Thank you for sharing the updated findings from the survey of faculty.  During our visit to the faculty senate, we were asked about our response to the survey. Now that we have received the full report and its companion documents, I have reviewed the results and have a few points to offer.  Before discussing my response, it should be reiterated that, as mentioned during the faculty senate meeting, feedback and input is both necessary and functional in higher education.  I value your feedback and appreciate your views.  I ask that you offer the same consideration to our response to your survey.

My response includes seven overlapping themes:

  • Methodological concerns
  • Operationalization concerns
  • Consistency with past research
  • Positive findings
  • Embracing communication
  • Embracing evidence-based decision making
  • Becoming a fifth-wave institution.

Methodological Concerns

Your data suggests that one-third of full-time faculty completed the survey.  The concern that the survey could be completed multiple times by single users remains as an observation.  Perhaps you were able to mitigate that concern through the data coding and analysis procedures.  Setting that concern aside, one must be cognizant of the response rate in comparison to response rates found in educational research.  While the 33 percent response rate is laudable from a survey methodology perspective for some disciplines, a recent meta-analysis of 1,071 online surveys of “education-related” studies  found that “the average online survey response rate is 44.1%” (Wu, Zhao, and Fils-Aime, 2022). 

Given the importance of the topic and the questions posed, we must discuss non-response bias, which is connected to response rates.  A simple definition of non-response bias is offered by Hill and colleagues (1997), who write that survey respondents “may differ in some systematic way from non-respondents” (p. 203).  The Office of Management and Budget’s Standards and Guidelines for Statistic Surveys (2006) advises government agencies conducting surveys perform “nonresponse bias analysis if the expected unit response rate is below 80 percent.”   In the absence of non-response bias analyses, it is plausible to suggest that those who responded to the survey administered by the senate are those who feel the most strongly about the 8-week asynchronous courses.  This possibility calls into question the concluding statement of the Comparative Analysis document which states: “The patterns observed in the full dataset are not artifacts of adjunct participation but are embedded within the institution’s core, full-time faculty population.”  Given that two-thirds of the faculty did not complete the survey, this comment seems to be an overstatement. 

A quick analysis using findings from the survey posted on the senate’s website suggests that associate professors and professors are overrepresented and lecturers and assistant professors are underrepresented in the sample.  These latter groups, lecturers in particular, are more involved in teaching online.  Associate and full professors make up 48% of our full-time faculty and provided instruction for 23% of our online courses in Fall 2025.  The survey’s underrepresentation of groups that provide 77% online instruction most certainly limits the generalizability of the findings.

My point is not to dismiss the findings out of hand, but to point out that we really cannot generalize the findings to the entire population of ODU faculty.  In fact, we have received several emails, texts, phone calls, and in-person comments supporting Forward-Focused Digital Transformation.  Here are a few of those comments:

  • “The changes in higher education are real and ODU has responded appropriately. Faculty need to know the facts and leaders to excite them into believing/knowing that “we can do this”! We can meet the challenges if we act now!”
  • “ODU already has a thriving but often hidden community of AR/VR practitioners. I would love the chance to connect and help ensure that this new investment builds on the talent, knowledge, infrastructure, and lessons learned here, rather than starting from scratch.”
  • “I am just a lowly adjunct at ODU and thus my input amounts to little, but I just want to say you have done an awesome job being on the forefront of the AI revolution and I applaud you and your colleagues for amazing work.”
  • “I wanted to share my appreciation for your leadership and clarity during this pivotal moment for the University. Thank you for your continued emphasis on integrity, data-informed decision making, and the courage to lead through change while keeping student success and institutional sustainability at the forefront. I am especially excited for the future of the online XXXXX program as we continue to thoughtfully develop and refine them to ensure their academic rigor, quality, and alignment with the mission of Old Dominion University remain strong. I look forward to continuing this work in partnership, contributing to a Forward-Focused model that supports students, faculty excellence, and the long-term strength of the Monarch community!”
  • “Your message deeply resonated with me. My perspective is shaped by my previous experiences in higher education; I was once a faculty member cut despite having seniority due to enrollment challenges, and at another institution, I was reduced to part-time status immediately after earning the rank of Professor.  Having seen the consequences of institutional instability firsthand, I understand that we cannot simply maintain the status quo and allow other institutions to become the preferred choice in our community. While I occasionally wonder how our students will fare in more accelerated courses, I firmly believe we have the talent, resources, and resilience necessary to make the Forward-Focused Digital Transformation (FFDT) both meaningful and enduring.”

Each of these comments came from ODU faculty. They are in addition to numerous similar comments from administrative-professional faculty and classified staff.  To be sure, I have heard comments and engaged in conversations with faculty that counter these comments.   One of the important pillars of higher education is that we are able to openly discuss and debate topics of interest to the community.

Operationalization Concerns

Several of the questions seemingly conflate the success of online learning with attitudes about online learning.  To be sure, opinions about online learning are worthy of consideration and those will be discussed more in conjunction with a discussion about how the findings relate to past research.   Questions focused on future enrollment, rigor, learning outcomes, and other anticipated outcomes from FFDT assess opinions, not the actual outcomes themselves.  The table below distinguishes the findings based on opinion, experiences at ODU, and expected outcomes based upon research and/or the experiences of other institutions.

  Senate survey ODU Experience External Research/Data
Impact on enrollment 44% believe undergraduate enrollment will drop and 40 percent think graduate enrollment will drop. Courses have been offered in this format for the past decade.  They always fill, often more quickly than other courses.  Online has grown significantly but plateaued, while on-campus has dropped 30% Institutions offering courses in 8-week asynchronous formats have the highest enrollments in the online education space (e.g., Arizona State, Purdue, Penn State). Research shows a positive impact on enrollment.
Impact on rigor 75% of respondents believe that course rigor will need to be reduced for 8-week format and 58% think rigor will need to be reduced for the asynchronous format There is no evidence to support this.  The learning outcomes have not changed. Research shows that instructors impact course rigor more than course length does.
Student learning 81% of respondents believe that student learning will “worsen.” ODU data shows that online and 8-week students earn higher grades than other students. A large scale research study on Virginia Community College System students found evidence of increases in learning among accelerated courses in comparison to 16-week courses (Li and Xu, 2025).
Faculty workload 76% of respondents believe faculty workload will increase. Stipends and course releases are being offered to offset workload increases. Faculty workload teaching online has been found to be comparable to teaching face-to-face courses (Thompson, 2004).
Course design 73.3% of respondents believe course design will worsen. Professional instructional designers assist in developing online courses.  Feedback from faculty show that they consistently rate the experience favorably. The leaders in online learning provide instructional design support similar to what is provided at ODU.  Our peers that are entering the online space do not appear to provide an equivalent level of support.
Advising 60.8% of respondents believe that advising will worsen. Professional advisors do the bulk of advising for online students. Advising is recognized as a professional field and research shows that academic advisors play a significant role in improving learning.  There are no studies showing that students receive “worse” advising in accelerated programs or from professional advisors. 
Faculty research/ teaching/ service balance 67.6% of respondents believe the balance will worsen. As online learning grew at ODU, the research productivity also grew. It has been noted that accelerated terms could allow more time for research because faculty are able to set aside more blocks of time for their research (e.g., they teach in one semester and conduct research the rest of the time) (see Emslie, 2012).
Student retention 69.2% of respondents think student retention will worsen. Our online growth/retention has outpaced on-campus retention. A number of large online providers with online and campus programs have retention and graduation rates higher than ODU.
Degree quality 82.0% of respondents think degree quality will worsen Degree quality was not impacted by TELETECHNET or the move to online. Degree quality is high for those R-1 institutions with a large presence in online learning (Arizona State, Texas Tech, UCF, Penn State, etc.).  Data from the National Association of Colleges and Employers shows that nearly 90 percent of employees hired college graduates with degrees from online programs and they all paid employees the same regardless of how students earned their degrees.
University Reputation 72.3% of respondents think the university reputation will worsen. We have no interest in become a degree mill.  We seek to become an institution that unapologetically and enthusiastically embraces its mission in serving a diverse population of students. There is no evidence that campus prestige is harmed by offering degrees online.  The absence of a “brick and mortar” campus has been suggested to limit prestige among online providers.
Incoming student quality 63% of respondents believe that incoming student quality will worsen. Admissions standards will not change. Embracing digital technologies allows institutions to serve a wider range of students, not less qualified students, as defined through a scarcity/elite lens (see Crow and Dabars, 2020; Smith, 2023).


Rather than discussing the difference between faculty opinions and research or actual experiences related to each item, a few points will be made that capture what I mean by suggesting that actual outcomes are more important than opinions about those possible future outcomes.

First, while there is a perception that rigor is reduced in moving to accelerated courses, there is no research that confirms this is the case.  One of the few studies comparing course rigor in 8-week and 16-week courses found that students reported working 17 minutes more per credit hour per week in 16-week courses. Further, the study, which included a sample of 29,000 students, found that instructor and course type actually had a stronger impact on rigor than course length for some courses. In the words of the authors, “the instructor and the specific subject are more likely to be the differentiating factor than when the course is taken” (Lutes and Davies, 2013, p. 28).  What this means is that instructors teaching rigorous courses in the 16-week session teach equally rigorous courses in 8-week sessions.   While some may think that rigor changes, the evidence suggests that it does not have to change.  Indeed, faculty control course rigor independent of course length.

Similar comments can be made about course design. As has been noted elsewhere, ODU provides a “raft of support” to faculty in developing accelerated online courses (McMurtrie, 2026).  Many new faculty from other institutions have shared how impressed they are with that level of support.  Recognizing that a significant percentage of respondents believed that course design will worsen, it is important to note that, while the ‘raft of support’ is provided, no course is offered until the assigned faculty member approves the course design.  In a culture that embraces continuous improvement and a commitment to excellence, I truly believe that faculty design and develop high quality courses.  I fully anticipate the same level of quality going forward.  It’s difficult for me to see how course design will worsen in a process where faculty have the final say over the quality of the course design.

Empirical findings also counter the belief that learning “worsens” in accelerated courses.  Research shows the opposite (Deichert et al., 2013), with several studies demonstrating “evidence of student success in shortened courses” (Kidd, 2025, p. 9).  Researchers from the University of California, Irvine, recently analyzed the learning outcomes and enrollment behaviors of nearly 180,000 students enrolled in the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) between 2010 and 2015.  Rather than resulting in “worse” learning outcomes or drops in enrollment, they found that accelerated courses “increase pass rates and improve both enrollment and performance in subsequent courses” (Li and Xu, 2025, p. 1).  Because we serve a large number of VCCS students at ODU, it is safe to suggest that we would find similar results at ODU.

Li and Xu also found that “the positive impacts on downstream outcomes are particularly pronounced among adults and underrepresented minority students, who are also disproportionately enrolled in condensed formats.”  This finding is at the heart of ODU’s mission – we have always served adult learners and a diverse study body.  Given this, I am puzzled by the claim in the senate report that the findings represent a “perspective rooted in mission protection.”  Here is our mission statement:

Old Dominion University (ODU) is a preeminent public research university located in Coastal Virginia. Our world-class faculty fosters dynamic on-campus and global online learning for undergraduate and graduate students that enriches their lives, promotes insightful and perceptive leadership, and motivates the pursuit of excellence in dedicated fields and professions.

We collaborate with strategic partners to address challenges and propose solutions that impact the economy, environment, health and wellness, and social justice. In pursuit of equity and inclusion, ODU provides opportunities for educational, artistic, and professional growth to our diverse Monarch community.

Key parts of this mission related to FFDT include “world-class faculty,” “dynamic on-campus and global online learning,” “enriches [students’] lives,” “equity and inclusion,” and “opportunities for growth...to our diverse Monarch community.”  It is not at all clear to me how FFDT threatens ODU’s mission. Instead, FFDT reflects and emboldens our mission and secures this mission for the future.

Holding negative attitudes about a learning environment that embraces diverse learners is a cause for concern given our mission and commitment to serve those populations.  I believe that these negative attitudes can be traced to a lack of understanding about the success of asynchronous 8-week courses and their potential for improving the lives and communities of our current and future students. As Provost, I am committed to fulfilling ODU’s mission and will work with the deans to expand our communications regarding the long-term impacts of these efforts for the students and communities we serve.

Consistency with Past Research

Finding what some might call a healthy degree of skepticism about asynchronous learning was not surprising given the history of research on the topic as well as the fact that those who completed the survey likely do not represent all faculty at ODU.  Skepticism towards online learning has been found in early and recent studies. A 2012 study by Babson Survey Research Group faculty and Inside Higher Education editors focused on faculty (n=4,536) and administrator attitudes towards online learning and found that two-thirds of faculty viewed online education learning outcomes as inferior or somewhat inferior to on-campus learning outcomes (Allen et al., 2012).   Perhaps mirroring our dynamics at ODU, the Babson study found that 80% of administrators (which included a total sample of 591) had “more excitement than fear” about the growth of online education, while less than a third of faculty held similar views.

Between 2013 and 2019, Inside Higher Education commissioned the annual Survey of Faculty Attitudes on Technology. Summarizing data from the annual survey, one author team concluded, “At no point prior to 2020, did a majority of faculty agree that online courses could achieve student outcomes that were equivalent to in-person courses and, while faculty experience with teaching online increased over time, those with online teaching experience remained in the minority”  (Johnson et al., 2022).  In a similar way recent research surveying 958 faculty from 8 institutions found that 53% of faculty prefer on-campus instruction, compared to 18% who said “they prefer teaching courses that are completely online” (Muscanell, 2023).  It is important to note that, according to Johnson et al. (2022), the rate of acceptance for online learning quickened over time.  This means that a larger percentage of faculty came to view online learning more favorably each year.  I anticipate that a similar pattern will unfold with asynchronous 8-week courses among those who question its utility.  Over time, support for the accelerated asynchronous model will increase.

Positive Findings

When President Hemphill and I visited the senate in December, it was suggested that the first thing many do when they don’t like research findings is to attack the methods.  Our discussion above is not about “liking” or “disliking” the findings, but about providing a response that outlines our concerns while also identifying avenues for ensuring the success of FFDT.  There are some findings from the senate survey that seem, to me, to shine a positive light on the efforts.  I consider three of those below.

First, the survey found that just seven percent (n=20) of those who reported teaching in an accelerated format described the experience as “very negative.”  This finding is interpreted with a degree of caution, though.  The report indicates that 263 respondents reported teaching asynchronously, but 289 respondents answered the question asking how they would describe their experience teaching in an accelerated format.  I suspect that those additional 26 likely fell into the “negative” category.  It is also worth pointing out that it is difficult to distinguish between “somewhat negative” and “somewhat positive.”   If a respondent said that their experience was “somewhat negative,” is it not safe to assume that it was also “somewhat positive”?  Through this lens, one might suggest that 93% of the sample rated teaching accelerated courses on some level of “somewhat positive” or neutral.

Second, extrapolating from this finding, if 61 percent of the sample has already taught in an accelerated format, this suggests that we have a cadre of faculty who have been previously exposed to this form of learning.  (Given that 289 faculty offered opinions about their experiences teaching in an accelerated format, it is possible that we have an even higher number of faculty who have accelerated instruction experience, which will serve to increase momentum as we move forward).

Third, I am heartened by the prominence of the word “student” in each of the word clouds.  This is an area where we all agree our focus should be.  As noted above, our mission is to enrich the lives of our students.

Embracing Communication

In our December meetings with the faculty senate and AAUP, President Hemphill and I committed to continuing to engage in transparent and open communication with the campus community.  Specific strategies were identified to demonstrate this commitment. Meetings with deans and chairs were held to provide updates and meetings with the senate executive committee and faculty senate were held in January and February respectively.

From my perspective, several of the findings from the senate survey can be traced to misunderstandings or myths that individuals have about FFDT.  Two things will counter these misunderstandings – time and communication. In terms of time, as the faculty who hold negative views about FFDT see the impact of their efforts, their lived experiences will counter those negative views – much the same way that we have seen faculty across the country increase the rate at which they accept technology and online learning advances.  In terms of communication, we are doubling down on our commitment to ensuring that all faculty are provided up-to-date information about FFDT.  Deans have been asked to schedule forums where faculty can ask questions about FFDT and receive updates.  Additional meetings with stakeholders will be held to engage in discussions about the entire process.  Over the next several Mondays, we will come together in our Monday Meet-Up series to engage in campus-wide discussions about the integration of technology into higher education and how we can embrace the ideals espoused in Michael Smith’s The Abundant University.  Through all of these discussions, I am hopeful that those who are suspicious of Forward-Focused Digital Transformation will come to see the effort for what it is – a transformative change that is driven by our mission to serve a wide range of students who otherwise wouldn’t have access to the life-altering benefits of a college education.

Embracing evidence-based decision making

The findings from the senate survey also call to mind the need to assure everyone that our process has been, and will continue to be, guided by evidence-based decision making.  Decisions that have been made to date have been guided by internal and external data showing support for specific activities.  Ongoing assessment will be integrated throughout all phases of Forward-Focused Digital Transformation.  Like you, I don’t want this to fail.  Engaging in transformational innovation without ongoing assessment would be like driving across country without watching the fuel gage. If or when we see evidence that certain activities are not working as planned, we will engage in the discussions needed to make appropriate changes.

Becoming a Fifth-Wave Institution

In The Fifth-Wave: The Evolution of American Higher Education, Michael Crow and William Dabars describe the opportunity for a select group of institutions to be come what they label as “fifth-wave institutions.”  The authors chronicle the first four “waves” of higher education – from colonial colleges and state-charted colleges and universities to land-grants and major research institutions.  Crow and Dabars offer the following overview of the next wave:

The Fifth Wave in American higher education may be envisioned as an emerging league of colleges and universities unified in their resolve to accelerate positive social outcomes through the seamless integration of world-class knowledge production with cutting-edge technological innovation and institutional cultures dedicated to the advancement of accessibility to the broadest possible demographic representative of the socioeconomic and intellectual diversity of our nation (p. 7).

Fifth Wave institutions can be distinguished from large R1 institutions that prefer to be assessed by who they exclude rather than include and large online providers who simply distribute information to students in a succinct way – Fifth Wave institutions create and distribute knowledge!

Of course, it’s not the institutions that are creating and distributing the knowledge, it’s the community of faculty, staff, administrators, students, and members of the community who come together to make a difference.  FFDT will not work without the faculty.  Many faculty have voiced strong support for the effort.  I look forward to working with those who are skeptical as we all need to be part of our transformational effort to meet our mission

In closing, I want to express my gratitude to the entire ODU community, including the faculty who have been working tirelessly to prepare for their courses for the fall and the instructional designers who have been working alongside them, as well as the faculty who have raised concerns about Forward-Focused Digital Transformation.  As a community, we must continue to engage in discussions that help us to own and secure our future.


References

 

Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and Online Education. A joint project of the Babson Survey Research Group and Inside Higher Ed. Available online at https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/files/IHE_BSRG-Conflict.pdf.

Crow, M., & Dabars, W. (2020). The Fifth Wave: The Evolution of Higher Education.  Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Deichert, N. T., Maxwell, S. J., & Klotz, J. (2016). Retention of information taught in introductory psychology courses across different accelerated course formats. Teaching of Psychology, 43(1), 4-9.

Emslie, A. (2012, August).  An Increased Emphasis on Bi-Term Courses at WKU? Available online at https://www.wku.edu/convocation/documents/increased_emphasis_on_biterms.pdf.

Hawthorne, M. J., Zhang, A., & Cooper, A. (2022). Advising undergraduate students: An exploration of how academic advising impacts student success. Research in Higher Education Journal, 41.

Hill, A., Roberts, J., Ewings, P., & Gunnell, D. (1997). Non-response bias in a lifestyle survey. Journal of Public Health, 19(2), 203-207.

Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., Reitzik, O., & VanLeeuwen, C. (2022). Faculty perceptions of online education and technology use over time: A secondary analysis of the annual survey of faculty attitudes on technology from 2013 to 2019. Online Learning, 26(3), 293-310.

Kidd, A. B. (2025). Higher Ed in Half the Time: A Literature Review on the Shortened Course Format. Teaching and Learning Excellence through Scholarship, 5(1), n1.

Li, X., & Xu, D. (2025). Efficiency or burnout? The effects of condensed course formats on student achievement in community colleges. EdWorkingPaper No. 25-1273. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.  Available online at https://edworkingpapers.com/ai25-1273.

Lutes, L., & Davies, R. (2013). Comparing the rigor of compressed format courses to their regular semester counterparts. Innovative Higher Education, 38(1), 19-29.

McGill, C. M. (2019). The professionalization of academic advising: A structured literature review. NACADA Journal, 39(1), 89-100.

McMurtrie, B. (2026, February 2).  Can a university transform itself this fast?  Chronicle of Higher Education.  Available online at https://www.chronicle.com/article/can-a-university-transform-itself-this-fast.

Muscanell, N. (2023, August 21). 2023 Faculty and Technology Report: A First Look at Teaching Preferences Since the Pandemic.  EDUCAUSE Available online at https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/2023/faculty-and-technology-report-a-first-look-at-teaching-preferences-since-the-pandemic/modality-preferences.

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2023).  NACE Job Outlook, 2024. Available online at https://www.naceweb.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2023/publication/research-report/2024-nace-job-outlook.pdf.

Office of Management and Budget’s Standards and Guidelines for Statistic Surveys (2006). Available online at https://www.bls.gov/bls/statistical-policy-directive-2.pdf.

Smith, M. (2023).  The Abundant University: Remaking Higher Education for a Digital World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Thompson, M. M. (2004). Faculty self-study research project: Examining the online workload. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3), 84-88.

Wu, M. J., Zhao, K., & Fils-Aime, F. (2022). Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100206.