Keywords

1 Introduction

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has shifted higher education in significant ways. In March 2020, many colleges and universities around the world switched abruptly from face-to-face to remote delivery of courses in response to the public health emergency. To better understand what this novel phenomenon entails for faculty in the longer term, research is needed to examine its impact on faculty perceptions over time. To address this problem, our mixed-method study sought to elucidate how faculty members have adapted to emergency remote teaching between Spring 2020 and Fall 2020 and discuss what lessons we have learned based on our study findings.

1.1 Notion of Emergency Move to Remote Teaching

Since the unprecedented global pandemic began in early 2020, an increasing body of research has investigated the recent institutional transition to remote teaching and suggested that this phenomenon should be considered as distinct from pre-planned and carefully designed online or distance education. Emergency remote teaching forces teachers to deliver courses with limited support within a very short amount of preparation time (Hodges et al., 2020; Trust & Whalen, 2020). Like teachers in traditional classrooms, teachers in the emergency remote teaching situation need to navigate through an iterative process of constantly evaluating the circumstances and resources available, classifying environmental factors that they can or cannot control, and adjusting teaching methods. But unlike a traditional classroom, many of these teachers have little or no experience in an online environment, are unfamiliar with the technology required, and have little to no time to prepare for the transition (Whittle et al., 2020). Not to mention the fact that their students might be equally unprepared and inexperienced in an online class.

Research findings have revealed that emergency remote teaching demands a great deal of effort and flexibility at both the faculty and institution level. For example, institutions should be capable of providing an extensive library of open online resources such as webinars and pre-planning to prepare necessary tools for online teaching (Kessler et al., 2020; Safi et al., 2020). Furthermore, this emergency has prompted some institutions to develop innovative and sustainable tools that can be easily scaled across many courses to improve remote teaching practices (Lee et al., 2020).

1.2 Challenges with Adapting to Online Teaching

From a faculty perspective, the implementation of new teaching technology can be seen a daunting task because it generally requires institutional support and opportunities to practice implementation (Kukulska-Hulmes, 2012). Safi et al. (2020) support this perceived difficulty, as their findings suggest that adapting to new technology, creating interactive class materials, and arranging collaborative projects were among the top concerns for faculty during the period of emergency remote teaching. In another study, Cutri et al. (2020) have expanded the concept of faculty readiness to transition to online teaching in the context of the pandemic crisis. Their findings suggest that faculty online readiness can be viewed as rather “forced readiness” in which preparation and teaching occur almost simultaneously due to uncertainty and temporality of the context (p. 533). To gain further insight into faculty’s challenges, our study focuses on capturing faculty voices through the means of online surveys and case study interviews.

To mitigate faculty concerns with online teaching, previous research has emphasized the need for online platform and pedagogical training. For instance, one-on-one assistance through collaboration with colleagues and university personnel have been found to enhance faculty’s preparation for online teaching (Lackey, 2011). However, it is possible that these well-known types of resources may not necessarily be feasible to supporting emergency remote teaching practices due to limited time and resources. Our mixed-method study aims to offer implications for the types of resources that faculty members have actually sought and found as potentially beneficial during the transition to online teaching.

Our study poses four research questions. First, how did faculty deliver instruction and perceive during emergency remote teaching between Spring 2020 and Fall 2020? Second, what instructional strategies did faculty use to support students’ online learning? Third, what were some salient challenges faculty faced during remote teaching? Finally, what resources can be helpful in the future?

2 Method

2.1 Participants and Settings

Two anonymous online surveys were administered to teaching faculty at a technology-focused public university in a southern state of the US, with one toward the end of Spring 2020 (sent on April 10th, 2020) and another in Fall 2020 (sent on December 15th, 2020). Each survey was open for 2 weeks. As a result, 266 faculty respondents completed the Spring survey, while there were 148 respondents for the Fall survey, out of roughly 1100 faculty overall. Of those 148 Fall 2020 respondents, only 40 reported that they had participated in the Spring 2020 survey. In general, the distribution of demographic characteristics of faculty who responded to the survey was similar between the two semesters (see Table 17.1).

Table 17.1 Distribution of demographic characteristics of survey respondents
Full size table

For the case study, seven faculty members (three non-tenure-track and four tenure-track faculty members) participated in one-on-one interviews during May 2020. Three participants were from the College of Design, two from the College of Engineering, and the other two from the College of Sciences. The range of years of teaching at the institution was between 2 and 34 years.

2.2 Procedures and Data Sources

To capture both general trends and faculty voices for understanding the complex phenomenon of emergency remote teaching, our study adopted a convergent mixed methods design in which we gathered both quantitative and qualitative data concurrently and compared the results (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). First, the researchers coordinated with the Office of Provost to distribute a survey link through the all-faculty e-mail listserv. Only faculty who were currently teaching and used to teach in-person were invited to participate. Interested faculty were asked to review a consent form before continuing the survey, which took less than 20 min to complete.

For the case study interviews, a stratified sampling method was used in which we contacted via e-mail two or three faculty members who were recommended by the Dean’s Office in each of the six colleges. Faculty members who expressed an interest in participating in the study were asked to review a consent form before proceeding. The individual interview sessions took place virtually and were audio-recorded using BlueJeans, a web-conferencing tool. Each session lasted for approximately 30–40 min.

2.3 Measures and Data Analysis

The online survey consisted of 18 closed-ended and 2 open-ended questions that were designed to capture participants’ remote teaching experiences. Measures of faculty perceptions consisted of five specific scales, including: degree of adjustment to instruction, suitability of course subject to remote teaching, and perceived level of comfort, satisfaction, and difficulty. The quantitative portion of the survey data was analyzed primarily by using descriptive statistics. Regarding the qualitative data (i.e., open-ended response data), a constant comparison analysis was conducted in which we iteratively compared and interpreted codes to identify broad patterns of perceptions or behaviors across the respondents (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019).

Questions for the case study interview were designed to gather faculty’s input about their teaching background (five questions) and emergency remote teaching experience (five questions). Two of the researchers analyzed the case study interview data with a particular focus on identifying the participants’ salient needs and areas of resources that may be beneficial in the future. We conducted a systematic coding analysis to compare the data collected within and across cases and thereby capture nuanced viewpoints (Yin, 2003). We first created initial categories about notable issues and resources and subsequently made detailed descriptions of each case. Then, we expanded and revised codes through an iterative process of carefully describing and classifying codes and interpreting relevant themes that emerged across the data (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). Specifically, through this process, we identified six broad categories of resources that can help meet faculty needs.

3 Findings

3.1 Faculty Experience and Perception About Transition

First, we sought to examine how faculty delivered instruction to adapt to emergency remote teaching . There was a notable difference in the trends between Spring and Fall respondents such that they have increasingly used synchronous or live delivery methods and even some in-person methods, which is somewhat expected. Almost half of the total Spring respondents (47%) reported using a combination of asynchronous and synchronous methods. Also, 35% primarily used synchronous methods while the remaining 18% relied on asynchronous methods. Among Fall respondents, 48% reported primarily using synchronous methods. Another 33% indicated implementing face-to-face elements. Only 19% reported using asynchronous methods.

Then we examined the faculty’s perceptions, specifically around the degree of adjustment, suitability, comfort, satisfaction, and difficulty (see Table 17.2).

Table 17.2 Comparison of transitioning perceptions between the semesters
Full size table

On average, the Fall group reported making slightly more adjustments and perceiving more difficulty in switching classroom activities to online than did the Spring group. However, interestingly, the Spring group perceived on average that their course subjects were only “moderately” suitable for online instruction whereas the Fall group indicated “very” suitable. Also, the Fall group reported an increased level of comfort toward conducting remote teaching activities, compared to the Spring group. Yet, within the comfort scale in each semester, a relatively large proportion of faculty (22% in Spring and 23% in Fall) reported either “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” with engaging students in interactive discussions online. Both groups also reported very similar levels of average satisfaction, which ranged somewhere between “neutral” and “satisfied.” Within the satisfaction scale, assessing student learning was the area with which both groups were least satisfied, as nearly 30% reported being “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied.”

3.2 Instructional Strategies to Support Student Learning

We analyzed the survey response data collected from two open-ended questions to capture a snapshot of how the faculty respondents generally dealt with the issues of decreased interactivity since switching to remote teaching. In one question, we asked the respondents to report any instructional strategies they used to enhance a sense of belonging in their courses. As a result of the analysis, four broad topics emerged from both surveys. In Spring 2020, 27% of total comments (n = 214) mentioned providing students with social support by showing empathy and warmth or by holding a virtual “happy hour” in which the class members could casually interact with one another in real time. The respondents also commonly reported having frequent communications with students about their learning experiences through virtual office hours (25%) or engaging students in collaborative activities (e.g., discussion boards) (23%). Another 19% mentioned offering students personalized care or being responsive to students’ individual concerns through email or phone calls. The results of the Fall 2020 survey showed slightly different trends (n = 111). Almost half of the comments (45%) mentioned using collaborative activities, and 34% mentioned offering extra class meetings. Compared to Spring, a smaller proportion of respondents reported providing social support (12%) and personalized care (5%), suggesting that faculty might feel that students had adapted better by Fall and thus perceived less need for social support.

Another question asked how the faculty accounted for students in disadvantaged situations such as having limited access to the internet. Results from both surveys revealed that many faculty members added some degree of flexibility to the format of lectures, assignments, or exams (e.g., logistics, deadlines), 60% of the total comments from Spring (n = 244) and 63% from Fall (n = 118). One of the commonly mentioned strategies included dividing a continuous long lecture into a series of short videos—typically less than 15 min—when uploading pre-recorded lecture videos. Next, 15% of the Spring total and 22% of the Fall total reported accommodating students’ individual needs related to time zone differences or electronic device issues. The remaining 11% in Spring and 5% in Fall indicated that they were aware of the issues but did not use specific strategies. Overall, these suggest faculty used creative strategies to support students’ learning and access to resources.

3.3 Challenges During Emergency Remote Teaching

Finally, we examined prevalent challenges and issues that faculty often faced during emergency remote teaching. Our survey findings showed that many faculty respondents continued to encounter a range of challenges across the semesters. These challenges centered on connectivity and technical problems. One survey question asked respondents to report whether they had any issues during remote teaching and if so, what the major sources of these issues were. In the Spring data (n = 243), more than three quarters of respondents (76%) reported having some issues related to remote teaching. Regarding the primary sources of issues, internet connectivity was most frequently reported (20%), technical issues outside their control was next (14%), followed by teaching equipment issues (12%). Thirty percent of those who reported having issues chose “Other” sources of issues. Similarly, yet a slightly higher percentage of the Fall respondents (82%; total n = 142) reported experiencing some issues such as technical issues (20% of this 82%), connectivity problems (19%), and teaching equipment issues (13%) and other issues (30%).

To broaden our understanding of the source of these issues, we analyzed optional open-ended comments submitted by those respondents who selected the “Other” category. According to their comments, these issues fell within four broad categories: (1) unfamiliarity with instructional tools (28% of the Spring total; 30% of the Fall total); (2) difficulty of assessment (26% in Spring; 19% in Fall); (3) students’ accessibility issues, different time zones, and personal challenges (29% in Spring; 30% in Fall); and (4) time constraints and extra effort from instructors (17% in Spring; 21% in Fall). Our findings suggest that faculty’s challenges appeared to stem mainly from technology issues across the semesters. However, it is worthwhile to note that many of our respondents had to continue dealing with both their students’ and their own personal and emotional challenges, which seemed to add more difficulty to their transitioning experience. Moreover, as we observed in case study interviews, we should note that there exist varying needs and other important individual factors (e.g., familiarity with technology, home environment, professional history) that might explain different transitioning experiences.

3.4 Lessons Learned: Implications for Helpful Resources

Finally, we were interested in drawing implications for types of resources that can help faculty better cope with future emergency remote teaching situations. A set of survey questions asked faculty to rate the helpfulness of various instructional resources for remote teaching that were available at the institution during Spring 2020 and Fall 2020. Across the semesters, many respondents rated support from their department or college and shared tips from other faculty as either “very” or “somewhat” helpful, ranging from 57% to 73% (see Fig. 17.1). In fact, these types of resources continued to be sought by faculty most actively, indicating that faculty might view such internal resources as beneficial for the emergency situation. We also observed a notable uptick in faculty who sought instructional resources from technology experts on campus. This suggests that faculty’s needs for receiving appropriate technology support require constant attention from the institution.

Fig. 17.1
figure 1

Perceived helpfulness of different resources for remote teaching

Full size image

With respect to the interview data, we identified six broad categories as a result of the coding analysis. The first category is provision of accessible teaching equipment and tools. The participants often mentioned that they wished they could receive more help from technology experts or IT staff to learn new features in the Canvas learning management system or get access to a variety of digital tools that are suitable for different modes of course delivery. Second, the need to increase logistically accessible learning materials and facilities for students was also brought up frequently, especially for hands-on subjects (e.g., studio courses). As for the third category, the participants echoed the potential benefit of receiving customized support for remote teaching. Examples of such types of resources would include proactive support from the department (e.g., purchasing equipment), workshops tailored to subject matter or class size, and tips from peer faculty members. Fourth, many participants expressed interest in connecting with teaching experts to have opportunities to learn, practice and apply various instructional strategies to online teaching. They were interested in learning best practices to personalize teaching, maintain student engagement, and facilitate critical thinking and collaborative learning. These findings suggest the value of providing individual faculty members with personalized resources and tools that they can implement effectively and efficiently to their remote teaching.

Fifth, beyond individual perspectives, the participants generally voiced the need for active communication from the institution to ensure quality and standards in remote teaching and learning. They often mentioned that they would benefit from receiving clearer guidance on exams or assessment policies (e.g., honor code, digital proctoring) and resources to promote the sustainability of a hybrid teaching model. Lastly, it seems crucial that the institution dedicates resources to supporting the well-being of faculty members. These resources are expected to not only make the transition less stressful for faculty but also equip faculty with appropriate tools to help students overcome personal challenges. Overall, our findings highlight the essential role of institutions in setting clear expectations about emergency remote teaching practices and building a supportive campus community that can help faculty members meet such expectations.

4 Conclusion

During emergency remote teaching and swift adoption of the hybrid teaching mode, faculty perceived increased levels of comfort and greater suitability of their courses for online teaching. Moreover, faculty appeared to shift their focus of instructional strategies from social and emotional support to academic support by implementing various interactive class activities and actively addressing individual students’ needs. Nevertheless, faculty continued to experience obstacles associated with reduced interactivity and connectivity while adapting to remote teaching. Based on our findings, institutions should consider increasing accessibility of teaching and learning tools, provide systematic resources to ensure instructional quality, and encourage local units (e.g., colleges, schools) to proactively support faculty needs and concerns.