Community College Review

Volume 37 Number 1
July 2009 81-101
© 2009 The Author(s)

Online Education and 10.1177/0091552109338731

http://ccreview.sagepub.com

Organizational Change
Regina L. Garza Mitchell
Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant

An in-depth case study examined faculty and administrator perceptions of how

online education affected the organizational culture of a large, suburban com-
munity college. Findings suggest that in addition to structural and procedural
changes, online education had an impact on faculty and administrator roles,
teaching and learning (in both online and face-to-face settings), and the com-
munity of students and faculty members who comprise the college. The result
was a new perception of the organization itself.

Keywords: online courses; faculty roles; administrator roles; organizational

culture

C ommunity colleges are known for their ability to change quickly, and
their adoption of online education is no exception. Since this instruc-
tional form emerged in the 1990s, community colleges have consistently
been on the forefront of offering online education. Currently, over half of the
3.9 million students taking at least one online course do so at a 2-year college
(Allen & Seaman, 2008), a larger percentage than their share of overall
higher education enrollments (American Association of Community Colleges,
2008). Growth in online education has remained steady since its inception,
and we are just beginning to understand its organizational impact.
When online education is implemented, structural and procedural changes
occur. Though surface changes are a natural outgrowth of any new compo-
nent introduced to an institution, there also exists the potential for change
in organizational culture. It is important to understand how this change is
experienced by those who are affected because organizational structure and
dynamics, along with the lenses through which organizational participants
view the organization, contribute to culture (Harris, 1994; Kezar, 2001;
Schein, 2004). Much of the literature regarding online education focuses on
surface-level changes rather than its cultural impact. This study sought to
better understand the impact of online education on organizational culture
from the perspectives of faculty members and administrators.

81

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

82   Community College Review

Online Education and Change

Online education does not neatly fit into a college’s existing structure
because it involves technology, academic administration, academic depart-
ments, and student services, blurring traditional boundaries between units
(Jones & O’Shea, 2004). Though changes at the structural level are disrup-
tive, they are only first-order, surface-level changes that affect positions,
procedures, and processes while leaving the culture of the institution intact
(Harris, 1994; Kezar, 2001). The longer-term effects of online education,
however, are far reaching and may achieve deeper, second-order or cultural
changes because the philosophies behind those changes challenge underly-
ing values and beliefs.

Structural and Procedural Changes

Implementing online education involves immediate changes to technologi-
cal and organizational structures. On the physical side, technology is necessary
to create an infrastructure that supports and promotes online education.
Organizationally, a structure must be in place to handle the day-to-day admini­
strative functions. It is possible that either technological or structural compo-
nents of the infrastructure for online education may be incorporated into
existing systems but processes and procedures will be affected.
The technological infrastructure for online education includes, at a mini-
mum, computers, networks, online student services, and a course manage-
ment system (Hanna, 2003; Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Instructional
technologies available for use within a college may also be used for online
course delivery. However, online education requires a much higher usage of
these resources (Diaz & Cheslock, 2006). In addition, teaching and learning
in an online environment require different processes, policies, and proce-
dures. For example, online courses are generally developed as part of a
process involving the faculty member as a content expert working with tech-
nology and multimedia experts to produce a course package for student
delivery (Hanna, 2003; Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Course development in
this manner differs from the traditional process in which a single faculty
member has autonomy over a course. Furthermore, course development and
instruction in an online format tend to require more time and effort on behalf
of faculty members (Lenz, Jones, & Monaghan, 2005; Mupinga & Maughan,
2008; Tomei, 2004).
As noted above, online education involves technology, academic admin-
istration, academic departments, and student services (Jones & O’Shea,

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   83

2004). Thus, changes made in regard to online education have a ripple effect
across a college, and the intentional or unintentional incorporation of the
philosophies behind those changes have the potential to transform the under-
lying values and beliefs of an organization, resulting in cultural or second-
order change.

Second-Order Change
Second-order change occurs when guiding frameworks, or schemas, are
altered (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Harris, 1994; Kezar, 2001). The integra-
tion of online education has the potential to alter ingrained beliefs about
technology, teaching, and learning. Hence, paradigmatic shifts in relation to
technology and pedagogy may occur as online education becomes ingrained
in a college.
Principles guiding online education are derived from constructivist views
of teaching and learning that differ from traditional views of lecture-driven
instruction (Meyer, 2002). Although early models of distance education did
not require changes to traditional views of teaching, more current models
focus on connecting teachers and students through collaborative discussions,
assignments, and group projects (Hanna, 2003). There is an increased empha-
sis on interaction between teachers and students and among students (Palloff
& Pratt, 2004, 2007), and more responsibility for learning is placed on stu-
dents (Meyer, 2002). Despite the enhanced focus on student learning, the
quality of online courses is often called into question, even among schools
with robust online programs. Yet, no single definition of quality guides the
development and instruction of online courses (Meyer, 2002). One tendency
is to compare online courses with face-to-face courses. The “no-significant-
difference” phenomenon was postulated in the 1990s, with a compilation of
studies showing no significant difference between distance and face-to-face
instruction (Russell, 1999). Although some research continues to compare
online and face-to-face instruction (e.g., Fortune, Shifflett, & Sibley, 2006),
other studies have begun to put a greater focus on teaching methods over
delivery (e.g., Basu Conger, 2005; McDonald, 2002; Sener, 2004). Thus,
there is no single accepted method for measuring the quality of online courses,
which remains a challenge for those engaged in online education.
The move toward online education requires an acceptance of technology
in relation to teaching. The idea that teaching and learning can legitimately
occur without regard to time, place, or proximity may require a rethinking of
idealized conceptions of teaching and learning. Thus, organizational schemas

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

84   Community College Review

about teaching, learning, and technology may be altered to accept online

education as legitimate.

Theoretical Lens

Transformational change occurs on multiple levels, affects many aspects

of the organization, and results in paradigmatic shifts (Bartunek & Moch,
1987; Kezar, 2001; Levy & Merry, 1986). This type of change takes longer
to accomplish and is intentional (Eckel, Hill, & Green, 1998; Kezar, 2001).
One way to gauge transformational change is through a cultural lens.
Organizational culture provides a context for those within it but is also
shaped by individual beliefs and values.
Drawing on Schein’s (2004) depiction of culture as a construct with three
levels, Eckel, Hill, and Green (1998) likened culture to an onion’s layers,
with artifacts comprising the outermost layers, espoused values making up
the middle layers, and underlying assumptions constituting the deepest lay-
ers. These elements of culture are complex, overlapping, and intertwining on
different levels. Becoming aware of culture involves looking at patterns of
interaction, at language, at images and themes in conversations, and at ritu-
als, rites, and ceremonies (Morgan, 1997). Culture in colleges may also be
viewed through the broad categories of governance, educational philosophy,
teaching and learning, academic community, commitment to students, archi-
tecture, rituals and ceremonies, behavior patterns and processes, and implicit
and explicit values and beliefs (Peterson & Spencer, 1993). This study used
a cultural lens to examine changes as perceived by faculty members and
administrators at Leading Edge Community College (LECC).

Method

This research involved a single-site, in-depth case study that investigated

changes in culture that emerged as the result of a growing online education
program at LECC.1 LECC provided a unique case (Yin, 2003) in which a
college with an already robust online education program received permission
from its accrediting agency and board of trustees to offer all of its courses
and programs in an online format.
Data were collected through individual interviews, document analysis,
and site observations. Documents were defined as any written, electronic, or

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   85

otherwise recorded material that was not prepared specifically for the
researcher or for this research project (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam,
1998; Whitt, 2001). Prior to and during my visits to the college, I obtained
documentation regarding the growth of online education at LECC. Docu­
mentation consisted of vision and mission statements, newsletters, research
conducted by the college, self-study reports, accreditation documents, and
other documents that helped paint a picture of LECC’s online program
and the college’s culture. Interviews were conducted with faculty members
and administrators who had been employed at the college for at least 2 years
at the time of the study. Random purposeful sampling was used to identify
participants (Creswell, 2008). Reduction and analysis of the data were per-
formed on an ongoing basis throughout the study, and common themes were
derived from interviews (Merriam, 1998). Findings from this study were
intended to present a portrait of how change was perceived by different
groups at the college. To ensure quality and validity, data were
triangulated through different collection methods, member checks, and
through the comparison of findings between methods (Huberman & Miles,
2001; Patton, 1990; Yin, 2003).
Participants included 13 administrators and 8 full-time faculty members.
An attempt was made to speak with employees who worked directly with
online education and with those who did not. However, all participating
faculty members taught online. Every effort was made to present findings
from the participants’ perspectives by sharing their stories and words
(Creswell, 2007). Interview summaries were sent to participants to ensure
proper interpretation and context of information. Although perspectives
belong to those who participated in the study, findings were categorized
in an attempt to delineate organizational, group, and individual perceptions
of change.

The Leading Edge

LECC is a very large, suburban community college serving just under

60,000 students per year, 7,000 of whom took courses online during 2008.2
The college has been in operation for over 50 years and is one of the largest
associate’s degree–granting institutions in the nation. LECC is situated
within a state that is facing severe economic challenges, including a high
unemployment rate. Over 1,800 faculty members, staff members, and
administrators, including 200 full-time faculty members, support the college.

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

86   Community College Review

College employees are represented by nine unions; all employees except for
senior administrators belong to a bargaining unit.
The college has three campuses, two of which were represented in this
study. The college also houses a university center where students can take
courses from partner institutions toward bachelor’s or master’s degrees.
In addition to its physical campuses, LECC has a robust online education
program with more than 200 courses and five complete degree programs.
Enrollment at LECC has been on an upswing for the past several years, with
enrollment in online courses alone increasing 22% between 2007 and 2008.
LECC prides itself on being a comprehensive community college and on
being at the leading edge of change. In line with the college’s vision state-
ment, which stipulates that the institution will “be a leading edge community
college and the community’s preferred choice for lifelong learning, cultural
enrichment, and community development opportunities,” the college and
community retain close ties. Community outreach and support are essential to
the college’s mission, vision, and culture. Yearly satisfaction surveys are con-
ducted to assess the community view of the college. The community, in turn,
supports the college through a voter-approved millage and donations to the
college’s foundation. LECC is the college of choice for county residents, with
four out of five high school seniors attending within 5 years of graduation.
LECC is also the college of choice for its faculty, staff, and administrators.
A large number of LECC employees are former students, and most have a
long tenure at the college. The college president has spent his entire career
at LECC, moving up the ranks from adjunct faculty member to president.
A faculty member who had been at the college for 3 years commented, “If
you’re not here 20 years, you’re new.” Despite their longevity, faculty and
staff members have remained energetic and innovative. The president
encourages creativity and innovation as long as “it [made] sense” for the
college. An associate dean with a personal interest in online education her-
alded the college’s move toward online education. Concerning the work of
this associate dean, the president remarked, “We were very fortunate that she
was here, because it was almost an avocational interest of hers, but she was
able to drive the agenda and we were able to start moving.”

Online Education at LECC

LECC was one of the first community colleges in its state to successfully
put online education into practice. According to a college document, LECC

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   87

implemented online education in 1998 “with four online certificated fac-

ulty, four courses, and 80 students (duplicated)3.” The LECC culture demands
not only that the college do creative things but also that faculty and staff mem-
bers do those things well. The president realized that funding would be
needed for online education, so he sought and was successful in receiving
approval from the community for a technology bond in 1998 and for a millage
in 2000 to support technology. These technology funds allowed the college
to create and maintain a supportive infrastructure for online education.
Following the first experimental year, the college reached an agreement
with its faculty union and implemented a 3-year pilot program. By 2008, a
total of 210 online and 11 hybrid course sections were offered. During the
winter semester of 2008, just over 3,400 students (duplicated) enrolled in
courses that were offered completely online, and 205 students (duplicated)
enrolled in hybrid course sections. The online program has seen consistent
growth since its inception, as illustrated in Figure 1, and the college antici-
pates that growth will continue, as enrollment in online courses usually fills
within hours after registration is open. LECC implemented a wait-list system
in 2008 to track the demand for online courses, and initial indications were
that students placed themselves on wait lists for online courses rather than
enrolling in comparable on-site sections. Despite high enrollment, a study
conducted by the college found that the attrition rate in online courses was
seven percentage points higher than the attrition rate of face-to-face courses,
a statistically significant difference. The attrition rate is of concern to the
college, and measures are being taken to increase persistence in online
courses. However, the study also found that rather than the delivery method,
the three variables most likely to affect persistence and success were the
academic discipline, the course, and the instructor.

Structural Changes Regarding Online Education

Numerous structural and procedural changes were associated with online
education at LECC. The online education infrastructure has undergone
several incarnations and is currently headed by the Vice Provost of Learning
Outreach and a support staff that includes an associate dean and director.
Though administrators head the unit, decisions are made in conjunction with
the faculty. For example, policies and procedures regarding online education
were initially developed by a steering committee of faculty members, staff
members, and administrators. This group was recently resurrected as an
advisory group that continues to provide input.

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

88   Community College Review

Figure 1
Credits Generated in Online Courses at Leading Edge Community
College by Semester—1988 Through 2006

Note: FA = fall semester; SP = spring semester; SU = summer semester; WI = winter semester; SS = spring
and summer semester combined. Starting in 2004, LECC changed its academic calendar, moving from spring,
summer, and fall semesters to a calendar with winter, spring/summer, and fall semesters.

Instructors who teach online are required to complete a college-run train-

ing course before they are allowed to teach online or develop an online
course. This requirement is part of the contracts for both full-time and
adjunct faculty members. The 6-week training course is conducted online
and teaches faculty members how to develop and teach courses online while
giving them the experience of being a student in an online course. Participants
felt strongly that online courses are not a good fit for all students or for all
faculty members, and not all faculty members who take the training course
choose to teach online. Many administrators have also taken the course so
that they can better understand what faculty members and students go
through during these courses.
In contrast with official college documents that refer to faculty members
as “faculty” or “instructors,” contracts and other documents refer to online
instructors as “facilitators.” Enrollment in online courses is limited to 23
students; this limit was increased from an initial limit of 18 and was also

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   89

written into the faculty contracts. The rationale for the cap on student enroll-
ment related to concerns regarding teaching and learning. LECC mandates a
high level of interaction between students and instructors in online courses,
and instructors wanted that interaction to remain personal.
“Facilitator expectations” are in place, mandating how certain elements of
online courses are taught. Instructors and students are allowed to “check in” to
online courses when it is convenient to do so; however, the college’s guidelines
specify that both instructors and students must participate in their online
courses at least five times per week “with engaging, purposeful, and well
thought contributions.” Faculty members and administrators lauded this policy
as a means of ensuring an interactive, engaging experience. A dean stated,

Faculty and students have to be online at least 5 days a week, and they have
to be interacting, doing active, engaging things. Again, it’s not something
where the faculty or students can just disappear for days or weeks at a time. If
they think that’s going to be the case, then they’re not a candidate for our
online program.

Faculty members and administrators speculated that the participation

requirements might be a contributing factor to the high attrition rate in online
courses. Participants described a misconception that online courses require
little work and function as an independent study rather than a structured
course.
Online courses were implemented and have continued to operate over an
8-week period rather than the traditional 16-week format used in face-to-face
courses. Administrators and faculty members expressed concern that the
condensed format may be another factor adding to the high attrition rate for
online courses. Attrition in online classes also created a financial dilemma.
The course limit of 23 students is lower than the limit imposed for on-campus
sections, and students are not allowed to enroll in an online class after the
first week. Thus, if a student drops the course after it has started, there is only
a slim chance that the empty seat will be filled by another student, and the
potential for revenue loss exists. As a result of these concerns, some faculty
members are now piloting 12- and 16-week online courses.
Full-time faculty members must maintain on-site office hours at least 2
days a week, even if their entire course load is taught online. Although some
faculty members expressed displeasure with this requirement, it was acknow­
ledged as necessary to keep faculty members actively involved in college
activities and governance. One faculty member who teaches mostly online

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

90   Community College Review

stated that it would be easy to teach completely online and never come to
campus at all, but coming to campus twice a week “keeps us in touch with
our on-ground community and the college body itself.”
Faculty members and administrators initially expressed disproportionate
resistance to online education, but opinions have changed over the past 10
years. Online instruction is now described as “just another avenue of teach-
ing.” Online education has been ingrained into the college culture, and col-
lege personnel view it as an integral part of the institution. An administrator
commented, “You know, it’s just become part of the culture. You talk about
online education just like you do graduation or taking courses. It’s just
embedded in the culture.” Both groups viewed online education as an exten-
sion of the college’s mission of being a comprehensive community college.
As one faculty member put it,

I think this is the future of education . . . Our students no longer have nine-to-
five jobs. They don’t have the opportunity to be in one place at one time any
longer. That’s just the way our society is, and we have to change with that
society.

A dean concurred, stating, “We always did try to provide alternate deliv-
ery systems, personalized options, community-based learning . . . It’s a com-
munity college, so we try to reach the community in any way that we can.”
There is an overarching belief that providing online education is a necessary
way of reaching out to students, particularly those who may not be able to
come to campus. Online education allows the college to expand and support
its student base, to provide community outreach, and to expand or enhance
the college mission.

Role Expansion
Both faculty members and administrators felt that their roles expanded
because of online education, but the effects were experienced more deeply
by the faculty. Administrators perceived that changes in relation to online
education were mainly procedural, but they also found themselves placed in
the role of advocate for online education.
From the administrative perspective, there was a college-wide focus on
online education, a push from senior administrators, and a high demand from
students to offer courses in this format. Regardless of personal views, admin-
istrative participants felt that online education was necessary to the college,

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   91

and they felt a subtle push toward it. Cathy, an associate dean, explained,
“It’s not like somebody is saying, ‘You must do this.’ It’s highly encour-
aged.” Due to the collegewide interest in online education, administrators
felt a need to stay informed and to learn as much as they could about it.
A number of administrators went through the faculty online training course.
Cathy stated,

I feel that it’s incumbent upon me to learn as much about [online education]
as I can so that I can facilitate the needs of the faculty in that regard and also
to encourage the development where there is initiative to do so.

In addition to fully online courses, administrators also felt a push to Web-

enhanced classroom courses by encouraging instructors to use Internet-based
instruction as a supplement for face-to-face classes.
Though the college had a “designated champion” for online education in
the form of the Vice Provost for Learning Outreach, other administrators felt
that their roles expanded to include advocating for online instruction and
Web enhancement because of the perceived push from the college. Leonard,
an academic vice provost, stated, “I continue to preach the Web-enhanced
philosophy. Once people get in, I think they’ll get hooked.” Simon, a dean,
concurred, “I try to do what I can to cajole and convince and promote, and
that sort of thing, to get folks moving along that continuum.” Although
administrators viewed their role as “trying to be a cheerleader and a propo-
nent for the system,” they were cautious about forcing faculty members
into teaching online. Dorothy, another associate dean, pointed out that not
everyone wants to teach online, and that she will not push someone who does
not want to teach in that format: “What I’ve done is sit back and waited for
them to come to me, because we’ve done a great job of communicating that
this training is available, that the online classes are there.” Administrative
participants believed that the decision to teach online or to develop an online
course must come from faculty members themselves; thus, the final deci-
sions about which courses and programs should be offered online were up to
the faculty.
On the faculty side, role changes were experienced on a deeper level. The
faculty role at LECC has become more complex and less autonomous as the
result of online education. At LECC even the faculty title has changed, as
instructors who teach online courses are now referred to as facilitators in
both contractual language and everyday terminology. The shift to facilitator
reflects the influence of constructivist and cognitive philosophies of teaching

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

92   Community College Review

that undergird online instruction (Meyer, 2002). There are also different
expectations in place for teaching face-to-face, online, or in a hybrid format,
with online courses having the most stringent requirements.
Not surprisingly, online instruction requires more time and effort on
behalf of the instructor. This has led to the feeling of “nonstop teaching” and
“inundation of online.” It takes more time to set up the course, to teach, and
to communicate with students. An instructor who has taught online for about
10 years noted, “One of the things I have noticed about being online is that
it’s nonstop.” Another faculty member explained, “As a faculty member, it’s
much more work. I always tell my colleagues, ‘Yeah, you guys walk out of
class and you’re done. My students never go away.’” Thus, online instruction
and course development were viewed as more labor and time intensive than
traditional methods (Lenz et al., 2005; Mupinga & Maughan, 2008; Tomei,
2004). The faculty at LECC did not perceive the extra time or work as a
negative but as a natural effect of this type of teaching and learning.
Another role assumed by many faculty members was that of mentor to
new online instructors. This was not required by the college but arose from
a feeling that the online environment was not suitable for everyone.

When selecting [faculty] it is very important to have a proper selection

criteria for online. It can’t just be somebody who wants to spend their time
at home teaching in their jammies. It’s got to be somebody who understands
the online process.

Several voluntary mentoring programs were created on the basis of this

understanding, and three participants in this study acted as mentors in these
programs. A business instructor acknowledged that it requires a bit of extra
work on her part, but she likes to assist new online faculty members: “In
addition to them having to go through the online class and learn[ing] it them-
selves, I am even more adamant about making sure that there are certain
standards that they maintain.” Two other faculty members described a men-
toring situation that involved the new faculty member shadowing a more
experienced online instructor after going through the college’s online train-
ing program. The type of mentoring exhibited by this group of faculty mem-
bers was not required, but those who carried out this mentoring role claimed
that it was necessary. Faculty members perceived mentoring to be a means
of ensuring quality and making sure that courses are taught the “Leading
Edge way.” It was very important to the LECC faculty that those who want
to teach online understand the amount of work involved and the level of

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   93

quality that is expected, and some departments subsequently adopted formal

mentoring models.
The college encouraged the growth of online education and the use of
online elements in face-to-face classrooms, yet this type of instruction still
faced high scrutiny by administrators and faculty members. A strong theme
that emerged from both the faculty and administrator groups was the desire
to ensure that online students received the same quality of instruction as on-
site students and that all online courses were taught in a similar manner.
Although online education was “just another avenue of teaching” at LECC,
there was a noticeable difference in how instruction was perceived in online
and on-ground courses. Furthermore, online courses were subject to strict
requirements in terms of how instruction was to be offered.
Both administrators and faculty members perceived that online education
had had an impact on their roles. Though some of the changes were proce-
dural, there was evidence that individual schemas were altered. In acting as
advocates for online courses and programs, administrators found themselves
having to learn more about how this type of education worked and what the
implications were for the faculty; they perceived that they needed a deeper
understanding of this type of education. This changed the way administrators
perceived online education, moving from initial resistance to the belief that
it was a positive and necessary avenue for LECC. Faculty members shifted
from instructors to facilitators and willingly assumed the role of mentor for
new faculty members who chose to teach in this manner, either through for-
mal or informal programs.

Teaching and Learning

In addition to the workload, online education affected the approach to
teaching at LECC. The design and instruction of online courses at LECC
deliberately positioned faculty members in the role of facilitator versus
expert (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Overall, there was a greater use of instructional
technology, and a greater emphasis was placed on the use of technology in
the classroom, whether online or on-ground. Faculty participants indicated
that lecturing was the prevailing mode of instruction in on-ground courses,
but those who had taught online indicated that they now perceived students
as more autonomous and that they have accommodated students by becom-
ing more interactive in face-to-face settings. Online courses had a focus on
a student-centered rather than an instructor-centered classroom, reflecting
the notion that students were very much at the heart of LECC. Although it

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

94   Community College Review

was not a change for faculty members to focus their instruction on the needs
of students, instructional methods used by instructors were different after
teaching online.

I’ve taken some of the things from the online class, and we do those in the
on-ground class. But more importantly, it gives me time to work on those
individual skills that the students require rather than just listening to me gab.

Instructors consciously moved from a “sage-on-the-stage” approach to a

“guide-on-the-side” approach. With this shift, instructors felt that they were
able to provide more individualized attention to their students than in the past.
Edgar, who had taught at LECC for 33 years, talked about how teaching
online renewed his interest and energy in teaching: “I’ve kind of gone into a
different mode from a pure lecture-mode situation to a more participatory
mode and more of a one-on-one tutoring. I’m getting to know my students
more than I ever did in the past.” The overall feeling of all faculty members
in the study, despite the extra work involved, was a renewed enthusiasm for
teaching and interacting with students, particularly among those faculty
members who have been at the college for a number of years.

A New Type of Community

A change perceived by both faculty and administrator groups was the
type of student being served by the college, particularly in online courses.
One faculty member remarked, “We’re growing a greater variety of students
than we would have been able to do physically.” Instructors who taught
online at LECC for 7 or more years commented on the change in students
taking those courses. Initially, online instruction served students who had no
other way to come to campus. At LECC that population was mostly women
who were homebound or who were returning to work and had family obliga-
tions that prevented them from coming to campus. Today, online students
at the college reflect a more traditional college population, including male
students, dual-enrolled students, and students from 4-year institutions:

It seemed to be that in the past I had the moms and the people who said, “Okay,
I want to go to school and I can’t be on campus. This is my only option.” I think
I found those people gave it their all more so than our current students. You still
have your dedicated students in there, but I’m also finding there’s a broader
range of students. Now it’s just another class to take as opposed to “I really want
to go to college, but I can’t be on campus at any of these times.”

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   95

This change was viewed as evidence that online courses had “caught on”
and become a more acceptable form of instruction. “This is how the student
body has changed. It went from single moms who just couldn’t get out of the
house to anybody, now, is willing to take them.” In addition to the change in
student backgrounds, there came a change in motivation. Some instructors
felt that students turned to online courses as a matter of convenience rather
than need.
Administrators credited online education as being a venue for expanding
college services to students who are homebound or who otherwise may not
be able to come to campus for classes. Yet, the administrators also saw online
education as providing avenues for expansion in terms of new markets and
new opportunities. They perceived students who took online courses as a
mixed bag that included current students who see online courses as merely
another option, those who need the online format for various reasons, and
students who took the courses at a geographical distance outside of the col-
lege’s service area. Several participants mentioned students in the military—
some stationed in Iraq—who took online courses through LECC. One
administrator mentioned specific instances he was aware of in which stu-
dents enrolled in online courses after joining the military because they
wanted to keep their affiliation with LECC and only needed one or two more
courses to finish a degree. Several administrators spoke about students who
were enrolled in online courses but lived in other states. One associate dean
knew of students taking courses from as far away as Hawaii and Australia,
though she emphasized that these students were the exception and not the
rule. The director of enrollment services commented,

We’ve had students from across the country that will jump in and get regis-
tered. They may have been a Leading Edge student and got transferred some-
place else and need to pick up a course or two. And what better way to do it
than to go online?

Participants also mentioned a number of faculty members who moved out

of state but continued their affiliation with LECC by teaching online. Thus,
online education has provided a necessary service to existing LECC students
who need or want the option of taking courses in this format and has
expanded the range of those served by LECC to include those who are not in
the immediate geographic service area but who want to either extend or build
an affiliation with the college.

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

96   Community College Review

Challenges of Integrating Online Education

LECC provides a picture of successful cultural change in the integration
of online education, and many positives have been associated with this
change. However, change does not come easily, and challenges to this
change continue to be raised. Although it is acknowledged that the majority
of the college is in favor of online education, some still fear and distrust this
type of education. Departments offering courses and programs online strug-
gle to maintain a balance between the numbers of sections offered online and
on-site for fear of losing on-campus students.

Implications

LECC provides an example of a community college that was successful

in implementing transformational change. Although the resources available
to implement online education successfully will vary from college to college,
the actions taken by LECC illustrate elements of best practice for institution-
alizing online education. Other colleges contemplating expansion of online
education programs should plan for changes in key areas, including physical
and organizational structures.
Also key to implementing change was the motivation of all employee
groups at LECC. Administrators and faculty members worked together to
create the initial policies and procedures regarding online education, and
both groups continued to have input into how online education functioned.
This level of participation fostered buy-in from employees (Black &
Gregersen, 2003) and helped them to see how online education supported
institutional mission, vision, and core values (Levy, 2003). Faculty members,
staff members, and administrators involved in online education must be part
of the process of its institutionalization, and they should establish guidelines
and procedures together.
Professional development played a large part in altering faculty and
administrator opinions about online education. At the request of the faculty,
training in online instruction was mandatory for full- and part-time faculty
members who taught online, and administrators also chose to participate in
the training. The first-hand experience in an online setting allowed partici-
pants to address their concerns related to teaching and learning in a new
environment. Thus, rather than relying on early adopters to shepherd the
online movement, professional development made it possible for faculty

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   97

members and administrators at different levels to test the environment and

their comfort level with it, reducing the anxiety related to learning a new
process (Schein, 2004). An unanticipated effect of the training was a shift
toward more student-centered teaching both in the physical and virtual
settings. Hence, colleges can be intentional in providing professional devel-
opment opportunities that will allow employees to learn about the online
environment and incorporate specific instructional methods.

Discussion and Conclusion

Like other colleges, LECC has experienced steady enrollment increases in

online education over the past 10 years. LECC places high importance on
being a comprehensive community college and perceives online education as
an enhancement of its mission. Structural and procedural changes occurred
in the college, resulting in significant changes in attitudes and beliefs
regarding online education. Intentionality played a large part in changes that
occurred at LECC. Administrators felt a push from the senior levels to incor-
porate this type of education and to become familiar with it to support the
faculty. Through their efforts, administrators viewed themselves as champi-
ons of online education, a role that is essential in achieving transformational
change (Black & Gregersen, 2003; Kotter & Cohen, 2002). As online educa-
tion became more ingrained in the college culture, participants noticed
changes in administrative and faculty roles, in teaching and learning, in the
students and faculty members involved with the college, and in overall per-
ceptions regarding online education.
A key indicator of the shift toward faculty facilitators involved language.
The word facilitator replaced instructor or teacher in official documents for
online instructors, including the faculty contract, and in everyday conversa-
tion. In addition, faculty members at LECC found that online instruction
required more time and effort because of the increased interaction with
students and the requirement that instructors and students be involved with
the online class at least five times per week. Though the expectations for
online instruction, including training and required participation, were agreed
on by faculty members and administrators, such stringent stipulations
were not placed on face-to-face instruction. Yet, the basis of comparison
for online courses was their face-to-face counterparts, indicating that the
perception of quality may be based on the status quo rather than on a defined
measure of quality (Meyer, 2002).

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

98   Community College Review

Teaching and learning were affected in an unexpected manner at LECC.

The expectation was that online education would be of lower quality than
face-to-face courses. Yet, the training intended for teaching in an online set-
ting was applied independently by faculty members in their on-site courses
as well. Formal training programs or certifications for teaching online are
becoming more common at community colleges. Of interest is how faculty
members are using (or not using) this training and how training of this sort
can be used intentionally to enhance teaching and learning in all settings.
Faculty members who taught online indicated that they tried new methods
of instruction both online and in the physical classroom. Instructors assumed
the role of learning facilitator rather than expert or lecturer, and students
were expected to be active in constructing their own learning during the
course (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Meyer, 2002). The general feeling was that
online instruction required more time and effort on behalf of the instructor,
and individual parameters had to be set to avoid being overwhelmed. Despite
the perceived increase in work, faculty members in this study demonstrated
enthusiasm for teaching online and a renewed enthusiasm for teaching in
general.
Online education was institutionalized at LECC, and the ensuing changes
went beyond the surface level to affect schemas at different levels. The
changes reflected a range of beliefs about teaching, learning, and what it
means to be a comprehensive community college. Change was experienced
across the institution and demonstrated the tightly coupled nature of an
online education system. The college’s existing culture made it possible for
this change to occur without being overly traumatic for faculty members and
administrators.
An important finding lies in the fact that this college incorporated online
education and deliberately expanded its service area while attempting to
remain true to its mission of responding to local community needs and
demands. Just as community colleges changed from being physical parts of
secondary schools to stand-alone institutions, the definition of the communi-
ties that they serve is now evolving. In this era of globalization, in which
information is transferred over distances with a speed previously unimag-
ined, the idea of community is not limited to physical geography. Students
choose which communities they belong to in the virtual world and that
choice may extend to community colleges that offer online education.
Colleges that make changes in ways that align with their core mission and
values may find that students choose to remain connected to that community
despite other available options. What does this mean in terms of financial

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   99

support that ties back to a college’s service area? The implications of choos-
ing one’s community should be explored in more depth.
LECC provided a single example of changes to institutional culture stem-
ming from online education. Changes at LECC, overall, were positive.
Enrollment has increased, technology is being used in ways that are designed
to engage students, and there is a large focus on both serving students and
maintaining high educational quality. LECC used a combined lens of social
and institutional logic in making decisions related to online education
(Gumport, 2003), but it strived to keep its local community at the center of
decision making. In light of recent economic upheavals, ever-tightening
governmental restrictions, and an increasing number of students taking
courses at community colleges, LECC and other institutions will continue to
struggle to maintain the balance between serving local communities and
growing the funding needed to do so.

Notes
1. Pseudonyms are used for the names of the college and its personnel.
2. Student numbers are duplicated counts. Approximately 40% of online students take their
courses solely online. The majority take courses at one or both of the campuses as well as
online.
3. Duplicated headcount indicates that enrollment counts were conducted per course rather
than per student.

References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States,
2008. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2008). Community college fact sheet.
Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfacts
.aspx.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change,
27(6), 13-25.
Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change
and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 23, 483-500.
Basu Conger, S. (2005, July). If there is no significant difference, why should we care?
Journal of Educators Online, 2(2). Retrieved March 14, 2007, from http://www.thejeo
.com/Basu%20Conger%20Final.pdf
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (2003). Leading strategic change: Breaking through the
brain barrier. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

100   Community College Review

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diaz, V., & Cheslock, J. (2006). Faculty use of instructional technology and distributed learn-
ing. In J. S. Levin, S. Kater, & R. Wagoner (Eds.), Community college faculty: At work in
the new economy (pp. 63-79). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eckel, P. D., Hill, B., & Green, M. (1998). On change: En route to transformation.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Fortune, M. F., Shifflett, B., & Sibley, R. E. (2006). A comparison of online (high tech) and
traditional (high touch) learning in business communication courses in Silicon Valley.
Journal of Education for Business, 81, 210-214.
Gumport, P. J. (2003). The demand-response scenario: Perspectives of community college
presidents. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568, 38-61.
Hanna, D. E. (2003). Organizational models in higher education, past and future. In M. G.
Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 67-78). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harris, S. G. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based
perspective. Organizational Science, 5, 309-321.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2001). Data management and analysis methods. In C. F.
Clifton, J. G. Hayworth, & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education:
Expanding perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 553-572). Boston: Pearson Custom.
Jones, N., & O’Shea, J. (2004). Challenging hierarchies: The impact of e-learning. Higher
Education, 48, 379-395.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people
change their organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Lenz, T. L., Jones, R. M., & Monaghan, M. S. (2005). Faculty workload comparison between
a campus-based and Internet-based patient assessment course. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 69(4), 67-68.
Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, theo-
ries. New York: Praeger.
Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in
higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(1). Retrieved
March 12, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/search_results_id.php?id=185
Lincoln, Y. V., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McDonald, J. (2002). Is “as good as face-to-face” as good as it gets? Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6(2), 10-23. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/
publications/jaln/v6n2/v6n2_macdonald.asp
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, K. (2002). Quality in distance education: Focus on online learning (ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report, Vol. 29, No. 4). San Francisco: Wiley.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015

 Garza Mitchell / Online Education and Organizational Change   101

Mupinga, D. M., & Maughan, G. R. (2008). Web-based instruction and community college
faculty workload. College Teaching, 56(1), 17-21.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2004). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies
for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1993). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to aca-
demic culture: Do they tell us the same thing? In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education
handbook of theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 344-388). New York: Agathon Press.
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Raleigh: North Carolina
State University. 
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Sener, J. (2004). Escaping the comparison trap: Evaluating online learning on its own terms.
Innovate, 1(2). Retrieved January 17, 2008, from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?
view=article&id=11&action=article
Tomei, L. A. (2004). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class
size for online courses. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance
Learning. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://www.itdl.org/journal/Jan_04/article04.htm
Whitt, E. J. (2001). Document analysis. In C. F. Clifton, J. G. Haworth, & L. R. Lattuca
(Eds.), Expanding perspectives: Qualitative research in higher education (2nd ed.,
pp. 447-454). Boston: Pearson Custom.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Regina L. Garza Mitchell is an assistant professor at Central Michigan University, Mount

Pleasant, MI.

For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/
journalsPermissions.nav.

Downloaded from crw.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 2, 2015