{"id":11587,"date":"2025-10-07T11:36:29","date_gmt":"2025-10-07T15:36:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/online.suny.edu\/onlineteaching\/?p=11587"},"modified":"2025-10-09T15:29:22","modified_gmt":"2025-10-09T19:29:22","slug":"burnout","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/online.suny.edu\/onlineteaching\/2025\/10\/07\/burnout\/","title":{"rendered":"If teaching online results in faculty burnout, you\u2019re doing it wrong…"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

Not you<\/em>, personally \u2014 but the systems around you. Burnout isn\u2019t inherent to the online modality; it\u2019s a symptom of course design that hasn\u2019t been optimized for both effectiveness and efficiency<\/strong>, coupled with the absence of institutional infrastructure to support it. When faculty are left to reinvent the wheel, make design decisions without technical expertise or evidence-based pedagogical guidance, they often absorb unrealistic expectations to fill systemic gaps \u2014 and exhaustion becomes inevitable. The persistent myth that online teaching takes more time<\/em> endures precisely because the design expertise, support infrastructure, and evidence-based practices designed to make online teaching efficient are too often missing. When instructors are unsupported, courses are developed without the benefit of evidence, expertise, and informed guidance, leaving faculty to fill every gap with time and labor \u2014 and that\u2019s what makes online teaching unsustainable. It doesn\u2019t have to be.<\/p>\n

With intentional design, strong instructional-design partnerships, evidence-based frameworks such as OSCQR, online courses and instruction can be engaging, high-quality, and sustainable. Faculty time and energy are finite; institutions that invest in instructional design support and adopt effective practices that make it possible for that time to be spent on what matters most \u2014 teaching, connection, & learner success.<\/p>\n

\n

It\u2019s Not the Modality \u2014 It\u2019s the Design<\/h2>\n

For more than two decades, studies have repeated the claim that online teaching requires more time than face-to-face instruction (Cavanaugh, 2005; Stone & Perumean-Chaney, 2011). Yet accumulating evidence shows this is largely a perception, not a measurable fact.<\/p>\n

McLain (2005) found that estimated faculty workload for interaction in online graduate courses did not exceed typical expectations for traditional instruction, suggesting that perceptions of excess workload stem more from course design and interaction choices than from the online modality itself. Mandernach & Holbeck (2016) reported that online instructors typically spend about 40 percent of their time grading and giving feedback, 30 percent facilitating discussions, and the rest on content development or one-to-one communication \u2014 a distribution that reveals inefficiency in task design, not in the medium itself.<\/p>\n

Van de Vord & Pogue (2012) reached a similar conclusion: the sense of overload arises when faculty attempt to replicate face-to-face practices online rather than redesigning courses for the digital environment. Dennen et al. (2007) also observed that time inflation is magnified when interaction tools such as discussion forums are used without clear pedagogical purpose or limits. Shea (2007) reinforced that experienced online faculty report higher efficiency and satisfaction once they gain confidence in course design and teaching strategies.<\/p>\n

More recently, Mulla et al. (2023) found that faculty most often cite lack of institutional design support, role ambiguity, and limited access to instructional design expertise as the primary reasons online teaching feels heavier. Faculty described \u201creinventing the wheel\u201d each term due to absent infrastructure or shared templates \u2014 exactly the systemic gaps your argument highlights. Similarly, Ahmed et al. (2023) reported that while faculty perceive engagement and interaction as ongoing challenges, they consistently emphasize that well-structured, clearly organized courses reduce cognitive and logistical workload and make teaching more sustainable.<\/p>\n

Together, these findings suggest that burnout emerges when design choices fight against, rather than leverage, the modality.<\/p>\n

Could online faculty burnout actually be our clearest indicator of missing instructional design infrastructure?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Why the Myth Persists \u2014 & Why Faculty Burn Out<\/h2>\n

Research and faculty experience point to several intertwined causes:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Inexperience & design literacy gaps.<\/strong>
    \nNovice instructors often over-invest time because they lack modality-specific expertise & efficient digital workflows. As faculty gain online experience, perceived workload declines (Mandernach & Holbeck, 2016; Mulla et al., 2023).<\/li>\n
  2. Role overload & task creep.<\/strong>
    \nFaculty frequently perform designer, technologist, & student-support roles simultaneously. Shea (2007) found that this role ambiguity, more than technology itself, drives frustration & time loss.<\/li>\n
  3. Weak institutional infrastructure.<\/strong>
    \nWithout embedded instructional-design support, shared templates, review cycles, or authority to make design changes, instructors rebuild courses each term from scratch (Reed et al., 2025).<\/li>\n
  4. Emotional & relational labor.<\/strong>
    \nStudents often equate instructor visibility and constant responsiveness with caring. Bolinger et al. (2025) found that learners interpret cues such as personalized feedback, immediacy, and time investment as evidence that faculty \u201ccare\u201d \u2014 a dynamic that can inadvertently pressure instructors to overextend in the name of connection.<\/li>\n
  5. Blurred boundaries & constant connectivity.<\/strong>
    \nA 2024 WGU Labs survey reported that 64 percent of instructors struggle to \u201cturn off work,\u201d linking fatigue to constant digital presence rather than course volume (Inside Higher Ed, 2024).<\/li>\n
  6. How workload is framed.<\/strong>
    \nWang et al. (2025) distinguished challenge stress (motivating) from hindrance stress (depleting), showing that when workload is framed as a meaningful challenge and supported institutionally, instructors report higher engagement rather than exhaustion.<\/li>\n
  7. Broader context of educational stress.<\/strong>
    \nFollowing pandemic transitions, Mosleh (2022) found that shifts in delivery mode intensified stress mainly where institutions lacked clear policies, training, or peer support \u2014 underscoring that burnout reflects structural readiness, not modality.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n

    Design-First, Support-First Solutions<\/h2>\n

    If the problem is design & support, then the remedy lies in infrastructure, expertise, & continuous improvement.<\/p>\n

    Instructional Designers as Essential Partners<\/h3>\n

    Instructional designers (IDs) bring expertise in pedagogy, technology, accessibility, & evidence-based practice. They help faculty:<\/p>\n