Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 107

Beliefs Regarding Faculty Participation
Discussion
Though differences between participants’
and nonparticipants’ belief
endorsement could not be tested
statistically due to unexpectedly small
sample sizes, a qualitative examination of
the endorsement of the modal belief statements
provides some useful information
about faculty members’ perceptions of
completing the peer review. Analyzing the
data with a qualitative lens after quantitative
analysis conforms with mixed method
approaches that point out the advantages of
complementarity, in which the alternative
method can enhance or clarify the results
from the initial method used, leading to an
improved understanding of the phenomenon
under study (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham
1989; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004;
Molina-Azorin, 2012).
When measured directly, both participants
in the internal peer review process
and those who did not participate held
relatively positive attitudes toward completing
the peer review (see Table 4), an
unexpected outcome given the reluctance
and skepticism expressed by some faculty
members when the process was introduced.
Of course, these positive attitudes may not
be representative of those held by all faculty
members given that those who held the
most negative attitudes may have refused
to participate in the peer review and this
research. But, if these negative attitudes remain
for some, they were not pervasive to
affect all faculty members.
For our sample, consistent with the
direct measures of attitudes, the behavioral
beliefs underlying participants’ and nonparticipants’
attitudes regarding the peer
review process were positive (see Table 1).
Both groups believed that completion of
the peer review would allow them to improve
their courses, learn new techniques,
and gain a better understanding of the
quality. Both groups indicated moderately
positive beliefs that completion of the peer
review would be useful in their promotion
and tenure packets and would help other
faculty members improve their courses.
Nonparticipants were more likely to believe
that the peer review would be effortful and
time consuming than participants in the
process. Initial concerns regarding faculty
not getting along and infringement on academic
freedom were not highly endorsed
by either group. Both groups agreed that
these outcomes would be bad, but neither
group believed that these outcomes were
very likely. Neither group held strong beliefs
that the peer review process would be
confusing or require changes that they did
not want to make to their courses.
Regarding norms, on the direct
measure, both participants in the peer review
process and those who did not participate
held beliefs supportive of completing
the peer review process (see Table 4).
Examining this scale by item, both participants
and nonparticipants thought that
valued colleagues (participants M = 2.25,
SD = 1.17; nonparticipants M = 2.00, SD =
1.10) and important people (participants M
= 2.25, SD = .71; nonparticipants M = 1.50,
SD = 1.00) would approve of them completing
the peer review process. However,
when asked whether most faculty members
will complete the peer review process, both
participants (M = 4.13, SD = 2.10) and nonparticipants
(M = 4.50, SD = 1.05) failed to
acknowledge this item as definitely true.
This is not a surprising outcome given that
peer review of online courses had just been
introduced.
Consistent with direct measures of
norms, the normative beliefs underlying
participants’ and nonparticipants’ perceptions
regarding the peer review process and
their motivations to comply with normative
106