Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 101

Beliefs Regarding Faculty Participation
in this research, a 42% participation rate.
Of the 41 faculty members who chose not
to participate in the peer review, six faculty
members volunteered to participate in this
research, a 15% participation rate.
Though participation in the peer review
process was incentivized with a $1000
stipend for successful completion, participation
in this research study was not incentivized.
Faculty members received no
compensation for their participation in this
research, which was entirely voluntary and
was not linked to peer review outcomes.
The researchers, who worked with faculty
members on their peer reviews, were
blind to the research participation status of
all faculty members until the peer review
process was concluded at the end of its first
year. This research was reviewed and approved
by the Institutional Review Board
of Texas A&M University Central Texas.
Pilot Questionnaire
Utilizing the Theory of Planned Behavior
requires the development of a survey
questionnaire that is based on the salient
attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions
of control regarding the behavior for
the target group. Therefore, the initial step
in developing our primary questionnaire
was documenting faculty comments and
beliefs regarding the introduction of the
peer review process.
Prior to implementing our internal
peer review, many faculty members openly
expressed concern about the process and
were reluctant to participate. The only previous
experience the majority of our faculty
members had with a similar process was
when department chairs visited their classrooms
to complete their administrative faculty
evaluations. These faculty evaluations
tend to be stress-provoking events for most
faculty members because the outcomes of
the observations are directly associated
with contract renewals and merit raises. So,
when the peer review was discussed at our
institution, many faculty members equated
it with an administrative review and were
not receptive.
Among the criticisms initially targeted
at the peer review of online courses
were claims that the comments regarding
course revisions made during the context
of peer review would be an infringement
on the faculty course developer’s academic
freedom. In addition, faculty members
who had previous experience with only a
review of their teaching (i.e., evaluation
of course delivery) were not familiar with
distinguishing between course design and
course delivery and held persistent beliefs
that confounded the two concepts.
Faculty-generated concerns and
criticisms of the peer review process were
consistently directed to the Online Coordinators
(i.e., faculty members who carried
administrative duties to work with
faculty to teach online), who were responsible
for introducing and explaining the
process to the faculty in their respective
colleges. Immediately prior to implementation,
the Online Coordinators recorded
this information on a pilot questionnaire,
which was used to create the main survey
for this research. The behavior targeted in
both the pilot questionnaire and the main
survey was defined as “completing the TA-
MUCT peer review process for one online
course by the end of the current semester.”
The pilot questionnaire included three,
open-ended items to elicit behavioral outcomes
mentioned by faculty members (i.e.,
advantages and disadvantages of completing
the peer review and “what else comes
to mind when you think about” completing
this process). Normative referents for
the peer review process were elicited with
four open-ended questions that request-
100