Why Professors Cling to the Classroom While Embracing the Cloud

Apr 16, 2026

8 min read

3 views

76%

The contradiction at the heart of modern teaching

What if the classroom is not being replaced by online platforms but being upgraded like a cockpit: still human, now instrumented? Most faculty say they prefer to teach in person, yet many also want to use online systems for the routine parts of their work. That split looks like a contradiction, but it reveals a deeper tension about trust, identity, and the way professionals learn to change their practice.

This article argues that the real question is not whether teaching should be face to face or online. The question is how institutions design a learning ecosystem for instructors that treats technology as an extension of professional judgment rather than as a substitute for human contact. To do that, faculty development needs to be designed and evaluated as a learning system that moves instructors along predictable experience curves and aligns incentives, mentorship, and assessment with those curves. The Kirkpatrick model offers a practical scaffold for that work when it is applied not as a compliance checklist but as a dynamic feedback loop for culture change.

The setup: what faculty preferences reveal about professional identity

Many instructors prefer blended learning that combines in person interaction with online tools, yet a strong majority still want teaching to be mostly in person. On the surface that looks like nostalgia or technophobia. On closer inspection it reveals three connected beliefs:

Face to face contact is the primary site of meaning making. Faculty want to see students, read body language, and hold the uncertain, improvisational parts of learning in shared space. That is the arena of trust and professional artistry.
Online systems are seen as instrumentation for mundane, repeatable tasks. Distributing syllabi, collecting assignments, and curating resources are lower value but time consuming. Technology can and should do this work.
Comfort with online teaching grows with experience and opportunity. The more courses instructors teach online, the more their preferences shift toward blended or fully online formats. Older and tenured faculty sometimes lead this shift, whether because they have fewer immediate career constraints or because they seek new professional challenges.

These three truths form the core tension: faculty value the human aspects of teaching and suspect that technology may erode those things, yet they also recognize the efficiency gains and new affordances that technology brings. What tips an instructor from skepticism to skill is not ideology but situated practice: repeated exposure, peer learning, mentorship, and institutional signals that teaching innovation will be rewarded rather than penalized.

The exploration: why conventional faculty development often fails

Too many faculty development programs treat training as a transactional event: a workshop, a rubric, a one time checklist. That approach assumes knowledge transfers like a packet, and that behavior follows immediately. In reality, professional change follows a learning curve that requires practice, feedback, and aligned incentives.

Think of faculty development like pilot training. New pilots do a lot of classroom work to learn theory, but they do not become competent until they log hours in simulators, then real flights with mentors. Similarly, a faculty member learning to blend online tools with face to face interaction needs: initial orientation, scaffolded practice with real courses, expert mentoring, peer observation, and institutional assessment that recognizes the iterative nature of improvement.

When institutions fail to provide those elements, coaching and experimentation become risky. Teaching evaluations that focus on short term student impressions can punish instructors who try new methods. Promotion criteria that privilege research output over pedagogical innovation also disincentivize experimentation. The result is a paradox: institutions expand online offerings to grow access and enrollment, yet their reward and support structures lag behind, leaving instructors underprepared or unwilling to embrace change.

Synthesis: a systemic model for faculty development using the Kirkpatrick lens

The Kirkpatrick model offers four levels of evaluation: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. Read narrowly, it is a neat way to report whether a workshop participants liked the session, learned something, changed behavior, and improved outcomes. Read generatively, it becomes a roadmap for building learning systems that respect professional identity and align incentives.

Below is an adapted approach that treats each Kirkpatrick level as a design node in a continuous development loop for faculty. At each node, name specific activities, metrics, and institutional levers so that change is visible, credible, and rewarded.

Level 1: Reaction as cultural scaffolding

Purpose: Build trust and reduce the social risk of experimentation. If faculty believe the institution values face to face teaching, they are less likely to see online tools as a threat.
Design moves: Create safe, low stakes venues for faculty to try small online practices. Host peer led showcases where instructors describe what failed and what worked. Use participants as co designers rather than passive recipients.
Example metric: Percentage of faculty who report feeling supported to experiment with a new tool in the next semester.

Level 2: Learning as skill acquisition and habit formation

Purpose: Move beyond awareness into repeatable practice. Provide just in time scaffolds and practice opportunities that mirror actual teaching tasks.
Design moves: Offer micro credentialing for concrete skills, such as building an online module, designing formative assessments, or using analytics to guide office hours. Pair workshops with immediate application in one course and short cycles of peer feedback.
Example metric: Number of instructors who complete a micro credential and apply it in a live course within one term.

Level 3: Behavior as coaching and peer accountability

Purpose: Translate discrete skills into sustained changes in teaching practice.
Design moves: Implement mentorship and peer observation programs where more experienced instructors coach newcomers in blended designs. Provide release time or micro grants for faculty to redesign a course with colleagues. Normalize iterative cycles where instructors test, measure, and refine small changes.
Example metric: Rate of observed adoption of blended practices across multiple course offerings, verified through peer review or LMS analytics.

Level 4: Results as institutional alignment and career signals

Purpose: Ensure that the time invested in learning pays off in career advancement, student outcomes, and institutional goals.
Design moves: Embed teaching innovation in promotion and tenure criteria. Tie resource allocation to validated improvements in retention, access, or equity that are plausibly linked to course design. Use program level measures rather than single course metrics to avoid gaming.
Example metric: Inclusion of teaching innovation in annual review templates, and correlation of redesigned courses with measurable improvements in student persistence or satisfaction.

When these four nodes are connected by transparent feedback loops, development becomes an engine rather than a box to check. The system turns individual experiments into institutional learning, and it makes it safe for instructors to move from preference to practice.

Concrete examples and a practical mental model

Example 1: The lighthouse course

A midsize university designates a single introductory course as a lighthouse. A small cohort of instructors and instructional designers redesign the course using blended strategies. The project includes micro credentials, weekly coaching, and analytics dashboards. Students experience a face to face seminar structure for core discussions and online modules for content consumption and low stakes assessment. Peer instructors visit classes and review modules. After two terms, the lighthouse shows better student engagement and yields a package of practices that other departments can adapt.

Example 2: The peer learning circle

A department forms a monthly circle where three instructors present a specific teaching problem, their small experiment, and results from LMS data. The circle operates on a no blame, improvement only covenant. Participants earn credit toward a micro credential after completing three cycles and implementing an evidence based change in their course.

A useful mental model to hold these pieces together is the Credibility Cycle: Exposure, Practice, Evidence, Reward.

Exposure: Faculty see examples and have low friction access to tools.
Practice: They apply skills in a supported context with coaching.
Evidence: Data and peer review make changes visible and credible.
Reward: Institutional recognition and career signals close the loop.

This cycle explains why faculty often prefer in person teaching while increasing their use of online tools: the face to face space remains the arena for trust and meaning, while online tools become part of the practice once Credibility is established.

Key Takeaways

1. Treat development as a continuous learning system rather than a single event. Offer scaffolded practice, not just workshops.

2. Use the four Kirkpatrick levels as design nodes: Reaction to build culture, Learning to teach skills, Behavior to create habits, Results to align incentives.

3. Create low risk experiments and visible evidence loops. Lighthouse courses and peer circles transform isolated success into shared practice.

4. Align evaluation and promotion signals with the time course of learning. Reward iterative improvement, not only perfected final products.

5. Invest in mentorship and peer review as the primary levers for change. Expertise is social. Single expert trainings are insufficient.

Conclusion: recentering the human in instrumented teaching

The choice is not between people and platforms. The choice is whether we build systems that let people use platforms well.

In the coming years, the most successful institutions will be those that stop asking whether technology is good or bad and start designing how professionals move from curiosity to competence. Faculty preferences for in person teaching are not a rejection of innovation. They are an insistence that the craft of teaching remain human. If institutions want faculty to embrace blended and online modalities, they must create the pathways, evidentiary norms, and career incentives that make experimentation professionally safe and visibly valuable.

The task is both technical and cultural: to create a development ecology where instructors can practice, fail safely, gather evidence, and be rewarded for improving students lives. That is how the classroom becomes not obsolete but upgraded: a place where human judgment and technological instrumentation work together to amplify learning.