By: Florelisa Gonzalez-Severino

1. The relationship between faculty leadership style and student satisfaction in online education courses? By: Florelisa Gonzalez-Severino

2. Introduction

3. Background The graph below shows the increase in technology-enabled educational programs in Texas alone in 2007-2008. nces.ed.gov; bestonlineuniversities.com

4. Background lpntobsnonline.org

5. Statement of the Problem • Majority of education research relating to student engagement is in the context of the classroom. • While online education is on the rise, it is vital to understand the impact distance learning and the instructor’s leadership style has on students’ satisfaction. • Become aware of those factors that contribute to a student’s positive perception of online courses.

6. Transformational Leadership: Workplace vs. School (Balwant, 2016)

7. Transformational Leadership: Workplace vs. School (Balwant, 2016)

9. Purpose of the Study Examine the relationship between student’s perception of online faculty leadership style as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and student satisfaction in online education courses as measured by Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ).

10. Conceptual Definitions

11. Conceptual Definitions • Student Satisfaction: • the favorability of a student’s subjective evaluation of the various outcomes and experiences associated with education. • (Elliott and Shin, 2002)

12. Conceptual Definitions • Distance Education: • Refers to a process to create and provide access to learning when the source of information and the learners are separated by time and distance, or both. • Online Course: • Courses that are designed for internet delivery rather than for physical attendance. • (Macon, 2011); (Miller and Honeyman, 1993); (Feenberg, 1999)

13. Conceptual Definitions • Leadership: • a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. • (Northouse, 2010)

14. Dimensions Measured (6) Scales from MLQ: (4) Scales from SEEQ: Learning/Value Enthusiasm Individual Rapport Organization Transformational Leadership: • Idealized Influence (Behavioral) • Inspirational Motivation • Intellectual Stimulation • Individual Consideration Transactional Leadership: • Contingent Reward Passive-Avoidant Leadership: • MBE-Passive

15. Definitions: Full Range Leadership • Measured by the MLQ • Transformational Leadership: • Involves a leader-follower exchange relationship in which the followers feel trust, loyalty, and respect toward the leader, and are motivated to do more than originally expected. • Transactional Leadership: • Leader-follower exchange relationship in which the follower receives some reward related to lower-order needs in return for compliance with the leader’s expectations. • Passive-Avoidant Leadership: • Involves a leader taking corrective action when problems arise. (Bass, 1985)

16. Definitions: Transformational Leadership • Idealized Influence (Behavioral) • Measured using the MLQ • a facet of transformational leadership, which describes leaders who can be counted on to do the right thing through high ethical and moral standards • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a five point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to four (Bass, 1999)

17. Definitions: Transformational Leadership • Inspirational Motivation • Measured using the MLQ • behavior facet of transformational leadership, which describes leaders who motivate and inspire followers to commit to the vision of the organization. • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a five point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to four (Avolio, 1999)

18. Definitions: Transformational Leadership • Intellectual Stimulation • Measured using the MLQ • a behavior facet of transformational leadership, which describes leaders who encourage innovation and creativity through challenging the normal beliefs or views of their followers. • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a five point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to four (Avolio, 1999)

19. Definitions: Transformational Leadership • Individual Consideration • Measured using the MLQ • a behavior facet of transformational leadership, which describe leaders who act as coaches, facilitators, teachers, and mentors to their followers. • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a five point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to four (Avolio, 1999)

20. Definitions: Transactional Leadership • Contingent Reward • Measured using the MLQ • a behavior facet of transactional leadership, which describes leaders who engage in a constructive path-goal transaction of reward for performance. • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a five point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to four (Bass, 1985)

21. Definitions: Passive-Avoidant Leadership • Management-by-exception (Passive) • Measured using the MLQ • describes leaders who fail to intervene until problems become serious. • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a five point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to four (Bass, 1985)

22. Definitions: Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) • Learning/Value • Measured using the SEEQ • Student’s satisfaction with learning/value • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Lawall, 2006)

23. Definitions: Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) • Enthusiasm • Measured using the SEEQ • Student’s assessment of the Instructor’s enthusiasm • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Lawall, 2006)

24. Definitions: Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) • Individual Rapport • Measured using the SEEQ • Student’s assessment of individual rapport with Instructor • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Lawall, 2006)

25. Definitions: Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) • Organization • Measured using the SEEQ • Student’s assessment of the Instructor’s organization • Calculated from a mean of four items • Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Lawall, 2006)

26. Independent Variables • Idealized Influence (behavioral) • Intellectual Stimulation • Individual Consideration • Inspirational Motivation • Contingent Reward • Management by Exception – Passive

27. Dependent Variables • Student’s satisfaction with Learning/value • Student’s assessment of the Instructor’s Enthusiasm • Student’s assessment of the Instructor’s Individual Rapport • Student’s assessment of the Instructor’s Organization

28. Control Variables • Students’ Gender • Student’s Age • Student’s Ethnicity • Student’s Educational Classification • Student’s Job Status • Student’s Expected Academic Outcome • Student’s Familiarity with Online Courses

29. Research Areas • Predictors of Student Satisfaction • Predictors of Ratings of Professor

30. Research Area 1 • Predictors of Student Satisfaction

31. Research Questions

32. Research Question (RQ1) • Is there a relationship betweenonline faculty leadership style (4I’s, contingent reward and management by exception-passive) and student’s satisfaction of learningcontrolling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses.

33. Research Question (RQ2) • Is there a relationship betweenonline faculty leadership style (4I’s, contingent reward and management by exception-passive) and student’s assessment of the instructor’s enthusiasm and availabilitycontrolling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses.

34. Research Question (RQ3) • Is there a relationship betweenonline faculty leadership style (4I’s, contingent reward and management by exception-passive) and student’s assessment of the instructor’s enthusiasm and welcoming behaviors controlling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses.

35. Research Question (RQ4) • Is there a relationship betweenonline faculty leadership style (4I’s, contingent reward and management by exception-passive) and student’s assessment of the instructor’s organizationcontrolling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses.

36. Research Area 2 • Predictors of Ratings of Professor

37. Research Question (RQ5) • Is there a relationship betweenstudent’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses andratings of how much Idealized Influence the Professor was?

38. Research Question (RQ6) • Is there a relationship betweenstudent’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses andratings of how much Intellectual Stimulation the Professor was?

39. Research Question (RQ7) • Is there a relationship betweenstudent’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses andratings of how much Inspirational Motivation the Professor was?

40. Research Question (RQ8) • Is there a relationship betweenstudent’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses andratings of how much Individual Consideration the Professor was?

41. Research Question (RQ9) • Is there a relationship betweenstudent’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses andratings of how much Contingent Reward the Professor was?

42. Research Question (RQ10) • Is there a relationship betweenstudent’s gender, age, ethnicity, classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses andratings of how Management by Exception-Passive the Professor was?

43. Review of Literature

44. Meta-Analyses • Distance education vs. traditional classroom • Student Satisfaction • Student Achievement • Retention Outcomes • Learning Outcomes

45. Research on Distance Education:Student Satisfaction Differences No Differences No difference in student satisfaction for business courses for distance education vs. traditional classroom (k = 20, Hedges g = .20, p = .397). No difference for graduate courses in satisfaction between traditional courses and distance education courses (k = 14, Hedges g = -.21, p = .237). • Student satisfaction was higher for traditional classroom courses than for distance education (k = 59, Hedges g = .22, p = .037). • Students were more satisfied with traditional statistics courses than distance education (k = 20, Hedges g = .44, p = .021). • Students in undergraduate classes were more satisfied with traditional courses than with distance education courses (k = 45, Hedges g = .36, p = .003). Positive Hedges g indicates traditional higher than distance education. Negative Hedges g indicates distance education higher than traditional. (Macon et al., 2011)

46. Research on Distance Education:Student Achievement • Meta-analysis looking at distance education vs. traditional classroom found: • For student achievement, a very small effect size in favor of distance education (k = 318, N = 54,775, g = .01). • Student’s taught synchronously achieved more in traditional classrooms, (k = 92, N = 8,677, g = -.10). • Students taught asynchronously achieved more in distance education courses, (k = 174, N = 36,531, g = .05). Positive g indicates distance education higher than traditional. Negative g indicates traditional classroom higher than distance education. (Bernard et al., 2004)

47. Research on Distance Education:Retention Outcomes • Meta-analysis looking at distance education vs. traditional classroom found: • For retention outcomes, a very small but significant effect was found in favor of classroom instruction, (k = 103, N = 3,735,050, g = -.05). Positive g indicates distance education higher than traditional. Negative g indicates traditional classroom higher than distance education. (Bernard et al., 2004)

48. Research on Distance Education:Learning Outcomes • Overall finding of the meta-analysis is that online learning (the combination of studies of purely online and of blended learning) on average produces stronger student learning outcomes than learning solely through face-to-face instruction (k = 50, d = .20, p < .001). • No difference found in student learning outcomes for purely online versus face-to-face instruction (k = 27, g = .05, p = .46). • Blended versus face-to-face is significantly different (k = 23, g = .35, p < .0001), with blended learning producing stronger student learning outcomes than purely face-to-face instruction. Positive d indicates online and blended higher than face to face. Positive g indicates blended higher than face to face. (Means et al., 2013)

49. Distance Education and Satisfaction with Instructor • Studies on distance education and satisfaction with the instructor varied. • Distance education students who have a stronger sense of availability and connectednesswith instructor are likely to be more satisfied with their learning experiences. • Students’ overall perceived learning was correlated with students’ satisfaction with the instructor. (Richardson and Swan , 2003); (Shin and Chan, 2004); (Mason, Helton and Dziegielewski , 2010); (Wise, et al., 2004); (Schiff and Katz, 2007)

50. Gender & Student Satisfaction • Studies produced conflicting information related to how gender influences student satisfaction. • One study found male students were more satisfied with the e-learning system than female students. • One study found female students were more satisfied with on-line learning than their male classmates. • One study found male students reported higher general satisfaction than the female students with field instruction. (Lu and Chiou, 2010); (Schiff and Katz, 2007); (Frederickson, et al., 1999)