see where they are right now. Come to the
classroom prepared.
Laurel [Spend] time on the technologies you feel comfortable with, so the new can
shine. It’s the best thing that you can do.
Palmers
With time, you’ll perfect your crowd just like you would in a classroom in an
online setting—and you can actually get the same out of it.
Flax [Figure] out your own way to connect so that you understand how you can
communicate most effectively to the students and connect with each
individual so that they, and you, get the best out of the experience that you
can.
Aspen Be yourself. … Use your own experiences … from a professional and personal
perspective to feed into your delivery. You’re creating everything about what
you do as an adjunct instructor.
Yew
Put themselves in the shoes of their learners as they’re reviewing the material, as
they’re delivering the material, and, most importantly, do not adopt the
mindset that online is an easy thing for faculty.
Sage The single biggest thing is before you start [teaching online], talk to a lot of
people who are doing it already.
Cypress
Take advantage of the resources available. … There’s a tremendous amount of
resources available [and I would] probably take more advantage of the other
instructors that we have. Reach out and connect with them.
Mulberry Find where you’re comfortable but listen to your students. It makes sure you’re
doing it, [teaching] for your students.
Buckthorn What do you want to talk about? What do you need? What are you thinking
about? What would you like to think about in terms of your own teaching,
engaging students, working with students?
68

Interviewee Words of advice
Willow Teach something you’re passionate about. Engage your students in an innovative
way. Think outside the box. Engage with [fellow] faculty and support staff.
Bring the content to life. Manage [your] time.
Birch If you’re not ready … it will show. Fix it. If you are … a professor, you should
be showcasing the ability to take lessons, learn, and move on.

Discussion for Research Question 3
This final segment of findings addressed how the online environment affects faculty
preparation. The environmental assessment defined boundaries as faculty described their online
environment in the context of their work, available tools, and levels of student interaction and
engagement. The faculty expanded on how student engagement is both rewarding and
challenging within the constraints of the online environment and mentioned tools and strategies
they use to bring all students into the learning space. Teaching success remained personal and
tangible to the shared learning experience. Faculty experience and success definitions ranged
from singular moments of discovery and understanding to long-term, lifelong relationships based
on trust. Faculty imparted more advice to those new to the field of online teaching in closing.
Summary
This chapter supplied insights into faculty’s sources of self-efficacy, faculty behaviors
and actions, and the online environment. Data collected from interviews informed the evaluative
data analysis process with opportunities for reflection ahead. I engaged in the coding process to
formulate response themes based on the survey results and the body of faculty interviews. This
effort led to further discoveries and conclusions related to online higher education faculty
preparedness aligned with a conceptual framework based on Bandura’s (1977, 1997, 2001) social
69

cognitive theory. The critical findings for sources of self-efficacy building on prior experience
and affecting professional best practices, the effects of faculty behaviors and actions on course
preparations, and the influences of the online environment on faculty preparation formulate as
recommendations in Chapter Five.

70

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
Growth in online graduate programs continued due to external factors and increased
demand through summer 2021 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2021; National
Student Clearinghouse Research Center [NSCRC], 2020a, 2020b, 2021). In contrast, national
estimates indicated a slight decrease (0.4%) in graduate program enrollment in fall 2021
(NSCRC, 2022), with current semester enrollments not yet available. In this domain, faculty
served as key participants (Rapanta et al., 2020), where beliefs of inferior quality persisted
(Busteed, 2021; Fain, 2019; Hemelt & Stange, 2020). Factors including the sector’s expansion,
varied instructional design methods, pandemic responses, and perceived inferior quality required
better-prepared faculty to teach online (Bączek et al., 2021; Kaufmann & Vallade, 2020;
McKenzie, 2020; Rafique et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2017). Past research showed that motivation,
prior experience, and technical knowledge contributed as primary factors to faculty success in
the online higher education classroom (Hampton et al., 2020; Hunt et al., 2014).
With this environmental, historical, and cultural context, the study investigated the role of
self-efficacy, faculty capabilities, and environmental factors related to online higher education
faculty preparedness in alignment with a conceptual framework based on Bandura’s (1977, 1997,
2001) social cognitive theory. The mixed method research investigation conducted at Class Best
College gathered data from faculty participants via survey and semi-structured interviews. Since
Class Best faculty taught online before and during the university’s COVID-19 response, they
supplied a baseline to instructional practices for delivering online curricula.
Discussion of Findings and Results
The findings and results of this study addressed the three targeted research questions via
analyzed data described in Chapter Four. The first research question posed how sources of self-
71

efficacy for online teaching impacted faculty preparation, while the second question considered
how faculty behaviors and actions affected their preparation in the online environment. It follows
that the third question gathered information on how the online environment impacts faculty
preparation. This section addresses the effects of these elements as findings, with alignment
drawn between the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. In general, the findings and results were
similar to other studies, with exceptions related to a mild elevation of prior experience and
confidence and slight marginalization of technology. Three areas of collaborative best practices
underscored sound pedagogical methods of successful online faculty at Class Best: (a) elevating
prior experience within preparation strategies, (b) supporting current and relevant instructional
practices, and (c) expanding student engagement in the online environment. A review of the
findings ensues, followed by recommendations for practice.
Self-Efficacy for Online Teaching
The first findings and results found sources of faculty self-efficacy, building on prior
experience and affecting professional best practices. The study’s faculty supplied examples of
their deep professional and industry expertise while showing high confidence in the online
environment. In their interviews, they named self-reflection and assessment processes. The
faculty also expressed a general affinity for technology. These success factors aligned to the
literature (Adnan & Boz, 2015; Alsharif & Qi, 2014; Bove & Conklin, 2019; Rhode et al., 2017;
William June, 2020), although the weighting of contributing elements to their success varied.
Class Best faculty rated prior experience and overall confidence over professionalism and
technology as contributing factors to their preparation and success.
72

Faculty Behaviors and Actions
The second finding underscores the impact of faculty behaviors and actions on course
preparations, resourcefulness, and connection with students. Vigorous preparation activities were
in place across new and existing course preparations. Akin to the literature, multiple resources
from various modalities and sources aided their teaching practices (Limperos et al., 2015;
Kaufmann & Tatum, 2017). Beyond a universal design approach within the shared curriculum
(Mehta & Aguilera, 2020), knowledge of students’ backgrounds and professional experiences
often guided faculty’s instruction to customize to organizational or industry-specific case studies
and exemplars.
Online Environment
This third finding showed how the online environment impacts faculty preparation. With
the learning environment encompassing student and faculty interaction and engagement, Class
Best faculty compared the upsides and downsides of the online environment. The slight variance
seems consistent within online delivery models and perceptions of quality (Tate et al., 2018). In
general, their teaching success aligned to faculty and students’ shared learning experience.
Broadly, faculty defined success within this domain experientially based on students’ learning.
Three recommendations for practice ensued from this study’s findings.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the practices at College Best collected from the faculty’s research process, three
recommendations address the essential findings and results for future consideration within the
organization. These recommendations come from grounded practices of strength and presence,
which the organization should continue or bolster. The following suggestions for online teaching
practices may help other organizations similar in nature.
73

Recommendation 1: Elevate Prior Experience as a Leading Preparation Factor
More than 40% of survey participants rated the personal factor most critical to their
success as online faculty as prior experience. All interview participants showed professional
experience in their fields, with more than 60% of participants who have prior teaching
experience before their time with Class Best. As a first recommendation, elevating prior
experience as primary criteria within recruitment, vetting, and appointment processes ensures a
foundational basis of knowledge, skills, and abilities to draw on and hone further in the online
learning environment in support of online faculty preparedness.
In the literature, faculty’s prior experience helped their motivation, developed their
expertise, and aided faculty performance within this domain. Hunt et al. (2014) underscored the
value of faculty who possessed prior knowledge teaching online as motivated via various factors.
McGee et al. (2017) tracked characteristics of successful online faculty and noted the importance
of developed expertise. At the same time, Adnan and Boz (2015) confirmed that prior online
learning experiences helped faculty teaching in this environment. While faculty are an integral
part of this change effort, the academic units that facilitate the related appointment process and
faculty’s ongoing professional development should be maintained. The solid grounding of
amassed experience allows faculty to expand their teaching practices, focusing on current,
relevant content, industry knowledge, instructional methods, and pedagogy. It may also apply to
appropriate instructional practices.
Recommendation 2: Support Current and Relevant Instructional Practices
All faculty interviewed commented on their rigorous preparation activities and shared
how they stayed current and on track with classes to remain relevant and engaging. The literature
pointed to digital pedological practices through design models, curriculum development
74

strategies, and consideration of external factors. For example, hyflex models expand the course
over time and modality with greater flexibility, reaching learners where they are (Beatty, 2021;
Stachowiak, 2021). The application of inclusive design practices (Mehta & Aguilera, 2020) with
cautionary notes to the intentional use of universal design practices within the online domain
provided more engaging and accessible content for students. Responses to external and
extenuating circumstances (Bączek et al., 2021; Blizak et al., 2020) brought attention to
proactive ways to devise, address, and deliver content effectively online.
Thus, for Class Best College, the approach to this added recommendation is two-fold.
First, ongoing, supporting assessment practices and systematic evaluation can contribute to
program curricula and their current and industry-relevant professional nature. Second, a robust
community of practice amongst faculty could reinforce shared practices amongst peers in formal
and informal ways via peer reviews, workshops, and other networking activities. The attention to
faculty behaviors and actions as they affect preparation further supports the conceptual
framework of behavioral factors that support emerging best practices for faculty success.
Relatedly, student engagement as part of the online learning experience falls into the realm of
best practices.
Recommendation 3: Expand Student Engagement Best Practices
The faculty interview participants shared that student engagement in the online
environment presented opportunities and challenges. Being comfortable and confident, i.e.,
showing self-efficacy for the online environment, was pivotal for faculty and their interaction
with students. Promoting student engagement via Zoom breakout rooms and other tools and
technology extended the conversation and time for learning within preset asynchronous course
activities and the robust discussion within the synchronous live sessions. Expanding student
75

engagement opportunities formally and informally inside and outside the online classroom via
connection discussions or networking could influence the learning environment and experience.
This last recommendation to improve student engagement aligns with the literature. As
early as Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) work, active learning opportunities were essential and
beneficial for student engagement. Saunders et al. (2020) considered how coordination across
functions and roles improved student engagement. More recently, Fox et al. (2021) relayed how
digital tools expanded faculty’s contact to support and engage struggling students. These
recommendations for prior experience, current and relevant instructional practices, and student
engagement create an opportunity for change and refinement within the organization. The
following section discusses integrated recommendations with greater context to change factors
and levers via a change model to enable these recommendations into action and results.
Integrated Recommendations
Change within organizations can be defining moments for their cultures and stakeholders.
Schein (2014) described organizational culture as a group’s set of shared basic assumptions
learned from solved problems as learning products. The accepted role of culture within
organizations exists as one that is present and serves as a means for influence and behavioral
change (Watkins, 2013). This section cogitates organizational culture and change for online
faculty preparedness as integrated recommendations based on the study’s findings.
It is notable to see which factors influenced faculty preparation within higher education
settings. For example, social-environmental factors influenced or impeded faculty’s success,
self-determination, and motivation (Stupnisky et al., 2017). Agency and structure (Singh &
Hardaker, 2017) via macro-level (top-down) and micro-level (bottom-up) influences served as
internal change levels within university structures and organizational cultures. Furthermore,
76

pragmatic reasons such as innovation and professional development cemented online learning
practices with faculty. Other political, cultural, economic, domain-related, and external
influences, such as Black Swan events or the COVID-19 pandemic, elicited different change
factors and responses that affected organizational culture. Given the recommendations for Class
Best’s online faculty’s preparation, the next segment turns toward organizational change,
focusing on external and internal drivers, led, influenced, or directed by faculty as central
stakeholders within online higher education.
Multiple organizational change models exist within online higher education institutions.
This section highlights the Burke-Litwin causal model of organizational performance and change
(Burke, 2018) as one model within the dynamic environment of this learning domain and
applicable to this study and its recommendations. The model gives insights into the external
factors and dynamics of online faculty preparedness at distinct levels holistically from individual
(i.e., faculty) performance to organizational (i.e., institution) performance. Further, the model
uses short-term, personal elements and longer-term, operations-based transactional and
transformational aspects via interrelated, influencing change factors. External factors influenced
the state of higher education institutions and their online course offerings (Crawford et al., 2020).
Transformational factors include organizational leadership and the culture of higher education
institutions such as Class Best. Transactional factors consist of college and university
organizational structure, budgets, enrollment management, internal systems, and academic
departments that affect faculty motivation and the online classroom climate, affecting faculty
performance and the student experience (Burke, 2018) similar to those found at Class Best. Other
organizational change factors related to faculty and their online instructional practices are worth
watching as internal and external change drivers.
77

A plan based on Burke-Litwin’s model (2018), as shown in a simplified manner in Figure
3, could not move forward successfully without a clear organizational vision, leadership across
the college’s functional units and structured levels, individual buy-in, and a genuine desire for
organizational success and viability. The recommendations crosscut because faculty serve as
central contributors to the change effort. The culture of Class Best supports continued
improvement and refinements of practices. Within this frame, faculty must be willing and able to
partner with staff and administration to conduct the required tasks for organizational change.

Figure 3
A Simplified Version of the Burke-Litwin Change Model

78

The set of integrated recommendations for Class Best fits into its online environment,
system, and culture by using transformational, transactional, and individual factors to lead
toward faculty preparation, with potential for improved organizational performance. Elements in
the external environment and drive for quality instruction move toward long-term,
transformational aspects. Operational and transactional factors and shorter-term individual
factors at the faculty level impact personal and organizational performance. Table 5 outlines
these activities with attention to specific tasks and activities that support the recommendations,
parties responsible for conducting the related charge, and their timing for completion or ongoing
support and maintenance. Initiation of efforts could commence as early as summer 2022 upon
review and approval by college leadership. Each supporting task and activity could then be
further defined or refined by the responsible functional unit and evaluation mechanisms built into
the process before implementation to monitor and control the respective procedure and its
progress.

79

Table 5
Integrated Recommendations
Recommendation Task/Activity Responsible Timing
Elevate prior
experience as
preparation factor
Faculty appointments Faculty support (FS)
staff, college dean
Ongoing,
semesterly
Professional development
(i.e., workshops, training,
individual support plans)
FS staff Ongoing,
semesterly
Support current,
relevant instructional
practices
Annual program review Faculty committees,
curriculum and
assessment (CA) staff
Annually
Comprehensive program
review
Faculty committees,
CA staff
Every 5
years
Community of practice Faculty Ongoing
Expand student
engagement best
practices
Student self-introductions
and networking
opportunities
Faculty, instructional
design (ID) staff
Ongoing
Small and large group live
session activities
Faculty, FS, ID staff Ongoing
Customized, industry-driven
content (i.e., case studies,
exemplars, guest speakers)
Faculty Ongoing

As noted earlier, change strategies and their management take diverse forms within the
online education domain to varying degrees of success. Change factors and management
processes can support faculty during transitional times and address resistance along the way.
Other aspects may help or inhibit online faculty preparedness. The following section examines
this study’s encountered limitations and delimitations at College Best, its results, and findings.
80

Limitations and Delimitations
Given how I chose to bind this study and the identified problem of practice with the
social cognitive theory-based conceptual framework and a mixed methods approach, opened this
research effort to potential limitations and delimitations. My predicted limitations of elements
beyond the study’s control included the volume, truthfulness, and integrity of the data and
information received from participants and respondents via survey and interviews with voluntary
participants’ viewpoints and perspectives. While seeking a representative sample of study
participants, faculty more inclined to participate in the research process as an act of service for
the college may have held a more powerful voice than the faculty body at large. Delimitations
have implications on the data collected, such as the questions asked versus those not asked. For
example, factors related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and access were not principle in this
study. Instead, I addressed faculty as a holistic body of educators without parsed attention to
their differences in circumstances, geographic location, or individual experiences within the
online higher education domain.
Despite returning to onsite and mixed-modality learning practices, Top Tassel University
may experience more changes. However, Class Best practices should remain a baseline to quality
online faculty teaching and learning. What also stays in this transitional time and space is the
possibility that more significant gaps and deeper divides will continue to penetrate the online
learning environment as the pandemic and COVID variances still afflict the global community.
New data surfaces with findings reported often. Support and changing practices to address needs
may be slow or difficult to take shape with significant impact on institutional enrollments,
professional development offerings, received tuition, and other financial funding sources. Since
these dynamics are ever-changing, the question lingers whether I reached the “real” problem as
81

one investigable with actionable recommendations to improve future best practices of faculty
preparation for quality instruction in the online learning environment.
Recommendations for Future Research
While strides to address concerns and ramifications of the pandemic, lingering impacts
on online learning remain in 2022. Recommendations for future research include investigating
opportunities via forward-thinking means, recognizing that internal and external elements along
with personal, behavioral, and environmental factors continue to affect ongoing educational
operations at the time of this writing. The modality shift may continue variably via hybrid,
hyflex, and newer configurations that require support and adequate, just-in-time preparation.
Consideration for a deeper dive into confidence-related, skill-building activities for faculty may
behoove future educators and educational institutions to rethink sustainable curricula offerings.
Lastly, an increased concern for the overall well-being of educators and those seeking higher
education may help a greater audience and population.
Connection to the USC Rossier Mission
The USC Rossier School of Education’s mission aims to prepare leaders to achieve
educational equity through practice, research, and policy (USC Rossier School of Education,
2021). While the mission statement focuses on improving learning opportunities and outcomes in
urban settings, this research expands to the global online educational domain beyond a defined
geographic area. This study may benefit various stakeholders, including historically marginalized
students whose enrollment is reflected differently among academic institutions. At the same
time, Class Best and the focus of this study serves many first-generation graduate students
considered Black, Indigenous, and people of color. The guiding principles shared by this study’s
organization interconnects with the values of USC Rossier to value and respect the cultural
82

context of the communities, policies, practices, and systems in which students, staff, and faculty
live and work. This research reflected the innovative thinking of USC Rossier and needed to
address this educational problem of practice.
Conclusion
Unanticipated changes that occurred with the impact of the global pandemic beginning in
spring 2020 are still in effect in 2022. While educational institutions sought to address the shift
in learning quickly and effectively at the onset in 2020, the problem of adequate faculty
preparation for quality online instruction remained at the forefront. It inhibited institutions from
their ability to continue to offer and expand on online graduate higher education course offerings
under normal and abnormal circumstances for program continuity and institutional viability (Dill
et al., 2020; Jaschik & Lederman, 2018, 2019, 2020; Neelakantan, 2020; NSCRC, 2020; Seaman
et al., 2018).
Institutions resumed their educational practices partially and fully via on-ground, face-to-
face, hybrid, or online modalities in late 2021. Other community health precautionary measures
caused further disruptions to academic schedules and extended remote learning (Moody, 2022)
through early 2022. Given the extended period of instructional turmoil and potentially
exacerbated differences between curricula intentionally designed and taught online and courses
moved to remote learning, support for faculty’s preparedness is still paramount. Thus, it is
essential to address faculty’s lack of readiness to instruct with coursework not designed for
online delivery and address the external factors that created a demand for and needed remote
instruction as best as possible.

83

References
2U. (2021). About 2U. https://2u.com/about/
Adnan, M., & Boz, B. (2015). Faculty members’ perspectives on teaching mathematics online:
Does prior online learning experience count? Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative
Inquiry, 6(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.60223
Akbarilakeh, M., Razzaghi, A., & Delavar Pour Moghaddam, H. (2019). Attitudes of faculty
members towards using e-learning. Research and Development in Medical Education,
8(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.15171/rdme.2019.003
Alemu, D. S., & Shea, D. (2019). A path analysis of diagnosis of organizational levels of
functionality: Implications to educational organizations. International Journal of
Educational Management, 33(7), 1515–1525. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2018-
0297
Allen, I., E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541571.pdf
Alsharif, N. Z., & Qi, Y. (2014). A three-year study of the impact of instructor attitude,
enthusiasm, and teaching style on student learning in a medicinal chemistry course.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(7). 132.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A386919680/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=6
06b0d9c
American Psychological Association. (2021). Teaching tip sheet: Self-efficacy.
https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/education/self-efficacy
84

Amour, M. (2020, October 15). Report: Enrollment continues to trend downward. Inside Higher
Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/10/15/worrying-enrollment-trends-
continue-clearinghouse-report-shows
Association on Higher Education And Disabilities. (2020). AHEAD’s COVID-19 survey results
are now available. https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/coronavirus-resources
Association for Training and Development (ATD). (2020). What is instructional design? ATD.
https://www.td.org/talent-development-glossary-terms/what-is-instructional-design
Bączek, M., Zagańczyk-Bączek, M., Szpringer, M., Jaroszyński, A., & Wożakowska-Kapłon, B.
(2021). Students’ perception of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic,
Medicine, 100(7). 24821. https://doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000024821
Badia, A., Garcia, C., & Meneses, J. (2017). Approaches to teaching online: Exploring factors
influencing teachers in a fully online university. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 48(6), 1193–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12475
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. W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1–26. Annual Reviews, Inc. https://doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking
University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191
Baticulon, R. E., Sy, J. J., Alberto, N. R. I., Baron, M. B. C., Mabulay, R. E. C., Rizada, L. G. T.,
Tiu, C. J. S., Clarion, C. A., & Reyes, J. C. B. (2021). Barriers to online learning in the
85

time of COVID-19: A national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Medical
Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z
Beatty, B. (2021). Using the “hyflex” course and design process. Online Learning Consortium.
https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/using-hyflex-course-and-
design-process
Beirne, E., & Romanoski, M. P. (2018, July). Instructional design in higher education: Defining
an evolving field from OLC outlook: An environmental scan of the digital learning
landscape. Online Learning Consortium. https://olc-wordpress-
assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/07/Instructional-Design-in-Higher-Education-
Defining-an-Evolving-Field.pdf
Bernard, H., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. (2017). Analyzing qualitative data: Systemic approaches.
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Bernstein, J. M. (2019). Can an unconference improve online pedagogy? Experiences and
expectations of educators in the California Community College System, Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(7), 505–514.
https://doi.10.1080/10668926.2018.1503104
Blizak, D., Blizak, S., Bouchenak, O., Yahiaoui, K. (2020). Students’ perceptions regarding the
abrupt transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Case of faculty of
chemistry and hydrocarbons at the University of Boumerdes—Algeria. Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 97, 2466−2471. https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00668
Booth, J. (2018, March 14). Why instructional design matters in eLearning. Learning Solutions.
https://learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/why-instructional-design-matters-in-elearning
86

Borray, A. (2020, March 17). Transitioning to remote work. EDUCAUSE.
https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/3/transitioning-to-remote-work
Bove, L. A., & Conklin, S. (2019). Using the technology adoption model to assess faculty
comfort with the learning management system. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 22(3).
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall223/bove_conklin223.html
Bowen, W. G. (2015). Higher education in the digital age (Updated ed.). Princeton University
Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/reader.action?docID=1122596
Brame, C. (2013). Flipping the classroom. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching.
http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/
Brammer, S., & Clark, T. (2020). COVID‐19 and management education: Reflections on
challenges, opportunities, and potential futures. British Journal of Management, 31(3),
453–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12425
Brescia, F., Colombo, G., & Landoni, P. (2016). Organizational structures of knowledge transfer
offices: An analysis of the world’s top-ranked universities. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 41(1), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9384-5
Brooks, D. C., & Grajek, S. (2020, March 12). Faculty readiness to begin fully online teaching.
EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/3/faculty-readiness-to-begin-
fully-remote-teaching
Brown, J. (2021). Asynchronous. In E. M. Sanchez (Ed.), Merriam-Webster.com dictionary.
Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asynchronous
87

Brown, M., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Brooks, D. C., & Grajek, S. (2020). 2020 EDUCAUSE
Horizon Report™: Teaching and learning edition. EDUCAUSE.
https://www.educause.edu/horizon-report-2020
Brown, V., Powers, J., Musgrove, A., & Olden, D. (2020). How professional development
choices influence faculty self-efficacy and attitudes in the adoption of distance learning
tools. In D. Schmidt-Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology
& Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 400–405). Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/215773/
Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning
technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computers in
Higher Education, 25, 1–11. https://doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9066-6
Budd, B. (2020, March 17). Culture shock: Teaching online in a pinch. EDUCAUSE.
https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/3/culture-shock-teaching-online-in-a-pinch
Bunk, J., Li, R., Smidt, E., Bidetti, C., & Malize, B. (2015). Understanding faculty attitudes
about distance education: The importance of excitement and fear. Online Learning
Journal, 19(4), 129–142. https://link-gale-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/apps/doc/A443367633/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=
758465eb
Burke, L. (2020, March 9). Colleges move classes online as coronavirus infects more. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/09/colleges-move-classes-
online-coronavirus-infects-more#.XmZa0yXlw-g.link
88

Burke, L. (2021, January 22). 10 months in. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/01/22/survey-outlines-student-concerns-10-
months-pandemic
Burke, L. (2021, February 19. Approaching normalcy? Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/02/19/colleges-promise-return-person-
classes-fall
Burke, W. (2018). Organizational change: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Busteed, B. (2021, June 24). If colleges were rated like Uber drivers…. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/06/24/college-students-rate-online-learning-
during-pandemic-disaster-opinion
Castillo, S. L., & Ayala G. (2012). Mobile learning. In Seel, N. M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of the
sciences of learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_54
Cherry, S., & Flora, B. (2017). Radiography faculty engaged in online education: Perceptions of
effectiveness, satisfaction, and technological self-efficacy. Radiologic Technology, 88(3),
249–262.
http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=12
0516423&authtype=sso&custid=s8983984
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
https://www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/sevenprinciples.pdf
Coman, C., Tîru, L. G., Mesesan-Schmitz, L. Stanciu, C., & Bularca, M. C. (2021). Online
teaching and learning in higher education during the Coronavirus pandemic: Students’
perspective. Sustainability, 12, 10367. https://doi:10.3390/su122410367
89

Craig, R. (2015, June 23). A brief history (and future) of online degrees. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2015/06/23/a-brief-history-and-future-of-online-
degrees/?sh=4137021848d9
Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni,
P., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries' higher education intra-period digital
pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 1–20,
https://doi:10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(9), 319–340. https://www-jstor-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/249008
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne,
49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Dill, E., Fischer, K. McMurtrie, B., & Supiano, B. (2020, March 7). As coronavirus spreads, the
decision to move classes online is the first step. What comes next? The Chronicle of
Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/As-Coronavirus-Spreads-
the/248200
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Longman.
90

EDUCAUSE. (2010). 7 things you should know about the hyflex course model.
https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2010/11/eli7066-pdf.pdf
EDUCAUSE. (2019). 2019 Key issues in teaching and learning.
https://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/key-issues-in-teaching-and-learning
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation.
Guilford Press.
Engel-Hills, P., Winberg, C., & Rip, A. (2019). Ethics “upfront”: Generating an organizational
framework for a new university of technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(6),
1705–1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00140-0
Fain, P. (2019, January 16). Takedown of online education. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/01/16/online-learning-fails-
deliver-finds-report-aimed-discouraging
Fernandez, A., & Shaw, G. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The Coronavirus and
COVID‐19. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39–45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21684
Fox, K., Khedkar, N. L., Ngueyn, A., & Gates, B. (2021). Time for class: COVID-19 Part 3: The
impact of 2020 on introductory faculty and their students. Tyton Partners.
https://tytonpartners.com/library/time-for-class-covid-19-edition-part-3/
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Pearson.
Global Strategy Group. (2020). One semester later how prospective and current college
students’ perspectives of higher ed have changed between August and December 2020.
Thirdway. https://thirdway.imgix.net/downloads/one-semester-later-how-prospective-
91

and-current-college-students-perspectives-of-higher-ed-have-changed-between-august-
and-december-2020/Student-Survey-Toplines.pdf
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–
26. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1058505.pdf
Hampton, D., Culp-Roche, A., Hensley A., Wilson, J., Otts, J., Thaxton-Wiggins, A., Fruh, S., &
Moser, D. K. (2020). Self-efficacy and satisfaction with teaching in online courses. Nurse
Educator. [Advance online publication]. https://doi:10.1097/NNE.0000000000000805
Hampton, J., & Yin, H. (2016). Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and
implications for teachers. Cogent Education, 3(1),
https://doi.10.1080/2331186X.2016.1217819
Huang, F., Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2019). Factors affecting Chinese English as a foreign language
teachers’ technology acceptance: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 57(1), 83–105. https://doi.10.1177/0735633117746168
Hemelt, S. W., & Stange, K. M. (2020, July 28). Why the move to online instruction won’t
reduce college costs. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-
center-chalkboard/2020/07/28/why-the-move-to-online-instruction-wont-reduce-college-
costs/
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Bloch Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. (2nd ed.)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
92

Hew, K. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from
three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 320–341.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference
between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-
teaching-and-online-learning
Horvitz, B. S., Beach, A. L., Anderson, M. L., & Xia, J. (2015). Examination of faculty self-
efficacy related to online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 305–316.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9316-1
Hunt, D., Davies, 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), 62–71.
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer172/Hunt_Davies_Richardson_Hammoc
k_Akins_Russ172.html
Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Blended learning. In Seel, N. M. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the sciences of
learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_185
Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Design of learning environments. In Seel, N. M. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the
sciences of learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_186
Jaschik, S. & Lederman, D. (Eds.). (2018). 2018 survey of faculty attitudes on technology: A
study by Inside Higher Ed and Gallup.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/conflicted-views-technology-survey-
faculty-attitudes
93

Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (Eds.). (2019). 2019 survey of faculty attitudes on technology: A
study by Inside Higher Ed and Gallup.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/faculty-support-online-learning-builds-
slowly-steadily-not-enthusiastically
Jaschik, S. & Lederman, D. (Eds.). (2020). 2020 survey of college and university chief academic
officers: A study by Inside Higher Ed and Gallup. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/2020-inside-higher-ed-survey-chief-
academic-officers
Kane, R. T., Shaw, M., Pang, S., Salley, W., & Snider, J. B. (2016). Faculty professional
development and student satisfaction in online higher education. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 19(2), 1–12.
http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=117
762710
Kaufmann, R., & Tatum, N. T. (2017). Do we know what we think we know? On the importance
of replication in instructional communication research. Communication Education, 4(66).
479–481. https://doi:10.1080/03634523.2017.1342849
Kaufmann, R., & Vallade, J. I. (2020): Exploring connections in the online learning
environment: student perceptions of rapport, climate, and loneliness, Interactive Learning
Environments, 1–16. https://doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1749670
Keeling, R. P., Underhile, R., & Wall, A. F. (2007). Horizontal and vertical structures: The
dynamics of organization in higher education. Liberal Education, 93(4).
https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/horizontal-and-vertical-
structures-dynamics-organization-higher
94

Kentor, H. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States.
Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1 & 2).
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=law_facpub
Kim, J. (2019, December 11). Prioritizing faculty in online education. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/prioritizing-faculty-
online-education
Kirkley, J. (2012). Distributed learning. In Seel, N. M. (Ed). Encyclopedia of the sciences of
learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1089
Kunst, E., van Woerkom, M., & Poell, R. (2018). Teachers’ goal orientation profiles and
participation in professional development activities. Vocations and Learning, 11(1), 91–
111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-017-9182-y
Lederman, D. (2020, March 18). Will shift to remote teaching be boon or bane for online
learning? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-
learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-
learning
Lederman, D. (2020, May 20). How college students viewed this spring’s remote learning. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/05/20/student-
view-springs-shift-remote-learning
Lederman, D. (2020, October 6). Faculty confidence in online learning grows. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/10/06/covid-era-
experience-strengthens-faculty-belief-value-online
95

Lederman, D. (2020, November 13). Are students happier with virtual learning this fall? A little.
Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-
learning/article/2020/11/13/student-impressions-online-learning-improve-modestly-fall
Lederman, D. (2021, January 26). Professors assess fall instruction and the impact on students.
Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-
learning/article/2021/01/26/survey-finds-professors-worried-about-dropouts-particularly
Legon, R., Garret, R., Fredrickson, E., & Simunich, B. (Eds.) (2020). CHLOE 5: The pivot to
remote teaching in spring 2020 and its impact. Quality Matters and Eduventures.
https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs-pdfs/QM-Eduventures-
CHLOE-5-Report.pdf
Limperos, A. M., Buckner, M. M., Kaufmann, R., & Frisby, B. N. (2015). Online teaching and
technological affordances: An experimental investigation into the impact of modality and
clarity on perceived and actual learning. Computers & Education, 83, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.015
Marasi, S., Jones, B., & Parker, J. M. (2020). Faculty satisfaction with online teaching: a
comprehensive study with American faculty. Studies in Higher Education.
https://doi:10.1080/03075079.2020.1767050
Marcy, M. B. (2021, January 5). Moving from the tactical to the strategic. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/01/05/colleges-shouldnt-mistake-forced-
short-term-adjustments-pandemic-necessary-long
Martin, F., Budhrani, K., & Wang, C. (2019). Examining faculty perception of their readiness to
teach online. Online Learning, 23(3). https://doi.10.24059/olj.v23i3.1555
96

Matern, S. (2019). e-Platform architecture for organisational collaboration and IT education.
Information & Security, 43(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.11610/isij.4314
McCormick, M. (2021). EDUCAUSE Quick Poll results: Stress in the workplace. EDUCAUSE.
https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2021/1/educause-quickpoll-results-stress-in-the-
workplace#fn2
McFarlane, D. (2011). A comparison of organizational structure and pedagogical approach:
Online versus face-to-face. The Journal of Educators Online, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2011.1.1
McGee, P., Windes, D., & Torres, M. J. (2017). Experienced online instructors: Beliefs and
preferred supports regarding online teaching. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
29(2), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9140-6
McKenzie, L. (2020, July 21). Survey hints at long-term impact of spring pivot to remote
learning. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/print/news/2020/07/21/survey-hints-long-term-impact-
spring-pivot-remote-learning
McKenzie, L. (2021, February 19). Online learning era neglects blind students' needs. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/02/19/blind-students-learning-
remotely-encounter-accessibility-barriers
McKenzie, L. (2021, March 9). MOOCs failed, short courses won. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/03/09/coursera-ipo-filing-reveals-company-
successfully-monetizing-moocs
97

Menon, S., & Suresh, M. (2020). Factors influencing organizational agility in higher education.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(1), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-
04-2020-0151
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mehta, R., & Aguilera, E. (2020). A critical approach to humanizing pedagogies in online
teaching and learning. The International Journal of Information and Learning
Technology, 37(3). 109–120. https://doi.10.1108/IJILT-10-2019-0099
Mitchell, L., Parlamis, J., & Claiborne, S. (2015). Overcoming faculty avoidance of online
education: From resistance to support to active participation. Journal of Management
Education, 39(3), 350–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914547964
Miyagawa, S., & Perdue, M. (2020, November 11). A renewed focus on the practice of teaching.
Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/11/11/switching-online-
teaching-during-pandemic-may-fundamentally-change-how-faculty
Mohr, S., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional
development: a Delphi study. Online Learning, 21(4), 123–140.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1163625.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2021). Distance learning.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
Mooc.org. (2021). About MOOCs. https://www.mooc.org/
Moody, J. (2022). Colleges extend remote learning. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/01/10/colleges-extend-remote-instruction-
period-due-omicron
98

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center [NSCRC]. (2020, November 12). National
Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s monthly update on higher education
enrollment. https://nscresearchcenter.org/stay-informed/
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center [NSCRC]. (2020, December 17). Current term
enrollment estimates [CTEE] Report: Fall 2020. https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/CTEE_Report_Fall_2020.pdf
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center [NSCRC]. (2021, March 11). Spring 2021
enrollment. https://nscresearchcenter.org/stay-informed/
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center [NSCRC]. (2022, January 13). Fall 2021:
Current term enrollment estimates. https://nscresearchcenter.org/current-term-enrollment-
estimates/
Neelakantan, S. (2020, April 12). Fully online in fall 2020 too? Many colleges are leaning
toward it, says survey. Diverse Issues in Higher Education.
https://diverseeducation.com/article/172917/
Neroni, J., Meijs, C., Leontjevas, R., Kirschner, P., & De Groot, R. (2018). Goal orientation and
academic performance in adult distance education. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 19(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i2.3440
Olesova, L., & Campbell, S. (2019). The impact of the cooperative mentorship model on faculty
preparedness to develop online courses. Online Learning, 23(4), 192–213.
https://doi:10.24059/olj.v23i4.2089
Online Learning Consortium [OLC]. (2021). Moving teaching online — OLC continuity
planning and emergency preparedness. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/about/olc-
continuity-planning-moving-teaching-online/
99

Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3) (REL 2016-160). Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/
Pomerantz, J., & Brooks, D. C. (Eds.) (2017). ECAR study of faculty and information
technology. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/ecar-
study-of-faculty-and-information-technology/2017/conclusion-and-recommendations
Rafique, G. M., Mahmood, K., Warraich, N. F., & Rehman, S. U. (2021). Readiness for online
learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of Pakistani LIS students. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 47(3), 102346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102346
Rahiem, M. (2021). Remaining motivated despite the limitations: University students’ learning
propensity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Children and Youth Services Review, 120,
105802–105802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105802
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., & Goodyear, P. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the
Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Post-digital Science
and Education, 2, 923–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
Redden, E. (2020, October 15). Graduate enrollment grew in 2019. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/10/15/survey-finds-graduate-enrollment-
grew-25-percent-between-fall-2018-and-2019
Rhode, J., Richter, S., & Miller, T. (2017). Designing personalized online teaching professional
development through self-assessment. TechTrends, 61, 444–451.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0211-3
100

Rizun, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Rizun, M., & Strzelecki, A. (2020). Students’ acceptance of the COVID-19 impact on shifting
higher education to distance learning in Poland. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186468
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The heart of hearing data. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Ryan, R. M., & Moller, A. C. (2017). Competence as central, but not sufficient, for high-quality
motivation: A self-determination theory perspective. Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., &
Yeager, D. S. (Eds.). In Handbook of competence and motivation (2nd ed.). The
Guildford Press.
Sands, T., & Shushok, F. (2020, October 16). The COVID-19 higher education shove.
EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/10/the-covid-19-higher-education-
shove
Saunders, F., Brooks, J., & Dawson, M. (2020). Exploring staff attitudes to distance learning -
What are the opportunities, challenges and impacts on engineering academics and
instructional designers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(5), 675–690.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1677562
Schein, E. (2014). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
101

Scherer, R. H., Howard, S.K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers' readiness for
online teaching and learning in higher education: Who's ready? Computers in Human
Behavior, 118, 106675, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in
the United States. Online Learning Consortium.
https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/grade-increase-tracking-distance-education-
united-states/
Selingo, J. J., Clark, C., Noone, D., & Wittmayer, A. (2021, January 27). The hybrid campus:
Three major shifts for the post-COVID university. Deloitte.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/post-pandemic-hybrid-
learning.html
Sheffield, S. L., McSweeney, J. M., & Panych, A. (2015). Exploring future teachers’ awareness,
competence, confidence, and attitudes regarding teaching online: Incorporating
blended/online experience into the teaching and learning in higher education courses for
graduate students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(3), 1–14.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1779426600?accountid=14749
SHRM. (2015). Understanding organizational structures toolkit.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-
samples/toolkits/pages/understandingorganizationalstructures.aspx
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. Link Research
Lab. http://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf
102

Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2017). Change levers for unifying top-down and bottom-up
approaches to the adoption and diffusion of e-learning in higher education. Teaching in
Higher Education, 22(6), 736–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1289508
Snook, A. G., Schram, A. B., Sveinsson, T., & Jones, B. D. (2019). Needs, motivations, and
identification with teaching: a comparative study of temporary part-time and tenure-track
health science faculty in Iceland. BMC Medical Education, 19(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1779-4
Soderstrom, S., & Weber, K. (2020). Organizational structure from interaction: Evidence from
corporate sustainability efforts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 226–271.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219836670
Stachowiak, B. (Host). (2021, March 4). Hyflex: Create engaging asynchronous activities (No.
351). [Audio podcast episode]. In Teaching in Higher Ed.
https://teachinginhighered.com/podcast/hyflex-create-engaging-asynchronous-activities/
Stupnisky, R., Hall, N., Daniels, L., & Mensah, E. (2017). Testing a model of pretenure faculty
members’ teaching and research success: Motivation as a mediator of balance,
expectations, and collegiality. The Journal of Higher Education (Columbus), 88(3), 376–
400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1272317
Sunal, C. S., & Wright V. H. (2012). Online learning. In: Seel, N. M. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of the
sciences of learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_388
Sutton, H. (2020, September 20). Survey reviews COVID-19-based disruptions for students with
disabilities. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 3(26),
https://doi.org/10.1002/dhe.30921
103

Tamim, S. R. (2020). Analyzing the complexities of online education systems: A systems
thinking perspective. TechTrends, 64, 740–750. https://doi-
org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s11528-020-00538-9
Tate, M., Campbell-Meier, J., & Sudfelt, R. (2018). Organizational routines and teaching
innovations: a case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(7), 885–901.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1437132
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00036-1
USC Rossier School of Education. (2021). About the USC Rossier School of Education: Our
mission. https://rossier.usc.edu/about/
Vaill, A. L., & Testori, P. A. (2012). Orientation, mentoring and ongoing support: A three-tiered
approach to online faculty development. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
16(2), 111–119. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ971048
Vilppu, H., Södervik, I., Postareff, L., & Murtonen, M. (2019). The effect of short online
pedagogical training on university teachers’ interpretations of teaching-learning
situations. Instructional Science, 47(6), 679–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-
09496-z
Wang, C., Xie, A., Wang, W., & Wu, H. (2020). Association between medical students’ prior
experiences and perceptions of formal online education developed in response to
COVID-19: A cross-sectional study in China. BMJ Open, 10(10), e041886–e041886.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041886
104

Watkins, M. D. (2013). What is organizational culture? And why should we care? Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/05/what-is-organizational-culture
Wiesenmayer, R., Kupczynski, L., & Ice, P. (2008). The role of technical support and
pedagogical guidance provided to faculty in online programs: Considerations for higher
education administrators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(4).
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter114/wiesenmayer114.html
Williams June, A. (2020). Was remote learning a success? The Chronicle of Higher Education,
66(31), 9. https://www-chronicle-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/issue/2020/06-12
Williams June, A. (2021). College students have been stressed out during the pandemic: Here’s
how it’s affected their mental health. In Mental Well-Being in the Covid Era. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. https://connect.chronicle.com/rs/931-EKA-
218/images/CampusWellBeingInTheCovidEra.pdf
Yang, D., Baldwin, S. & Snelson, C. (2017). Persistence factors revealed: students’ reflections
on completing a fully online program. Distance Education, 38(1), 23–36.
https://doi.10.1080/01587919.2017.1299561
Young Doo, M., Tang, Y., Bonk, C. J., & Zhu, M. (2020). MOOC instructor motivation and
career development. Distance Education, 41(1), 26–47,
https://doi.10.1080/01587919.2020.1724770

105

Appendix A: Survey Items
1. Please indicate how confident you would be to teach online next semester based on
your current knowledge and position. Use the slider to select a value between 0 and
100 for each item that corresponds with your confidence level. Response options:
Slightly confident, somewhat confident, moderately confident, extremely confident
[RQ 1, self-efficacy]
I would be able to:
a. Make subject matter interesting and understandable
b. Plan weekly synchronous sessions using videoconferencing technology
c. Analyze and solve learning problems
d. Maintain a climate conducive to learning
e. Engage students
f. Instruct students who are racially and ethnically diverse and/or come from
diverse backgrounds and experience
g. Use available learning technologies (i.e., tutorials, simulations, productivity
tools, and communication tools)
h. Teach a subject matter, course, or content of personal or professional interest
i. Create a different learning experience from my current teaching practices (i.e.,
try something new, host a guest speaker, team teach, etc.)
j. Measure and evaluate student performance
k. Leverage prior professional or teaching experience
l. Ask questions of or shadow fellow faculty
106

m. Maintain effective working relationships with other faculty, staff, and
administrators
n. Access needed faculty support staff and services
o. Receive feedback on instructional plans or practices
p. Complete related professional development
2. What personal factor is most important to your success as online faculty? Response
Options: Overall confidence, prior experience, professionalism, technical skills,
familiarity with the online environment, other, other, open-ended [RQ 1, self-
efficacy]
3. I have been teaching online for: Response Options: Interval; less than 2 years,
between 2-5 years, between 5-7 years, more than 7 years, prefer not to answer [RQ 1,
prior experience]
4. My primary teaching assignments are in the following program: Response Options:
Nominal; Program A, Program B, Program C, Program D [RQ 1, prior experience]
5. What aspects of the online learning environment did you use to arrive at your
estimate of your preparation, confidence, or ability? Response should not exceed one
paragraph. Response Options: Open-ended, text-based [RQ 1, self-efficacy]
6. What personal experiences, observations, feedback, or emotions did you use to arrive
at your estimate of your preparation, confidence, or ability? Response should not
exceed one paragraph. Response Options: Open-ended, text-based [RQ 1, self-
efficacy]
107

7. I would be willing to serve as a volunteer for this study’s interview protocol. Please
contact me with more information. My preferred email: Response Options: Open-
ended, text-based; [RQ: none]

108

Appendix B: Interview Questions
1. Tell me about your professional experience in your field before teaching. [RQ 1; prior
experience]
2. What brought you to online teaching? [RQ 2, environment]
3. Describe your current online teaching environment. [RQ 3, environment]
4. How might you get yourself ready to teach a new content area/course? [RQ 2,
preparation]
5. What does the ideal course “prep” look like to you? [RQ 2, preparation]
6. What resources or tools are useful to you as you prepare for online instruction? [RQ
2, preparation]
7. How do you approach a new prep versus a course you often teach? [RQ 1, self-
efficacy]
8. What challenges do you encounter in the online environment? [RQ 1, self-efficacy]
9. What advantages do you encounter in the online environment? [RQ 3, environment]
10. Describe your comfort level with technology. [RQ 1, self-efficacy
11. How would you describe how you approach a professional goal related to teaching?
[RQ 1, self-efficacy]
12. How would you define teaching success in the online learning environment? [RQ 3,
environment]
13. What are your reasons for wanting to achieve success in the online environment? [RQ
3, environment]
14. What would the consequences of not being motivated or achieving success in the
online environment look like? [RQ 1, self-efficacy]
109

15. If you could impart one piece of advice to new online faculty, what would you share?
[RQ 1, self-efficacy]

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of self-efficacy, faculty behaviors and actions, and environmental factors related to online higher education faculty preparedness. The mixed methods study explored practices for faculty preparation, resulting in quality online instruction to facilitate change for improvements and desired best practices within the targeted institution as a learning organization based on data-driven decision-making and gathered research. Participants included appointed adjunct online faculty members in graduate-level professional degree programs. This study formulated three recommendations from emerging findings related to prior experience, current and relevant instructional practices, and student engagement. Recommendations included elevating prior experience as primary criteria within recruitment, vetting, and appointment processes, supporting systematic assessment practices and evaluation to contribute to program curricula with a robust community of practice, and expanding student engagement opportunities formally and informally inside and outside the online classroom. The study also contemplates areas of exploration for future research concerning personal, behavioral, and environmental factors continuing to affect ongoing academic operations in the online higher education domain.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Supporting faculty in preparing entrepreneurship: an exploration in the context of active learning

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

An analysis of online engagement of secondary teachers at high need schools during COVID-19 shutdowns

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

Sustainable fashion leadership: The female phenomenon

PDF

Higher education faculty and reflective practice

PDF

Intelligent Learning Quotient

PDF

An examination of factors that contribute to the shortage of behavioral health providers in the United States Navy

PDF

Impact of tenure on the professional motivation of civil servants

PDF

Completion in online learning: graduate students' perspectives

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Factors influencing the success of Black male faculty at a Predominantly White Institution

PDF

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

PDF

Will school-based online faculty development be an effective tool for their professional growth?

PDF

Chameleons and kungas: the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members in their transitions to academic service

PDF

I am not your mule: intersectional bias against Black female HBCU leaders

PDF

A curriculum for higher education faculty to reimagine learning in a postpandemic world

PDF

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

PDF

Factors that facilitate or hinder staff performance during management turnover

Asset Metadata

Creator Owen, Sharon Elizabeth (author)

Core Title An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 03/05/2022

Defense Date 02/15/2022

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

Tag faculty,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,online,self-efficacy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique Claire (committee chair), Martinez, Brandon (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email seowen@usc.edu,sowen@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110768194

Unique identifier UC110768194

Legacy Identifier etd-OwenSharon-10413

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Owen, Sharon Elizabeth

Type texts

Source 20220308-usctheses-batch-915 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu