The Impact of COVID-19 on Faculty Technological Knowledge Development at an Academic Medical Center

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the learning environments of 1.3 billion students worldwide, particularly as many traditional, in-person classes moved to virtual learning. This mixed-methods study surveyed and interviewed faculty within a US academic medical center to determine whether the pandemic stimulated technological knowledge growth. While the study collected both quantitative and qualitative data, priority was given to qualitative interview data to control for a small sample size and to gather in-depth insights. Data collection began approximately 18 months after the onset of the pandemic that occurred in spring 2020. Qualitative results garnered five major themes: collective decision-making and individual autonomy, flexible learning in the new normal, challenges with student engagement in the long-distance relationship, faculty well-being in the age of COVID-19, and opportunities evolved from challenges. Quantitative results indicated that significant differences existed between faculty self-rated competency levels of performing technology-related tasks in the pre-pandemic period and in the current period, suggesting technology knowledge gains from the forced transition to online teaching. Future research is needed to survey a broader audience and to determine whether faculty will continue to utilize technological resources learned during this pandemic to supplement in-person teaching as well as to establish a future contingency plan.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic changed society’s normal. Just as the daunting effects of the pandemic were felt in many areas of life, the realm of higher education was not immune to such disturbances [1]. Pelikan et al. [2] highlighted that by the end of April 2020, 1.3 billion learners were impacted by institutional closures. University presidents and leaders across the nation faced challenging decisions regarding students’ public health and safety while attempting to deliver high-quality pedagogical methods that fostered student success. In adherence to the social distancing guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), many higher education institutions transitioned course content to an online learning environment [1,3,4]. While this transition was needed due to the emergent public health crisis, the sudden shift to online learning presented challenges for faculty and students alike [3].

Online and distance education have increased in popularity among adult learners due to the flexibility they offer [5]. Even so, many faculty have been resistant to the idea of utilizing technology to supplement their in-person classes. Keengwe and Kidd [6] explained that to have a successful online learning experience, faculty should be comfortable with the technology used so that they can foster that level of comfort in their students. Effectively teaching in an online environment requires faculty to understand how to properly utilize technology to offer support to their students. The COVID-19 pandemic did not afford most faculty the time to comfortably transition from face-to-face teaching to online learning and therefore challenges were encountered. Papanikolaou et al. [7] stated that technology-enhanced learning is an intrinsically challenging task. In order to make technology-enhanced learning meaningful and successful, Mishra explained that utilization of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework is imperative [8]. The TPACK approach encompasses a shift from a technocentric strategy to helping teachers develop interdependent understandings of technology, pedagogy, content, and context [9]. In practical terms, the TPACK method is based on the idea that content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technology knowledge are equally important and should function as a coherent system [10].

Faculty challenges associated with the rushed transference to online learning included haphazard transitioning, difficulty in adaption, lack of student engagement, network instability, technological restraints, and mental stress [11,12]. Aziz et al. [12] stated that rudimentary systems caused faculty to struggle with the necessary technological adoptions. Additional barriers in technology adaption included a lack of training on the learning management systems (LMS), especially among older faculty prior to the pandemic. Fernandez-Batanero et al. [13] explained that “technostress”, a type of stress associated with the implementation of technologies, can produce anxiety for teachers and potentially lead to burnout syndrome. Xie et al. [11] explained that in the new normal of COVID-19, promoting student engagement was difficult for faculty due to the online learning environment lacking a sense of connectedness and belonging. Besser et al. [14] highlighted that connectedness was a critical factor influencing student success in an online learning environment during the pandemic. As anxiety typically arises in situations of unfamiliarity, the lack of knowledge and tech-savviness associated with the abrupt shift to online learning caused mental stress for many faculty members [13].

Despite knowing very little regarding the outcomes associated with the abrupt pivot from face-to-face learning to online instruction, it is no secret that the sudden shift in instructional modalities revealed that many institutions were unprepared for the challenge [1]. This study aimed to investigate the technological obstacles experienced by faculty in the School of Health Related Professions (SHRP) at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC). A mixed-methods study design was utilized to answer the research question: “Did the pandemic stimulate technological knowledge growth among faculty?” An anonymous survey was disseminated to the SHRP faculty, utilizing Qualtrics, which requested that faculty perform a self-reflection regarding their pandemic teaching experiences. Additionally, qualitative interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data regarding faculty member experiences. This project provided faculty with the experience and information needed to perform effective self-reflection, stimulate professional growth, and assisted faculty with gaining new insights into themselves and their pedagogical practices.

2. Materials and Methods

This study (2021-0679) was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the UMMC.

2.1. Setting

Existing research explored the impact of COVID-19 on higher education in general [15,16,17] or disciplines such as medical education [12] and dental education [18], but to our best knowledge none has explored the discipline of allied health. This study took place in the SHRP atUMMC. The school has twelve programs including Histotechnology, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Medical Laboratory Science, Nuclear Medicine Technology, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Radiologic Sciences, Doctor of Health Administration, Health Informatics and Information Management, Health Systems Administration, Leadership and Management and Medical Scribe Specialist. The last five of those programs are offered exclusively online.

Before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty in the first seven programs taught classes mainly in person in the traditional classroom setting. Due to the abrupt shift to online learning, those faculty had to significantly modify their instructional delivery methods to ensure learning continuity. In the meantime, faculty in the online programs experienced minimal impact as the pandemic did not necessitate alterations of delivery methods. Therefore, the current study focused on faculty from the traditional in-person programs only as their experiences of adaptations during the unprecedented time were assumed to be richer and better reflect what educators in general had undergone.

2.2. Study Design

The current study utilized a concurrent nested design, one of the six mixed-methods designs developed by Hanson et al. [19]. With this design, qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently but priority was given to either one or the other form of data.

In the current study, qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews adapted from a previous study by Gordy et al. [1]. The interviews included fourteen questions (see Appendix A). “We do not learn from experience… we learn from reflecting on experience”, as John Dewey, the American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer stated [20]. The interview questions were intended to provide an opportunity for faculty to reflect on their pandemic teaching experience and gather detailed insights into the impact of the pandemic on teaching and learning. For example, one question asks “Comparing to your COVID-19 pre-pandemic technology skills, what would you say about your technology competencies right now?”

Quantitative data were collected through an anonymous online survey (see Appendix B) adapted from Archambault and Crippen’s TPACK instrument for distance educators [21]. The survey included four demographic questions and thirteen technology-related questions. The demographic questions inquired about education level, years of teaching experience, prior formal training in online teaching preceding COVID-19, and educational setting—in-person only, in-person and online, or online only. The last question was built with skip logic meaning that if the participant answered “online only”, the survey concluded. For the technology related questions, the participants were asked to rate their competency in doing each specified task twice—once for the pre-pandemic period and once for the current period.

Priority was given to qualitative data in this study for two reasons. First, the interviews could explore the lived experiences and views of the participants and were believed to provide more in-depth insights into the phenomena under study than would be acquired from quantitative methods [22]. Second, the population of the target audience was very small and the quantitative survey would not generate sufficient data for generalizable knowledge.

2.3. Participants

A total of seventy-five faculty were employed in the SHRP at the time of the current study. For this study, only faculty who had traditionally taught in-person classes prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and had to make the rapid shift from teaching in-person to teaching online during the pandemic were included as mentioned above. Faculty who only taught in the online environment were excluded as the pandemic did not alter their instructional delivery method. The quantitative survey collected responses from thirty-one faculty, with a 41% response rate. After applying the exclusion criterion, ten faculty who indicated that they taught in online programs only were excluded. In addition, five responses with incomplete data were also eliminated. Therefore, the final sample included sixteen faculty. The qualitative interviews included eleven faculty who voluntarily participated in the research. These faculty were from five of the seven in-person programs: Histotechnology, Medical Laboratory Science, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Radiological Sciences. Overlapping could potentially exist as the interviewees could also have participated in the survey and vice versa. Due to the anonymity of the survey, the number of overlaps remained unknown to researchers.

2.4. Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection for the current study began in the fall semester of 2021, about eighteen months after the initial lockdown that took place in March 2020. By this time, the faculty had been teaching in the pandemic for an extended period and had ample experience of coping with the pandemic as well as time to reflect on the pandemic teaching experiences. Purposive sampling, the widely used technique in qualitative research, was utilized to recruit interviewee participants [23]. Faculty who met our study inclusion criteria were contacted through emails and phone calls. The recruited participants were interviewed virtually. All of the interviews were recorded and then transcribed.

The anonymous online survey was sent during the same period to all faculty through university issued email addresses. To filter out faculty who taught in the online only environment, one of the four demographic questions asked: “Before the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in 2020, what educational setting did you teach in?” If “online only” was selected, the participant would be taken to the end of the survey. Those who taught in the “in-person only” or “in-person and online” environments proceeded to self-rate their technology-related skills on a 5-point Likert scale (very poor, poor, average, good, excellent) in the thirteen technology-related questions twice, once for the pre-pandemic period and once on the current status. The goal of the survey was to determine whether the pandemic facilitated competency gains.

The interview data were analyzed using the Constant Comparative Method (CCM), a method commonly used in qualitative data analysis [24,25]. Several steps were taken during this analysis phase to enhance the trustworthiness of the research. First, member checking was performed, a process in which the transcribed data were sent back to interviewees to check for accuracy [26]. Second, two authors analyzed the data separately and the themes were compared. Discrepancies were discussed with a third author and the final themes were agreed upon by all authors. The quantitative survey data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28). Cronbach’s Alpha was first performed to check the reliability and internal consistency of the survey items [27]. Due to the small sample size and non-normality of the data, Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed to compare the self-rated pre-pandemic and current technological competency levels [28]. In addition, Kruskal-Wallis H tests were performed to examine whether significant differences existed in each pre-pandemic self-rating among faculty with years of experience. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to examine whether significant differences existed in each pre-pandemic self-rating among faculty with different education levels and those who received formal training prior to the pandemic versus those who did not. The same tests were executed on current self-ratings. Finally, the qualitative and quantitative findings were integrated following the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) framework by O’Cathain et al. [29,30] to intentionally bring together the two research approaches and cross-validate findings from each other.

3. Results

3.1. Qualitative Findings

Eleven faculty members from five programs within the SHRP participated in the interviews. The years of teaching experience ranged from three to 25 with the average years of experience being approximately 14 years. Five key themes emerged following data analysis. These included collective decision-making and individual autonomy, flexible learning in the new normal, challenges with student engagement in the long-distance relationship, faculty well-being in the age of COVID-19, and opportunities evolved from challenges.

3.1.1. Collective Decision-Making and Individual Autonomy

The theme of collective decision-making and autonomy describes how faculty decisions for each program were made collectively while upholding faculty autonomy. Participants emphasized the importance of collaborative decision-making at the program level. Equally, their ability to freely determine the selection of technology based on course needs and comfort level was respected.

“We were completely involved in all the decisions that were made. We had complete autonomy as far as how we were going (to use). I preferred WebEx or Zoom, I’ve used Zoom. Some people like Big Blue Button and so it was left up to us what we wanted to use. I think that’s good because everybody has a different comfort level and where the buttons are, what they want to do and so, yeah, we were completely involved in all the decisions.”

(Participant A)

“We did make some individual decisions about our specific classes, but the whole foundation was laid as a group.”

(Participant K)

3.1.2. Flexible Learning in the New Normal

The second theme that emerged from the interviews was flexible learning in the new normal. Participants described how faculty increased schedule flexibility to accommodate students’ personal and academic needs. Multiple faculty would meet and provide support to students at various times and at the student’s convenience.

“I personally had extra meetings with them… One particular student that I had had two small children. I accommodated her by assuring her I didn’t care if her kids were on her lap… We would often have our sessions at 8 at night and so that she could make sure one child was asleep and she would hold the other one in her lap.”

(Participant A)

“If they said we can meet at seven, we met at 7. We’ve met, you know at 8, so just being flexible and able to meet their needs is what it was for me.”

(Participant D)

“I would do pop ups where I would schedule additional times when they were not meeting with someone else. So traditionally I may only meet with them on Monday, but during the pandemic they saw me a lot more. I may meet with them three times during the week.”

(Participant E)

Faculty also increased instructional flexibility to allow multiple participation platforms such as virtual options for remote students in quarantine or traditional participation in the classroom.

“In the fall when we started coming back, we had part of the class in, and maybe somebody had COVID or somebody was quarantined… And so if I had a student that was in quarantine, they would take a canvas quiz/test and then the students who were in-person would take paper tests.”

(Participant A)

“We’ve actually had to use that (Big Blue Button) for students who have been quarantined like we’ve had a few that have been off campus, but so they don’t get behind, we’re allowing them to chime in through Big Blue Button.”

(Participant G)

The participants emphasized how the pandemic provided opportunities for faculty to develop best practices to optimize learning and formulate alternative plans to ensure learning contingency. Faculty recorded live lectures or utilized voice-over PowerPoint presentations and would post recordings in Canvas (learning management platform) to allow students access to lecture information. Several participants stated that they explored additional resources such as web conferencing software Zoom, WebEx, or Big Blue Button, online test proctoring such as Respondus and Lockdown Browser, lab simulations, online videos from YouTube, book vendors, or other higher education institutions to provide optimal instruction.

“I do a Big Blue Button conference for every one of my lectures, even if no one is missing and I record and I post my Big Blue Button recorded lectures online. Because that way, if a student was in class and missed something, they have the entire lecture recorded. They can go back and watch it. Most of our staff, our faculty in our department use Big Blue Button to set up a meeting as our lecture and we record our lectures and post it through Canvas.”

(Participant B)

“I reached out to my book vendor… she was able to give me course content where our students did have to pay for it. But they were able to give us a reasonable discount where they were able to go in and utilize some of the course content from the book that was already pre-created… I didn’t realize how valuable that course content was going to be to their end result, which is passing their registry.”

(Participant D)

“I found a lot of videos on YouTube … I was able to utilize a few of those videos, rather than go and rerecord everything. I was able to put together videos for demonstrations and I did a few pre-recordings of the demos and then I was able to put together all the images to simulate a test.”

(Participant I)

Despite the quick alterations in instructional delivery from in-person to online, participants voiced how student academic performance did not differ pre-pandemic or during the pandemic and how some students embraced the new delivery. One participant stated that a small number of students actually thrived in the online environment:

“Some of them thrived… They just really thrived in that online environment… I think they felt more comfortable asking questions through the public chat or by unmuting their mic, and they did better in, I don’t want to say an isolated environment, but more of an isolated environment.”

(Participant K)

Most faculty agreed that academically at-risk students were at risk regardless of the pandemic. However, some faculty did notice that clinical skills were lacking due to limited in-person lab training and reduced hours of on-site clinical experiences.

“We had a couple of students who were already at risk but that was before COVID. So really it didn’t have anything to do with pandemic. Those students were at risk when the program started.”

(Participant B)

“I feel like they (students) will have some barriers to overcome as far as hands on and clinical things that they will normally see in our programs… They’ll have to grow a little more on their own than they would have had they been in class with us.”

(Participant F)

“I think for our program, it is more hands on. Students need to be present to practice things and so I don’t think that our students have done quite as well in the clinical environment because of from an all online as compared to what it was prior to the pandemic. So I do the clinical experiences and I’ve had some of our clinical instructors make comments about that they’ve noticed that students aren’t as prepared.”

(Participant J)

3.1.3. Challenges with Student Engagement in the Long-Distance Relationship

The third theme that emerged captured the participants’ feelings about engagement in the long-distance relationship between faculty and students. This distance was primarily a result of varying instructional delivery changes that limited face-to-face interactions as well as internet connectivity issues for students residing in rural areas. Many students relied on coffee shops, restaurants, friends’ houses, and also relatives’ homes for optimal Wi-Fi capabilities.

“I have several students that live out in rural areas of very heavy foliage, and so their Internet was not that great. They had challenges. Sometimes I could see them log in and out, maybe four or five times throughout the time frame, and then I would have to stop and go back because it’s like, OK, what did you say I missed it then I’ll have to go back catch them… I’ve had people in the middle of a test. It’s logged them out of an exam.”

(Participant D)

“What we did run into was the Internet connectivity and that for some students, especially in the rural areas, was atrocious. They might have intermittent Internet services. Some of them were able to go to a McDonald’s or to a coffee shop to be able to get the Internet that they needed to be able to attend classes, and then when COVID got really bad in all of those areas, (the restaurants or shops) closed down, they were no longer able to connect so they would have to go to a friend or a family member’s home to be able to do that. For the students that lived in the more metro area or in some of the larger areas around down the coast or up in North Mississippi, they didn’t have as much trouble. It was definitely the more rural students that had the difficulty.”

(Participant K)

Interaction and engagement were compromised between faculty and students as faculty were unable to read facial expressions or other body language in the online environment or facial cues behind masks when in person. Additionally, during online instruction, there were occasional distractions in the home setting and issues with students’ timeliness in accessing online classes, including failure to connect cameras or microphones.

“I’m a talker and I’m a people person and I like to see my students’ faces but I can’t. Even with all the mask business, it just makes me crazy. I can’t tell what people are thinking while we’re talking in class… It’s hard not to see somebody’s face and say ‘do you understand what I’m saying’, ‘do you have a question?’... But it’s really that’s who I am, and so I’ve missed the closeness.”

(Participant H)

“There were students who had kids at home. So we had to make sure, ‘OK, you gotta mute because there’s little kids in the background’… so you have to make sure everybody is muted. And then the question answer flow is not the same… I did a review and it took about an hour and a half… And it was really like the longest voicemail message I’ve ever done. I mean, it was like me talking to the screen and there was nobody asking me questions back unless I said ‘are you there, are you there, are you listening?’, and somebody would say something and it would be it. It’s just eerie.”

(Participant A)

“I need to see everybody. And that was the thing that was most frustrating to me and I would just say ‘OK, turn your cameras on. I’m not going any further. Everybody turn on your camera. I don’t care what you look like but I’ve got to see your face.”

(Participant H)

3.1.4. Faculty Well-Being in the Age of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic unavoidably imposed a psychological strain on faculty. Faculty felt stressed while trying to adapt to new technology needed for continued student learning.

“Many nights I would be sitting at my dining table at 10:30 at night trying to record a lecture for student and then I would go back to replay it and nothing would be there. I would just cry… it was very stressful, you know. And I think that emotionally we were all pushed to the max.”

(Participant C)

“Every time I had to do something live, I would be sick to my stomach… because I was so afraid that the camera wouldn’t work... I didn’t want to look like an idiot in front of my students…. but you know with all the worries that people are going to get sick and they’re going to die, and what’s going to happen and we’re all going to lose our jobs and the economy is going to fall. So it’s just layered on top of all that horrible feeling that I know everyone had at the beginning… I was just really afraid.”

(Participant H)

3.1.5. Opportunities Evolved from Challenges

Although the pandemic brought unexpected challenges to education contingency and stress imposed on faculty as stated above, the final theme that emerged included the unique opportunities related to personal growth and development that would not otherwise be possible. Faculty were forced to learn new technology skills. The end result was an increased comfort level with technology and proficiency in using technology for synchronous or asynchronous instructional delivery, virtual meetings, online testing, and providing students with additional online resources.

“I wasn’t going to make time to develop new skills unless I was really put to the test… I’ve only participated in a couple of zoom meetings prior to the pandemic and so now. I mean, I feel like I’m much better at it... I had to force myself to learn, but I obviously feel much more advanced in technology.”

(Participant A)

“You know I would have probably never been forced to understand how to do a voice-over PowerPoint. Originally I was trying to record the whole lecture. I did not know that I could record one slide at a time… I was in meetings last night with students. I had meetings every 30 min to meet with students going to Capstone and I could just click, click, click to open up a meeting… So I really felt good about the skills I’ve gained and I’m proud of that.”

(Participant C)

“Really, I didn’t use a lot of technology. You know, sometimes being in the lecture room trying to get the PowerPoints to work was a challenge enough. Just because the equipment we have is not really all that user-friendly so I made leaps and bounds really. But I won’t lie to you. It was very stressful trying to step up and do that. But I did anyway. It was easier for some than others, but we made the transition because we had to. So yes, I’m much more comfortable with being able to do things from a technology standpoint and being able to use some videos and being able to share my screen and do polls and things like that. I mean, I learned how to do all of that to try to engage the students. Like I said, nowhere to go but up, so yes, it (technology competency) improved tremendously.”

(Participant E)

Other effects that resulted from the pandemic included positive changes faculty made in their pedagogical practices and the continuation of those practices after in-person classes resumed. Many faculty adopted the practice of recording live lectures or PowerPoints and making them available within the online learning management system for ongoing student access to course materials. In addition, faculty shared that they would continue using virtual meeting platforms for student communication and support. There was also a shift from paper to online testing that has sustained within the school.

“I will continue to do voice over PowerPoints and continue to use them as I do now… Several of them said how much it helped them, and even in my evaluation they mentioned that the videos were helpful.”

(Participant A)

“I’m still doing the voice over PowerPoints. I really like that. Upload them into Arc. Hopefully we’ll keep that for a while and now and then I embed quizzes into it, but I’ve continued to use a lot of what I was using (during the pandemic).”

(Participant I)

“I’m really embracing technology in a way I have not before. I still use Big Blue Button…I’m not afraid to set up a meeting now. All testing is online for me. I push out information to the students now without even thinking about it anymore. I can pull together a PowerPoint or presentation for them and it’s okay to push it out to them and say, hey you guys watch this and be ready for it in class. In that way it’s been really helpful for me. I think I can utilize my in-class time in a much better way than before. I love that part.”

(Participant F)

“I will never give a paper test again… they (online tests) are so much better.”

(Participant E)

“I will never use a Scantron again. I’m in love with online testing.”

(Participant G)

3.2. Quantitative Findings

A total of sixteen survey results were included in the analysis. The demographic characteristics of the included faculty are shown in

Table 1. Survey participant characteristics.

Participant Characteristics	Categories	n	Percentage (n = 16)
Pre-pandemic Teaching format	In-person only	5	31%
	In-person and online	11	69%
Education level	Doctoral degree	14	88%
	Master’s degree	2	13%
Years of teaching experience	3–5 years	3	19%
	6–10 years	6	38%
	11–15 years	1	6%
	16–20 years	3	19%
	20+ years	3	19%
Received formal training	Yes	7	44%
	No	9	56%

. Prior to the pandemic, 31% of respondents taught in-person only, while 69% taught both in-person and online. The majority of participants (88%) hold a doctoral degree, while 13% have a master’s. Years of faculty teaching experience ranged from 3 to 5 years (19%) to 20 or more years (19%). The largest group of respondents had been teaching for 6–10 years (38%). Less than half (44%) had received formal training in online course design and delivery methods.

Cronbach’s alpha for the 13 survey items was α = 0.945 indicating excellent internal consistency and high reliability (see Appendix C) [27]. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed to compare faculty members’ self-reported pre-pandemic and current technological competency levels for each set of the 13 items on the survey. A statistically significant improvement in technology competence was observed for all but one variable. Pre-pandemic and current technology competency levels are summarized in

Table 2. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results to compare faculty self-rated pre-pandemic and current technology competency level.

Survey Item	Faculty Self-Rating
	Median	Median	Z Score	p-Value
	Pre-Pandemic	Current
Q1. Troubleshoot technical problems associated with hardware	3.50	4.00	−2.460	0.014 **
Q2. Address computer issues related to software	3.50	4.00	−2.828	0.005 **
Q3. Assist students with troubleshooting technical problems	4.00	4.00	−2.460	0.014 **
Q4. Use technological representations to demonstrate specific concepts	3.00	4.00	−3.002	0.003 **
Q5. Implement program curriculum in online environment	3.00	4.00	−3.002	0.003 **
Q6. Use various courseware programs to deliver instruction	3.50	4.00	−3.066	0.002 **
Q7. Create online environment allowing students to build new knowledge and skills	3.00	4.00	−3.035	0.002 **
Q8. Implement different methods of teaching online	3.00	4.00	−3.314	<0.001 ***
Q9. Moderate online interactivity among students	3.00	4.00	−2.041	0.041 *
Q10. Encourage online interactivity among students	3.00	4.00	−2.081	0.037 *
Q11. Use technology to predict students’ skill/understanding of topic	3.00	4.00	−1.151	0.250 *
Q12. Use technology to create effective representations of content that depart from textbook knowledge	3.50	4.00	−2.640	0.008 **
Q13. Meet overall demands of online teaching	3.00	4.00	−2.676	0.007 **

Note. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001. Q, question.

.

As to the ability to troubleshoot their own technological problems, in both hardware (Q1) and software issues (Q2), faculty gave themselves higher ratings for the current period than the pre-pandemic time frame and the difference was statistically significant (Q1: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.50 pre-pandemic, z = −2.460, p = 0.014; Q2: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.50 pre-pandemic, z = −2.828, p = 0.005). Likewise, faculty felt more competent in assisting students with troubleshooting technical problems (Q3) currently than previously (Mdn 4.00 current, Mdn = 4.00 pre-pandemic, z = −2.460, p = 0.014).

Significant improvements were also observed in the next five survey items. Participants reported being better able to use technological representations (Q4: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.00 pre-pandemic, z = −3.002, p = 0.003), implement program curriculum in an online environment (Q5: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.00 pre-pandemic, z = −3.002, p = 0.003), use a variety of courseware programs for instructional delivery (Q6: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.50 pre-pandemic, z = −3.066, p = 0.002), and to create an online environment which allows students to build new knowledge and skills (Q7: Mdn = 4.00, Mdn = 3.00 pre-pandemic, z = −3.035, p = 0.002). The most marked improvement was noted in participants’ current ability to implement different methods of teaching online. The difference was significant at 0.001 significance level (Q8: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.00 pre-pandemic, z = −3.314, p < 0.001).

In regards to moderating online interactivity among students, the pre-pandemic and current ratings are significantly different at 0.05 significance level (Q9: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.00 pre-pandemic, z = −2.041, p = 0.041). Similar results were noted for skills related to the ability to encourage online interactivity among students (Q10: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.00 pre-pandemic, z = −2.081, p = 0.037). Question 11 pertained to faculty members’ ability to use technology to predict students’ understanding of a particular topic. This was the only item that did not show a statistically significant difference between the pre-pandemic and current technology skills (Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.00 pre-pandemic, z = −1.151, p = 0.250).

When asked to rate the ability to use technology to create effective representations of content that depart from textbook knowledge, a significant improvement was observed between the two periods (Q12: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.50 pre-pandemic, z = −2.640, p = 0.008). The final survey item asked faculty to gauge their pre-pandemic and current ability to meet the overall demands of online teaching. A statistically significant difference was noted between the two periods implying that faculty had made improvements in their overall technology competency in online teaching (Q13: Mdn = 4.00 current, Mdn = 3.00 pre-pandemic, z = −2.676, p = 0.007).

In order to examine whether faculty with different levels of education (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctoral degree) rated each survey item differently, a Mann-Whitney U test, instead of a Kruskal-Wallis H test, was performed since all participants held either a master’s or a doctoral degree. No significant differences were found for either period. A Kruskal-Wallis H test was conducted on the variable “years of experience”. Similarly, no significant differences were detected among faculty with teaching experience of “1–2 years”, or “3–5 years”, or “6–10 years”, or “11–15” years, or “16–20 years” or “20 or more years”. Lastly, a Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to explore whether having received formal training in online teaching made a difference in how faculty rated themselves for either period. Significant differences were not found in any survey item either.

The qualitative and quantitative data analyses effectively illustrated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the faculty technological knowledge development. The qualitative and quantitative findings are consistent with and corroborate each other. The interviews revealed that faculty were forced to learn new technology to ensure education contingency. They were also forced to incorporate a variety of technological platforms to ensure the effectiveness of teaching and learning. During the process, faculty learned to better troubleshoot technological problems, which are in agreement with results from survey technology-related questions 1–3. Faculty also reported that they learned to use assorted technological platforms such as Canvas, Zoom, and voice-over PowerPoint to create the online teaching environment, deliver instructional content, maintain faculty-student communications, and moderate online interactivity. These were supported by survey technology-related questions 4 through 10 and 12. The qualitative data suggested that the learning opportunities brought by the pandemic stimulated faculty technological knowledge growth for online teaching. This was also reflected in their self-assessment of their ability to meet the overall demands of online teaching (Q13). The majority of faculty felt they could better meet the needs of online teaching currently and less felt incompetent when compared to the pre-pandemic period.

4. Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic caused colleges and universities to shift quickly from an in-person teaching format to online, virtual learning. The current study aimed to reveal technological obstacles experienced by faculty at the SHRP as a result of this quick shift. Faculty who were responsible for rapidly shifting their face-to-face course to an online format reported feeling emotionally strained and under stress. Romero-Ivanova et al. [30] noted that the rapid shift caused faculty to essentially learn how to teach in a virtual format overnight. Less than half of the participants in this study indicated that they had received formal training prior to the pandemic on how to develop and deliver online education which led to challenges with using web conferencing software, online test proctoring, and determining how to teach hands-on labs virtually. Faculty also indicated that they encountered issues with internet connectivity, particularly for those that lived in rural areas, and experienced unsuccessful attempts at recording lectures. These findings agree with prior studies which found that faculty in rural areas reported a lack of stable internet to support online learning [17,30,31]. In addition, faculty in this study expressed that they lacked the training on how to successfully deliver an online course. Though they overcame these challenges with peer and institutional support, it is worth emphasizing the importance of professional development in technology as previous research did indicate that technology training before the COVID-19 increased faculty confidence in technology utilization, promoted their technology competencies, and better prepared their transition to the new normal [1].

The pandemic forced faculty to navigate how to communicate and work with each other and with their students from a distance. This study revealed that while working remotely, faculty were still able to make decisions for their programs collectively while remaining respectful of each faculty member’s freedom and autonomy for their course structure and delivery. Prior research has noted that connecting with students in an online learning environment can be crucial in influencing their success [14]. In the current study, faculty revealed that efforts were made to connect with students by offering synchronous options for lectures. According to the faculty interviewed, this allowed them to continue to engage with their students when possible and be accommodating to those who needed to meet in the evening hours. It can be assumed that because faculty revealed that they were open to meeting their students’ needs regarding flexibility in meeting times and testing methods, this had a major influence on students being able to maintain high academic achievements and remain successful throughout the pandemic [2]. Baber [32] also indicated that the role of the instructor is among the key determinants of a positive learning outcome.

While faculty strived to provide education contingency in support of students’ academic growth, faculty in the current study reported to have undergone heightened levels of stress and even depression. Heightened levels of stress among educators during the pandemic were actually observed in numerous studies originated from countries all over the world such as China, India, Israel, Italy, Poland and the United States [18,31,33,34,35,36,37,38]. The main reasons were the time-consuming course preparation for online teaching and lack of confidence as well as competencies in technology utilization. Online teaching has been known to be more time-consuming than in-person teaching [39,40,41]. The required hours of preparation for an hour online teaching could range from sixteen to thirty hours depending on the course content [40,41]. Considering one third of the faculty surveyed taught in-person only, it was not surprising that many of them had to spend long hours converting instructional materials from in-person to online formats.

Although the transition to an online teaching environment was challenging and stressful, faculty reported that they experienced opportunities for personal growth related to technology. One of the key findings of this study was a significant increase in faculty abilities to facilitate online education with the use of various technologies when compared to pre-pandemic. The results of this study agree with the findings of Girelli et al. [31] who suggested that the pandemic may have created opportunities for faculty to utilize and adopt technological resources that they may have never attempted to utilize otherwise. Likewise, Romero-Ivanova [30] indicated that as educators are now aware of various technologies, they may be more likely to embrace these teaching methods in future instruction. The current study revealed that faculty felt the pandemic forced them to learn new technological skills and to explore additional outside resources that, in a normal in-person setting, they would not have explored. Doing so allowed faculty to embrace technology and be more open-minded to new technological opportunities in the future.

Aziz et al. [12] reported the pandemic revealed institutional unpreparedness for online teaching. Though many challenges were reported due to the quick transition in this study, participants appear to have emerged from the pandemic with an increased ability to navigate the distance learning environment, a higher comfort level in navigating and troubleshooting technological issues they and their students may experience, and a new level of understanding the importance of having a contingency plan and being adaptive to unexpected circumstances. According to Girelli et al. [31], careful planning and preparation are of great importance for educators so that they can be prepared for similar unexpected changes in the future.

While this study revealed many positive outcomes related to the quick shift to virtual learning, there are limitations. First, participants were asked to self-evaluate which can allow for bias to be present in the data. Secondly, the survey instrument asked the participants to rate their level of knowledge twice at the same time, once for the pre-pandemic period and once for the current period. The recall of the pre-pandemic knowledge level may not be accurate considering it was about 18 months prior to the study. This may lead to accuracy and reliability issues [42]. Additionally, the sample for this study was small and came exclusively from faculty who taught at one school within an academic medical center. Future studies could include faculty from the remaining six schools to provide a more in-depth understanding of how the pandemic impacted face-to-face teaching across the medical center and identify other technological obstacles that may have been encountered and overcome. Although the current study is based on a small sample of participants, the findings suggested that faculty at the SHRP embraced technology and overcame barriers as they navigated the shift to virtual learning. As this study aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on faculty’s technological knowledge, it may be beneficial to evaluate the carryover of this knowledge in the future to determine if faculty are still utilizing some of the technological resources available to them to supplement in-person teaching. It may also be beneficial to identify additional technological barriers from faculty and student perspectives in order to establish a more thorough contingency plan for future unexpected circumstances.

5. Conclusions

The abrupt transition from in-person classrooms to online modalities in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic has been shown to increase faculty comfort level and confidence in their technological knowledge base. Additionally, there were opportunities for faculty to learn new skillsets, proactively troubleshoot potential issues, think outside of the box, and build collaborative networks across specialties as a result of the shift to online education. Future research should focus on the broader applicability of this study’s findings, as well as studying how best practices of in-person and remote learning modalities can create the optimal hybrid environment for students.