Our ID2ID goal evolved yet again after completing our first ID2ID Event Synopsis. We learned that in order for faculty to confidently and competently teach online, they needed to be prepared in course design, course communication, time management, and technical competence. Another piece of the puzzle we wanted to explore was faculty motivation. This information would be invaluable to know before partnering on a collaborative course build and thus, led to our desire to read about faculty motivators and inhibitors.
Motivators & Inhibitors
The article, Literature Review – Faculty Participation in Online Distance Education: Barriers and Motivators by Macquire (2005) gathered perceived barriers and motivators across thirteen studies over 10 years. This literature review opened our eyes to the fact that we had been missing the role an institution plays in faculty’s perceptions. Institutions can provide additional motivators for faculty, while simultaneously creating barriers for faculty. These pieces added a whole new layer of complexity in how we might craft our faculty survey.
My New Awareness & Development
This review taught me there may be ways that an institution can motivate or inhibit online growth. Multiple avenues of potential motivation need to be provided because not all people are motivated equally. Some faculty want recognition, while others might want compensation or course load buy-outs. Conversely, institutions can create barriers that prevent online growth such as not providing enough support or not allowing faculty intellectual rights over their courses. I realize now that faculty motivation and inhibition does not lie solely on themselves, but in tandem with how the institution is shaping the landscape. Many of the faculty I work with are extremely busy so a missed deadline might be due to a lack of motivation, but rather a lack of institutional support.
ID2ID Goal Morphed
Our goal for the ID2ID program was to create a taxonomy of faculty types, but has changed over time. We realized that rather than putting faculty into various boxes to help us manage our expectations, we simultaneously realized that it’s not that simple. We decided that we wanted a meaningful way to learn more about faculty before partnering in a course build. In turn, our goal morphed into creating a self assessment that would allow faculty to self identity their motivations and competencies in online course facilitation and design. We started looking at the research and see if anything existed about how faculty perceive online teaching and learning.
Faculty Perceptions of Online Teaching
The article, Examining Faculty Perception of Their Readiness to Teach Online by Martin, Budrani, and Wang (2019) started to uncover what we were really after; research about faculty perceptions and motivations. The study measured faculty’s attitudes about online teaching competencies and perceptions of their ability to confidently teach online. We learned that in order for faculty to confidently and competently teach online, they need to be prepared in course design, course communication, time management, and technical competence.
My New Awareness & Development
One of the biggest realizations I had from reading about faculty perception is that my expectation of faculty has been biased and unrealistic. In striving to meet aggressive course build deadlines, while also forming a trusting faculty/ID partnership, I had begun to subconsciously label faculty partnerships based upon their ability to produce or build a course. If faculty couldn’t meet their deadline with me, then I couldn’t fulfill my deadline to the institution. However, this limited view doesn’t allow for me to fully understand the faculty member I’m working to form a healthy working relationship with. By taking a step back and looking at where my partner is coming from and how they perceive online teaching, I am better able to meet faculty where they are. This is a stronger place for beginning an online course collaboration.