Faculty acceptance of distance learning plays an important role in its success or failure in higher education. Information about faculty experiences of teaching online can improve understanding about this delivery mode's potential longevity in academe. Exploratory qualitative research has begun to uncover and unpack faculty experiences with online learning. Such studies provide a focused and detailed picture of faculty perceptions of teaching online; however, they have not been considered for what they add to cumulative knowledge.
Purpose
The purpose of this research was to employ a rigorous and systematic approach to make meaning of individual studies that investigated faculty experiences of teaching online by considering the studies in aggregate.
Research Design
This study drew upon qualitative synthesis methods to investigate faculty experiences with online teaching. In particular, the study used metaethnography, an interpretive approach, to synthesize findings from nine original studies conducted by 23 researchers involving interviews with 117 faculty members with online teaching experience.
Data Collection and Analysis
This study involved searching electronic databases and tables of contents of key journals to gather relevant articles. It relied upon analysis techniques common to metaethnographic approaches, including reciprocal translation analysis (translating themes into each other), refutations synthesis (attempts to explain variations and contradictions), and lines-of-argument analysis (building a general interpretation from findings of separate studies through reliance on qualitative analysis such as constant comparison).
Findings
This article presents findings from a qualitative synthesis of university faculty experiences with online distance education. Results show that faculty members believe teaching online changes the way they approach and think about teaching, course design, time, instruction, and students.
Conclusions
Finding new ways to understand existing literature was one of the chief goals of this study. These results represent a starting place for improving current practice as well as for guiding future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the metaethnography.
2.
AllenE., & SeamanJ. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning.Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
3.
BennettJ., & BennettL. (2002).Assessing the quality of distance education programs: The faculty's perspective.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 13(2), 71–86.
4.
BergeZ. L. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions: Can policy changes fix it?Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/Berge12.html
5.
BettsK. S. (1998).An institutional overview: Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study.Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/fall13/betts13.html
6.
BernardR., AbramiP., LouY., BorokhovskiE., WadeA., WozneyL., … HuangB. (2004).How does distance learning compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature.Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–434.
7.
BlassE., & DavisA. (2003).Building on solid foundations: Establishing criteria for e-learning development.Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3), 227–245.
8.
BloorM. (1997). Techniques of validation in qualitative research: A critical commentary. In MillerG. & DingwallR. (Eds.), Context and method in qualitative research (pp. 37–50). London, England: SAGE.
9.
BongalosY. Q., BulaonD. D. R., CeledonioL. P., de GuzmanA. B., & OgarteC. J. F. (2006).University teachers’ experiences in courseware development.British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 695–704.
BoyerE. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
12.
BrookeC. (2001).Information systems in use: A representational perspective.Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 3(1), 39–52.
13.
BurbulesN. C., & CallisterT.A. (2000).Universities in transition: The promise and the challenge of new technologies.Teachers College Record, 102(2), 271–293.
14.
CampbellR., PoundP., PopeC., BrittenN., PillR., MorganM., & DonovanJ. (2003).Evaluating meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care.Social Science Medicine, 56(4), 671–684.
15.
ChizmarJ. F., & WilliamsD.B. (2001).What do faculty want? We tested our ideas on “what faculty want” from instructional technology against the results of a faculty survey.EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 24(4), 18–24.
16.
CoffmanM. J. (2004). Cultural caring in nursing practice: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research, Journal of Cultural Diversity, 11(3): 100–109.
17.
Concei&ccdil;ãoS. C. O. (2006).Faculty lived experiences in the online environment.Adult Education Quarterly, 57(1), 26–45.
18.
CoppolaN. (1997).Sage on stage or mentor in MUD: Changing roles for teachers of technical communication.INTERCOM, 44, 6–9.
19.
CoppolaN. W., HiltzS. R., & RotterN. (2002).Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks.Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169–190.
20.
CooperR. (1992). Formal organization as representation: Remote control, displacement and abbreviation. In ReedM. & HughesM. (Eds.), Rethinking organization: New directions in organization theory and analysis (pp. 254–272). London, England: SAGE.
21.
CooperS. (2002). Technoculture and critical theory: In the service of the machine? London, England: Routledge.
22.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
DaughertyM., & FunkeB. (1999).University faculty and student perceptions of Web-based instruction.Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 13–18.
24.
DickP. K. (1968). Do androids dream of electric sheep? (Reprinted 1996). New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
25.
Dixon-WoodsM., CaversD., AgarwalS., AnnandaleE., ArthurA., … SuttonA. J. (2006).Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups.BMC Medical Research Methodology, 635.
26.
DoyleL. H. (2003).Synthesis through meta-ethnography: Paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities.Qualitative Research, 3(3), 321–344.
27.
EggerM., SmithG. D., & PhillipsA. N. (1997).Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures.British Medical Journal, 315, 1533–1537.
28.
EhrmannS. C. (2000).Technology and revolution in education: Ending the cycle of failure.Liberal Education, 86, 40–49.
29.
EstabrooksC., RutakumwaW., O'LearyK., Profetto-McGrathJ., MilnerM., LeversM. J., & Scott-FindlayS. (2005).Sources of practice knowledge among nurses.Qualitative Health Research, 15(4), 460–476.
30.
FredericksenE., PickettA., PelzW., SwanK., & SheaP. (2000). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with asynchronous teaching and learning in the SUNY Learning Network, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(3), 245–278.
31.
GahunguA., DereshiwskyM., & MoanE. (2006).Finally I can be with my students 24/7, individually and in group: A survey of faculty teaching online.Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(2), 118–142.
32.
GarrisonD. R. (1985).Three generations of technological innovation in distance education.Distance Education, 6, 235–241.
33.
GarrisonD. R. & ArcherT. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.
GoughD. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. In FurlongJ. & OanceaA. (Eds.), Applied and practice-based research: Special edition of research papers in education, 22(2), 213–228.
36.
GunawardenaC. N., & McIsaacM.S. (2004). Distance education. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 355–396). Mahwah, NJ: Luarence Erlbaum Associates.
37.
HartmanJ., DziubanD., & MoskalP. (2000). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: A dependent or independent variable?Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(3). Retrieved from http://www.sloanc
HislopG. W., & EllisH. J. C. (2004).A study of faculty effort in online teaching.Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 15–31.
40.
JacksonP. (1997). Information systems as metaphor: The three Rs of representation. In McLoughlinI. and HarrisM. (Eds.), Innovation, organizational change and technology (pp. 186–206). London, England: International Thomson Business Press.
41.
JamlanM. (2004).Faculty opinions towards introducing e-learning at the University of Bahrain.International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/185/802
42.
JonesC., AsensioM., & GoodyearP. (2000).Networked learning in higher education: practitioners’ perspectives.ALT-J, The Association for Learning Technology Journal, 8(2), 18–28.
43.
JonesE. T., LindnerJ.R., MurphyT. H., & DooleyK. E. (2002).Faculty philosophical position towards distance education: Competency, value, and educational technology support.Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(1).
44.
JoyE. H., & GarciaR.E. (2000).Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significant-difference findings.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1), 33–39.
45.
KankuaH., CollettD., & CaswellC. (2002).University instructor perceptions of the use of asynchronous text-based discussion in distance courses.The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 151–167.
46.
KoehlerM. J., MishraP., & YahyaK. (2007).Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & technology.Computers and Education, 49(3), 740–762.
47.
LaoT., & GonzalesC. (2005).Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors and students’ experiences.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 459–474.
48.
LeeJ. (2002).Faculty and administrator perceptions of instructional support for distance education.International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 27–45.
49.
LevineA., & SunJ. C. (2002). Barriers to distance education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education Center for Policy Analysis.
50.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
51.
LockeeB. B., BurtonJ.K., & CrossL.H. (1999). No comparison: Distance education finds a new use for “no significant difference.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 33–42.
52.
MachtmesK., & AsherJ. W. (2000).A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education.American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 27–46.
53.
McIsaacM. S., & GunawardenaC.N. (1996). Distance education. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 403–437). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
National Education Association. (2000, June). A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/he/abouthe/dlstudy.pdf
58.
NatrielloG. (2005).Modest changes, revolutionary possibilities: Distance learning and the future of education.Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1885–1904.
59.
NewtonR. (2003).Staff attitude to the development and delivery of e-learning.New Library World, 104(1193), 412–425.
60.
NoblitG. W., & HareR.D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
O'QuinnL., & CorryM. (2004).Faculty preferences for course delivery: Distance and traditional settings.International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(8), 17. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Aug_04/index.htm
63.
PachnowskiL. M., & JurczykJ. (2003).Perceptions of faculty on the effect of distance learning technology on faculty preparation time.Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/fall63/pachnowski64.html
64.
PajoK., & WallaceC. (2001).Barriers to the uptake of Web-based technology by university teachers.Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 70–84.
65.
PandaS., & MishraS. (2007).E-learning in a mega open university: Faculty attitude, barriers and motivators.Educational Media International, 44(4), 323–338.
66.
RantalaK. & WellstromE. (2001).Qualitative comparative analysis and a hermeneutic approach to interview data.International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 87–100.
67.
RiceE. H. (2002).The collaboration process in professional development schools (PDSs): Results of meta-ethnography 1990–1998.Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 55–67.
68.
RockwellS. K., SchauerJ., FritzS. M., & MarxD. B. (1999).Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach via distance.Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(4). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/rockwell24.html
69.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
70.
SamarawickremaG., & StaceyE. (2007).Adopting Web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education.Distance Education, 28(3), 313–333.
71.
Savin-BadenM., & MajorC. H. (2007).Using interpretive meta-ethnography to explore the relationship between innovative approaches to learning and innovative methods of pedagogical research.Higher Education, 54(6), 833–852.
72.
SchifterC. C. (2000).Faculty motivators and inhibitors for participation in distance education.Educational Technology, 40(2), 43–46.
73.
Schoenfeld-TacherR., & PersichitteK. A. (2000).Differential skills and competencies required of faculty teaching distance education courses.International Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 1–16.
74.
SchofieldJ. W. (1990). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In EisnerE. W. & PeshkinA. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 201–232). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
75.
SheaP., PickettA., & LiC., (2005).Increasing access to higher education: A study of the diffusion of online teaching among 913 college faculty.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/238/493
76.
ShkediA. (2005). Multiple case narrative: A qualitative approach to studying multiple populations.Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
77.
ShulmanL. (1986).Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
78.
ShulmanL. (1987).Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
79.
ShulmanL. (1991).Ways of seeing, ways of knowing: Ways of teaching, ways of learning about teaching.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(5), 393–395.
80.
SmithG. G., FergusonD., & CarisM. (2002).Teaching online versus face-to-face.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(4), 337–364.
81.
TaylorJ. C. (2001).Fifth generation distance education.e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology (e-JIST), 4(1), 1–14.
82.
ThorneS. (1994). Secondary analysis in qualitative research: Issues and implications. In MorseJ. M. (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 263–279). London, England: SAGE.
83.
WaitsT., & LewisL. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000–2001.Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education (NCES Publication No. 2003-017). Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/2003017/
WilsonC. (1998).Concerns of instructors delivering distance learning via the www.Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/wilson13.html
86.
WilsonC. (2001).Faculty attitudes about distance learning.EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 24(2), 70–71.
87.
ZhaoY., LeiJ., LaiB. Y. C., & TanH. S. (2005).What makes a difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education.Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884.
88.
ZuboffS. (1984). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power.New York, NY: Basic Books.
