5    Using Participatory Action Research to Support Pedagogical Processes in Postsecondary Online and Blended Spaces

Wendy L. Kraglund-Gauthier

Internet technologies extend an institution’s ability to deliver courses to students who choose the option of studying at a distance for reasons of convenience, economics, time, and learning style. To meet this need and to capitalize on an underserved market, more and more postsecondary institutions incorporate online¹ courses and programs as parts of their curricula (Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004). In a 2018 survey, more than two-thirds of 187 Canadian universities and colleges offered online courses for credit (Canadian Digital Learning Research Association, 2019), with online course enrolments increasing by approximately 10% per year in universities and 15% per year in colleges outside Québec (Bates, 2018, p. 11). Despite this increase, how experienced face-to-face faculty adjust to changes to their teaching practices when moving to virtual classrooms and how they deal with the impacts of online teaching assignments on their academic identities within traditional postsecondary institutions remain undertheorized and under-researched.

As support for online learning slowly spreads throughout the academy, it is important to remain critically reflective on how “learning formats, pedagogical approaches and student achievement interact” (Lalonde, 2011, p. 408). Although an instinct might be to standardize practice in an attempt to reach a consistent quality, “shared practice does not entail uniformity, conformity, cooperation, or agreement, but it does entail a kind of diversity in which perspectives and identities are engaged with one another” (Wenger, 1998, pp. 128–129). Some faculty have not addressed the tendency to “teach the way they were taught” (Oleson & Hora, 2014), regardless of the new context; nor do they tend to share the challenges in adjusting to new processes openly. And, despite research to the contrary, some educators remain skeptical of the value and legitimacy of online courses and programs (Hanover Research, 2014).

In this chapter, I report the findings from a participatory action research (PAR) study designed to explore how changes to instructional methods, namely from face-to-face to online delivery modes, affected the pedagogical thinking and practice of faculty, how they situated their academic identities within the virtual classrooms and on the physical campus, and how they navigated the process of change. Related questions centred on whether online teaching has impacts on both the content and the process of teaching based on their pedagogical beliefs, which included, among other factors, the immediacy of voice and dialogue in the teaching and learning process.

The weaving of ideas herein reflects my own interpretations and ideas that emerged from the PAR process as I worked alongside participants and from my field notes and journal reflections as co-researcher, instructional designer, and fellow online instructor. My intention is for instructional designers to find meaning in how another instructional designer navigated the process of change alongside faculty learning to teach online. Other potential audiences are faculty who might see themselves reflected in the narratives of participants. Teaching consultants and administrators charged with the task of resourcing new and emerging online course offerings might find the lessons and recommendations useful to their own planning and budgetary processes.

Context of the Study

The research took place within the Faculty of Education at St. Francis Xavier University (StFX), a small, primarily undergraduate university in Canada. I use the term “faculty” to refer to an educator/instructor/teacher/professor at the postsecondary level. I do not distinguish academic rank within this categorization. I use the term “sessional” to refer to individuals contracted to instruct on a course-by-course basis in the academic year. Other institutions might use the term “part-time,” “contract,” or “adjunct” employee. On the campus where this research was conducted, sessional employees receive one standard rate of pay, regardless of experience, and receive no employment benefits in addition to the contracted rate.

The results are from a moment in time, capturing a span of four years during which I led a PAR project with faculty transitioning to online teaching. As an instructional designer, I worked alongside faculty creating and modifying courses for synchronous and asynchronous online delivery. During this time, I became a novice sessional, delivering a Master of Education (M.Ed.) course a total of three times with face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous components and two Master of Adult Education courses delivered asynchronously. To contextualize the parameters within which the research was conducted, in the following section I describe the research setting as it was during the study.

Research Setting

StFX has an undergraduate population of approximately 4,800 students, of whom the majority attend classes on campus. Through its Department of Continuing and Distance Education, StFX offers a limited number of online courses at the undergraduate level, primarily from May to August, outside the regular academic terms of September to April. Other than a grandfather policy agreement within the Department of Nursing, faculty teaching online undergraduate courses do so beyond their regular teaching contracts. M.Ed. online courses are part of the faculty load. At the time of data collection, 16 of the 23 full-time M.Ed. faculty and more than 20 sessionals delivered courses at the M.Ed. level. The 16 full-time faculty had permanent office spaces at StFX, had full teaching loads across the programs, and maintained active research agendas. Most sessionals were employed full time in the public-school system as teachers and/or administrators; others were retired from teaching at public school or postsecondary levels or administrative positions.

To address student demand for alternative delivery methods, and because of budgetary restraints in challenging economic times, the M.Ed. program modified its course delivery to include online methods. Courses are delivered entirely face-to-face, entirely at a distance using asynchronous methods via Moodle, or entirely at a distance using synchronous methods via Blackboard Collaborate.² Others are delivered in a format that blends face-to-face, online asynchronous, and synchronous methods; face-to-face and online asynchronous methods; or face-to-face and online synchronous methods.

In the more than 10 years that the M.Ed. program has offered online courses, faculty have experienced changes in technology used to deliver programming. They have navigated new email and file storage protocols, a change from Learn to Moodle, and significant changes to their synchronous virtual classroom when ElluminateLive! was assimilated by Blackboard and became Blackboard Collaborate. The online faculty needed to learn how to think differently about delivering content and building community with their students. They had to move away from photocopied handouts and toward digital materials and make use of other collaborative features, including text-based discussion forums and file sharing. In synchronous courses, faculty and their students needed to learn to use technologies related to audio and video, chat conversations, and whole group and small group text-based discussions in breakout rooms; share applications and conduct web tours; and assign moderator status to or remove it from any participant. Their chalkboards became digital whiteboards, used to display images and slide presentations, and for some, this marked their first time using Microsoft PowerPoint.

Role of the Researcher

As an instructional designer, I am deeply committed to helping those creating course content to find their way through the technologies and changing academic institutional dynamics and emerge as effective facilitators in virtual classrooms. My role is to be responsive to the emerging and anticipated learning needs of faculty and to help them theorize the process of teaching online and exploring ways to build community. My becoming a novice facilitator was not part of the original research design, but its serendipitous inclusion enabled me to share authentically in the lived experiences of my research participants. There is no “neat dividing line” (Brennan & Noffke, 1997, p. 24) between my roles, and their intersections informed how I performed my role as researcher throughout the process; how I, the instructional designer, interacted with faculty developing and delivering online courses; and how I, the online sessional, designed effective learning environments and activities for my own students.

Insider research is not without limitations. Such proximity to the research can bias researchers’ results. Insider research requires, as Friesen (2010) explained, awareness of and attention to merging inner subjectivity with outer objectivity. Existing relationships with research participants can influence their behaviour, and the researcher’s tacit knowledge can lead to assumptions and misinterpretations of data (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). Yet being an outsider is being an impartial observer of events that transpire over a term, an observer who does not engage in meaningful and informed conversations with participants as they explore their own issues with teaching online. How individuals navigate change and academic culture affects how technology is integrated (Paul, 2014); as an insider, I was aware of StFX’s organizational culture in a time of pedagogical change.

Drivers of Change in Online Teaching Contexts

The shift from face-to-face to online teaching has instigated a great deal of change in the traditional bricks-and-mortar postsecondary institution that houses traditional communities of practice. Sutherland-Smith and Saltmarsh (2010) attributed the intense competition from global markets as one driver of change. Additionally, budgetary constraints and efforts to curb costs associated with physical infrastructure have resulted in some postsecondary administrators increasing their institutions’ online course offerings (Rumble, 2014). Other drivers include pressures to respond to societal change and student demand (Bates, 2018; Canadian Digital Learning Research Association, 2019; Contact North, 2013) and to provide accessible programming (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009; The GO Project, 2008; Rumble, 2014). Laurillard (2005) noted that there are many drivers of change to online learning, yet aspects of learning quality are not dominant forces.

Understanding Change

Processes of change are rarely similar from one institution to the next because they are affected by unique variables in internal and external environments. Moreover, “change must always be viewed in the light of the particular values, goals, and outcomes it serves” (Fullan, 2001, p. 6). In light of research questions and results from data analysis, Fullan’s (2001) model of change and Lewin’s (1951) classic model of change can be adapted to an online context and serve as a foundation on which to explicate the process that participants experience as they move from a face-to-face to an online teaching environment. Moving to the latter environment requires change—not necessarily in terms of philosophical underpinnings of teaching and learning, but often in ways that one’s pedagogical stance is set in virtual spaces (Conole, 2014). For some, this shift in stance necessitates a minor change; for others, the change is more substantial. An important element of unfreezing from comfortable processes and inviting change entails creating the conditions necessary for that change to occur.

Implicit to making the transition from teaching in face-to-face classrooms to doing so in virtual ones is the expectation that faculty will undergo a critical examination of the existing structures of their course materials and assessment activities for applicability in this new mode of course delivery. The theories of Rogers (1979) on how ideas permeate systems in terms of their technological advances and the changes required for faculty, administrators, and institutions to become initiated into new ways of thinking and acting in online spaces can be balanced with activities and outcomes of student learning, organizational capacity and agents of change (Fullan, 2001, 2013), and technological capacity (Rogers, 2003).

Purpose of the Study

This PAR was designed to increase understanding of the changes in teaching practice and pedagogical thinking that postsecondary faculty made as they transitioned from face-to-face teaching spaces to virtual ones, moving from classrooms dominated by dialogue and physical interaction to those that relied on solely text-driven interactions; a blend of face-to-face and asynchronous text-based communication; and a blend of face-to-face, text, and online synchronous dialogue. This understanding was gained after the administration of an anonymous questionnaire to StFX M.Ed. faculty (Part 1) and the implementation of a PAR process (Part 2) involving individual interviews (P1–6) and focus group sessions with six faculty (see Figure 5.1).

Participants began journalling after Focus Group Session 1 and continued through four months of the academic term to end after their final individual interviews and the completion of their course.

With its emphasis on equal collaboration among participants working together to discover practical solutions that improve practice (Creswell, 2005, 2015), PAR was deemed the most appropriate research method. The PAR design provided the opportunity for participants as co-researchers to “step back cognitively from familiar routines, forms of interaction, and power relationships to fundamentally question and rethink established interpretations of situations and strategies” (Bergold & Thomas, 2012, para. 1). As per PAR, participants chose the focus of inquiry that they wished to explore as a group and as individuals and to gain knowledge from their experience. Throughout each of the components of Part 2, participants journalled their thinking and reflecting on experiences. My field notes spanned both phases.

Research Questions

Based on the tenets of PAR, the main thrust of inquiry emerged from the participants themselves (Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Creswell, 2015; Lewin, 1946; Noffke, 1994). Responses from the anonymous survey distributed during Part 1 were used to inform the nature of inquiry with participants during Part 2 and framed the questioning during individual interviews and focus group sessions. The following questions guided the research during both parts and framed my own journalling on the research process.

• In which ways do M.Ed. faculty change perspectives (i.e., in values, beliefs, and practices) on teaching and learning when they transition to teaching online?
• In which ways do M.Ed. faculty modify their pedagogy during the transition to teaching online?
• In which ways do M.Ed. faculty negotiate their identities during the transition to teaching online?

Significance of the Study

Online educational opportunities have burgeoned in the past decade, matching the pace of technological advances. In these virtual spaces, the shift from traditional modes of thinking about teaching and learning and ingrained concepts of face-to-face classroom communities of learners often need to shift to account for the differences found online. Other considerations include the alignment of online course offerings with the institution’s operational practices and organizational culture. Although not yet matching this pace of opportunity and change, research does exist that explicates what students need from an online environment and from the faculty member (Bonnel, 2008; Friesen, 2010; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Far less research exists on what learning and supports faculty need to make the transition to teaching in virtual spaces, especially those where text takes precedence over voice.

What sets this study apart from other research is its focus on Faculty of Education members charged with the task of delivering educational content to in-service teachers enrolled in an M.Ed. program. Understanding the pedagogical constructs of virtual classrooms is important within the context of education programs in which faculty—trained and experienced in the processes of face-to-face learning—teach students trained and experienced in the same processes. This study helped to fill a void in the literature on teaching online, in particular in terms of how faculty themselves learn to navigate virtual classroom spaces and how they create or maintain their professional identities and connections to a community of practice with peers also experiencing change.

Methods

Data analysis involved using open coding techniques and themes (Creswell, 2005) from survey responses and from verbatim transcripts of individual interviews and focus group sessions and framed by the overarching research questions. My goal was to identify patterns emerging from the data without making explicit interpretations. These patterns became (1) initiation into teaching and learning online, (2) early and later implementation of teaching and learning strategies rooted in pedagogical practice, and (3) institutionalization of online teaching practices and pedagogy.

I viewed analyses through the lens of Fullan’s (2001, 2013) three major stages of educational change: initiation, implementation, and institutionalization. I did this chronologically where possible in order to reveal participants’ changes in patterns of thought and processes of learning over time throughout the action research cycles of the project that resulted in collaborative problem solving and knowledge generation (Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Creswell, 2015). Within these stages, I further organized data into three subcategories following Lewin’s (1946) classic model of change. These stages of unfreeze–change–freeze are not distinct phases of time. Rather, as in any process of change, participants moved fluidly among them, sometimes jumping backward or forward depending on the particular issue and their own ways of facing the process of change and its inherent challenges. In the upcoming sections, I present the results from Part 1’s survey and Part 2’s focus group sessions and individual interviews and reflective journalling.

Results from Part 1

Twenty-two respondents shared their opinions on various topics related to both face-to-face and online classes (see “Appendix A: Selected Survey Questions”). Half of the respondents (11 of 22) were sessional faculty, and the remaining respondents were tenure-track (2) or tenured (9) faculty. Sixteen respondents held doctorates; five of them were sessionals. All respondents had prior experience teaching face-to-face postsecondary courses, and only 2 of 22 had no prior experience using Collaborate. Respondents’ degrees of experience with synchronous teaching methods in virtual classrooms ranged from novice (zero to two courses; 12 of 22), to emerging (three to five courses; 3 of 22), to experienced (six courses or more; 7 of 22).

Overall, the results from Part 1 indicated that individuals who taught online felt institutional, program, and student pressure to do so. Institutional status affected respondents’ transitions to teaching in virtual spaces. More sessional faculty commented negatively on their lack of choice in the decision, whereas tenured faculty commented on the necessity of having online courses in order to maintain enrolment numbers. Comments also revealed respondents’ concerns about increased pressures and decreased choices in the mode of instructional delivery. Like Paul (2014), they expressed concern about the requirement to change pedagogical processes within an institution steeped in tradition. Overall, the results aligned with the literature on change and diffusion of technology (Fullan, 2013; Rogers, 1979, 2003), meaning that the transition from teaching in face-to-face classrooms to teaching in virtual spaces was not smooth, regardless of respondents’ expertise in instruction.

Of key import is respondents’ recognition of the amount of time and effort expended during their transition to virtual classroom teaching spaces, reflecting Lewin’s (1951) acknowledgement that developmental change is slow (Burnes, 2004). The respondents needed to rebuild their self-efficacy as educators and had to invest time in learning to navigate the technology. Respondents who had more experience in virtual spaces recognized the pedagogical possibilities of blending synchronous and asynchronous learning opportunities, especially in terms of deepening conversations and creating a sense of community among users when using audio and video applications.

Results from Part 2

Ten individuals volunteered via their online questionnaire submissions to be a part of Part 2; 6 of the 10 were accepted as participants based on the sole criterion of teaching via Collaborate during the data collection phase. While coding and analyzing transcripts from focus group sessions and individual interviews, I continued to be mindful of how the terms “novice,” “emerging,” and “experienced” referred only to participants’ exposure to the teaching tools that comprise Collaborate’s teaching and learning platform and not in terms of their actual years of experience teaching. In the following sections, I share some demographic data and excerpts from participants’ initial individual interviews to provide both context and perspective. I have used pseudonyms to protect the identities of all participants and their students.

Dana: Sessional, Experienced User

Dana was within the age range of 60–69 years and had more than 30 years of experience as a junior high and high school classroom teacher and experience in administrative roles at the school and district board levels. He had taught for the StFX M.Ed. program for approximately four years and had delivered courses in physical locations, online, and in a blended format in which some of the classes were held at an on-site location and others were online. At the time of the first interview, Dana had taught a number of StFX’s M.Ed. courses online, using the asynchronous components of Learn or a combination of Learn and Collaborate.

Dana enjoyed teaching with Collaborate: “It’s almost as good as being there,” he said, because of the immediacy afforded by voice capabilities. For him, the features of audio, video, chat, recordings, presentations, web tours, and group discussions were beneficial and an improvement on the more static LMS, in which he was “limited to typing in the discussions.” In teaching, for Dana, the “aim is to keep it as interactive as possible and to . . . teach to facilitate the students’ own learning.” He reported enjoying the interactions among and with students in face-to-classrooms, but he also noted the challenge of connecting with some groups when they are “difficult to interact with or preoccupied with something else, [or] if the group was more wanting just to have something delivered to them, some absolutes delivered to them.” Dana was also mindful of his learners’ previous experiences, recognizing that “adults learn best when the topic is relevant to their needs or their issues in schools.” He used discussions to focus on questions and needs. An indication of his pedagogical stance emerged in the following statement:

I try to reflect a little bit on the principles of learning that Knowles developed, or wrote about, in my teaching within the M.Ed. program. I try not to lecture and preach but facilitate the students as they move through different topics in the course.

Jordan: Tenured, Novice User

Jordan was within the age range of 60–69 years and had more than 20 years of experience as a high school teacher and experience in administrative roles within the school and at the university. He reported having taught at the M.Ed. level at StFX for over 10 years, first in face-to-face classrooms only and then, when the distance education program expanded, in Learn for approximately three years. In Learn, he and his students used the real-time chat feature to dialogue via typing rather than the asynchronous discussion forums. Jordan was relatively new to the synchronous format of Collaborate, having taught one course before the first interview, and he was scheduled to teach one course in the upcoming term. For him, Collaborate was, “such a step up; it’s like almost being there but not quite.”

Jordan characterized his face-to-face teaching style as “very amicable; I like having fun in class. . . . I am a task master. . . . I do believe in quality, but I do believe in the human side of it.” When asked to explain what he liked about face-to-face teaching, Jordan said,

I like the idea of tactile learning, you can touch things, you can do things. . . . I can go to the board on a moment’s notice and draw big diagrams and connect things and map stuff which I can’t easily do in other ways.

Jordan went on to state that he does not “like using technology in classrooms,” explaining that he is “a walk and chalk kinda’ person.” For him, the concept of pedagogy is how he

communicates theory, content, and practice. It’s the communication process. . . . You have to be a walking example of perfect teaching. So, if I talk about fairness and equity, I have to do that in my actual classroom. My classroom has to be the mirror of what I say I do.

Pat: Tenured, Emerging User

Pat was within the age range of 60–69 years and reported almost five years of experience teaching in the public-school system before beginning to teach at the postsecondary level. After a decade as a liaison among a teacher-training program, the government, and public schools, she began to focus her work primarily on teacher education programs, a focus that had lasted over 25 years. Pat characterized her face-to-face teaching style as “very active, interactive, hands-on [with] development materials.” The course content and her teaching style also contributed to the blended nature of the course. Pat said that she “wouldn’t give up my 18 hours of face-to-face because . . . when the teachers do any activities that, for instance, are a demonstration of classroom activities—and, really, the participants have to live the activities out—[they put] things together.” She also reported her strong preference for “hearing [her] students, knowing their feelings about what [she] was teaching through their tone of voice.”

Pat’s self-described teaching style linked strongly to her concept of pedagogy. Pat was quick to provide a personal definition that contained elements of a belief in constructivism and the value of lived experience:

Pedagogy is not just talking about ideas; it’s not just delivering. It’s making people believe the experience and work through the experience. By working through that experience, they can actually understand what should be changed and what might be changed and what doesn’t need to be changed and what are the benefits of certain types of procedures versus others.

Quinn: Tenure-Track, Novice User

Quinn’s age fell within the range of 40–49 years. His public-school teaching occurred in high school classrooms, but Quinn had spent time in administrative positions as well. He had been teaching at the university level for over 13 years as a master’s and doctoral student and then as a faculty member. Quinn had a wide range of experience teaching multiple topics and in different teaching environments, and his pedagogical beliefs, assumptions, and teaching methods evolved and were refined during these past experiences. With a stated preference for the lecture format, he was a “fan of intellectual capital [who] embodies that in teaching.”

Quinn’s M.Ed. teaching experience began in face-to-face classrooms six years prior to this research project. In time, Quinn gained more experience with online teaching, beginning first using a university-based LMS and then learning to use Learn’s asynchronous discussion forums and functionality as a document repository to supplement learning in between scheduled face-to-face classroom sessions. At the time of the first interview, Quinn had taught two different courses using Collaborate and was scheduled to teach one again in the upcoming term. Class design included Microsoft PowerPoint presentations and large and small group discussions, “like a real-world, face-to-face class.”

Quinn characterized his face-to-face teaching style as “going between inductive and deductive teaching . . . depending on setting and what [students] are dealing with. I prefer a lecture format and transmitting knowledge and theory.” Referring again to intellectual capital, Quinn noted how “giving content knowledge is important in university classes.” He also noted the importance of varying approaches and altering instructional methods depending on the abilities of the learners, speculating that “most good teachers do that by nature.” He enjoyed the setting of the face-to-face classroom, seeing it as a natural place in which one can see learners’ “facial expressions, . . . if they are getting it or not, [based on] their . . . demeanour, their body language.” He also noted the “clinical” nature of online discussion forums, in which tone, and therefore meaning from the vocalization of ideas, are lost.

Riley: Sessional, Experienced User

Riley was within the age range of 60–69 years and had more than 25 years of experience as a schoolteacher before moving to postsecondary teaching. She reported having almost 15 years of experience teaching in StFX’s B.Ed. and M.Ed. programs in face-to-face classrooms, and she had spent some time in various administrative roles within the Faculty of Education. Riley had the most experience teaching in virtual classrooms compared with the other research participants. She was a part of the first cohort of early adopters (Rogers, 1979) when StFX’s M.Ed. program introduced courses with online features, beginning first with Learn and then moving to Collaborate. She reported that she was often asked to share her knowledge and experience with faculty new to Collaborate. She permitted novice users to sit in on virtual classes and shared session recording links, and she responded to email requests for ideas and clarifications.

Riley characterized her teaching style as “facilitative,” describing herself as “an oral person [who] likes to talk and not write.” She also emphasized the importance of having “good ideas and a set of problems and providing students [with the time] to work on it.” She described how she incorporated small group and paired activities involving literacy manipulatives such as word tiles and texts for cooperative learning. When asked what she enjoyed about teaching face-to-face, Riley ardently said “the people in the room. I like it when there are people together.”

Taylor: Sessional, Novice User

Taylor had more than 25 years of experience teaching at public school and postsecondary levels. At the time of the initial interview, she was starting her first online course using Collaborate, but she reported using an LMS similar to Learn to teach two previous courses asynchronously. Taylor enjoyed the face-to-face classroom because she could:

focus the energy in the room and see their faces and read their body language. . . . I have got people right there, and I have my connection with them. And I can see quickly if there is puzzlement or boredom or if they have tuned out because I can see the faces, and I can draw them in.

When asked about her teaching style, Taylor said emphatically that she was “not a lecturer.” She elaborated on her teaching style and expectations:

In my classroom, there is lots of discussion, but I am also very task-oriented. . . . I think that I want teaching to be hard in the sense that I really want them to think. I love knowing that is a strategy that works, and I try to do it in a way that is very active.

Taylor designed in-class activities that involved prewriting and talking in dyads or small groups, activities that “encouraged quieter students to talk.” Like Quinn and Jordan, Taylor also “grabbed teachable moments [and] suddenly would be up at the board, explaining things,” creating opportunities for learners to connect with the readings and with each other.

The six participants in Part 2 were similar in terms of their vast experience teaching within public and private K–12 settings and at the postsecondary level. After years of teaching similar content in face-to-face classrooms, they defined their teaching in terms of mechanical aspects of delivery, such as instructional activities and class designs rather than why they approached the subject matter in the ways that they did. Their personal definitions of pedagogy and their descriptions of teaching methods contained multiple references to the importance of dialogue as part of the learning process, especially dialogue that happened in the moment imbued with the richness of tone that a voice carries. Their demographics and approaches to teaching provided a lens through which to view the PAR data and informed the development of a framework to conceptualize faculty transitions from teaching in face-to-face classrooms to teaching in virtual ones.

Framework for Conceptualizing Transitions from Face-to-Face to Online Teaching

The Framework for Conceptualizing Transitions from Face-to-Face to Online Teaching (Kraglund-Gauthier, 2016, see Table 5.1) emerged from the analysis of data from Parts 1 and 2. It is rooted in Lewin’s (1951) classic unfreeze–change–freeze model of change and in Fullan’s (2001) three major phases of educational change: initiation, implementation, and institutionalization.

In Table 5.1, and described in detail in the following sections, the transition from face-to-face to online teaching is grouped in terms of three stages: initiation, early implementation, and later implementation. The fourth grouping is institutional practicalities and serves to capture the required technological, pedagogical, and administrative supports that participants considered to be necessary as faculty moved their teaching practices to online spaces. Data are further linked using Lewin’s (1951) stages of change based on participants’ responses to the main research questions involving pedagogical concerns, learning to use online tools, negotiating identity, and navigating the change in teaching methods from face-to-face to virtual classroom spaces.

Table 5.1. Framework for conceptualizing transitions from face-to-face to online teaching (Kraglund-Gauthier, 2016).

Participants did not make definitive moves from one phase of change to the next. The initiation phase discussed below is just the beginning of the unfreezing process. It is common for elements of initiation to extend into the implementation phase. As additional tacit assumptions, habits, and routines were disrupted and brought into consciousness with the new teaching practice, participants underwent a smaller-scale unfreezing-refreezing process.

Within these stages of change, I filtered data analysis through participants’ situated proficiency in Collaborate as “novice,” “emerging,” or “experienced” users. I do not use these terms pejoratively, nor are they meant to detract from participants’ wealth of teaching knowledge and experience. Rather, I use the terms to indicate participants’ positioning within their individual and institutional processes of change and their degrees of exposure to and comfort with the teaching tools specific to Collaborate and their experiences teaching online.

Initiation Phase: Unfreezing Practice and Preparing for Change

The initiation phase is a period of building readiness, not only for the task ahead but also for the process of change itself, regardless of whether the focus is on the innovation of change, as Rogers (1979) described, or on the individuals who are changing, as Fullan (2001, 2013) maintained. Regardless of the amount of experience participants had in face-to-face classrooms, transitioning to teaching in virtual classrooms involved another initiation into teaching. For some, the virtual space necessitated a change in perspective on the nature of teaching and how pedagogical connections with students and curricula are made, similar to what Fullan (2013) noted. Other participants realized that they needed to change how they taught and to adjust their assumptions about the nature of teaching and learning.

Participants characterized their entry into online teaching as a new beginning in which a degree of uncertainty formed as they began to unfreeze thoughts and actions related to teaching and learning. The disembodiment of the individual within the classroom (Friesen, 2010; Kang, 2007), and shifting pedagogical positioning in a virtual classroom of learners, left some participants unsure of their teaching methods and abilities. In the following subsections, I explore four themes that emerged from the data on participants as they underwent their initiations into teaching online: emotional conflicts and concerns, professional identities, pedagogical concerns, and recognition of upcoming challenges.

Identifying Concerns about Teaching Mechanics

According to change theory, the initial period of unfreezing can be an emotionally messy time, fraught with contrasting emotions of uncertainty and anticipation. Participants went through a period of cognitive and emotional dissonance as their values, beliefs, and pedagogical identities were deconstructed and reconceptualized in their virtual classrooms. How they processed these emotions and how they conceptualized their teaching abilities depended, in part, on their approach to managing change. “Exposing one’s vulnerability in learning is central to developing practice” (Loughran, 2006, p. 29), and participants noted the importance of feeling safe to make mistakes.

Because of their unfamiliarity with online tools when the teaching term began, participants worried about not being fully familiar with the complete functionality of the learning platforms and about not being skilled enough to use the technology to its fullest potential. They exhibited low confidence, and the novice users were critical of their ability to manage the change in the teaching environment and processes necessitated by the new delivery methods. They expressed concern about their lack of technical pedagogical expertise, worrying that if they made technical mistakes their students would not consider them to be competent. Quinn did not “want to look inept or incompetent, because students will most likely assume we don’t know the content either.”

Pat nervously checked classroom links and log-ins, even though she knew that she and her students, like Jordan, were “at the mercy of the evening’s Internet connection.” Even Riley, with her prior experience in Collaborate, agreed with novice Taylor in feeling “more uncomfortable starting each first online class than [she] ever did for a face-to-face one.” These comments reveal participants’ feelings of vulnerability. Participants felt in control of their physical classroom spaces and the activities that they had planned, but they anticipated in the virtual space the absence of tangible confirmation that lessons would go as planned. They considered their physical presence an important component of their pedagogical practice and an integral element of their ability to manage the flow of the lesson. Their sense of disembodiment in the virtual classroom, or, as Friesen (2010) described it, the lack of a physical body as a part of the teacher self, was also experienced as an emotional disconnect from their teaching identities.

Conceptualizing the Teaching Self in Terms of Academic Identity

In terms of the concept of self that ties belief to action (Bandura, 1997) and the critique of self that ties self-efficacy to motivation and academic performance (Pajares, 1996), professional identity was linked strongly to how the participants taught. Quinn was confident in his instructional abilities in face-to-face classrooms, underscored by his admission of a certain lack of “real qualms or issues. It suits my style.” He was prepared to take this confidence into the virtual classroom, explaining that, because of his “Socratic style” of instruction and content and his comfort with technology, he did not anticipate getting “caught up in trying to do too many things at once.” Dana noted the tendency to teach in familiar ways, especially in face-to-face contexts, and recognized the comfort of familiar physical interactions: “It was sort of what I knew. [It] was the sort of modality that I knew, and grew up with, and that is what you sort of fall back on when you do your own teaching.” Riley reported that she was “definitely more of a facilitator” in face-to-face classrooms, “different from the PowerPoint [she was] making” for her online class. Like Jordan and Taylor, she preferred a more fluid and responsive conversation with students rather than have them respond to her prepared highlights. Such comments reveal how participants’ pedagogical beliefs were deeply rooted in their instructional activities and class designs and how determined they were to plant them in Collaborate. They were concerned more with learning simple yet effective ways to engage their learners with the content reminiscent of the physical classroom space than with pushing the technological boundaries of Collaborate and thinking differently about the virtual space.

Participants’ professional and pedagogical identities were entrenched in being expert facilitators of student learning. Taylor noted that they held a “position of power and authority” as professors, and Dana observed that students looked to them “for answers, even technical ones, God help them!” Taylor worried about what her students would think about her knowledge and instructional abilities if “disaster struck online.” She explained that the first session was important in order to set the tone for the class and “to make a good first impression.” Rather than verbalize a lack of confidence in personal ability to cope with potentially different ways of teaching in an online classroom, Pat used her age of 60–69 years to explain her challenges with grasping technical concepts. She admitted to not liking change: “I have been teaching for 40 years; why do I need to do this now?” This comment reveals her vulnerability in redefining her role as a master educator in a virtual classroom. For Taylor, Pat, and Jordan, the potential of “looking foolish” as they learned to teach online deeply affected their identities as skilled, experienced faculty in face-to-face classrooms.

Participants’ lack of confidence inhibited their abilities to learn new skills, and, as Bandura (1997) explained, their lack of self-efficacy in terms of online teaching negatively affected their beliefs in their abilities to create an effective learning environment online. Like Rogers (2003), participants’ desires for positive outcomes were related to a need for concrete evidence that the innovation can improve instruction. Taylor explained that, in her experience in face-to-face classrooms, “if students were not comfortable in the space and didn’t feel connected to each other, they were not likely to share deep reflections and their own pedagogical connections to practice.” She predicted that she would have to spend a great deal of time community-building in her virtual classroom because she and her students would not be “cued by body language and physical presence.” She was certain that her technological skills in Collaborate would limit community-building and considered it her “responsibility to manage the technology.”

Early Implementation Phase: Adjusting to Different Realities of Teaching Online

The implementation of a new initiative often requires a shift from ingrained habits of thought and action to new perspectives and methods. In this research, the early implementation phase was a period of high expectations for instruction in the virtual classroom. In this phase, participants began to work through changes in teaching role, pedagogical stance, and relationship with students.

Acclimatizing to Virtual Spaces

As Kornelsen (2006) asked, “what is it about the presence of the person, the teacher, that contributes to the teaching-learning environment?” (p. 73). For some participants, a sense of teaching presence—what Lehman and Conceiçāo (2010) described as “‘being there’ and ‘being together’ with online learners” (p. 3)—was tied to classroom management. For Taylor, the lack of a physical presence added to the challenge of maintaining control over the teaching milieu and learning activities of her students. She felt much more in control in the face-to-face classroom because she could “see every damn book opened, and I can eyeball them if they haven’t got it opened.” She missed the pedagogical influence afforded by her physical presence in the classroom and the immediacy of that presence and, as Friesen (2010) noted, its visual, non-verbal communication as confirmation of student engagement.

Without the accustomed feedback from body language and eye contact in physical interactions, Quinn, like Taylor, also could not “tell if [students] are engaged or not” in the virtual classroom. He wondered if his students “are paying attention. . . . I really can’t tell because they are not there physically. Every now and then I’ll see a happy face or a check mark, . . . but again it’s not very much.” His comments align with those emerging from other research. Major (2010), for example, noted the need for online faculty to rely on forms of electronic communication other than “sensory and expressive skills” (p. 2184) to connect with their students.

Major (2010) also acknowledged limitations in bridging what Moore (1993) termed “transactional distance”: that is, the separation between online faculty and their students. In my research, it was evident that Taylor and Quinn had come to rely on the feedback of smiles, nods, and quizzical looks in face-to-face environments yet absent in virtual environments to reinforce their teaching practices and to communicate expected standards of learning. Lehman and Conceiçāo (2010) explained this need to connect with students physically and pedagogically in terms of their Being There for the Online Learner model of ways to experience presence.

In Collaborate, personal web cameras stream live video from a maximum of six individuals out to viewers simultaneously. This additional visual emphasis can connect participants emotionally and help to animate the virtual space, thus adding to the social presence of faculty and students, as posited by Swan and Shih (2005). Although participants discussed the importance of seeing their students when teaching, some said that it was disconcerting to see one’s own visage projected into the virtual space. As an experienced user and individual accustomed to speaking to groups as an administrator and community leader, even Dana was “too shy” to use his web camera. Taylor did not use her web camera either: “No, it makes me uncomfortable to see my face looking back at me.” And Pat said that “I don’t like the way I look and sound.” When asked about the difference between being physically in front of a room of students and being in front of them via a web camera, Taylor stated that, “in the physical classroom, they can see me, and I can think I am projecting myself in a certain way. In a virtual class with my own face staring at me, I see myself the way my students see me.” When asked whether they gave as much thought to these elements of identity and presence in face-to-face classrooms, all participants claimed that they did not, with Quinn explaining that it “felt more natural and wasn’t something I have to really think about.” Such comments reveal participants’ feelings of disquiet and a lack of personal confidence as master faculty who must now teach in virtual spaces. Their physical bodies had become parts of their teacher identities, acting as “the marker that identifies us and that provides many ways to be either subtly or overtly expressive of who we are” (Friesen, 2010, p. 115).

Balancing Advance Preparation and Responsiveness with Real-Time Learning

Participants talked about the difficulty of balancing the need to have sufficient content prepared versus the need to respond to students’ learning needs during class sessions. Rather than using course content prepared in advance and uploaded to a learning management system for students to complete within a prescribed time frame, participants in this study created their own syllabuses and outlined general course content and required assignments. They were flexible with specific instructional content based on the changing needs and experiences of students in their courses. They often adjusted materials based on students’ experiences and needs related to course content. This meant that the instructors were constantly reviewing materials and resources in preparation for classes, regardless of how often they had taught the courses in the past.

Participants often mentioned the mechanical aspects of online content delivery rather than processes of teaching and conceptualizations of ideas. All participants believed that online courses needed to be more structured compared with the “freedom,” as Jordan indicated, of “face-to-face to just go with the conversation and make notes on the whiteboard.” They also discussed feeling more constrained by the platform and thought that they were less adaptive to their students’ needs and to the evolving nature of scholarly conversations in their virtual classrooms. For Riley, the mechanical nature of so much advance planning to have something visual ready to load onto Collaborate detracted from the spontaneity of connecting “with students to draw from them.” In 2017, 65% of institutions that participated in the Canadian National Survey of Online and Distance Education (Canadian Digital Learning Research Association, 2019) reported “moderate to extensive use of on-demand streamed videos” (p. 31). None of the participants in this PAR project recorded their own instructional videos to be included as course content, citing the challenges of time and technical editing skills as well as the importance of providing just-in-time content that reflected the learning needs of their students at particular moments in the courses. Their concerns about having the session designed and uploaded in advance contradicted Contact North (2013), which noted that the online context and accessibility of content have shifted the reliance from “limited content chosen by the instructor” (sec. 4, para. 1) to that which learners have found to connect to the topic under study. Participants’ concerns with the inflexibility of the digital platform parallels Dron’s (2014) argument that “the more we embed processes and techniques in our tools, be they pedagogies or machine tools, the fewer choices are left to humans” (p. 242).

On asking participants whether their experiences teaching online had led them to place more value on structure and teacher-directed activities, Taylor responded emphatically:

I feel as though I am violating some of my deeply held principles—feminist pedagogy, participatory principles. . . . I feel more structured, more teacher-directed, and neither of those are words I would even have used to describe my teaching. And they are not words to which I have attributed high value in the past—certainly not part of my identity as [an] educator. (Focus Group Session 2)

This excerpt reveals the significant conflict that Taylor experienced while teaching online. Specifically, both she and Pat struggled with situating their valid knowledge for and in practice: that is, their immense knowledge gained through their prior teaching education and experience (Nussbaum & Ritter Hall, 2012), with new knowledge of practice that could lead to positive and educative online experiences for both them and their students.

Undoing Ingrained Face-to-Face Teaching Practices

Unlearning and relearning teaching roles and processes—that is, changing ways of thinking (Lewin, 1951)—emerged as a key component of participants’ process of change during the early implementation phase (Fullan, 2001, 2013) of this PAR project. The intricacy of managing the different dimensions of technique, communication, and classroom dynamic in a virtual environment required an additional level of effort.

Participants needed to learn new technical skills and new teaching skills to manage the virtual environment. They needed to unlearn “that learning . . . is limited by time and space” (Nussbaum & Ritter Hall, 2012, p. 50). They also needed to unlearn some of the tacit knowledge of teaching, such as reading a student’s vocal tone and body language for cues about understanding the content and flow of the class, and more explicit knowledge in terms of content delivery and assessment.

Teaching in online spaces requires different approaches to the delivery and assessment of certain learning activities in face-to-face interactions, and as Dana noted “it may mean [faculty] have to do a bit more work in the beginning stages and put more time into thinking about how to deliver content” (Focus Group Session 1). Other participants agreed yet were also quick to point out, in the words of Jordan, that “the pay-off isn’t exactly worth it sometimes when asked to take a familiar course and adjust it for online [delivery]” (Focus Group Session 1). As an experienced user and a long-time faculty member, Riley recognized her deeply ingrained habits of teaching, and her readiness to adopt e-learning technologies was affected by her uncertainty that they comprised an advantage over the process that they were designed to replace (Rogers, 2003).

Learning Tools and Methods that Engage Learners and Enliven Content

Novice and experienced participants noted their concerns about the quality of instructional content as they devoted more time to the mechanics of content delivery, including learning how to use presentation software and posting content and creating discussion forums in Learn. The time that faculty invested in learning to manipulate the online tools to strengthen the learning process was time that they did not spend on developing course content or grading student assignments. Taylor also mentioned how they “just want to teach and not worry about the tools they should be using” to deliver the material and have students connect with it. In the early phase, they were unable to identify the benefits derived from adopting the technological innovation, and they were unconvinced that Collaborate represented “a superior alternative to the previous practice that it would replace” (Rogers, 2003, p. 14).

As Pat and Taylor explained in Focus Group Session 3, they had their own pace of learning, and they had varying levels of ability to absorb new technical and pedagogical applications of the subject material. By the third interview, Pat had decided that “what I need is for someone to sit down with me for two days and do everything that can be done on the computer so I know what to do with the computer when things break.”

Riley mused about learning new tasks and working with new tools for her synchronous class time, providing a revealing glimpse of how some faculty approach the mechanics of teaching online:

I get the idea, now how will that work online? Pull in a video? I don’t know I know how to do that. There are all those icons at the top of the screen that I need more practice with. And then I am thinking, “Well, I could go into that tutorial,” but I don’t actually think of doing that. I don’t say “I am going to go spend some time . . . playing around.” Maybe I will get better at that. At least it’s in my head once in a while to go and do that, but I have never actually gone and done it.

Although classified as an experienced user after using Collaborate for more than six different courses, Riley was still unsure of what to do and was not yet motivated to learn more, despite recognizing that elements of the teaching environment and resources would add to the online experience and her comfort in delivering the content. Her reluctance reflects a typical response from a novice user of any technology in the initial phase of change (Rogers, 1979)—Riley had not yet accepted the innovation as an advantage. Participants were frozen in their thinking about how well they had performed the acts of teaching in physical spaces, and they were unable to imagine how the technology could enhance, rather than hinder, their work.

Gaining Comfort with Online Teaching Tools

For five of the participants, it was too much to manage the tools and the activities in the virtual classroom and still be attentive to the content. Acknowledging her inability to type well, Riley sounded apologetic as she explained how she told students that she “wasn’t ignoring them but found it too hard to concentrate on what was being said, read the chat, and type responses at the same time.” For Jordan, it was “easier in a real classroom because they just talked one at a time. Now one person is talking, and three or four are typing, and I wonder who is even listening when I am talking.” Other participants struggled with the added element of text dialogue during synchronous presentations. As Taylor noted, it was as if the “missing element of me being physically present in the room gave [students] the sense they could do whatever they wanted, like chat while someone is presenting or scribbling on the whiteboard over someone’s slides.” Jordan said that sometimes the students “were like kids” in terms of their disruptive behaviour.

Participants explained how controlling or managing the discussion is different in a virtual classroom compared with a physical one. Two participants viewed the audible signal of a hand being raised as an interruption that caused speakers to lose their trains of thought. Pat recounted her issue with one student

who takes advantage of holding the mic and will dominate the discussion for a longer time than I would allow in a class. . . . I feel a bit more reticent to lift my hand to cut her off. . . . I hold my hand longer than I would hold my tongue.

This sparked a conversation about the importance of classroom management and physical presence. In this conversation, participants failed to recognize that the same underlying concepts of classroom management and equitable learning spaces that they developed in their face-to-face classrooms could also be developed in their virtual classrooms.

Later Implementation Phase: Establishing Pedagogical Practices and Demonstrating Self-Efficacy

In the later implementation phase, participants became more comfortable teaching online and noticed and celebrated their progress. They became less frustrated when they bumped up against old ways of doing things that did not play out as intended in the virtual classroom. As participants adjusted to their “lived space[s]” (Friesen, 2010, p. 25), the later implementation phase also became a time of resolving emotional dissonance and coming to terms with the complex and challenging tasks of employing somewhat new ways of teaching familiar ideas and activities.

Fostering Self-Efficacy in Online Instruction

With ability comes confidence, and more confidence can translate into self-efficacy. This belief in one’s personal ability to complete a task or accomplish a goal (Bandura, 1997) is crucial in the online realm, especially when an instructional designer is not available for assistance. Reflecting the work of earlier researchers in face-to-face contexts (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996), participants thought that they were “getting better at it, the more classes I have behind me,” as Dana put it. He was also student centred in his approach, believing that “all students can learn, and it is up to the teacher to find a way to work with that person in that teaching situation so that they do learn.”

As an expert user, Riley had more confidence in her ability to navigate within Collaborate, whereas Taylor, a novice user of Collaborate, was not comfortable with the platform or with her virtual teaching presence. Taylor was “disappointed with [her] classes so far,” believing that she was just not connecting with her students when she was worried so much about the technology. For both participants, their beliefs had powerful influences on their thoughts, actions, and behaviours as they navigated their personal processes of pedagogical change. As Kanuka (2008) argued, “our philosophy determines how we perceive and deal with our preferred teaching methods—which includes how (or if) we choose and use e-learning technologies” (p. 92). Comparatively, Pajares (1996) linked an individual’s belief systems to self-efficacy.

Implementing More Complex Online Teaching Tools and Practices

In this final phase of change, personal concerns about the ability to manipulate the tools effectively and to troubleshoot technical issues were lessened. However, participants did note that the time it took to become comfortable in the virtual classroom was still an issue because it was time taken away from preparing content and being responsive to students’ needs (Allen & Seaman, with Lederman & Jaschik 2012). Quinn—in a tenure-track position and obligated to publish research results and make conference presentations as well as carry a full teaching load of five courses per academic year—thought that he had less time to devote to learning how to deliver familiar content differently.

As researchers including Allen et al. (2012) and Bonk (2001) have noted, a faculty member’s workload is often heavy, and “the different pattern of activities for online teaching can also mean a higher workload” (Bennett & Lockyer, 2004, p. 241). It was less of an issue for Dana to invest time in course development because he was retired from full-time teaching, and as a sessional he usually taught only one course per academic term. He also noted that, as he gained experience, he seemed to need less time to prepare his online classes, even after having to learn to use slide presentation software for the first time. Also retired from full-time M.Ed. teaching, Riley acknowledged that “the time spent thinking about how to do something in Elluminate is making [her] think more deeply about what [she] was doing.”

As Bennett and Lockyer (2004) argued, as faculty make their way into virtual classrooms, they, instructional designers, and administrators should be cognizant of the time pressures of online teaching and plan accordingly. Additionally, following from the observations of Rogers (2003) that faculty members’ personal approaches to change tend to be influenced by previous experiences of major change, if faculty are supported in the process of change, time to reflect on the pedagogical processes of teaching online is needed.

Discussion of the Findings

Results from this PAR project indicate that implementing online courses is not simply a matter of providing technological tools, training, and digital resources. It requires deep consideration of pedagogical processes and reflection on how and why departments and faculty make the decision to implement online learning and a focus on developing capabilities of facilitation that reflect adult learning principles (Bedford, 2014).

In light of the research questions and results from the data analysis, Fullan’s (2001) model of change and Lewin’s (1951) classic model of change were adapted to an online context and served as a foundation on which to explicate the process that faculty experienced as they moved from a face-to-face environment to a virtual environment. Despite critiques that Lewin’s model of change is outdated and does not take into account politics and conflicts within organizations (Burnes, 2004), the research results reported here demonstrate an application of the phases of freezing, unfreezing, and refreezing as an explanation of the ways that faculty transition from face-to-face to online classrooms (Kraglund-Gauthier, 2016). Moving to the online delivery of education requires change, not necessarily in terms of philosophical underpinnings of teaching and learning, but often in ways that one’s pedagogical stance is set in virtual spaces that offer a blend of voice and text in connecting with students. Despite being expert educators in face-to-face classrooms, they needed pedagogical, technological, and emotional support as they adjusted to the different realities of teaching and developed self-efficacy in navigating virtual classrooms. For some, this shift in stance necessitated a minor change; for others, it required a more substantial change.

Institutional status affected respondents’ transitions to teaching online. Sessionals reported having little choice in the mode of delivery. Tenured faculty recognized the importance of online course offerings to maintain enrolment numbers but expressed concern about the requirement to change pedagogical processes within an institution steeped in tradition. Overall, the results aligned with the literature on change and diffusion of technology, meaning that the transition from teaching in face-to-face classrooms to teaching in virtual classrooms was not smooth, regardless of respondents’ expertise in instruction.

Data analysis revealed that participants had to unfreeze established thinking and teaching practices during an emotional period in which they questioned their professional identities. Participants, especially sessionals who lived and taught at some distance from StFX, wanted pedagogical connections with colleagues and needed technological and administrative support that considered their schedules and physical locations. All participants sought recognition for their efforts as early adopters of online technologies and thought that the institution should identify and support champions able to meet program and student needs via their work as online faculty.

Faculty recognized a difference in their ability to teach in virtual classrooms that lack the concrete and tactile connections with learning objects such as molecular models or cue cards and the spontaneous conversations in small groups common in learner-centred classes. Faculty were thrust into the role of novice educator once again yet with the benefit of years of experience in applying pedagogical knowledge and facilitating student learning. Being in this novice role was uncomfortable and affected their academic identity and self-efficacy as professional educators.

Implicit to transitioning to teaching in virtual classrooms is the expectation that faculty will undergo a critical examination of the existing structures of their course materials and assessment activities for applicability in this new mode of course delivery. Rogers’s (1979, 2003) theories of how ideas permeate systems in terms of technological advancements and the changes required for individuals to become initiated into new ways of thinking and acting in virtual spaces are balanced with outcomes and activities involving student learning. Other considerations are organizational capacity and agents of change (Fullan, 2013) and technological capacity (Rogers, 2003). In light of the literature on change and integration of technology (Fullan, 2013) and diffusion of technological innovation (Rogers, 2003), however, these results indicate a need for technical assistance and training resources.

Institutional Practicalities: Supporting Faculty Moving to Online Teaching

As postsecondary institutions attempt to maintain or increase course enrolments, their plans to expand course delivery via online modalities have been met with resistance from some departments and some individuals who might feel threatened by the increased competition from these virtual options (Anderson, 2008). For example, in 2018, 59% of faculty surveyed in Canada reported an overall lack of acceptance of online instruction (Canadian Digital Learning Research Association, 2019). In addition to considerations of how faculty transition through phases of change, institutions need to consider certain practicalities involved in supporting those faculty. Participants in the PAR noted the need for their institution to recognize the effort and innovation of the early adopters, to balance fiscal realities with requests for online courses, to support the pedagogical champions leading the institution’s movement online, and to establish and maintain communities of practice that support the technological, pedagogical, and administrative needs of online faculty.

Objective monitoring and evaluative measurement designed for online teaching are needed (Anderson, 2008), especially as faculty move through the transitional phases of implementation. Furthermore, instructional designers, program administrators, and faculty must be aware of and address constraints that will limit or impede learner participation, such as economics, geography, social barriers, and the technology itself (Bates, 2005; Bell & MacDougall, 2013; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2010). For example, courses designed using a blend of delivery methods including asynchronous text-based discussions and live or recorded audio or video components can address issues emerging from poor Internet connectivity and student scheduling of learning around work and family responsibilities (Kraglund-Gauthier, 2016).

Conclusion

This study helps to fill a void in the literature on teaching online, in particular in terms of how faculty learn to navigate in virtual classrooms and how they create or maintain their professional identities and connections to a community of practice with peers also experiencing change. The overarching significance of this work is a greater understanding of how faculty approach change, alter their thoughts and actions, and manage the preliminary process of transitioning to online course offerings.

Overall, it is evident that an application of Lewin’s (1951) model of change can explain how faculty transition to teaching in virtual classrooms. Lewin’s phases of freezing, unfreezing, and refreezing assessed within the context of Fullan’s (2001, 2013) stages of change during the implementation of a new software tool or process can enlighten the work done by faculty and the instructional designers who work alongside them. Like the PAR design that requires a safe space in which to explore unknowns without concerns about being viewed negatively (Bergold & Thomas, 2012), participants’ reactions underscore the need to validate emotional and instructional concerns, discuss training needs, and make these new boundaries between instructional support and technological support explicit for all, mirroring observations by Bonk (2001) and more recently by Allen et al. (2012) and Aldunate and Nussbaum (2013). Online teaching needs support to continue to develop.

The Framework for Conceptualizing Transitions from Face-to-Face to Online Teaching (Kraglund-Gauthier, 2016) is a way of conceptualizing and organizing what is known about online teaching in both voice-based synchronous and text-based asynchronous spaces from the perspectives of faculty, whose voices have been noticeably absent from the literature. When the framework is used as a discussion and planning tool, stakeholders can better understand faculty members’ stages of change, pedagogical stances, technical skills, senses of academic identity (Clarke, Hyde, & Drennan, 2013; Feather, 2014; Wenger, 1998), and the practicalities within the institution (Paul, 2014; Rumble, 2014).

Instructional designers can use the framework to guide their work in developing online courses and to understand better instructors’ pedagogical stances, technical skills, and senses of academic identity and the practicalities within institutions. At the microlevel, they can, as Campbell and Schwier (2014) noted, work with institutions to “articulate needs for professional development and help organizations to build the capacity to respond to needs and opportunities” (p. 370). Institutionalization and acceptance of online courses require support from respected champions of online teaching and learning, changes in organizational culture, and an environment in which a vibrant community of practice can flourish.

APPENDIX A: Selected Survey Questions

In addition to demographic questions, participants were asked to provide their feedback on a series of questions using a Likert ranking of 1=Strongly Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree.

8. Indicate the degree to which you disagree/agree with the following questions by placing a checkmark (✓) in the appropriate column.

NOTE: Face-to-face teaching refers to formal learning situations in which the facilitator and the students share the same physical location at the same time.

1. I enjoy learning new methods for face-to-face (f-2-f) teaching.
2. I enjoy learning new methods for online teaching.
3. I am able to attend to learners’ needs in an f-2-f classroom.
4. I am able to attend to learners’ needs in an online classroom.
5. I am confident I can accommodate individual learner differences in f-2-f classrooms.
6. I am confident I can accommodate individual learner differences in online classrooms.
7. I believe a sense of community can be developed in my f-2-f classroom.
8. I believe a sense of community can be developed in my online classroom.
9. I enjoy exploring new technology options for teaching f-2-f.
10. I enjoy exploring new technology options for teaching online.
11. I have the time to commit to learning new teaching techniques for f-2-f learning.
12. I have the time to commit to learning new teaching techniques for online learning.
13. I believe f-2-f classes are efficient ways for students to earn an M.Ed.
14. I believe online classes are efficient ways for students to earn an M.Ed.
15. I have a “Plan B” when I am planning f-2-f lessons.
16. I have a “Plan B” when I am planning online lessons.
17. I prefer to teach my online course from my office.
18. I prefer to teach my online course from my home.
19. I have a reliable Internet connection when I teach my online course from my office.
20. I have a reliable Internet connection when I teach my online course from my home.

Appendix B: Guiding Questions for Focus Group Sessions 1, 2, 3

Focus Group Session 1

1. In order to get to know a bit more about everyone in the group, please introduce yourselves and tell us something about your face-to-face and/or teaching experience.
2. What courses are you teaching face-to-face this term? What courses are you teaching online this term?
3. What are your opinions about teaching online compared to teaching face-to-face?
4. As part of an action research project, our sessions are designed to explore an issue related to online learning, determine ways to address that issue, and plan a course of action. Let’s take some time to discuss the potential issues we can explore and determine which one to focus on this term. What are your thoughts?
5. How shall we move this issue further?

Focus Group Session 2

1. In our first focus group session and in my individual interviews with you, we have been exploring the issue of [insert issue here]. We decided to [insert plan here]. How is that going?
2. What information, skills, and/or assistance do you need at this point in order to move the issue forward?
3. Do we need to adjust the plan? Why? How?
4. What are you noticing about your own teaching style and orientation to online classrooms?

References

Aldunate, R., & Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 519–524. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J., with Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and online education, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/IHE-BSRG-Conflict.pdf

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45–74). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer Studies in Distance Education.

Bates, T. (2018). The 2017 national survey of online learning in Canadian post-secondary education: Methodology and results. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(29), 1–17. doi:10.1186/s41239-018-0112-3

Bedford, L. (2014). The REEAL model: A framework for faculty training in online discussion facilitation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 463–472.

Bell, M., & MacDougall, K. (2013). Adapting online learning for Canada’s northern public health workforce. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 72, 1–7. doi:10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21345

Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changed environment for teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Media International, 41(3), 231–248.

Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Forum: Qualitative Social Research/Sozialforschung, 13(1), Art. 30. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1201302

Bonk, C. J. (2001). Online teaching in an online world. Englewood, CO: JonesKnowledge. Retrieved from http://www.jonesknowledge.com/pdf/faculty_survey_report.pdf

Bonnel, W. (2008). Improving feedback to students in online courses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(5), 290–294.

Brennan, M., & Noffke, S. E. (1997). Uses of data in action research. In T. R. Carson & D. Sumara (Eds.), Action research as a living practice (pp. 23–43). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002.

Campbell, K., & Schwier, R. A. (2014). Major movements in instructional design. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 345–371). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

The Canadian Council on Learning. (2009). State of e-learning in Canada. Retrieved from http://en.copian.ca/library/research/ccl/elearning/elearning.pdf

Canadian Digital Learning Research Association. (2019). Tracking online and distance education in Canadian universities and colleges: 2018. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurveycanada.ca/download/556/

Clarke, M., Hyde, A., & Drennan, J. (2013). Professional identity in higher education. In B. M. Kehm & U. Teichler (Eds.), The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges (Vol. 18, pp. 7–21). The changing academy: The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective. New York, NY: Springer.

Conole, G. (2014). The use of technology in distance education. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 217–236). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Contact North. (2013). A new pedagogy is emerging . . . and online learning is a key contributing factor. Retrieved from https://teachonline.ca/tools-trends/how-teach-online-student-success/new-pedagogy-emerging-and-online-learning-key-contributing-factor

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. (2015). Chapter 17: Action research designs. In Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (pp. 578–597). Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and change: Changing how we change. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 237–286). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Feather, D. (2014). Defining academic: Real or imagined. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 110–123. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.914921

Friesen, N. (2010). The place of the classroom and the space of the screen: Relational pedagogy and Internet technology. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.

Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Don Mills, ON: Pearson.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_Critical_Inquiry_model.pdf

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. F. (2010). Foundations of distance education. In M. F. Cleveland-Innes & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), An introduction to distance education: Understanding teaching and learning in a new era (pp. 13–25). New York, NY: Routledge.

The GO Project. (2008). Getting online: A research report on online learning for Canadian literacy practitioners. Retrieved from http://en.copian.ca/library/research/goreport/goreport.pdf

Hanover Research. (2014). The state of online postsecondary education. Retrieved from https://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/The-State-of-Online-Postsecondary-Education.pdf

Kang, S. (2007). Disembodiment in online social interaction: Impact of online chat on social support and psychosocial well-being. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(3) 475–477. https://doi.org/:10.1089/cpb.2006.9929

Kanuka, H. (2008). Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice through philosophies-in-practice. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 91–118). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Kornelsen, L. (2006). Teaching with presence. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 111, 73–82. doi:10.1002/ace.229

Kraglund-Gauthier, W. L. (2016). An investigation of post-secondary instructors’ experiences moving from face-to-face to online teaching: Identifying changes to practice, pedagogical beliefs, and academic identity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Lalonde, C. (2011). Courses that deliver: Reflecting on constructivist critical pedagogical approaches to teaching online and on-site foundations courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 108–123.

Laurillard, D. (2005). E-learning in higher education. In P. Ashwin (Ed.), Changing higher education: The development of teaching and learning (pp. 71–84). London, UK: Routledge.

Lehman, R. M., & Conceiçāo, S. C. O. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: How to “be there” for distance learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Sociological Issues, 2(4), 34–46.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

Major, C. (2010). Do virtual professors dream of electric students? College faculty experiences with online distance education. Teachers College Record, 112(8), 2154–2208.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Chapter 2: Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–35). London, UK: Routledge.

Noffke, S. (1994). Action research: Towards the next generation. Educational Action Research, 2(1), 9–21. doi:10.1080/09650799400200010

Nussbaum, S., & Ritter Hall, L. (2012). The connected educator: Learning and leading in a digital age. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices. Higher Education, 68(1), 29–45.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.

Paul, R. (2014). Organization and management of online and distance education. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 175–196). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1979). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 290–301.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rumble, G. (2014). The costs and economies of online distance education. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 197–216). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 59–70. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003

Sutherland-Smith, W., & Saltmarsh, S. (2010). Minding the ‘P’s for implementing online education: Purpose, pedagogy, and practicalities. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(7), 64–77.

Swan, K., & Shih, L-F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

1 Throughout this chapter, I use the term “online” to refer to the mode of course delivery: that is, using Internet technologies in fully online or blended courses. I use the term “virtual” to refer to the digital space of the online classroom.

2 Blackboard is the software company, Learn is its learning management system (LMS) platform, and Collaborate is its synchronous virtual classroom.