The Discrepancy of Expectations for Online Faculty between Students and Institutions

University of the Rockies // About // Scholars' Summit Faculty Blog // The Discrepancy of Expectations for Online Faculty between Students and Institutions

The Discrepancy of Expectations for Online Faculty between Students and Institutions

scott burrusOnline education has seen steady growth over the past few decades (Allen & Seaman, 2013). However, institutional leaders are challenged to identify and uphold instructional best practices that meet the expectations and needs of students without being overly arduous for faculty, who often serve many institutions simultaneously (Coalition on the Academic Workforce, 2012). With student retention closely tied to student satisfaction, studying online faculty practices that enhance the student experience, engagement, and enjoyment in the online academic setting can have important consequences for better understanding student retention.

Institutional Expectations

Online faculty uphold expectations set by the institution for their performance. Typically, online institutions have specific guidelines for faculty-to-student interactions; yet, student expectations of faculty may not necessarily align with institutional requirements. To ensure standards of faculty performance, many institutions dictate expectations that faculty must execute on a regular basis such as grading timelines, online course engagement, and student communication practices. Online faculty members are often expected to comply with these expectations as a condition of continued employment. What remains unclear is if the expectations of the institution regarding faculty-to-student engagement align with what students expect or want from faculty.

Closing the Skills Gap among Faculty

While higher education leaders are expected to produce and administer policies that increase student success (Johnsrud & Banaria, 2004), instructors are typically responsible for conveying instructional content, engaging students, and evaluating student work. In distance education environments, students rely on faculty engagement in either written, audio, or video formats to guide them toward improvement. Often, faculty must develop new skills and practices to effectively engage students (Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008). Faculty members are presented with unique challenges to teaching in online settings (Anderson et al. 2011) including ensuring faculty-to-student communication supports learning outcomes and student satisfaction.

Faculty interaction and student satisfaction are key predictors of student achievement and success (Astin, 1984; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Tinto, 2010). Faculty members can have a critical influence on the students’ academic experience (Gibson & Blackwell, 2011). Faculty have described the online environment as positive with regard to faculty-to-student communication, which is a key indicator of student satisfaction (Bolliger, 2004); yet, many felt underprepared to teach online (Johnson et al., 2015). Some institutions offering online courses may provide training for faculty, and most offer a set of faculty expectations to be followed regarding faculty-to-student engagement. Institutions must work to integrate faculty into the broader academic culture through training and support to ensure instructional quality (Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006). Faculty who are well trained per university norms perform better over time (Green et al. 2009). For distance education faculty, universities that focused on professional development, effective communication, fostering balance, and forming relationships tended to have higher student retention and satisfaction (McIntyre Jazzar, 2010).

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats

Student satisfaction has become a high priority among college administrators (Noel-Levitz, 2014). Students who report high satisfaction, defined in large part by their opinions of faculty teaching, tend to persist to graduation, which improves institutional outcomes and contributes to student satisfaction (Noel-Levitz, 2014). Faculty characteristics and behaviors, particularly faculty actions that engage students in distance environments, can directly contribute to student satisfaction (Kuh & Hu, 2001). Because student satisfaction is correlated with several outcome measures—such as persistence (Tinto, 2010), course quality (Moore & Kearsley, 2011), and student success (Noel-Levitz, 2014)—taking steps to improve how faculty engage with students in their online courses has a clear and direct benefit to the institution.

Student perceptions of effective instructor engagement are an important consideration for educators. Student satisfaction is positively correlated with instructor communication, responsiveness, encouragement, accessibility, and professionalism (Bolliger, 2004; Kauffman, 2015). In a study of student perceptions of effective instructor engagement, researchers found that gentle guidance, positive, constructive comments, timeliness, and future orientation were important feedback considerations (Getzlaf et al., 2009). Further, Garrison et al. (2000) developed a community of inquiry framework, linking student engagement to cognitive, social, and teacher presence. Effective faculty feedback and engagement is correlated to positive outcomes for students. Students have shown greater levels of satisfaction with the instructor and performed better academically when they received personalized interactions from the instructor on assignments (Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008).

Identifying the Misalignment

A recent study conducted by the authors of this article (Shaw, Clowes, & Burrus, 2017) found that after institutional and student expectations were compared, some substantive differences were noted. Specifically, students identified additional areas of importance for faculty engagement. Students commented more frequently on consistency, feedback types, and the desire to engage with faculty on their areas of expertise above the content of the course. While institutions had specific requirements for faculty engagement, students were less concerned with specific prescriptive approaches to timelines, feedback, and course expectations as they were with consistency, personalization, and faculty adherence to policies.

What does all of this information mean? While typically online institutions have specific guidelines for faculty-to-student interactions, it appears that student expectations of faculty may not necessarily align with institutional requirements. This potential gap can have serious consequences for mission fulfillment in terms of achieving effective faculty engagement and successful student outcomes.

As institutions continue to differentiate themselves in the increasingly competitive landscape of online education, those institutions that prioritize meaningful faculty-student engagement, as defined by their students, may have a unique position in the future of online higher education.

 

 

Written by Scott WM Burrus, PhD--Lead Faculty, University of the Rockies; Melanie Shaw, PhD and Meena Clowes, PhD--Adjunct Faculty, University of the Rockies

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Needham, MA: Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences

Anderson, D., Imdieke, S., & Standerford, S. N. (2011). Feedback please: Studying self in the online classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 4(1), 3-15.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Bolliger, D. U. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-learning, 3(1), 61-67.

Coalition on the Academic Workforce. (2012). Adjunct report. Retrieved from http://www.academicworkforce.org/CAW_portrait_2012.pdf

Fagan-Wilen, R., Springer, D., & Ambrosino, B., & White, B. (2006). The support of adjunct faculty: An academic imperative. Social Work Education, 25(1), 39-51. doi:10.1080/02615470500477870

Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance, and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal of E-Learning, 7(3), 463-476.

Garrison, D., Terry, R. A., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_Critical_Inquiry_model.pdf

Getzlaf, B., Perry, B., Toffner, G., Lamarche, K., & Edwards, M. (2009). Effective instructor feedback: Perceptions of online graduate students. Journal of Educators Online, 6(2), 1-22.

Gibson, J. W., & Blackwell, C. W. (2011). Education without boundaries: Faculty training and support. Journal of College Teaching and Learning (TLC), 2(1), 1-6.

Green, T., Alejandro, J., & Brown, A. H. (2009). The retention of experienced faculty in online distance education programs: Understanding factors that impact their involvement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-5.

Izadinia, M. (2016). Student teachers’ and mentor teachers’ perceptions and expectations of a mentoring relationship: Do they match or clash. Professional Development in Education, 42(3), 387-402. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2014.994136

Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s.The Review of Higher Education, 24, 309-332.

Johnson, R., Stewart, C., & Bachman, C. (2015). What drives students to complete online courses? What drives faculty to teach online? Validating a measure of motivation orientation in university students and faculty. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4), 528-543.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Banaria, J. S. (2004). Doctoral education: National issues with “local” relevance. Educational Perspectives, 27(2), 20-27.

Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23.

Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman. B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational technology, 38(5), 20-23.

Kluge, S. (2000). Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1124/2499

Miliszewska, I., & Horwood, J. (2004). Engagement theory: A framework for supporting cultural differences in transnational education. Higher Education Research Society of Australasia. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Iwona_Miliszewska/publication/228786927_Engagement_theory_A_framework_for_supporting_cultural_differences_in_transnational
_education/links/02bfe51147d4c8f6cf000000.pdf

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Noel-Levitz. (2011). National online learners priorities report. Retrieved from https://www.noellevitz.com/upload/Papers_and_Research/2011/PSOL_report%202011.pdf

O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938–955.

Rogers, C. H., McIntyre, M., & Jazzar, M. (2010). Mentoring adjunct faculty using the cornerstones of effective communication and practice. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(1), 53-59.

Shaw, M, Clowes, M.C., & Burrus, S.W.M. (2017). A Comparative Typology of Student and Institutional Expectations of Online Faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 20(2).

Tinto, V. (2010). From theory to action: Exploring the institutional conditions for student retention. In J.C. Smart and M.B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 26, pp. 51-89). Netherlands: Springer.

The Discrepancy of Expectations for Online Faculty between Students and Institutions pageTitle:, pageUrl:, pageId:, pageDescription:,