Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Diversification for financial sustainability: a postsecondary improvement model
(USC Thesis Other)
Diversification for financial sustainability: a postsecondary improvement model
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
DIVERSIFICATION FOR FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY:
A POSTSECONDARY IMPROVEMENT MODEL
by
John C. Beck
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2020
Copyright 2020 John C. Beck
ii
DEDICATION
To my late parents Dr. Lee Randolph Beck and Marjorie Ann Beck, who showed me that
teachers are very valuable, that words are very powerful, and that examples are completely
priceless – especially when they come in the form of loving parents.
“Tell me, and I will forget; show me, and I will remember; involve me, and I will understand.”
- Unknown
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. David Wismer had a desire to give an institution and its faculty members a chance to
grow. His generous financial commitment and his generous heart propelled me down this path,
which has been a great intellectual adventure, a character-shaping challenge, and an irreplaceable
treasure in my life’s journey. Dr. Patrick Crispen, who loves his subject, and makes his students
love it as well, taught me that expenses are never the whole picture when it comes to investment.
Costs count as well, and costs include the intangible non-financial realities of paths not taken.
Some of the costs for this dissertation were personal, some were born by family members, and
some were born by new friends, classmates, instructors, and colleagues.
To my children, Timothy and Emma and my wife of 26 years, Mary, thank you for the
price you paid. You paid in strange currency. You paid with things like Saturdays, fathers-days,
half-vacations, divided attention, and delayed anniversary celebrations. To my institution, you
paid by extending grace to a professor who was often worn thin with study, and by providing a
laboratory in which to stretch my newly found research wings. To my committee: Dr. Hinga,
you opened my world to qualitative methodology and a constructivist perspective on
organizations. Dr. Sparangis, you served our cohort selflessly and gave us permission to
consider ourselves creative. Finally, but not least of all, Dr. Tambascia, you suffered through
draft after ugly draft of this document in a way that not only helped the document but grew the
researcher. “Fight On!”
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Organizational Context and Mission .............................................................................................. 2
Organizational Performance Need .............................................................................................. 4
Related Literature........................................................................................................................ 4
Importance of the Organizational Improvement ......................................................................... 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................. 6
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals.................................................................................... 7
Key Stakeholder Group for the Study ......................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Project and Questions ......................................................................................... 9
Methodological Framework ...................................................................................................... 10
Definitions................................................................................................................................. 11
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Financial Sustainability in Higher Education ........................................................................... 13
Financial Sustainability for Small Nonprofit Universities .................................................... 14
Current Conditions ................................................................................................................ 14
The Role of Technology in Education .................................................................................. 15
The Role of Entrepreneurship ............................................................................................... 16
Historical Review of Faculty Culture in Higher Education .................................................. 17
Current Research in Faculty Online Innovation ................................................................... 18
Organizational Change Models in Higher Education ............................................................... 19
Overview of Change in the Academy ................................................................................... 19
Multi-Frame Analysis of Change in the Academy ............................................................... 21
The Academic Institution as a Learning Organization ......................................................... 21
Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................... 22
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ................................................................. 23
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................................... 24
Conceptual. ....................................................................................................................... 24
Procedural. ........................................................................................................................ 24
Metacognitive. .................................................................................................................. 25
Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 27
Self-efficacy theory. .......................................................................................................... 27
Expectancy-value theory. .................................................................................................. 28
Organizational Influences ..................................................................................................... 31
v
Incentives. ......................................................................................................................... 31
Leadership. ........................................................................................................................ 32
Cultural Models. ............................................................................................................... 33
Conceptual Framework: Hypothesized Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation
and Organization ....................................................................................................................... 37
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 40
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 42
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 42
Interview Recruitment Strategy Sampling Criteria and Rational ......................................... 43
Criterion 1. ........................................................................................................................ 44
Criterion 2. ........................................................................................................................ 44
Criterion 3. ........................................................................................................................ 44
Criterion 4. ........................................................................................................................ 44
Focus Group Recruitment Strategy Criteria and Rational .................................................... 44
Criterion 1. ........................................................................................................................ 45
Criterion 2. ........................................................................................................................ 45
Criterion 3. ........................................................................................................................ 45
Criterion 4. ........................................................................................................................ 46
Data Collection and Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 46
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 46
Interview Protocol. ............................................................................................................ 46
Focus group protocol. ....................................................................................................... 47
Interview procedures. ........................................................................................................ 49
Focus group procedures. ................................................................................................... 49
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 50
Credibility ............................................................................................................................. 52
Consistency ........................................................................................................................... 53
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 54
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 55
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 57
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 58
Interview Participants ........................................................................................................... 59
Focus Group Participants ...................................................................................................... 60
Findings..................................................................................................................................... 61
Knowledge Findings Discussion........................................................................................... 63
Motivation Findings Overview ............................................................................................. 68
Motivation Findings Discussion ........................................................................................... 70
Organization Findings Overview .......................................................................................... 73
Themes ...................................................................................................................................... 77
Self-efficacy in Learning Management Software ................................................................. 78
Distance Education as Supplemental .................................................................................... 78
Student Benefits of Access ................................................................................................... 80
Institutional Mission ............................................................................................................. 81
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 81
vi
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations......................................................................... 83
Organizational Context ............................................................................................................. 83
Organizational Performance Goal ............................................................................................. 84
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 84
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................................................. 85
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................................. 85
Recommendation #1 ......................................................................................................... 85
Recommendation #2: ........................................................................................................ 86
Recommendation #3: ........................................................................................................ 86
Motivation Recommendations .............................................................................................. 89
Recommendation #4: ........................................................................................................ 89
Recommendation #5: ........................................................................................................ 90
Organization Recommendations ........................................................................................... 93
Recommendation #6: ........................................................................................................ 93
Recommendation #7: ........................................................................................................ 94
Implementation and Evaluation Plan ........................................................................................ 96
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................... 97
Level 3: Behavior .................................................................................................................. 98
Critical behaviors. ............................................................................................................. 98
Required drivers. ............................................................................................................... 99
Organizational support. ................................................................................................... 101
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................ 101
Learning goals. ................................................................................................................ 101
Program. .......................................................................................................................... 101
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................................ 104
Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................. 105
Data Analysis and Reporting .............................................................................................. 106
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 107
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 107
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 108
References ................................................................................................................................... 109
Appendices
Appendix A Interview Protocol ...................................................................................... 125
Appendix B Evaluation Instrument 1 ............................................................................. 132
Appendix C Evaluation Instrument 2 ............................................................................. 133
Appendix D Online Diversification Report Card ........................................................... 134
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals. .................. 7
Table 2 - Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis .......... 26
Table 3 - Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis ............ 30
Table 4 - Organizational Influences, Types, and Assessments for Gap Analysis ........................ 36
Table 5 - Interview Participant Demographics ............................................................................. 59
Table 6 - Focus Group Participant Demographics ........................................................................ 61
Table 7 - Summary of Knowledge Influences and Research Results ........................................... 62
Table 8 - Summary of Motivation Influences and Research Results ............................................ 69
Table 9 - Summary of Organization Influences and Research Results ........................................ 74
Table 10 - Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ....................................... 88
Table 11 - Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ....................................... 92
Table 12 - Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations .................................... 95
Table 13 - Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ...................... 98
Table 14 - Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................. 99
Table 15 - Required Divers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 100
Table 16 - Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program .................................... 103
Table 17 - Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................. 104
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Interactive conceptual framework. ................................................................................ 38
Figure 2. Interactive conceptual framework. ................................................................................ 39
ix
ABSTRACT
This study presents a qualitative analysis of faculty as a key stakeholder group at Faith
University (pseudonym). Faith University is a small tuition-dependent university located in the
western region of the United States. The institution is being impacted by a general problem of
financial sustainability affecting schools of its size. As such, it is seeking diversification into
online offerings, and specifically into an online entrepreneurial studies program. The analysis
utilizes a multi-frame approach prescribed by Clark and Estes (2008) to examine knowledge,
motivational, and organizational factors (KMO) influencing the stakeholder group as agents of
change. Findings in each of these KMO areas, site-specific recommendations based on these
findings, and an implementation plan based on Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) are presented.
Keywords: Financial Sustainability, Faculty Culture, University Culture, Organizational
Change, Distance Education, Entrepreneurial Education
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The financial viability of small nonprofit institutions of higher education has recently
become a concern among experts in the field (Denneen & Dretler, 2012; Lederman, 2013).
Moody’s Investor Services, an organization that rates the credit of these institutions, cites several
related trends, including declining enrollment, increasing administrative and overhead costs, and
price sensitivity in the market (Woodhouse, 2015). These factors have resulted in dire
predictions that closure rates may triple within a decade (J. Martin & Samels, 2017).
Very small colleges, or those with fewer than 3,000 full-time equivalent students
(McCormick, 2006), are the primary segment of higher education impacted by these concerns.
This is a problem because very small colleges serve approximately 17% of all college students,
and an even larger percentage of low income, minority, and first-generation college students who
often find greater success at such institutions, as compared to their peers at public research
universities (Ekman, 2015; Ye, 2018). As such, this problem of practice in higher education has
implications for diversity, access, and equity for the broader society.
Education economists attribute the problem of financial sustainability for small nonprofit
postsecondary institutions to a “perfect storm” of general economic and demographic factors
(Chernikova & Varonis, 2016, p. 132). Their financial sustainability challenges are related to
declining population numbers in the college age bracket, declining numbers of new high school
graduates entering college (Chabotar, 2010; Lyken-Segosebe & Shepherd, 2013), escalating
administrative and overhead costs within the institutions themselves (Denneen & Dretler, 2012;
Wang, 2008), difficulty in retaining existing students, and competitive economic pressures
caused by tuition discounting (Perkins, 2017; Selingo, 2013).
2
Organizational Context and Mission
The focus for this study is Faith University (“Faith,” a pseudonym) in the Western United
States. Faith is a private, nonprofit, accredited institution of higher learning offering graduate
and undergraduate degree programs in a variety of academic fields. The institution has an
educational philosophy that emphasizes an unwavering commitment to its conservative Christian
doctrinal statement, a commitment to global impact, and social values that are derived from an
orthodox reform theological interpretation of the bible. The institution has been in existence for
over 90 years.
For the fiscal period covering 2016-2017 Faith realized an operating loss of 2.9%, which
has caused serious concern within the administration about the financial sustainability of the
institution. This loss reflects a performance gap of 12.9% as the institution’s stated objective is
10% net positive annual operating income.
Recent internal data show that Faith currently serves 909 students in its traditional, four-
year undergraduate program, 149 graduate students, and 368 students in online programs. These
numbers place the institution well within the category of “very small colleges,” cited as most
vulnerable to the problem of financial sustainability (McCormick, 2006). At the center of this
problem is an outsized reliance on tuition revenue to cover annual operating expenses.
The performance improvement examined in this study is the introduction of a new online
degree program in entrepreneurship by the Business department. This improvement is relevant
to the issue of financial sustainability because it is part of a larger strategy favoring online
curricular offerings. These offerings offer diversification of revenue streams and support for the
espoused global mission of the organization. The introduction of this program also promises to
extend market reach to students beyond the physical limitations of a small local campus. The
improvement is specifically germane to the worldwide dimension of Faith’s published mission
3
statement providing global access “To empower students for a life of enduring commitment to
Christ, biblical fidelity, moral integrity, intellectual growth, and lasting contribution to the
Kingdom of God worldwide” (The Faith University, 2017).
In keeping with this organizational mission, the proposed entrepreneurship program and
online curricular initiative promise to promote economic development in areas that would
otherwise be unreached with Christian education. Serving these development needs through
business curriculum, and specifically, entrepreneurial curriculum is seen by the business
department at Faith as strategic. It extends business education to geographic areas where access
is most limited (Hickel, 2017). Therefore, acting on programs like this would align with both
institutional mission and identity.
One key area of geographic focus at Faith University is the 10/40 window. The 10/40
window is a term coined by mission strategist Luis Bush to refer to those areas located between
10 and 40 degrees north of the equator (Bush, 1990). This area continues to be of strategic
concern to Faith University because it represents a convergence of human suffering,
underdeveloped economics, political instability, and a concentration of populations unreached by
Christian doctrine (Rundle & Steffen, 2011). Developing online business education could then
become part of a larger strategy for promoting economic development and human welfare that
aligns with the values of the institution. Economic development is frequently cited as a source of
stability for political and economic institutions in areas where it is introduced (Asmus &
Grudem, 2013; Hamlin & Lyons, 1996).
In summary, there is a natural synergy between the need for Faith to achieve financial
sustainability through diversification of online offerings, the global component of its published
mission statement and the introduction of new online programs. Entrepreneurial education that
is unhindered by geography also offers to bring economic and societal benefits to underserved
4
populations. This study will examine limitations and drivers in the context of Faith University,
which may help or hinder the implementation of online programs aimed at diversification of
revenue streams. By doing so, the study may generate insights that inform the overall
diversification initiative at Faith and may also provide transferable insights to similar institutions
in the very small colleges category.
Organizational Performance Need
The global component of Faith’s organizational mission is currently hampered by the
practical limitations of a small campus that provides limited geographic reach. The improvement
that this study explores is that of increased financial viability through diversified curricular
offerings and a strategy that transcends geographic limitations through distance learning. In
addition to this, the advantages of economic development offered specifically by
entrepreneurship are a fit for the service component of Faith’s mission and philosophy. The goal
of this program is to equip business practitioners domestically and across the globe with skills to
initiate and grow entrepreneurial ventures that bring economic benefit, while promoting access
and equity in business education (Rundle & Steffen, 2011). Failure to address this strategic
realignment would limit the organizational mission of Faith in terms of both scope (worldwide
reach), and sustainability (financial viability of the institution). Currently, no such program
exists at Faith.
Related Literature
In a recent Delphi Panel examination of experts from the field of Entrepreneurial
Education (EE), Neck and Corbett (2018) synthesized a definition of entrepreneurialism as
“…developing the mindset, skillset, and practice necessary for starting new ventures.” (p. 10)
Some scholarship on the effectiveness of EE has cited broad institutional benefits, finding that
encouragement of self-directed learning and innovation promotes general life skills in a
5
multidisciplinary environment providing diverse academic programs across the academy (Katz,
Roberts, Strom, & Freilich, 2014; Torrance & Rauch, 2013).
EE has also been cited as a means of addressing financial sustainability for small
institutions in an atmosphere of rapid technological change (J. Martin & Samels, 2017). Some
methods of instruction have included andragogical content, experiential learning via games,
simulations, and the formation of actual ventures (Forrest III & Peterson, 2006; Neck & Greene,
2011).
The diverse nature and variety of approaches to EE stem from idiosyncratic institutional
characteristics and contextual factors that have complicated the identification of best practices
positively associated with entrepreneurial success (J. Byrne, Fayolle, & Toutain, 2014). Meta-
analysis of investigations into EE programs and entrepreneurial outcomes reveals a host of
methodological problems hampering the identification of best practices (B. C. Martin, McNally,
& Kay, 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). One promising finding in the literature on EE relates to
the agentic role of student entrepreneurs in driving entrepreneurial outcomes and frames the
purpose of EE as encouraging self-efficacy in entrepreneurial activity in students through
student-driven investigations into intellectual property law, team management, and venture
capitalization (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; Cox, Mueller, & Moss, 2002). In summary, self-
directed online work in entrepreneurship finds support in the literature as a means both for
promoting entry into self-employment and for creating new revenue streams in a small university
setting.
Importance of the Organizational Improvement
It is important for Faith to implement an online EE degree program for a variety of
reasons. If Faith is unable to affect economic benefits that result from EE by championing the
founding of new business ventures, it may forfeit an important source of future donor support
6
and development funding. Additionally, innovation in online EE promises to facilitate global
activity that furthers the institutional mission. Finally, online EE directly addresses the problem
of diversification cited by scholars as the key to achieving financial viability for small private
institutions (J. Martin & Samels, 2017). Global charitable outreach, combined with business
enterprise, is not a novel concept. It is sometimes referred to by missionaries as Business as
Missions (BAM) and represents a significant strategy embraced widely by Christian
organizations as an alternative to traditional missionary activity (Rundle & Steffen, 2011).
Failure to address EE online would impact Faith’s ability to fulfill its global mission and
is an important step toward financial sustainability through diversification of course offerings.
Offering this program will enable Faith to make relevant contributions to the emerging strategy
of BAM, will align with key constituencies of the organization, will extend institutional reach,
and will address a need for diversification of offerings. The improvement may also promote
access and equity, empowering economic development, and potential sources of donor support.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The participation of key organizational stakeholders will be vital in accomplishing this
improvement. These stakeholders include faculty, staff, and administration at Faith. These
groups are important because they can support or discourage organizational change. They each
play an instrumental role in facilitating long-term outcomes. The administration consists of five
persons who represent the top-management-team of the institution. This team oversees 185 staff
people who work in a variety of facilities, program, student life, and support roles. The faculty
itself consists of 215 persons. Approximately 25% of these are full-time and the remainder part-
time faculty. The business department is currently very small, with only four full-time members.
7
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Included in Table 1 are the stakeholder goals as aligned with the overall organizational
performance goal established by the Dean for Business and Communication. The primary focus
for this study will be Stakeholder 1, of Table 1 which consists of full-time faculty at Faith. The
instrumental role of faculty in this improvement effort falls into three major categories. The first
is in the organizational influence that they wield through the governance mechanism of an
academic affairs committee, which has the power to review and recommend new curricular
programs to the full faculty for a vote. The second is through the socialization of values related
to online teaching. The third is faculty participation in online teaching above and beyond their
traditional classroom course load, as well as development of online courses that are above and
beyond their course load. Both teaching and course development are not part of faculty base
salary and are considered supplemental. This notwithstanding the fact that each faculty contract
does state that they must be “generally willing” to teach online.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
“To empower students for a life of enduring commitment to Christ, biblical fidelity, moral integrity,
intellectual growth, and lasting contribution to the Kingdom of God worldwide” (The Faith University,
2017).
Organizational Performance Goal
By December 2021, Faith University will increase the revenue contribution of its online programs to 20%
of total operating income. An important step in achieving this goal will be the introduction of an online
program in entrepreneurship. This performance goal is aimed at diversification of online offerings and
suggested as a means of diversifying revenue streams and extending worldwide impact.
8
Table 1, continued
Stakeholder 1 Goal Stakeholder 2 Goal Stakeholder 3 Goal
By May 2020, the faculty at Faith
University will vote to approve
the development of an online
program in entrepreneurial
education as a first step toward
achieving a 100% faculty
participation rate in online
teaching.
By May 2020, the staff at Faith
University, including the
instructional designer, and
Director of Institutional
Assessment, will complete a
budgetary assessment of the
impact of an online program in
entrepreneurial education.
By May 2020, the
administration at Faith
University, including the Dean of
the Business School and Dean of
Online, will review proposed
programs in EE for alignment
with financial and mission-based
outcomes.
Key Stakeholder Group for the Study
While the efforts of staff, administration, and others will be relevant to the establishment
of an online EE degree program at Faith, the specific goal of increased participation of full-time
faculty in online programs will be the key driver of change. Because there are already
established processes for engaging faculty to design and teach courses online, and because such
participation is optional for full-time faculty, the willing and enthusiastic participation of full-
time faculty is paramount.
In addition to their active role in creating content, an academic affairs committee
consisting of full-time faculty must vote to approve any new online curricular offerings.
Because this approval process is so critical, the stakeholder group of focus for this study will be
current full-time faculty members at Faith. This group currently consists of 55 members.
Although only a small portion of this group will work on the focal EE Program, the introduction
of the program represents an important exemplar for change. The faculty as a body will need to
generally support online teaching, and this program represents an important evaluative step in
that direction.
The demographics of full-time faculty at Faith are very uniform, with the average age of
the faculty being 52 years old. It is a predominantly male population in a proportion of 2.7 to 1.
9
The sampling narrative discussed in Chapter Two will emphasize previous experience with
course development and teaching online for reasons that will be explained in depth. This
approach is aimed at surfacing common themes in the experience of professors at Faith that
support or constrain participation in online learning.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to gather evidence-based insights that will inform the
implementation of this and other online learning offerings at Faith University, which will serve
as an important source of tuition diversification. An analytical framework adapted from R. E.
Clark and Estes (2008) focusing on knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors (KMOs)
that may support or hinder the improvement at Faith University will be utilized. The study
began with a review of general literature germane to meanings and perceptions held by
university faculty about online teaching roles and course development roles. It then progressed
toward a qualitative investigation of those KMO factors at Faith University. While a complete
investigation would include non-faculty staff and administration, to stay within the limitations of
this study and focus on the group wielding the most direct influence on change, the stakeholder
focus for this investigation was limited to full-time faculty.
The questions that guided the investigation were:
1. What faculty knowledge and skills might help or hinder diversification into online course
curriculum at Faith University?
2. What faculty perceptions about online teaching might impact motivation to implement
and teach distance learning courses at Faith University?
3. Are there organizational, cultural, or contextual meanings operative among the faculty
stakeholder group at Faith University that might impact attainment of diversified
offerings?
10
4. What evidence-based recommendations might we make using these knowledge,
motivation, and organizational perspectives?
Methodological Framework
The methodological approach that comports with the preceding research questions was a
qualitative approach because the data to be gathered pertained most specifically to meanings held
by stakeholders in context (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A qualitative
approach was also appropriate in this context as there was no need to generalize beyond the
immediate organizational setting in order to inform the improvement effort. In addition to this,
the sample size of subjects within the confines of a small university was determined to be
inadequate for making generalizations to a larger population (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). As
such, the usefulness of any quantitative data was thought to be limited. The need to be informed
by categories of meaning unique to this faculty stakeholder group, therefore, suggested a
qualitative approach.
As will be further developed through the general literature review and examination of
stakeholder specific literature in Chapter Two, recent empirical evidence has shown that
individuals with experience teaching online, or taking courses online, perceive the fewest
barriers to online roles (Lloyd, Byrne, & McCoy, 2012). Therefore, the approach of this study
was a semi-structured interview format using open-ended questions that encouraged participants
to reflect on their lived experience in implementing online course content at Faith. These
interviews were supplemented with a focus group taken from the full-time faculty at large.
Members of the faculty stakeholder group at Faith, who have completed at least one-course
design and taught at least one course online at Faith, were purposively favored.
11
Definitions
Diversification of Revenue – The creation of source revenue from several activities
having the effect of reducing dependence on any single source of income (Simundza, Morgan,
Miller, & Storms, 2019).
Entrepreneurial Education – Andragogy designed to equip students with the ability to
start and grow new commercial ventures (Katz, 2003).
Financial Sustainability – Access to enough cash from operations, financings, savings,
and investment proceeds to meet financial obligations as they become due on an ongoing basis
(Denneen & Dretler, 2012).
Tuition Discounting – The provision of financial support to students in the form of
scholarships or other funding to effectively reduce their cost of attending the college (D. M.
Johnson, 2019).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters will be used for the presentation of this study. This initial chapter has
provided the reader with concepts and terminology found in the relevant literature. It began by
framing a larger problem of financial sustainability for small institutions of higher education.
From there, it presented the concept of diversification and entrepreneurial education as a strategy
for addressing the problem. The specific context at Faith University, the faculty stakeholder
group, and the planned improvement of diversified course offerings were then presented.
The second chapter of this study will begin with a general review of literature pertaining
to supports and constraints understood to influence faculty participation in distance learning.
The chapter will then examine literature related to organizational change and the involvement of
stakeholders from a multi-frame perspective setting the stage for the introduction of R. E. Clark
12
and Estes’ conceptual knowledge, motivation, and organizational framework as a scaffolding for
categorizing influences that have been identified in the literature.
The third chapter of the study will outline the methodological approach that was
employed for investigating these factors in context at Faith University. The chapter will
elaborate on selection and recruitment criteria, ethical considerations, and strategies that were
used to maximize the trustworthiness and reliability of the data collected. The chapter will
further outline procedures and protocols used in the interviews and focus test from which data
was derived.
In the fourth chapter, analysis of the data will be presented thematically. Conclusions
will be drawn based on comparisons to extant literature. Finally, in Chapter Five, specific
recommendations that arise from the investigation will be put forward.
13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter provides a broad review of extant literature on the problem of financial
sustainability for small non-profit universities within the landscape of higher education. The
review is framed within the historical context of trends impacting higher education, both within
the United States and abroad. It further discusses diversification and entrepreneurship as
strategies that have been put forward in the literature for addressing the financial sustainability
problem. In order to inform change at the institutional level, this chapter then examines faculty
as a key stakeholder group, either driving or constraining online program development. This
stakeholder literature is subsequently organized according to R. E. Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap
Analysis Conceptual Framework and includes research germane to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that might support or hinder stakeholder participation in change at Faith
University.
Financial Sustainability in Higher Education
Examining the problem of financial sustainability in higher education requires a look at
the broad landscape in which these institutions operate. This effort is complicated by the
idiosyncratic nature of institutions in the field. Scholars have often cited difficulty in creating
meaningful categories that enable true comparisons among peer institutions (Bogue & Hall,
2003a; Gladwell, 2011; Lang, 1999). For the 2017-18 academic year, a search of the Indiana
University Center for Postsecondary Research database (2018) yielded 6,502 institutions for
which federal financial aid was available. Within this broad landscape, institutions differed on
many dimensions, including region, public or private funding, four-year versus community
college, nonprofit or for-profit, mission distinctions, and religious affiliations. This literature
review will focus on the most salient features of Faith University that support comparison,
including a small nonprofit, four-year degree-granting institutions in the United States.
14
Financial Sustainability for Small Nonprofit Universities
Concern for the financial vulnerability of small nonprofit institutions in the United States
is not just a recent phenomenon. Astin and Lee (1972) profiled 491 institutions, which they
termed “invisible” within Carnegie Commission classifications because they had small
enrollments, small endowments, and nonselective admissions policies (p. 2). These institutions
were identified as particularly vulnerable to financial downturns and demographic shifts because
they were reliant on tuition revenue to meet ongoing operating expenses. Although the
institutions were termed “invisible” by the authors, they were also emphasized as being valuable
to society because of their contribution to the richness of diversity and accessibility of higher
education in the United States.
Tarrant, Bray, and Katsinas (2018) later returned to the original 491 institutions studied
by Astin and Lee (1972), finding that of these, 354 persisted in some form. The surviving
institutions were distinguished from their peers by resilience. Specifically, these surviving
institutions were adaptable and persisted with diversified offerings in the face of adverse
economic conditions. The authors explained these outcomes in terms of evolutionary systems
theory. Kezar (2011), described evolutionary systems theory, framing survival in terms of the
resilience and adaptability of an organization. This research suggests that diversification of
offerings is an important element in institutional sustainability.
Current Conditions
In recent history, the near failure and subsequent rescue of Sweet Briar College sent
shockwaves through the world of higher education (C. Jackson, 2015; Jaschik, 2015). The
development revealed underlying economic vulnerabilities that are especially applicable to
schools with small enrollments, increasing cost structures, and tuition dependence (Simundza et
al., 2019). There were 112 institutions in the 2014-2015 Almanac of Higher Education, which
15
did not receive a passing score on financial health standards administered by the United States
Department of Education (Lord, 2018). Data across 1791 institutions listed as nonprofit
postsecondary institutions by the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
database showed a 57.6% increase in costs over the ten years from 2007-17 (IPEDS, 2019).
Evidence of escalating costs against a backdrop of declining enrollment is further illustrated in
this data by examining the aggregate total expense for fiscal 2016, which showed expenses
outstripping revenue in the aggregate based on Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
accounting methods.
Having described the value and vulnerability of small nonprofit institutions, the
discussion will now turn to literature pertaining to technological disruption, globalization, and
entrepreneurship as environmental conditions impacting the problem of financial sustainability
for small private institutions.
The Role of Technology in Education
While enrollments have been declining in the United States as a function of cost
sensitivity paired with demographic shifts that include declining birth rates, demand for the
product that higher education offers remains robust on the global stage. Globally, enrollments
have been growing at a five percent annual clip, and a shortfall of 38-40 million college-educated
workers is anticipated worldwide by 2020 (Andrade, 2020). In a thoughtful comparison of
trends in the healthcare industry with those facing higher education, Brooks (2017) suggested
that technology offers institutions the opportunity to differentiate their offerings, attracting a
specific demographic niche. The author cited a large demographic shift away from traditional
students to nontraditional students, including part-time and distance learners.
16
Landmark work on the role of technology in bypassing existing structures and processes,
and thereby disrupting entire industries was conducted by Christensen (2013), who distinguished
between innovation that sustains existing markets and that which disrupts existing markets.
The possibility for disruptive innovation in higher education has been discussed in the
literature with the development of concepts such as Massively Open Online Course formats
(MOOCs) that allow for low-cost distribution of education on a global scale (Flynn, 2013).
Christensen and Eyring (2011) concluded in a thorough analysis of the historical development of
the American university system that truly disruptive innovation of the type proposed by
Christensen (2013) is unlikely because the internal structures or DNA of these institutions make
them particularly resistant to disruptive change. A prescient comparison was made by
Christensen and Eyring between cost-cutting as a strategy for achieving sustainability and the
idea of becoming an herbivore by reducing the amount of meat one consumes. The author
argued that simply cutting costs is not enough. New capabilities and revenue streams must be
added for change to take hold.
The Role of Entrepreneurship
The concept of entrepreneurship education (EE), and the entrepreneurial university are
relevant to financial sustainability at Faith on the dimension of cultural impact. Klofsten et al.
(2019) noted that the concept of the university as an entrepreneurial entity capable of driving
economic and social change began to appear in the literature as early as 1980, depicting the
benefits of the entrepreneurial university as multifaceted, including the concentration of highly
educated people, enablement of knowledge transfer, and as a means of sparking the creation of
new business ventures.
Benefits to university culture in the form of increased adaptability have also been cited by
Rossano et al. (2019), who drew parallels between competencies that are imparted through social
17
entrepreneurship and those which might benefit mission-oriented universities generally. The
influence on faculty and programs is matched by benefits to senior administration (Rossano et
al., 2019). In a study that included qualitative interviews of 18 presidents, board members,
administrators, and faculty on campuses at two private institutions, Carey (2014) found that
entrepreneurial presidential leadership was perceived to be a critical sin quo non for institutional
transformation.
Historical Review of Faculty Culture in Higher Education
The foundational work on faculty and student culture in postsecondary education was
conducted during the1960s (Becker, 1963; B. R. Clark & Lunsford, 1963). Since that time,
faculty culture has been investigated from several different perspectives, including the profession
itself, and the perspective of communities within various academic disciplines (Tierney &
Rhoads, 1994). Becher (1989) noted distinct sets of values and epistemological approaches
operating in communities of practice built around the hard and soft sciences with pure and
applied dimensions existing within each. Tierney and Rhoads (1994) examined faculty
socialization as a cultural process incorporating new faculty members into university culture by
setting expectations about the faculty role. The authors drew on a large body of research to
elucidate the link between institutional culture and university commitment. They presented
strong support for socialization as a means of shaping culture among faculty and promoting role
expectations that facilitate organizational change. Tierney and Lanford (2016) conceptualized
change in higher education as being driven by environmental forces that demand adaptation in
pedagogy, innovation in organizational structure, and research. The authors identified four
specific trends as necessitating change, including knowledge-based economics, technological
disruption of industry structures, shifting enrollment patterns, and diminishing government
funding. Entrepreneurship is a distinct concept for these authors involving the
18
commercialization of novel solutions generated within the academic setting. The authors
supported a view that elements of diversity, intrinsic motivation, and autonomy may positively
impact adaptability within faculty culture.
More recent contributions have examined the impact of globalization and technological
change on the nature of research and instruction, and indeed the nature of work itself. As it
applies to the academy and traditional faculty roles, this is a disruptive factor (Tierney &
Lanford, 2018). In summary, a historical approach to the literature on faculty culture shows that
adaptability is impacted by the external climate and the internal climate of universities.
Current Research in Faculty Online Innovation
As the rate of technological innovation in higher education has grown, so too has the
volume of scholarship devoted to an understanding of technology adoption by faculty. Utilizing
a multi-level HGLM model, Jackson (2017) analyzed data from a 2012 Ithaka S+R faculty
survey (n = 2,487) to explore relationships between field, age, gender, experience, and tenure on
openness to teaching online. Of the faculty characteristics studied, only gender was found to
significantly correlate to the propensity for teaching online, with some speculation that this might
be due to the increased flexibility of work schedules of online teaching against a backdrop of
family priorities. While culture may influence innovation, there was no evidence to support the
notion that willingness to teach online is influenced by other demographic characteristics such as
age.
Loague, Caldwell, and Balam (2018) utilized a survey methodology to study professors’
attitudes and perceptions about technology, citing an increased amount of preparation time being
perceived by faculty as necessary when incorporating technology into classroom teaching. The
authors found that the most frequently sought source of support was the dedicated IT help desk
of the institution, followed by self, online searches, and lastly, consultation with colleagues.
19
This would suggest that the perception of institutional technology support is a factor in faculty
self-efficacy in the adoption of new technological methods of teaching. Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
Glazewski, Newby, and Ertmer (2010) utilized a hermeneutic phenomenological approach to
examine the reported lived experience of eight teachers incorporating technology in the
classroom. They found a consistent theme that the adoption of any technology is related to the
instructor’s belief about its pedagogical value. The researchers observed beliefs related to both
professional facility and student need fulfillment. The researchers infer that technological
innovations that do not align with instructor beliefs will not be as readily adopted. This suggests
that professional development, which aligns with value beliefs of instructors, will more readily
be transferred to the classroom.
Lloyd et al. (2012) conducted a quantitative study using survey results analyzed through
exploratory factors analysis, generally concluding that barriers to teaching online mapped to
barriers identified in a previous study by Muilenburg and Berge (2001). These included low
interpersonal interaction with students, concern about intellectual property rights, concern about
technical support, and concern about time commitment. Most significantly, those faculty who
had the least experience with online teaching perceived the greatest barriers, suggesting that
experience should be explored as a major support for improvement.
Organizational Change Models in Higher Education
Overview of Change in the Academy
The literature on organizational change is of special relevance to this change effort
because it provides an analytic framework for understanding organizational barriers to
improvement. J. C. Burke (2005) traced the historical development of higher education with an
eye toward environmental forces that shaped societal expectations placed on the academy. The
author described the post WWII period as an era when higher education was cast as a public trust
20
existing for the general betterment of society. J. C. Burke (2005) saw enrollment declines at the
end of the Baby Boom generation as indicating a shift in societal expectations from an insulated
academy to one that should be held accountable for costs. He also saw the 1980s as a decade of
quality control, with questions emerging about the justification for public funding and a model of
cost/benefit analysis borrowed from the business world being imposed on universities. J. C.
Burke then framed the present time as being characterized by a mix of civic, collegiate, and
market forces placing diverse and sometimes conflicting demands on the academy (J. C. Burke,
2005). This work provided a contextualization for change efforts aimed at sustainability,
showing that conflicting demands of cost efficiency, regulation, and internal cultural forces are
influential in academic change efforts.
Weick (1976) characterized universities as loosely coupled, albeit stable organizations
that are generally resistant to change. However, because academic institutions contain diverse
components, and each can adjust independently without the need for systematic change, this
loosely coupled system was depicted as providing a diversity of approaches favoring adaptability
“...in loosely coupled systems where the identity, uniqueness, and separateness of elements is
preserved, the system potentially can retain a greater number of mutations and novel solutions
than would be the case with a tightly coupled system” (p. 8). On this basis, the proposed degree
program in entrepreneurship within the business department may inform further online
diversification efforts.
Stensaker (2015) later reviewed the concept of organizational identity as it links to
culture and organizational change efforts. A shared conception of what the organization is and
what it exists to accomplish was framed by the author as shaping the meaning which members
assigned to the change effort. The implication of this work is that when a uniform view of the
21
institution and its mission are shared by faculty, strong support for the improvement effort would
be expected.
Multi-Frame Analysis of Change in the Academy
Multi-frame analytic approaches are useful in revealing unexpected factors that might act
as supports or barriers to organizational improvement. Van de Ven, Andrew, and Poole (1995)
first recommended the value of shifting between diverse conceptual paradigms in the analysis of
organizational change because each frame sheds a unique light on the change being pursued.
Forms of change were framed by these authors as life cycle, teleological, dialectic, and
evolutionary paradigms. Each of these perspectives contributes to important implications for any
change effort. As such, a multifactor analytical approach such as the R. E. Clark and Estes
(2008) conceptual framework will provide a multidimensional perspective on the improvement
model for this study.
Bolman and Deal (2017) synthesized diverse paradigms into a four-factor framework for
understanding supports and barriers to organizational change. The authors apply political,
cultural, structural, and human resource lenses to the analysis of organizational change. Within
the human resource perspective proposed by Bolman and Deal (2017), it is possible to focus on
what R. E. Clark and Estes (2008) would term motivation and knowledge (K&M). The political,
structural, and cultural dimensions proposed by Bolman and Deal (2017) would similarly
comport with R. E. Clark and Estes (2008) organizational factors (O factors). In summary, the
literature of organizational change strongly supports a multi-factor analytical framework as an
approach to improvement, such as the one examined by this study.
The Academic Institution as a Learning Organization
The learning organization combines systems perspectives with human resource
perspectives to yield structural considerations impacting most organizational change efforts in
22
the academy. Senge (1990) outlined the roles, skills, and tools necessary for creating and leading
learning organizations. The roles of the learning organization are cast as organizational designer,
teacher, and steward of vision. The designer takes a systems perspective and communicates that
perspective to stakeholders. The teacher helps a team accommodate to realities that are external
to the organization, and the steward maintains a clear view of desired outcomes. The
identification of roles and skills needed to support this improvement at Faith will be an essential
step to addressing gaps between current and desired performance levels as per the R. E. Clark
and Estes (2008) conceptual framework.
Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008) suggested that learning organizations must
translate abstract concepts into practical, concrete prescriptions for action stating that learning
organizations must aim these action steps toward department heads and frontline managers as
well as to top leadership. The specificity of the stakeholder goal of near universal participation
in online teaching, as identified in this chapter, is in keeping with the author's prescription for
defined standards to guide implementation.
Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
As a means of understanding supports and constraints that may influence faculty as a key
stakeholder group at Faith University, this study will employ the R. E. Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analytic approach. This approach is germane to the multi-frame analysis supported by in the
preceding general review of the literature (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Garvin et al., 2008; Senge, 1990;
Van de Ven, Andrew H & Poole, 1995). Categories of analysis under this framework include
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors as drivers or hurdles in the implementation of the
improvement at Faith.
Knowledge influences will be treated according to the Krathwohl (2002) taxonomy, which
described procedural, metacognitive, and declarative forms of knowledge (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst,
23
Hill, & Krathwohl, 1984). Motivation will be examined through the lens of self-efficacy in task
performance (Bandura, 1982; Bandura, 1986) and task value, including intrinsic value,
attainment value, and utility value of teaching online (Eccles, 2006). Finally, organizational
influences on stakeholder performance will be considered with regard to cultural, organizational
resource, and structural considerations relevant to the problem of practice (Bolman & Deal, 1994;
Bolman & Deal, 2017).
The following section will begin with a review of literature related to knowledge and skill
influences. From there, the review will continue with a look at the literature pertaining to faculty
motivation and motivational influences impacting participation in online teaching in relationship
to improving financial stability at Faith. Finally, the review will turn to organizational
influences, including cultural, organizational resource, and structural considerations that may
influence the proposed improvement at Faith. In Chapter Four, these assumed influences will be
elucidated through a report on qualitative research findings conducted in the context of practice
at Faith University.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Instructors in higher education have long been cited as sources of resistance to change
efforts in the academy (Clarke, 1996). This section reviews extant literature on knowledge, skill,
and motivation-related influences operative for instructors in online learning environments
external to Faith. The constructs of knowledge and motivation have been useful to scholars and
consultants in the diagnosis of gaps between current and desired levels of organizational
performance (R. E. Clark, Estes, Middlebrook, & Palchesko, 2004). This review will explore
knowledge and motivation with the purpose of identifying empirically validated supports and
barriers to faculty participation in online instruction as part of the university’s efforts at tuition
24
diversification. It will then relate these to the accomplishment of faculty stakeholder and
organizational goals at Faith University.
Knowledge and Skills
Recent scholarship has supported the notion that faculty in higher education are
frequently not provided with training in online teaching (Crawford-Ferre & Wiest, 2012; B. L.
Jackson, 2017; Lloyd et al., 2012; McQuiggan, 2012; Shea, 2007). While this training is rare,
research suggests that adequate training is actually preferred by faculty over monetary incentives
(Herman, 2013), and that faculty can be strongly influenced to embrace change if they are given
the proper training (Brownell & Tanner, 2012). To further elucidate knowledge and skill
influences, then it will be necessary to utilize categories of knowledge adapted from Bloom’s
Taxonomy by Krathwohl (2002). In this approach, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
forms of knowledge/skill were analyzed as an influence on motivation. The following sections
describe each of these and draw insights on each from the literature.
Conceptual. Conceptual knowledge goes beyond the recitation of rote information into
an understanding of relationships and dependencies that exist within one’s environment. It is
this ability to conceptualize and model one’s environment that makes vicarious learning and
vicarious approaches to learning possible (Bandura, 2000). On this basis, it is somewhat
understandable that a significant and positive relationship has been shown to exist between
training in online pedagogy, and overall satisfaction with teaching online (Adnan, 2018).
Furthermore, Tabata and Johnsrud (2008) found that faculty conceptual understanding was
significantly correlated with intention to participate in online education.
Procedural. Procedural knowledge can be understood as the tacit experiential level of
performance. At this level, certain aspects of understanding have been automated (Schraw, G.,
& McCrudden, M., 2006), freeing up working memory and thereby reducing extraneous
25
cognitive load (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006). The reduction of extraneous cognitive load
allows for the integration of new knowledge into long term memory through the process of
sensing, selecting, organizing, and integrating further information with existing schemata. For
example, it might be possible to understand driving a car conceptually, but until one has had a
tacit experience behind the wheel, that conceptual knowledge is of little practical use. Zhen,
Garthwait, and Pratt (2008a) showed that the procedural use of online course management
applications was significant in contributing to instructors’ decisions to adopt applications for
online teaching.
Just as procedural confidence can improve a person’s skill in playing an instrument or
driving an automobile, it has been shown that use of data and exposure to the advantages of
technology can move postsecondary faculty members from resistance to active support of
innovation in online teaching (Mitchell, Parlamis, & Claiborne, 2015).
Metacognitive. Flavell (1976) first conceived of metacognitive knowledge, which can be
understood as awareness and regulation of one’s own cognitive processes, learning, and learning
strategies. Mayer (2011) also characterized metacognition as self-knowledge of learning in the
sense of awareness and control. This level of knowledge presents special challenges in the realm
of innovation and practice of online pedagogy. This is because change wrought by improvement
initiatives can cause one’s understanding of tasks, professional role, and even one's self-
conception as a contributor of value to the organization to shift dramatically (Corley & Gioia,
2004). The strength of one’s own existing conceptions of self can result in what Tagg (2012)
referred to as an endowment effect, which leads individuals to frame change as a loss instead of
an opportunity. One solution that has been proposed to this problem is the inclusion of affected
individuals in the actual change process, alleviating any shock to their existing conceptions of
26
self. Hargreaves (2005) demonstrated that being included in change planning and decision
making results in faculty reporting less frustration with change.
Table 2 lists the organizational mission, the organizational performance goal, the
stakeholder goal, and the knowledge type with assessments that were used to measure each.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
“To empower students for a life of enduring commitment to Christ, biblical fidelity, moral integrity,
intellectual growth, and lasting contribution to the Kingdom of God worldwide” (The Faith University,
2017).
Organizational Global Goal
By December 2021, Faith University will increase the revenue contribution of its online programs to
20% of total operating income. An important step in achieving this goal will be the introduction of an
online program in entrepreneurship. This performance goal is aimed at diversification of online
offerings and suggested as a means of diversifying revenue streams and extending worldwide impact.
Stakeholder Goal
By May 2020, the faculty at Faith University will vote to approve the development of an online
program in entrepreneurial education as a first step toward achieving a 100% faculty participation rate
in online teaching.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence Assessment
Faculty must know about
opportunities for participation in new
programs (Mitchell et al., 2015).
Declarative
Experienced faculty responded to an
interview question that asked them
how they learned about online
teaching opportunities at the
institution.
Faculty need to know how to
implement new course content. (Zhen,
Garthwait, & Pratt, 2008b).
Procedural Experienced faculty were asked
how they learned the procedure for
setting up a new course in the
learning management system.
Faculty need to know that technical
support and training are available at
the institution (Herman, 2013).
Declarative Experienced faculty responded to an
interview question asking them to
describe their discovery of training
and technical support.
Faculty need to be able to reflect on
the connection between participation
in online instruction and the mission
of the institution (Hargreaves, 2005).
Metacognitive Faculty responded to an interview
question asking them to describe
how online might be related to
institutional survival and the
mission of the institution.
27
Motivation
Having discussed knowledge and skill influences related to online faculty innovation, the
next section will review literature on motivation-related influences pertinent to achievement of
the faculty stakeholder goal at Faith University.
Daft (1999) described motivation literature as falling broadly into three categories.
Reinforcement theories align with early behavioral approaches and focus on objective behavior
and environmental factors (McGee & Johnson, 2015). Content theories focus on human
ontology, exploring motivation as an expression of individual need fulfillment (Alderfer, 1972;
Maslow, 1943). Process theories go beyond individual need fulfillment to explore the process
individuals follow in determining action as self-directed agents (Bandura, 2005). From this
perspective, internal processes reciprocally interact with the environment and behavior to affect
observable indices of motivation that may include: (a) active choice, (b) persistence, and (c)
mental effort (R. E. Clark, 1999). The two processes that will be cited in this section include
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1986), and the expectancy-value construct (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000).
Self-efficacy theory. When an individual makes an active choice to engage in an activity,
persist in an activity, or to expend effort on that activity, their beliefs about likely outcomes are
in play. Perceived self-efficacy then can be defined as being concerned with “…judgements of
how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations
(Bandura, 1982, p. 122).” The literature on faculty motivation to teach online has looked at
faculty self-efficacy in two key areas. First, confidence in online teaching as a modality was
found to be a significant motivator for participating in online faculty development (Lowenthal,
Wray, Bates, Switzer, & Stevens, 2012). Second, with regard to technology, the constructs of
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, along with the availability of technical support,
28
were found to have a main effect on faculty intention to teach online (Wingo, Ivankova, & Moss,
2017). So, with basic self-efficacy in a topic area, faculty stakeholders are further concerned
with confidence in technical support, confidence in designing and delivering content online, and
confidence in the utilization of online learning technology. A method of assessing these factors
is presented in the table below.
Expectancy-value theory. In seminal work on process theories of workplace
motivation, Vroom (1964) proposed three steps of evaluation that an employee might engage in.
These include expectancy of performance, the expectancy of a link between performance and the
desired outcome, and valence or value that the individual might place on an outcome. Later
work in the educational context looked at the process that individuals follow to evaluate
environmental constraints and support that might impact the achievement desired outcomes
(Wigfield, Eccles, Roeser, & Schiefele, 2008).
Expectancy-value theory in the learning context includes self-efficacy but also includes
evaluation of external factors that might impact achievement. The value side of the expectancy-
value equation is concerned with both the value that an individual places on an activity and the
likely outcome of that activity (Eccles, 2006). Included in this construct are four related
constructs. Attainment value relates to the compatibility of activity with the individual’s pre-
existing self-concept or identity. Utility value concerns itself with whether the individual
regards an outcome as a valuable step toward the achievement of even more important outcomes.
Finally, cost value refers to a judgment that the individual makes comparing one outcome or
activity to other potential outcomes or activities that might have greater worth.
On the level of utility and attainment value, Lowenthal et al. (2012) found that improving
online teaching ability was a significant motivator for participation in online faculty
development. This would suggest that learning the skill has utility in the greater goal of
29
effectiveness as an educator, which is an attainment value related to the educator’s self-concept.
On the cost dimension, Lowenthal et al. found that competing demands for time and schedule
were significant barriers to such participation. Similarly, Wingo et al. (2017), in a review of 67
empirical studies utilizing the TAM2 technology acceptance model from Venkatesh and Davis
(2000), found reoccurring themes across the literature. These included barriers to student
success as a demotivator (utility value), uncertainty about maintaining a professorial image
(attainment value), and concern about maintaining a reasonable workload (cost value).
Jackson (B. L. Jackson, 2017), utilizing the Ithaka S+R faculty survey of N = 2,487
respondents, also found that concerns about time had a significant influence on the utilization by
faculty of online technology tools. A review of relevant literature revealed a pervasive
perception among faculty that online instruction is more time-consuming than face-to-face
teaching, which presumably exacerbates the cost dimension of this motivation problem. Hurt
(2014), quoting research from Artman (2004), found that faculty reasons for non-participation in
online classes included increased time for course development, time for mastery of technology,
time for communication with students, and lack of overload-pay for the additional time to master
the technology.
Although Artman (2004) cited compensation as a potential issue related to faculty
motivation for teaching, there is some suggestion in the literature that the issue of compensation
is simply a proxy for limited time in the academic setting as seen in the over-justification effect
identified by Deci and Ryan (2000). This research suggested that extrinsic rewards could
diminish intrinsic motivation for tasks involving creativity and innovation.
These motivational constructs are illustrated in the table below, demonstrating supports
and constraints to motivation for faculty stakeholders at Faith University. Regarding the utility
value that faculty place on developing curricular content, an open-ended interview question will
30
be used as indicated. Regarding the cost-value of faculty time investment in the effort, open-
ended questions were used as indicated. Finally, regarding self-efficacy, a variety of questions
designed to assess confidence in the areas outlined were used. The focus of inquiry was
confidence in learning to use the online learning management system (LMS), confidence for the
creation and delivery of online content, and confidence in performing the role of an online
instructor.
The following table demonstrates examples in each of these proposed motivational
constructs.
Table 3
Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
“To empower students for a life of enduring commitment to Christ, biblical fidelity, moral integrity,
intellectual growth, and lasting contribution to the Kingdom of God worldwide” (The Faith University,
2017).
Organizational Global Goal
By December 2021, Faith University will increase the revenue contribution of its online programs to
20% of total operating income. An important step in achieving this goal will be the introduction of an
online program in entrepreneurship. This performance goal is aimed at diversification of online
offerings and suggested as a means of diversifying revenue streams and extending worldwide impact.
Stakeholder Goal
By May 2020, the faculty at Faith University will vote to approve the development of an online
program in entrepreneurial education as a first step toward achieving a 100% faculty participation rate in
online teaching.
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivational Influence Assessment
Cost-value – Faculty must believe that the effort they
expend in setting up and administering online classes
is valuable in comparison to other activities they might
engage in (Artman, 2004; Hurt, 2014; B. L. Jackson,
2017).
An interview topic encouraged reflection on
the time spent developing online course
content and the meaning that holds in relation
to their professional competence.
An interview topic invited a description of
time spent developing online content as
compared to other activities at Faith.
An interview topic that encouraged reflection
on the balance work and life demands about
online teaching.
31
Table 3, continued
Organizational Influences
Having reviewed literature pertaining to knowledge and motivational influences on the
faculty stakeholder group at Faith University, the discussion will now turn to organizational
influences. Within the R. E. Clark and Estes (2008) framework, organizational influences are
seen as comprising process, materials, and culture that influence individual and team
performance. This construct conflates several areas that are usually treated separately in the
literature of multi-frame organizational theory. For example, Bolman and Deal (2017) employed
the lenses of workplace culture, organizational structure, workplace politics, and human resource
considerations to view this single area. In keeping with a similar multi-frame approach, this
section reviews relevant literature in the categories of incentive design, leadership, cultural
models, and cultural settings pertaining to the academy. This set of categories will serve to
narrow the focus for what is a prohibitively large body of literature and to relate insights more
directly to the proposed improvement at Faith University.
Incentives. The alignment of organizational processes and motivational factors is seen
most clearly through the design and administration of employee incentives (Roberts, 2010). In
this organizational process, the performance of individuals and workgroups is meant to be
influenced toward organizational objectives through policy. However, an aspect of this subject
that has baffled scholars for many years is the failure of managers to utilize evidence-based
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivational Influence Assessment
Utility Value – Faculty must believe that new online
programs are impactful for achieving desired student
learning outcomes.
An interview topic asking experienced faculty
members to reflect on their beliefs about
online teaching as impactful compared to
classroom teaching was used.
Attainment Value – Faculty must believe that online
teaching is consistent with their role related
aspirations (Wingo et al., 2017).
An interview topic asking experienced faculty
to reflect on their goals and whether teaching
online was part of those goals initially was
utilized.
32
approaches or even to consider whether desired organizational outcomes are encouraged or
discouraged by current policy (Hansen, Smith, & Hansen, 2002; Kerr, 1995). As described in
the previous treatment of literature related to individual motivation, classical notions of reward
and reinforcement, as well as the triadic reciprocity of environment, personal factors, and
behavior, cast the organization in the role of external influence (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Alderfer (1972), in a three-tiered simplification of earlier work by Maslow (1954),
distinguished between driving needs for existence, needs for relatedness, and needs for growth or
personal development as areas that might be targeted through incentives. In a similar vein,
Herzberg (1966) identified aspects of the workplace environment that were not able to create
motivation but were able to create dissatisfaction when they were absent. He designated these
“hygiene” factors distinguishing them from “motivators” which would align closely with
Alderfer’s (1972) higher-order needs as an appropriate focus for incentivizing work product that
is innovative.
Building on these notions, Deci and Ryan (1980) distinguished between environmental
influences originating outside of an individual and those influences that might be attributed to
internal processes. These internal processes were termed intrinsic rewards, whereas external
motivators would be considered extrinsic. Certain kinds of desired outcomes, such as innovation
and creative work, would be best incentivized through peer and supervisor recognition, which
might hold intrinsic meaning for the recipient (Reilly, 2004). Furthermore, extrinsic incentives
were found to harm motivation in relation to creative tasks. This is referred to as the over-
justification effect and is one of the most robust and ignored findings in social science (Pink,
2011).
Leadership. While leadership is a vital link in the chain of organizational influence,
empirical evidence has shown that it is not a panacea. For example, W. W. Burke (2017)
33
demonstrated that “Leaders do not account for all or even most of the variance
in…organizational performance” (p. 297). The author cited evidence that 14 to 47 % of
performance can be attributed to leadership, with the remainder attributable to other factors, with
influence growing in crisis or times of rapid change.
The role of leaders as change agents received attention from Zaleznik (1977), who
distinguished between management as control or maintenance and leadership as human social
influence. Burns (1978) would expand on this making a distinction between transactional
leaders who administer a process and transformational leaders who turn the tables, transforming
both subordinates and the organization. Central to this view of the leader as a change agent is a
communicative function that the leader serves as a spokesperson who creates meaning and
motivation in a social system (Berger, 2014).
This dialectical role of the leader reflects the communicative function of persuasion in the
environment of organizations and shows that communication actually plays a role in creating and
recreating the organization (Weick & Browning, 1986). The creation of a narrative has also been
cited as an important persuasive tool for leaders to utilize in the instigation of organizational
change (McKee & Fryer, 2003).
Cultural Models. Culture has been described as “an interpretation that takes place on a
daily basis among the members of a particular group” (Tierney, 2008, p. 2). Fralinger and Olson
(2007) commented that “university culture can also be thought of as the personality of an
organization” (p. 86). The culture of academia has been characterized as containing distinct
subcultures arising from communities of practice, epistemological orientations, and the particular
idiosyncratic character of the institutions themselves (Becher, 1989). As a means of identifying
various institutional, cultural models, work from Tierney (1988) offered a framework consisting
of elements including environment, mission, socialization, information, strategy, and leadership.
34
These are useful in comparative study and as an analytic framework that can be employed to
better understand one’s own institution.
In more recent work, environmental trends have been identified as influencing change in
the academy. These include the shift to a knowledge-based economy, technological disruption
of industry structure, shifting enrollment patterns, and diminishing government funding (Tierney
& Lanford, 2016). The impact of these changes has been to force innovation and change in
pedagogy, organizational structure, and research. In order to appropriate these changes, a high
degree of flexibility will be needed from institutions not often characterized as innovative. One
characteristic that has been correlated to innovation is the strength of institutional identity
(Stensaker, 2015). Organizational identity is an emergent property in which stakeholders
identify closely with the institution and its mission. It has been cited as related to change in the
academy with organizations possessing weak identities requiring more time to elaborate on and
contesting alternative future identity profiles in times of environmental change.
Tierney (2008) undertook a critical ethnographic survey of seven universities, making a
two-week-long visit to each analyzing data from 250 individuals. In this study, Christian
University (a pseudonym), having 3000 faculty, was compared with a small classical institution
with a rigid disciplinary departmental structure, and a liberal arts institution with a decidedly
postmodernist worldview and open structure. In the final analysis, Christian University was
shown to possess the most coherent institutional identity of the three owing to the shared
worldview and epistemology found among faculty and students. This was put forward as distinct
from the liberal arts institution, in which the notion of knowledge was fluid and incoherent, and
students could potentially graduate without being exposed to important domain-specific
knowledge. Conversely, the classical institution held to a rigid and insular disciplinary structure
and epistemology. The categories were so fixed that students felt walled off from the
35
opportunity for interdisciplinary synthesis. Owing to the ideological alignment of faculty and
students, the institutional identity of Christian University would weather any necessary shifts in
curriculum or organizational structure during times of rapid change.
Cultural settings. The Tierney (2008) model elucidated leadership and the environment.
There then remains mission, socialization, information, and strategy as categories pertaining to
cultural settings. For this discussion, we are referring to cultural settings as contexts in which
culture is transmitted and negotiated within institutions of higher learning (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).
Regarding socialization, much of the work in organizational communication has
concentrated on intentionally structured processes of onboarding employees. A strong synthesis
of early literature showed that socialization could be a means of shaping culture (Tierney &
Rhoads, 1994). Mazerolle, Nottingham, and Coleman (2018) conducted semi-structured
interviews as part of a phenomenological study of mentorship and informal socialization
functions at work. Specifically, they found that internal mentors serve the purpose of role
inductance or orienting the new stakeholder to the culture of the organization. External,
academic advisors or trainers, on the other hand, provided more general mentorship socializing
new faculty into the profession of teaching and research. The communication of organizational
mission, information about the institution and profession, as well as the strategy of the
organization, can all be powerful influences in motivating faculty and may benefit from a
formalized mentorship structure. This mentorship might also serve the purpose of transmitting
strong institutional identity and alignment of worldview, bolstering the institution for innovative
leadership.
36
Table 4
Organizational Influences, Types, and Assessments for Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
“To empower students for a life of enduring commitment to Christ, biblical fidelity, moral integrity,
intellectual growth, and lasting contribution to the Kingdom of God worldwide” (The Faith
University, 2017).
Organizational Global Goal
By December 2021, Faith University will increase the revenue contribution of its online programs to
20% of total operating income. An important step in achieving this goal will be the introduction of
an online program in entrepreneurship. This performance goal is aimed at diversification of online
offerings and suggested as a means of diversifying revenue streams and extending worldwide impact.
Stakeholder Goal (If Applicable)
By May 2020, the faculty at Faith University will vote to approve the development of an online
program in entrepreneurial education as an important step toward achieving a 100% faculty
participation rate in online teaching.
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model – Institutional Identity:
Faculty must believe that their participation in
new programs is vital to the survival of the
institution and that it promotes values that they
share and with which they strongly identify
(Stensaker, 2015; Tierney, 2008).
A focus group topic explored shared values and
the alignment of those values with new programs
using distant learning.
Cultural Model - Incentives:
Faculty must believe that online teaching is
valued and rewarded by the institution (Hansen et
al., 2002; Kerr, 1995).
An interview topic gauged how the respondent
perceived the community value placed upon the
role of the online instructor as compared to the
role of a traditional classroom instructor.
Cultural Setting – Socialization:
Faculty must perceive that adequate technical
support, mentorship support, and compensation
exist to ensure the success of new programs
(Hansen et al., 2002; Kerr, 1995; Mazerolle et al.,
2018; Wingo et al., 2017).
An interview topic and focus group topic asked
participants to reflect on whether mentorship
support, technical support, load relief exist to
support their participation in new programs.
Cultural Setting - Socialization
Faculty must be socialized into an understanding
that participation in new programs that bridge
geographic boundaries are central to institutional
identity.
A focus group topic promoted discussion to
gather socially shared faculty beliefs about the
institutional mission and entrepreneurship.
37
Conceptual Framework: Hypothesized Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge,
Motivation and Organization
Having reviewed literature about knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
on the faculty stakeholder group at Faith University, the discussion will now turn to the
construction of an interactive conceptual framework. As described by Maxwell (2012), this
construction will be informed by the researcher’s experience, the theory, and empirical research
as previously reviewed, and using thought experimentation around a reasoned understanding of
KMO factor interactions in context.
An interactive conceptual framework then is “[A] theory, however tentative or
incomplete” that presents ideas and beliefs about the phenomena that are the focus of study
(Maxwell, 2012, pp. 39-40). The usefulness of this exercise in describing “the underlying
structure, scaffolding or frame for the study” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 89), and informed
sample selection, data collection, the focus of the investigation and served as a backdrop for
analytical interpretation.
The research questions in Chapter One comported with a constructivist epistemology. In
other words, the meanings and beliefs that faculty share in the work context are thought to be
socially constructed meanings. The research will place stakeholder construction of meaning at
the center of inquiry (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The appropriate qualitative research
methodology that arises from this worldview is a phenomenological perspective (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017). This approach by Weick (1979, 1988, 1995) is concerned with the social
processes that organizational members engage in to make sense of organizational change, their
role in the organization, and judgments about their efficacy and value.
The primary focus of study, therefore, was meanings that faculty members attach to the
role of the online instructor within the context of Faith University. The interactive relationship
38
between sensemaking processes that faculty engage in to make sense of change, combined with
perceived organizational supports, was a focused area of inquiry. Also, barriers in the form of
beliefs about available training, technical support, and organizational policies such as load credit
as a proxy for time demands formed the knowledge and organizational drivers, which were
hypothesized as drivers of motivation (figured below). Faculty beliefs about requisite
knowledge and organizational support were also figured as forming the underpinnings of faculty
self-efficacy, and value expectancy, and hypostasized to act as key drivers of stakeholder
motivation within the R. E. Clark and Estes’ framework.
Figure 1. Interactive conceptual framework.
Note: Faculty beliefs about organizational supports predict the acquisition of necessary
knowledge and skill. This, in turn, shapes motivation for enthusiastic participation in new
programs.
•Policy (load credit)
•Social Sensemaking
•Cultural Settings
•Cultural Models
Organizational
Supports
•Procedural
•Conceptual
•Metacognitive
Knowledge/Skill
•Self-Efficacy
•Expectancy Value
Motivation
39
Figure 2. Interactive conceptual framework.
Note: Faculty beliefs about time demands and roles are depicted as being moderated by
organizational supports and barriers to drive motivational processes.
Figure 1 above represents a hypothetical explanation of the interplay between
organizational, knowledge, and motivational factors in context at Faith. In the first box
theoretical constructs such as organizational policy for online teaching and expectations about
faculty workload, the dialectical process of sensemaking or active construction of meaning in
context among faculty at Faith, the unique cultural setting of Faith as a missional institution
which forms intrinsic motivational factors, and cultural models through which faculty attempt to
understand their place and roll within the institution are figured. These are shown as influencing
the development of practical experience in online teaching, skill, and knowledge, which in turn
enhance expectancy-value motivational processes and general self-efficacy for the faculty
stakeholder.
In Figure 2, a nested structure is depicted consisting of concurrent layers representing a
spectrum between core beliefs and observable behavior within each faculty stakeholder is
depicted. At the center of this nested structure are beliefs about time demands and faculty roles
Faculty stakeholder beliefs
about time demands and
faculty roles
Moderated by beliefs about
organizational supports
Form expectancy and value
with attendant motivation to
create and teach online
courses
Persisting toward
Acomplishment of stakeholer
goals
40
at the institution. This forms a core faculty view of the nature of work and expectations placed
on faculty members at Faith. These core beliefs are then figured as being moderated by
confidence in organizational supports such as training and technical support. In turn, confidence
or belief in organizational support is figured as driving expectancy and value. Expectancy-value
as a motivational process then influences and reciprocally interacts with initiation, persistence,
and mental effort. This, in turn, impacts actual behaviors related to the accomplishment of the
stakeholder goal.
Conclusion
In this chapter, an overview of the extant literature on faculty as a stakeholder group
driving or constraining organizational change in online learning at the postsecondary level was
presented. First, a context for the review was provided with a discussion of faculty roles, culture,
and attitudes toward online teaching. This was followed by a review of organizational change
models that have been applied to the academy, set against a backdrop of multi-frame
organizational, analytical approaches. The R. E. Clark and Estes gap analysis conceptual
framework (2008) was then used to review knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
on change efforts as related to online learning within higher education.
In conclusion, it can be stated that faculty culture and the cultural climate of the
institution exercise significant influence and that these factors are moderated through perceived
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Becher, 1989; B. R. Clark & Lunsford,
1963; Tierney & Lanford, 2016; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). The literature would not support
demographic factors as a predictor of participation in online teaching, but rather it would
emphasize such factors as experience teaching online, professional development that aligns with
cultural values, and faculty perceptions about efficacy in achieving student learning (B. L.
Jackson, 2017; Lloyd et al., 2012; Loague et al., 2018; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). On the
41
whole, the literature would favor an epistemologically constructivist grounded approach to data
collection in which the lived experience of stakeholders is mined for insights about factors in situ
that might support or constrain the stakeholders from achieving the desired improvement at Faith
University (Ashworth, 1999; M. M. Byrne, 2001; Cilesiz, 2011).
42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter presents the research design and methodology that was used in this study. It
reflects a qualitative approach to the phenomenon under investigation. This approach aligns with
a constructivist epistemology as it seeks to uncover how meanings are negotiated among
stakeholders about online learning and financial sustainability in context at Faith University
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017). This approach also aligns with the defined research questions for
the study. The research questions aimed to uncover faculty beliefs about necessary knowledge
and/or skill for effectiveness in online instruction, faculty perceptions impacting motivation to
participate in online learning, and cultural meanings that are shared by faculty in context at Faith
University that might influence the success of the focal improvement.
Participating Stakeholders
The faculty stakeholder group at Faith University consisted of 215 individuals, 55 of
whom occupied full-time salaried roles and the remainder (159) of whom occupied part-time
adjunct roles. The stakeholder group of focus for this study was full-time faculty in accord with
an institutional preference for involving full-time faculty in the creation of any new curricula.
The approach of investigation that fit most closely with the research questions as stated above
was that of a Heideggerian phenomenological approach. The phenomenological approach had
implications for worldview as it eschewed a positivist perspective in favor of gaining insights
into the lived experience and meanings held by the participants themselves that they act out of
(M. M. Byrne, 2001). This emphasis on the life-world of participants holds the potential to
provide an understanding of how “…a specific phenomenon within that life-world is carried
out.” (Ashworth, 1999, p. 709)
This approach has been cited by scholars as particularly suitable for understanding the
use of technology in educational contexts, and as yet has been underutilized for this purpose
43
(Cilesiz, 2011). The implication of the qualitative focus of this research for sampling and
recruitment was that sampling must be criterion-based and purposive (Creswell & Creswell,
2017). This was because the investigation was focused on the life-world of individuals who have
experienced the full process of implementing online courses and teaching in context. Owing to
the nature of the research questions, there was no need to generalize findings to a larger
population (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A review of faculty members who (a) have full-time
faculty status, (b) have developed at least one online course at Faith University, and (c) have
successfully taught at least one section of that course yielded 15 appropriate participants who
were employed at the university.
Interview Recruitment Strategy Sampling Criteria and Rational
The protocol for qualitative interviewing in this study was that of fixed questions
composed in an open response format as depicted in Appendix A. This approach is described by
Weiss (1995) as a desirable compromise between those who consider the subjectivity of
qualitative questioning to be a barrier to credibility, and those who view the richness of data
gained from giving participants the freedom to express their worldview as desirable. Prompts
were also used to encourage elaboration, and all questions were open-ended and composed in
advance to ensure that they were non-leading. Follow-up questions were also asked using the
participant's terminology whenever possible, to pursue any unexpected themes that may have
emerged.
To recruit for these interviews, an email was sent to the 12 faculty members who met the
criteria for interviews listed below. The email inquired about their willingness to participate in
the interview. Willing respondents were scheduled and interviewed to complete 10 interviews,
by which point saturation had been reached. A key purpose of the interviews was to “establish
the context of the participants” (Seidman, 2006, p. 17). Order of precedence for interviews was
44
given to those who had most recently developed a course and taught online at Faith University,
moving to those who have less recently engaged in the activity. The rationale being that those
who have most recently completed the process will have the most immediate access to stored
memory owing to the “recency” effects of exposure to the focal knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences (Ebbinghaus, 2013).
Interviews were transcribed and coded as they were completed, with themes being
identified until saturation was reached, with saturation being defined as a point of redundancy in
the identification of new themes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In summary, the three criteria for
selection with a rationale for each were:
Criterion 1. The participants were full-time faculty of Faith University. Full-time
employees were preferred by the institution for involvement with improvement programs that
require significant investment and continuity of involvement.
Criterion 2. The participants had completed development of at least one online course at
Faith University and, therefore, had directly experienced the supports and constraints to online
improvement as part of the essence of experience in this specific institutional context.
Criterion 3. The participants had successfully taught at least one-semester length class
online, demonstrating that they have adequate experience with knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences at the university.
Criterion 4. Participants who were subject to the direct supervisory control of the
principal researcher were excluded, as was the principal researcher.
Focus Group Recruitment Strategy Criteria and Rational
A second data collection tool was the focus group. This method was used to surface
shared meanings common to the stakeholders in context at Faith University who had not yet
experienced developing a course or teaching online at Faith. The goal of this method was to
45
target meanings understood to surface in the dialog between participants in work contexts
(Weick, 1995). To address this goal, the focus group methodology was deemed appropriate
because it encouraged open discussion among stakeholders (Krueger & Casey, 2014). This
group consisted of six individuals. Although focus groups are a data collection technique that is
well suited to gathering qualitative insights from a specific category of participant, the ideal
focus group is at least slightly heterogeneous, allowing for the surfacing of conflicting views in a
discussion format (B. Johnson & Christensen, 2008). This suggested that a sampling criterion of
maximum variation would be most appropriate.
For this reason, the 55 full-time faculty were considered, excluding those who have
previously participated in interviews, but with a purposive emphasis on minority and female
participants. This allowed for comparison with interviews, which included only experienced
participants and offered a view of broader issues around faculty support for the development of
new programs designed to support financial sustainability. From the pool of willing respondents,
a purposive selection of six participants was made favoring diversity of demographic
characteristics.
Criterion 1. The first goal in purposeful sampling for the focus group was to achieve the
maximum variation possible within the limited population. This included varying age, gender,
ethnicity, and tenure at the institution to the greatest degree possible.
Criterion 2. The second objective in sampling was to favor individuals who have both
developed courses and taught online at Faith University, but not previously completed an
individual interview. Those who had not taught online were then included in the pool of
potential participants for the focus group.
Criterion 3. As in the interviews, sampling preference was given to those with the most
recent experience participating in online learning at Faith University. This was based on the
46
priority of recruiting individuals with a clear and recent recollection of their experiences in
context.
Criterion 4. As in the sampling criteria for interviews, direct reports of the principal
researcher were excluded from the sample, as was the principal researcher.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The method for interviewing in this study was that of fixed questions composed in an
open response format. The method for focus groups was employed through open discussion
format designed to surface commonly held meanings.
While direct interviews stood a better chance of surfacing individual beliefs and
meanings that might not be publicly shared, the focus group methodology was employed to mine
for meanings that are socially constructed and shared dialectically by stakeholders in this context
(Krueger & Casey, 2014; Weick, 1995). The personal interview format was most closely aligned
with the first two research questions above, corresponding to Knowledge and Motivation (K&M)
factors of the R. E. Clark and Estes conceptual framework (R. E. Clark et al., 2004). The focus
group methodology, on the other hand, aligned most closely with organizational and cultural
meanings held by the stakeholder group. This corresponded to the Organizational (O) factor in
R. E. Clark and Estes framework and the third research question above. This pertains to the third
research question requiring an investigation into cultural or contextual meanings operative in the
faculty stakeholder group at Faith University, which might help or hinder the proposed
improvement.
Interviews
Interview Protocol. The approach to each personal interview session involved written
questions that were aimed at the research questions and assumed influences identified in the
literature review. The questions themselves were composed in such a way as to allow flexibility
47
of response. This approach was desirable as it “elicits the respondent’s categorical worldview”
in the language that they used to describe the experience of teaching online at Faith University
(Patton, 2005, p. 351). The goal in using this approach was to surface beliefs and meanings that
were not anticipated by the general literature review and assumed influences section of the
interactive conceptual framework. In using this special approach, care was taken not to
introduce leading questions that resonated with participants, especially in light of the principal
investigator’s role as a peer to the stakeholders in question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Because
the research questions for this investigation were aimed at perceptions and beliefs held by the
faculty stakeholders in context at Faith University, qualitative interviewing was a desirable
methodology because it targeted data which were not discoverable through other means such as
direct observation of behavior (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Weiss, 1995).
The kinds of questions that were asked corresponded to the theoretical underpinnings of
the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational framework (KMO) proposed by R. E. Clark and
Estes (R. E. Clark et al., 2004). Within this framework, experiential, opinion-based, sensory, and
knowledge-based questioning prescribed in the literature were used (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015;
Patton, 2005). Probes were also be incorporated that were aimed at soliciting detail and
elaboration identified by Patton (2005) as a method that could bring an interview that is not
going very well back on track. Weiss (1995) suggested extending probes that ask a participant to
elaborate on what led to phenomena. Also suggested were detail probes that surfaced situational
factors that might have been left out of a narrative in the first telling, and inner event probes that
ask the participant to report cognitions and emotional response that occurred in association with
events as they are recalled in the interview setting.
Focus group protocol. In moving to a more social setting, a qualitative focus group
methodology was employed to target shared meanings held by the stakeholder group. These
48
factors would correspond with Level II and Level III components of workplace culture, as
described by (Schein, 1992). More specifically, they were designed to surface fundamental
worldviews and values that are socially accepted in this context. These may not have been
accessible in the private interview setting in which socially acceptable meanings are less
emphasized. The investigation assumes that personal interviewing and social interviewing
would target slightly different aspects of meanings and beliefs held by the participants. The
socially constructed meanings may not align exactly with beliefs and views reported in a more
private setting (Krueger & Casey, 2014).
The questions were aimed at encouraging flexible discussion among colleagues. Special
care was taken to encourage uniform participation, to downplay any status differences in the
sample, and to assign an active role to a moderator who kept things on track. To moderate
discussion, several types of questions suggested by Kruger and Casey (2014) were used in
sequence. The first was opening questions that encouraged each participant to speak. Without
this step, more introverted members of the group might have settled into a pattern of non-
participation. These questions were on non-controversial topics of mutual interest to the
stakeholder group. Following this, value-oriented introductory questions were used that were
designed to solicit participant opinions related to online teaching. Approximately 30 minutes
into the discussion, a transitional question led to three “key questions” each being designed to
target one of the first three research questions of the study. Ten to twenty minutes were devoted
to each of these key questions.
Following these steps, ending questions were used to solicit any views that may not have
been expressed in the discussion, and one last summarizing question will be used as a form of
respondent validation (Maxwell, 2012). Respondent validation exists in several forms, but in
49
this case, it invited clarification/correction of summary points that were gathered by the
moderator.
Interview procedures. Each personal interview was conducted onsite at the faculty
offices during the fall semester. This choice of timing for these interviews was designed to
minimize the usual distractions of phones, office duties, and student inquiries during office
hours. The interviews occurred in advance of the focus group administration to surface themes
that could be useful for further investigation in the focus group setting. Each interview was
scheduled for 45 to 60 minutes to maximize data collection and minimize the fatigue of
participants. At the end of each interview, permission to follow up with clarifying questions was
solicited, allowing for the possibility of follow up conversations and respondent validation.
Because the population is small, it was hoped that a near census sample consisting of 10 to 16
individuals would allow saturation of themes to be achieved, which it is believed was
accomplished. Saturation is the point at which further interviewing would produce only
redundant themes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Focus group procedures. The focus group occurred in a classroom on the west campus
of the institution with the permission of the department. The meeting was scheduled a full
month in advance, maximizing the chances of full participation. Light snacks and beverages
were supplied. The participants were allowed to settle into a casual conversation before the
official start of the group. Tables were arranged in a square pattern, with participants facing one
another around the perimeter. This configuration allowed for the greatest verbal and non-verbal
exchange of meaning and minimized any perceived status differences among participants
(Moore, Hickson, & Stacks, 2010). The full session was approximately an hour and a half, with
one hour of that being devoted to the key questions.
50
There was no compensation offered for participation in the focus group or interview
participants.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Merriam and Tisdell (2015) noted that the standards and terminology for assessing rigor
in the world of qualitative research are in a state of change. Lichtman (2012) opined that a good
piece of qualitative research should include “…being explicit about the researcher’s role and his
or her relationship to those studied, making a case that the topic of the study is important, being
clear about how the study was done and making a convincing presentation of the findings of the
study.” (p. 240) The customary measures of validity and reliability used in quantitative research
fail as tools in evaluating the rigor of qualitative work because of differences in epistemological
orientation.
The purpose of this investigation was not aimed at generalizable findings but to provide
rich data from one context, which might resonate with findings from similar contexts. While
quantitative instruments that are valid and reliable can establish something as categorical fact
within a population, these would have little use outside of the context at Faith University.
However, meanings that human beings attach to lived experience in this context being much
more thematic and contextual hold promise for inductive insights into broad trends impacting the
problem of practice. Indeed, the instrument of measurement in qualitative research is the
researcher herself because the rigor used in collecting data and the hermeneutical interpretation
and reporting of that data are squarely in the hands of the researcher.
Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2011) proposed that the sources of bias in qualitative
research can be narrowed to confidence in the methods employed by the researcher, and
confidence in the interpretations that the researcher applies to the data collected. This means that
the rigorous application of methods and disciplined interpretive conclusions that are well-
51
grounded in literature increase the reliability of the research. It is the researcher’s job to support
the trustworthiness of their report by being transparent in both areas. The most “hazardous leg of
the journey” will occur when this data passes from the pen of the researcher to the consumer of
the research because that consumer must make a judgment about the transferability of data from
this context to theirs (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Maxwell (2012) suggested that the hazards of the journey be framed defensively so that
the researcher can systematically document potential areas of bias, and explain how they have
constructed defenses against each while documenting these defenses for the consumer. This
primary source of bias for this discussion includes researcher bias, which is concerned with the
preconceptions of the principal researcher who has embedded their assumptions into the very
fabric of the inquiry. The prescribed defense for researcher bias is to examine one’s own biases
through authentic reflection (M. M. Byrne, 2001). This approach is common in
phenomenological “bracketing,” in which fundamental assumptions of the researcher are
identified as they submit to the rigor of becoming an interview participant. The second source of
bias is referred to as reactivity, and it emerges from the identity of the researcher as perceived by
the participant. Certain qualitative responses and expressed opinions emerged simply because of
the identity of the investigator. An unanticipated dynamic was that of the unspoken
understanding of meanings, which were assumed by the participant to be understood by the
researcher, and as such, remained unspoken. In later interviews, the researcher prefaced the
interview by asking the participant to be explicit with their descriptions as if it were the
researcher’s first day on the job. A form of this bias called “reflexivity” emerges from the
researcher’s role as a participant in the phenomena being studied (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
It suggests that the very act of inquiry is a level of participation that influences the reality being
studied. This certainly occurred in these interviews and during the focus group inquiry.
52
To address these issues the discussion will now turn to Lincoln and Guba (2011), who
provide a three-prong taxonomy of potential bias that includes credibility, consistency, and
transferability.
Credibility
Credibility in qualitative research is analogous to the concept of internal validity in
quantitative research. In other words, it concerns the accuracy and appropriateness of the
measurement instrument. As previously stated, because the researcher is the primary
measurement instrument in qualitative research, credibility deals with the question of whether
the attitudes and perceived experiences that were recorded by that researcher faithfully
represented what is there. Disciplined subjectivity is the object of credibility rather than
verifiable objectivity because, unlike quantitative measures, the beliefs and subjectivities under
investigation were never immune from the influence of the researcher as they were recorded.
They were also highly sensitive to the specific context in which they were gathered.
The strategy for establishing credibility that this research employed was that of varying
methodology (a form of triangulation) (Patton, 2005), and seeking respondent verification
(Maxwell, 2012). Speaking first to triangulation, the goal in varying settings for the interviews
between focus group methodology and personal interview methodology was to identify
differences between themes that are popular to express in the community as compared to themes
that are expressed in private. The combination of these two methods was designed to neutralize
reflexivity as participants responded to the same subjects in diverse social settings. Data
collection in this context is near census sampling that provides the maximum variation of
participant possible within our context. Although there is a limited population to draw from, the
sample covers the full range of attitudes that are present.
53
The second safeguard of credibility in this context was that of respondent validation.
This approach involved checking conclusions with participants before making conclusions
(Maxwell, 2012). To achieve respondent valuation, the study incorporated a limited number of
follow-up questions in which the respondents were allowed to respond to the integrity of
conclusions made by the researcher.
Consistency
The highly subjective nature of self-report drawn from the narrow context of our subject
organization means that verifying the data collected is especially problematic. Consistency in
the taxonomy of Lincoln and Guba (1985) is analogous to reliability in quantitative research. It
simply means that the results reported are consistent with the data that was collected (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). The strategy this research employed for defending against bias arising from
consistency problems will be that of auditing. During each phase of research, notes were kept by
the researcher of salient conditions such as non-verbal expressions, contextual issues, and
suspected meanings that might not show up in the transcript dialog. For instance, if a respondent
were to become visibly agitated, this might lend contextual meaning to the text that was
recorded. Before drawing conclusions, these data were reviewed and evaluated against themes
in the synthesis of literature, taking note of possible parallels.
Transferability
The concept of transferability in qualitative research is analogous to external validity in
quantitative research. In quantitative research, it means that the nature of the sample and the size
of the sample allow definitive conclusions to be generalized and applied to a larger population.
Transferability in qualitative research is quite literally in the “eye of the beholder.” The sample
size proposed in this study was simply too small for any reasonable generalizable conclusions to
be reached. Because the primary purpose of this study is praxis within the researcher's own
54
professional context, this is of lesser concern than it might otherwise be. The best defense that
the researcher can provide for consumers of this research is the maximum variation of
participants with the limited context of Faith University and in careful reporting of contextual
factors that might enable a consumer of the research to make judgments as to the applicability of
conclusions to their context (Patton, 2005).
To defend against this potential source of bias, a report was made of contextual factors
were reported with enough detail given to allow the end-user to make judgments about whether
the research conclusions are trustworthy in their own context.
Ethics
Glesne (2015) cited several key responsibilities of researchers that institutional review
boards use to evaluate the ethics of a proposed study. In keeping with these responsibilities, the
researcher explained (a) the purpose of the study in broad terms and any required investment by
the participant with enough detail to allow that individual to make an informed decision about
participation; (b) clarification that participants are welcome to withdraw at any time without
negative consequences; (c) disclosure of any potential negative outcomes that might be
considered by participants in making an informed decision; (d) a commitment to share any
beneficial knowledge generated by the study with participants; and verification that investigators
have received proper certification to perform research involving human subjects.
Care was taken that subjects were not coerced either positively or negatively about
participation in the study (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). In addition to this, there was a commitment
made to participants that confidentiality would be observed. Confidentiality was ensured using
pseudonyms in place of participant names both on the recording and in all subsequent reporting.
Additional detail information in the research report that could be personally identifiable would
55
also be eliminated. To ensure the security of the recorded content it was deleted immediately
after being uploaded to the transcription service.
Care was taken that the researcher conducting this study be free of asymmetrical issues of
power or coercion. The researcher did not hold evaluative authority over the interviewee or
focus group participant that might impact their employment or compensation. No third-party
researchers were engaged in the process of data collection.
The researcher was a member of the subject organization and the stakeholder group
studied. As such, he had an interest in outcomes that may be shared by the stakeholder group.
This created conditions of positive reciprocity between the principle and subjects. The principal
explained his dual role as researcher and colleague at the outset of data collection, and in all
cases, that seemed well understood.
As a member of the stakeholder group to be studied, the researcher naturally held biases
and opinions regarding assumed influences operative in his organizational context. To maximize
objectivity in the collection, analysis, and reporting of data, the researcher answered all the
interview questions himself and noted opinions and lived experience that might tend to bias his
interpretation of results. To the greatest extent possible, the principal investigator used this data
to “bracket” or set aside identified assumptions based on his lived experience (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015).
Limitations and Delimitations
There were inherent limitations to the quality of data that could be collected in this study.
The most obvious limitations comport with the subjectivity of self-report. While strategies were
pursued to minimize the reflexivity of subjects because the subject matter is high stakes and
involves the primary employment of the participant, some level of reflexivity was expected.
Secondly, because of the limited number of interviews in this study, it was not possible to reach
56
a point of saturation in which all of the possible themes have been discovered to the point of
exhaustive redundancy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
In the category of delimitations or the purposeful limits that inherent to the study, there
are also several confounding issues. The first is that for expediency, only one key stakeholder
group was studied. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational contexts of these individuals
did not provide a full picture of the dynamics that apply in the workplace. Secondly, while the
study was aimed at a specific improvement, recruitment of participants extended beyond the
business faculty who would be primarily and most directly involved in the improvement. This
casts a shadow over the application of KMO findings to the initial improvement that is the
subject of this study. For example, there may be something about English professors that make
them friendly to online instruction, while business professors may have a culture that is less
adaptable. Based on our limited population and the nature of the study, we are not able to say
with certainty whether KMO factors differ between these groups.
In summary, while the study attempted to surface major themes related to faculty
participation in online learning in the context of Faith University. The transferability of such
results was not definitive. Throughout this chapter, there has been a presentation of intended
strategies to minimize sources of error and bias. However, the nature of research in a setting of
professional practice is inherently vulnerable to subjectivities of practice.
57
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to gather evidence-based insights from the faculty at Faith
University that would support the development of distance learning offerings. In the previous
chapters, this goal was framed within the context of institutional mission, the institutional
objective of revenue diversification, and the relevant problem of financial sustainability for small
universities. Drawing insights from the literatures of entrepreneurial education, faculty
motivation, and organizational change, a framework for inquiry was established, which included
the following research questions:
1. What faculty knowledge and skills might help or hinder diversification into online course
curriculum at Faith University?
2. What faculty perceptions about online teaching might impact motivation to implement
and teach distance learning courses at Faith University?
3. Are there organizational, cultural, or contextual meanings operative among the faculty
stakeholder group at Faith University that might impact attainment of diversified
offerings?
4. What evidence-based recommendations might we make using these knowledge,
motivation, and organizational perspectives?
In Chapter Three, a qualitative methodology for addressing these questions was outlined.
According to this methodology, ten separate interviews of faculty members, and a single focus
group consisting of six faculty members were ultimately conducted. Transcripts from both the
interviews and the focus group were analyzed using open coding. From this analysis, 39 distinct
themes were identified which were related to each other axially and compared to expected a
priori stakeholder influences within the categories of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
from R. E. Clark and Estes (2008). These three categories comport with the first three research
58
questions above. A matrix coding query was then conducted on these themes using the software
application NVivo, version 12. The results of this query were useful in revealing both the
presence and typicality of influences that support full-time faculty as a key stakeholder group
influencing the development of online learning at Faith University. Although this study is not
quantitative, gauging the typicality and prevalence of certain axial themes was helpful in
interpreting their relative significance in this organizational context. Their relative frequency
was used to evaluate whether expected influences gleaned from the literature review in Chapter
Two represented true need in this context or if the items were already present as an asset to be
protected in support of the change.
In this chapter, the results of the study as it was conducted, are presented and organized.
First, each expected influence is compared with data from the interviews and focus group to
either validate or not validate the a priori influence as a need in context at Faith University. For
this purpose, each influence is designated as either a confirmed need or an existing asset that is
already in place. Following this presentation, several in vivo themes that emerged through open
coding of the interviews and focus group are discussed. These shed further light on unique
influences operative among faculty stakeholders at Faith University and lay the groundwork for
recommendations rooted in the literature of learning and organizational change in Chapter Five.
Participating Stakeholders
The subject population for this study consisted of 55 full-time faculty members at Faith
University. As outlined in Chapter Three, this population was selected for its influence and
instrumentality in the development of new curriculum and programs at Faith.
59
Interview Participants
In order to understand the supports and constraints that apply to online curriculum
development and instruction at Faith University, fifteen faculty members who had both taught
and developed online courses were purposively solicited for participation. By way of review,
this was done to surface the most relevant, direct lived experience with the phenomenon under
study with an emphasis on understanding how “…a specific phenomenon within that life-world
is carried out” (Ashworth, 1999, p. 709).
In order to minimize reactivity that might bias results, two individuals who report directly
to the researcher, and one individual who functions in a direct supervisory capacity over the
researcher, were eliminated from the sample. In all, this left 12 participants who were
experienced in both course development and online instruction, all of whom were solicited and
participated. Ten were ultimately interviewed as part of the study. The remaining two
participated in the focus group described below. A demographic breakdown of the ten interview
participants is depicted in Table 5
Table 5
Interview Participant Demographics
Interview Participant Demographics
Years
with Faith
University
Years as a
professor
Age Gender Ethnicity
Joel 19 28 60 Male Caucasian
Cindy 38 38 73 Female Caucasian
Matt 15 15 48 Male Caucasian
Tim 4 4 40 Male Caucasian
Geoff 4 4 33 Male Caucasian
Wes 24 38 72 Male Caucasian
Ben 31 33 64 Male Caucasian
60
Table 5, continued
Interview Participant Demographics
Years
with Faith
University
Years as a
professor
Age Gender Ethnicity
Chris 32 32 67 Male Caucasian
Jackson 7 8 35 Male Caucasian
Merv 6 6 29 Male Caucasian
Focus Group Participants
The focus group included two remaining faculty members who were experienced in
online course development and teaching but had not yet participated in interviews. The focus
group also included one individual who was developing her first course and two additional
faculty members with no experience in online instruction at Faith University.
The concept of maximum variation as outlined in Chapter Three suggested that although
a focus group consists of individuals with uniform characteristics of interest to the researcher, an
ideal focus group is at least slightly heterogeneous, allowing for the surfacing of distinct
perspectives on the subject phenomena (B. Johnson & Christensen, 2008). For this reason,
within a population that is predominately male and one in which ethnic minorities are
underrepresented, a greater diversity of demographic characteristics were solicited for
participation in the focus group. The resulting composition of the focus group is outlined below.
61
Table 6
Focus Group Participant Demographics.
Focus Group Participant Demographics
Years with
Faith
University
Years as a
professor
Age Gender Ethnicity Experience in
Online
Judy 36 48 62 Female Caucasian None
Ruth 17 17 41 Female Asian American None
Jack 35 35 76 Male Caucasian Experienced
Lori 12 12 36 Female Caucasian None
Jim 22 30 60 Male Asian Experienced
Rachel 30 32 61 Female Caucasian New
Findings
This section summarizes the findings from the interviews and the focus group that was
conducted. The findings are first presented against the backdrop of the assumed influences
presented in Chapter Two. These assumed influences are organized according to the a priori
knowledge, motivation, and organizational categories as described in previous chapters (R. E.
Clark & Estes, 2008). Each influence is shown as either validated or not validated as an
influence in context at Faith University. After outlining these findings, the discussion turns to
several in vivo themes that were found to be influential on faculty as a key stakeholder group and
the overall improvement effort at Faith University.
Knowledge Findings Overview, Table 7, shows the assumed knowledge influences in the
first column. Using the Anderson and Krathwohl (2002) taxonomy of knowledge types, as
revised by Bloom et al. (1984), it was suggested that declarative, procedural, and metacognitive
forms of knowledge might be an important scaffolding through which to examine knowledge
influences on our stakeholder group. The second column states whether the influence was found
62
to be validated as a need at Faith University, while the third and fourth column provides a typical
piece of data and context for that data.
Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Research Results
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated?
Typical Interview (I)
or Focus Group (FG)
response.
Context
Faculty must be aware of the
opportunity to participate in
new programs (D) (Kirschner,
P. Kirschner, F., & Paas, F.,
2006).
Yes I “… the school
moved to wanting to
introduce online
education and they
came to me at the time
and said, we would
like you to teach these
courses online. The
first person that we
really wanted said no.”
-Joel
In commenting on how he
learned about the
opportunity to teach online,
Joel gave a typical response
showing that information
about online teaching is not
shared in a broad consistent
way with faculty.
Faculty need to know how to
implement new course content.
(P) (Zhen, Garthwait, & Pratt,
2008).
Yes I “So, I mean basically
what I did is in this
office I set up my
computer here,
microphone here. I
had my notes on my
screen or my syllabus
on my screen, and
then I would
independently record,
save and submit those
files to our online
department who then
uploaded them to the
learning management
software.” -Joel
The interview participant
described a process for
implementation of course
content that he largely
improvised himself from a
paradigm of classroom
lecture preparation rather
than scaffolding or worked
example.
Faculty need to know that
technical support and training
are available at the institution
(P) (Herman, 2013).
No I “Like those types of
just logistical
questions, I was able
to reach out, and they
were Johnny on the
spot. I need the
information. I needed
[it], [they] shared it.
Any question they'll
answer it.” -Geoff
Geoff reflects a typical
sentiment expressed among
faculty showing a positive
evaluation of available
technical support.
63
Table 7, continued
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated?
Typical Interview (I)
or Focus Group (FG)
response.
Context
Faculty need to be able to
reflect on the connection
between participation in online
instruction and the mission of
the institution (M) (Hargreaves,
2005)
Yes FG “Without thinking
deeply? Can I just say
it's a fit for
economics? For sure.
I'm not saying
anything about that,
but I remember when
we first started online
classes, before we had
a degree. Online
classes, it was like, "if
we don't do this like
all the other
universities are doing
it, we have to keep up
with this new delivery
mode." So that's my
first instinct. Not
looking at the mission
statement.” -Rachel
FG “I have a feeling
that we would have to
change our mission
statement for online
because it's impossible
to keep it. It sounds
like to me.” -Judy
FG “Discipleship part
just goes out the
window.” -Jim
These three quotes illustrate
a validated need. Rachel
makes a connection that
resonated with active online
teachers in both interviews
and the focus group but
contrasted with non-
participators like Judy and
Jim in the quotes to the left
who expressed their
concerns about the fit
between institutional
mission and online
programs.
*Indicate knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: (D)eclarative;
(P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive
Knowledge Findings Discussion
The findings of this study suggest that basic information about the availability of online
teaching opportunities is not always available to the faculty generally. An example of this can be
seen in the case of a senior member of the faculty, Joel (pseudonym). Having taught in the
traditional classroom for over 19 years, Joel reflected on his initial exposure to online teaching
opportunities at Faith by commenting that “… the school moved to wanting to introduce online
64
education and they came to me at the time and said, we would like you to teach these courses
online. The first person that we really wanted said no.” Joel continued to describe classroom
concepts as the main guide for implementation in his design and administration of the course.
In the case of a more junior member of the full-time faculty at Faith, Matt (pseudonym),
another example of this can be drawn. Because this individual works in a highly participatory
field that requires the performance of specific skills by students, the classroom model proved
difficult. In referencing how he learned about online teaching, Matt stated that it “…came about
because I was teaching in the traditional undergraduate [program] and when they started the
online bachelor’s version, they really wanted to match the two degrees together.” Matt described
his experience as a quick fix for an immediate problem instead of a more universal effort at
informing and soliciting participants “…to get something up and running,” was the primary
driver in his recruitment.
R. E. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that when simple facts suffice as a basis for action
in closing a performance gap, that announcements and wide sharing of that declarative
information may be more efficient than training or educational interventions. Factual knowledge
as first described by Bloom et al. (1984), and later revised by Krathwohl (2002), is rote
information that is best presented through multiple media to maximize cognitive capacity for the
acquisition of that knowledge (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006; Mayer, 2011). The influence
of available factual declarative information on online learning opportunities was validated as a
need by this study, in this context.
The findings of this study in both the interviews and the focus group showed prevalent
and typical statements by faculty stakeholders Faith University that procedural knowledge for
course implementation is a validated need.
65
Making a relevant comment, Joel remarked, “So, I mean basically what I did is in this
office I set up my computer here, microphone here. I had my notes on my screen or my syllabus
on my screen and then I would independently record, save and submit those files to our online
department who then uploaded them to the learning management software.” In this example, we
see that Joel’s process for meeting the challenge of course design draws heavily from his process
of lecture preparation for the physical classroom. This was a typical approach in the data and
revealed a need for worked examples, procedural steps, and/or scaffolding to aid instructors in
the creation of new content.
Merv (pseudonym), a more junior member of the full-time faculty, offered another
example. In referencing his onboarding into online teaching, Merv stated: “So, you know, I
think the process could be more streamlined, definitely. It can be kind of what's the right word?
Imposing, you know, like to start something like that.” He described the experience as one of
finding his way rather than following a set of steps. He characterized this as necessary because
his content did not fit neatly into a transmission-based model that would comport with other
distance education. From this and other examples, the study validated a need for procedural
guidelines in the form of worked examples, scaffolding, and procedural steps.
Another expected procedural knowledge influence outlined in the literature is faculty
confidence in available technical support (Herman, 2013). At Faith University, this was not a
validated need. Rather it was shown to be currently present, with strong support. Although there
was little data in the focus group on this topic, in all ten interviews and over 21 mentions of
technical support, stakeholders who are active in online teaching at Faith University cited the
helpfulness, availability, and effectiveness of technical support. Many of these mentioned a
single individual, Mike (pseudonym) from the online department as being particularly helpful.
66
Geoff (pseudonym), working as a member of the bible faculty for the past four years,
reflected on this by commenting: “Like those types of just logistical questions, I was able to
reach out and they were Johnny on the spot. I need the information. I needed [it], [they] shared it.
Any question they'll answer it.” Cindy agreed by commenting: “And in general I would say that
the support is amazing because there's somebody checking on that it seems like all hours of the
day and night, but over weekends and whatever.”
A more senior colleague of Geoff, who worked in the same department, echoed this
sentiment by stating: “Yeah, those guys were helpful. They really were the guy who was
particularly in charge of video was very, very helpful.” A significant point that emerges from
examining these and similar comments made by faculty members, is that age made very little
difference in the perspective that each participant brought. The researcher’s own bias was
challenged in the face of this evidence. As a result of reflective memos conducted during data
analysis, an implicit assumption that age would equate with resistance was uncovered. In the
case of technical support, all participants used it regardless of age, and uniformly positive
feedback was observed as a clear indication of the quality of that technical direction as an asset
in this organizational context. As such, faculty knowledge of available technical support was not
validated as a need at Faith University.
Both interview responses and focus group discussion showed that knowledge about
alignment with institutional mission and survival were important in fostering faculty support for
new initiatives but are not uniformly understood.
Tim (pseudonym), who taught in the business department, and was a comparatively less
experienced member of the faculty with five years at the institution, was quick to cite the
financial health of the institution as a motivator for his own participation as he stated: “And we
see it as extremely important for financial health in the future. Okay. And that's where the
67
market's going. Every, seems like almost every, university online is having good growth.” Joel,
who might have been considered less financially oriented as a Humanities professor, agreed:
“Yeah. And that's, that's what a little bit outside of my, my experience as a, an instructor. But I
would say it's been reported to me by faculty that it has helped the institution to a great extent.
So, you know, I think that's a plus.” In this case, both senior and junior members of the faculty
who were motivated to participate in distance education readily cited the financial health of the
institution as an incentive.
In contrast, focus group participants with no experience teaching online expressed
skepticism about their ability to care for students and provide guidance in the Christian faith over
an online medium. Judy (pseudonym) was 62 years old and had taught students at Faith
University for over 36 years and had not participated in teaching online. She commented to her
fellow focus group participants respectfully that “I have a feeling that we would have to change
our mission statement for online because it's impossible to keep it, it sounds like to me.”
Focus group participant Jim, who has taught for over 20 years at the institution, but never
online was quick to comment in response: “Discipleship part just goes out the window.” In this,
he was referring to the direct mentorship of Christians in life-on-life relationship exemplified by
the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. Jack, who has taught online extensively, and
has been teaching Bible and Theology at Faith University for 35 years, acknowledged his
colleagues’ concerns about discipleship but helped them reframe those concerns within
advantages he had seen. He cited examples of working around those limitations. In one
instance, he said: “But the fact that they are all over the world and they would never come here,
and they want our doctrine, and we can impact them, I think that's a real value.” In reflecting on
this benefit of access to education, Jack’s perspective resonated with interview participants who
68
were experienced with teaching online and who also reflected on the fit between the worldwide
goals of the institutional mission statement and the reach afforded by online programs.
Flavell (1976), who first conceived of metacognitive knowledge, described it as
awareness of one’s own learning. Mayer (2011) further characterized metacognition as self-
knowledge of learning on the level of awareness and control. Corley and Gioia (2004) further
elaborated on the role that improvement initiatives might cause in understanding one’s self-
conception as a contributor of value to the organization. Based on these findings and the
literature, the need for metacognitive reflection on the connection between institutional mission
and the task of distance education was validated as a need.
Motivation Findings Overview
Expected influences from the literature on motivation are listed in Table 8. These were
largely validated as needs through the qualitative interviews that were conducted on campus,
which revealed both the presence and importance of this influence at Faith University. The
literature on motivation suggests that observable indices of motivation include choice,
persistence, and mental effort (R. E. Clark & Estes, 2008; Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2009).
For active participants in online learning at Faith University, this initial choice was assumed to
be demonstrated by their decision to begin teaching online. Evidence of persistence and mental
effort was also evident. Typical responses that validated these motivation influences are listed
below.
69
Table 8
Summary of Motivation Influences and Research Results
Assumed Motivation Influence
Validated? Typical Interview
(I) or Focus Group
(FG) response.
Context
Cost-value – Faculty must believe
that the effort they expend in
setting up and administering
online classes is valuable in
comparison to other activities
they might engage in (Artman,
2004; Hurt, 2014; Jackson, 2017).
Yes I “…online can be
second place a lot.
Or hey, ‘I gotta
work on this late
tonight’ and you're
not, you're not at
your brightest and
best when you're
sending those emails
out…” -Joel
Joel commented in
his interview that
conflicting time
demands play a role
in motivating him
and his colleagues to
engage with online
learning as a “back
burner” activity.
Utility Value – Faculty must
believe that engaging in skill
development for new programs
will contribute to their career
goals at the institution (Eccles,
2006).
Yes (but
mostly for
younger
faculty)
I “Personally, I see
myself as being at
the beginning of my
career, not at the end
of my teaching
career. And so, I
don't see
technology. I don't,
it's not going
anywhere. And so,
as a professor, we
have to be willing to
learn the
technologies to use
them.” -Geoff
I “My career. Well,
I'm well along in my
career. Yeah. I'm not
too worried about
opportunities at my
stage. No. I'm more
concerned about, …
I'm concerned about,
you know,
adequately doing all
the stuff that I am
able to do.” -Ben
Geoff, with three
years of teaching
experience, regarded
the career benefits of
online instruction in
a distinct way from
Ben, who has had
over 30 years of
teaching experience.
70
Table 8, continued
Assumed Motivation Influence
Validated? Typical Interview
(I) or Focus Group
(FG) response.
Context
Utility Value – Faculty must
believe that new online programs
are impactful for achieving
desired student learning outcomes
(Eccles, 2006; Lowenthal, Wray,
Bates, Switzer, & Stevens, 2012).
No I “I'm not gonna say
it's the best [online
instruction], but in
this day and age,
maybe we need to
settle not for the
best. But what is the,
is the best
alternative to the
best because not
everybody can
come. Not
everybody could
come.” -Wes
The point of view
expressed by Wes
who was an active
online professor with
over 30 years of
teaching experience,
showed that complete
confidence in online
learning is not
necessary for
motivation. The
benefits of student
access were much
more motivating to
this stakeholder
group.
Attainment Value – Faculty must
believe that online teaching is
consistent with their role related
aspirations (Wingo et al., 2017).
Yes I “Yep. So when the
opportunity to do
that class online was
offered, I thought it
was a great idea. It's
really difficult to
teach for four hours
straight Friday night
cause students
who've driven an
hour to get there.” -
Cindy
This statement by
Cindy reflected a
value for online
teaching that efficacy
for role-related goals
can drive
participation.
Motivation Findings Discussion
Data from this study showed that several faculty motivation influences in the literature of
distance education were also operative at Faith University.
It was anticipated from the literature of motivation that valuing online instruction over
other activities in which they could be engaged would be necessary for faculty. This was
validated as a need related to “cost-value” influence that led to active choice, persistence, and
mental effort (Eccles, 2006). The presence of cost-value was shown to have strong support in
the literature as a motivational influence on faculty motivation in distance education (Artman,
71
2004; Hurt, 2014; Jackson, 2017). Artman (2004) cited compensation as a potential issue
impacting faculty motivation but suggested that the issue of compensation might be a proxy for
time demands on faculty in the academic setting.
The time demands of participation at Faith were generally perceived by faculty to be
prohibitive. In fact, time demands were the single most common theme found across all
participants in the study. The theme occurred 29 times across ten interviews and featured
prominently in the focus group discussion as well. These comments primarily centered on the
extraordinary time demands that exist among faculty and the daunting prospect of distance
education amidst those demands.
This was succinctly described by Joel (pseudonym), who has been teaching in the
sciences for nineteen years at the institution. Joel expressed concern about the quality of online
instruction as supplemental to other activities because of limited time, stating: “… online can be
second place a lot. Or hey, ‘I gotta work on this late tonight’ and you're not, you're not at your
brightest and best when you're sending those emails out…” Merv similarly commented: “Like
time influence time. Yeah. I mean, that's a big one where it's like, you know, I have a lot of
things going on all the time. And so, to take all that time out of my normal time to set up this
course…” He then went on to describe how those challenges are balanced with other priorities
and demands at Faith.
When asked about expected barriers to participation, Geoff, commented, “I mean, just
naturally time. It's easier to pay attention to the traditional student cause they're in the class, or
they're hanging out with you afterward, or they'll stop by your office and ask you an assignment
question, and the online student email gets buried in the emails from all the other entities that
you're working with.” Ben, who teaches history, added “…time was a big, big issue. So how
72
long this was going to take, and could I do a quality job in a short period of time, and would the
demands on me?”
The perception of time investment is therefore validated by this study as a top priority,
influence for which recommendations will be made in Chapter Five.
Utility is the value that individuals place on activities that they judge as instrumental in
their achievement of personally valued outcomes. A surprising result in context at Faith
University was that faculty who doubted student success outcomes in the online format still
valued distance learning as one which facilitated access by non-traditional students. Therefore,
the perception of student achievement was not validated as a primary need for active
participants. This will be discussed in more detail as a theme in a later section.
The data in this study suggested that doubts about efficacy are mitigated by a more
significant expectancy about valued benefits that increased access gives to students, and
especially for non-traditional students. Cindy (pseudonym), who was a senior member of the
music faculty with over thirty years of instruction, put it this way: “And so, the online format is
really nice for students who want to finish a degree and are still working on a job besides.”
Because Cindy was nearing retirement, her response resists prevalent stereotypes that online
instruction is eschewed by older faculty members. The primary need that emerges from this
data, to be addressed in the recommendation section, is to clearly and consistently communicate
the benefits of access that distance education provides for non-traditional students and how this
aligns with the mission of the institution. However, the expected influence of confidence in
distance learning for student outcomes was not validated as a priority need in this study.
The fact that Faith University faculty who are active in online teaching did not uniformly
believe in the effectiveness of online learning did not necessarily indicate that they lacked
confidence in the utility of the career benefits of online teaching. For example, in several cases,
73
the faculty members cited a strong desire to make the content as good as it could be, given their
general lack of confidence in the modality as compared with a traditional classroom.
Matt, who has been teaching in the business department for many years, puts it this way:
“But I feel like I want my class to be pretty equivalent to what I would give them in the
classroom. Of course, it's got to be different because of the form of the class, but I want someone
to do an equal amount of work at least and learn the same stuff.” He went on to describe the
amount of time necessary to bring a course up to the point of being comparable to what he could
offer in the classroom. On this, he commented: “So I want them to learn the material. So, there's
different assignments, so I have to come up with those. So, this just a lot of work for me.”
A relevant principle from the literature is that making a strong connection between role-
related aspirations and the desired activity can be a strong motivator (Pintrich, 2003). Geoff,
who was referenced earlier, commented: “Personally, I see myself as being at the beginning of
my career, not at the end of my teaching career. And so, I don't see technology. I don't, it's not
going anywhere. And so, as a professor, we have to be willing to learn the technologies to use
them.” A typical contrasting comment from an older member of the faculty was: “My career.
Well, I'm well along in my career. Yeah. I'm not too worried about opportunities at my stage.
No. I'm more concerned about…I'm concerned about, you know, adequately doing all the stuff
that I am able to do.” These quotes demonstrated what was generally found in the study. The
prospect of career advancement was a validated need for younger faculty. For older faculty, the
evidence suggested that career advancement was not a salient influence on participant
motivation.
Organization Findings Overview
The organizational influences outlined in Table 9 show assumed influences as from
Chapter Two that was first identified through a review of applicable literature. Using the
74
concepts of cultural models and settings suggested by Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), it was
asserted that the taken-for-granted assumptions and expectations that constitute operative cultural
models within the organization and among faculty members would emerge as an important
influence in the improvement model. Furthermore, organizational structures and policies that
constitute settings in which those values are transmitted and perpetuated were anticipated to be
influential. Each of these is discussed below, and each has been validated as influential in
relation to the improvement model at Faith University.
Table 9
Summary of Organization Influences and Research Results
Assumed Organization Influence
Validated?
Typical Interview
Response
Typical Focus Group
Statement
Cultural Model – Institutional
Identity:
Faculty must believe that their
participation in new programs is
vital to the survival of the
institution and that it promotes
values that they share and with
which they strongly identify (Kezar
& Rhoads, 2001; Stensaker, 2015;
Tierney, 2008).
Yes FG “For instance, I
have a student right
now who's from
England and she's
here as a geoscience
major, but to come all
the way from
England is a big
commitment, you
know, and for her to
be able to try out
essentially the
university and
especially that class
and to say like, yeah,
I want that and then
come here, that's
cool.” -Rachel
Faculty members
commented on the
value of distance
education in promoting
values that align with
the “worldwide”
component of
institutional mission.
75
Table 9, continued
Assumed Organization Influence
Validated?
Typical Interview
Response
Typical Focus Group
Statement
Cultural Model - Incentives:
Faculty must believe that online
teaching is valued and rewarded by
the institution (Hansen, Smith, &
Hansen, 2002; Kerr, 1995).
Yes FG “This is, you
know; obviously we
need money to work,
but this is, I'm doing
it because I love
Christ and I love
students, and I want
the students to really
get a Christ-centered
education, which
complements our
mission statement.” -
Jim
Jim went on to relate
this personal mission to
the mission of the
institution.
Cultural Setting – Socialization:
Faculty must perceive that adequate
compensation exists to ensure the
success of new programs (Hansen
et al., 2002; Kerr, 1995; Mazerolle,
Nottingham, & Coleman, 2018;
Wingo et al., 2017).
Yes FG “…to be
supplemented by
some online. It's not
carnal when you're
saving for your
retirement to get
some more money or
to be able to take
your wife on
vacation. And so, so
very typically, if you
want to call it
personally, it's been
good for us.” -Jim
Jim’s comment
reflected a prevalent
faculty view that
compensation in this
area is supplemental to
base salary,
supplemental to base
activity, and is
supportive of home
activities that make use
of disposable income.
Cultural Setting - Socialization
Faculty must share an
understanding that participation in
new programs that bridge
geographic boundaries are central to
institutional identity.
Yes I “…when you add in
the ability to cross
cultures, the ability to
cross barriers, lower
the financial costs
tremendously, and
build leaders and
committed Christians
and informed
Christians around the
world. I mean, we've
got people in the
Philippines, South
America, Thailand.
This is just current
students, you know,
and so the chances to
do this are just so
exciting.” -Wes
Wes’ comment showed
that socialization into
the values of the
university was
motivating along with
pure financial rewards.
76
Data from this study showed that faculty who were actively participating in online course
development and instruction connected that activity to the survival of the institution and with
institutional values that they had internalized and that they believed the institution promotes.
Those individuals who have not yet participated can be influenced in their understanding of those
connections (Hansen, Smith, & Hansen, 2002; Kerr, 1995). A principle rooted in organizational
change theory is that support for a proposed change increases when that change is aligned with
the identity of participants and the organizational mission (Kezar & Rhoads, 2001). The need for
cultural models and settings that create that alignment was therefore expected to be validated in
this study.
There was some evidence that enthusiastic participation in online learning was connected
to the cultural model of “outreach” in this organization. Within the description of the
organization in Chapter One, this was described as important to a faith-based institution. This is
a theme that came up in both the interviews and the focus group, although it was less frequent
than some of the other themes, validated the need to facilitate alignment of mission, institutional
survival, and distance education in the culture and organization. The data supported the need for
promoting cultural settings that describe the link between institutional mission and access to
online learning worldwide. One senior member of the faculty, with over 30 years of experience,
stated: “…when you add in the ability to cross cultures, the ability to cross barriers, lower the
financial costs tremendously, and build leaders and committed Christians and informed
Christians around the world. I mean, we've got people in the Philippines, South America,
Thailand. This is just current students, you know, and so the chances to do this are just so
exciting.”
A younger member of the faculty confirmed that sentiment with an example: “For
instance, I have a student right now who's from England, and she's here as a geoscience major,
77
but to come all the way from England is a big commitment, you know, and for her to be able to
try out essentially the university and especially that class and to say like, yeah, I want that and
then come here, that's cool.”
In these examples, the cultural model of outreach merged seamlessly with organizational
identity and the core motivations of faculty in distance education. Both of these examples
validated a need to communicate clearly and offer opportunities for reflection on the outreach
component of this activity. A need to provide instruction on the missional implications of new
communication technologies was also indicated. Fralinger and Olson (2007) suggested that
“…university culture can also be thought of as the personality of an organization.” (p. 86)
Tierney (2008), as a result of a comparative ethnographic study, suggested that faith-based
institutions possessing strong ideological alignment of faculty and students might weather
necessary shifts in curriculum necessary to accommodate changes in the organizational
environment.
As an organizational issue, this study found that a typical and prevalent belief about
online teaching at Faith University is that it was supplemental to the role of an instructor rather
than central to that role; this was a theme that appeared in vivo and will be discussed in more
detail below.
Themes
The section above reviewed a priori influences that were either validated as needs at Faith
University or were not validated needs. These expected needs were based on the review of
relevant literature and a hypothesized conceptual framework. The discussion will now turn to
themes which were not anticipated but were found to be important influences in vivo, offering
insight into the dynamics of this context.
78
Self-efficacy in Learning Management Software
The findings of this study showed that the learning management software (LMS) that was
used by all faculty was a support for transitioning to online instruction. The study found that
faculty who felt competent in the use of this LMS from their traditional classes felt less
intimidation in transitioning to an online format. This influence was prominent in the literature
also, which showed that that confidence in the use of technology and confidence in the
availability of technical support were significant supports in faculty decisions to teach online
(Wingo et al., 2017).
Faculty at Faith University generally reported that they possessed self-efficacy in the use
of this technology. Questions in the interviews that pertained to knowledge or skill development
in online instruction often elicited responses that included references to familiarity with the LMS
platform called Canvas. Because it was a familiar tool used across the university for all course
content, including traditional classes, it could be concluded that it represents strong support for
procedural learning that is already in place.
Jackson (pseudonym), who has been teaching in the bible department for less than ten
years, and who recently participated in the development of a course commented that “…because
I was a very familiar with Canvas [LMS] in which the online exists, it wasn't a steep learning
curve to go beyond just the recording of the lecture....” While further scaffolding and guidance
in the form of worked examples and templates will be recommended in Chapter Five, the
widespread use of the Canvas LMS was affirmed by this study as a strong asset or support that is
already in place at Faith University.
Distance Education as Supplemental
The contract and compensation structure at Faith University was found in this study to
support a supplemental view of online learning. Distance education was regarded by faculty and
79
frequently referred to as additional work. The prevalent paradigm was that it was considered to
be ancillary to the core role of a full-time instructor. This was the third most common theme in
the data. The theme occurred 18 times across nine interviews. A related finding under financial
compensation was that participants regarded it as reasonable, valued it, but also viewed it as
supplemental to base salary. Wes commented: “…to be supplemented by some online. It's not
carnal when you're saving for your retirement to get some more money or to be able to take your
wife on vacation. And so, so very typically, if you want to call it personally, it's been good for
us.” In this case, Wes was speaking of the extra financial compensation that comes from
participating in distance learning.
Jackson, who is a more junior member working in the same department as Wes,
expressed similar thoughts commenting, “But yeah, I think I'm thankful for the opportunity to
make more [money] and would welcome more online classes at some point. But at the same
time, there's a lot of time I don't have, and so, yeah.” In both cases, the structure of additional
pay as supplemental was valued, but the observation highlighted a need to put distance education
at the core of faculty responsibility.
Chris, who taught History and had been with the institution for over 30 years,
commented, “If I've got a traditional class to go teach, I go teach it with all I got and prepare well
for it. And so, I don't give the online program the attention I should if I were doing a new class,
yeah, I would need to change my daytime schedule. My daytime job would have to change
dramatically.” It was interesting, in this case, that he described online teaching as outside of his
daytime schedule. This indicated an assumption that the effort takes place after hours.
Deci and Ryan (2000), in what is known as the over-justification effect, showed that
extrinsic rewards could actually interfere with internal motivation. In order to avoid the over-
justification effect, Chapter Five will describe specific organizational recommendations for
80
bringing distance education to the center of organizational life. The results of this study
identified an unanticipated need for faculty to make sense of a compensation and contract
structure that treats all online instruction as supplemental to be addressed in Chapter Five.
Student Benefits of Access
Providing access to non-traditional students emerged in vivo as a strong value for faculty
at Faith University. The data demonstrated that this value overshadowed a lack of confidence in
the modality for accomplishing student learning outcomes. The benefits of access to non-
traditional students were mentioned repeatedly in this study. Online instruction was compared
negatively to the traditional classroom in 18 instances across ten separate interviews. However,
it must be noted that these same individuals were actively participating.
One instructor who transitioned to teaching online full-time commented on what he
believed to be the advantages of the classroom: “…you can see non-verbally if they're, how
they're doing, you can see on their faces that they're puzzled, you know, generally if they're
puzzled, if they're bored if they're not getting it or whatever. And, and so there's certain
immediate access, you know?” As a faculty member with over thirty years at the institution,
who has now moved to exclusive online instruction, this comment illustrated an unexpected
emphasis. In explaining how the advantages of teaching online compensate for this immediacy,
the instructor further commented, “However, there's problems with traditional education. In a
sense it's, it's fairly artificial. There is one person in front standing in front of a bunch of people
facing front, and it’s very easy to fall into a format where you're simply giving information.” An
unexpected need that was validated in this study was to emphasize the benefits of access that
distance education offers for non-traditional students. Ben commented on it this way “They…
they have families; they have jobs in the military or whatever. And so suddenly you get people
81
who can now get education who could never get it.” Emphasis on access was, therefore, shown
to be an influence leading to active participation.
Institutional Mission
The “worldwide” aspect of the institutional mission was a prominent theme in this study
and related axially to student benefits of access. As a Christian institution, Faith University had
a coherent institutional identity with which participants strongly identified (Tierney, 2008).
Institutional survival and competitiveness at Faith University are a matter of professional identity
for faculty. Their personal identity was connected to the institutional identity of the
organization. One senior member of the faculty, with over 30 years of experience, stated,
“…when you add in the ability to cross cultures, the ability to cross barriers, lower the financial
costs tremendously, and build leaders and committed Christians and informed Christians around
the world. I mean, we've got people in the Philippines, South America, Thailand. This is just
current students, you know, and so the chances to do this are just so exciting.” In this example, a
member of the faculty who exhibited observable indices of motivation in distance education
readily cited the mission of the institution as a personal motivator. For this reason, providing
opportunities to reflect on the connection between new programs and the mission of the
institution was supported as a need. As such, it will be included in the recommendations, as
presented in Chapter Five.
Summary
In summary, this study uncovered needs to consistently communicate and provide
information about opportunities for course development and online teaching. It suggested that
job aids depicting worked examples and step-by-step instructions for the development of content
might be advantageous. It also showed that strong assets within the context of Faith University
include an established learning management system (LMS) with which the entire faculty is
82
familiar and that extremely strong technical support measured in terms of both responsiveness
and capability are present.
On the motivational dimension, the study established that institutional mission, financial
health, and survival are strong motivators for faculty who share a cohesive view of the
organization and its purpose. Comments from faculty showed clearly that the time demands of
distance learning when balanced with core duties created an impression of supplemental activity
that will need to be addressed. More specifically, a backburner approach was seen to produce
backburner prioritization. The study pointed to recognition as a potential intrinsic motivator for
online initiatives and new course programs. Lack of confidence in the effectiveness of distance
learning modalities was shown to be less important to faculty than the benefits of reaching non-
traditional student populations. Role related aspirations were not found to be a major influence,
but for younger instructors, they do exert some influence.
On the dimension of organizational influences, supports, and barriers the study showed
that there is a need to structure the employment relationship in a way that brings distance
instruction to the center of organizational life, and that world reach is a major cultural model that
connects online instruction with a very cohesive institutional identity and the strong value placed
on global impact. Having discussed these results, Chapter Five will present evidence-based
recommendations and low-cost approaches to implementation that hold promise for supporting a
comprehensive ongoing change effort.
83
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having previously presented methods and results of this study, the discussion for this
Chapter turns to practical, evidence-based recommendations for addressing the validated needs
influencing faculty stakeholders at Faith University. These recommendations are organized
according to R. E. Clark and Estes’ (2008) conceptual framework of Knowledge, Motivation,
and Organizational factors. Each is addressed through a discussion of the validated influence, an
evidence-based principle from related literature, and a general recommendation that arises from
that principle.
Following this recommendation section, the chapter discusses an implementation and
evaluation plan based on the New World Kirkpatrick model for organizational change
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Using this plan, a program for learning intervention that fits
within existing practices of Faith University is prescribed addressing all four levels of the
Kirkpatrick model. Instruments and procedures for monitoring progress are included in the
appendix as are tools that can be used to provide feedback on progress during implementation of
the proposed improvement.
Organizational Context
The focus of this study was Faith University in the Western United States. Faith is a
private, nonprofit, accredited institution of higher learning offering graduate and undergraduate
degree programs in a variety of academic fields. For the fiscal period covering 2016-2017, Faith
realized an operating loss of 2.9%, which caused serious concern within the administration about
financial sustainability. This loss reflected a performance gap of 12.9% below the institution’s
stated objective of 10% net positive annual operating income.
84
Organizational Performance Goal
The performance improvement was a new online degree program in entrepreneurship.
This improvement was presented as relevant to the problem of financial sustainability because it
represents one step toward diversification of revenue streams through a wider introduction of
online curricular offerings. The introduction of this program was presented as relating directly to
the global aspect of Faith’s published mission statement “To empower students for a life of
enduring commitment to Christ, biblical fidelity, moral integrity, intellectual growth, and lasting
contribution to the Kingdom of God worldwide” (The Faith University, 2017).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to gather evidence-based insights that will inform the
implementation of this and other online learning offerings at Faith University, which will serve
as an important source of revenue diversification.
The questions that have guided the investigation thus far were:
1. What faculty knowledge and skills might help or hinder diversification into online course
curriculum at Faith University?
2. What faculty perceptions about online teaching might impact motivation to implement
and teach distance learning courses at Faith University?
3. Are there organizational, cultural, or contextual meanings operative among the faculty
stakeholder group at Faith University that might impact attainment of diversified
offerings?
4. What evidence-based recommendations might we make using these knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors?
Having summarized results from this inquiry, it is now possible to present evidence-
based recommendations and a specific implementation plan for consideration.
85
Recommendations for Practice
Knowledge Recommendations
R. E. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that when simple facts suffice as a basis for action
in closing a performance gap, that announcements and distribution of that declarative
information may be more efficient than trainings or educational interventions. Factual
knowledge as first described by Bloom et al. (1984) and later revised by Krathwohl (2002) is
rote information that is best presented through multiple media to maximize cognitive capacity for
the acquisition of that knowledge (Kirschner et al., 2006; Mayer, 2011).
Recommendation #1: Provide basic information about opportunities for participating in
online instruction, as well as the compensation that applies to that activity in faculty meetings at
the beginning of the semester when distractions are at a minimum.
The findings of this study, as presented in Chapter Four, suggest that basic information
about the availability of teaching opportunities is inconsistently shared with faculty at the
departmental level. Sharing that occurs in departmental meetings when several issues are
competing for attention represents an undue strain on cognitive load. A learning principle based
in cognitive load theory is that extraneous cognitive load can be reduced in focused
environments, which aids in the acquisition and transfer of declarative knowledge (Kirschner,
Kirschner, & Paas, 2006). This would suggest that providing faculty stakeholders with clear
information about the benefits of participation in online learning programs would improve
participation. The recommendation is then to provide information about opportunities for
participating in online instruction, as well as the compensation that applies in an environment
free from distraction. This information would then best be provided in general faculty meetings
at the beginning of the semester when extraneous information is at a minimum.
86
Recommendation #2: Provide job aids in the form of templates, worked examples, and
step-by-step instructions to guide the implementation of new course content.
R. E. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested job aids when procedural steps need to be
summarized. These resources are useful when self-instruction is required or when experts are
being asked to take a new approach. Zhen, Garthwait, and Pratt (2008) showed that procedural
mastery of online course management applications was significant in contributing to an
instructors’ decision to adopt applications for online teaching. Mitchell, Parlamis, and Claiborne
(2015) also showed that the use of data and exposure to the advantages of technology could
move postsecondary faculty members from resistance to active support for online teaching.
The findings of this study showed prevalent and typical statements by faculty
stakeholders at Faith University that procedural knowledge for course implementation is a
support for participation in online teaching. A recommendation drawn from the principles of
cognitive load theory has been suggested below to address this need. Aguinis and Kraiger
(2009) found that increasing germane cognitive load through the provision of advance organizers
and worked examples can improve procedural learning. This would suggest that providing
faculty members with worked examples of successfully implemented courses may enhance self-
directed learning and support participation. The recommendation is then to provide job aids that
depict worked examples and step-by-step instructions to guide implementation.
Recommendation #3: Provide an opportunity for reflection and discussion in regular
faculty prayer gatherings about the connection between institutional mission, survival, and
growth of online offerings.
Flavell (1976), who first conceived of metacognitive knowledge, described it as
awareness of one’s own learning. Mayer (2011) further characterized metacognition as self-
knowledge of learning on the level of awareness and control. Corley and Gioia (2004) further
87
elaborated on the role that improvement initiatives might cause in understanding one’s self-
conception as a contributor of value to the organization.
The qualitative research results, as presented in Chapter Four show that alignment with
institutional mission and survival are major supports for faculty enthusiasm about new
initiatives. A related principle rooted in information processing theory is that when faculty
members organize information according to an existing mental schema, their approach to new
tasks is aided (Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M., 2006). The recommendation for change would
then be to provide an opportunity for reflection in faculty gatherings that are designated for
discussion about and prayer for the institution. In these settings, open discussion about the link
between institutional survival, mission, and online programs should be emphasized with the
opportunity for reflection. In the context of a faith-based institution, the setting of faculty prayer
gatherings presents a unique opportunity to encourage personal reflection on individual roles as
related to the mission of the institution.
Table 10 shows assumed influences as outlined in Chapter Two that was validated or not
validated through focused qualitative data collection at Faith University. The theoretical
principles behind each assumed influence and the context-specific evidence-based
recommendations are listed in their respective columns.
88
Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty must be aware of
the opportunity to
participate in new
programs (D) (Kirschner,
P. Kirschner, F., & Paas,
F., 2006).
V Y Decreasing
extraneous
cognitive load
enables more
effective
acquisition of
new
information
(Kirschner, P.
Kirschner, F.,
& Paas, F.,
2006)
Recommendation #1:
Provide basic
information about
opportunities for
participating in online
instruction, as well as
the compensation that
applies to that activity
in faculty meetings at
the beginning of the
semester when
distractions are at a
minimum.
Faculty need to know how
to implement new course
content. (P) (Zhen,
Garthwait, & Pratt, 2008).
V Y Increasing
germane
cognitive load
by engaging
the learner
with advance
organizers,
worked
examples, and
scaffolding
improves
procedural
learning
(Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009;
Kirschner, P.
Kirschner, F.,
& Paas, F.,
2006; Van
Gerven, Paas,
Van
Merriënboer,
& Schmidt,
2002).
Recommendation #2:
Provide job aids in the
form of templates,
worked examples, and
step-by-step
instructions to guide
the implementation of
new course content.
89
Table 10, continued
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need to be able to
reflect on the connection
between participation in
online instruction and the
mission of the institution
(M) (Hargreaves, 2005)
V Y How faculty
members
organize, the
information
will influence
how they
approach the
task of
teaching online
(Schraw, G., &
McCrudden,
M., 2006).
Recommendation #3:
Provide an opportunity
for reflection and
discussion in regular
faculty prayer
gatherings about the
connection between
institutional mission,
survival, and growth of
online offerings.
*Indicate knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: (D)eclarative;
(P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive
Motivation Recommendations
The findings of this study provided evidence that general competence in the learning
management software (LMS) that is used by faculty for both online and traditional courses
reduces the learning curve for teaching online at Faith University. Because faculty possess self-
efficacy in the use of this technology, the strong influence related to confidence in the use of
technology that was discussed in the literature review is of less importance in this context. This
influence, as shown in the literature noted confidence in the use of technology, and confidence in
the availability of technical support as motivational factors for faculty who teach online (Wingo
et al., 2017).
Recommendation #4: Increase intrinsic motivation for online instructional activity
through recognition and awards for excellence distance instruction and distance course creation.
Perceived time demands of distance learning in spite of confidence in learning new
technology were prohibitively great. This influence was also cited in the literature as a factor
influencing involvement. It was anticipated that valuing online instruction over other activities,
90
would be necessary for motivation and this was validated as a “cost-value” influence on choice,
persistence, and mental effort in the study (Eccles, 2006). The recommendation is, therefore, is,
therefore, to increase the value of online instructional activity through recognition and rewards
for excellence, distance instruction, and distance course creation.
The presence of cost-value has strong support in the literature as a motivational influence
on faculty motivation in distance education (Artman, 2004; Hurt, 2014; Jackson, 2017). Artman
(2004) cited compensation as a potential issue impacting faculty motivation but suggests that the
issue of compensation may simply be a proxy for time demands on faculty in the academic
setting. The recommendation for awards and recognition is meant to avoid what Deci and Ryan
(2000) call the over-justification effect. For creative tasks, intrinsic rewards have greater
motivational value (Markova & Ford, 2011; McGee & Johnson, 2015; Pink, 2011). Recognition
is, therefore, favored as a tool to place a higher value on the work of creating online courses and
acting as a distance instructor.
Recommendation #5: Career benefits of teaching online should be highlighted in the
context of performance reviews.
Utility is the value that individuals place on activities that they judge as instrumental in
their achievement of personally valued outcomes. A surprising result in context at Faith
University was that faculty who doubted student success outcomes in the online format, still
valued distance learning as a career-enhancing activity, and one which facilitated access by non-
traditional students. This invalidated the expected influence of student achievement as a
motivator for participating in this activity. Utility value for skill development and potential
career implications was found to be a stronger motivation for those who exhibit all three indices
of motivation in this activity. For this reason, it is recommended that training on the career
benefits of teaching online be included in the context of performance reviews.
91
Two outcomes found to be prevalent in the distance education literature were career
advancement, and student success (Wingo et al., 2017). The fact that Faith University faculty
did not uniformly believe in the effectiveness of online learning does not necessarily indicate that
they lack confidence in the utility of becoming personally involved. For example, in several
cases, the faculty members cited a strong desire to make the content as good as it could be given
their general lack of confidence in the modality as compared to the traditional classroom.
The results of this study showed that belief in online teaching was relevant to role-related
aspirations of faculty who initiated, persisted, and exercised mental effort toward excellence in
distance education. The relevant principle from the literature is that making a strong connection
between role-related aspirations and the desired activity can be a strong motivator (Pintrich,
2003).
Wingo et al. (2017), in a review of 67 empirical studies utilizing the TAM2 technology
acceptance model from Venkatesh and Davis (2000), found that uncertainty about maintaining a
professorial image was present along with concerns about cost-value for faculty considering
online education as a career path. Addressing the cultural dimension of faculty self-perception
and attainment will be addressed in more detail within the consideration of organizational
influences later in this chapter.
Influences from the literature on motivation are listed below in Table 11. The literature
on motivation suggests that observable indices of motivation include choice, persistence, and
mental effort (R. E. Clark & Estes, 2008; Schunk et al., 2009). For the sake of this study, it is
assumed that choice is evidenced by the decision to begin teaching online, persistence is
evidenced in the continuation of the behavior, and mental effort is indicated by the willingness to
employ novel approaches to overcome obstacles inherent in participation. Assumed causes from
the data suggest that initial choice may be lacking for many of the full-time faculty at Faith
92
University. Table 11 indicates motivational influences leading to active choice that is found in
the literature of faculty motivation for teaching online, and that contribute to persistence and
mental effort in the desired behavior. Table 11 also shows the recommendations for introducing
those influences at Faith University through learning interventions grounded in evidence-based
principles.
Table 11
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated as a
Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cost-value – Faculty must
believe that the effort they
expend in setting up and
administering online classes
is valuable in comparison to
other activities they might
engage in (Artman, 2004;
Hurt, 2014; Jackson, 2017).
V Y Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner
values the task
over other
activities in
which they may
be engaged.
(Eccles, 2006)
Recommendation
#4: Increase
intrinsic motivation
for online
instructional
activity through
recognition and
rewards for
excellence distance
instruction and
distance course
creation.
(Eccles,
2006)
Utility Value – Faculty must
believe that engaging in skill
development for new
programs will contribute to
their career goals at the
institution (Eccles, 2006).
V Y Demonstrating
the connection
between online
teaching and
career success
may strengthen
its value as a
means-end
activity. (Eccles,
2006;
Pintrich, 2003)
Recommendation
#5: Career benefits
of teaching online
should be
highlighted in the
context of
performance
reviews.
(R. E. Clark &
Estes, 2008).
93
Table 11, continued
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated as a
Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Utility Value – Faculty must
believe that new online
programs are impactful for
achieving desired student
learning outcomes (Eccles,
2006; Lowenthal, Wray,
Bates, Switzer, & Stevens,
2012).
N N Rationales that
include the
importance and
utility value of
the work to
desired
outcomes
increase
motivation
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003)
Because highly
motivated faculty
persist in spite of
their belief that
online programs
are not as impactful
for achieving
desired student
learning, no
recommendation
for change is
suggested for this
influence.
Organization Recommendations
Fralinger and Olson (2007) suggested that “…university culture can also be thought of as
the personality of an organization” (p. 86). The culture of academia has been described as
containing subcultures that arise from communities of practice, epistemological orientations, and
the particular idiosyncratic character of the institutions themselves (Becher, 1989). Tierney and
Lanford (2016) suggested that the impact of changes in technology, shifting enrollment, and
diminishing governmental funding has created conditions that favor change. Tierney (2008), as
a result of a comparative ethnographic study, suggested that faith-based institutions possessing
strong ideological alignment of faculty and students might weather necessary shifts in curriculum
necessary to accommodate changes in the organizational environment.
Recommendation #6: Provide direction during the recruitment and training of new
faculty, which shows a connection between the institutional mission and the benefits of online
programs that would enhance participation.
94
The results of this study show that faculty who are actively participating in online course
development and instruction connect that activity to the survival of the institution and with
institutional values that they themselves share, while those individuals who have not yet
participated lack this connection (Hansen, Smith, & Hansen, 2002; Kerr, 1995). A principle
rooted in organizational change theory is that support for a proposed change increases when that
change is aligned with the identity of participants and the organizational mission (Kezar &
Rhoads, 2001). The recommendation is, therefore, to provide direction during the recruitment
and training of new faculty, which shows a connection between the institutional mission and the
benefits of online programs would enhance participation.
Recommendation #7: Credit for teaching online should be included in fulfilling the
basic teaching contracts of full-time faculty.
The results of this study showed that a typical and prevalent belief about online teaching
at Faith University is that it is supplemental to the fundamental role of an instructor rather than
central. A related principle from the theory of organizational change has been selected to close
this gap. The principle is that Non-monetary rewards enhance intrinsic motivation when the
desired work product is creative in nature (Markova & Ford, 2011). The recommendation that
emerges from this principle is that credit for teaching online should be included in fulfilling the
basic teaching contracts of full-time faculty. This is referred to in context as load credit and is
granted for other institutional tasks such as serving as a department chair.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) described cultural settings as consisting of the more
visible elements of organizational culture that might either encourage or inhibit change. Within
this conceptual framework, organizational practices interact with employee beliefs about what is
valuable to the organization. Socialization is a setting that occurs in formal processes such as
orientations and training but also occurs in informal settings as employees make sense of their
95
organizational environment (Weick, 1995). As employees make sense of a contract structure
that treats all online instruction as supplemental, they have come to regard the task as something
other than central to their roles. For this reason, the contractual process is a key setting in which
value for new organizational emphasis can be negotiated.
The organizational influences outlined in Table 12 show assumed influences as outlined
in Chapter Two that were first identified through a review of applicable literature and then
validated through focused qualitative data collection at Faith University. Using the concepts of
cultural models and settings suggested by Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), it was suggested
that the taken for granted assumptions and expectations that constitute operative cultural models
within the organization, as well as the structures and policies that constitute settings in which
those models are transmitted and perpetuated within the organization should be considered.
Each of these is listed below. The theoretical principles behind each assumed influence and the
context-specific evidence-based recommendations are outlined below in Table 12.
Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Validated as a
Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model – Institutional
Identity:
Faculty must believe that their
participation in new programs
is vital to the survival of the
institution and that it promotes
values that they share and with
which they strongly identify
(Kezar & Rhoads, 2001;
Stensaker, 2015; Tierney,
2008).
V Y Connecting a
proposed
change with the
identity of
participants and
the mission of
the
organization
supports
change efforts
(Kezar &
Rhoads, 2001).
Recommendation
#6: provide
direction during the
recruitment and
training of new
faculty, which
shows a connection
between the
institutional
mission and the
benefits of online
programs that
would enhance
participation.
96
Table 12, continued
Assumed Organization
Influence
Validated as a
Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model - Incentives:
Faculty must believe that
online teaching is valued and
rewarded by the institution
(Hansen, Smith, & Hansen,
2002; Kerr, 1995).
V Y Non-monetary
rewards
enhance
intrinsic
motivation in
knowledge
work and
creative
endeavors
(Markova &
Ford, 2011).
Recommendation
#7: The
recommendation
that emerges from
this principle is
that credit for
teaching online
should be included
toward fulfilling
the basic teaching
contracts of full-
time faculty.
Cultural Setting –
Socialization:
Faculty must perceive that
adequate technical support,
mentorship support, and
compensation exist to ensure
the success of new programs
(Hansen et al., 2002; Kerr,
1995; Mazerolle, Nottingham,
& Coleman, 2018; Wingo et
al., 2017).
N N Aligning
organizational
structures and
processes with
the desired
behavior
supports the
change process
(R. E. Clark,
Estes,
Middlebrook,
& Palchesko,
2004; Dixon,
Arnold,
Heineke, Kim,
& Mulligan,
1994).
Because adequate
technical support
and mentorship
were shown to
exist in this
context, no
recommendation
is provided for
this item.
Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The implementation and evaluation plan for this study makes use of concepts from the
New World Kirkpatrick Model for organizational change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
This model describes four separate levels of evaluation. The authors suggested that the levels be
approached in reverse order beginning the fourth level, which describes the broad organizational
objective. From there, it prescribes “leading indicators” be identified that specify shorter-term
observations and measurements growing out of critical behaviors at Level 3. Critical Behaviors
97
by key stakeholders, in turn, must be concrete enough to pass authors call the “video test.” This
means that their behaviors go beyond competencies to an observable performance that, if needed,
could be captured on camera and explained. These are depicted by the authors as needing the
support of “required drivers” that are “…systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward
the performance of critical behaviors on the job” (p. 14). Designing the implementation and
evaluation plan according to this framework ensures that Level 1 reactions and Level 2 learning
achieve their desired results in measurable organizational change
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
If the Level 4 result of sustainability is to be achieved, it must be supported by
diversification of revenue, according to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The judgment of the
CFO is that 20% of revenue must be attributable to online programs for this to take place. The
level of participation needed from full-time faculty would need to approach 100%. The level of
active participation of full-time faculty in the online department at this writing stands at 22%.
As such, the participation of full-time faculty in the development of online programs would need
to increase substantially from 22% to nearly 100%. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) then
would identify a critical behavior related to full-time faculty as they initiate and persist in online
course development and instruction. As a metric designed to monitor this critical behavior, a
periodic recalculation of participation should be made, which accounts for employee turnover,
new participation, and attrition from online instruction. The goal of 100% participation in online
learning by the full-time faculty would then act as the ultimate Level 4 objective or desired
outcome. Leading indicators of this outcome include faculty seeking participation, faculty
engaging in course development and related training, and faculty persisting in online instruction.
98
Table 13
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Enrollment increases to
20% of total university
enrollment in response to
online offerings.
Percentage of end-of-year
revenue attributable to online
tuition.
Review of end-of-year financial
report compiled each April.
Operating revenue is
sustained at a 10% surplus
over expense.
Percentage of end-of-year
revenue in surplus of expenses.
Review of end-of-year financial
report compiled each April.
Internal Outcomes
100% Full-Time Faculty
participation in online
course development and
instruction.
Percentage of annual faculty
contracts which include online
instruction or course design.
Review of completed annual
contracts in compiled in the
second week of May.
Turnover and attrition of
online instructors is
reduced to near zero
levels.
Percentage of online instructors
active in the past two semesters
who have elected to discontinue
participation in the upcoming
term.
Review of completed annual
contracts compiled in the second
week of May.
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The critical stakeholder behaviors which support the outcomes in
Table 14 include initiation, active choice, and persistence of faculty in the development of
courses, implementation of courses, and administration of online course content. The table
below lists three critical behavioral metrics related to these behaviors. These include
engagement in development, the inquiry into development, and retention of online faculty from
one semester to the next.
99
Table 14
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Full-time faculty
engaging in
development of
new courses.
Percentage of full-
time faculty who
engaged in online
learning during the
previous semester.
Online department
tracking of participation
by full-time faculty.
Examination of
records in April and
May.
2. Full-time faculty
inquiries into
development of
new course content.
Percentage of full-
time faculty who
began training or
course development
during the previous
semester.
Online department
tracking of participation
by full-time faculty.
Examination of
records in April and
May.
3. Full-time faculty
persisting in online
instruction.
Percentage of online
faculty who are
retained from one
semester to the next.
Online department
tracking of participation
by full-time faculty.
Examination of
records in
September,
December, and
May.
Required drivers. Drawing from the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
recommendations in the previous sections of this chapter, the following drivers for the support of
critical behaviors are suggested. The specific critical behaviors being supported are indicated in
the right most column of Table 15 by their associated number.
100
Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Refresher (K) on the existence
of the opportunity at the
beginning of the semester
when distractions are at a
minimum.
The first faculty meeting at the
beginning of each semester.
1, 2
Job Aids (K) in the learning
management system
facilitating step-by-step
course creation through
scaffolding and a worked
example.
Voluntary in-service trainings
offered to participating faculty
on Friday of each week during
the fall and spring semesters.
1, 2
Self-monitoring (K) with
space for reflection being
offered through open
discussion and prayer in
faculty meetings.
Open prayer meetings held
each week on Thursday
afternoons.
1,2,3
Encouraging
Coaching (M) on the benefits
of online teaching for the
mission of the university and
for career development to be
emphasized during the faculty
advancement process/
performance reviews.
Once per semester during
faculty rank advancement.
Evaluated qualitatively by the
department chair.
1,2,3
Rewarding
Recognition (M) in keeping
with intrinsic motivation for
creative tasks will be offered
to successful instructors.
Once per year in end of year
faculty meeting based on
student feedback submitted
through the learning
management system.
1,2,3
Load Credit (O) will be
offered which satisfies a
portion of the total annual
faculty teaching requirement.
Reviewed during contract
renewal annually in the month
of March.
1,2,3
Monitoring
Interviews (O)
communication of mission
and training during orientation
process.
Held during orientation for
new faculty once per semester.
1,2,3
101
Organizational support. The primary organization support for these items will consist
of load credit for the activity of online teaching, which will address the primary need expressed
by faculty in the research study. Concerns about time and actual time constraints limit the
growth of online diversification at Faith. While efficacy, confidence in technical support, and
satisfaction with levels of extrinsic financial compensation were found to be adequate to support
critical behavior of persistence, a prevalent response of faculty showed that online instruction is
regarded as “extra” or supplementary rather than central to the role of a full-time faculty
member. In order to truly address this issue, support for faculty time management that is cited in
the literature must also be supported in context at Faith University.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Optimal conditions to support the critical behaviors outlined above,
require full-time faculty at Faith University to possess the following abilities and knowledge:
1. Faculty must know how to engage with the organization in pursuit of online teaching and
course development. (P)
2. Faculty must have complete and accurate knowledge about opportunities for engaging in
online instruction. (D)
3. Faculty who pursue participation must be given the ability to access and follow guided
job aids and materials demonstrating step-by-step instructions for the implementation of
new course content. (P)
4. Faculty need the ability to reflect on the relationship between the expansion of online
programs and the institutional mission of Faith University, as well as the survival of Faith
University. (M)
Program. The learning components of the goals listed above will be accomplished in
several venues that align with the typical operational process at Faith University. First, through
102
planned open dialog in mandatory faculty meetings that always occur at the beginning of each
semester, faculty will receive current information about opportunities to participate in online
course development and instruction. They will also receive current information about
compensation and load credit as a knowledge foundation for motivational issues related to time
management, as revealed in the literature and validated in this study. Second, in the context of
in-service trainings which already occur every Friday afternoon, direction will be provided
regarding job aids and templates that are available in the development of new courses. Active
participation in these trainings will increase both confidence and competence for the
performance of critical behaviors. At the departmental level, administrative assistants and chairs
will post online department contact information in common areas designated for departmental
communication. Administrators from each department will provide verbal reminders of the same
information in regularly scheduled departmental meetings. Finally, faculty will have the
opportunity to reflect on institutional survival and accomplishment of the institutional mission as
these are connected to new online programs in the context of prayer meetings held on Thursday
afternoons.
These planned activities will address knowledge, skills, attitudes, and confidence,
fostering the commitment necessary to support the performance of critical behaviors that drive
both stakeholder and organizational goals at Faith. These planned activities will be conducted on
an ongoing basis in support of organizational change and in line with the existing academic cycle
of the institution.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Demonstrating recall and recitation of
declarative and performance of procedural knowledge are necessary conditions of their use in
critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). For this reason, Level 2 evaluation will be
used on both a formative and summative basis to ensure learning. Formative feedback will take
103
place during meetings and trainings in which dialog will reflect a common understanding of
declarative knowledge, and practice/performance will demonstrate the procedural ability of
stakeholders to perform the critical behaviors. Table 16 lists the evaluation methods and timing
for these components of learning.
Table 16
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks/tests will take place in which
the instructor asks participants to recite
declarative knowledge that was shared.
Formative: To be done intermittently as a
“pulse check” during both faculty and
departmental meetings held in September
and January.
A “teach-back” challenge will be issued to the
group in which a small/fun prize will be offered
for successfully reteaching the material to the
group.
Summative: To occur at the end of each
faculty and departmental meeting held in
September and January.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
An in-class activity will be conducted during
Friday in-service training in which a simple
course will be created and shared with peers.
Formative: Procedural skill will be
demonstrated during the Inservice training
through hands-on workshops in November
and April.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Observations will be made and recorded by the
instructor of the non-verbal reactions of
participants. If frowning and non-participation
are evident, clarifying questions will be asked
and adjustments made.
Formative: A second observer and the
instructor themselves will observe and
adjust delivery accordingly.
Summative: A general reflective note on
the instruction will be made following both
departmental and full-faculty meetings in
January and September. These will inform
adjustments to meetings in the following
term.
Depersonalized questions will be asked, such as
What participants “have heard” people think
about performing online instruction. This will be
done to surface important objections.
Formative: Questions will be posted during
instruction providing ample opportunity for
feedback.
104
Table 16, continued
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Depersonalized statements reflecting concerns
about barriers and difficulties will be read during
training, and the group will be asked to comment
further if they identify.
This will be done in a pre and post-
instruction format to gauge whether the
information and instructional elements were
effective.
Open inquiries about barriers and difficulties will
be made, providing ample opportunity for
feedback.
This will be done toward the end of each
faculty and/or departmental meeting in
January and September.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
The Level 1 Reaction instrument will gather
feedback on the following statement: “I am
committed to acting on what I have learned.” A
Likert scale between agree and disagree will be
used.
Written feedback on a smile sheet after In-
service trainings and full faculty meetings
will be used to gauge commitment from
low to high (see below).
Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define Level 1 evaluation is defined as “The degree to
which participants find the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs.” (p. 10) Such
evaluations can act as a “pulse check” to alert facilitators to important barriers to learning. For
this purpose, a written evaluation form will be used after each meeting. Table 17 lists the
evaluation method, question-wording, and timing for these reaction sheets.
Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Response item on written rating scale “The
meeting helped me learn about online
opportunities.”
After meeting survey will be administered in
the January and September faculty meetings.
These will inform subsequent meetings on an
ongoing iterative basis.
Response item on written rating scale “My
participation was encouraged.”
After meeting survey will be administered in
the January and September faculty meetings.
Will inform subsequent meetings on an
iterative basis.
105
Table 17, continued
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Response item on written rating scale “This
meeting held my interest.”
After meeting survey will be administered in
the January and September faculty meetings.
Will inform subsequent meetings on an
iterative basis.
Open-ended: “What, if any, additional
information would you need if you decided
to become involved as an online instructor?”
After meeting written open-ended questions
will be administered in the January and
September faculty meetings. Inform subsequent
meetings on an ongoing iterative basis.
Relevance
Response item on written rating scale “Facts
learned in this session will enhance my
career.”
After meeting survey will be administered in
the January and September faculty meetings.
The results will inform subsequent meetings on
an ongoing iterative basis.
Customer Satisfaction
Response item on written rating scale “The
information and procedures shared were
helpful to me.”
After meeting survey will be administered in
the January and September faculty meetings.
The results will inform subsequent meetings on
an iterative basis.
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. The response items above will
follow open dialog in mandatory faculty meetings that are already conducted at the beginning of
each semester. In these meetings, faculty will have received current information about
opportunities to participate in online course development and instruction. Having also received
current information about compensation and load credit as motivational support, a reaction sheet
will be administered in keeping with the response items for Level 1 as described above.
Appendix C depicts the form of this instrument as it will be administered, including items related
to engagement, relevance, and satisfaction with the content of the presentation.
In a second context, immediately following in-service trainings which occur on Friday
afternoons, the same instrument as shown in Appendix C will be provided in an online format
that is substantially similar to the one shown in Appendix C, but that allows for a radio button to
106
be checked to indicate the level of agreement. The open response question will allow the
respondent to enter a typed response and click on a submit button after reviewing answers for
accuracy.
Finally, at the departmental level, the same instrument should be distributed in paper
form at the end of each meeting and subsequently collected by the department chair for return to
the online department for data tabulation, analysis, and reporting.
Both Level 2 and Level 1 evaluations will be addressed in the same instrument on a
summative basis at the end of each academic year in the context of the end-of-year faculty
meeting through a written check on understanding in which participants will demonstrate using
the instrument in Appendix B as a measure of confidence and commitment for participation in
online learning course development for data tabulation, analysis, and reporting. The items used
in this instrument will closely match the learning objectives of the in-service training.
Data Analysis and Reporting
In the words of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016, p. 145), “Less is more. It is not
effective to create lengthy written reports. Not only will long reports typically not be read, but
you also introduce many opportunities for questions on esoteric items outside of the final
goal…” To support the goal of providing simple informative feedback on progress to key
stakeholders, the authors depict a simplified dashboard showing progress in knowledge supports,
critical behaviors, and desired outcomes. The table presented in Appendix D is proposed as a
means of presenting data at the end of each academic year that will inform stakeholders on
progress in a simple, straightforward manner. It contains data on Level 4 outcomes, Level 3
critical behaviors meant to drive those outcomes, and Level 2 learning supports fostered through
communication during faculty meetings and in-service training.
107
The proposed implementation in this section is built on the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The authors propose beginning with the ultimate
outcomes or organizational objectives desired by the organization. In this case, the goal is
financial sustainability for a small tuition-dependent institution. As this outcome has been
demonstrated in the literature to be supported through diversification of programs,
entrepreneurial culture, and expansion into innovative modes of delivery, the model would
suggest the identification of key behaviors, and learning supports needed to encourage those
critical behaviors.
Limitations and Delimitations
The conclusions and recommendations of this study pertain to a narrow organizational
context. Faculty stakeholders at Faith University were shown to have unique influences based
on the unique organizational environment in which they practice. The focus of the study was
also narrow because it only dealt with one stakeholder group across a limited range of
considerations. Furthermore, the idiosyncratic nature of institutions of higher education
themselves also inherently limits the portability of conclusions (Bogue & Hall, 2003b; Lang,
1999). As the researcher for the study was himself a participant in online teaching at Faith
University and not an objective observer, inherent biases must also be assumed to have been at
work. For all these reasons, the author would caution against the direct applicability of results
from this study to contexts outside of Faith University.
Future Research
It is hoped that useful comparisons might be drawn in other contexts providing a basis for
improvements in practice to emerge. By following this improvement model through the learning
supports and evaluation stages outlined above, it is possible to address knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences found in the literature and to be influential in the introduction of
108
distance learning modalities. By pursuing implementation and evaluation simultaneously, course
corrections can be made that ensure the achievement of financial sustainability through
diversification in online programs. It might be useful for future investigations to take an action-
based approach to inquiry as this might provide more immediate feedback on the interaction
between policy and organizational change in the research process itself.
Conclusion
This study began with the presentation of a macro problem of financial sustainability
affecting small institutions of higher education. The problem was illustrated through change
efforts at Faith University as a specific institution being impacted by these conditions. In
Chapter Two, broad literature was reviewed, which dealt with faculty as a stakeholder group
influencing the creation of new distance education programs that hold the promise of lending
financial resiliency to these institutions. General literature on organizational change in the
university setting was also reviewed. From there, a specific method for qualitative data
collection was outlined, and results were presented. In this final chapter-specific evidence-based
recommendations and methods for implementation and evaluation were presented. The content
of this study may be useful to similar institutions considering diversification into online offerings
as a strategy for achieving financial sustainability.
109
REFERENCES
Adnan, M. (2018). Professional development in the transition to online teaching: The voice of
entrant online instructors. ReCALL, 30(1), 88-111.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000106
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational
settings.
Andrade, M. S. (2020, August 30–September 2). Distance learning disruptions: Implications for
practice and policy [Paper presentation]. EAIR 37th Annual Forum, Krems, Austria
Artman, E. M. (2004). Motivation factors to overcome faculty resistance to integrating
asynchronous online education in higher education business courses [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. University of San Francisco.
Ashworth, P. (1999). " Bracketing" in phenomenology: Renouncing assumptions in hearing
about student cheating. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(6),
707-721.
Asmus, B., & Grudem, W. (2013). The poverty of nations: A sustainable solution. Crossway.
Astin, A. W., & Lee, C. (1972). The invisible colleges: A profile of small, private colleges with
limited resources. McGraw-Hill.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
110
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of the
disciplines. Open University Press.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Student culture. In T. F. Lunsford (Ed.), The study of campus cultures (pp.
11-26). Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Berger, B. (2014). READ MY LIPS: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communication. Institute for Public Relations.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1984). Taxonomy
of educational objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. Longman.
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003a). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving
policy, enhancing performance. Greenwood.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party's report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77–96.
doi:10.1177/0013161X94030001006
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Brooks, B. A. (2017). A way forward: How higher education can learn from health care.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(2), 61–66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1286220
Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of
training, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity? CBE —Life Sciences
Education, 11(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163
Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving
accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands,
(pp. 1–24). Wiley.
111
Burke, W. W. (2017). Organization change: Theory and practice. SAGE.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper and Row.
Bush, L. (1990). Getting to the core of the core: The 10/40 window. Partners International.
Byrne, J., Fayolle, A., & Toutain, O. (2014). Entrepreneurship education: What we know and
what we need to know. In Handbook of research on small business and entrepreneurship,
(pp. 261-288). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849809245.00025
Byrne, M. M. (2001). Understanding life experiences through a phenomenological approach to
research. AORN Journal, 73(4), 830–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2092(06)61812-
7
Carey, A. B. (2014). On the edge: A study of small private colleges that have made a successful
financial turnaround. Christian Higher Education, 13(5), 306–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2014.948693
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2016). 2015 update facts and
figures. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/downloads/CCIHE2015-FactsFigures.pdf
Chabotar, K. J. (2010). What about the rest of us? small colleges in financial crisis. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(4), 6–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.489024
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3
Chernikova, I. A., & Varonis, E. M. (2016). Designing and delivering online curriculum in
higher education: Riding the perfect storm. The International Journal of Information and
Learning Technology, 33(3), 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-09-2015-0026
112
Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms
to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of
higher education from the inside out. Wiley.
Cilesiz, S. (2011). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: Current state,
promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 59(4), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9173-2
Clark, B. R., & Lunsford, T. (1963). The study of campus cultures. Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education
Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE model of motivation to learn and to work: A two-stage process
of goal commitment and mental effort. In J. J. G. Lowyck (Ed.), Trends in corporate
training. University of Leuven Press.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
Clark, R. E., Estes, F., Middlebrook, R. H., & Palchesko, A. (2004). Turning research into
results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Performance Improvement,
43(1), 44-46.
Clarke, J. S. (1996, October 31–November 3). Faculty receptivity/resistance to change, personal
and organizational efficacy, decision deprivation and effectiveness in research I
universities [Paper presentation]. ASHE annual meeting, Memphis, TN, United States.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate
spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.
113
Cox, L. W., Mueller, S. L., & Moss, S. E. (2002). The impact of entrepreneurship education on
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(2),
229–245.
Crawford-Ferre, H. G., & Wiest, L. R. (2012). Effective online instruction in higher education.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 11.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE.
Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. Harcourt College Pub.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational
Processes1. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 39-
80). Elsevier.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Denneen, J., & Dretler, T. (2012). The financially sustainable university.
https://www.bain.com/insights/financially-sustainable-university/
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. in N
K. Denzin & Y S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–
32). SAGE.
Ebbinghaus, H. (2013). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Annals of
Neurosciences, 20(4), 155. https://doi.org/10.5214/ans.0972.7531.200408
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. http://www.education.com/reference/
article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Ekman, R. (2015). Small private colleges are viable-and vital. The Presidency, 18(3), 20–21.
114
The Faith University. (2017). Mission statement. Retrieved from URL Omitted
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The Nature of Intelligence, 231–
235.
Flynn, J. T. (2013). MOOCS: Disruptive innovation and the future of higher education. Christian
Education Journal, 10(1), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/073989131301000112
Forrest, S. P., III, & Peterson, T. O. (2006). It's called andragogy. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 5(1), 113-122. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2006.20388390
Fralinger, B., & Olson, V. (2007). Organizational culture at the university level: A study using
the OCAI instrument. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4(11), 85–98.
https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v4i11.1528
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard
Business Review, 86(3), 109.
Gladwell, M. (2011, February 7). The order of things: What college rankings really tell us. The
New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-order-of-things
Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Hamlin, R. E., & Lyons, T. S. (1996). Economy without walls: Managing local development in a
restructuring world. Greenwood.
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R. B. (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee
motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34(5), 64–72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368702034005010
115
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in
teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(8), 967–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.007
Herman, J. H. (2013). Faculty incentives for online course design, delivery, and professional
development. Innovative Higher Education, 38(5), 397–410.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9248-6
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Crowell
Hickel, J. (2017). Is global inequality getting better or worse? A critique of the world bank’s
convergence narrative. Third World Quarterly, 38(10), 2208–2222.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1333414
Hurt, R. T. (2014). A decade of change: Motivating and discouraging factors affecting faculty
participation in online business education courses [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]
Mercer University, Macon, GA, United States.
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (2019). U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.
Washington, DC: Author..
Jackson, B. L. (2017). Higher education faculty utilization of online technological tools: A
multilevel analysis. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 26(3), 271-283.
Jackson, C. (2015). Board of directors votes to close college at the end of 2014-2015 academic
year. Sweet Briar College.
Jaschik, S. (2015, March 4). Shocking decision at sweet briar. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/03/04/sweet-briar-college-will-shut-down
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. SAGE.
116
Johnson, D. M. (2019). The uncertain future of American public higher education. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01794-1
Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education: 1876-1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00098-8
Katz, J. A., Roberts, J., Strom, R., & Freilich, A. (2014). Perspectives on the development of
cross campus entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4(1), 13–
44.
Kerr, S. (1995). AN ACADEMY CLASSIC on the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 9(1), 7–14.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1995.9503133466
Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, 28(4),
1–47.
Kezar, A., & Rhoads, R. A. (2001). The dynamic tensions of service learning in higher
education: A philosophical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 148–171.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2001.11778876
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation
Association for Talent Development.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory.
http://www.education.com/ reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
117
Klofsten, M., Fayolle, A., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D., & Wright, M. (2019). The
entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change-key strategic
challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 149–158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.004
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
SAGE.
Lang, D. (1999). Similarities and differences: A case study in measuring diversity and selecting
peers in higher education. CSSHE Professional File, (18), 1.
Lederman, D. (2013,July 12). CFO survey reveals doubts about financial sustainability. Inside
Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/cfo-survey-reveals-
doubts-about-financial-sustainability
Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative research in education: A user's guide: A user's guide. SAGE.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,
and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE
Handbook of Qualitative Research (Vol 4, pp. 97–128). SAGE.
Lloyd, S. A., Byrne, M. M., & McCoy, T. S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online
education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1)
Loague, A., Caldwell, N., & Balam, E. (2018). Professors’ attitudes and perceptions about
technology use in the classroom. The Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership, 5, 1–
11.
118
Lord, W. P. (2018). Institutional aid and net tuition revenue: Understanding the relationship
across private institutions of different Carnegie classifications (Publication No.
10844031) [Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
Lowenthal, P. R., Wray, M. L., Bates, B., Switzer, T., & Stevens, E. (2012). Examining faculty
motivation to participate in faculty development. International Journal of University
Teaching and Faculty Development, 3(3), 149.
Lyken-Segosebe, D., & Shepherd, J. C. (2013). Learning from closed institutions: Indicators of
risk for small private colleges and universities. Tennessee Independent Colleges and
Universities Association.
Markova, G., & Ford, C. (2011). Is money the panacea? rewards for knowledge
workers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(8), 813-
823. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401111182206
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in
entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of
Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002
Martin, J., & Samels, J. E. (2017). Consolidating colleges and merging universities: New
strategies for higher education leaders. JHU Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
119
Mazerolle, S. M., Nottingham, S. L., & Coleman, K. A. (2018). Faculty mentorship in higher
education: The value of institutional and professional mentors. Athletic Training
Education Journal, 13(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.4085/1303259
McCormick, A. C. (2006). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21472
McKee, R., & Fryer, B. (2003). Storytelling that moves people. Harvard Business Review, 81(6),
51–55.
McQuiggan, C. A. (2012). Faculty development for online teaching as a catalyst for change.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 27–61.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i2.258
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Wiley.
Mitchell, L. D., Parlamis, J. D., & Claiborne, S. A. (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
Moore, N., Hickson, M., & Stacks, D. W. (2010). Nonverbal communication: Studies and
applications Oxford University Press.
Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286
120
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new
frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher
value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student
needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. In B. S. Everitt & D. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Statistics in Behavioral Science. Wiley.
Perkins, M. (2017). Small private colleges can survive. New England Journal of Higher
Education. https://nebhe.org/journal/small-private-colleges-can-survive/
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Reilly, P. (2004). New Reward II: Issues in developing a modern remuneration system. Institute
for Employment Studies.
Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review
and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university‐based
entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329–351.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12021
Roberts, J. (2010). Designing incentives in organizations. Journal of Institutional Economics,
6(1), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137409990221
121
Rossano, S., Baaken, T., Orazbayeva, B., Baaken, M. C., Kiel, B., & Maas, G. J. P. (2019).
Social entrepreneurship and its competences: Implications for higher education. In J. M.
Saiz-Alvarez (Ed.), Handbook of research on digital marketing innovations in social
entrepreneurship and solidarity economics (pp. 99–122). IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8939-6.ch006
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. SAGE.
Rundle, S., & Steffen, T. A. (2011). Great commission companies: The emerging role of
business in missions. InterVarsity Press.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.. ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2009). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications Pearson Higher Ed.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed.). Teachers Collee Press.
Selingo, J. J. (2013, April 12). Colleges struggling to stay afloat. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/education/edlife/many-colleges-and-universities-
face-financial-problems.html
Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Shea, P. (2007). Bridges and barriers to teaching online college courses: A study of experienced
online faculty in thirtysix colleges. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2)
Simundza, D., Morgan, E., Miller, S., & Storms, K. (2019). Developing a resilience tool for
higher education institutions: A must-have in campus master planning. College.
https://doi.org/10.3992/1943-4618.14.1.187
122
Stensaker, B. (2015). Organizational identity as a concept for understanding university
dynamics. Higher Education, 69(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9763-
8
Tabata, L. N., & Johnsrud, L. K. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology,
distance education, and innovation. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 625.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9094-7
Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
44(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.635987
Tarrant, M., Bray, N., & Katsinas, S. (2018). The invisible colleges revisited: An empirical
review. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(3), 341–367.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1390971
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The
Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1988.11778301
Tierney, W. G. (2008). The impact of culture on organizational decision-making: Theory and
practice in higher education. Stylus.
Tierney, W. G., & Lanford, M. (2016). Conceptualizing innovation in higher education. In M. B.
Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 1-40). Springer.
Tierney, W. G., & Lanford, M. (2018). Research in higher education, cultural perspectives. In
J.C. Shin, P. Teixeira (Eds.), Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems
and Institutions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_165-1
Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as cultural process: A mirror of
institutional commitment. Jossey-Bass.
123
Torrance, W. E., & Rauch, J. (2013). Entrepreneurship education comes of age on campus: The
challenges and rewards of bringing entrepreneurship to higher education. Kauffman
Foundation.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Wang, P. (2008). Is college still worth the price. Money, 37(9), 86–94.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2d ed.. ed.). Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies,
25(4), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00039.x
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE.
Weick, K. E., & Browning, L. D. (1986). Argument and narration in organizational
communication. Journal of Management, 12(2), 243–259.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200207
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies Simon and Schuster.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
124
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2008). Development of achievement
motivation. Child and Adolescent Development: An Advanced Course, 1, 406–434.
Wingo, N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017). Faculty perceptions about teaching online:
Exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing
framework. Online Learning, 21(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.761
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279067
Woodhouse, K. (2015, August 25). Discounting grows again. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/25/tuition-discounting-grows-private-
colleges-and-universities
Ye, H. (2018). Analyzing disruptive innovation in US liberal arts higher education institutions
(Publication No. 10831890). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2004/01/managers-and-leaders-are-they-different
Zhen, Y., Garthwait, A., & Pratt, P. (2008a). Factors affecting faculty members’ decision to
teach or not to teach online in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 11(3), 1–16.
125
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
Research Questions
1. What faculty knowledge and skills might help or hinder diversification into online
course curriculum at Faith University?
2. What faculty perceptions about online teaching might impact motivation to
implement and teach distance learning courses at Faith University?
3. Are there organizational, cultural, or contextual meanings operative among the
faculty stakeholder group at Faith University that might impact attainment of diversified
offerings?
4. What evidence-based recommendations might we make using these knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors?
KMO Influences
1. Knowledge – Procedural (Mitchell et al., 2015)
Faculty must know how to volunteer for participation in new programs.
2. Knowledge – Procedural (Zhen et al., 2008b)
Faculty need to know how to implement new course content.
3. Knowledge – Declarative (Herman, 2013).
Faculty need to know where technical support and training are available at the institution.
4. Knowledge – Metacognitive (Hargreaves, 2005)
Faculty must be able to reflect on the connection between participation in online instruction
and the mission of the institution.
5. Motivation – Cost-value (Artman, 2004; Hurt, 2014; B. L. Jackson, 2017)
126
Faculty must believe that the effort they expend in setting up and administering online
classes is valuable in comparison to other activities they could engage in.
6. Motivation - Utility Value (Eccles, 2006b)
Faculty must believe that engaging in skill development for online teaching will contribute
to their overall career goals.
Faculty must believe that online learning is impactful for achieving desired student learning
outcomes.
7. Motivation - Attainment Value (Wingo et al., 2017)
Faculty must believe that online teaching is consistent with their role related aspirations.
8. Organizational Factor – Cultural Model – Institutional Identity (Stensaker, 2015;
Tierney, 2008)
Faculty must believe that their participation in online teaching is vital to the survival of the
institution and the promotion of values that they share and with which they identify strongly.
9. Organizational Factor - Cultural Model – Incentives (Hansen et al., 2002; Kerr,
1995)
Faculty must believe that online teaching is valued and rewarded by the institution.
10. Organizational Factor - Cultural Setting – Socialization (Hansen et al., 2002;
Kerr, 1995; Mazerolle et al., 2018; Wingo et al., 2017)
Faculty must perceive that adequate technical support, mentorship support, and
compensation exist to support them in the role in new programs.
11. Organizational Factor – Cultural Setting – Socialization (Hansen et al., 2002;
Kerr, 1995; Mazerolle et al., 2018; Wingo et al., 2017)
Faculty must recall being instructed in the connection between effective mission and online
teaching.
127
Interview Protocol
Thank you so much for agreeing to talk to me today. Your perspective is valuable to the
study we are doing. I’m going to take a couple of notes while we are talking just to make sure I
can capture your ideas and have something to come back to if it is needed. I’d also like to record
if that is OK with you. The purpose of recording is to make sure I capture your perspectives
accurately. A transcript of the recording will be prepared, and we may use quotes from the
transcript, but your identity and the identity of the institution will be kept strictly confidential.
Would that be OK with you?
This study is all about university transitions to online programs. You were identified as
someone who has successfully made the transition to online teaching, so your expertise is
especially valuable. Let’s start first by learning a bit about your experience as a professor in
general. Could you just walk me through your experience teaching and how you came to this
university?
Could you walk me through the last time you developed a course for the online
department, just what happened?
Twelve Interview Questions
1. Tell me the story of how you first discovered online teaching? Prompts: Tell me
more about that. What do you mean? (Influence = Knowledge Procedural)
2. How about implementing a new course, tell me about that? Prompts: How is that
done? (Influence = Knowledge Procedural)
3. Do any training experiences stand out in your memory? How about experiences
with technical support? (Influence = Knowledge Declarative)
Comment: That is great, and this is so useful; would it be alright for me to throw a
scenario at you? Great!
128
4. So, let’s say that you are being asked to set up a brand-new course. Could you
walk me through your thinking process when you are approached with a challenge like that?
Prompts: What would be your expected headaches? What kinds of support do you know you can
count on? (Influence = Knowledge Procedural)
5. Is distance learning related to the financial health of Faith? Prompts: How do you
believe that works? Could you tell me more about that? (Influence = Knowledge Metacognitive)
6. What benefits did you anticipate when you were first asked to create a course for
the online department? Was there anything that surprised you? Was there anything that gave
you pause? (Influence = Motivation Utility-value)
7. How do you think that online teaching is related to your career? (Influence =
Motivation Utility Value)
8. What are your opinions about the value of education delivered online as opposed
to what students receive in the traditional classroom? (Influence = Motivation Utility Value)
Thanks this is very helpful, and you have given me great information… So now if
possible, I’d like to find a little bit about expectations that the institution puts on the role of a
professor. Does that sound alright? Great.
9. What are the current biggest demands on your time? Prompts: How do you
balance them? (Influence = Motivation Cost Value)
10. What kinds of skills and abilities would a person need to be an online instructor
here? Prompt: Do you believe you have what you need? (Influence = Motivation Utility Value)
11. Now I wonder if you could describe an ideal instructor. What would that person
be like? (Influence = Cultural Model Professional Identity)
129
12. Can you remember ever reaching out for technical support while you were
developing an online course? Prompt: How did that go? (Influences = Cultural Setting
Socialization)
13. Could you walk me through how online instructors and course designers are paid?
Do you have any opinions you have about that? (Influence = Organization – Cultural Model
Incentives)
Well, this time has gone by so fast, but I want to be respectful of your schedule. Thank
you so much for your help. As I mentioned, this has given me a lot to go on. As I continue with
the study, there may be questions that come up. Would it be alright to schedule a quick follow
up session if needed? Wonderful, and thanks again for your help!
Focus Group Protocol
Thank you so much for joining us today. Your perspective is valuable to the study we are
doing. I’m going to take a few notes while we are talking, but mostly I just want to hear this
group discuss the topics we lay out. The whole process is going to take about 90 minutes, and
I’d also like to record if that is OK with you. The purpose of recording is to make sure I capture
everything accurately. A transcript of the recording will be prepared, and we may use quotes
from the transcript, but your identity and the identity of the institution will be kept strictly
confidential. To accomplish this, you have each been given a card with a pseudonym. If we
could just go around the table, first state your pseudonym NOT YOUR REAL NAME clearly for
the microphone we can get started. Would that be OK with you?
Great well as you gathered from the invitation email, we are trying to learn about
meanings that are shared among faculty members at Faith University. Our approach to this is
going be for me to introduce some topics. We want to get to more if we have the time, but we
130
will begin with four. When I raise a topic, each person will be asked to give impressions on how
they believe it is viewed at Faith. Does that sound like fun? Great…
The first topic is training for online teaching. Could you give me any impressions you
have of online programs? (Cultural Setting – Socialization)
Great so now that we have discussed online programs, do you remember being offered
training? Were institutional values ever mentioned when you were invited to training? (Cultural
Model – Institutional Identity)
This is for each person to answer, and then we can freely discuss the topic. Do you
believe that Faith could survive without an online program, and why do you believe this?
(Cultural Model – Institutional Identity)
How do you believe the institution views online learning? (Cultural Model – Incentives)
What do you believe about the identity of Faith? (Cultural Model – Institutional Identity)
How is the identity of Faith related, in your view, to online teaching?
Now I’m going to throw out several phrases, and I’d like you to tell me what you believe
about how the phrases relate to Faith.
One at a time…
Financial Sustainability
Entrepreneurship
Business as Missions
Online Learning
Well, this time has gone by so fast, but I want to be respectful of your schedule. Thank
you so much for your help. As I mentioned, this has given me a lot to go on. The recording that
we made will be deleted just as soon as the transcripts are received. As I continue with the
study, there may be questions that come up. Would it be alright to give you a call if needed?
131
Wonderful, and thanks again for your help! Please take snacks with you because we are going to
have to clear this room out.
132
APPENDIX B
EVALUATION INSTRUMENT 1
Instructions:
Please respond by circling the appropriate item according to the following scale:
Strongly Agree (SA), Mostly Agree (MA), Mostly Disagree (MD), Strongly Disagree (SD).
1. The meeting helped me learn about online opportunities. SA MA MD SD
2. My participation in online learning was encouraged. SA MA MD SD
3. This meeting held my interest. SA MA MD SD
4. Facts learned in this session will enhance my career. SA MA MD SD
5. The information and procedures shared were helpful to me. SA MA MD SD
6. I am committed to acting on what I have learned. SA MA MD SD
Please respond by answering the following question:
6. What, if any, information would you need if you decided to become involved as an online
instructor?
Thank You!
133
APPENDIX C
Evaluation Instrument 2
Instructions:
Please respond by circling the appropriate item according to the following scale:
Strongly Agree (SA), Mostly Agree (MA), Mostly Disagree (MD), Strongly Disagree (SD).
1. Full information about opportunities to participate in online SA MA MD SD
instruction is available to me currently.
2. My participation in online learning is supported by SA MA MD SD
available job aids and instructional opportunities offered
at the institution.
3. My personal belief is that there is a direct connection SA MA MD SD
between online offerings at this institution
and fulfillment of our institutional mission.
4. Procedures and process for creating an online course are SA MA MD SD
are well understood by me.
6. My confidence and commitment for online instruction are SA MA MD SD
are both strong.
Please respond by answering the following question:
6. What, if any information, or instruction would you need to become involved or to stay
involved as an online instructor?
Thank You!
134
APPENDIX D
Online Diversification Report Card
Online Diversification Report Card*
Target Actual
Current
Previous Rating
Organizational
Outcomes
Operating
revenue in
excess of
costs
(percentage).
10% -2.5% -2.5%
Operating
revenue from
online
programs
(percentage).
20% 19% 10%
Participation
in online
programs by
full-time
faculty
(percentage).
100% 60% 57%
Critical
Behaviors
Number of
faculty
beginning
online
instruction.
20 19 2
Number of
faculty
inquiring into
participation.
100 99 2
Number of
faculty
persisting in
participation.
100 100 100
Learning
Drivers
Faculty who
report
possessing
full
information
on
opportunities
100% 100% 100%
135
for online
instruction
(percentage).
Faculty who
report full
information
on procedure
for
involvement
in online
instruction
(percentage).
100% 100% 100%
Faculty who
report
confidence
and
competence
in
implementing
new course
content
(percentage).
100% 100% 100%
*Data presented in this example are hypothetical and used for the purpose of illustrating a simple
and straightforward approach to data reporting.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study presents a qualitative analysis of faculty as a key stakeholder group at Faith University (pseudonym). Faith University is a small tuition-dependent university located in the western region of the United States. The institution is being impacted by a general problem of financial sustainability affecting schools of its size. As such, it is seeking diversification into online offerings, and specifically into an online entrepreneurial studies program. The analysis utilizes a multi-frame approach prescribed by Clark and Estes (2008) to examine knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors (KMO) influencing the stakeholder group as agents of change. Findings in each of these KMO areas, site-specific recommendations based on these findings, and an implementation plan based on Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) are presented.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Increasing organizational capacity at a small college to deploy revenue diversification strategies: an evaluation study
PDF
Employee engagement and leadership collaboration: a gap analysis of performance improvement teams in healthcare
PDF
The impact of high turnover and burnout among behavioral health's clinical workforce (clinicians)
PDF
One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China
PDF
Middle-management's influence on employee engagement in the ambulatory practices
PDF
Sustaining faith-based organizations through leadership pipelines and programs: an evaluation study
PDF
Preparing millennial students for a multigenerational workforce: an innovation study
PDF
Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis
PDF
Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study
PDF
Improving exempt nurse leader work-life balance: an innovation study
PDF
Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study
PDF
Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study
PDF
Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices
PDF
Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study
PDF
Improving the representation of women in the independent school headship
PDF
The role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution: an evaluation study
PDF
Factors impacting retention rates amongst underrepresented students: an evaluation study
PDF
Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study
PDF
Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation
PDF
Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Beck, John Christopher
(author)
Core Title
Diversification for financial sustainability: a postsecondary improvement model
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
06/01/2020
Defense Date
03/25/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Distance education,entrepreneurial education,faculty culture,financial sustainability,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,university culture
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tambascia, Tracy (
committee chair
), Hinga, Briana (
committee member
), Sparangis, Themistocles (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jbeck@earthlink.net,johnbeck1969@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-314142
Unique identifier
UC11664178
Identifier
etd-BeckJohnCh-8559.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-314142 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BeckJohnCh-8559-0.pdf
Dmrecord
314142
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Beck, John Christopher
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
entrepreneurial education
faculty culture
financial sustainability
organizational change
university culture