Nudge or not, university teachers have mixed feelings about online teaching

The study investigates university educators’ perceptions of the effectiveness of online teaching methods during the COVID-19 pandemic and tests whether a behavioral ‘information nudge’ can improve attitudes toward online teaching. Motivated by rapid sector-wide transitions to online delivery and mixed evidence on impacts for students and educators, the authors aim to disentangle pandemic-related factors from perceptions of online pedagogy. They hypothesize that reminding educators of credible benefits of online education might positively shift perceptions. The research is important because educators’ emotions and work stress during the pandemic may affect teaching efficacy and, consequently, student outcomes, yet teachers’ views have been underexplored relative to students’ experiences.

The literature documents substantial challenges for university teachers adapting to online teaching during the pandemic, including reduced professional satisfaction, increased stress and burnout, and disparities in digital literacy linked to demographics and support availability. While emergency transitions likely exacerbated difficulties, prior work highlights potential benefits and flexibility of online education. The use of behavioral nudges in higher education (edunudges) is emerging but remains limited, with most applications focusing on students and few targeting faculty decision-making. Existing nudging efforts in education often involve informational or messaging interventions to influence engagement and practices, but rigorous randomized evaluations involving faculty are sparse. This study contributes by experimentally testing an information nudge intended to increase the salience of online education’s benefits for educators.

Design: An online survey experiment targeting all levels of a large UK social sciences university’s teaching community. Field period: April 1–May 20, 2021; focus on Lent Term (Jan–Mar 2021) when all teaching was online, avoiding confounds from prior hybrid term. Sample and recruitment: 444 responses (~31% of the teaching community). Invitations were emailed via departmental managers to all faculty. Respondents included contractual staff (e.g., GTAs, postdocs, guest teachers) and permanent staff; representation from all 27 departments. Survey structure: Four parts. (1) Background on roles and teaching commitments in 2020–2021. (2) Perceived effectiveness of teaching, learning, and assessment during online Lent Term (5-point Likert). (3) Tools and methods used; pedagogical beliefs on transitioning to online; perceived support from department, educational enhancement centre, and university (5-point Likert). (4) Embedded experiment with randomized information nudge (treatment) versus control, followed by beliefs on online teaching; demographic questions. Experimental intervention: Randomization via Qualtrics to treatment or control. Treatment text was a neutral, credibility-anchored excerpt (British Council) highlighting benefits (global reach, flexibility, on-demand access, multimedia, social aspects) and acknowledging possible downsides (potential isolation) to minimize framing bias and cognitive load. Source chosen for UK relevance and credibility. Outcome measures (post-intervention): Agreement (5-point Likert) with eight statements on digital fatigue (student/teacher), comfort with online teaching, institutional switching to online methods, perceived positive effects, impacts on student well-being and university experience, and preference to continue partially without fully replacing traditional teaching. Quantitative analysis: Estimated average treatment effects using linear regression. Covariate selection via Lasso; multiple-hypothesis corrections using Westfall-Young and Romano-Wolf step-down p-values. Balance checks indicated effective randomization; one covariate (gender) imbalanced by chance, controlled in regressions. Qualitative analysis: Thematic analysis of 965 open-ended comments across survey parts to contextualize quantitative findings (e.g., sentiments about workload, support, and perceptions of the intervention).

Descriptive (pre-treatment):

• Overall teaching experience: 69% satisfied; perceived drivers included student engagement with teaching delivery (70%) and content (76%), attainment of course objectives (83%), and students’ enjoyment of the course (82%).
• Student learning and engagement: Only about half agreed students could reach their full potential online; 36% disagreed. About half felt they could accurately gauge understanding online. 53% changed expectations about student learning. Satisfaction with student-to-student interaction was 41%; only about one-third thought students enjoyed the adapted university experience. Nonetheless, 77% believed students felt the university adapted effectively.
• Assessment: 30% reported more lenient marking; about half believed online summative assessments reflected true learning (about one-quarter disagreed).
• Adaptation and effort: 75% spent more preparation time; 83% felt they successfully adapted teaching styles for online delivery.
• Support: Felt supported by department (75%), educational enhancement centre (58%), and university (50%).
• Modality preferences: 54% preferred fully online or fully in-person rather than hybrid; open comments and a separate item indicated over 75% favored replacing hybrid with either fully on-campus or fully online due to technical and pedagogical challenges.

Post-intervention perceptions (combined treatment and control):

• Comfort with online teaching: 60% agreed they are comfortable continuing online.
• Positive impact potential: 66% agreed online methods could continue to have positive impacts on teaching and learning.
• Further transition: About 60% disagreed with increasing the institutional shift to online teaching.
• Partial continuation: 71% wanted to continue some online options without fully replacing traditional modes.
• Student well-being and experience: 70% believed online teaching negatively impacts student well-being; 73% believed it negatively affects students’ overall university experience.
• Digital fatigue: 75% agreed it hampers student learning; about three-fifths reported it hampers their own teaching delivery.

Heterogeneity:

• More experienced educators and those teaching postgraduate courses were more comfortable with online teaching and more likely to see continued positive impacts.
• Educators with teaching certification tended to view the social aspects of online teaching more negatively (student well-being and enjoyment).

Experimental effect:

• No significant differences between treatment and control across all eight outcomes; the information nudge did not causally improve perceptions. Balance checks largely supported randomization; analyses included covariate controls and multiple-testing corrections.

The study set out to test whether a brief, credible, and neutrally framed information nudge could improve educators’ perceptions of online teaching during a period when online delivery was widely implemented. Despite generally acknowledging some merits of online education, educators remained reluctant to endorse further institutional shifts and expressed concerns about student well-being, university experience, and digital fatigue. The null experimental findings suggest that a broad informational reminder was insufficient to overcome firmly held views shaped by recent, intense experiences of pandemic teaching. Possible reasons include: (1) the nudge’s neutral and general framing may have been too weak to shift beliefs; (2) educators were already highly informed about online teaching’s pros and cons; and (3) strong affective and workload-related experiences during the pandemic may have anchored attitudes. Qualitative feedback indicated some participants perceived the survey and nudge as patronizing, underscoring the importance of framing and timing. The results highlight that improving faculty attitudes toward online delivery may require more targeted, context-specific, and supportive interventions, rather than simple informational prompts, and that faculty well-being and workload are critical levers for effective adoption.

The paper contributes experimental evidence on educators’ perceptions of online teaching and the efficacy of an informational nudge. Most educators reported comfort with online methods and recognized potential benefits, yet opposed further transitions away from traditional teaching. Concerns about student well-being, university experience, and digital fatigue were widespread. The randomized nudge did not change perceptions, suggesting informational salience alone may be inadequate. The study underscores the need for more nuanced, experimentally tested edunudges and for longitudinal research to assess how perceptions evolve as conditions normalize. Future research should explicitly examine framing effects, tailor interventions to educators’ diverse needs and contexts, and explore supports that address workload, training, and social dimensions of learning.

• Context and timing: Conducted during a period of heightened stress and rapid adaptation to online teaching, potentially anchoring negative experiences and limiting receptivity to nudges.
• Sample representativeness: Not a representative sample despite broad departmental coverage; potential self-selection bias (both directions) may bound true sentiments.
• Measurement and design: The nudge was intentionally broad and neutral, which may have limited impact size; faculty may have already been well-informed, reducing marginal salience effects.
• External validity: Findings from a single large social sciences university may not generalize across institutions or disciplines; requires external validation.
• Balance: One covariate (gender) showed imbalance by chance; controlled for in analysis, but residual confounding cannot be fully ruled out.