Have you ever worked with a faculty member who seemed determined to avoid teaching online? Perhaps they were reluctant to use the learning management system, questioned the effectiveness of online discussions, or expressed frustration whenever a new instructional technology was introduced. From the outside, it might appear that the instructor simply disliked technology or was unwilling to change. After all, if the tools are available and training has been provided, shouldn't the problem be solved?
Not necessarily.
One of the lessons instructional designers learn through experience is that resistance to online teaching is rarely as simple as someone refusing to learn a new platform. Faculty members may have concerns about instructional quality, academic freedom, workload, student engagement, professional identity, or their ability to teach effectively in an unfamiliar environment. Sometimes those concerns are expressed as complaints about technology because technology is the most visible part of the transition. The underlying issue, however, may have very little to do with software.
Understanding the reasons behind faculty resistance is essential for instructional designers who support online teaching and faculty development. When we treat every concern as a technology problem, we risk offering solutions that never address what faculty members are actually experiencing. Another workshop, tutorial, or step-by-step guide may not help someone who is worried about losing meaningful interactions with students or being expected to redesign an entire course without sufficient time. This article examines why faculty resistance to online teaching deserves a closer look and how instructional designers can respond with empathy, practical support, and strategies that build confidence rather than frustration.
Resistance Is Often a Response to Uncertainty
Change introduces uncertainty, even when the proposed change has clear benefits. Faculty members who have spent years developing effective classroom teaching practices may feel confident in their ability to explain difficult concepts, guide discussions, and respond to students in real time. Moving those practices into an online environment requires reconsidering familiar approaches and developing new routines. That process can feel uncomfortable, particularly when instructors are expected to make the transition quickly.
Consider a faculty member who has taught a successful face-to-face course for fifteen years. Students regularly participate in discussions, the instructor can recognize confusion through facial expressions, and spontaneous conversations often become some of the most meaningful learning moments. When asked to teach the same course asynchronously, the instructor may worry about losing the interactions that make the course effective. Their hesitation may reflect concern about preserving instructional quality rather than an unwillingness to learn technology.
Instructional designers can respond more effectively when they begin by understanding what the instructor fears losing. Instead of immediately demonstrating discussion board features, they might ask which classroom interactions the faculty member considers most important. Those conversations create opportunities to identify online strategies that preserve the instructional purpose, even when the format changes. The goal is not convincing faculty that online teaching is identical to face-to-face instruction. It is helping them see how meaningful teaching can occur through different approaches.
Professional Identity Matters
Teaching is more than a collection of instructional activities. For many faculty members, it is closely connected to their professional identity, disciplinary knowledge, and understanding of what effective education should look like. Instructors often develop teaching approaches through years of experience, experimentation, student feedback, and professional reflection. Those practices become part of how they understand themselves as educators.
When institutions introduce new expectations for online teaching, faculty may interpret the changes as questions about their existing teaching abilities. A recommendation to replace a lengthy lecture with shorter instructional segments may sound like criticism of a teaching method that has worked successfully for years. Suggestions about rubrics, discussions, or course organization may feel similarly uncomfortable when presented without acknowledging the instructor's experience. Even well-intended instructional guidance can create defensiveness if faculty members believe their professional judgment is being dismissed.
Experienced instructional designers understand that collaboration begins with respect. Rather than approaching faculty as individuals who need to be corrected, they acknowledge the teaching knowledge instructors already possess. They ask what works well in the existing course and identify ways to preserve those strengths in the online environment. This approach allows faculty to see course development as an extension of their teaching practice rather than a rejection of it.
Respecting professional identity does not mean avoiding necessary instructional improvements. It means communicating those improvements in ways that acknowledge faculty contributions while explaining why changes may better support learners. The distinction can make difficult conversations considerably more productive.
Workload Concerns Are Often Legitimate
Online course development requires time, particularly when instructors are creating accessible materials, designing new assessments, recording instructional content, and learning unfamiliar technologies. Faculty members may also be balancing research, advising, committee responsibilities, service commitments, and multiple teaching assignments. When online teaching responsibilities are added without sufficient planning or support, resistance may reflect a realistic concern about workload.
Imagine a faculty member being asked to convert a face-to-face course into a fully asynchronous format shortly before the semester begins. The instructor must reorganize existing materials, develop online activities, revise assessments, address accessibility requirements, and become comfortable with the learning management system. At the same time, their other professional responsibilities continue. From the faculty member's perspective, the request may feel less like an instructional opportunity and more like an additional project with an impossible deadline.
Instructional designers can help by distinguishing between essential launch requirements and improvements that can be completed later. A realistic development plan might prioritize clear learning objectives, accessible required materials, functional assessments, and consistent navigation before adding optional multimedia or advanced interactive activities. This approach does not excuse inaccessible or incomplete instruction. Instead, it helps establish a manageable sequence for completing required work.
Workload concerns should also inform faculty development planning. A training session that demonstrates ten new tools may be impressive, but it may not help an instructor who has limited time and needs to solve one immediate problem. Practical support that reduces unnecessary work can be more effective than introducing additional possibilities.
Faculty May Question the Quality of Online Learning
Some faculty members are skeptical about whether online teaching can support the same depth of learning as face-to-face instruction. They may worry that students will participate less, misunderstand complex material, rely too heavily on automated tools, or complete assignments without developing meaningful understanding. These concerns should not automatically be dismissed as resistance to innovation. They are questions about instructional quality that deserve thoughtful responses.
The effectiveness of online learning depends heavily on how instruction is designed and implemented. A course consisting primarily of uploaded slides, lengthy readings, and a few high-stakes exams may provide limited opportunities for interaction and feedback. However, that does not mean the online environment itself prevents meaningful learning. It means the instructional design may not adequately support the intended outcomes.
Instructional designers can help faculty distinguish between the delivery format and the instructional strategies used within it. Rather than claiming that online learning is always equivalent or superior to classroom instruction, they can examine the learning objectives and identify appropriate ways to support those goals. Case studies, authentic assessments, guided discussions, structured practice, and timely feedback can all contribute to effective online learning when selected for a clear instructional purpose.
This conversation becomes more productive when faculty concerns are treated as legitimate instructional questions. The goal is not persuading instructors to abandon their standards. It is helping them determine how those standards can be maintained in a different learning environment.
Losing Classroom Interaction Can Feel Like Losing Control
Face-to-face teaching provides immediate information about student engagement. Instructors can observe facial expressions, notice when students appear confused, adjust explanations, and respond to questions as they arise. Those interactions help faculty make instructional decisions throughout a class session. Asynchronous online teaching changes how that information becomes available.
An instructor who relies heavily on classroom observation may feel uncertain about whether online students understand the material. Students may complete readings and assignments without providing much visible indication of their thinking. Discussion participation may be inconsistent, and questions may arrive hours or days after the relevant lesson. Faculty members accustomed to immediate interaction can interpret this delay as a loss of instructional control.
Instructional designers can address these concerns by helping faculty develop alternative ways to monitor learning. Low-stakes knowledge checks, short reflections, structured discussions, assignment drafts, and regular feedback opportunities provide evidence of student understanding. Learning management system reports may offer additional information about participation patterns, although activity data should not be confused with direct evidence of learning.
These approaches help faculty regain a sense of instructional awareness without attempting to reproduce every feature of the physical classroom. The goal is to create intentional opportunities for students to demonstrate their thinking so instructors can respond appropriately. Online teaching requires different methods of observing learning, but it does not eliminate the instructor's ability to guide it.
Academic Freedom and Faculty Ownership Matter
Faculty members are responsible for disciplinary content and many of the instructional decisions within their courses. When institutional initiatives introduce standardized templates, quality standards, or course development expectations, some instructors may worry that their autonomy is being reduced. They may interpret instructional design recommendations as attempts to control how they teach rather than support their work.
This concern can become particularly noticeable when course development involves multiple reviewers or institutional requirements. A faculty member may receive recommendations about navigation, assessment alignment, accessibility, and instructional activities from individuals outside their discipline. Even when those recommendations are appropriate, the volume of feedback can make the instructor feel that ownership of the course has shifted elsewhere.
Instructional designers should communicate clearly about the difference between institutional requirements and professional recommendations. Accessibility obligations, approved policies, and established course standards may require specific actions, while other instructional decisions allow flexibility. Explaining those distinctions helps faculty understand where they retain discretion and where requirements must be met.
Collaboration becomes more effective when faculty members are treated as partners in the design process. Instructional designers contribute knowledge about learning, accessibility, assessment, and educational technology, while faculty contribute disciplinary knowledge and teaching experience. Neither perspective replaces the other. Strong online courses emerge when those contributions are respected and connected.
Previous Negative Experiences Can Shape Current Attitudes
Faculty resistance may also reflect experiences with earlier technology implementations or institutional initiatives. An instructor who previously attended ineffective training, encountered unreliable software, or received inadequate support during a course transition may approach future changes with understandable skepticism. Those experiences can influence expectations long after the original problem has been resolved.
Imagine a faculty member who spent considerable time learning a new educational platform only to discover that it was discontinued the following year. Another instructor may have experienced a course migration that disrupted assignments or required extensive corrections. When a new technology or training initiative is introduced, these faculty members may question whether the investment of time will produce lasting benefits.
Instructional designers can build trust by acknowledging those experiences rather than dismissing them. Asking what went wrong previously can reveal concerns about reliability, support, communication, or sustainability. Those details help the design team address specific risks and establish more realistic expectations.
Trust is rebuilt through consistent actions rather than persuasive presentations. Clear instructions, dependable support, realistic timelines, and follow-through on commitments demonstrate that the institution takes faculty concerns seriously. Over time, successful experiences can change expectations, but that process requires patience.
Training Does Not Automatically Build Confidence
Institutions often respond to faculty concerns by offering additional training. Workshops, tutorials, recorded demonstrations, and support documents can certainly be helpful, particularly when instructors need to develop technical skills. However, completing a training session does not necessarily mean someone feels prepared to teach online.
A faculty member may know how to create a discussion board without understanding how to design a discussion that encourages meaningful interaction. They may know how to build a quiz without feeling confident that the questions measure the intended learning outcomes. They may understand how to upload a video but remain uncertain about whether the recording effectively supports student learning. Technical competence and instructional confidence are related, but they are not interchangeable.
Effective faculty development should address both dimensions. Rather than focusing exclusively on where to click, training can demonstrate how instructional strategies work in realistic teaching situations. Faculty might examine sample course modules, revise an existing assignment, practice providing feedback, or develop an activity that can be implemented immediately.
Hands-on practice is particularly important because it allows instructors to experience progress. A faculty member who successfully redesigns one discussion or creates one accessible learning resource may feel more confident about applying the same principles elsewhere. Small accomplishments provide evidence that online teaching skills can be developed gradually rather than mastered all at once.
The Language We Use Can Increase Resistance
Instructional designers sometimes unintentionally create resistance through the way recommendations are communicated. Statements such as "You need to stop doing that" or "This is not how online courses should be designed" may be intended to communicate important concerns, but they can make faculty feel criticized or dismissed. Even accurate recommendations can be difficult to accept when the conversation feels confrontational.
A more productive approach begins by understanding the instructor's goals. Instead of immediately identifying what is wrong with an assignment, an instructional designer might ask what students are expected to demonstrate and whether the current activity provides sufficient evidence. This creates an opportunity to discuss alignment without framing the instructor's previous decisions as failures.
Language also matters when introducing institutional expectations. Faculty members are more likely to understand a requirement when its purpose is explained clearly and respectfully. For example, discussing how accessible document structure supports learners using assistive technologies provides meaningful context for a remediation request. The requirement remains the same, but the conversation becomes more informative and collaborative.
Experienced instructional designers learn that professional influence depends partly on how recommendations are delivered. Respectful communication does not require avoiding difficult conversations. It means approaching those conversations with the goal of solving problems rather than proving someone wrong.
Start With One Meaningful Improvement
When faculty members are hesitant about online teaching, proposing a complete course transformation may increase their sense of uncertainty. Large projects involve numerous decisions, unfamiliar tasks, and considerable time commitments. Even instructors who are interested in improving their courses may struggle to determine where to begin.
Starting with one meaningful improvement can create a more manageable entry point. An instructor who struggles with online discussions might begin by revising one discussion prompt to encourage analysis and authentic interaction. Another faculty member might reorganize one module to improve navigation. Someone concerned about student understanding could introduce a short formative assessment before a major assignment.
These smaller projects allow faculty to experience the benefits of instructional design without immediately committing to extensive changes. They also create opportunities for feedback and reflection. If the improvement produces clearer student responses or reduces confusion, the instructor may become more willing to consider additional changes.
The purpose is not avoiding larger redesigns when they are necessary. It is recognizing that confidence often develops through successful experiences. When faculty see that a manageable instructional change can improve their teaching experience, future collaboration becomes easier.
Faculty Development Should Address Real Teaching Problems
Faculty development programs sometimes organize training around available technologies rather than instructional challenges. Sessions may focus on specific learning management system features, new applications, or advanced platform capabilities. While technical training is necessary, it may not address the concerns that make faculty reluctant to teach online.
A faculty member who worries about student engagement may benefit more from a workshop on designing meaningful online activities than from a general demonstration of discussion settings. An instructor overwhelmed by grading may be more interested in efficient feedback strategies than in learning another multimedia tool. Someone concerned about academic integrity may need guidance on authentic assessment design rather than additional quiz configuration options.
Instructional designers can make faculty development more relevant by beginning with the problems instructors are trying to solve. Surveys, consultations, support requests, and course review findings can help identify recurring challenges. Training can then connect instructional principles with practical solutions that faculty can implement in their own courses.
This approach also communicates respect for faculty time. Rather than expecting instructors to attend sessions simply because a new feature exists, professional development becomes an opportunity to address meaningful teaching concerns. When participants can see how the training supports their work, participation may become more purposeful.
Recognize When the Problem Is Institutional
Not every barrier to online teaching can be resolved through individual faculty development. Some challenges originate in institutional processes, resource limitations, workload expectations, or inconsistent communication. Instructional designers should be careful not to interpret every difficulty as a faculty knowledge gap.
For example, instructors may be expected to develop accessible online courses without sufficient development time or access to necessary support. Departments may have inconsistent expectations for course quality, or faculty may receive conflicting guidance from different offices. Technology problems may persist because of systems or processes outside the instructor's control. In these situations, another training session may accomplish very little.
Senior instructional designers often become aware of these patterns because they work across multiple courses and departments. They may notice that several faculty members encounter the same problem or that support requests repeatedly involve a particular institutional process. Rather than addressing each concern independently, they can communicate those patterns to appropriate administrators and recommend improvements.
This broader view is important because meaningful faculty support requires more than helping individuals become comfortable with technology. Institutions also need processes, resources, and expectations that make effective online teaching possible. Faculty confidence is difficult to build when the surrounding environment continually creates unnecessary obstacles.
Listening Is Often the Most Effective First Step
Perhaps the most important skill instructional designers can bring to faculty resistance is the willingness to listen before recommending solutions. A faculty member who says, "I don't like teaching online," may be expressing frustration with technology, but they may also be describing concerns about workload, student interaction, academic standards, or previous experiences. Responding effectively requires understanding what the statement actually means.
A useful consultation might begin with questions about what the instructor finds most difficult, what has worked well in previous courses, and what they would most like to improve. These questions communicate that the instructional designer is interested in the faculty member's experience rather than simply trying to persuade them to accept a particular approach. They also provide information needed to identify realistic next steps.
Listening does not guarantee that every concern can be resolved. Some faculty members may continue preferring face-to-face teaching, and others may remain skeptical about certain instructional approaches. The goal is not forcing enthusiasm for online education. It is helping instructors understand their options, meet appropriate expectations, and develop the confidence needed to teach effectively within their assigned environment.
When instructional designers approach resistance with curiosity rather than judgment, conversations often become more productive. Faculty members may become more willing to discuss concerns they initially expressed as complaints about technology. Those conversations create opportunities for meaningful support that another software demonstration might never provide.
Final Thoughts
Faculty resistance to online teaching is not always about technology, and treating it that way can prevent institutions from addressing the concerns that matter most. Instructors may be worried about losing meaningful student interactions, maintaining academic standards, protecting professional autonomy, managing workload, or adapting established teaching practices to unfamiliar environments. Those concerns deserve thoughtful consideration rather than assumptions about motivation or willingness to change.
Instructional designers can respond by building trust, listening carefully, acknowledging faculty experience, and connecting recommendations to real teaching challenges. Practical support, manageable improvements, relevant professional development, and clear communication can help faculty develop confidence while maintaining appropriate instructional expectations. Just as importantly, institutions must examine whether their own processes and resources support the work they expect faculty to accomplish.
The goal of faculty development should not be convincing every instructor to love online teaching or become enthusiastic about every new technology. It should be helping faculty develop the knowledge, confidence, and support necessary to create effective learning experiences. That work begins by understanding the people involved rather than assuming that another tutorial will solve the problem.
Sometimes the greatest barrier to online teaching is not the technology itself. It is the uncertainty, workload, or loss of confidence that comes with changing how we teach.
And sometimes the most useful thing an instructional designer can do is ask a simple question: "What's making this difficult for you?"
References
Bates, A. W. (2022). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (3rd ed.). Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev3m/
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597
Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516661713
Philipsen, B., Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Vanslambrouck, S., & Zhu, C. (2019). Improving teacher professional development for online and blended learning: A systematic meta-aggregative review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1145–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.