The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Faculty Attitudes about Distance Education
Esther Smidt, Brian McDyre, Jennifer Bunk, Rui Li, Tanya Gatenby
	
  

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in distance learning in higher education. Given
this, it is extremely important to understand faculty attitudes about distance education, not only
because they can vary widely, but also because it is the faculty, through their design andimplementation of online courses, that will shape the future of distance education. The purpose of thepresent study is to uncover faculty attitudes about distance education in a specific context, namelythat of a mid-sized mid-Atlantic state university. Data sources consist of posts from two of six
discussion boards written by 21 faculty participants during an Online Faculty Development Program.
Findings are categorized according to (i) philosophical discussions about collaboration, online versus
face-to-face courses, and anonymity, (ii) practical discussions about instructor workload and small
group discussions, and (iii) practical applications on the incorporation of discussion boards, access,and guidelines for discussion board use. The study ends with course design and faculty training
implications.
Keywords: Distance Education; Faculty Attitudes; Effective Practices.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in distance learning in higher education. In 2013,
the Instructional Technology Council (ITC) reported that the enrollment of students in online courses
continues to increase at a higher rate than overall student enrollment at colleges and universities.
Between Fall 2012 and 2013, those colleges and universities participating in the ITC survey reported
a 5.2% growth rate in online student enrollment. The Department of Education Integrated
Postsecondary Education System (IPEDS) reported in Fall 2012 that 26.5% of community college
students and 26.5% of undergraduates at four-year institutions enrolled in at least one distanceeducation course. While online enrollment has continued to show growth since 2004, this survey
found that overall student enrollment is declining and this is particularly evident at colleges anduniversities that offer programs for working adults (Lokken & Mullins, 2014).
Faculty, however, have been resistant to online teaching, especially because the demands are higher
compared to traditional courses (Murphy, Levant, Hall, & Glueckauf, 2007). The results of the 2013
ITC survey found that engaging faculty in online pedagogy was one of the top two concerns reported
by distance education administrators when asked to rank their greatest faculty challenges (Lokken &Mullins, 2014). Conversely, Rudestam (2004) also reported that distance education instructors
describe positive experiences such as collaborative learning and rich online discussions. It was foundthat discussion boards fostered an environment where students could develop higher-order thinking.
This study concluded that online discussion boards are ideal teaching tools that can foster
collaborative learning, create environments where students can interact with their professors andeach other, and engage students in debate and discourse that otherwise would not be available in a
distance education course (Bradshaw & Hinton, 2004). It is thus important to understand faculty
attitudes about distance education, not only because they can vary widely, but also because it is
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

faculty, through their design and implementation of online courses, which will shape the future of
distance education.
The purpose of the present study is to uncover faculty attitudes about distance education in a specificcontext. To achieve this, we will be qualitatively analyzing faculty discussion forum posts that
occurred during an Online Faculty Development Program at a mid-sized mid-Atlantic state
university. To guide our thinking, we asked two related questions:
1.

What do faculty think about distance education?

2.

What do faculty think about discussion forums?

We expand upon previous research by applying the theoretical lens of constructivism tounderstanding faculty attitudes about distance education in a specific university context.

Our

research thus has the potential to make both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically,
we add to the existing body of knowledge surrounding constructivism. Practically, our application of
constructivism will result in pedagogical suggestions with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of
online learning.
What follows is a literature review centered on constructivism in distance education. We present thetheoretical background as well as the benefits and shortcomings of applying constructivism to online
learning. This literature review will provide a useful framework for understanding the diverse
faculty reactions to distance education that are revealed in our qualitative data.
Review of Literature
Following constructivism’s emergence as the most widely accepted view of human learning in the
1980s (Liu & Matthews, 2005), it also began to inform the majority of pedagogical approaches
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

employed during the genesis of distance education (Dass, Dabbagh, & Clark, 2011). Constructivism
remains the most common grounding theory in distance learning, where the instructor’s goal is tofoster a collaborative, reflective, learner-centered virtual classroom environment which focuses on
active, task-based learning through socially constructed knowledge (Dass et al., 2011; Jonassen,Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995). In today’s technological climate, many scholars havenoted particular advantages of a constructivist approach to distance education, especially theopportunities for reflective, critical thinking via discussion boards, task-based activities using virtualworlds, and collaboration using online grouping strategies.
Success Factors in Distance Education
A review of the literature associated with success factors in distance education reveals several
substantial links with a constructivist approach. Bolliger and Wasilik (2009) established studentrelated issues as “the most important factor influencing satisfaction of online faculty” (p.112),
suggesting a student-centered approach to online pedagogy that is consistent with constructivism.
Menchaca and Bekele (2008) found situated, social learning to be the most important success factor
related to pedagogical strategies as identified by both students and instructors. This sense of value
for community is echoed in a case study by Agosto, Copeland, and Zach (2013), in which the use ofblogs was found to promote knowledge sharing and reflective thought in a manner that was more
effective than a traditional face-to-face model. Shenk, Moore, and Davis (2004) similarly found thatonline discussions inevitably led to higher levels of student satisfaction in which everyone was heard,
higher levels of trust and mutual support among students, and a more thoughtful and relevant
exchange of ideas. Overall, these findings strongly endorse the generally accepted position that

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

student learning outcomes are positively correlated with faculty satisfaction (Fredericksen, Pickett,
Swan, Pelz, & Shea, 2000; Hartman, Dziuban, & Moskal, 2000).
The evolving role of the instructor as a facilitator of learning and a guide through knowledge
acquisition is a well-established principle of a constructivist approach (Baran, Correia, & Thompson,
2013; Honebein, 1996), and persists as a determinant factor for effective distance learning. A casestudy by Baran et al. (2013) cited “changing roles” as the most prominent strategy for success as
identified by instructors who were nominated as exemplary in online instruction. Shenk et al. (2004)
also found in their case study that those discussions in which the instructor moderated or facilitateddiscussion were most productive, and intervened only when they deemed it necessary. Indeed,
Eskey and Schulte (2012) asserted that “[t]he discussion board is the focal point of the online course
classroom.” The importance of such a pedagogical approach was further substantiated through alarge-scale questionnaire study by Olson (2005) in which students (n=185) identified the instructor
and his/her ability to facilitate classroom interaction as one of three key factors crucial to success.
Elsewhere, other researchers have identified interaction as the most critical factor necessary forsuccess (Simmons, Jones, & Silver, 2004).
The opportunities afforded by technology to allow for examination of meaningful, authentic learning
environments through active participation as emphasized by constructivism (Herrington, Reeves, &Oliver, 2006; Honebein, 1996) have likewise been well-documented by recent research. Tam (2000)
offered numerous such opportunities that wouldn’t be otherwise possible without contemporary
technology, such as virtual tours and field trips, and exposure to multiple perspectives on a topic
from multiple sources all over the world.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Menchaca and Bekele’s (2008) study revealed “multiple tools” to be the most prevalent category of
success factors, with citations emphasizing how the variety of instructional tools appealed to multiple
learning styles and allowed for types of interaction that could occur spontaneously and from many
separate locations. Participants also were quick to note that participation was more evenly
distributed when utilizing multiple tools, allowing those students who were less likely to participate
in a face-to-face class to become engaged and active in the online learning environment. Means,
Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones (2009), further clarified that it was the perceived ease oftechnology use that multiple tools afforded that was the defining factor rather than the inclusion of
more technology per se.
Obstacles to Distance Education
Although constructivism has been shown to widely inform pedagogical approaches during thedevelopment of the distance education model, certain barriers and limitations have been identified byobserving the application of theory to practice. Huang (2002) identified some of these key issues
relating to constructivism as: (1) a potential for learner isolation in the absence of face-to-face social
interaction, (2) the potential for erroneous learning to occur in a context where a student is learning
primarily from peers and not the instructor, (3) a lack of willingness on the part of the instructor toaccept a new role as facilitator rather than presenter of material, (4) difficulty associated withassessment and evaluation in an online learning environment, and (5) the incompatibility ofcollaborative learning approaches among groups with significant individual differences, such asadults at the university level. A factor analytic study by Muilenburg and Berge (2005) revealed
student-identified barriers similar to those enumerated above, with instructor-related issues (#3, #4)
receiving the highest ranking, followed by lack of social interaction (#1).
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

While pedagogical issues persist at the forefront of the discussions of both success factors andobstacles to distance education, there has been no shortage of research reporting on external factors
which impact the distance learning experience. Hogan and McKnight (2007) found that instructorsof online university-level courses reported high levels of depersonalization along with low sense of
self-accomplishment, which could have negative effects on faculty motivation. Furthermore, many
faculty report low levels of motivation to participate in distance education due to variables such as
unfair compensation for time and workload, lack of administrative support and technical training,
and inadequacy of resources (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009).
Having explored constructivism and its application to distance education, focusing in particular on its
success factors and obstacles as implemented in online learning, we move next to discovering faculty
attitudes about distance education as demonstrated in one particular context, namely a mid-Atlantic
mid-sized state university.
Methodology
As indicated in the Introduction, the research questions of this qualitative study are:
1. What do faculty think about distance education?
2. What do faculty think about discussion forums?
Data sources consisted of posts from two of six discussion boards written by 21 faculty participants
during the Winter 2012 Online Faculty Development Program held in January 2012 at a mid-Atlantic
mid-sized state university. The two selected discussion boards (italicized) were chosen because they
demonstrated “rich, ‘thick’ description” (Merriam, 1998, p.29):
1. Online Student Orientation Assignment
2. Engage Online Learners Discussion
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

3. Effective Online Assessment Discussion
4. Accessible Course Design Discussion
5. Copyright and Library Resources Discussion
6. Effective Online Discussion
The prompt for “Engage Online Learners Discussion” was:! Please post your response to the following prompts by January 9th.
! Please read and respond to at least 2 postings from other members by January 10th.
! Identify an activity that you are currently using in your face-to-face class.
! Discuss how this activity can be transformed to an online activity to engage students.
! Refer to activities discussed in Conrad & Donaldson’s Chapter 5-10 if needed.
The prompt for “Effective Online Discussion” was:! Design a small group discussion activity for one module in your online course and post that
activity in this discussion forum.
! Your activity should include the objectives for the module as well [as] a description of how
students will be assessed.
Using the qualitative software, NVivo 10, the first three co-authors coded the data via both literatureinformed coding as well as arising themes, resulting in a list of codes based on topics. We thenrecoded the data, resulting in the following nodes:

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Table 1. Nodes
Nodes
Role of Instructor
Class Management Strategies
Assessments and Expectations
Time Management
Teacher-Student Communication
Collaboration
Other Benefits of Online Format
Anonymity
Photo
Anonymous Comments
Access to Content
Expanded Access to Content
Limiting Access to Content
Workload
Workload for Students
Workload for Instructors
Technical Concerns
Engagement
Higher Engagement Levels
Learning Outcomes
Increased Learning Outcomes
Decreased Learning OutcomesClass Size
Participation
Impact on Teaching Philosophy
Administrative Support
Types of Learners

References
44
28
13
6
40
29
3
13
8
15
7
12
8
19
11
4
9
1
9
8
6
4
1

Finally, we conducted triangulation by selecting representative excerpts.
Discussion
The discussions that the faculty had in the discussion forums can be categorized according to:•philosophical discussions,•practical discussions, and•practical applications.
	
  

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Philosophical Discussions
Collaboration
The Online Student. The first area of philosophical discussion revolves around the nature of theonline student. According to AR, “the traditional student is the non-traditional student in most online
programs today”—a working professional with the potential for direct real world application ofcontent in the workplace because of their non-traditional student status, highlighting constructivism’s
emphasis on meaningful, authentic learning (Honebein, 1996). For example, some professors shared
about their students’ requests to allow the discussion boards to be kept active even after their courses
were over:•“In a summer class I taught several years ago, the students were so engaged in the Discussion
Board that they asked if I could make it continue after the course was over. I did, and they did.
I would log back into that course over the fall semester, and they were still in there, chatting
away. Remarkably, they were chatting about course CONTENT! Obviously, not all of themstuck with it, but there were 7 or 8 of them that just hung on. They really wanted to see thisone idea through”. (NN)•“Students in my course continue sharing in the Discussion Board after the course is over as
they implement their teacher leadership plans. They appreciate the support, advice, andencouragement from their peers who are teaching in different contexts but often face thesame challenges.” (EO) This excerpt is also reminiscent of Shenk et al.’s (2004) findings oftrust and mutual support among students.

The potential for real world application, whether arising from a personal connection or professional
interest—“[students discussing] their own athletic injuries or ask[ing] questions about some of the
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

injuries that they see in professional sports” (LR)—is a distinction that should be capitalized,
particularly with the working professional online student. Indeed, EO stated:“I generally touch base with students via e-mail during the fall semester after they return toschool to follow up on the goals and plans they discussed during the summer. It might beinteresting to keep the online group discussion going after the course is over so the teachers
can help and support each other.”
EO’s statement exemplifies the professor’s changing role from that of sage on the stage to that of“moderator/manager in online education”—or Honebein’s (1996) assertion of instructor as a
facilitator of learning—with the concomitant need for “organization, feedback, and clarity” (AR).

Online versus Face-to-Face Courses
Concerns about Course Conversions. As would be expected in an Online Faculty Development
Program, there was much comparison between online and face-to-face courses, particularly in thevoicing of concerns about the conversion of face-to-face courses to online courses. NN shared “Mymain concern about moving course content “online” is that the discussions won’t be as rich, or asinteractive.” TS added “I do struggle with some students not consistently using theory and/or content
in their responses and not going back on to the “board” to respond besides the required amount, even
if a question is raised to them.”More specifically, concerns were voiced about the workload increase for students in the conversion
from face-to-face to online courses. Even without having to learn to use new software, tasks
appeared to take longer to complete online. With the addition of learning to use new software like
Prezi, “a learner who is new to an online course may find it a course within itself to master theapplication before the end of a semester, so deference to a more experienced person may happen”
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

(AR). In view of this, limiting tasks to the most essential tasks, providing students with software
options (e.g. Prezi or PowerPoint), and “assign[ing] an approximate time to each [course] element”(ER) would be helpful.
Besides general conversion and workload concerns, there was also the tendency, albeit inappropriate,of expecting a one-to-one conversion or reproduction effect from the face-to-face to the online
environment, as demonstrated by “I think the laughing is half the fun. I wonder how you would get
the same effect on line.” (YK)
Increased Learning Outcomes. In contrast with the concerns expressed above, and the expectationof a one-to-one conversion or reproduction effect, there was the understanding that converting aface-to-face course to an online course changed the very nature of the learning experience eventhough similar learning outcomes could be obtained. In fact, there was some sentiment that learning
outcomes could be increased—that there were activities that could be completed in the online
environment that might not have been possible to conduct or might have been more difficult tocomplete in the face-to-face environment. This sentiment is explained by the RAT Framework(Hughes, 2005), which explores the possibility (and recommendation) that technology use should not
replace (R) face-to-face activities. Instead, it should be used to amplify (A) or transform (T) whatalready occurs in the face-to-face environment. NE shared:“I’m intrigued by the idea that online discussion may be more substantive that in-classdiscussion. That seems to argue that you can accomplish MORE rather than less in the online
version?”This possibility certainly fits constructivism’s claim of collaborative learning and sociallyconstructed knowledge (Dass et al., 2011; Jonassen et al., 1995).
Amplified technology use is hinted at in these excerpts:
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
•

“I don’t normally do discussions in general chemistry – so sad! We are so focused on solving
problems that we rarely discuss anything, except of course, how to solve the problems. … So,
I am thinking about how I could do discussions online that will engage students to think
about other important things such as: ethical issues that scientists face, the influence of
science on politics, the influence of political situations on science, the lack of diversity
among scientists and the effect this might have on what scientific questions are studied, how
they are studied, and how the results are interpreted, and the myths and stereotypes associatedwith science and scientists.” (IN)•

“I too think the value of having students view themselves in a discipline specific context is
important through video-recording … The activity you describe would work great in the
online environment. I think non-verbal communication skills (i.e. body language, voice,posture, eye contact etc) is something that is hard to teach students and have them retain
unless it is in the discipline specific context they will use in the future. Certainly we canlecture about what is appropriate vs non-appropriate and they will “hear” us but will theimportance of the information be learned. The use of videotaping and debriefing with all of
the students will be very beneficial to teaching these skills in a way that the students value as
being important to their future as musicians.” (TS)Anonymity
The third area of philosophical discussion pertains to anonymity involving the use of photos andanonymous comments.
Photos. There was an intense discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of having students
post pictures of themselves. Among those in favor of having students post a picture of themselves
was LN who stated “In my view, a community of readers is more readily established in the presence
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

of familiarity than in anonymity” and IT who believed “posting a picture of the students themselves
is valuable to give a ‘human’ face to an online course.” These sentiments seem in line withconstructivism’s emphases on situated, social learning (Menchaca & Bekele, 2008) and trust andmutual support among students (Shenk et al., 2004).
AR in particular believed very strongly that student photos should not be posted because “students
take online classes for a variety of reasons: anonymity, convenience, equity, privacy, time,transportation, etc.” When she surveyed close associates, five of six revealed that they did not post
photos for reasons “rang[ing] from equity concerns to personal privacy.” AR was particularly
concerned about the propensity for stereotyping in the online environment:•“The online version seems invasive and can alienate. Just think if a person gets correct
presumptions about peers based on a visual image, it could confirm bias. What do I mean? If
the burly, bisexual student … posted a picture, students would have answered on perception,
not meaningful dialogue. If your class deals with bias and perceptions, this could be a good
icebreaker, but still it treads very close to a dangerous borderline.”•“After more thought, I thought about an Asian, African, Indian, or a non-white student
posting a picture and having students answer "who was born outside of the U.S?" Perceptions
could play into their answers and possibly alienate the Asian American, non-white Hispanic
American, or Indian American from California, New York, Alaska, or any part of U.S. Also,
it could possibly alienate the white student who does not want to appear discriminatory.
Moreover, most people select folks who are similar to [them]selves (hence, homogeneous or
default segregated communities and organizations across America). If there are any groupprojects, you could remove diversity in the selection process by folks self-selecting who theywould feel more comfortable with b[ased] on visuals.”
	
  

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Among the solutions suggested include:•“I say let it be optional (personal pic or image that describes him/her) and allow space forthose who want anonymity beyond their intellectual input to exist.” (AR)•“the web site or where the pictures and biographies etc are post[ed] needs to be password
protected” (IT)Anonymous Comments. Besides the issue of post-or-not-to-post, some discussion also revolved
around the issue of anonymous comments. The argument against anonymous comments, namely thedesire for “students to take responsibility for their words” (YS) and “the danger … that in online
spaces there is a tendency to rely on stereotyping MORE” (NN), is weighed against the argument foranonymous comments, namely that anonymity may encourage students “to take a flyer on aninterpretation” (YS) and that “anonymity might enhance course content—because the students would
be “embodied” in different ways” (NN).
These concerns raise issues not found in the face-to-face classroom, adding a layer of complexity tostudent identity in the online environment and its impact on teaching and learning.
Practical Discussions
Instructor Workload
A frequent refrain in the category of practical discussions is the time intensive nature of “reading andevaluating student Discussion posts” (NN), primarily because of the large class sizes. 40- to 45student and 60-student classes are mentioned while the “optimum is 5-15 participants” (YR).
Among solutions forwarded include the following:•“Small graduate classes are a great place to start!” (ER),•

Reducing discussion board assignments with 40- to 45-student class sizes,•

Having non-graded discussion board assignments,
	
  

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
•

“Group-based collaborative writing assignment using wiki” (II),•Minimizing “instructor “set-up” time” (NN), for example by automating small groupassignments and online quizzes—there is a need to know what the learning management
system (LMS) is capable of, and•Small group graded discussions.

Small Group Discussions
The last solution suggested above, however, resulted in much debate. As mentioned above, some
professors saw small group discussions as a way of managing instructor workload and were moreconcerned about the small group composition, whether to keep the group composition constant orchanging. There was a concern about a tendency towards stereotyping and homogeneous selfselection for group projects if the group composition was to remain constant.
AR, meanwhile, believed strongly that small group discussions were not the answer. She stated:•“Discussion Boards allow all students to participate. … there are more talkative people thanothers. … some students who [are] reserved in class, come alive in discussion boards. …
“Discussion Boards” are spaces for folks to share. … frankly when I ask the class a question,
I expect an answer from any part of the room and discussion boards mirror me asking theentire class a question without putting into “small groups,” which, from my experience,
require extensive monitoring”;•“I don’t find this format difficult at all, nor do my students. I have a class of 60 students andthe students appreciate the flexibility to comment on who they want to, which build[s]interactions. … Personally, small-group projects work for some assignments. However, I DO
NOT think it is appropriate here. I appreciate this format. Why? It is like being at a dinnerparty or fundraising function-- I enter and depart based on my terms. Thus, I am not being
	
  

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

held-up among friends observing or being forced to talk to certain folks, particularly ones
who I have to “make” conversation with.”
Practical Applications
Incorporation of Discussion Boards
It should be noted that discussion boards can be used in conjunction with multiple other online tools(Menchaca & Bekele, 2008) in the context of the learning management system. Among thosementioned in the discussion forums include the incorporation of discussion boards with:•Presentation software like PowerPoint or Prezi, with or without audio or animation;•

Synchronous chat like Skype, during which students can do their presentations;•Videos as a source for discussion board collaborative activity, whether obtained via theinternet or created by instructors or students—constructive peer feedback and individualreflective writing can be conducted on the discussion boards (Dass et al., 2011; Jonassen etal., 1995);•

Online surveys or online polling like polleverywhere.com;•

Content production for avenues like Wikipedia, wikis, and GoogleDocs;•

Discussion board or synchronous chat data being used as sources for end-of-semesterreflection papers or subsequent assignments—these assignments can be group assignments
which later allow for peer review or individual discussion board response,•

Virtual tours, virtual worlds, and virtual field trips (Tam, 2000), for example where a live
field trip culminates in a virtual experience:“I find the idea of the ‘virtual’ field trip fascinating. A little twist on using virtualworld...I think that we could still require our students to actually go out into the realworld, observe something, and then maybe create a virtual world based on what was
	
  

	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

observed. So, they could go into an actual restaurant, make observations, then create
their ‘ideal’ restaurant for a particular disability - or multiple disabilities. Other
students could view it and make suggestions to improve. So, students would be
experiencing the real world and sharing it via the virtual world. Obviously, thetechnology to create a virtual world would need to be user-friendly.” (EJ)
It is hoped that conceiving of the discussion board as part of an entire learning management system
package would provide a more coherent online experience which would result in the co-constructionof knowledge in a community of learners (Dass et al., 2011; Jonassen et al., 1995).
AccessThe mention of different online tools led to an intense discussion about the issue of access. For
example, although polleverywhere was touted as an excellent polling tool, some professors preferred
Survey Monkey or the LMS’s survey tool even though the latter did not provide instant results
because it did not run into potential problems like the lack of unlimited text affordances orbandwidth problems, which in turn “could lead to disfranchisement” (AR). Indeed, II reminded:“... polleverywhere might not be the best solution. One rule for technology integration is topick a tool that’s mature and has been on the market for a while. … Any technology failureand difficulty can impact your overall course evaluation and make both you and your students
frustrated.”
YS, however, believed that with regards to access, the onus was on students:“Obviously I’m all for making our courses accessible. However, it seems to me that when astudent opts for an online course, the issue of access shifts into the student’s lap(top). So I
think they have to take the responsibility to get up to speed.”

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Guidelines for Discussion Board Use•

Instructions and deadlines. Explicit instructions about posting and responding to posts (e.g.
number of posts and responses) and the provision of requirements and scaffolded deadlines(e.g. post essay, post discussion entry, post responses, watch video, complete a short quiz) are
important. Prompts, course objectives, netiquette expectations, rubrics, and time commitment
for assignments should also be provided.

•

Assessment of group projects. It would be advisable to incorporate “team member
evaluation[s]” (EJ) in group projects to encourage “equal participation” (ER) so that techsavvy students are not left to complete the bulk of the assignments. Having both fixed androtating group compositions would also encourage equal participation.

•

Require authors to reply to comments so that the problem with students “not going back on
to the “board” to respond besides the required amount, even if a question is raised to them”(TS) is averted.

•

Compose in MS Word first. “[H]ave students compose their discussion board messages in
MS Word then copy/paste into [the LMS]” (ER).

In the final analysis, the pedagogically sound use of discussion boards can be remarkably successful,
as aptly encapsulated by ER: “I think discussion intensive courses can actually work quite wellonline. They take a bit more work in the design process to get “right” but I have seen some excellent
examples over the years.”
Implications
In this section, we offer implications that are both theoretically derived from constructivism andempirically derived from our results. Our aim is to offer practical suggestions that arestraightforward yet capture the real-world nuances of teaching online.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Course Design
Our first set of suggestions is related to course design. First, it is clearly important to give students
opportunities for meaningful, authentic learning (Honebein, 1996). This can be achieved throughservice learning or by simply asking students to apply the course material directly to their own
lives. Also, instructors should realize that this level of learning can occur after a course ends so they
may want to consider leaving the lines of communication open by, for example, leaving discussion
boards open.
Second, consider giving students the option to post photos of themselves as this can engender social
learning and create a learner-centered environment. This does, however, bring up one of the
obstacles of constructivism discussed earlier: collaborative learning can be challenging with diverse
groups (Huang, 2002). That is, minority students may not feel comfortable posting photos for fear of
being stereotyped. Thus, instructor sensitivity is important here.
Third, use discussion boards as they are clearly becoming a crucial centerpiece for many online
courses (Eskey & Schulte, 2012). They can be an effective tool to capture many of the theoreticallyderived success factors we outlined above and, by utilizing the guidelines suggested by ourparticipants, can be successful. Namely, set clear instructions and deadlines, incorporate teammember evaluations, require authors to reply, and suggest that students compose their messages in a
separate word processing program first.
Faculty Training
Our second set of suggestions is related to faculty training. Given research findings that student
learning outcomes are positively correlated with faculty satisfaction (Fredericksen, Pickett, Swan,Pelz, & Shea, 2000; Hartman et al., 2000), it is critical to stimulate satisfaction with effective
training. First, it is important that trainers set expectations about what it will be like to teach
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

online. For example, new online instructors must learn that there cannot be a one-to-one conversion
from face-to-face to online. More broadly related to this, the training should foster a greater
willingness to take on the “new” role of facilitator (Huang, 2002).
Second, trainers should stress that online learning can amplify and transform (Hughes, 2005) throughthe use of collaborative learning that generates socially constructed knowledge (Dass et al., 2011;
Jonassen et al., 1995). Indeed, our results show that at least some faculty already understandthis. Therefore, trainers can build on this in the training environment by, for example, having
trainees give examples of how amplification and transformation might occur. Past research suggeststhat one way this may be achieved is by stressing the importance of faculty interaction with students(Olson, 2005; Simmons et al., 2004).
Additionally, a goal of the training program should be to demonstrate how using multiple tools canhelp create meaningful, authentic learning environments with active participation (Herrington et al.,2006; Honebein, 1996). It should be stressed that multiple tools are the means to an end – the end
being increased ease-of-use (Means et al., 2009). Therefore, when using multiple tools, usability
should not be sacrificed.

It is also important that faculty be adequately trained to use thesetools. However, the training should also emphasize sensitivity to access issues. Do not simply
assume that all students will have access to all tools. Sharing the syllabus before the class starts caninform students of expectations about what technologies will be necessary, which can reduce accessissues.
Finally, it is important to note the findings of this study that are relevant for instructors who teachonline or may be thinking about creating an online course. Although there were some concerns aboutmaintaining the interactive nature and richness of a face-to-face course through the transition toonline, it was evident that similar outcomes could be obtained in an online learning environment and
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

in fact, might even be increased. It was felt that online learning offers students the potential to learn
real world applications through discussion board assignments. Instructors did voice their concerns
about the management of reading and evaluating discussion board assignments for large classes.
Several solutions were gleaned from this study including the use of small group discussions, which
was found to be a topic of debate. Some felt it to be a useful pedagogical tool to help manage theinstructor workload while others were concerned about small groups restricting the participation of
students in an online class. It was noted that discussion boards used in conjunction with a variety ofother online tools would provide a more coherent experience for the learner.
Suggestions for future research
A reasonable next step following the present qualitative study on faculty attitudes about distanceeducation is a university-wide quantitative survey and this step is currently under way. Furthermore,besides faculty data, it is also important to collect student data, particularly comparing the student
attitudes of those who have taken online courses as opposed to those who have not. These data canbe obtained via quantitative surveys as well as qualitative semi-structured interviews.
Besides collecting data about distance education indirectly via surveys and interviews, it would also
be a good idea to collect data directly. This can be done through observations of online courses,
taking into consideration the varieties of online courses being offered university-wide—for example
by investigating synchronous and asynchronous implementations of online courses. In addition,
online instructors can conduct action research studies of their own courses, which would result in a
deeper understanding of course dynamics and lead to improvements in the quality of individual
online courses.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Conclusion
Distance education is undoubtedly driving today and tomorrow’s higher education revolution andthese courses are continuing to grow in number. However, faculty have been more pessimistic than
optimistic about online education (Allen, Seaman, Lederman, & Jaschik, 2012). Thus, in order tofurther develop the quality of distance education, it’s important to understand faculty attitudes andviews and how they relate to pedagogical tools.
The findings of this study suggest that faculty are concerned about the conversion of face-to-facecourses to online courses. The conversion not only changes the nature of the learning experience but
also increases the workload for both students and instructors. Faculty are also sensitive aboutanonymity issues, specifically about whether student photos should be optional and discussioncomments should be anonymous. It should be noted that faculty do see the value of online
pedagogical tools, such as discussion boards, and how they can contribute to increased learning
outcomes if designed appropriately with clear instructions, guidelines, and assessment methods.
Access, however, has been an issue when it comes to choosing specific tools to use in the online
courses.
The study offers practical implications for online course design and faculty training. It suggests thatonline courses should offer authentic, meaningful, and long-term learning; students should have theoption to post or avoid posting photos of themselves; and instructors should set clear guidelines interms of discussion board setup and use. The study also suggests that faculty should be trained invarious learning tools as well as how to use them to create meaningful and authentic learning
environments. Additionally, faculty should be informed about online teaching expectations andpotential role changes.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Although the scale is small, this study sheds light on faculty views of distance education and offers
practical suggestions and implications for online education. We hope this will provide faculty whoare contemplating teaching an online course and those already engaged in online pedagogy valuable
information that will assist them in creating a meaningful, authentic learning environment for online
learners. It is also our hope that these findings give faculty an opportunity to start thinking about
their role in an online environment and the need to learn new tools in order to embrace new teaching
philosophies.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Agosto, D. E., Copeland, A. J., & Zach, L. (2013). Testing the benefits of blended education: Usingsocial technology to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing in face-to-face LIS courses.
Journal of education for library and information science, 54(2), 94-107.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and online
education. Pearson.
Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2013). Tracing successful online teaching in higher
education: Voices of exemplary online teachers. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-41.
Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching
and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116.
Bradshaw, J. & Hinton, L. (2004). Benefits of an online discussion list in a traditional distanceeducation course. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5(3).
Dass, S., Dabbagh, N., & Clark, K. (2011). Using virtual worlds: What the research says. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 95–111.
Eskey, M. T., & Schulte, M. (2012). Comparing attitudes of online instructors and online college
students: Quantitative results for training, evaluation and administration. Online Journal ofDistance Learning Administration, 15(4). Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter154/eskey_schulte154.html.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Swan, K., Pelz, W., & Shea, P. (2000). Factors influencing facultysatisfaction with asynchronous teaching and learning in the SUNY learning network. Online
Education: Learning Effectiveness and Faculty Satisfaction, 239-270.
Hartman, J., Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2000). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: A dependent or
independent variable. On-line education: Learning effectiveness and faculty satisfaction, 151172.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2006). Authentic tasks online: A synergy among learner,
task, and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 233-247.
Hogan, R. L., & McKnight, M. A. (2007). Exploring burnout among university online instructors:
An initial investigation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(2), 117-124.
Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. G.
Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp.
11-24). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technologyintegrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism andcomputer-­‐mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education, 9(2), 7-26.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Lokken, F. & Mullins, C. (2014). Trends in elearning: Tracking the impact of elearning at
community colleges. 2013 Distance Education Survey Results, Instructional Technology
Council.
Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms
examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based
practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in
distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231-252.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study.
Distance education, 26(1), 29-48.
Murphy, M. J., Levant, R. F., Hall, J. E., & Glueckauf, R. L. (2007). Distance education in
professional training in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(1),97-103.
Olson, P. W. (2005). Significant success factors in distance education. International Journal of Case
Method Research & Application, 17(2), 235-245.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Rudestam, K. E. (2004). Distributed education and the role of online learning in training professional
psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(4), 427-432.
Shenk, D., Moore, L., & Davis, B. (2004). Teaching an interdisciplinary distance education
gerontology course: Benefits of diversity. Educational Gerontology, 30(3), 219-235.
Simmons, S., Jones, W., Jr., & Silver, S. (2004). Making the transition from face-to-face tocyberspace. TechTrends, 48(5), 50-85.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming
distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60.