Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 108

Internet Learning
referents were supportive of completing the
peer review (see Table 2). Both participants
and nonparticipants believed that Department
Heads, Online Coordinators, School
Directors (i.e., Deans), the distance learning
office personnel, and administrators
in the Provost’s office supported completion
of the peer review process, and faculty
members were motivated to comply with
these referents. However, colleagues, those
who teach online and those who do not,
were less likely to be endorsed as sources of
support for completion of peer review, and
faculty were less motivated to comply with
these referents. This is a paradoxical finding
because colleagues who teach online
are the peers who are performing the peer
review of courses. Similarly, both participants
and nonparticipants did not believe
it was likely that students would think they
should complete a peer review of an online
course, though faculty members indicated
that they did care what students thought
they should do. Paradoxically, students
are the direct beneficiaries of a course improved
by a peer review, but faculty members
did not believe that students thought
they should complete one.
Regarding perceived behavioral
control, on the direct measure, participants
in the peer review process were less likely
than nonparticipants to agree that completing
the peer review was entirely up to
them and that they had full control over
it (see Table 4). It appears that the participants
acknowledged that the peer reviewers
would have some control over the process.
Nonparticipants in the peer review indicated
more control over (not) completing the
process.
On the indirect perceived behavioral
control items, both nonparticipants and
participants in the peer review acknowledged
that unanticipated demands on their
time were frequent and would make it difficult
to complete the peer review (see Table
3). But, the two groups held divergent
beliefs on several control related items.
Nonparticipants reported more frequent
problems using the learning management
system, more family obligations, more
employment demands, and more feelings
of being ill that would make it difficult to
complete the peer review process than did
participants. Both groups indicated that
disagreements with colleagues were rare,
but if they occurred, peer review participants
thought these disagreements would
make it more difficult to complete the peer
review process than did nonparticipants.
Those who did not participate in the peer
review thought that having assistance from
the Online Coordinator would make it
easier to complete the process. Those who
chose to participate in the peer review were
already working with the Online Coordinator
to start the process but reported less
reliance on the Online Coordinator. Neither
group reported that incentives to complete
work were frequent, but both groups
acknowledged that incentives would make
completing the peer review process easier,
particularly the nonparticipants, though
completion of the peer review process was
already incentivized.
Not surprisingly, participants in the
peer review process indicated stronger intentions
to complete the process than did
nonparticipants. Participants also indicated
less variability in their intentions than
did nonparticipants, who responded less
consistently regarding their intentions to
complete the process (see Table 4).
Implications
Looking at our research results as
a whole, many of the initial concerns and
criticisms of the peer review process were
not as highly endorsed as initially assumed.
107