CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Online and Blended LearningCommunication in Education and HealthcareEducation during COVID-19 pandemic

Faculty computer-mediated communication apprehension during shift to emergency remote teaching: implications for teacher-student interactions and faculty organizational outcomes

Open access
Farris, Kristen LeBlanc, Dye, Luke A., Houser, Marian L., Timmerman, C. Erik·2024·Frontiers in Communication
DOI 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1271214
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Guided by the model of faculty readiness for online teaching (FROT), the goal of the current study was to investigate the influence of instructors' knowledge (e.g., online teaching preparation), confidence (e.g., computer-mediated communication apprehension; CMCA), and attitudes about online teaching (e.g., perceived usefulness) on their communicative and organizational outcomes (e.g., communication frequency and satisfaction, job satisfaction, motivation). We recruited 206 college instructors from a variety of institutions to report on their experiences during the transition to emergency remote teaching in the spring 2020 academic semester. Results from the study suggest that instructors' CMCA was a significant and negative predictor of instructors' communication satisfaction with online student interactions, job satisfaction, and motivation to teach after controlling for the other predictors in the model. Taken together, the findings suggest that CMCA may serve as a barrier to instructor communication competence in online teaching and may have deleterious impacts on instructor affect toward their positions. Ultimately, we recommend that faculty workshops aimed at developing online teaching competence should specifically address instructor dispositional and affective characteristics such as CMCA to prevent faculty vulnerability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1271214

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CMCA is not just technological discomfort, but a distinct communicative barrier that surfaces when individuals are asked to interact through platforms that feel unfamiliar, often under conditions of urgency or institutional pressure.

    “CMCA, they argued, is not just technological discomfort, but a distinct communicative barrier that surfaces when individuals are asked to interact through platforms that feel unfamiliar, often under conditions of urgency or institutional pressure.”

    From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Farris et al., 2024

    The paper distinguishes CMCA from general communication apprehension and computer anxiety, and its Discussion describes CMCA as a possible barrier to instructor communication during the abrupt, required shift to online teaching (page not provided). It does not establish that CMCA specifically arises when platforms feel unfamiliar; that part of the paraphrase goes beyond the passages in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Faculty experiencing CMCA reported diminished satisfaction and motivation in remote teaching contexts.

    “Similarly, Farris et al. (2024) highlighted that faculty experiencing CMCA reported diminished satisfaction and motivation in remote teaching contexts.”

    From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Farris et al., 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Adarkwah, M. A. (2023). Researching teacher work motivation in Ghana through the lens of COVID-19. COVID 2023 3, 301-319. doi: 10.3390/covid30 20023 · DOI
  2. Baran, E., Correia, A., and Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Dist. Educ. 32, 421-439. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.610293 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Baringer, D. K., and McCroskey, J. C. (2000). Immediacy in the classroom: student immediacy. Commun. Educ. 49, 178-186. doi: 10.1080/03634520009379204 · DOI
  4. Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts: defining, explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. Commun. Educ. 59, 70-105. doi: 10.1080/03634520903443849 · DOI
  5. Brown, S. A., Fuller, R. M., and Vician, C. (2004). Who's afraid of the virtual world? Anxiety and computer-mediated communication. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 5, 79-107. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00046 · DOI
  6. Clarke, C. T. (1991). Rationale and development of a scale to measure computer-mediated communication apprehension (Publication No. 9127157) (doctoral dissertation), Kent State University, Kent, OH, United States.
  7. Cutri, R. M., and Mena, J. (2020). A critical reconceptualization of faculty readiness for online teaching. Dist. Educ. 41, 361-380. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1763167 · DOI
  8. Daumiller, M., Rinas, R., Hein, J., Janke, S., Dickhäuser, O., and Dresel, M. (2021). Shifting from face-to-face to online teaching during COVID-19: The role of university faculty achievement goals for attitudes towards this sudden change, and their relevance for burnout/engagement and student evaluations of teaching quality. Comput. Human Behav. 118:106677. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106677 · DOI
  9. Drueke, B., Mainz, V., Lemos, M., Wirtz, M. A., and Boecker, M. (2021). An evaluation of forced distance learning and teaching under pandemic conditions using the technology acceptance model. Front. Psychol. 12:701347. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701347 · DOI
  10. Farris, K. L., Houser, M. L., Timmerman, C. E., and Dye, L. A. (2022a). Illuminating the faculty voice: Lessons from the pandemic to prepare for future crises. Qual. Res. Rep. Commun. doi: 10.1080/17459435.2022.2142655 · DOI
  11. Fuller, R. M., Vician, C. M., and Brown, S. A. (2016). Longitudinal effects of computer-mediated communication anxiety on interaction in virtual teams. IEEE Transact. Prof. Commun. 59, 166-185. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2016.2583318 · DOI
  12. Fülöp, M. T., Breaz, T. O., He, X., Ionescu, C. A., Cordoş, G. S., and Stanescu, S. G. (2022). The role of universities' sustainability, teachers' wellbeing, and attitudes toward e-learning during COVID-19. Front. Public Health 10:981593. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.981593 · DOI
  13. Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., and Bolkan, S. (2009). The development and validation of the student communication satisfaction scale. Commun. Educ. 58, 372-396. doi: 10.1080/03634520902755441 · DOI
  14. Granić, A., and Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational contexts: a systematic literature review. Br. J. Educ. Technol, 50, 2572-2593. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12864 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hecht, M. L. (1978). Measures of communication satisfaction. Hum. Commun. Res. 4, 350-368. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00721.x · DOI
  16. Hilger, K. J., Scheibe, S., Frenzel, A. C., and Keller, M. M. (2021). Exceptional circumstances: changes in teachers' work characteristics and well-being during COVID-19 lockdown. Sch. Psychol. 36:516. doi: 10.1037/spq0000457 · DOI
  17. Ho, S. S., and McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communic. Res. 35, 190-207. doi: 10.1177/0093650207313159 · DOI
  18. Hodges, C. B., and Fowler, D. J. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis and faculty members in higher education: from emergency remote teaching to better teaching through reflection. Int. J. Multidiscip. Perspect. High. Educ. 5, 118-122. doi: 10.32674/jimphe.v5i1.2507 · DOI
  19. Hunt, D., Atkin, D., and Krishnan, A. (2012). The influence of computer- mediated communication apprehension on motives for Facebook use. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 56, 187-202. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2012. 678717 · DOI
  20. Hutchins, N., Allen, A., Curran, M., and Kannis-Dymand, L. (2021). Social anxiety and online social interaction. Aust. Psychol. 56, 142-153. doi: 10.1080/00050067.2021.1890977 · DOI
  21. Igbaria, M., and Parasuraman, S. (1989). A path analytic study of individual characteristics, computer anxiety and attitudes toward microcomputers. J. Manage. 15, 373-388. doi: 10.1177/014920638901500302 · DOI
  22. Joardar, A., and Kara, S. (2023). An analysis of training to teach online from faculty's perspective. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 21:100864. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100864 · DOI
  23. Kulikowski, K., Przytuła, S., and Sułkowski, Ł. (2022). E-learning? Never again! On the unintended consequences of COVID-19 forced e-learning on academic teacher motivational job characteristics. High. Educ. Q. 76, 174-189. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12314 · DOI
  24. Liu, W. S., Li, X. W., and Zou, Y. M. (2019). The formation of teachers' intrinsic motivation in professional development. Integr. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 53, 418-430. doi: 10.1007/s12124-018-9465-3 · DOI
  25. Ma, K., Chutiyami, M., Zhang, Y., and Nicoll, S. (2021). Online teaching self-efficacy during COVID-19: changes, its associated factors and moderators. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 6675-6697. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10486-3 · DOI
  26. Madigan, D. J., and Kim, L. E. (2021). Towards an understanding of teacher attrition: a meta-analysis of burnout, job satisfaction, and teachers' intentions to quit. Teach. Teach. Educ. 105:103425. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103425 · DOI
  27. Martin, F., Budhrani, K., and Wang, C. (2019). Examining faculty perception of their readiness to teach online. Online Learn. 23, 97-119. doi: 10.24059/olj.v23i3.1555 · DOI
  28. McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Oral communication apprehension: a reconceptualization. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 6, 136-170. doi: 10.1080/23808985.1982.11678497 · DOI
  29. McCroskey, J. C., and Beatty, M. J. (1986). "Oral communication apprehension, " in Shyness: Perspectives on Research and Treatment, eds W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, and S. R. Briggs (Boston, MA: Springer), 279-293.
  30. McGloin, R., Coletti, A., Hamlin, E., and Denes, A. (2022). Required to work from home: examining transitions to digital communication channels during the COVID-19 pandemic. Commun. Res. Rep. 39, 44-45. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2021.20 12757 · DOI
  31. Moorhouse, B. L., and Kohnke, L. (2021). Thriving or surviving emergency remote teaching necessitated by COVID-19: University teachers' perspectives. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 30, 279-287. doi: 10.1007/s40299-021-00567-9 · DOI
  32. Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., and Downs, T. M. (1986). Communicating control in the classroom and satisfaction with teaching and students. Commun. Educ. 35, 379-388. doi: 10.1080/03634528609388362 · DOI
  33. Pu, H. (2020). Implementing online ELT in the time of crisis: ordeal or opportunity? ELT J. 74, 345-348. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccaa030 · DOI
  34. Richter, S., and Idleman, L. (2017). Online teaching efficacy: a product of professional development and ongoing support. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 14:20160033. doi: 10.1515/ijnes-2016-0033 · DOI
  35. Robina, K. A., and Anderson, M. L. (2010). Online teaching efficacy of nurse faculty. J. Prof. Nurs. 26, 168-175. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2010. 02.006 · DOI
  36. Rollnick, S., Mason, P., and Butler, C. C. (2010). Health Behavior Change e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences.
  37. Saha, S. M., Pranty, S. A., Rana, M. J., Islam, M. J., and Hossain, M. E. (2022). Teaching during a pandemic: do university teachers prefer online teaching? Heliyon 8, 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08663 · DOI
  38. Shalom, J. G., Israeli, H., Markovitzky, O., and Lipsitz, J. D. (2015). Social anxiety and physiological arousal during computer mediated vs. face to face communication. Comp. Hum. Behav. 44, 202-208. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014. 11.056 · DOI
  39. Shea, P. (2007). Bridges and barriers to teaching online college courses: a study of experienced online faculty in thirty-six colleges. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 11, 73-128. doi: 10.24059/olj.v11i2.1728 · DOI
  40. Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. J. Comp. Mediat. Commun. 11, 629-666. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006. 00030.x · DOI
  41. Syvänen, A., Mäkiniemi, J. P., Syrjä, S., Heikkilä-Tammi, K., and Viteli, J. (2016). When does the educational use of ICT become a source of technostress for Finnish teachers. Int. J. Mediat. Lifelong Learn. 12, 95-109. doi: 10.7577/seminar.2281 · DOI
  42. Wrench, J. S., and Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2007). The relationship between computer-mediated-communication competence, apprehension, self-efficacy, perceived confidence, and social presence. South. Commun. J. 72, 355-378. doi: 10.1080/10417940701667696 · DOI
  43. Zhang, X., Li, S., Wang, S., and Xu, J. (2022). Influence of job environment on the online teaching anxiety of college teachers in the online teaching context: the mediating role of subjective well-being. Front. Public Health 10:978094. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.978094 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farris, K. L., Dye, L. A., Houser, M. L., & Timmerman, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Texas State University (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Farris, Kristen LeBlanc
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Communication
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2024-02-23
Volume
9
ISSN
2297-900X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fcomm.2024.1271214
OpenAlex
W4392108545
Cited by
2
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
Keywords
emergency remote teaching, online learning, teacher-student relationship, job satisfaction, teaching motivation, perceived usefulness, communication satisfaction, faculty workshops, COVID-19 pandemic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review