Academic staff have their say on the move to online learning

Michael Evans National Organiser (Media & Engagement)

Over half the academic staff who responded to an international survey about their experiences of the COVID-related move to online learning said that it negatively affected their mental health.

The survey, conducted in October/November 2020 by The Times Higher Education (THE), received 520 responses from academic staff in 46 countries. Despite obvious local differences and variations, the views expressed by respondents were generally consistent across the globe.

Respondents are mostly unsure whether good online teaching results in stronger learning than traditional teaching, but more than twice as many disagree as agree.

The major findings included:

• Sixty per cent of respondents believed that the move to online learning had also had a negative effect on students’ mental health. • Nearly three quarters (73%) had little to no online experience before the pandemic, and felt that they needed support and training in online pedagogy, use of technology and supporting students with the transition.

• Nearly half of the respondents (47%) felt that they were well supported by their institution in this, but nearly a third said that they weren’t.

• Ninety per cent of respondents said that their workload had increased.

• Only a fifth believe that their students value remote education as much as face-to-face, but less than a third think tuition fees should be discounted when instruction moves online.

• Only four in 10 junior academics believe their reopened universities’ planning for COVID outbreaks is robust, compared with seven in 10 senior managers.

• Less than a fifth of respondents regard the two-track physical and online approach to teaching as sustainable, while two-fifths regard an online-only future as sustainable.

• Respondents are mostly unsure whether good online teaching results in stronger learning than traditional teaching, but more than twice as many disagree as agree.

• More than three-quarters would like online meetings to endure beyond the pandemic.

CASUAL STAFF STRUGGLE

Unsurprisingly, casual staff the world over were mostly left to struggle for themselves. Comments included that they were not paid to undertake training in various new digital tools, whereas ongoing staff attended training in their normal working hours; and that those who did the training in their own time were not guaranteed any work in the next semester.

This reflects the feedback from NTEU casual staff members early last year, when Australian universities were first forced to close their campuses. Universities sought to move their course content to online delivery, a process which usually takes between 6 and 12 months of intensive preparation, resourcing, and training – but under the threat of campus closures, most tried to do it within weeks.

Workload intensification for staff was widespread. The Union was aware that many casual and sessional staff, who still had work, were now being expected to move seamlessly from face to face to online delivery, with little training or support.

A targeted phone survey of NTEU casual members in March last year indicated that moving courses to online delivery involved significant extra work hours (many of which were unpaid), with few respondents saying that they were adequately supported by the university in this process.

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

Quite apart from the specific workload issues of having to move courses online in record time, there were a range of stress factors that negatively affected the mental health of staff:

• Having to redesign courses from home with children around.

• Suffering anxiety attacks about technology issues and students’ welfare.

• Feeling trapped by torrents of emails.

• Physical health conditions, such as eating disorders, developed as a result of ongoing stress, and requiring sick leave.

An Australian management lecturer commented, 'The [online] move itself was not so much the problem, it was the unrealistic management directives. They kept pretending things didn’t take the time or effort they did and then falsely reported what great feedback they were getting from students when many staff knew directly from the students themselves that they had found it chaotic at best.'