With the shift in emphasis from teaching to research (and incorporation of the computer into university research) during the 1970s, faculty who were unwilling to adopt the new computer technology had difficulty in establishing their professional careers. Consequently, their unwillingness to adopt new technologies, coupled with inadequate training and instructional support from the universities, led them to seek early retirement or end their careers on a “bitter note” (Hagner & Schneebeck, 2001).
Today, schools offering traditional face-to-face instruction are utilizing DL more and more (Distance education survey, 2007), and students’ demands for DL are growing rapidly (Aggarwal & Bento, 2002). In other words, the world around faculty who are resisting new instructional technologies is changing. Chisholm (2006) also stated that a faculty member who thinks that the impact of technology on pedagogy will not effect his/her department or the way he/she teaches is either very naive or very close to retirement.
Hagner & Schneebeck (2001) conducted a study during which they interviewed 240 faculty at the University of Hartford. They classified faculty according to their perceptions of new technology in the new teaching-learning environment. In this study, they examined the relationship between the probability of faculty adopting new ways of teaching caused by new instructional technologies and the characteristics of one of the following four groups: entrepreneurs, risk aversives, reward seekers, and reluctants.
1. The First Group: The Entrepreneurs
The first faculty group is the pioneers who value innovation and risk taking in teaching and learning. Hagner & Schneebeck (2001) conducted interviews with the entrepreneurs and found two factors that explained their motivations for their work: a high level of commitment to quality teaching and learning and an informed capability with the new teaching and learning technologies. Landis, Squires, & Leach (2000) added another factor for explaining their motivations and stated that there is a self-perceived need for their course(s) outside the traditional teaching-learning environment. Although
the faculty in this group do not expect rewards or recognition for their work, they nevertheless are disappointed when they do not get any positive feedback from their institutions for their innovative instructional efforts. One other important characteristic of this group is that their positive attitudes toward teaching at a distance increase with their experience, and they rely on their own instructional experiences to solve the instructional problems they face while teaching at a distance ( Hagner & Schneebeck, 2001).
2. The Second Group: The Risk Aversives
The faculty in this group also share the commitment of the entrepreneur faculty to quality learning. However, they are more risk aversive and are afraid of losing their current success in teaching when they make the transformation into the new teaching environments (Hagner & Schneebeck, 2001). They often lack the technical expertise and, therefore, have to be well supported in making the instructional transformation. These faculty may be attracted to the new technologies and their potential for improving the job they do, but they choose to wait until they know more about this new environment. According to the survey conducted by the National Education Association (2008), 27% of faculty were risk aversive; they remain neutral or undecided about DL instruction and are waiting to see the implications of the DL courses for students, their institution, and themselves. Of the other survey respondents, 51% held positive feelings toward distance learning courses, while 22% held negative feelings (reluctants) .
Hagner & Schneebeck (2001) stated that there are two critical steps to encourage this risk-averse faculty to work in this new teaching-learning environment:
1. provide information to faculty that can demonstrate the effectiveness of the new forms of teaching, including examples of success stories from faculty they consider peers
2. create a support environment that facilitates their transition to DL 3. The Third Group: The Reward Seekers
These faculty members’ motivation is tied closely to the university’s reward structure. In other words, they view adopting technology-based teaching techniques as a
path to promotion. These faculty members participate only when it provides them with the opportunity to advance their professional careers (Hagner & Schneebeck, 2001).
According to Hagner & Schneebeck (2001), the use of the new technologies in course delivery will require redefinition of the tenure and promotion criteria. They state that this redefinition process, including new forms of virtual scholarship, should take place at each level of the university hierarchy.
4. The Fourth Group: The Reluctants
There is a tendency for some faculty to feel that distance education training is unnecessary. This group of faculty consists of those who are computer illiterate or strongly believe that traditional face-to-face environments are superior (Hagner & Schneebeck, 2001). For example, 900 faculty members signed petitions opposing plans for a virtual university at the University of Washington (Mantyla, 2000). As indicated earlier, according to the National Education Association (2008) 22% of traditional fulltime faculty have negative feelings toward teaching at a distance. Rather surprisingly, 14% of the DL faculty also hold negative feelings toward teaching at a distance.
According to Howell et al. (2004), the faculty who try to teach at a distance using traditional face-to-face methods will soon realize the need to use properly the new technology to interact effectively with learners in the DL environment. As a result, they soon realize they have to modify their face-to-face methods and integrate technology in various ways into their instruction to teach efficiently at a distance. There are several factors affecting instructors’ professional careers. These factors and the changing role of the faculty will be discussed in the next two sections.