Looking Through the Lens of Online Faculty in Higher Education

According to Ponnuswamy and Manohar (2016), higher education institutions (HEIs) are the foundation for building the intellectual capacity of a nation where knowledge can be utilized. Similarly, diversifying faculty brings a unique perspective of personal, social, and professional experiences and information that can be merged and used to strengthen higher education (Abdul-Raheem, 2016). For this reason, many higher education institutions are preparing their graduates to be more diversity conscious and able to work with individuals from many cultures by increasing opportunities for exposure to and interaction with diverse populations (Wilson, 2013). Particularly, studies of diversity and related educational outcomes within higher education typically focus on one or a combination of three categories such as structural diversity, interactions with diverse others, and curricular or classroom diversity (Andrew et al., 2015). For instance, for the structural diversity category, Park et al. (2013) suggest that it includes socioeconomic strata that may be less apparent among demographic data, but brings students together across class lines. Next, for the interactions with diverse others category, Andrew et al. (2015) indicate that it includes both formal and informal associations (e.g., as part of friendship groups, on residence hall floors, in the classroom). Finally, for the curricular or classroom diversity category, Denson’s definition of curricular diversity as “intentionally structured and purposeful programmatic efforts to help students engage in diversity in the form of both ideas and people” (2009, p. 806) includes servicelearning, required diversity courses, and other pedagogical practice that introduce diverse perspectives and explore controversial issues (Andrew et al., 2015). Consequently, faculty members’ broad range of academic and socializing responsibilities have an unrivaled influence in determining the campus climate for learning (Reason, 2013). Therefore, to have a perceptiveness of online faculty, the following paragraphs will address specific insight into the faculty’s role, teaching philosophy, teacher’s self-efficacy, and emotional intelligence.

According to Konst and Scheinin (2018), teaching is not sharing knowledge and skills but guiding and encouraging students in lifelong learning and working communally and collaboratively. In other words, teaching is closer to coaching, being interprofessional by nature. Interprofessional teaching is an approach where the teacher is not an information provider, rather more like a guide ensuring that the group searches information, shares it, and examines it from viewpoints of several professions (Konst & Scheinin, 2018). Meaning, the role of the online faculty is to use dialog with students to explore the learned behavior and to be able to inspire them to learn and change (Konst & Scheinin, 2018). Although true, the role of the teacher is never uniquely defined, and its definition is influenced by many factors (Makovec, 2018). For instance, a teacher’s role is defined by cultural and social events and the environment, and both influence the differences that occur in the conceptions of the roles of teachers within different cultures and societies, including the geographic environment (Makovec, 2018). The factors that influence online faculty are internal and external. Internal factors include those that influence a teacher’s own perception of their role (Makovec, 2018). When influencing the role of the diverse faculty, internal factors consist of two categories, such as (a) teacher’s own beliefs about which role is essential and (b) teacher’s expectations for their specific role (Makovec, 2018). External factors include the views and expectations of the online teacher, which arise among other stakeholders, such as pupils, parents, colleagues, school leaders, and the public (Makovec, 2018).

For this reason, more and more universities expect teachers to meet societal demands, the demands of the professional field, and a diverse new generation of students (van den Bos & Brouwer, 2014). Online faculty must be redefined and connected to a plethora of diverse names such as faculty developers, instructional designers, instructional facilitators, and subjectmatter experts. As a faculty developer, the experience of teaching and being in the classroom has a direct effect on one’s role and changes one’s way of teaching (Gregory & Burbage, 2017). Rather than altogether leaving the classroom, Sullivan et al. (2016) argue that it is important to continue to teach while in the role of faculty developer. For this reason, Butler et al. (2014) identified a reciprocal relationship between teacher and teacher educator in that each role informed the identity development of the other, a relationship that could similarly be experienced as faculty developers. In other words, working collaboratively with colleagues, faculty developers can reflect upon their teaching philosophy to unpack their practice, recognize any gaps in their teaching, and then identify changes for future teaching practices (Hegarty, 2015).

On the other hand, instructional designers are established as integral to successful design through their role as active, influential change agents. They bring their own experiences, perceptions, and interpretations to the situation, and recursively refine both the design problem, potential solutions, and perspectives through the transactional process of reflection (Tracey & Boling, 2013). For novice instructional designers, Honebein and Honebein (2015) recommend opportunities to develop reflective thinking skills that are important for professional development in alignment with design thinking. Not only is there merit in the knowledge constructed as a consequence of reflection, but developing the skill of reflection is, in and of itself, a valuable learning outcome, especially for novice designers who will rely on reflective thinking to navigate their professional practice (Honebein & Honebein, 2015). In other words, reflection (before, during, and after the design situation) serves as the dialogic bridge between the problem and the designer’s knowledge derived from their personal set of precedents and in doing so, provides a springboard for design judgments, decisions, and actions (Honebein & Honebein, 2015). In particular, during in-class activities, the role of the online faculty changes from being the conveyor of content to class facilitator (Schwartz, 2014). As a result, hiring instructional designers is one of the ways that an institution can meet the growing demand for online courses.

Similarly, instructional facilitators (IFs) are mostly graduate students with teaching experience who work under the lead instructional designer (Shaver, 2017). Specifically, the instructional facilitator’s primary responsibility is to guide instructors through the course development process and support them throughout the semester through three guiding principles (Shaver, 2017). The first guiding principle for IFs is to listen to the instructor’s goals and vision for the course (Shaver, 2017). The second guiding principle is to allow online teacher’s experience and opinions to drive the course development process because it leads to a more congenial working relationship (Shaver, 2017). The third guiding principle is to create a relaxed atmosphere infused with humor and understanding because it disarms even the most resistant or reluctant participant (Shaver, 2017). Finally, subject-matter experts (SMEs), or as they are sometimes called, subject matter specialists (SMSs), are individuals who possess knowledge (often technical or procedural) that technical communicators must tap into to compose such texts as user guides, reference guides, online help, and training materials (Rice-Bailey, 2016). Specifically, people who typically work as SMEs consist of engineers, computer programmers/analysts, technicians, and tradespeople (Rice-Bailey, 2016). According to IBM Institute for Business Value (2015), there is already a belief among subject matter experts that current computer architectures and programming paradigms must advance to take cognitive computing to the next level, including natural language processing that is a part of knowledge-based/artificial augmentation systems. In the same way, it may be time for instructional designers, IT professionals, and SMEs to take distance learning to a new level by incorporating what knowledge-based systems have to offer in the way of administrative, tutoring, feedback, and research support (Crowe et al., 2017). Therefore, in higher education, the role of online faculty can be accomplished by enhancing and redefining the cognitive process of distance learning for faculty developers, instructional designers, instructional facilitators, and subject matter experts (Crowe et al., 2017).

When looking through the lens of online faculty, it is essential to understand the teaching philosophy. According to Gregory and Burbage (2017), teaching philosophy represents who one is as an educator, what their beliefs about teaching and learning are, and what their practice looks like in and out of the classroom. Specifically, teaching philosophies provide a space for faculty to explore their practice and identify their beliefs about teaching and learning (Gregory & Burbage, 2017). Additionally, as one’s role changes in the context of the classroom and institution, teaching philosophies must be revised to reflect one’s new identity (Hegarty, 2015). A teaching philosophy “serves as a silent mentor guiding faculty toward continuous improvement” (Hegarty, 2015, p. 29), allowing faculty to recognize their changing role as a teacher while also considering the changing students, changing classroom, and changing field of education (Gregory & Burbage, 2017). In other words, the role of the teacher is to promote class discussion of the content reviewed by moderating individual or group discussions, incorporating case studies/clinical scenarios, and reviewing an evidencebased journal or research article on a current practice change (Matsuda et al., 2017). For this reason, teaching approaches beyond the traditional lecture format are considered the most effective in engaging students and promoting learning (Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013).

Accordingly, teachers’ beliefs about education help them choose instructional content, set teaching objectives, develop instructional materials, engage in interaction with learners, and evaluate overall outcomes of both teaching and learning processes (Kovačević & Akbarov, 2016). For this reason, teachers are entrusted with the responsibility of preparing students for the future (Maguad, 2018). Along with teaching philosophies, instructor preference, and student learning style typically drive styles of teaching (Bonnici et al., 2016). For instance, instructional styles include lecture, passive (reading), observation (shadowing projects), and active learning through laboratory or practical tasks (Bonnici et al., 2016). There are several teaching approaches, such as teacher-centered, learner-centered, climate-building, experiential-oriented, and participatory-oriented teaching styles. First, teachercentered styles are driven by the assumption that the learner is naturally passive and is turned active after being stimulated to do so. Accordingly, a teacher-oriented style favors lecturing and does not base objectives on individual motives and abilities (Kovačević & Akbarov, 2016). If an educator determines the learning objectives before the program starts and does not abandon or change them until the end of the program and if the disciplined class is found stimulatory for learning, the educator displays a teacher-centered style (Kovačević & Akbarov, 2016).

On the other hand, a learner-oriented teaching style lets the lesson and process of learning pace itself—older students are allowed more time to complete the tasks when they need it (Kovačević & Akbarov, 2016). According to Simonson et al. (2015), “this philosophy of education has become popularly known as student-centered learning because it so strongly promotes active learning, collaboration, mastery, of course material, and student control over the learning process” (p. 105). The educator is practicing a learner-centered approach if an educator takes into account a learner’s prior experience and encourages the learner to relate new learning experiences to the previous ones. Particularly, a learner-centered teaching style stimulates learner’s independence in the learning process and organizes learning tasks in the way they could be encountered in everyday life (Kovačević & Akbarov, 2016). Third, an experiential-oriented teaching style takes into account the learners’ goals and helps them see the gaps between their goals and their current performance. Through experience-oriented teaching, this style helps learners develop both short-range and long-range objectives (Kovačević & Akbarov, 2016). Fourth, the climate-building teaching style enables the teacher to foster and develop a friendly and informal atmosphere in a classroom and dialogue among the students (Kovačević & Akbarov, 2016). Lastly, a participatory-oriented teaching style identifies if a teacher provides learners a chance to participate in developing the criteria for evaluating their performance in class (Kovačević & Akbarov, 2016). With the participatory-oriented teaching style, students can participate in making decisions about the topics to be covered (Kovačević & Akbarov, 2016). Therefore, a teaching philosophy represents one’s educational beliefs, practices, and identity; identification of the teaching philosophy’s components can help faculty developers better understand their new identities as faculty developers (Gregory & Burbage, 2017).

In the same manner as a teaching philosophy, it is important to understand a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy. According to Kass (2013), previous studies have pointed to various factors in the teaching domain that interact with the teacher’s sense of self-efficacy, such as the pupils’ achievement, the sense of belonging to the professional community, the amount of collaborative work with colleagues, and the leadership style of the principal. However, according to Malinauskas (2017), selfefficacy is defined as one’s belief in one’s ability to effectively direct one’s actions to achieve the set goals and succeed in completing a specific task. Meaning, self-efficacy refers to a person’s perceived capability, as distinct from functional ability, to perform a particular action or course of action (Malinauskas, 2017). Likewise, Berei et al. (2017) state that self-efficacy expectations relate to the belief that one can successfully employ the behavior needed to achieve the outcome, while outcome expectations relate to a person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to a specific result. For instance, “teachers’ selfefficacy in the educational process expresses the degree of their confidence in their abilities and skills to teach effectively and solve problems” (Veronika et al., 2018, p. 663). The construct of self-efficacy emerged from Bandura’s social cognitive theory. For example, Bandura (1997) enlisted four sources that influence people’s self-efficacy beliefs, such as mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal or social persuasion, and physiological arousal or emotional state.

For this reason, Bandura (1993) pointed out that people with high self-efficacy tend to have greater cognitive resourcefulness, strategic flexibility, and effectiveness in managing their environment and set motivating goals for themselves. In a like manner, Meristro et al. (2013) state that “teachers with a higher sense of efficacy exhibit greater enthusiasm for teaching, are more open to new ideas, are more willing to experiment with new methods and exhibit a greater commitment to teaching” (p. 429). Similarly, Aziz and Quraishi (2017), state that

On the contrary, teachers with low selfefficacy are more likely to demonstrate behaviors that are considered harmful to their quality of teaching, such as pessimism regarding pupils’ ability to improve, refraining from acknowledging responsibility for pupils’ failures, a tendency to use traditional teaching methods rather than collaborative ones, and resistance to new ways of teaching (Kass, 2015). According to Kass (2015), these teachers tend to have difficulty dealing with discipline problems and focus mainly on scholastic achievements and less on pupils’ personal development. Likewise, Bandura (1997) points out that teachers with LSE are not confident about their abilities. They assume that they cannot perform well if the students are not self-motivated when teachers’ inspiration on students’ achievement and performance is severely affected by the societal atmosphere’s adverse impact. Meaning, teachers with LSE may feel exhausted due to limited resources to help students learn. Due to a perceived threat, these individuals will experience anxiety that will decrease their ability to concentrate on the task, which will have deleterious effects on their performance (Kass, 2015).

Therefore, empowering teaching experiences can support teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, whereas negative experiences may have a detrimental effect (Meristro et al., 2013). For instance, the more the teacher exudes self-confidence in the classroom, the more the students are likely to recognize the education provision as promoting a coherent learning package, befitting the goals of education and acquisition of the key competencies (Valdmann & Rannikmae, 2016). The literature reveals that there is a higher correlation between teaching presence and teachers with HSE than there is for teachers with LSE. The reason is that teaching presence focuses on teacher’s planning, structuring, and conducting of teaching and interventions in online environments (Bolldén, 2016).

According to Sung (2015), emotional intelligence need not be a particular program or method. The reason is that it may limit the delivery options to certain designs, which may not meet the professor’s needs (Sung, 2015). Nevertheless, according to Mjeski et al. (2017), emotional intelligence can be incorporated into course design and instruction in various ways. Meaning, through course design and instruction, instructors can use aspects of their emotional intelligence (e.g., emotional perception, emotional understanding, and emotional management) to help learners become more aware of and able to effectively manage their own emotions in their relationships with others (Mjeski et al., 2017). For this reason, the online teacher’s awareness of the opportunities to make connections between emotional intelligence and the content provides a way to transition into a class discussion about relational topics (Sung, 2015). For example, the online teacher can show emotional perception and understanding of learners’ need for emotional safety by creating clear guidelines for the respectful discussion of sensitive class topics and for managing differences and possible conflict (Mjeski et al., 2017). Notably, these guidelines should create a safe classroom environment that welcomes and engages a wide range of viewpoints, maintains respect for all, and promotes collaborative learning (Mjeski et al., 2017). Meaning, these guidelines aim to facilitate learning by helping students to enlarge their capacity for empathy and manage their own emotions when discussing sensitive class topics (Mjeski et al., 2017). For instance, by asking the right kinds of questions, students’ awareness and constructive thinking may be increased (Sung, 2015). According to Sung (2015), academic culture promotes emotional intelligence when the provost, dean, and directors value social and emotional intelligence learning. The specific areas of emotional intelligence teaching include:

• self-acceptance—change self-defeating thoughts and enhance personal power;

• recognizing feelings—be aware of defense mechanisms and own your emotions;

• beliefs and behaviors—identify values and self-defeating behavior;

• problem-solving/ decisionmaking—use problems as opportunities and put things in perspective, looking at the bigger picture; and

• interpersonal relationships—recognize the connection between negative feelings toward others and irrational beliefs (Sung, 2015).

Specifically, the online teacher can use emotional facilitation to engage learners in learning activities and support themselves with their own learning (Mjeski et al., 2017). For instance, written assignments can be designed to help learners develop emotional intelligence (Mjeski et al., 2017). Online teachers could use mastery and performance learning goals to promote emotional intelligence as it relates to learning (Mjeski et al., 2017). For example, implementing reflection papers can help learners cultivate perception, understanding, and management of emotions related to the process and content of learning (Mjeski et al., 2017). Incorporating a reflection paper heightens learners’ awareness of feelings about their own and others’ social identities. Therefore, online teachers will have the insight or perceptiveness to see through the lens of their diverse students through the use of emotional intelligence. Meaning, the online teacher’s ability to demonstrate aspects of emotional intelligence in different elements of course design and instruction is key to helping learners cultivate emotional intelligence, an important competence in management and leadership (Mjeski et al., 2017).

The lens of online faculty in higher education provides a meaningful, insightful, and educational perspective on teaching philosophy, teaching methodology, and teaching presence. Online faculty have the flexibility to impart unique teaching philosophies that represent one’s educational beliefs, identify best practices, and foster a classroom climate infused with educational theory and practical applications. Similarly, online faculty have the ingenuity to incorporate a plethora of teaching methodologies that engage, empower, and enhance student learning. Finally, online faculty have the opportunity to demonstrate teaching presence that involves being present attentively, empathetically, and thoughtfully. As a result, online faculty’s theoretical and educational perspectives provide specific insight that redefines faculty’s changing role, cultivates an educational teaching philosophy, incorporates a structural teaching methodology, and exemplifies a multicultural teaching presence.