Faculty Resistance: E-Learning (A Working Paper)

by

Roger Goodson, Ed.D.

Introduction:

During my sabbatical leave in spring of 2005, I accomplished a good deal of research on the topic of E-learning, which often goes by the term, Online Learning, and may be used interchangeably with E-learning in that which follows. A significant part of the research has involved reviewing the literature concerned with why and how teachers reject and/or defend against the use of electronic technology in their classes. And, as a result, I determined that at least four factors influence faculty skepticism and resistance to E-learning: 1.) a distrust in technology and/or lack of interest in technology in general; 2.) a fear of losing control over their classroom and students; 3.) fear of a loss of intrinsic rewards received from their face-to-face performance in the classroom; 4.) fear of loss of face; a generalized fear regarding depth and accuracy of knowledge of the subject taught and of being found as lacking by students who are ICT Literate (Information, Communications, Technology Literate.) Finally, identity may play a critical role in resistance to technology.

Teachers have spent years becoming educated themselves before becoming teachers. Including graduate study, this could amount to 18 or 20 years which does not include the myriad conferences, workshops and seminars they may attend to stay current in their fields after achieving their highest degree. During their formal study most teachers will have focused on one or two academic areas of interest (content areas.) Because of this they will likely believe themselves somewhat of an expert in those fields. From a socialization perspective, given the repetitive nature of coursework and process in any given academic area, there is a lot of reinforcement for this belief. How they see themselves as professionals (their professional identity) is likely to be thought of as who I am. For many there may be little difference between his/her professional identity and his/her identity as a whole . . . that is, it may permeate all aspects of their lives, academic, family and social. In this technological information age, where the half-life of information becomes smaller and smaller each year (as information grows exponentially) there may be a real threat to identity for some who claim expert status in their field; they may view technology as something that negates their professional identity rather affirming it.

Given that various levels of defensiveness may be expected to accompany the presence of the above factors it makes sense to determine how such behaviors might be typed. . . at the risk of oversimplifying, consider there are two types of defensiveness: What I shall call Type 1. Defensiveness, is defensiveness based on fear and/or ignorance, and/or unawareness. This type of defensiveness may be expressed as an unwillingness to examine assumptions that underlie behaviors and/or to determine mutual ways of fairly testing these assumptions with others who may hold differing views of effective practice. People who exhibit these behaviors are sometimes characterized as being 'bull-headed', 'stubborn' or 'blockers'. . . However, people who exhibit the second type of defensiveness may also be characterized using those same terms! The danger here is that while behavior change may be unlikely in the first category, it may stand a far better chance of modification in the second. Type 2. Defensiveness, can be thought of as defensiveness in the interest of learning. People who exhibit this type of defensiveness are generally more willing to test their positions with others in ways that can either confirm them or disconfirm them. In other words, they will alter their behaviors if it can be determined and demonstrated that their assumptions concerning effective practice are either not leading to effective practice, or that they inhibit them from becoming more effective practitioners. In terms of the adoption of new teaching technologies (and ideas in general) it is suggested that people who engage in Type 1. defensive behaviors are not good candidates for the adoption of new technologies whereas those who exhibit Type 2. defensiveness are more likely to alter their teaching practice and embrace new technologies and ideas, if it can be demonstrated that it will lead to an increase in their professional competence as a teachers.

No amount of encouragement is likely to sway the beliefs of those in the first category, defensiveness based on fear, although sometimes a severe organizational crisis or personal life crisis may give them cause to ponder alternative ways of doing things. Most instructional designers and people interested in promoting online learning do not have control over either of these features, therefore it might be best to simply leave these folks alone. Attempting to force them to take on new teaching technologies may only strengthen their position; it could also potentially lead to the establishment of enclaves that energetically politic against the adoption of new teaching technologies and E-learning. This brings us back to the conundrum of trying to figure out how to identify Type 1. from Type 2. defensiveness.

One way might be to listen to the stories that people tell of their attempts to improve their own practice. If it appears that the stories are more inclined towards failure, loss of effectiveness in the classroom, or a sense of defeat, then chances may be good that such persons would not be likely candidates for adoption of new technologies. The converse may be true as concerns Type 2 defensiveness: we might find that people who are willing to experiment with new ways of doing things, and whose stories indicate that they have had success in trying out new things ( in the classroom and/or in their personal lives) may be better candidates for the adoption of new teaching technologies and E-learning.

In my experience of attempting to gather information about a population targeted for change, one thing that has always worked well for me is to engage in what ethnomethodological researchers refer to as hanging out behavior. In doing this I locate the areas where the people I am interested in tend to gather together informally. Sometimes it is a coffee room, lounge, prep. room in the science department, certain table in a cafeteria or dining area, Friday afternoon watering hole. I go to those places and if I welcomed, or at least not totally ignored, I start appearing there more frequently. The objective here is to become 'one of the folks' but in doing so to make sure not go native. If I become one of a peer group then chances are I would lose my ability to promote my ideas once I have gained acceptance by the group. Over time, hanging out provides one with lots of information, stories, and opportunities to promote ideas with opinion leaders in the target population.

The Situation:

The teaching/learning situation regarding technologies has changed in ways that indicate that E-learning is not like earlier technologies, such as radio and television, which were thrust upon the academic world by overzealous reformers and administrators.  There are several reasons for this, such as the changing profile of traditional undergraduate students: students today are more visually-oriented then were their predecessors and many (but not all) are more electronically adept. . . the term Net-geners, for net-generation, has been applied to those who are well-experienced in the use of computers as well as other electronic communications devices (e.g., cellular phones, Ipods, and just about anything new that arrives in the electronic marketplace.) Most students are well aware of the fact that the paradigm of the work world they will be entering following commencement has already shifted towards technology and has been embraced by both public and private sector organizations. In order to compete for good entry level jobs they must be ICT Literate. In some cases this is even true for those who are planning on going on for advanced degrees following their undergraduate years. The professorate, particularly in non-applied programs, has been particularly slow in adapting to this paradigm shift in the work environment external to their institutions. From that perspective, they have done little to prepare students to work in what the students themselves frequently refer to as the real world.

Another factor that may influence traditional undergraduate students to select courses offered via electronic means is the continually rising cost of higher education. This has forced an ever-increasing number of traditional undergraduates to have to work more during the academic year then was the case for previous generations of university students. For them, anywhere /anyplace (24/7) access to a learning environment is not only attractive, but is a necessity if they are to remain in tertiary educational institutions and successfully complete degree requirements. This does not mean an end to face-to-face contact between professors and traditional students -- it means a change in how on-campus time (scheduling) is played off against on-line time in dialogue with professors and other students in the interest of learning and completing coursework and assignments.

Increased competition for students among and between universities, schools and programs is another issue. In particular the addition of private sector online universities to the higher academic mix has led to increased choice for working students. Beginning first with the highly successful University of Phoenix more corporate online learning institutions are springing up both nationally and internationally; this is a global phenomenon and it can be hypothesized that this may result in a net loss of international student enrollments for a number of colleges and universities. This will be particularly true for smaller institutions that do not have strong associative links with foreign universities. Up until recently many private sector online universities, including Phoenix, have focused primarily on marketing to an adult (older) working population. This focus is changing and a number of these universities are now gearing up to target traditional undergraduate students. This is a high growth industry that will continue to grow. Smaller, private, enrollment-driven (market-driven) universities may be particularly threatened by the incursion of the online universities. It is predictable that this source of competition for students will increase in the future and some will have to close due to dwindling or stagnant enrollments, associated short revenues and fragile endowments.

For institutions that desire to remain primarily with face-to-face course/program delivery, the new private sector entrants to the field are highly competitive, adapt more rapidly to market and marketing demands, and are more consumer-oriented in terms of student needs then are traditional brick-and-mortar institutions; E.g., one stop shopping has proven to be is a major marketing advantage for online universities. Responding to these and other factors, and to insure their future survival, colleges and universities and their programs are being forced to change, albeit in many cases to do so reluctantly. A number of faculty, whom I have chosen to call resisters, appear to believe that this innovation (like radio and TV) will be a flash in the pan with little lasting substance in terms of teaching/learning; it may be viewed as a temporary entrancement with technology that will be shelved for the most part with only random use and application, as has been the case with earlier teaching technologies. In other words, from this viewpoint it may eventually supplement teaching/learning, but they do not see it becoming a major organizing feature of course design and development.

Resistance Rationales:

From my experience in helping faculty become involved in online learning, and presenting workshops and presentations dealing with online teaching and learning in general, I have heard a number of rationales as to why faculty members (and some administrators) are not willing to give E-learning a try. Here are a few of the more common ones: "I have too much work to do already and I don't have time to learn something this complicated"; "It's too time consuming from what I can tell from hearing about it from those who are doing it"; "Face-to-face interaction with students is the best way to teach and get them to learn"; "Teachers will never be replaced by machines"; "I gave it a try once and the students didn't like it"; "I took the training (LMS training) tried it, and the technology didn't work the way I wanted it to. . .it's not dependable either"; "I can't even program my VCR. Technology is too complicated"; "Research indicates that there isn't any difference in learning results between online and face-to-face, so why should I bother"; "There are just too many messages that the students send for me to be able to have time to respond to them"; "I would really like to try it out, but it just isn't who I am (as a teacher)"; "I would rather talk to students or anyone for that matter than write to them"; "Give it a few years and the technology will be replaced (with voice) and it will be easier than typing. I'll try it out then"; "It was good enough for me and my kids (f2f teaching/learning) and we're doing OK, so why change" "Students have my email address and can get in touch with me if they choose. That's online enough for me"; "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" And, from an administrator: "Faculty here are already overloaded. I'm afraid E-learning is not in our future." For each of these rationales there appear to be implicit assumptions about current face-to-face teaching practice as well as E-learning. Most of these assumptions are either untested or un-testable. Instead of asking questions such as the following, what occurs is that assertions of faculty as to why they cannot, or should not embrace E-learning become self-fulfilling prophesies: If one chooses to go online with a course, or create a hybrid/blended course (half f2f and half online) can the work of teaching and learning be arranged so that there are time efficiencies rather than losses? Can students learn to work with students in ways that decrease the number of responses that the teacher has to make? Can faculty mentors assist other faculty who have difficulty understanding technology rather than creating dependencies on offices of information technology? Do old dogs learn new tricks? To put it another way, resisters advocate either implicitly or explicitly against E-learning rather than becoming involved in inquiry in ways that could disconfirm their rationales for not exploring its possibilities or engaging in it; their rationales are self-sealing and as long as they are held, are inflexible . . .although a number of those same people pride themselves on their they call their flexibility.

Adaptive Change:

It has been suggested by some that the only way more faculty will adapt to E-learning methodologies will be through attrition: when older faculty leave for retirement or for whatever reasons, new faculty will be hired who are more ICT Literate than their predecessors. This clearly has policy implications in terms of who gets hired and established hiring criteria. If policies requiring ICT literacy are not in place then the likelihood is that new hires will be more similar than different (in terms of teaching) from the people they are replacing. Other faculty, those who can see the trend towards E-learning as offering an opportunity for more students to take control of their own scheduling and learning, while helping their institutions to remain competitive, will become ICT Literate. They will learn new pedagogies and applications necessary to implementing effective E-learning experiences with their classes. There may be a problem here for these early adopters of E-learning teaching strategies: without adequate support by administrators, institutional policy and colleagues the early adopters may become self-righteous about E-learning. If they become classified by peers as zealots their efforts to encourage others to become involved in E-learning may fail. Without adequate support the early adopters may come to see E-learning as a failure in their institution and consequently either give up or seek other opportunities to work with E-learning outside their universities.

In the long run, chances are that both attrition and early adopters may lead to greater involvement with E-learning by faculty on some campuses. In order for this to occur, a critical mass fostering E-learning will be necessary and that it will only occur with strong institutional support: it is the juncture where informed leadership by senior administration and school and department leaders must create an atmosphere conducive to the acceptance and practice of E-learning as well as providing support (fiscal and, symbolic strong support) as encouragement for faculty to become involved on a broader level. Substantive institutional E-learning plans and policies must also be created in terms for not only hiring, but of criteria for what constitutes effective E-learning practice, pedagogy, and associated course/program design and development.  Without this sort of support E-learning will likely founder or fail on campuses where faculty are either apathetic about it or have self-sealing rationales that prohibit their exploring the possibilities E-learning holds for effective teaching and student learning.  

Caution:

E-learning should not be considered as being for everyone or every course . There are teachers who are pedagogically informed, sound practitioners who qualify as learning facilitators for students who do perfectly well without engaging students electronically. These teachers can and do provide valid documentation and solid evidence that learning is occurring on high levels in their classes. There is also subject matter that may lend itself to face-to-face settings far better than would be the case of attempting to design and teach it electronically. And of course, there are students who will always be more effective learners in face-to-face settings than online. In terms of this discussion resistance is viewed from the perspective of uninformed and/or untested rejection of a teaching-learning alternative and not as an informed, tested decision on behalf of administrators, teachers or learners or with reference to the subject matter.