View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Faculty Satisfaction with Online Teaching: A Comprehensive Study with American Faculty

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Faculty Satisfaction with Online Teaching: A Comprehensive Study with American Faculty
Language: English
Authors: Marasi, Shelly, Jones, Brian, Parker, Janna M.
Source: Studies in Higher Education. 2022 47(3):513-525.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Teacher Attitudes, Job Satisfaction, Online Courses, Educational Technology, Technology Uses in Education, College Faculty, Public Colleges, Teaching Conditions, Teacher Characteristics, Teacher Motivation, Social Influences, COVID-19, Pandemics
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1767050
ISSN: 0307-5079
Abstract: The purpose of this research is to combine and extend the literature to determine which and to what extent various job-related factors influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. A preliminary investigation was conducted to identify job-related factors that influence faculty satisfaction. An analytical study comprised of higher education faculty across the US was conducted for analyses. Herzberg's two-factor theory is used as the framework for the factors being motivators or hygienes. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify the job-related factors based on the items determined from the preliminary investigation. Hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to determine the job-related factors' influence on faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Crosstabulations were conducted for the item involving whether faculty are more satisfied with many or minimal interactions/relationships with students. The results indicate that most of the job-related factors significantly influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Overall, faculty are satisfied with online teaching.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1335796
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHNjjMbnDwZ50_EbMDTVrrxAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNEX9xVpXtEyTwrIcQIBEICBmoGtwEADNWSC5cTxrSo0DOTEX5c4fADGfXG5CEHU4T-yyOZy2iRMQgt6LpfYCPcmWBnzbA8EwpJDH4AOT9PStoYBMGrQJZq7FhQR044O0Nxk7Z0gP5oZDPR6j0LOdesifOzAoZ6qBttAMm8i7rfsMdo89qEhGcZ74ode9Lk214D1fepUrXp-ze-EWHtO958fwDUWeUO_6nblTmo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0155733239;she01mar.22;2022Mar15.07:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0155733239-1">Faculty satisfaction with online teaching: a comprehensive study with American faculty </title> <p>The purpose of this research is to combine and extend the literature to determine which and to what extent various job-related factors influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. A preliminary investigation was conducted to identify job-related factors that influence faculty satisfaction. An analytical study comprised of higher education faculty across the US was conducted for analyses. Herzberg's two-factor theory is used as the framework for the factors being motivators or hygienes. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify the job-related factors based on the items determined from the preliminary investigation. Hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to determine the job-related factors' influence on faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Crosstabulations were conducted for the item involving whether faculty are more satisfied with many or minimal interactions/relationships with students. The results indicate that most of the job-related factors significantly influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Overall, faculty are satisfied with online teaching.</p> <p>Keywords: Faculty satisfaction; online teaching; job satisfaction; higher education; United States</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In 2019, United States (US) higher education enrollment decreased by 1.7%, marking the eighth consecutive year of decline (Fain [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>]). Despite student enrollment decreasing in US higher education, online courses have continued to grow for over a decade (Allen and Seaman [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]; Allen et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]). The amount of higher education students taking at least one online course has continuously risen, with the percentage increasing to 34.7% for undergraduate and 40% for graduate students in 2018 (Lederman [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]). US higher education is trying to meet the demand for online courses to satisfy students, reach a global market, have a more diverse student population, improve retention rates for nontraditional and high absentee students, boost class sizes, have higher course and degree completion rates, and save costs (Ang, Breyer, and Pitt [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>]; Bolliger and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref7">9</reflink>]; Wasilik and Bolliger [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref8">30</reflink>]; Tanner, Noser, and Totaro [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]). Although the availability of online courses in higher education is expected by students (Tanner, Noser, and Totaro [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref10">28</reflink>]), a major issue with increasing online courses is faculty (Allen et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]). For instance, a survey of 13,451 faculty in seven countries found only 9% preferred teaching online courses (EDUCAUSE [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>The incongruity between higher education needs or student expectations and faculty preferences for teaching online courses suggests research is needed to discover ways to alleviate this difference. Thus, faculty satisfaction with online teaching is an important concept to investigate for several reasons. First, faculty are essential to online courses' successfulness by providing better quality instruction and delivery (Bolliger and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]), greater and/or quicker responses and feedback to students (Erichsen, Bolliger, and Halupa [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref14">13</reflink>]), and connection through more student-student and student-instructor interactions (Erichsen, Bolliger, and Halupa [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]), which all are instrumental in student learning and satisfaction with online courses (de Lourdes Machado-Taylor et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]). Second, faculty satisfaction with online teaching influences other faculty' attitudes and behaviors, such as ameliorating the quality of online teaching (Bolliger and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]) and having higher commitment (de Lourdes Machado-Taylor et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]) and continuation in online teaching (Al-Samarraie et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]; Wasilik and Bolliger [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>]) and thereby, potentially leading to greater online teaching performance. Third, faculty satisfaction with online teaching demonstrates to influence students' attitudes and behaviors, such as increasing completion rates and/or retention/continuation rates for online courses and performance (Al-Samarraie et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]; Wasilik and Bolliger [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref22">30</reflink>]), motivation (Bolliger and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref23">9</reflink>]) and thereby, may boost student satisfaction (Berbegal-Mirabent, Mas-Machuca, and Marimon [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]; Wasilik and Bolliger [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref25">30</reflink>]). Finally, around a third of faculty are a considerable obstacle in increasing the number of online courses offered in higher education (Allen et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]), which may change if their satisfaction with online teaching were increased. Therefore, faculty satisfaction with online teaching is crucial for having more online course offerings, effective online courses, and student success.</p> <p>Although higher education began utilizing online courses in the 1990s with the Internet becoming publicly available, the literature is dispersed with studies analyzing different job-related factors (and only a few studying similar job-related factors) that influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to combine and extend the literature involving faculty satisfaction with online teaching in the US This research focuses on determining which and to what extent various job-related factors influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Additionally, this research extends the breadth of the literature by including faculty from all ranks, tenure statuses, higher education systems (e.g. community colleges, public and private 4-year universities), disciplines, and thirty states and the District of Columbia.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-3">Theoretical background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155733239-4">Theoretical framework</hd> <p>Herzberg's two-factor theory (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref27">19</reflink>]) provides a framework for explaining faculty satisfaction with online teaching and has demonstrated to operate superbly in the higher education setting (e.g., Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref28">26</reflink>]; Waltman et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>]). According to the theory, there are different factors (motivators and hygienes) that lead to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Herzberg ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref30">18</reflink>]) argued job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not opposites as they are on different continuums. Therefore, the opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction, and the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction. Motivators increase an employee's job satisfaction and include the job content or intrinsic job characteristics, such as flexibility, personal growth, independence, and the employee's interest in the work itself. Hygienes increase an employee's job dissatisfaction and entail the job context or extrinsic job characteristics, such as pay, relationships with colleagues and students, policies, and institutional support.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-5">Literature review</hd> <p>Faculty satisfaction with online teaching refers to an individual's belief that the experience of teaching online is gratifying and beneficial for him/herself (Bolliger, Inan, and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]). The faculty satisfaction with online teaching literature is scattered with different studies analyzing different job-related factors; however, there are a few studies that examine or identify several of the same job-related factors. Additionally, many previous studies analyzing faculty satisfaction with online teaching have a sample size less than 250 (e.g., Hampton et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>]; Howe et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref33">20</reflink>]; Luongo [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]; Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>]; Stickney et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]; Tanner, Noser, and Totaro [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref37">28</reflink>]) and include only one or two US higher education institutions (e.g., Bolliger, Inan, and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>]; Bolliger and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]; Grode-Hanks [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref40">15</reflink>]; McLawhon and Cutright [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref41">25</reflink>]; Wasilik and Bolliger [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]). Some prior studies have also focused on specific ranks (e.g., adjuncts: Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref43">26</reflink>]), certain disciplines such as business (e.g., Tanner, Noser, and Totaro [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref44">28</reflink>]) or nursing (e.g., Hampton et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref45">16</reflink>]; Howe et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]), or only standardized online courses (e.g., Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>]) that involve faculty using pre-designed courses created by course developers.</p> <p>Based on the literature, the main variables investigated to influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching include the following: training, motivation, passion, flexibility opportunities, institutional support, university policies (in general), technology support, course management system components, connections between students and instructors or other students, faculty's expectations of students outcomes, time involved and provided for as well as autonomy in designing and developing online courses, student evaluations, and pay (e.g., Ang, Breyer, and Pitt [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>]; Bolliger, Inan, and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref49">8</reflink>]; Bolliger and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>]; Grode-Hanks [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref51">15</reflink>]; Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref52">26</reflink>]; Stickney et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref53">27</reflink>]; Tanner, Noser, and Totaro [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref54">28</reflink>]; Wasilik and Bolliger [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>]). These main variables and others were included in the preliminary investigation.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-6">Purpose of the study</hd> <p>Based on Herzberg's two-factor theory and to provide an inclusive list of job-related factors that influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching, the following research questions are proposed:</p> <p>Research Question 1 (RQ1): Which job-related factors influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching?</p> <p>Research Question 2 (RQ2): To what extent do the motivators and hygienes factors influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching?</p> <p>A preliminary investigation addressed RQ1 and involved participants completing a questionnaire of job-related items that potentially influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching and six qualitative questions to identify additional aspects that were overlooked in the questionnaire portion. An analytical study used a survey based on the items determined in the preliminary investigation and addressed RQ2.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-7">Preliminary investigation</hd> <p>A preliminary investigation was conducted to determine appropriate items and refine items for faculty satisfaction with online teaching. A review of the literature provided a starting point for item generation and the researchers independently added items based on their previous experiences of online teaching. This resulted in sixty-nine items being generated.</p> <p>The sample consisted of US faculty employed in a medium-sized (over 10,000 students), four-year public university located in the south. The requirements for participating in the survey was having taught a 100% online course within the past year. There were 164 participants solicited by email to partake in the survey. The participants were not compensated. The sample size is 36, yielding a response rate of 22%. The demographical data had a small percentage of missing data and therefore, the results are based on actual responses provided. Most participants indicated they are female (69%), white (86%), forty years or older (78%), possess a doctoral degree (81%), tenured (61%), and work full-time (75%). The mean age is 50, with a range from 26 to 75. The sample consists of all ranks, including adjuncts (22%), instructors (6%), lecturers (8%), assistant professors (8%), associate professors (22%), and full professors (31%). Most participants teach undergraduate (69%) and/or master's (58%) level online courses. The participants range in disciplines including business, education, nursing, and sociology, among others.</p> <p>The participants completed a survey including sixty-nine job-related items, open-ended questions, and demographical questions. The job-related items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = disagree, 5 = agree) accessing the participants' contentment level with online teaching. The open-ended questions allowed participants to recommend items for deletion or modification for clarity or request additional items that influence their satisfaction with online teaching.</p> <p>Based on the results, two items were deleted, one item was divided into two items, one item was created, and multiple items were modified for clarity. This resulted in sixty-nine items and one additional item for further clarification regarding faculty interactions/relationships with students (whether faculty are more satisfied with many or minimal interactions and relationships with students in an online course).</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-8">Analytical study</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155733239-9">Procedures and sample</hd> <p>The researchers randomly chose twenty-six US higher education institutions in different states and then identified the faculty that taught a 100% online course within the past year through the institution's online schedule. This resulted in identifying 4,892 potential participants whom were sent an invitation email to complete the survey and a follow-up email one week later. The survey consisted of the 69 items resulting from the preliminary investigation and demographical questions. Participants were incentivized by choosing a charity to receive a $2 donation. The sample size is 594. The response rate was unable to be determined since some participants shared the survey link with faculty at other higher education institutions through social media, which is demonstrated by having participants from more than twenty-six states.</p> <p>Most of the participants indicated they are female (64%), white (83%), possess a doctoral degree (52%), work full-time (58%), non-tenure-track (61%), employed at a 4-year public university (80%), have taught in higher education for six to ten years (21%) and online courses for one to five years (49%), teach only undergraduate courses online (56%) and only online courses (37%). The mean age is 51.58 with a range from 24 to 83. The sample consists of all ranks: adjuncts (30%), instructors (16%), lecturers (9%), assistant professors (16%), associate professors (12%), and full professors (17%). Faculty from thirty states and the District of Columbia are represented in the sample. Most of the participants indicated only certain courses in their bachelor's (63%) and master's (46%) curriculums are offered online rather than all courses for a degree. Forty-nine percent of the participants work in a medium-sized institution (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>,000–15,000 students), while forty-two percent are in a large-sized institution (over 15,000 students). The participants' range in various disciplines. The demographical information presented is based on definite data provided and excludes missing or variable data (e.g., 'over 40' for age).</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-10">Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)</hd> <p>An EFA was conducted on the sixty-nine items. Principal axis factoring with an oblique rotation was utilized. The criteria for items in the EFA included a factor loading minimum cutoff of.40, only allowed to load on one factor, and a minimum difference of.10 between loadings on different factors. Items not meeting the criteria were eliminated, resulting in 11 items being removed. The results yielded 58 items loading on twelve factors. The factors range from two to thirteen items. The motivators are the Motivation, Flexibility, Institutional, Discretion, and Training factors; whereas, the hygienes are the Time Involvement, Course Assistance, Support, Policy, Student, Course Management System (CMS), and Social factors. Determination of whether factors are classified as motivators or hygienes is based on Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]) theoretical paper and previous research (e.g., Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>]; Waltman et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]). Refer to the Table 1 for the results of the EFA.</p> <p>Table 1. EFA results.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Scale</td><td>Items</td><td>Loadings</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Motivation</td><td>It provides an intellectual challenge.</td><td char=".">.74</td></tr><tr><td>It gives me a sense of pride.</td><td char=".">.93</td></tr><tr><td>I believe it is meaningful.</td><td char=".">.87</td></tr><tr><td>I find it intrinsically rewarding.</td><td char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td>It provides greater work-life balance.</td><td char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td>Of the flexibility to spend quality time with family and friends.</td><td char=".">.94</td></tr><tr><td>Of the flexibility to travel without missing work (e.g., attending conferences).</td><td char=".">.83</td></tr><tr><td>It allows greater time management to perform other work demands (e.g. research).</td><td char=".">.85</td></tr><tr><td>It allows greater time management to perform course responsibilities.</td><td char=".">.66</td></tr><tr><td>Of the flexibility to remain active and perform job duties regardless of health issues.</td><td char=".">.45</td></tr><tr><td>Time involvement</td><td>Amount of time I am provided to design and develop an online course (given I am the course developer).</td><td char=".">.95</td></tr><tr><td>Time commitment required regarding designing and developing the online course (given I am the course developer).</td><td char=".">.96</td></tr><tr><td>Release time I am provided to design and develop an online course (given I am the course developer).</td><td char=".">.45</td></tr><tr><td>Institutional</td><td>Level of value my institution has for online courses.</td><td char=".">.99</td></tr><tr><td>Level of importance my institution places on online courses.</td><td char=".">.91</td></tr><tr><td>Discretion</td><td>Amount of autonomy I have in an online course.</td><td char=".">.74</td></tr><tr><td>Freedom I have to modify the content in an online course to meet the needs of the students.</td><td char=".">.86</td></tr><tr><td>Course</td><td>Presence of a course developer for an online course.</td><td char=".">.86</td></tr><tr><td>assistance</td><td>Presence of a standardized online course.</td><td char=".">.75</td></tr><tr><td>Training</td><td>Training I have received regarding teaching an online course.</td><td char=".">.94</td></tr><tr><td>Training I have received regarding being an effective teacher in an online course.</td><td char=".">.95</td></tr><tr><td>Training I have received regarding the use of the course management system (e.g., BlackBoard, Moodle, D2L).</td><td char=".">.78</td></tr><tr><td>Training I have received regarding the use of other technology that can be implemented in an online course (e.g., links to news articles and other websites, podcasts, and other collaborative tools).</td><td char=".">.72</td></tr><tr><td>Support</td><td>IT phone support for the course management system (e.g., BlackBoard, Moodle, D2L).</td><td char=".">.71</td></tr><tr><td>Technical support regarding online tutorials for faculty in the course management system (e.g., BlackBoard, Moodle, D2L).</td><td char=".">.88</td></tr><tr><td>Technical support regarding online tutorials for students in the course management system (e.g., BlackBoard, Moodle, D2L).</td><td char=".">.65</td></tr><tr><td>Policy</td><td>Check-in expectations/requirements of teaching an online course (e.g., must sign into the course management system every 48 hours).</td><td char=".">.74</td></tr><tr><td>Grading expectations/requirements of teaching an online course (e.g., must have assessments graded within two weeks).</td><td char=".">.92</td></tr><tr><td>Communication expectations/requirements of teaching an online course (e.g., must respond to emails within 48 hours).</td><td char=".">.94</td></tr><tr><td>Discussion board expectations/requirements of teaching an online course (e.g., must use discussion boards to increase student interactions).</td><td char=".">.68</td></tr><tr><td>Testing expectations/requirements of teaching an online course (e.g., must use a proctor or LockDown browser, enforce a time limit, disable right click for printing, disable messaging during the test, and/or ability to prohibit back-tracking).</td><td char=".">.54</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>The e-readiness level of students in an online course (e.g., their capacity to participate in the electronic world).</td><td char=".">.58</td></tr><tr><td>The attitudes of students in an online course (e.g., in emails and other interactions).</td><td char=".">.75</td></tr><tr><td>The level of cooperation from my students in an online course.</td><td char=".">.85</td></tr><tr><td>My expectations being met regarding the students' commitment to learning in an online course.</td><td char=".">.88</td></tr><tr><td>My expectations being met regarding the students being actively involved in their learning in an online course.</td><td char=".">.91</td></tr><tr><td>My expectations being met regarding the students' completion of course assessments in an online course.</td><td char=".">.90</td></tr><tr><td>My expectations being met regarding the students' timeliness in completing assessments in an online course.</td><td char=".">.79</td></tr><tr><td>My expectations being met regarding promoting positive student outcomes in an online course.</td><td char=".">.70</td></tr><tr><td>My expectations being met regarding the students' performance in an online course.</td><td char=".">.87</td></tr><tr><td>My expectations being met regarding the students' final grades in an online course.</td><td char=".">.78</td></tr><tr><td>My belief that the students' learning expectations are met in an online course.</td><td char=".">.59</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td>Level of interaction I have with students in an online course (e.g., emailing me with questions to clarify material).</td><td char=".">.65</td></tr><tr><td>Level of interaction the students have with each other in an online course (e.g., discussion boards and group projects).</td><td char=".">.70</td></tr><tr><td>Relationships I have and develop with students in an online course.</td><td char=".">.57</td></tr><tr><td>CMS</td><td>Ease of use regarding the course management system (e.g., BlackBoard, Moodle, D2L).</td><td char=".">.68</td></tr><tr><td>Transfer of computer files in the course management system (e.g., copy one course to another course).</td><td char=".">.68</td></tr><tr><td>Accessibility of the course management system from any internet browser (e.g., Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari).</td><td char=".">.64</td></tr><tr><td>Ability to stream videos in the course management system.</td><td char=".">.52</td></tr><tr><td>Ability to link websites in the course management system (e.g., news articles or social media sites).</td><td char=".">.66</td></tr><tr><td>Choices of instructor-controlled security settings in the course management system.</td><td char=".">.49</td></tr><tr><td>Email or message management in the course management system (e.g., ability to turn off email or messaging).</td><td char=".">.52</td></tr><tr><td>File management in the course management system (e.g., upload and download files).</td><td char=".">.80</td></tr><tr><td>Assignment management in the course management system (e.g., ability to set a start date, due date, and/or end date, and ability to allow multiple files to be uploaded).</td><td char=".">.86</td></tr><tr><td>Gradebook management in the course management system (e.g., ease of inputting grades and creating grading categories and/or items, and ability to import or export grades).</td><td char=".">.75</td></tr><tr><td>Creation of tests and quizzes in the course management system.</td><td char=".">.71</td></tr><tr><td>Creation of discussion boards in the course management system.</td><td char=".">.76</td></tr><tr><td>Creation of student groups in the course management system.</td><td char=".">.56</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Motivation refers to the extent to which faculty believe online teaching is purposefulness and worthwhile. Flexibility refers to the degree to which faculty believe online teaching provides an accommodating work schedule to balance multiple work demands and personal demands. Time involvement refers to an institution providing faculty with the amount of time needed to design and develop an online course. Institutional refers to the level of significance a higher education institution places on online courses. Discretion refers to the extent to which faculty have independence in online teaching. Course assistance refers to faculty being provided a pre-designed online course that must be used for online teaching (minimal alterations may be allowed). Training refers to the extent to which faculty receive preparation for online teaching from their higher education institution. Support refers to the degree to which faculty believe they and students have assistance for the course management system used in an online course. Policy refers to a higher education institution's requirements or expectations of courses of actions for faculty with online teaching. Student refers to the extent to which faculty expectations and beliefs regarding student achievement and conduct in an online course are attained. Social refers to the degree to which connections and exchanges occur between students and faculty or other students in an online course. CMS refers to the multiple aspects of a course management system being offered or used in an online course.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-11">Measures</hd> <p>The independent variables are the twelve job-related factors resulting from the EFA. The scales were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree; 6=strongly agree), assessing participants' contentment level with the job-related factors. Motivation was measured with four items (<emph>α</emph> =.92). Flexibility was measured with six items (<emph>α</emph> =.90). Time involvement was measured with three items (<emph>α</emph> =.86). Institutional was measured with two items (<emph>α</emph> =.95). Discretion was measured with two items (<emph>α</emph> =.90). Course assistance was measured with two items (<emph>α</emph> =.80). Training was measured with four items (<emph>α</emph> =.92). Support was measured with three items (<emph>α</emph> =.83). Policy was measured with five items (<emph>α</emph> =.86). Student was measured with eleven items (<emph>α</emph> =.95). Social was measured with three items (<emph>α</emph> =.91). CMS was measured with 13 items (<emph>α</emph> =.92). The items included in the job-related factors were derived from the literature, prior research findings, and the researchers' experiences (refer to Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2. Job-related factors derivative for items.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Scale</td><td>Items derived from</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Motivation</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Two items modified from Ruiz's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>) Achievement and Work Itself subscales</p></list-item><list-item><p>Two items based on Waltman et al.'s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2012</xref>) Teaching and Working with Students theme</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Flexibility</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Three items modified from Stickney et al.'s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2017</xref>) Flexibility scale</p></list-item><list-item><p>Three items based on Waltman et al.'s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2012</xref>) Flexibility for Personal Life theme</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Time involvement</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Two items based on Bolliger, Inan, and Wasilik's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2014</xref>) Institutional Support and Course Design/Development/Teaching subscales</p></list-item><list-item><p>One item based on McLawhon and Cutright's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2012</xref>) survey instrument</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Institutional</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>One item based on Bolliger and Wasilik's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2009</xref>) claim of 'faculty satisfaction is generally high when the institution values online teaching' (106)</p></list-item><list-item><p>One item based on the literature regarding higher education offering online courses to satisfy students and the importance of online courses</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Discretion</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Items modified from Ruiz's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>) Responsibility subscale</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Course assistance</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Items based on Ruiz's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>) Working Conditions subscale</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Training</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Three items modified from Stickney et al.'s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2017</xref>) Training scale</p></list-item><list-item><p>One item inspired by Grode-Hanks (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2016</xref>) Technology Training theme</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Support</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Two items adapted from Stickney et al.'s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2017</xref>) CMS Ease of Use scale</p></list-item><list-item><p>One item based on researchers' experiences</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Policy</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Items based on researchers' experiences</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Student</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>One item modified from Stickney et al.'s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2017</xref>) Organizational Policies scale</p></list-item><list-item><p>Two items modified from Bolliger and Wasilik's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2009</xref>) Student subscale</p></list-item><list-item><p>Eight items based on Grode-Hanks (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2016</xref>) rigor of coursework theme and researchers' experiences</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Social</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>One item adapted from Ruiz's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>) Work Itself subscale</p></list-item><list-item><p>Two items based on Bolliger, Inan, and Wasilik's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2014</xref>) Instructor-to-Student Interaction and Student-to-Student Interaction subscale titles</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>CMS</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Items modified from Stickney et al.'s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2017</xref>) Technical Elements and CMS Ease of Use scales</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Faculty satisfaction with online teaching was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = disagree; 5 = agree) using an adapted version of Judge and Klinger's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref60">21</reflink>]) 5-item Job Satisfaction scale (<emph>α</emph> =.92). The items were modified to refer to satisfaction with online teaching rather than a job (e.g., Stickney et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref61">27</reflink>]). Two items were reverse coded. Item examples include 'Most days I am enthusiastic about teaching online courses' and 'I find real enjoyment in teaching online courses.'</p> <p>Gender, age, education, hours worked, tenure status, rank, years taught in higher education and online courses, and percentage of courses taught online were control variables due to previous research (e.g., Stickney et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref62">27</reflink>]). Control variables were analyzed categorically.</p> <p>Items were averaged to create the scales. The 'not applicable' response was considered missing data. Missing data for scale items were mean substituted, while demographic variables remained as missing data.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-12">Results</hd> <p>The correlations, means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha reliabilities for the scales and significant control variables are in Table 3. The independent variables were mean centered for better result interpretation by reducing the effects of non-essential ill conditioning (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref63">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 3. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variables</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>S.D.</italic></td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Rank</td><td char=".">3.15</td><td char=".">1.88</td><td char=".">–</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Motivation</td><td char=".">4.77</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">−.28**</td><td char=".">(.92)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Flexibility</td><td char=".">4.89</td><td char=".">1.06</td><td char=".">−.27**</td><td char=".">.48**</td><td char=".">(.90)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Time involvement</td><td char=".">3.57</td><td char=".">1.36</td><td char=".">−.26**</td><td char=".">.32**</td><td char=".">.48**</td><td char=".">(.86)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Institutional</td><td char=".">4.49</td><td char=".">1.24</td><td char=".">−.20**</td><td char=".">.31**</td><td char=".">.38**</td><td char=".">.46**</td><td char=".">(.95)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Discretion</td><td char=".">5.27</td><td char=".">0.94</td><td char=".">−.07</td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">.27**</td><td char=".">.26**</td><td char=".">.25**</td><td char=".">(.90)</td><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Course assistance</td><td char=".">4.01</td><td char=".">1.14</td><td char=".">−.18**</td><td char=".">.24**</td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">.41**</td><td char=".">.43**</td><td char=".">.19**</td><td char=".">(.80)</td></tr><tr><td>Training</td><td char=".">4.17</td><td char=".">1.29</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">.38**</td><td char=".">.31**</td><td char=".">.40**</td><td char=".">.43**</td><td char=".">.31**</td><td char=".">.41**</td></tr><tr><td>Support</td><td char=".">4.60</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">−.16**</td><td char=".">.34**</td><td char=".">.34**</td><td char=".">.37**</td><td char=".">.39**</td><td char=".">.23**</td><td char=".">.37**</td></tr><tr><td>Policy</td><td char=".">4.62</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">−.21**</td><td char=".">.42**</td><td char=".">.42**</td><td char=".">.42**</td><td char=".">.41**</td><td char=".">.29**</td><td char=".">.37**</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td char=".">4.29</td><td char=".">0.98</td><td char=".">−.15**</td><td char=".">.59**</td><td char=".">.38**</td><td char=".">.35**</td><td char=".">.40**</td><td char=".">.38**</td><td char=".">.30**</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td char=".">4.25</td><td char=".">1.26</td><td char=".">−.19**</td><td char=".">.69**</td><td char=".">.40**</td><td char=".">.34**</td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">.33**</td><td char=".">.29**</td></tr><tr><td>CMS</td><td char=".">4.65</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">−.14**</td><td char=".">.31**</td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">.35**</td><td char=".">.38**</td><td char=".">.31**</td><td char=".">.39**</td></tr><tr><td>Pay</td><td char=".">3.69</td><td char=".">1.60</td><td char=".">−.18**</td><td char=".">.16**</td><td char=".">.28**</td><td char=".">.42**</td><td char=".">.44**</td><td char=".">.17**</td><td char=".">.31**</td></tr><tr><td>Student Evaluations</td><td char=".">3.87</td><td char=".">1.44</td><td char=".">−.20**</td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">.32**</td><td char=".">.35**</td><td char=".">.43**</td><td char=".">.16**</td><td char=".">.28**</td></tr><tr><td>Faculty satisfaction with online teaching</td><td char=".">4.21</td><td char=".">0.97</td><td char=".">−.24**</td><td char=".">.72**</td><td char=".">.51**</td><td char=".">.40**</td><td char=".">.31**</td><td char=".">.34**</td><td char=".">.24**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variables</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>16</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Training</td><td char=".">(.92)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Support</td><td char=".">.58**</td><td char=".">(.83)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Policy</td><td char=".">.43**</td><td char=".">.39**</td><td char=".">(.86)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td char=".">.39**</td><td char=".">.37**</td><td char=".">.45**</td><td char=".">(.95)</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td char=".">.38**</td><td char=".">.34**</td><td char=".">.43**</td><td char=".">.67**</td><td char=".">(.91)</td><td char="." /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>CMS</td><td char=".">.51**</td><td char=".">.50**</td><td char=".">.43**</td><td char=".">.38**</td><td char=".">.38**</td><td char=".">(.92)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pay</td><td char=".">.28**</td><td char=".">.25**</td><td char=".">.35**</td><td char=".">.19**</td><td char=".">.15**</td><td char=".">.24**</td><td>-</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Student evaluations</td><td char=".">.37**</td><td char=".">.38**</td><td char=".">.40**</td><td char=".">.44**</td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">.35**</td><td char=".">.31**</td><td>-</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Faculty satisfaction with online teaching</td><td char=".">.40**</td><td char=".">.36**</td><td char=".">.47**</td><td char=".">.60**</td><td char=".">.66**</td><td char=".">.33**</td><td char=".">.23**</td><td>.27**</td><td>(.92)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note<emph>. N</emph> = 591-594. Pairwise deletion. Cronbach's alpha coefficients (reliabilities) are shown on the diagonals. **<emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-13">Regressions</hd> <p>Two hierarchical linear regressions were conducted for motivators and hygienes since the factors significantly correlate with each other (up to.69**). Two additional items were included in the hygienes regression analysis, 'amount of pay and/or incentives I receive for teaching an online course' and 'student evaluation of faculty performance instrument used for an online course.' These items are excluded from the factor scales because they did not reach the.40 minimum cutoff in the EFA; however, they were analyzed for several reasons. First, the item concerning pay and/or incentives was included as salary is a first-level hygiene factor (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref64">19</reflink>]) and several participants emailed the researchers indicating pay was important to them and had concerns about it. Additionally, both items have been analyzed in previous studies involving faculty satisfaction with online teaching (e.g., Bolliger and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>]; Bolliger, Inan, and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref66">8</reflink>]; Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>]; Stickney et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref68">27</reflink>]). Furthermore, student evaluations have been identified as a major concern for faculty since they are used to determine their teaching quality/effectiveness (e.g., Ang, Breyer, and Pitt [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref69">5</reflink>]; Berbegal-Mirabent, Mas-Machuca, and Marimon [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>]) and influence their reappointment or attainment of tenure and promotion (Harrison et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref71">17</reflink>]). This has resulted in faculty altering their teaching style/methods, difficulty of the course standards (e.g., making the course easier), and student interactions to prevent negative student evaluations (Bedggood and Donovan [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>]; Waltman et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref73">29</reflink>]) as student evaluations for online courses tend to be lower than traditional courses (Wasilik and Bolliger [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref74">30</reflink>]). Based on these reasons and the items being significantly correlated with the dependent variable, the items were mean centered and included in the hygienes regression analysis to determine their influence on faculty satisfaction with online teaching.</p> <p>Control variables that were not significant in the regression analyses were removed and the regressions were rerun until only the significant control variables remained. The results of the final regression analyses are shown in Table 4 and address RQ2. As shown, four motivators (Motivation, Flexibility, Discretion, and Training, respectively) and seven hygienes (Social, Student, Policy, Time Involvement, Support, Course Assistance, and Student Evaluations, respectively) significantly influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Most job-related factors significantly positively influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching, except two hygienes (Course Assistance and Student Evaluations) have a significant negative influence.</p> <p>Table 4. Hierarchical linear regression analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Job Satisfaction with Online Teaching</td></tr><tr><td>Model 1</td><td>Model 2</td></tr><tr><td> Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td><italic>β</italic></td><td>Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></td><td><italic>β</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Motivators</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Step 1: Main effect</td><td>.58**</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Motivation</td><td /><td>.58**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Flexibility</td><td /><td>.18**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Discretion</td><td /><td>.09**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Training</td><td /><td>.09**</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Institutional</td><td /><td>.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Adjusted <italic>R<sup>2</sup></italic> =.57; Total <italic>F</italic> Value = 160.37** (5, 588)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Hygienes</italic></td></tr><tr><td>Step 1: Control variables</td><td>.06<italic>**</italic></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td> Rank</td><td /><td>−.24**</td><td char="." /><td>−.08**</td></tr><tr><td>Step 2: Main effect</td><td /><td char="." /><td>48<italic>**</italic></td><td>.</td></tr><tr><td> Time involvement</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td>.11**</td></tr><tr><td> Course assistance</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td> −.08*</td></tr><tr><td> Support</td><td /><td char="." /><td /><td>.08*</td></tr><tr><td> Policy</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td>.14**</td></tr><tr><td> Student</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td>.24**</td></tr><tr><td> Social</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td>.41**</td></tr><tr><td> CMS</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td>−.01</td></tr><tr><td> Pay</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td>.05</td></tr><tr><td> Student evaluations</td><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td>−.08*</td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted <italic>R<sup>2</sup></italic> =.53; Total <italic>F</italic> Value = 67.02** (10, 580)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note<emph>. N</emph> = 591−594. Pairwise deletion. Standardized beta coefficients are shown. Δ<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> is based upon variables included in each step. Rank was analyzed as followed: 1 = adjunct, 2 = instructor, 3 = lecturer, 4 = assistant professor, 5 = associate professor, 6 = full professor. <emph>* p</emph> <.03, <emph>** p</emph> <.01.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-14">Crosstabulations</hd> <p>Of those who responded to the item 'regarding interactions and relationships with students in an online course, which of the following makes you more satisfied,' 510 participants (86%) indicated they were more satisfied with 'being able to have many interactions and relationships with students' and 72 participants (12%) indicated they were more satisfied with 'being able to have minimal interactions and relationships with students.' Crosstabulations were conducted to determine the connection between the item and eight demographic variables. The demographic variables were collapsed into dichotomous variables to ensure the cells did not have expected values less than five, which is problematic for result interpretation. Therefore, the demographic variables were categorized as follows: gender (0 = male; 1 = female), hours worked (0 = part-time; 1 = full-time), race (0 = white; 1 = non-white), age (0 = under 40; 1 = 40 and over), education (0 = doctoral degree; 1 = non-doctoral degree), tenure status (0 = tenured; 1 = untenured), percentage taught online (0 = 1–50%; 1 = 51–100%), and rank (0 = professors; 1 = other faculty).</p> <p>The results indicate that education (<emph>n </emph>= 576, χ<sups>2</sups> = 6.016, df = 1, <emph>p </emph>=.014) and rank (<emph>n </emph>= 579, χ<sups>2</sups> = 5.105, df = 1, <emph>p </emph>=.024) are significant. However, gender (<emph>n </emph>= 578, χ<sups>2</sups> = 0.892, df = 1, <emph>p </emph>=.345), age (<emph>n </emph>= 547, χ<sups>2</sups> = 1.743, df = 1, <emph>p </emph>=.187), hours worked (<emph>n </emph>= 579, χ<sups>2</sups> = 3.622, df = 1, <emph>p </emph>=.057), tenure status (<emph>n </emph>= 578, χ<sups>2</sups> = 0.812, df = 1, <emph>p</emph> =.368), race (<emph>n </emph>= 565, χ<sups>2</sups> = 0.081, df = 1, <emph>p </emph>=.777) and percentage taught online (<emph>n </emph>= 567, χ<sups>2</sups> = 1.208, df = 1, <emph>p </emph>=.272) were not significant. Therefore, there is evidence of a relationship between the interactions and relationships faculty have with students and education and rank. Phi was used to identify the strength of association for education and rank. The results demonstrate education (Φ =.102) and rank (Φ =.094) had a negligible relationship with the interactions and relationships faculty have with students.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-15">Discussion</hd> <p>Results indicate faculty are satisfied with online teaching overall, which is consistent with previous research (e.g., Bolliger, Inan, and Wasilik [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref75">8</reflink>]; Grode-Hanks [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref76">15</reflink>]; Howe et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]; McLawhon and Cutright [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref78">25</reflink>]; Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref79">26</reflink>]; Stickney et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref80">27</reflink>]). Despite preconceptions yet like other studies, this research found teaching experience (e.g., higher education teaching, online teaching, and percentage of online courses taught) did not significantly influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching (e.g., Howe et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref81">20</reflink>]; Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref82">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>This research makes several contributions to the faculty satisfaction with online teaching literature. First, this research provides a better representation of US faculty satisfaction with online teaching due to the sample being diverse by including faculty from all ranks, tenure statuses, higher education systems (e.g., community colleges, public and private 4-year universities), and various disciplines in thirty states and the District of Columbia. Second, the multiple job-related factors examined in different prior studies were combined and analyzed to create one cohesive model. Finally, the results show that multiple job-related factors (both motivators and hygienes) influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching.</p> <p>Additionally, this research contributes to the theoretical literature by synthesizing the previous faculty satisfaction with online teaching to develop a comprehensive instrument based on Herzberg's two-factor theory (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref83">19</reflink>]). RQ1 involves identifying the job-related factors with online teaching. The results of the preliminary investigation and analytical study determined there are twelve job-related factors, five motivators and seven hygienes.</p> <p>RQ2 involves the extent to which the motivators and hygienes influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Motivation (motivators) and Social (hygienes) have the greatest influence on faculty satisfaction with online teaching, which may explain the EDUCAUSE ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref84">12</reflink>]) survey finding of 79% of faculty agree online courses made higher education accessible to more students, but right under half believe online courses provide an effective method for learning. For instance, higher education faculty believe online courses are worthwhile and purposeful (Motivation) for greater reachability to more students at their convenience and pace but the lack of interactions in online courses (Social) hinder learning due to a lack of social learning (learning from others) and nonverbal communication as well as greater responsibility for students learning the content on their own.</p> <p>Interestingly, Course Assistance and Student Evaluations (hygienes) have significant negative beta coefficients, suggesting faculty are more dissatisfied when these factors are at higher levels. For instance, when Course Assistance is present and faculty cannot minimally alter the pre-designed courses, they are more dissatisfied. This is also demonstrated by Discretion (or faculty having autonomy and freedom in designing and developing online courses) significantly positively influencing faculty satisfaction with online courses. Student Evaluations are also explainable for leading to dissatisfaction since they may be used to determine teaching quality/effectiveness, reappointment or tenure and promotion, and impact course design (decreasing Discretion) as they tend to be lower than traditional courses (Wasilik and Bolliger [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref85">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>The item involving whether faculty are more satisfied with many or minimal interactions and relationships with students in online courses is consistent with prior research (e.g., Luongo [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref86">24</reflink>]). The crosstabulations regarding this item demonstrate there are no demographical characteristics that have a strong strength of association regarding whether faculty teaching online are more satisfied with having many or minimal interactions and relationships. This indicates that some other characteristic(s) determines whether faculty are more satisfied with many or minimal interactions and relationships with students.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-16">Conclusions and implications</hd> <p>These results provide important implications for US higher education administrators as they make decisions regarding onsite versus online course offerings. According to US higher education administrators' opinions, less than 30% of faculty 'accept the value and legitimacy of online education' and around a third of faculty are a considerable hindrance in increasing online courses (Allen et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref87">4</reflink>], 26). Therefore, it is important for higher education administrators to find ways to increase faculty satisfaction with online teaching in attempt to reduce faculty as an obstacle increase other faculty and student attitudes and behavior. For instance, improve quality of instruction, commitment, and continuation of online teaching for faculty. For students, increase learning, motivation, performance, satisfaction, completion rates, and retention rates.</p> <p>The Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 illustrates the need for providing support to faculty for online teaching. Higher education institutions across the US, and other countries, moved all courses online for the duration of the Spring semester. Faculty with no online teaching experience were given little notice, typically a week of preparation, to move onsite courses to an online format. Inside Higher Ed recruited a panel of experts to address this sudden move. Responses to the question,</p> <p>Do you believe the end result (recognizing that it may be some time before we can judge) will be more professors believing in the quality of online learning and wanting to incorporate the best of what it can do into their teaching, a blurring of the distinction between online and in-person and a closing of the perceived quality gap?</p> <p>varied but all believed this semester should not be used as an evaluation of the effectiveness of online teaching (Lederman [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref88">23</reflink>], online). Several experts referred to the transition as a 'black swan' moment that could shift the teaching paradigm. Other experts expressed concerns for faculty first partaking in teaching online courses due to the abrupt shift may have a negative experience causing a 'never again' attitude; however, one expert stated it was absurd to compare this sudden movement to the thoughtful development of an online course. All experts emphasized the importance of institutional support and training to assist faculty in providing well-designed online courses.</p> <p>US higher education institutions may ameliorate faculty satisfaction with online teaching in several ways. First, before the online course begins higher education institutions should attempt to have faculty believe teaching online is worthwhile and understand the institution itself also believes it is significant, administer training for faculty especially regarding increasing connections with and between students, give faculty the time needed to design an online course, and provide faculty with a course management system that has multiple capabilities. Second, during the online course higher education institutions should provide support for technical issues and try to have faculty believe they have an accommodating work schedule and independence with the online course. Also, higher education institutions should consider implementing reasonable policies with online teaching to improve students' learning process for better online course success. However, it should be noted higher education institutions cannot control faculty expectations for students' performance.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-17">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>This study is not without limitations. First, causal inferences are not warranted as the data is cross-sectional. However, a future direction is to analyze the causal relationship between the job-related factors and faculty satisfaction with online teaching through a longitudinal study.</p> <p>Another potential limitation is the data is self-report. However, the usage of self-report data is required due to the participants being the only ones who can report their perceptions of the job-related factors and satisfaction. Additionally, social desirability bias may be another potential limitation but the guarantee of anonymity to participants most likely reduced it.</p> <p>The generalizability of the results is another limitation of this study since the sample was comprised of only US faculty across thirty states and the District of Columbia. Therefore, the sample does not represent faculty across the entire US; however, the representation of faculty should be a good depiction of US faculty perceptions. Also, the job-related factors may not be the same and the findings may not be replicable in other countries. Consequently, a future path may involve determining whether these job-related factors apply in other countries. Additionally, other job-related factors may need to be investigated and identified as higher education systems may be managed differently in other countries.</p> <p>Although the factors determined in this study are a good representation of the job-related aspects taken from the literature and the researchers' experiences, there may be other aspects that influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Therefore, identifying other aspects is a future path. A final limitation is not substantiating the scale for the twelve job-related factors identified with teaching online. Thus, a future direction is scale validation.</p> <p>A final future avenue is to identify the characteristics that may influence whether faculty are more satisfied with many or minimal interactions and relationships with students. For instance, personality traits may explain this and should be examined, especially extroversion and conscientiousness.</p> <hd id="AN0155733239-18">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0155733239-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref19" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Al-Samarraie, Hosam, Bee Kim Teng, Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani, and Nassar Alalwan. 2017. " E-learning Continuance Satisfaction in Higher Education: A Unified Perspective From Instructors and Students." Studies in Higher Education 43 (11): 2003 – 19. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1298088</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, I. Elaine, and Jeff Seaman. 2011. Going the Distance: Online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. https://<ulink href="http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf">www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, I. Elaine, and Jeff Seaman. 2013. Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. https://<ulink href="http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf">www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, I. Elaine, Jeff Seaman, Russell Poulin, and Terri Taylor Straut. 2016. Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.comreports/onlinereportcard.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ang, Lawrence, Yvonne Alexandra Breyer, and Joseph Pitt. 2018. " Course Recommendation as a Construct in Student Evaluations: Will Students Recommend Your Course? " Studies in Higher Education 43 (6): 944 – 59. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1199543</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref72" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bedggood, Rowan E., and Jerome D. Donovan. 2012. " University Performance Evaluations: What are We Really Measuring? " Studies in Higher Education 37 (7): 825 – 42. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.549221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Berbegal-Mirabent, Jasmina, Marta Mas-Machuca, and Frederic Marimon. 2018. " Is Research Mediating the Relationship Between Teaching Experience and Student Satisfaction? " Studies in Higher Education 43 (6): 973 – 88. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1201808</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref31" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bolliger, Doris U., Fethi A. Inan, and Oksana Wasilik. 2014. " Development and Validation of the Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure (OISM)." Educational Technology & Society 17 (2): 183 – 95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref7" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bolliger, Doris U., and Oksana Wasilik. 2009. " Factors Influencing Faculty Satisfaction with Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education." Distance Education 30 (1): 103 – 16. doi: 10.1080/01587910902845949</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G West, and Leona S. Aiken. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Lourdes Machado-Taylor, Maria, Virgílio Meira Soares, Rui Brites, José Brites Ferreira, Minoo Farhangmehr, Odília Maria Rocha Gouveia, and Marvin Peterson. 2016. " Academic Job Satisfaction and Motivation: Findings From a Nationwide Study in Portuguese Higher Education." Studies in Higher Education 41 (3): 541 – 59. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.942265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> EDUCAUSE. 2017. ECAR Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2017. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2017/10/ecar-study-of-faculty-and-information-technology-2017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erichsen, Elizabeth Anne, Doris U. Bolliger, and Colleen Halupa. 2014. " Student Satisfaction with Graduate Supervision in Doctoral Programs Primarily Delivered in Distance Education Settings." Studies in Higher Education 39 (2): 321 – 38. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.709496</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fain, Paul. 2019. "College Enrollment Declines Continue." Inside Higher Ed. https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/05/30/college-enrollment-declines-continue">www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/05/30/college-enrollment-declines-continue</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grode-Hanks, Carol M. 2016. "Job Satisfaction of Online Faculty at a Midwestern Technical Institute," Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Dakota.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hampton, Debra, Amanda Culp-Roche, Angie Hensley, Jessica Wilson, Jo Ann Otts, Amanda Thaxton-Wiggins, Sharon Fruh, and Debra K. Moser. 2020. " Self-efficacy and Satisfaction with Teaching in Online Courses." Nurse Educator, doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000805.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison, Reema, Lois Meyer, Patrick Rawstorne, Husna Razee, Upma Chitkara, Steven Mears, and Chinthaka Balasooriya. 2020. " Evaluating and Enhancing Quality in Higher Education Teaching Practice: A Meta-Review." Studies in Higher Education, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1730315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herzberg, Frederick. 1968. " One More Time: How do You Motivate Employees? " Harvard Business Review 46 (1): 53 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herzberg, Frederick, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. 1959. The Motivation to Work. 2nd ed. New York, NY : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howe, Deanna L, Hsiu Chin Chen, Keri L Heitner, and Susan A Morgan. 2018. " Differences in Nursing Faculty Satisfaction Teaching Online: A Comparative Descriptive Study." Journal of Nursing Education 57 (9): 536 – 43. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20180815-05</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Judge, Timothy A., and Randy Klinger. 2008. " Job Satisfaction: Subjective Well-Being at Work." In The Science of Subjective Well-Being, edited by Michael Eid, and Randy J. Larsen, 393 – 413. New York, NY : The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederman, Doug. 2019. "Online Enrollments Grow, But Pace Slows." Inside Higher Ed. https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/12/11/more-students-study-online-rate-growth-slowed-2018">www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/12/11/more-students-study-online-rate-growth-slowed-2018</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederman, Doug. 2020. "Will Shift to Remote Teaching Be Boon or Bane for Online Learning?" Inside Higher Ed. https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-learning">www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-learning</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luongo, Nicole. 2018. " An Examination of Distance Learning Faculty Satisfaction Levels and Self-Perceived Barriers." Journal of Educators Online 15 : 2. doi: 10.9743/jeo.2018.15.2.8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLawhon, Ryan, and Marc Cutright. 2012. " Instructor Learning Styles as Indicators of Online Faculty Satisfaction." Educational Technology & Society 15 (2): 341 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruiz, Claudia A. 2015. "Job Satisfaction of Adjunct Faculty Who Teach Standardized Online Courses," Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Florida.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stickney, Lisa, Regina Bento, Anil Aggarwal, and Veena Adlakha. 2017. "Faculty Satisfaction in Online Higher Education." Eastern Academy of Management Proceedings. Baltimore, MD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner, John R., Thomas C. Noser, and Michael W. Totaro. 2009. " Business Faculty and Undergraduate Students' Perceptions of Online Learning: A Comparative Study." Journal of Information Systems Education 20 (1): 29 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waltman, Jean, Inger Bergom, Carol Hollenshead, Jeanne Miller, and Louise August. 2012. " Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Among Non-Tenure-Track Faculty." The Journal of Higher Education 83 (3): 411 – 34. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2012.0014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wasilik, Oksana, and Doris U. Bolliger. 2009. " Faculty Satisfaction in the Online Environment: An Institutional Study." Internet and Higher Education 12 (3/4): 173 – 78. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.05.001</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Shelly Marasi; Brian Jones and Janna M. Parker</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref88"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1335796
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Faculty Satisfaction with Online Teaching: A Comprehensive Study with American Faculty
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marasi%2C+Shelly%22">Marasi, Shelly</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jones%2C+Brian%22">Jones, Brian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Parker%2C+Janna+M%2E%22">Parker, Janna M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2022 47(3):513-525.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Satisfaction%22">Job Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Colleges%22">Public Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Conditions%22">Teaching Conditions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Motivation%22">Teacher Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Influences%22">Social Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1767050
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this research is to combine and extend the literature to determine which and to what extent various job-related factors influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. A preliminary investigation was conducted to identify job-related factors that influence faculty satisfaction. An analytical study comprised of higher education faculty across the US was conducted for analyses. Herzberg's two-factor theory is used as the framework for the factors being motivators or hygienes. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify the job-related factors based on the items determined from the preliminary investigation. Hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to determine the job-related factors' influence on faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Crosstabulations were conducted for the item involving whether faculty are more satisfied with many or minimal interactions/relationships with students. The results indicate that most of the job-related factors significantly influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Overall, faculty are satisfied with online teaching.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1335796
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1335796
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1767050
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 513
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Job Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Conditions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Faculty Satisfaction with Online Teaching: A Comprehensive Study with American Faculty
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marasi, Shelly
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jones, Brian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Parker, Janna M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1