Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

The Impact of Faculty Experience with Emergency Remote Teaching: An
Interpretive Phenomenological Study
Maha Al-Freih
Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University
Saudi Arabia

7

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

Abstract
The aim of this phenomenological study is to provide a deeper understanding of the impact of
remote teaching on instructors’ perceptions of online learning and future teaching practices
amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to analyze
open-ended semi-structured interviews conducted with five higher education faculty in Saudi
Arabia. Three major themes were identified: enhancing student engagement; increased
awareness of technology affordances and constraints; and moving from emergency remoteteaching to technology-enhanced and blended learning. Participants of this study were mainly
concerned about finding ways to support active student engagement in this new learning
environment, which in turn increased their awareness of the educational affordances andconstraints of online learning and technologies. Participants’ deeper understanding of thepotential of online technologies in supporting student learning, as well as their own andstudents’ increased familiarity and comfort with online learning and technologies, served as
the main drivers for potential future implementation of blended learning and technologyenhanced teaching practices. With that said, participants were still apprehensive aboutengaging in fully online teaching, arguing that blended strategies and enhanced-technology
integration are more likely to overcome some of the limitations of face-to-face teaching andimprove the overall learning experience for their students. Discussion of these findings inrelation to the extant literature and their implications for higher education institutions moving
forward are provided.
Keywords: COVID-19, emergency remote teaching, faculty professional development,
faculty support, online teaching8Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

The global spread of the coronavirus has impacted – and continues to impact – many aspectsof human life, including education. Higher education institutions around the world responded
by pivoting to distance and online education to reduce or eliminate in-person classes,
significantly disrupting the education of what is estimated to be over 220 million postsecondary students, or 13% of the global student body (World Bank, 2020). In Saudi Arabia,
higher education institutions faced numerous challenges in their sudden move to remoteteaching, as was the case for the majority of institutions around the world. The change to remoteeducation occurred overnight – literally in many cases – placing an enormous pressure on
institutions due to the lack of time normally required to design and develop pedagogicallysound online courses and the absence of support structures that can accommodate institutionwide adoption of online and distance education. This has led many to argue that the emergency
plans put in place to mitigate the impact of the pandemic cannot be considered true online
learning, but constitute rather a mere shift in delivery method that allows students access tolearning solutions that would normally be delivered face-to-face (f2f). Consequently, the term
emergency remote teaching (ERT) will be used throughout this paper in reference to teaching
and learning practices implemented during the coronavirus pandemic (Bozkurt et al., 2020;
Hodges et al., 2020).
In light of the unique circumstances driving this change, this shift has created many newexperiences for higher education faculty. It has forced many, who would otherwise hesitate tointegrate learning technologies or adopt online teaching practices, to utilize online-learning
platforms and tools. Even those educators who are already comfortable and familiar with online
learning technologies and practices have had to rethink their course design and use online
learning tools and platforms in new ways to accommodate a fully online delivery method(Johnson et al., 2020). The unique context and conditions under which this shift to ERT
happened have raised some concerns about the impact of this experience on teaching faculty,
calling for the need to examine the “social constructions and meaning-making of various
stakeholders” (Kerres, 2020, p. 4) during ERT and its impact on faculty perceptions about
online learning and future teaching practices (Cutri & Mena, 2020; Kearns, 2016; Kerres,2020).
It is with this purpose in mind, and within this unique context, that this study is conducted. The
purpose of this interpretive phenomenological inquiry is to capitalize on these new experiencesby unpacking higher education faculty members’ experiences during the mandated shift to
ERT, and to explore how these experiences might have shaped and/or reshaped their attitudes
toward online learning and the impact this could have on their future teaching practices. An
examination of such experiences will help institutions and administration understand thetechnological pedagogical challenges and practices that have emerged during this period, andinstructors’ motivations and plans regarding possible future pedagogical changes anddirections. These insights, in turn, can guide institutions in shaping effective support systems
and structures aligned with faculty experiences and needs to support more innovative andeffective use of learning technologies and online teaching practices in the future (Johnson etal., 2020; Kearns, 2016). The topic of inquiry that guided this study was:•What was the impact of the ERT experience on higher education faculty, in terms of
their perceptions and potential future adoption of online teaching practices?

9

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

Literature Review
The Online Teaching Experience
Online teaching is a complex process requiring a change to the traditional roles of instructors
and a shift in their beliefs, pedagogical thinking, and teaching practices (Ferrario et al., 2013;
Jääskelä et al., 2017; Marzilli et al., 2014; Sinacori, 2020). Bawane and Spector (2009)
identified eight different roles or competencies that online teaching faculty need to be effective
online instructors: pedagogical, professional, evaluator, social, technologist, administrator,
researcher, and advisor counselor. This shift in traditional roles and normal practices can posesome challenges for faculty. For instance, faculty members who are teaching online experiencea time burden due to the intensive work needed to prepare and facilitate online learning, whichcomes at the expense of their other academic and scholarly responsibilities and institutional
expectations (Cutri & Mena, 2020; Marzilli et al., 2014; Rogers et al., 2018). A lack ofresources and proper institutional support through effective professional development andpolicies that enable quality online teaching practices has also been identified as a greatchallenge for faculty teaching online and can negatively impact their satisfaction in doing so(Al-Zahrani, 2015; Sinacori, 2020; Wingo et al., 2017). The shift in their traditional roles andpractices can lead to intense emotional reactions and anxiety among faculty resulting from asense of identity disruption and professional vulnerability, such as concerns about tenure,promotion, and professional image (Cutri & Mena, 2020; Wingo et al., 2017). That said, studies
have found that once faculty begin to engage in online teaching, they appreciate the unique
opportunities it affords, such as its flexibility in expanding learning opportunities for theirstudents and providing the space to support more individualized learning experiences.
However, faculty who are new or have limited experience with online teaching tend to preferhybrid and blended formats over fully online courses. This preference is mainly due to concerns
about the loss of humanistic values and interaction as well as students’ ability to engage
effectively in this new learning space, concerns that seem to subside as faculty gain moreexperience teaching online (Jääskelä et al., 2017; Marzilli et al., 2014; Mejia & Phelan, 2014;
Rogers et al., 2018; Walters et al., 2017; Wingo et al., 2017).
A few studies have investigated faculty experiences and reactions during the rapid transition to
ERT in the spring of 2020 (for example, Haslam et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2020). These
investigations reveal that most instructors, with and without prior online teaching experience,
had to adjust their course requirements, teaching methods, and learning activities. Due to thescale and urgency of this transition, many relied on self-help and collegial support, raising someconcerns about the sustainability of these plans in the face of an ongoing pandemic and thepossible impact of this shift in support structure and roles on faculty perceptions and attitudes
toward online teaching (Johnson et al., 2020; Kerres, 2020).
The Impact of Teaching Online on Faculty Beliefs and Teaching Practices
A number of studies have examined the impact of teaching online on faculty beliefs, attitudes,
and teaching practices surrounding technology, across different modalities and settings(Jääskelä et al., 2016; Kearns, 2016; Scott, 2016; Wingo et al., 2017). Consistent with otherresearch (for example, Walters et al., 2017), Wingo et al. (2017) found that as faculty
experience with online teaching increased, so did their satisfaction with the experience, theirintention to continue to teach online, and their positive perception of its ability to support
student learning.
Both learning to teach online (Foulger et al., 2019; McQuiggan, 2012) and actually teaching
online (Kearns, 2016; Scott, 2016; Sinacori, 2020) require a shift in pedagogical thinking and

10

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

practice, thus providing the impetus for instructors to critically reexamine their assumptions
and beliefs about teaching and learning. One impact that has been noted in the literature is a
shift from teaching-centered to more student-centered practices (Kearns, 2016; McQuiggan,
2012; Scott, 2016). In a phenomenological study aimed at understanding the experience ofchanging one’s f2f teaching practices and assumptions as a result of teaching online, Kearns(2016) found that as faculty engaged in converting their course materials and activities to fit
the online medium, they became more critical and deliberate in their thinking about how
students learn. As a result, faculty became more explicit in the structure and organization of
their f2f classes, redesigned their f2f courses by incorporating online asynchronous activities
to maximize the value of f2f time with their students, and integrated technology tools to support
active learning and enhance peer and instructor interactions. Scott (2016) highlights the criticalrole that online teaching itself has on change in faculty beliefs and practice, especially when
student online learning preferences and experience clash with faculty expectations.
The conditions surrounding the mandated shift to ERT due to global health concerns provide a
different teaching context compared to those studies that have been conducted in nonemergency situations (Kearns, 2016; Kerres, 2020). Further, most of the studies conducted on
faculty experience during ERT so far are mostly large-scale studies aimed at uncovering
general patterns of faculty practices during ERT. The present study adds to the growing bodyof research on ERT by examining the potential impact this experience might have on faculty’s
attitudes about online teaching and future teaching practices through the lens of interpretive
phenomenological analysis (IPA).
Methods
IPA’s phenomenological, ideographic, and hermeneutic principles provide an appropriate lensthrough which to examine unique and complex experiences such as faculty’s shift to andimplementation of ERT, and the impact this experience could have on their perceptions about
online teaching and their future teaching practices (Noon, 2018; Smith, 2004, 2011). Thisapproach to research is phenomenological in that it aims to uncover individual perceptions andviews of an event or object under investigation (Smith & Osborn, 2008). Deep and intensive
exploration of individual experiences, and the researcher’s active role in interpreting themeaning participants assign to those experiences, are central to IPA, highlighting its
ideographic and hermeneutic nature (Noon, 2018; Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014; Smith, 2011).
Due to IPA’s focus on individual perceptions and sense-making, Smith and Osborn (2008)
recommend the use of non-directive, semi-structured interviews as the main data-collection
method, to allow for additional probing based on participants’ responses. A flexible interview
protocol was used, and additional probing questions were asked during interviews to allow fora deeper exploration of participants’ experiences and perceptions of teaching remotely (Noon,
2018; Smith & Osborn, 2008). Typical interview prompts included “What were the main
challenges you faced when teaching remotely?”, “What technology tools did you use in yourcourse? Why did you choose those tools?”, and “Will you continue to use these tools in the
future and why?”.
Sampling and Participants
Convenience and networking sampling was used to identify and recruit participants for thisstudy. A total of five female participants (see Table 1) from three different higher education
institutions in Saudi Arabia agreed to be interviewed. Smaller, homogeneous samples arecommonly utilized in IPA due to its idiographic nature, which requires intense, immersive, and11

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

deep exploration of individual cases that hold relevance and personal significance toparticipants. Thus, five female participants were deemed sufficient for this study (Noon, 2018;
Smith, 2011; Smith and Osborn, 2003). All participants had experience using a learning
management system to support their f2f teaching prior to the pandemic, but only one participant
had previous experience teaching fully online courses.
Table 1. The participants
Pseudonyms Age
Julie
Nora

39
36

Helen
Sarah
Susan

52
+40
40

Current positionYears
teaching
Associate Professor of Law
18
Associate Professor of Management Information 8
Systems
Assistant Professor of International Marketing
15
Assistant Professor of Law
9Assistant Professor of Finance
17

Data Analysis
The analytical process for this study followed that described by Noon (2018). The process
began with reading each interview transcript in its entirety to obtain a general sense of eachparticipant’s account. Transcripts and initial notes were then reread, and comprehensive
annotations, reflections, and interpretations were made regarding interesting quotes, which wasorganized into tables to sustain alignment between analysis and raw data/evidence. Codes andemergent themes were then identified based on the extensive annotations performed in theprevious step. These initial themes were defined and tentatively organized according toconceptual similarities to establish their interrelations.
The preceding steps were repeated for each interview case. Once emergent themes for eachsubsequent case were identified, previous themes were reviewed in relation to the annotationand quotes from which they emerged and either dropped, if the themes did not appear in at least
three of the five cases, or amended (Smith, 2011). This flexible iterative process ensured abalance between the collective/shared themes and the distinctive voice/experience of eachindividual. The final step in this process was writing up the results of the analysis. In IPA
research, write-up is an extension of the IPA analytical process. Due to the interpretive flair of
IPA, themes emerging from analysis are not only thematically described, but also accompaniedby the researcher’s narrative interpretation in relation to the extant literature. According toNoon (2018), this can be done either concurrently in a combined ‘results and discussion’section, or in separate ‘results’ and ‘discussion’ sections. The latter presentation style wasfollowed here. Following Smith’s (2011) recommendation for validity and rigor in IPA
research presentation, extracts that highlight convergence and divergence across cases from atleast three participants are presented in the discussion of each theme.
Research Procedures
After securing Institutional Review Board approval for this research, the researcher recruited
higher education faculty by email and asked for network referrals of other potential
participants. Faculty were invited via email to participate in one-hour semi-structured virtualinterviews to explore their ERT experience. The email recruitment message explained the
purpose of the current study and the procedures being followed, and included an online consent
page for participants to indicate their consent to participate and their right to withdraw fromthe study at any time. Three interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom, an online

12

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

synchronous communication platform, and two were conducted via email due to technical or
personal issues related to participants. Email responses and Zoom interview transcriptions
served as the raw data in this study. Email interviews were conducted in two phases, in whichinterview questions were sent to participants and their answers were returned, followed byprobing questions from the researcher for clarifications or to elicit richer responses to support
a deeper exploration of the personal experiences being discussed (Smith, 2004).
Results
The analysis highlighted three common themes: enhancing student online engagement;
increased awareness of technology affordances and constraints; and moving from ERT totechnology-enhanced and blended learning. In this section, these themes are explored andsupported with representative quotations from faculty interviews.
Enhancing Student Online Engagement
A common challenge among all participants was ensuring students’ active engagement with
instructor, peers, and course material. All participants discussed ways in which they tailoredactivities/assignments and teaching strategies to encourage student engagement in this newlearning environment. Take Helen for example,
The main issue faced in moving online was developing a medium that allowed
students to talk between themselves, as they would in a class, and not for allcommunication to be lecturer to student, but also that we managed to succeed
in facilitating student-to-student communication as well.
When first required to shift online, Nora continued to implement her existing f2f plans with nochanges; however, she noticed a decrease in student engagement and interaction. Within a weekof the shift to ERT she realized that she could not simply map the three hours she normallyprovides in class to the virtual space because it is a completely different environment. She
recognized that online environments requires different types of incentives for students toparticipate and engage with peers and course material. As a result, she worked on changing
some of the learning material and pedagogical use of technology tools, such as discussion
boards, to increase student engagement with course topics. For instance, instead of using thediscussion board for discussions and debates as she did prior to the pandemic, she began to use
it for student reflection to encourage a deeper cognitive engagement.
Helen, Susan, Nora, and Sara discussed their students’ preference for text-based interaction
versus audio/video during live sessions. For Helen, this preference was a challenge. She
explained, the ‘teaching’ was challenging, at least to me; I like to see the whites of students’eyes. Similarly, when Susan was asked about the most challenging aspect of remote teaching,
she replied, The inability to understand the extent of student understanding. When repeatedly
asked, ‘Is anything unclear?’ very few students used to respond. Susan found it difficult toassess student understanding of topics discussed during live sessions due to students’
reluctance to ask questions, compounded by the lack of eye contact that would allow her togauge students’ reactions and facial expression. So, instead of asking students if they had anyquestions, she began by asking course-related questions throughout the live sessions andencouraged students to respond via the chat facility, a strategy she found to be very effective
as the chat facility was very active in all my classes.

13Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

For Nora, the lack of student video and audio communication was an indication of students’lack of engagement rather than her personal/teaching preference. She described the difficulties
she faced as she tried to engage her students with a guest speaker during one of her live
sessions:
Out of 32 students, only one student interacted with her during the one-hoursessions that we held. We asked the students to open their videos to interact
with her, but all the students, all 31, preferred to have their videos off andsaid, “We will interact through text,” which is not enough.
On the other hand, Nora did not seem to mind students’ passive participation in virtual officehours. As a matter of fact, she recognized the learning benefits this type of engagement
provided to her students. She said, Some of the students, they just came to listen. They didn’t
ask any questions, but they were learning from other students’ questions. I think that is
excellent. She elaborated on this, saying,
Normally, not many students take advantage of my office hours. They rushgoing out to their houses or their part-time jobs or other commitments they
have, especially [since] my office hours are fixed at the university. I will keep
the fixed office hours, but I will add virtual office hours to my future classes.
Sara recognized students’ preference for text-based interaction and communication, and evenwent so far as to accommodate them by adjusting course activities and requirements. She
explained,
Before COVID-19, students’ debates were planned for the international law
course since they are very good in realizing the CLO [Course Learning
Outcomes] relevant to students being able to formulate legal arguments andperform public litigations and legal debates. However, a number of students
were not in favor of having themselves speaking loudly in the Blackboard
environment. Therefore, I took the students’ circumstances into consideration
and I decided to change the format to written debates. I reformulated theassessment rubric and had every two students coupled in a group and asked
them to submit their written discussion.
Increased Awareness of Technology Affordances and Constraints
Participants’ awareness of online learning and technology affordances and constraints
increased due to their concerns about students’ active engagement online. Even thoughparticipants are not new to technology and have always used an learning management system
to support their f2f teaching, their complete reliance on technology during the pandemic has
pushed them to experiment and think more critically about the pedagogical opportunities andlimitations present in different technologies that they may have not considered or recognizedprior to the mandated pivot to ERT. Nora shifted some of her course activities to Slack, a teamcommunication app. She explained her decision: I used Slack because it’s a good environment
for communication with my students, because communication through Blackboard was mainly
one-way communication with no interaction, such as emails for instance. I found that Slacksupports better communication and discussions. She went on to describe some of the featuresthat she found particularly helpful in supporting her students’ engagement and learning:
In collaborating and communicating with the students, I found Slack to beamazing. All students were involved in these discussions, so I like it as a

14

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

communication tool. I also used it to send my students video tutorials or
articles related to their course topics, and some students as well were sharing
back resources. I was able to create a dynamic interactive environment withstudents and engage them in discussions related to what is important in theirfield.
Sara found supporting interactive learning for a large cohort of students online to bechallenging. Even though she had not found a clear solution to this problem at the time of theinterview, she was cognizant of the differences between f2f and online as learning
environments and the need to adjust teaching strategies to take full advantage of theopportunities provided when teaching online: My F2F lectures are usually very interactive;
however, from my recent experience with remote learning, I now understand that online
interactive strategies don’t work with a big number of students. I’m exploring possible
alternative teaching strategies in this respect.
Julie, who has previous experience teaching fully online courses, took advantage of theflexibility of online learning in supporting self-directed individualized learning paths forstudents. She noted that there are open-access resources available online that she included as
extra reading to support student learning about course topics prior to the pandemic, but that it
was quite sparse at that stage because we were doing so much in the class, I was only uploading
certain things. I wasn’t overloading them. This changed as classes shifted online. She did notneed to use the full three hours of in-class teaching; instead, she increased the number of openaccess resources with different perspectives on course topics and encouraged her students to
explore. She said,
I was able to give my students examples and scenarios through Moodle andthrough the online delivery that I would never have got to cover within theclassroom, ever. It was up to the students, as they went through, to kind ofalign themselves to whichever perspective suited their standpoint the best.
Moving from ERT to Technology-Enhanced and Blended Learning
A commonly mentioned theme among participants that their ERT experience has served as acatalyst for future changes to their teaching practices and course design. The mandated shift toremote teaching forced faculty to experiment with technology and try to find solutions to their
immediate problems, which in turn enhanced their awareness of the potential of learningtechnologies in overcoming some of the limitations of traditional teaching. Take Nora forexample,I believe in technology, but this experience has changed me a lot. One of thethings I realized is why not use it for my office hours, why not use it for
student reflections on some exams, especially after final exams because we
don’t have a class after that. I can use it to support students when they needit.
In addition to participants’ increased awareness of the affordances of online technologies, theirincreased familiarity and newfound confidence in their ability to learn and use technology as aresult of their ERT experience was also a strong motivator for them to integrate technology
tools and incorporate blended learning opportunities in the future. For instance, Susan
described how her perception about her ability to utilize technology tools in her courses

15

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

changed, I thought it will be difficult for me to learn, understand, and use them, but it was agreat experience and I understood how challenges could be changed into opportunities.
That being said, participants were still apprehensive about engaging in fully online teaching,arguing that blended strategies and enhanced-technology integration are more likely to
overcome the challenges and limitations associated with f2f teaching. This led to the emergenceof the subtheme perceived barriers to fully online teaching. Two main factors were discussed
by participants as a justification for their preference for technology-enhanced and blended
learning strategies over fully online teaching: their concern about the loss of social andemotional connections with students; and students’ lack of technical and online learning skills.
Helen passionately expressed her concerns saying,
Truly believe that for the full educational experience students need the face
to face experience – with teaching staff – support staff and with each other –people are social creatures and having the discipline – structure and thesocial interaction helps enhance the educational experience. If there are
medical – personal – or operational situations that make physical presencedifficult – then technology can be used to enhance but really do not believe
either for the teaching staff or for the students that technology is the answer– face to face classes are dynamic live entities – teaching staff need to beable to adapt to the requirements of the class – this is almost impossible to
do 100% using technology – it is more feasible in the blended model ofteaching and learning.
Four of the five participants discussed the difficulties associated with student readiness foronline learning even prior to the pandemic, which posed serious challenges during the initial
shift to ERT. Susan noted student reluctance to reach out with questions or clarifications andrather try to handle everything themselves, and discussed the importance of students’ ability to
self-assess and take the initiative in reaching out for help when needed, especially in online
courses:
I discussed with students the challenges and limitations of online learning,
and that a meaningful outcome from each session is possible only when theytake full responsibility of attending the class, being attentive, and reachingout when having doubts or difficulties via chat or via email.
For Sara, these challenges were multifaceted. She explained that many students did not havethe required technical experience at the beginning, did not understand the requirements andbasic concepts of remote learning, and thought of it as a chance to gain undeserved grades.
This did not come a surprise to her, as she has always faced difficulties with students’ inertia
and resistance to online learning. However, for her and for other participants in this study,
these challenges seemed to subside as students became more familiar with online learning tools
and requirements, which they described as being a strong motivator for them to build on thismomentum and engage students in more blended learning opportunities in the future. Sara said,
I will be more comfortable that students are familiar and experienced in many of the things
that I ask them to do or perform on Blackboard and technology platforms. This was not thecase before the remote learning experience.

16

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

As mentioned, participants discussions about the future changes they are considering revolved
around the integration of tools and blended strategies to address some of the challenges
associated with traditional teaching such as lecture capture and virtual support that allow
student access to course material and support anytime, anywhere; online assessment andblended teaching/learning strategies to help faculty manage large class sections; and improved
access to online digital learning resources and material in different formats (i.e., audio/video)
to support individualized learning and to accommodate student preferences for written versus
audio and video material. It is interesting to note, however, that while participants were sharing
their ideas for how to adjust future teaching practices to take advantage of the opportunities
afforded by technology, they weren’t always sure about the specifics of how to implement them.
Nora said, for example,
I always have an issue with the number of students in my classes. Now I’msure I can find ways in which technology can provide solutions to large classsizes. I believe technology can support me to a certain level on how to support
my students in these large sections; I just need to think about it.
Similarly, Julie shared:
Google Meets, I hadn’t used before. I certainly haven’t used it before withstudents in a way that I have been. I think going forward, I definitely would
consider having a portion of my course online now, out of my contact hours.
So, whether that’s an hour a week or more than that, I need to think about it.
Discussion
The purpose of this inquiry was to examine the impact of the ERT experience on higher
education faculty, in terms of their perceptions and potential future adoption of online teachingpractices. The emergent themes and their interrelationships are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Themes and interrelations

17

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

Findings indicate that participants’ increased experience and familiarity with online learning –even if forced – has enhanced their attitudes and understanding about the potential of online
learning technologies to support student learning. All participants shared the challenges they
faced as they tried to support student online engagement and accommodate the variation in
their interaction preferences. These efforts, in turn, deepened their understanding of online
technologies and increased their sense of confidence in their ability to utilize these tools in theirteaching, both pedagogically and technically, not only in online courses, but also in their f2f
teaching. However, participants’ concerns about student readiness and the loss of social andemotional connections with their students in fully online courses seemed to mediate the impactof this experience on their future plans. They all shared a preference for technology-enhanced
and blended strategies, rather than fully online teaching, and shared their intention to adjust
their courses in ways that take advantage of the affordances of technology. These findings andtheir implications will be discussed in relation to the extant literature in the following section.
Key Findings
Consistent with the research conducted so far on faculty ERT experiences during thecoronavirus pandemic, participants in this study reported changes to their teaching strategies,
learning activities, and course material (Haslam et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2020). Thesechanges were mainly implemented to support student engagement and interactions with peers,
instructor, and course material. Participants’ explicit attention to how students learn and theways in which learning activities and technologies can support students’ active engagement issimilar to the observations made by Kearns (2016), who found that instructors’ actual
experience teaching online can serve as the trigger needed to move toward more studentcentered practices.
In this study, participants referred to their f2f teaching experience as a way to make sense of
the pedagogical changes needed to support student learning, highlighting for them thedifferences and similarities between online and f2f teaching and increasing their awareness ofthe educational potential of online technologies in both online and f2f settings. As a result,participants described a number of ways in which they plan to redesign their courses and adjust
their teaching practices to take advantage of these technologies (Kearns, 2016). The patternsof thinking described here, derived from participants’ explicit discussion of their ERT
experience and its impact, highlight the intricate relationship between changes to instructors’
beliefs and practices, and the role of practical and experiential knowledge in driving instructor
pedagogical and curriculum decisions and beliefs (Jääskelä et al., 2017; Scott, 2016).
According to Scott (2016), “when teachers begin using elearning, they may need to elaborate
or change their elearning beliefs and practices” (p. 595). Scott (2016) describes a process ofchange that extends beyond initial online training and course design, one that is closelyintertwined with instructors’ day-to-day practice, especially as they engage in self-reflection
and social discourse with colleagues centered around curricular needs to find alternative
solutions to challenges and unmet expectations (see also Ferrario et al., 2013; Jääskelä et al.,2017).
Study participants indicated a preference for blended learning and an intention to adjust theircourses to include more technology tools in the future, rather than fully online teaching. Thiswas due to two main reasons: concerns over the lack of social and emotional connection withand among students, and the lack of student technical and learning skills needed to succeed infully online courses. These concerns are not unique to this sample, especially when we consider
participants’ limited experience with online teaching. Mejia and Phelan (2014) found thatfaculty with limited to no online teaching experience view blended learning as a less threating18

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

alternative to fully online courses. Moreover, participants’ concerns about student readinessfor fully online learning and the impact it could have on the quality of student learning arealigned with those reported in the literature (Jääskelä et al., 2017; Marzilli et al., 2014; Rogers
et al., 2018; Walters et al., 2017; Wingo et al., 2017). Participants in this study described a setof skills necessary for student success in online courses that extend beyond technical abilities,
such as students’ ability to effectively manage their effort and time or to seek help when theyneed it, skills that are consistent with the those exhibited by highly self-regulatory learners(Zimmerman, 2000). Several scholars have suggested that Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
skills, that is learners’ ability to take an active role in their learning by employing specificlearning strategies to achieve their goals (Zimmerman, 2000), may be particularly importantfor students participating in online courses (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2004; Rowe & Rafferty,2013).
Practical Implications
Institutions seeking to expand their online course offerings and improve its quality should takeadvantage of faculty members’ recent experiences with ERT and build on its momentum. With
proper support built on an understanding of the incremental nature of change to instructors’
beliefs and practices, and the critical role that online teaching experience plays in shaping andreshaping teaching beliefs and practices, faculty skepticism about the effectiveness of fully
online learning could subside with their increased familiarity with online technology tools andconfidence in their ability to support effective student learning (Ferrario et al., 2013; Foulger
et al., 2019; Mejia & Phelan, 2014; Scott, 2016; Walters et al., 2017). This, however, requires
an expanded repertoire of faculty support strategies and new structures that enable embedded
on-the-job support and provides in-time guidance and feedback on practical day-to-day
challenges (Al-Zahrani, 2015; Foulger et al., 2019; Jääskelä et al., 2017; Mohr & Shelton,
2017; Walters et al., 2017). Moving away from scalable one-size-fit-all training and workshops
towards digitally-connected community spaces that allow for context-specific knowledge
sharing, dialogue, and collaboration among faculty teaching online, through mentoring or
faculty learning communities for instance, can enhance the visibility of contextually relevantpedagogical practices and expose instructors to alternative ideas and experiences that expand
their own pedagogical thinking (Jääskelä et al., 2017, Mohr & Shelton, 2017; Pacansky-Brock,2020; Scott, 2016; Walters et al., 2017). Further, this study highlighted the critical role that
instructors’ actual online teaching experience plays in shaping their beliefs and practices. Theseexperiences can be leveraged as assets during professional development efforts through oneon-one support and guided self-reflection activities for faculty teaching online. Personalized
support strategies allow faculty to form explicit connections between their experiences teaching
online and f2f and improve their practices across different modalities (Kearns, 2016; Scott,2016).
Administrators should also invest in supporting and preparing not only their faculty for online
courses, but also their students. Based on the experiences described in this study, concerns overstudent readiness for online learning and lack of SRL skills seemed to play a strong role inparticipants’ decisions and future plans for online and blended learning (Kebritchi, 2014;
Wingo et al., 2017). Simply providing prompts or reminders of effective SRL strategies is not
sufficient in promoting the positive effects that SRL has on learners’ engagement in online
courses. Rather, deliberate design and support for SRL must be integrated and embedded within
the online learning environment. Given faculty recent experience with online teaching,enhancing faculty understanding of SRL and how it can be supported through course design
and teaching practices is warranted (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2004; Rowe & Rafferty, 2013).
Further, institution wide orientation programs for students enrolling in online programs/courses

19Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

that address student technical skills as well as their online learning and regulation skills needed
to succeed in online courses can help students form realistic expectations of what effective
online learning entails, and reduce faculty concerns about teaching blended and fully online
courses (Liu, 2019).
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
The small sample size of this study could be considered a methodological limitation. However,the purpose of IPA studies is not to generate theory or provide general claims, but rather toprovide an in-depth, case-by-case analysis of the perceptions and meanings generated by asmall homogeneous group within their own contexts, which is why small sample sizes arecommonly used in IPA research (Noon, 2018; Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014; Smith, 2011; Smith& Osborn, 2008).
This study examined the experience of five higher education faculty who were teaching
remotely during the coronavirus pandemic, and the influence this experience might have inshaping their attitudes toward online learning and their future teaching practices. Future
research should examine the experiences of faculty who are involved the implementation ofsuch changes and identify the conditions under which these planned changes are best supported
and enhanced (Kearns, 2016). This should include a nuanced examination of the impact ofdifferent types of embedded on-the-job support for online teaching, such as the strategies,
timing, and order of support that is most relevant and effective in supporting faculty teaching
online (Mohr & Shelton, 2017).

20

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

References
Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2015). Faculty satisfaction with online teaching in Saudi Arabia’s higher
education institutions. International Journal of Instructional Technology andDistance Learning, 12(4), 17–28.
Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications forcompetency-based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910903236536
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., AlFreih, M., Pete, J., Olcott, Jr., D. Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, Jr., A.
V., Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P.,
Shahadu, S…Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of
education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis.
Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–126.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3878572
Cutri, M. R., & Mena, J. (2020). A critical reconceptualization of faculty readiness for online
teaching. Distance Education, 41(3), 361–380.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1763167
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student-centered webbased learning environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 40–47.
Ferrario, K., Hyde, C., Martinez, B., & Sundt, M. (2013). An honest account of the humbling
experience of learning to teach online. Learning Landscapes, 6(2), 85–95.
https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v6i2.606
Foulger, T. S., Wetzel, K., & Buss, R. R. (2019). Moving toward a technology infusion
approach: Considerations for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 79–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1568325
Haslam, C. R., Madsen, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2020). Crisis-driven digital transformation:
Examining the online university triggered by COVID-19. In Proceedings of The
ISPIM Innovation Conference—Innovating in Times of Crisis, LUT Scientific andExpertise Publications. https://www.forskningsdatabasen.dk/en/catalog/2596528088
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference
between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause
Review.https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergencyremoteteaching-and-online-learning
Jääskelä, P., Häkkinen, P., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Teacher beliefs regarding learning,pedagogy, and the use of technology in higher education. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 49(3–4), 198–211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1343691
Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., & Seaman, J. (2020). US faculty and administrators'
experiences and approaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online
Learning, 24(2), 6–21. https:// doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2285
Kearns, L. R. (2016). The experience of teaching online and its impact on faculty innovation
across delivery methods. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 71–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.06.005

21

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

Kebritchi, M. (2014). Preferred teaching methods in online courses: Learners' views. Journalof Online Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 468-488.
Kerres, M. (2020). Against all odds: Education in Germany coping with COVID19. Postdigital Science and Education, pp.1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00130-7
Liu, J. C. (2019). Evaluating online learning orientation design with a readiness scale. Online
Learning, 23(4), 42–61. https:// doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2078
Marzilli, C., Delello, J., Marmion, S., McWhorter, R., Roberts, P., & Marzilli, T. (2014).
Faculty attitudes towards integrating technology and innovation. International
Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE), 3(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.5121/ijite.2014.3101
McQuiggan, C. A. (2012). Faculty development for online teaching as a catalyst forchange. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 27–61.
Mejia, C., & Phelan, K. V. (2014). Hospitality instructors’ preference for blended teaching: A
bridge to full online course delivery? Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 14(4),343–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2014.955304
Mohr, S., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional
development: A Delphi study. Online Learning, 21(4), 123–140.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1273
Noon, E. J. (2018). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: An appropriate methodology foreducational research. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 6(1), 75–
83. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v6i1.304
Pacansky-Brock, M. (2020, January 31). Untangling academic transformation throughuntethered, equitable professional development. Educause Review.
https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2019/1/untangling-academic-transformation-throughuntethered-equitable-professional-development
Pietkiewicz, I. & Smith, J. A. (2014). A practical guide to using interpretative
phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal,20(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.14691/CPPJ.20.1.7
Rogers, P. R., Morgan, S. D., & Cort, K. (2018). No one told me about the dark side: Pitfalls
for faculty teaching online. Global Journal of Business Pedagogy, 2(1), 112–120.
Rowe, F. A., & Rafferty, J. A. (2013). Instructional design interventions for supporting selfregulated learning: enhancing academic outcomes in postsecondary e-learning
environments. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(4), 590–601.
Scott, K. M. (2016). Change in university teachers' elearning beliefs and practices: A
longitudinal study. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 582–598.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.942276
Sinacori, B. C. (2020). How nurse educators perceive the transition from the traditionalclassroom to the online environment: A qualitative inquiry. Nursing Education
Perspectives, 41(1), 16–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000490
Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenologicalanalysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 1, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088704qp004oa

22

Special Issue: COVID-19: Education Response to a Pandemic

Volume 9 – Issue 2 – 2021

Smith, J. A. (2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.510659
Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 53–81).
Sage. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776278.ch10
Walters, S., Grover, K. S., Turner, R. C., & Alexander, J. C. (2017). Faculty perceptions
related to teaching online: A starting point for designing faculty development
initiatives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 4–19.
https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.340365
Wingo, N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017). Faculty perceptions about teaching
online: Exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as anorganizing framework. Online Learning, 21(1), 15–35.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.761
World Bank. (2020, April 8). The COVID-19 crisis response: Supporting tertiary education
for continuity, adaptation, and innovation.
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/808621586532673333/WB-Tertiary-Ed-and-Covid19-Crisis-for-public-use-April-9-FINAL.pdf
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000a). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–
39). Academic Press.
Corresponding Author: Maha Al-Freih
Email: Maha.Alfreih@gmail.com

23