Student bullying of online faculty via course-end surveys can affect faculty mental health, with the type of effect dependent on faculty gender and years of experience. Findings from this study can help administration and academic leadership develop targeted training, resources, and professional development to better support, retain, and sustain faculty.

BACKGROUND: Faculty mental health is an increasingly important issue in a post-COVID world, especially for online faculty, who already experience a decreased sense of community and collegiality, and who generally feel less supported than their face-to-face counterparts [1]. Faculty who experience better mental health support and professional development perform better in the classroom, have a more sustainable career, and provide an overall better learning experience for their students [2]. It thus behooves academic leadership and administrators to invest in determining root causes that contribute to online faculty mental health, and to provide the necessary support and professional development opportunities in response to those findings, as this will holistically strengthen their online programs. A major contributor to online faculty mental health is the feeling of being bullied by students [3]. Academic Contrapower Harassment (ACHP) is defined as someone with less institutional power, in this case a student, harassing someone with more institutional power, such as a professor [4]. This issue is relevant, timely, and important to the online learning community because recent research suggests that ACPH is becoming a growing concern in digital learning, and an often accepted part of being a faculty member in the digital learning space. Recent studies have demonstrated the psychological and physical impact this type of bullying can have on instructors. Studies found that ACPH harms faculty psyche, prompts changes in grading practices, disrupts the learning environment, instills distrust, and increases anxiety and fear of personal safety [5,6]. Research also suggests this affects women more than men. Since stereotypes of female faculty often dictate they be accessible and kind, if they veer from these ideals, they experience more ACPH [4,7-9]. ACPH remains a relatively neglected area of research, however, and no study to date has applied this concept specifically to student evaluations of professors in online courses. In part, ACPH may be driven by gender stereotypes and an emerging consumerist attitude among students [5]. Prescribed gender stereotypes, such as women being accommodating or men being authoritative, govern student expectations of normative gender characteristics [7,10-13]. It is suggested that these prescribed gender stereotypes are the reason why more female professors report instances of ACPH than their male counterparts. Moreover, male professors may be less likely to report instances of ACPH because of the “threat to their masculinity” that violates the perceived gender characteristics of the authoritative male [10,14]. The current study hypothesized that the university practice of anonymous student evaluations of faculty encourages an atmosphere of ACHP in the virtual classroom. The anonymous nature of student evaluations allows students to hide behind aggregate reporting and this ability to be anonymous online is often tied to online harassment [6,15]. Although end-of-course surveys are anonymous in all course delivery modes, online courses provides a higher level of anonymity in general than traditional courses due to the inherent characteristics of the learning environment. According to the Pew Research Center, 89% of Americans say the ability to post anonymously online enables cruelty and harassment, and that harassment is often focused on personal or physical characteristics, the most common being political views, gender, physical appearance and race [15]. The culture of normalizing ad hominem attacks and general online incivility bleeds over to classroom conduct, which is then, in turn, reflected in anonymous student evaluations. Within this platform of evaluations students are at liberty to say whatever they want with very little to no repercussions. The current study examines the issues of incivility, bullying, and harassment of professors by students within the online classroom via these anonymous online student evaluations. METHODS: The current research examines ACPH in the form of student evaluations of faculty teaching effectiveness. These evaluations are the primary measure that many colleges and universities use to evaluate faculty teaching and are given to students at the end of the semester or term. Such evaluations ask students to rate the teaching effectiveness of their professors and are generally both qualitative and quantitative. For example, students may be asked to rate professors on a scale (1 being ineffective and 10 being effective) and to elaborate via qualitative feedback. Examples of qualitative questions often asked to students include, “What did you like best?”, or “What did you like least?” With such open-ended questions, it was surmised that students would use this anonymous platform to engage in instances of ACPH against faculty. The current study surveyed a convenience sample of 150 online faculty of various rank, gender, and experience at two separate universities to examine the prevalence of ACPH. Adapting questions from a previous research instrument, online faculty were asked 14 questions pertaining to how many times in the past three academic years they received comments on their course evaluations that could be considered uncivil and 10 questions pertaining to the personal and psychological consequences of student evaluations [11]. All surveys were confidential and administered online via Qualtrics survey software. Pearson’s chi-square analysis was then used to discern if there was a difference in ACPH between faculty identifying as male and female. RESULTS: Results yielded 150 usable responses; 62 of the respondents identified as male (41.3%), 85 respondents identified as female (56.7%), and 3 respondents declined to specify (2%). Faculty years of experience was correlated with frequency of items that measured ACPH. While most items showed no significant relationships, two items were significantly correlated: (1) whether a student made a comment about the faculty member’s appearance/body (R = .20, p = .033), and (2) whether or not the faculty member sought emotional support from fellow faculty members after reading evaluation results (R = -.25, p = .007). In other words, the more experienced the faculty member, the more likely they would experience comments about their appearance/body, but the less likely they are to seek emotional comfort from their colleagues. The latter negative correlation might give some hope to instructors, in that the some of these consequences are, in fact, mitigated with time on the job. The literature is replete with examples of gender bias in student evaluations, and such was confirmed in this study. In terms of the effects of evaluations on faculty mental health, data revealed several examples of a marked difference in responses between males and females. For example, males were more likely to receive remarks about a disability they might have (p < 0.05), while females were more likely to feel anxiety before reading evaluations (p < 0.05), have trouble sleeping after reading evaluations (p < 0.05), feel depressed after reading evaluations (p < 0.01), and suffer from stress-related illness after reading evaluations (p < 0.05). TAKE-AWAYS: These results can better equip university leaders with more data regarding the student/online faculty relationship based on gender differences, which may offer insight on how to best support, retain, and sustain these faculty when it comes to the anxiety, stress, depression, and consternation associated with student evaluations. These results could suggest, for example, that it may be worth reconsidering the value placed on these types of evaluations in online courses, especially if they cause depression and anxiety to faculty in general, and female faculty in particular. Universities should strive to promote emotional well-being of faculty, self-care, and a safe learning environment for everyone, faculty and students alike. These results could also provide the administration and academic leadership the opportunity to develop better training, resources, and professional development for faculty, and ultimately offer more holistically positive online educational experiences. This benefits both students and faculty, providing them with an opportunity to experience innovative teaching and learning from motivated faculty who feel supported. PLAN FOR INTERACTIVITY: This will be an interactive engagement and discussion between the presenter and the attendees, during which time voluntary conversations will be had regarding personal experiences and anecdotes regarding ACPH, and attendees will be able to digitally take the survey used in this study to see if their experiences align with the study’s findings. Ideas for faculty support and professional development will be solicited from the audience and cataloged in real time on a virtual “brainstorming board.” The presentation as a whole will also include personalized discussions that include (1) the introduction of contrapower and ACPH with examples, (2) outline and justification of the current study, (3) overview of current research related to ACPH and student bullying of faculty, (4) discussion of variation in frequency of ACPH and bullying based on gender differences in faculty, (5) discussion of observed and reported effects of ACPH and bullying on faculty and the classroom environment/dynamic, (6) discussion of the uniqueness of cyberbullying and anonymity, (7) discussion of methods and results of this study, and (8) discussion of the impacts and applications of the study’s findings as it relates to supporting online faculty and best practices of utilizing anonymous student surveys. All faculty, administrators, and supervisors who receive and review anonymous student evaluation responses and apply them as a metric for faculty grading/rating/evaluation, and all faculty/staff involved in professional development and support of teaching faculty will benefit from the information in this presentation. REFERENCES: https://rb.gy/4do16k