Journal of Management Education-2014-CLaiborne-1052562914547964

Journal of Management Education
1–22
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1052562914547964
jme.sagepub.com
Article
Overcoming Faculty
Avoidance of Online
Education: From
Resistance to Support to
Active Participation
Lorianne D. Mitchell1, Jennifer D. Parlamis2,
and Sarah A. Claiborne3
Abstract
The online delivery of higher education courses and programs continues
to expand across academic disciplines at colleges and universities. This
expansion of online education has been precipitated by, among other things,
(a) the rise in personal computer ownership, (b) the ease of access to the
Internet, (c) the availability and continuous improvement in technology for
the delivery of online courses, and (d) the increase in demand for online
courses by both traditional and nontraditional students. However, the
proliferation of online education has not been enthusiastically supported
by all constituents of higher education. Specifically, some faculty members
remain resistant to the shift to online course delivery. This article applies the
Transtheoretical Model of Change to the process of gaining faculty support
for, and involvement in, online learning. After briefly reviewing current issues
in online education and making a case for its adoption, we describe sources
of faculty resistance and offer recommendations for interventions that may
be applied to transforming faculty resistance to support and eventually to
active participation.
1East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA
2University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
3Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Lorianne D. Mitchell, East Tennessee State University, College of Business and Technology,
Management and Marketing, Box 70625, Johnson City, TN 37614, USA.
Email: mitcheld@etsu.edu
547964JMEXXX10.1177/1052562914547964Journal of Management EducationMitchell et al.
research-article2014
at VALDOSTA STATE UNIV on March 3, 2015jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Journal of Management Education
Keywords
online education, change readiness, faculty, transtheoretical model of
change, TTM
Introduction
Technological advancements are among the most significant catalysts for
organizational change and transformation (Lewin & Gold, 1999). However,
despite the pervasive use of technology in the execution of daily activities
(e.g., electronic communications, social networking, and accessing breaking
news events), and the increasing demand from students for constantly avail-
able and flexible online learning options (Allen & Seaman, 2011), the use of
online technology in the delivery of higher education has not been fully
embraced. With regard to using advanced technology in the university class-
room, change has been slow and often fraught with conflict and
ambivalence.
Three important caveats should be mentioned. First, while fully online
courses have been slow to develop, some new and creative applications of
technology in higher education have been emerging over the last few decades.
These include the use of wikis and blogs for group work, smartboards and
iPads for in-class assignments and exercises, and Skype and Facebook chat
for student-to-student or student-to-faculty interaction (Macduff, 2012), just
to name a few. Second, proprietary (for-profit) institutions (e.g., University
of Phoenix, Kaplan University, and Walden University) have dominated the
online market for quite some time—attracting a niche of learners desiring
convenience in the pursuit of higher learning. Third, there has been a recent
increase in the number of online courses and programs referred to as MOOCs
(Massive Open Online Courses). MOOCs are online classes hosted by some
of the nation’s top institutions and offered to hundreds (sometimes thousands)
of enrolled learners with minimal involvement by the instructor (Zhu, 2012).
There is virtually no limit on the number of students that may be enrolled in
such courses.
Traditional brick-and-mortar institutions, founded as on-ground learning
facilities for higher education, have been very slow to adopt online education
for their traditional degree-granting programs. In this article, we first make a
case for the inclusion of online education as part of a basket of offerings at
traditional on-ground institutions. We then discuss the uncertainty and resis-
tance to change at these colleges and universities and identify faculty as an
instrumental constituent whose advocacy is critical to the adoption of online
education. Next, we identify several personal sources (adapted from Self &
Schraeder, 2009) of faculty resistance with online education. Finally, we use

Mitchell et al. 3
the Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM; Prochaska, Redding, & Evers,
2008) to propose ways of effectively facilitating faculty readiness or openness
for the change, as well as faculty readiness to become involved in the change.
A Case for Online Education
In this section, we present three primary arguments for online learning: (a)
technological advances strengthening a trend in online education, (b) peda-
gogical research citing the merits of online education, and (c) the benefits
online education holds for students. Each is discussed in turn next.
Technological Advances
The most important argument for online education is the need to adapt to our
current technologically advanced environment. Online education is part of a
growing trend (Wang, 2006) due in large part to the advances in course deliv-
ery software and increasing Internet sophistication of students. According to
a recent survey of online learning (Allen & Seaman, 2011), the number of
students taking online classes has doubled since 2005; in addition, 75% of
institutions reported an increase in demand for online courses (Allen &
Seaman, 2010). While still not as pervasive as its traditional on-ground coun-
terpart, online learning is showing impressive growth, something traditional
colleges and universities should acknowledge and begin to leverage.
Moreover, technological innovation is a well-documented external force
for change in the organizational development and change literature as tech-
nology creates one of the most imminent needs for change (Lewin & Gold,
1999). Indeed, those organizations that fail to effectively adapt when faced
with rapidly advancing technology may become stagnant or decline in their
organizational life cycle, which may ultimately lead to their failure (Lewin &
Gold, 1999). One such example of a company that perished due to its inabil-
ity or unwillingness to adapt to technological advances is America’s former
top video-rental chain. Blockbuster was forced into bankruptcy and eventu-
ally closed all of its stores after being bested by Netflix, an innovative startup
with a rent-by-mail business model. Blockbuster’s demise was attributed, in
large part, to its complacency and outdated business model. It ignored digiti-
zation when it was first introduced and later unsuccessfully attempted to
chase the trend Netflix had mastered years earlier (Baskin, 2013).
Blockbuster is just one example in a list of organizations (e.g., IBM,
Eastman Kodak, Blackberry) that failed to move swiftly enough when tech-
nology demanded that they change their business model. Whereas organiza-
tions such as Netflix harnessed the technological evolution and were able to

gain considerable market share in their respective industries, thus illustrating
that to thrive in the increasingly competitive marketplace, organizations
(including institutions of higher education) must align their strategic goals
with their competencies, organizational assets, organizational structure
(Fornaciari, Forte, & Mathews, 1999), and the demands of new technology.
One example of higher education institutions embracing technology and
rapidly gaining market share is the online-learning initiative edX. The result
of a collaboration in 2012 between Harvard University and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), edX is an open-source (freely available)
learning platform designed to offer high-quality online and on-campus edu-
cation (edx.org). The process of credentialing students for knowledge acqui-
sition and creating universally accepted metrics to assess the success of edX
and other online programs of its kind are important challenges still being
explored. Nevertheless, the significance of this new venture must be under-
scored given that two of America’s Ivy League institutions worked together
to offer free online education worldwide. Signaling its impact on the online
education arena, edX has rapidly expanded to include a consortium of global
leaders in higher education and has been named by Forbes as the world’s
largest not-for-profit MOOC (High, 2014). The example of the success of
edX is not to suggest that all traditional institutions should pursue the devel-
opment of MOOCs (which is only one aspect of edX’s role in online educa-
tion). Rather, edX illustrates how centuries-old traditional institutions are
capable of adapting to current technological innovation.
Pedagogical Research Support
Online courses can deliver innovative content in an efficient and rigorous
manner (Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, & Tamim, 2011) to the extent
that they are facilitated by motivated, well-trained faculty (Valentine, 2002;
Yang & Cornelious, 2005). Additionally, because of an increase in research
and pedagogical papers on the topic of online learning, instructors can access
research-based recommendations for facilitating learning in an online class-
room (e.g., Oliveira, Tinoca, & Pereira, 2011; Parlamis & Mitchell, 2014;
Payne & Johnson, 2005). Instructors may also leverage published informa-
tion about student motivation and multimedia learning strategies that have
been systematically investigated in the last decade (Abrami et al., 2011).
Benefits for Students
Among the many benefits for constituents of higher education, online learning
allows for greater flexibility and autonomy for students. A large proportion of

Mitchell et al. 5
current students belong to the millennial generation (born between 1980 and
2000). Millenials are technologically savvy multitaskers who regard the
Internet as a primary source of information. These students desire classes that
are accessible across great distances of space and time. Online education (a)
removes geographic restrictions, (b) features round-the-clock accessibility,
and (c) eliminates commuting costs of both time and money (Institute for
Higher Education Policy, 2000). Students benefit in that their choices of
school or program are expanded, they can better manage their personal lives,
and they can therefore take a more self-directed approach to learning.
In summary, online learning is the beginning of a trend that is transform-
ing higher education. However, despite the myriad benefits for organizations
and students, and the support offered to faculty through research-based peda-
gogical articles and books, there is still a great deal of resistance to the online
format by some faculty. We propose that for this technological transformation
to take place in higher education, individual faculty members must be at the
core of the change effort.
Faculty as Central to Planned Change in Higher
Education
Faculty, who are both the recipients and agents of change, must be open to
online education to increase the likelihood of its successful implementation.
Faculty are initially the recipients of the change as the decision to adapt online
education is often initiated by administrators in the institution. While change
agents (e.g., deans, department chairs, or program directors) may initiate the
shift to an online format, the faculty, both individually and as a collective
entity, have the power to fight or embrace the change. A pattern of faculty
resistance to change has been identified previously and particular cognitive
biases (e.g., endowment effect and loss aversion) have been identified as pos-
sible causes for the resistance (Halpern & Hakel, 2003; Tagg, 2012).
We maintain that the values of autonomy and academic freedom are strong
among faculty. If faculty view an initiative as interfering with these values, the
vehemence with which they protect these values can be intense. The reactions can
be passive or active but, ultimately, will form the foundation for the success or
failure of initiatives.As such, the role of faculty as change agent in the implemen-
tation of an online class format needs to be addressed directly. It is imperative that
faculty are on board with the change to online learning for it to succeed; if faculty
resist the change, they will likely have the power to make the initiative fail.
One illustration of the power of faculty to halt progress on an initiative is
the failure of the University of Illinois Global Campus program. Although
singular online degree offerings already existed at the department and

program levels throughout the university, Global Campus was intended to be
the online-exclusive entity of the University of Illinois system. Global
Campus was launched in 2008 with an $18 million investment to compete
with the very private for-profit institutions it was fashioned after, such as
University of Phoenix Online. However, faculty were particularly suspicious
of the for-profit business model, the hiring of untenured and non-tenure-track
faculty to teach the online courses, as well as the use of course material and
syllabi of faculty of traditional (on-ground) courses. Global Campus failed
merely a year and a half after its launch due in large part to faculty resistance
of its online delivery model. In fact, the faculty senate at each of the three
campuses voted not to support the program as proposed (Kolowich, 2009).
In contrast, UMassOnline, which used a similar profit-driven business
model, gained faculty support and is still thriving more than a decade after its
2001 launch, generating revenue in excess of $78 million. A division of the
University of Massachusetts system, UMassOnline, deviates from Global
Campus in that the same fully credentialed faculty teach both the online and
on-ground classes. Also, UMassOnline supports on-ground courses in a
blended-learning format so that online students may occasionally choose to
attend class in an on-campus classroom (Carter, 2009).
Whereas UMassOnline illustrates the central role faculty play in the suc-
cess of a change to online learning, Global Campus illustrates how faculty
resistance to online education may result in its failure. We address possible
sources of faculty resistance below.
Sources of Faculty Resistance to Online Education
The literature on resistance to change dates back several decades to the work
of Coch and French (1948) and Kurt Lewin’s (1951) force-field theory. The
seminal research conducted by Coch and French (1948) indicated that when
presented with change, individuals or groups will stand in opposition to that
change, and these individuals or groups will display negative reactions that
need to be overcome (Lawrence, 1969). In addition, it was proposed that
acceptance of change is affected primarily by the degree to which individuals
are involved in the change process. In other words, employees participating
in various aspects of the change, including how it is implemented, experience
significantly less resistance to the change.
More recently, thinkers in this field have begun to modify this conceptual-
ization of resistance. In particular, the notion that resistance is primarily neg-
ative and irrational and resides within the individual has been challenged (cf.,
Burke, 2011; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Piderit, 2000). Some maintain that
resistance should be more appropriately characterized as ambivalence

Mitchell et al. 7
(positive hopes about the potential of the change coupled with concern about
possible adverse outcomes) and caused by the interaction of the person and
the environment (Burke, 2011). Furthermore, Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio
(2008) argue that resistance is a type of sensemaking that should be viewed
as an opportunity where change agents play a role in creating or minimizing
resistance. In the process of sensemaking, individuals interpret information
regarding the change before taking action based on the interpretation (Gioia,
Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994).
Self and Schraeder (2009) suggest that sources of resistance can be cate-
gorized under particular domains of readiness, as adapted from Holt,
Armenakis, Field, and Harris (2007). Specifically, they contend that sources
of resistance originate from personal and organizational factors, as well as
factors relating to the content and processes of the change itself. Since we are
focusing on the individual faculty member as the most important element of
successfully adopting and implementing the online education format, we
address only the personal factors of resistance as they relate to the individual
faculty member.
As outlined by Self and Schraeder (2009), personal factors that contribute
to resistance to change include attributes specific to the change recipient
including, but not limited to, personality characteristics, individual needs, and
the potential for benefit or harm to one’s well-being. Likewise, Yukl (2006)
observed that although sources of individual resistance may vary in approaches
and terminology used, they usually center on themes of fear and threat.
Therefore, we combined the attributes of the personal factors and common
themes throughout the literature with personal and anecdotal experiences with
online learning. This resulted in the following four possible sources of faculty
resistance to online education: (a) cultural assumptions and values; (b) fears of
the unknown, loss, and failure; (c) fear of disruption of interpersonal relation-
ships; and (d) concerns about the external impact. We discuss each of the four
in greater detail below and offer some potential rebuttals, not to refute or
invalidate faculty concerns, but rather as an attempt to provide a more bal-
anced discussion (see the four personal sources listed in Table 1).
Cultural Assumptions and Values
Two related misperceptions faculty have about online education are that qual-
ity cannot be controlled and learning cannot be assured (Allen, Seaman,
Lederman, & Jaschik, 2012; Lin, Singer, & Ha, 2010). Many faculty hold a
historical perception of online institutions being degree factories offering a
low-quality education at a high cost. This is no longer the case as many tradi-
tional, elite universities have accredited degree-granting online programs.

Ironically, this assumption is difficult to dismiss without interaction and
engagement with online learning.
Additionally, the prevailing cultural paradigm of traditional higher educa-
tion is instructor-centered, as opposed to the online education model that is
widely held as student-centered. According to this traditional instructor-cen-
tered model, students seek knowledge from instructors teeming with infor-
mation and experience who disseminate the knowledge in a face-to-face
format where instructors can assess nonverbal cues indicating whether or not
transference of learning is successful. Opponents of online learning remain
skeptical regarding the identity of the student behind the screen and regard
online education as inferior, questioning the extent to which knowledge is
transferred absent of visible nonverbal cues as affirmation (Allen et al.,
2012). Recent research indicates that although online education provides lit-
tle to no face-to-face instructor–student interactions, learning seems to be
unaffected. In one such study (Parlamis & Mitchell, 2014) researchers com-
pared master’s-level online and on-ground negotiation classes taught by the
same instructor and found no significant differences in knowledge acquisi-
tion (as measured by negotiation outcomes, mean course grades, and self-
report measures) between students in the two courses.
While the issue of confirming the identity of online students is still a work
in progress, one may argue that on-ground instructors also do not always
confirm student identities (e.g., via the use of a state issued picture identifica-
tion). To assure the identity of online students, instructors can require online
students to complete assessments using certified proctors who may confirm
students’ identification before administering assignments in a monitored
environment. Instructors can also use online tools, such as Turnitin, to help
detect and deter plagiarism. Turnitin is proprietary software that compares a
Table 1. Possible Sources of Faculty Resistance to Online Teaching Due to
Personal Factors.
Cultural assumptions and values
Fear (of the unknown, loss, failure)
Fear of disruption of interpersonal relationships
Concerns about external impact of change
Note. The personal factors domain was adapted from Self and Schraeder (2009). The other
domains of resistance to change (organizational, content, and process factors) were not
included given that personal factors were the central focus as they most closely relate to
individual sources of faculty resistance. Possible sources of resistance were derived from the
attributes of Self and Schraeder’s (2009) personal factors, combined with common themes
in the literature of fear and threat (Yukl, 2006), and expanded by personal and anecdotal
experiences.

Mitchell et al. 9
student’s submitted written work against all other works ever submitted in the
widely used system. It also helps verify that student papers are not simply
copied from sources on the Internet.
Fears of the Unknown, Loss, and Failure
Expanding on Self and Schraeder’s (2009) personal attribute of potential for
benefit or harm to one’s well-being, we propose that a second source of fac-
ulty resistance to online education is related to fears of the unknown, loss,
and failure. First, faculty may fear technology as something they do not know
or understand. While this particular fear may be somewhat generational in
nature, it may be gradually addressed through training and immersion strate-
gies, whereas other faculty concerns may be more difficult to address.
Second, faculty may fear technology as a time-consuming medium that may
upset the balance of teaching, research, and service in academia. Specifically,
faculty may fear the amount of time and preparation required to teach well
online, where some students’ expectations may include having 24-hour
access to instructors and instant feedback on coursework or correspondence.
While some research estimates that the time spent teaching online may be
double or triple that of a traditional on-ground course (Palloff & Pratt, 2007),
other research shows evidence to the contrary. For example, Lazarus (2003)
conducted a longitudinal case study of time spent on online teaching tasks
(e.g., email, discussions, and assignments) and found that it was comparable
(3.5 to 7 hours per class) to on-ground classes. Third, some faculty members
may fear the loss of their comfortable, stable, and well-crafted in-classroom
teaching model and fear that their teaching strategies may fail in the new
online environment. Fifth, and related to the fear of loss, faculty may fear
failure if they make the change to online education. A faculty member may
find it difficult to relinquish the success he or she has found in teaching on-
ground courses for the unknown outcome of teaching online. A star instructor
in the traditional classroom may fear the loss of some shine in the online
environment.
Fear of Disruption of Interpersonal Relationships
Expanding on Self and Schraeder’s (2009) personality characteristics per-
sonal attribute, we propose that a third source of faculty resistance to online
learning is related to fears of disruption of interpersonal relationships.
Faculty may fear the loss of personal relationships with students (Lin et al.,
2010). The personality of some faculty teaching traditional courses is such
that they genuinely relish interactions with students both inside and outside

of the classroom. These interactions, which sometimes develop into lifelong
friendships, may involve the instructor giving students career advice, pro-
viding mentorship, or simply being a sounding board for students’ideas. The
possible threat of decreased job satisfaction from not witnessing one’s
impact on students’lives may prove too great for some to transition to online
teaching.
Concerns About the External Impact
Our fourth and final proposed personal source of faculty resistance to online
education builds on Self and Schraeder’s (2009) individual needs attribute.
Faculty may express concern about the impact the change will have on the
reputation of the college or university. They may perceive that the reputa-
tional hit the university may experience because of the change to online
teaching would negatively impact them personally in terms of future job
prospects—thus potentially limiting their ability to provide for the needs of
themselves and their families. Given the previous examples of highly
regarded institutions successfully embracing online education—including
Harvard University and MIT’s edX initiative and the University of
Massachusetts’s UMassOnline program—faculty concerns of this regard
may be somewhat dissipated by learning such information.
The unique role that faculty play in the change process, as well as the
aforementioned sources of personal resistance, underscore the need for a
change model that captures the profound importance of the individuals taking
part in that change. However, many of the change models that have been
applied to organizational change are largely based on the organizational level
of analysis and tend to be top-down (e.g., Burke & Litwin, 1992; Kotter,
1995; Lewin, 1951). In contrast, the TTM of change (Prochaska et al., 2008)
addresses change at the individual level of analysis.
Transtheoretical Model of Change
The TTM is a framework created by integrating several major theories of
behavior intervention in a manner designed to directly address the issue of
individual behavior change (Prochaska et al., 2008). The framework has been
widely and successfully applied to alter individual behavior in a variety of
situations including smoking cessation (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1982),
personal finance (Xiao et al., 2004), sun protective behaviors (Borschmann,
Lines, & Cottrell, 2012), and teaching ethics in business schools (Tyler &
Tyler, 2006). Applied across scores of behaviors, in numerous international
settings, using diverse populations, the TTM is a robust framework for

Mitchell et al. 11
application to our discussion of faculty readiness for online education as well
as readiness to facilitate online education.
The TTM comprises three dimensions: a temporal dimension, a cogni-
tive–behavioral dimension, and an individual difference dimension
(Prochaska et al., 2008). First, the temporal dimension accounts for the fact
that change is a process that unfolds over time and in stages. There are a total
of six stages (Prochaska et al., 2008) in which the individual may find him/
herself: (a) precontemplation (not considering change within the next 6
months), (b) contemplation (considering change within the next 6 months),
(c) preparation (considering change within 30 days and taking preparatory
steps), (d) action (practicing new behavior for less than 6 months), (e) main-
tenance (sustaining the new behavior for more than six months), and (f) ter-
mination (confident in new behavior with no temptation to relapse). Whereas
the temporal stages specify the when-to-change, the processes associated
with the cognitive–behavioral dimension specify the how-to-change (Treasure
& Schmidt, 2001).
The processes contained in the second TTM dimension, the cognitive–
behavioral dimension, account for the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional
shifts that need to take place at the different stages. The 10 processes are (a)
consciousness raising, (b) dramatic relief, (c) self-reevaluation, (d) environ-
mental reevaluation, (e) self-liberation, (f) helping relationships, (g) counter-
conditioning, (h) reinforcement/contingency management, (i) stimulus
control, and (j) social liberation (Prochaska et al., 2008). Each of the pro-
cesses will be described in greater detail later as they apply to the recommen-
dations made—all except for social liberation, which has an unclear empirical
connection to the stages (Prochaska et al., 2008).
The third TTM dimension, the individual difference dimension, contains
decisional balance (weighing the pros and cons of engaging in the new behav-
ior) and self-efficacy (having confidence that the change can take place or, temp-
tation to disrupt the change and relapse into old habits; Prochaska et al., 2008).
The fundamental assumption of the TTM is that in order for behavioral
change to occur, these three interrelated dimensions (temporal, cognitive–
behavioral, and individual difference) must be addressed. Accordingly, indi-
viduals who are most likely to change are those who (a) recognize the benefits
of change, (b) are confident that they will not relapse into old behaviors, (c)
successfully move through each of the six stages, and (e) successfully navi-
gate the processes encountered in each of the stages (Prochaska et al., 2008).
By extension, we posit that faculty should not only view online education as
valuable and nonthreatening, they must also be willing to engage in behavior
to facilitate online education and be confident in their ability to successfully
do so. They must be ready for change as well as be ready to change.

While the TTM has been applied in a few educational contexts (e.g., Tyler
& Tyler, 2006), to date, we are unaware of its application to the current con-
text of online education. Consequently, we introduce specific recommenda-
tions in this article to help transform faculty mindsets as well as faculty
behavior to facilitate online education. The recommendations presented are
derived from reimagining applied techniques based on the TTM research in
addition to current practices at our own and similar traditional institutions.
According to the TTM (Prochaska et al., 2008), several change activities
are necessary for transformation to occur. While behavioral changes occur in
later stages, cognitive, emotional, and evaluative changes are more likely to
occur in the earlier two stages. As previously discussed, these “processes of
change” entail cognitive, emotional, and behavioral changes and take place
across time such that there is an observed integration between stages and
processes. As a result of this integration, we present each recommendation as
it applies to a specific process occurring within the transition from one stage
to another, beginning with the first two stages of the TTM. (Table 2 includes
a summary of our recommendations as presented within the TTM stages and
processes.)
Recommendations for Faculty Readiness to
Change Based on the TTM
There are three change activities that take place between the precontempla-
tion and contemplation stages: consciousness raising, dramatic relief, and
environmental reevaluation (Prochaska et al., 2008). Similar to Lewin’s
(1951) organizational change concept of unfreezing or Self and Schraeder’s
(2009) creating readiness, these three processes collectively involve provid-
ing information to change recipients that would disrupt the status quo and
present a clear and convincing need for change. This is essential since change
recipients are often unaware of the need for change and are most resistant
during the first two stages (Prochaska et al., 2008).
Given that the first three processes occur together during the first two
stages of TTM, the first three recommendations offered below may be
addressed together.
Recommendation 1
Consciousness raising is about learning new information that will support the
healthy new behavior (Prochaska et al., 2008). Therefore, our first recom-
mendation is for higher education administrators to engage faculty in the
consciousness raising process by communicating a clear message to faculty

Mitchell et al. 13
Table 2. Specific Recommendations for Faculty Change to Online Education
Based on TTM.
Stages
Precontemplation Contemplation Preparation Action Maintenance Termination
Processes Consciousness Raising:
Communicate a clear message:
personalize faculty role; validate
faculty fears and concerns
(sources of resistance); clarify
pros, cons

Dramatic Relief: Encourage faculty
to express and release negative
emotions via sharing and role
play

Environmental Reevaluation:
Provide enrollment and
demand statistics for online and
traditional courses, enrollment
trends for traditional and online
institutions; benchmark similar
institutions

Self-Reevaluation:
Revise institutional
policies to include
online teaching
as part of faculty
identity; support
colloquia, seminars
and conferences
for faculty from
other institutions
to share online
teaching’s impact
on their identity

Self-Liberation:
Establish a system
that will (a) train
and (b) support
faculty in executing
new online
teaching skills

N/A
Note. TTM Stages and processes adapted from Prochaska et al. (2008). Recommendations are derived from
a review of the literature and the authors’ experiences and observations. No specific recommendations
were offered for the final two stages as they extend past the period of change readiness.

who are at this stage the recipients of change. The message should include
personalization of faculty’s role in leading the change to online education
(that it is ultimately faculty’s choice to engage in the process, not the admin-
istration’s), validation of faculty fears and concerns, and objective clarifica-
tion of the risks and rewards associated with the change.
Recommendation 2
Dramatic relief begins with emotional experiences and may be managed if
appropriate action is taken (Prochaska, et al., 2008). To engage faculty in the
dramatic relief process, our second recommendation is that administrators
continue the two-way communication process by allowing faculty the oppor-
tunity to fully express and experience their emotions surrounding the move to
online education. Activities may include several scheduled sessions for fac-
ulty to give personal accounts of experiences with online education, share
stories, engage in role-play sessions, and have a chance to ask administrators
any questions related to the change.
Recommendation 3
Environmental reevaluation involves both cognitive and emotional aspects as
the change recipient begins to process how he or she may impact others by
engaging in or abstaining from the change behavior (Prochaska et al., 2008).
In other words, faculty may begin to realize the positive impact that their
facilitating online education would have on their careers, their students, their
institutions, and higher education in general. In addition, they may realize the
negative impact not facilitating online education may have on all concerned.
To engage faculty in environmental reevaluation, we recommend that admin-
istrators present objective data such as the increasing demand for online courses,
current enrollment trends of their institution and traditional institutions overall,
the growth of proprietary institutions and MOOCs, as well as benchmark col-
leges and universities that have successfully made the transition to online educa-
tion. In so doing, administrators may provide a message of discrepancy and
efficacy (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993)—that change is both neces-
sary and possible. The shift to online education must be clearly communicated
in such a manner that faculty perceives it as a natural next step in the evolution
of their institution—it should make sense within the larger organizational con-
text. Although change leaders cannot control this sensemaking, communication
can significantly help influence the process (Sloyan, 2009).
If change recipients engage in the previous three processes and success-
fully navigate the first two stages, they then progress to the preparation and

Mitchell et al. 15
action stages during which two processes occur: self-reevaluation and self-
liberation (Prochaska et al., 2008).
Recommendation 4
When the change recipient prepares to engage in the new behavior, self-reeval-
uation occurs as the individual imagines himself/herself with and without the
change behavior (Prochaska et al., 2008). To assist faculty in successfully pro-
gressing through the self-reevaluation process, we recommend that administra-
tors along with faculty governing bodies (e.g., faculty senate) formally revise
institutional policies regarding teaching (e.g., annual performance review, ten-
ure, and promotion) so that they reflect online teaching as one of many aspects
of faculty’s role in the institution. In order for sustained change to take place, it
is critical that faculty realize that the change to online learning and teaching can
be incorporated into the new identity of what it means to be a professor. In addi-
tion, we recommend that administrators organize and/or offer seminars and
colloquia where faculty from other universities may share how teaching online
classes has affected their roles as faculty. If feasible, faculty should also be sup-
ported in their attendance at academic conferences (or individual workshops/
sessions) with an online education focus.
Recommendation 5
Once individuals have successfully advanced through the previous four pro-
cesses and decided that there are more pros than cons associated with engaging
in the change behavior (decisional balance), they may then encounter self-lib-
eration—an active process that involves going beyond the belief that one is
capable of successfully implementing the change and taking action on said
belief by using newly acquired skills (Prochaska et al., 2008). Therefore, our
fifth recommendation is to recruit faculty to experience online learning first
hand, from the perspective of a student. For example, faculty can begin to learn
about the online pedagogical approach by being a student in an online class that
teaches faculty how to design, deliver, and manage online courses. Several
institutions already have instituted such training classes. However, there are
online vendors (e.g., Jesuitnet, Embanet) that offer such training as well.
Recommendation 6
Our final recommendation is an extension of the previous one as it relates to
the self-liberation process. We propose the establishment of a system to pro-
vide faculty the support to exercise their newfound autonomy with the

confidence (self-efficacy) necessary to begin and continue to teach online.
For instance, the institution may establish a program or unit staffed with indi-
viduals who can provide academic technology support to faculty teaching
online. In so doing, faculty may receive technical support in creating new
online courses or transitioning traditional on-ground classes to an online for-
mat, training in new technologies, and troubleshooting assistance as needed.
During the final two stages of the TTM, maintenance and termination,
four processes occur: counterconditioning (learning the new behaviors asso-
ciated with the change), helping relationships (seeking and using social sup-
port for the maintenance of the new behavior), contingency/reinforcement
management (emphasizing reinforcement for engaging in the new behavior),
and stimulus control (removing temptations for relapsing and installing cues
that encourage the change). We offer only general recommendations for the
processes occurring in the final stages of the TTM although we proposed
specific recommendations for each of the processes of its first four stages.
This is because the first four stages of the TTM characterize readiness for
change and readiness to change, whereas the focus of the last two stages is on
maintenance and termination.
In general, we recommend that rewards, reminders, and a social network
to support online education all need to be in place by the final stages. For
instance, administrators may offer faculty additional compensation and/or a
reduced course load for developing new online courses or adapting a tradi-
tional course to an online format or as incentive to continue teaching online.
In addition, faculty mentoring and support sessions for new online instructors
should be implemented. For instance, online education liaisons—well-trained
faculty who are proven effective at teaching online—may be designated
within each academic unit (department, program, or college) to serve as a
touchstone and source of support for new online faculty.
Limitations, Implications, and Future Directions
In this article, we propose the application of the TTM, a robust model of
individual behavioral change, to create faculty readiness to facilitate online
education and to manage the personal factors of resistance to change. This
adaptation of the TTM framework to the higher education domain is novel
because the TTM is a model predominantly used by health care professionals
to change individuals’lifestyle behaviors. While we established the appropri-
ateness of the model and offered research-based recommendations, we would
be remiss in not addressing some of this article’s limitations, which we dis-
cuss next. We then highlight implications and make recommendations for
future research.

Mitchell et al. 17
Limitations
One limitation is that we do not offer empirical data on which to base the
stated recommendations for use in a higher education context. Although they
are gleaned from impactful research, to our knowledge they have not been
empirically tested in academia. A second limitation is that although we dis-
cussed four possible domains as sources of resistance (personal, organiza-
tional, the content, and process of the change itself), we examined only
personal factors as a source of faculty resistance to change. Third, the possi-
ble sources of faculty resistance to online education suggested were primarily
based on affect—particularly fear and threat. As such, the research-based
rebuttals presented may do little to alter faculty’s affective states if they are
deeply rooted. Finally, while we mentioned previously that the successful
implementation of online education would result when faculty are ready for
change and to change, we primarily addressed the latter, which entailed
behavioral changes.
Implications
The aforementioned limitations notwithstanding, there are several implica-
tions of the current conceptual article. For faculty, this article will prove
informational for those unfamiliar with the existing evidence regarding the
efficacy and efficiency of online education. Should the recommendations be
implemented as stated, faculty will have a voice in the development of online
programs at their institutions. While this does not guarantee that they will
choose to teach online, those faculty who do select to participate in online
education will be better equipped if trained appropriately before attempting
to do so. This will no doubt lead to greater ownership of the change, resulting
in faculty empowerment and commitment to the change. For administrators
in higher education, the recommendations in this article are additional tools
that may be used in the complex series of steps involved in determining if and
how to introduce online education programs at their institutions.
Future Research
Our first two recommendations for future research are related to the previ-
ously stated limitations. First, we recommend empirical investigations of the
suggestions for creating readiness in a college or university transitioning to
online education. Our literature review found no empirical investigation of
the domains of readiness and the institutional conditions within the higher
education context.

Second, as we only attended to personal factors, we recommend that
future research empirically examine the other three domains of resistance to
change (organizational factors, process factors, and content factors) both
individually and collectively. Research into organizational resistance factors
may include distrust of the organization and change leaders, organizational
politics, and the history of change in the organization; process factors for
investigation may include the level of involvement in the process and percep-
tion of a problematic process; content factors may include perceptions that
change is not needed and that change is wrong (Self & Schraeder, 2009).
Third, future research could investigate not only the readiness of faculty to
facilitate online education but also the readiness of students to engage in
online learning. Psychometrically sound measures developed for just that
purpose (e.g., Parnell & Carraher, 2003) may prove helpful in identifying
students who would excel in the online learning environment, thereby
increasing the observed effectiveness of online education.
Conclusion
Online courses are offered at many traditional higher education institutions.
However, some faculty still experience varying degrees of personal resis-
tance to the Internet delivery format. Therefore, our discussion of resis-
tance sources and corresponding rebuttals was not to marginalize or
invalidate faculty concerns and feelings. Rather, it was an attempt at a bal-
anced discussion of very valid issues. Furthermore, we do not presume that
the future of higher education resides with online education alone and that
the demise of traditional, face-to-face instruction is inevitable. Instead, we
regard online learning as an additional selection in the higher education
basket of offerings.
Consequently, to help address some of the personal factors contributing
to faculty resistance to online education, we recommended that higher
education administrators enact a strategic plan that begins with providing
a message that, among other things, encourages faculty members to engage
in processes leading first to a change in mindset then a subsequent change
in behavior. To help address this readiness for change issue, we made a
case for online education by presenting arguments related to technological
innovation, pedagogical evidence, and the potential benefits online educa-
tion holds for the primary constituents of higher education—students. In
addition, we offered some research-based rebuttals to personal sources of
faculty resistance. Finally, we offered specific recommendations framed
by the TTM to help address both faculty readiness for change and readi-
ness to change.

Mitchell et al. 19
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the blind reviewers and Michael Small for their extensive
contributions during the revision process.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M.
(2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence
and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23,
82-103.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United
States, 2010. Newburyport, MA: Online Learning Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United
States, 2011 (Sloan Consortium). Wellesley, MA: Quahog Research Group,
Babson Survey Research Group.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and
online education, 2012 (A joint project of the Babson Survey Research Group
and Inside Higher Ed). Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/
survey/conflicted-faculty-and-online-education-2012
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.
Baskin, J. S. (2013). The Internet didn’t kill Blockbuster, the company did it to itself.
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/11/08/
the-internet-didnt-kill-blockbuster-the-company-did-it-to-itself/
Borschmann, R., Lines, K., & Cottrell, D. (2012). Sun protective behavior, optimism
bias, and the transtheoretical model of behavior change. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 64, 181-188.
Burke, W. W. (2011). A perspective on the field of organization development and
change: The Zeigarnik effect. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47,
143-167.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance
and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523-545.
Carter, D. (2009). How to create a successful virtual campus. Retrieved from http://
www.umassonline.net/news/2009-01-06-eschool-news-how-to-create-a-suc-
cessful-virtual-campus

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human
Relations, 1, 512-532.
Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change”. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Sciences, 35(25), 25-41.
DiClemente, C. C., & Prochaska, J. O. (1982). Self-change and therapy change of
smoking behavior: A comparison of processes of change in cessation and main-
tenance. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 133-142.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the
story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 362-377.
Fornaciari, C. J., Forte, M., & Mathews, C. S. (1999). Distance education as strategy:
How can your school compete? Journal of Management Education, 23, 703-718.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and
strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence.
Organizational Science, 5, 363-383.
Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university
and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Change, 35(4), 36-41.
High, P. (2014). For the largest not-for-profit MOOC, edX, experimenta-
tion is the path to innovation. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/
peterhigh/2014/01/20/for-the-largest-not-for-profit-mooc-edx-experimentation-
is-the-path-to-innovation/
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Field, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for
organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 43, 232-255.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for suc-
cess in internet-based distance education. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/m-r/QualityOnTheLine.pdf
Kolowich, S. (2009). What doomed global campus? Retrieved on from http://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/03/globalcampus
Kotter, J. P. (1995, March). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 59-67.
Lawrence, P. (1969). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business
Review, 47(1), 4-12.
Lazarus, B. D. (2003). Teaching courses online: How much time does it take? Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 47-54.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper.
Lewin, K., & Gold, M. E. (1999). Group decision and social change. In K. Lewin &
M. Gold (Eds.), The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader (pp. 265-
284). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Lin, C., Singer, R., & Ha, L. (2010). Why university members use and resist tech-
nology? A structure enactment perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 1(22), 38-59.
Macduff, I. (2012). Using blogs in teaching negotiation: A technical and intercultural
postscript. Negotiation Journal, 28, 201-215.

Mitchell et al. 21
Oliveira, I., Tinoca, L., & Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: How to
promote a successful collaboration. Computers & Education, 57, 1348-1357.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities. San Francisco,
CA: Josey-Bass.
Parlamis, J., & Mitchell, L. D. (2014). Teaching negotiations in the new millen-
nium: Evidence-based recommendations for online course delivery. Negotiation
Journal, 30, 93-113.
Parnell, J. A., & Carraher, S. (2003). The management education by internet readi-
ness (MEBIR) scale: Developing a scale to assess personal readiness for inter-
net-mediated management education. Journal of Management Education, 27,
431-446.
Payne, D. A., & Johnson, J. M. (2005). Succeeding in graduate school online: Tips
from successful students. College Student Journal, 39, 117-128.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A mul-
tidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 783-794.
Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., & Evers, K. E. (2008). The transtheoretical model
and stages of change. In R. Glanz & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and
health education: Theory, research and practice (4th ed., pp. 97-117). San
Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.
Self, D. R., & Schraeder, M. (2009). Enhancing the success of organizational
change: Matching readiness strategies with sources of resistance. Leadership &
Organizational Development Journal, 30, 167-182.
Sloyan, R. M. (2009). Trust, sensemaking, and individual responses to organizational
change (Dissertation; UMI 3354372). Ann Arbor, MI: Benedictine University.
Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change, The Magazine of
Higher Learning. January/February. Retrieved from http://www.changemag.org/
Archives/Back%20Issues/2012/January-February%202012/facultychange-full.
html
Treasure, J., & Schmidt, U. (2001). Ready, willing and able to change: Motivational
aspects of the assessment and treatment of eating disorders. European Eating
Disorders Review, 9(1), 4-18.
Tyler, C. L., & Tyler, J. (2006). Applying the transtheoretical model of change to the
sequencing of ethics instruction in business education. Journal of Management
Education, 30, 45-64.
Valentine, D. (2002). Distance learning: Promises, problems, and possibilities. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.
westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/valentine53.html
Wang, Q. (2006). Quality assurance-best practices for assessing online programs.
International Journal on ELearning, 5, 265-274.
Xiao, J. J., O’Neill, B., Prochaska, J. M., Kerbel, C. M., Brennan, P., & Bristow, B. J.
(2004). A consumer education programme based on the transtheoretical model of
change. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(1), 55-65.

Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruc-
tion. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/yang81.htm
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leading change in organizations. In Leadership in organizations
(6th ed., pp. 284-314). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Zhu, A. (2012). Massive open online courses—A threat or opportunity to universi-
ties? Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2012/09/06/massive-open-
online-course-a-threat-or-opportunity-to-universities/

Journal of Management Education-2014-CLaiborne-1052562914547964

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Journal of Management Education-2014-CLaiborne-1052562914547964 (20)

Journal of Management Education-2014-CLaiborne-1052562914547964