Content uploaded by Robert C. Preziosi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert C. Preziosi
Content may be subject to copyright.
H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and
Entrepreneurship
A Comparative Analysis of Faculty Job Satisfaction for
Traditional Vs. On-line Instruction in Graduate Business
Education
Dr. Robert C. Preziosi
Dr. Doreen J. Gooden
Report No. HS09-01-03
Publication Date: September 1st 2003
Faculty Satisfaction Online vs. Onground
Huizenga School Assessment Journal
1
A Comparative Analysis of Faculty Job Satisfaction for Traditional
Vs. On-line Instruction in Graduate Business Education
Robert C. Preziosi, Nova Southeastern University
Doreen J. Gooden, Nova Southeastern University
Abstract:
This study examined the job satisfaction levels of faculty members at the H. Wayne
Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University engaged in
both traditional and on-line graduate instruction. Both institutional management variables and
work processes were measured. A comparative analysis was performed to determine if there
were any differences in their satisfaction levels in each environment. Areas for improvement
were identified and recommendations made with the view of ensuring that faculty members are
satisfied with their jobs… at least the teaching aspects of it.
Publication Reference:
Preziosi, R. C., and Gooden, D. J., (2003). A Comparative Analysis of Faculty Job Satisfaction
for Traditional vs. Online Instruction in Graduate Business Education. Academy of
Business Education. ABE 2003 Conference Proceedings.
INTRODUCTION
Research suggests that individuals who are satisfied with their jobs contribute to positive
organizational outcomes - example - low turnover, low absenteeism and a high level of
commitment to the organization. It is important, therefore, that organizational leaders, regardless
of the type and nature of their operations, identify the variables which contribute to job
satisfaction in order to ensure that employees are indeed satisfied with their jobs. This is very
true of teaching institutions where faculty members’ principal task is ensuring that there are
positive learning outcomes for their students.
The main objective of any teaching institution is that of contributing to the positive
learning outcomes of students. With the emergence of distance education, many faculty members
are also required to teach in both traditional and on-line environments to attain such outcomes.
This will require some degree of adaptability. On-line business learning, has been remarkably
adaptable (Barnes and Blackwell, 2002). Some of the delivery techniques, resources, and
technology used will be different in both learning environments regardless of how adaptable on-
line (or electronic) has become.
Faculty Satisfaction Online vs. Onground
Huizenga School Assessment Journal
2
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY (NSU) CONTEXT
Many business schools have responded to the development of on-line learning by
offering complete degree programs on-line along with the traditional ground based option.
Faculty for the on-line courses have generally come from the population of existing faculty
considered highly computer literate. Still, after volunteering to teach on-line, training has been
necessary according to the faculty. Faculty teaching on-line are sometimes required to use
special software. Some even enrolled in a three-credit course on electronic teaching.
The experience of one, private, not-for-profit graduate school of business was exactly as
that described in the paragraph above. Faculty members were very positive and upbeat as they
prepared to teach their first on-line course, even though most were adjunct faculty. There was
considerable technological support, both in equipment and personnel. Administration was fully
behind the new effort and was supportive in every way possible.
After two years of experience with the new learning modality, one of the authors of this
paper began to hear comments such as the following from faculty:
“This is a lot more work than regular classroom teaching”.
“I’ve heard of other learning platforms that might be better”.
“I’m not sure students are learning as much as they do in the regular classroom”.
“I wish students were better prepared to use technology”.
“The drop-out rate is much higher among electronic students than it is among
ground-based”.
“It’s discouraging when students keep missing the few chat rooms that are
scheduled”.
“Even in adding audio, I’m not sure this approach is best”.
It is important to note that not all comments were negative. Many faculty and student
experiences were positive. Some students commented to one of the authors of this paper that the
on-line format was the only way they could have earned an M.B.A. Their personal and
professional lives were so regimented that flexible scheduling which characterizes the on-line
programs was the only thing that made studying for an advanced degree possible. The time
schedule for the chat rooms was the most regimented aspect of the learning. There was always
flexibility in using the bulletin boards and in turning in assignments.
The authors decided that a study of some aspects of the traditional vs. on-line experiences
could serve as a vehicle for understanding any similarities and differences. Job satisfaction was
chosen because the nature of most of the faculty comments addressed job satisfaction. A
theoretical four-factor model of job satisfaction was developed. It included the following
factors; Perspective on Teaching, The Teaching Process, Student Impact/Feedback, and
Administration. Thus, the purpose of the research was to compare the levels of job satisfaction
for Nova Southeastern University professors who taught traditional vs. online courses.
Faculty Satisfaction Online vs. Onground
Huizenga School Assessment Journal
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Job satisfaction has been defined as the employee’s overall feelings or impression of his
or her job situation. As organizations seek to become competitive, their interests in having
employees who are satisfied with their jobs become a more important issue. Job satisfaction
exerts a direct causal effect on organizational commitment (Brown and Peterson 1993). The
effect of job satisfaction on reducing turnover occurs primarily through a process of increasing
investment in and attachment to the organization (Brown and Peterson 1993).
Extensive studies have been conducted examining the relationships of different
organizational variables and their impact on job satisfaction. Kim (2002) found that employees
whose managers used a participative management style had higher satisfaction levels than those
employees whose managers did not use such a style. Bhuian and Mengue (2002) found that when
expatriates perceive higher autonomy, identity and feedback in their jobs, they experience higher
job satisfaction. Kim (2002) found that employees who are involved in the strategic planning of
the organization had higher job satisfaction levels than those not involved.
Hackman & Oldman’s (1976) theory on job characteristics builds upon early
organizational satisfaction theories of Maslow, Herzberg, and Vroom which postulate that people
have needs that have to be satisfied and that the job has certain characteristics which can meet
these needs. If these needs are fulfilled then their satisfaction levels will be increased (Polack
Whitbred, and Contractor 2000).
Pollack, Whitbred and Contractor (2000) found that individual’s job satisfaction was
significantly predicted by the characteristics of the job. Oshagbemi (1997) found that university
teachers’ job of teaching and research contributes significantly to both their job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. The 2000 American Faculty Poll indicates that over 90% of faculty members
surveyed expressed some level of satisfaction with their jobs. Dinhan & Scott ( 2000) found that
teachers are satisfied by matters intrinsic to teaching. These intrinsic factors include: student
achievement, helping students to modify their attitudes and behavior, positive relationships with
students and others, self-growth, mastery of professional skills, and feeling part of a collegial,
supportive environment. On the other hand, they found that the major sources of teacher and
executive dissatisfaction were matters extrinsic to the job and over which they have little control.
These dissatisfers include the nature and pace of education, increased expectations and
responsibilities placed on schools with the resultant increases to teacher workloads. The
American Faculty Poll study, in 2000, found that about 50% of faculty agreed that the lack of
students’ preparation, commitment and current workload affected their work life. That same
study also reported that; almost 9 out of 10 said that opportunity to educate was very important,
less than one-half were very satisfied with the opportunity they had been given to educate, and
slightly more than one-third strongly believed that collegiality was at an acceptable level.
Faculty Satisfaction Online vs. Onground
Huizenga School Assessment Journal
4
METHODOLOGY
Job satisfaction data were collected from the full-time and adjunct faculty members
teaching both on-line and traditional courses at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and
Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University. Two questionnaires, measuring the
satisfaction levels for each delivery method, were developed by Preziosi and Gooden (2002).
Each questionnaire assessed four facets (aspects) of job satisfaction, and contained twenty items,
and used a five- point Likert scale ranging from 1= Strongly Agree to 5= Disagree Strongly.
The four facets addressed faculty’s satisfaction as it relates to:
1) Perspective on Teaching,
2) The Teaching Process,
3) Student’s Impact/Feedback, and
4) Administration.
The on-line questionnaire had a test-retest reliability of .867 and a coefficient alpha of
.737. The traditional questionnaire had a test-retest reliability of .836 and coefficient alpha of
.805. Descriptive statistics and t-tests were conducted to determine the satisfaction levels and
whether there were significant differences in the mean scores of faculty’s satisfaction levels with
on-line courses versus the traditional courses.
ANALYSIS
Of the 25 questionnaires mailed, 16 were returned. However, one questionnaire was
incomplete. The 15 usable questionnaires reflected a 60% response rate. The descriptive
statistics below in table 1 indicate the mean scores of the job satisfaction levels of faculty
members teaching both electronically and ground-based. The mean score for traditional
teaching was 2.07 and for on-line teaching 2.31 suggesting that faculty members are somewhat
more satisfied teaching with traditional methods.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics: Mean Scores
15 1.50 2.85 2.0741 .3611
15 1.65 2.95 2.3104 .3619
15
Traditional
On-line
Valid N (listwise)
NMinimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
A t- test was then calculated to determine whether there were significant differences between the
average satisfaction levels of teaching on-line versus traditional. The t value was 2.148 with a p
value of .050 suggesting that there were no significant differences between the job satisfaction
levels for professors who taught on-line versus a traditional environment.
When each of the factors of job satisfaction was compared based on traditional vs. on-
line teaching, there were significant differences with perspective on teaching
(t= 3.812, p = .002). Items that measured this included:
Faculty Satisfaction Online vs. Onground
Huizenga School Assessment Journal
5
I have the opportunity to use a variety of my preferred teaching methods.
My teaching gives me the opportunity to grow professionally.
The amount of student work I must evaluate is appropriate.
I control the learning environment.
The amount of time I must spend preparing for class sessions seems reasonable.
The results suggest that perhaps the on-line professors are unable to use a variety of their
preferred teaching styles. Also, the amount of students’ work to be evaluated is far more than
required for the traditional students or at least, is perceived as such. Table 2 outlines the mean
scores for each job satisfaction factor and for each delivery method. When faculty were teaching
traditional courses they were more satisfied with the perspective on teaching and impact on
students.
A second significant difference, although minimal, was identified under the student
impact factor. The items that measured this were:
I am satisfied with the quality of interaction among students.
This teaching situation helps students grow as independent learners.
A student learning community develops as each course progresses.
The teaching situation allows me to respond to students based upon their different
personalities.
It is possible to maximize each student’s intellectual capacity.
Table 2. Paired Samples Statistics: Means for Factors and Delivery Method
2.2933 15 .5175 .1336
1.7667 15 .4685 .1210
1.9400 15 .4896 .1264
1.8867 15 .5222 .1348
2.4000 15 .5071 .1309
2.0067 15 .6147 .1587
2.5867 15 .6865 .1772
2.5267 15 .4131 .1067
On-line Perspective on Teaching
Traditional - Perspective on Teaching
Pair
1
Electronic - Teaching Process
Traditional - Teaching Process
Pair
2
Electronic - Student Impact
Traditional - Student Impact
Pair
3
Electronic - Administration
Traditional - Administration
Pair
4
Mean NStd. Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
CONCLUSION
The study was conducted with faculty members at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of
Business and Entrepreneurship and, therefore, the results cannot be generalized
to faculty members at other universities. This is consistent with the purpose of the research,
which was to compare levels of job satisfaction for professors at NSU. Differences were found
in the faculty members perspective on teaching and student impact. Scores were significantly
better when professors taught traditional vs. on-line. Since it is widely known that each
institution’s teaching efforts are influenced by unique variables of the institution, job satisfaction
models for such research may need to be individualized.
Faculty Satisfaction Online vs. Onground
Huizenga School Assessment Journal
6
REFERENCES
Barnes, B., and Blackwell, C. (2002). Taking management training online: Lessons from
academe. Unpublished manuscript.
Bhuian, S. and Mengue, B. (2002). An extension and evaluation of job characteristics,
organizational commitment and job satisfaction in an expatriate, guest worker, sales
setting. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22 (1), 1-11.
Brown, S., and Peterson, R. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job
satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing
Research, 30, 63-77.
Dinham, S., and Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction.
Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (4), 379-396.
Hackman, R., and Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (2), 250-279.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62 (2), 231-241.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997). Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education. Education and
Training, 39, (9), 354-359.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). How satisfied are academics with their primary tasks of teaching,
research and administration and management? International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 1 (2), 124-136.
Pollack, T., Whitbred, R., and Contractor, N. (2000). Social information processing and job
characteristics – A simultaneous test of two theories with implications for job
satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 26 (2), 292-330.
Sanderson, A., Phua, V., and Herda, D. (2000). The American Faculty Poll. Chicago: National
Opinion Research.
