By: Florelisa Gonzalez-Severino

By: Florelisa Gonzalez-Severino
Is there a relationship between faculty leadership style and student satisfaction in online education courses? By: Florelisa Gonzalez-Severino

Introduction

Background lpntobsnonline.org

Background The graph below shows the number of undergraduate distance education enrollments steadily increases its proportion starting at 16% in and increasing to 32% in (U.S. Department of Education, 2015)

Background Higher percentage of graduate students than of undergraduate students took their entire degree program through distance education (18 vs. 6 percent) in (U.S. Department of Education, 2015)

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.

Transformational Leadership: Workplace vs. School
Employee Job Satisfaction Employee Performance Employee Commitment Workplace Transformational Leadership Student Course Satisfaction Student Academic Performance Student Motivation Student Perceived Instructor Credibility Student Learning Outcomes Professor Transformational Leadership (Balwant, 2016) (Bass & Avolio, 1994)

Transformational Leadership: Workplace vs. School
Employee Job Satisfaction Employee Performance Employee Commitment Workplace Transformational Leadership Student Course Satisfaction Student Academic Performance Student Motivation Student Perceived Instructor Credibility Student Learning Outcomes Professor Transformational Leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Balwant, 2016)

Workplace Transformational Leadership
Employee Job Satisfaction Employee Performance Employee Commitment Workplace Transformational Leadership Student Course Satisfaction Student Academic Performance Student Motivation Student Perceived Instructor Credibility Student Learning Outcomes Professor Transformational Leadership Student satisfaction with learning Student satisfaction with instructor’s enthusiasm Student satisfaction with instructor’s individual rapport Student satisfaction with instructor’s organization Students expected outcome of the course Professor Transformational Leadership in Online Classes at Private University (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Balwant, 2016)

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)

Conceptual Definitions

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

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 & Honeyman, 1993; Feenberg, 1999)

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

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

Conceptual 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)

Conceptual Definition: 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 (Bass, 1999)

Conceptual Definition: 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 (Avolio, 1999)

Conceptual Definition: 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 (Avolio, 1999)

Conceptual Definition: 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 (Avolio, 1999)

Conceptual Definition: 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 (Bass, 1985)

Conceptual Definition: Management-by-exception (Passive)
Measured using the MLQ describes leaders who fail to intervene until problems become serious (Bass, 1985)

Conceptual Definition: Learning/Value
Measured using the Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) Student’s satisfaction with learning/value (Lawall, 2006)

Conceptual Definition: Enthusiasm
Measured using the Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) Student’s assessment of the Instructor’s enthusiasm (Lawall, 2006)

Conceptual Definition: Individual Rapport
Measured using the Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) Student’s assessment of individual rapport with Instructor (Lawall, 2006)

Conceptual Definition: Organization
Measured using the Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) Student’s assessment of the Instructor’s organization (Lawall, 2006)

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

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

Control Variables Student’s 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

Research Areas Predictors of Student Satisfaction
Predictors of Leadership Ratings of Professor

Research Area 1 Predictors of Student Satisfaction

Research Questions

Research Question (RQ1)
Is there a relationship between online faculty leadership style (idealized influence-behavioral, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, contingent reward and management-by-exception passive) and student’s satisfaction of learning when controlling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses?

Is there a relationship between online faculty leadership style (idealized influence-behavioral, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, contingent reward and management-by-exception passive) and student’s assessment of the instructor’s enthusiasm and availability when controlling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses?

Is there a relationship between online faculty leadership style (idealized influence-behavioral, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, contingent reward and management-by-exception passive) and student’s assessment of the instructor’s enthusiasm and welcoming behaviors when controlling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses?

Is there a relationship between online faculty leadership style (idealized influence-behavioral, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, contingent reward and management-by-exception passive) and student’s assessment of the instructor’s organization when controlling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses?

Research Area 2 Predictors of Leadership Ratings of Professor

Is there a relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of idealized influence-behavioral?

Is there a relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of intellectual stimulation?

Is there a relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of inspirational motivation?

Is there a relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of individual consideration?

Is there a relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of contingent reward?

Is there a relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of management-by-exception passive?

Review of Literature

Literature Review Overall student satisfaction
Distance Education vs. Traditional classroom SEEQ Components Control Variables

Meta-Analysis Distance education vs. traditional classroom
Student Satisfaction Student Achievement Retention Outcomes Learning Outcomes

Research on Distance Education: Student Satisfaction
Differences No Differences 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) 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) Positive Hedges g indicates traditional higher than distance education. Negative Hedges g indicates distance education higher than traditional. (Macon et al., 2011)

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)

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)

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)

Factors Affecting Student Achievement
Meta-analysis of teaching-level factors on student achievement Orientation (k = 14, N = 42,850, z = .36) Making explicit the importance of engaging students in certain tasks/activities Providing students opportunities to identify the significance of engaging in certain tasks Correlations (r), t-test results and d scores were converted to Fisher’s Z transformation (Kyriakides, Christoforou, & Charalambous, 2013; Rosenthal, 1994)

Rapport and Student Achievement
Meta-analysis of teaching-level factors on student achievement Classroom as a learning environment (k = 78, N = 232,286, z = .45) Opportunities for students to interact in different settings Teachers’ dealing with misbehavior Interactions between the teacher and the student Students’ perceived treatment by the teacher (e.g., fairness, caring) Correlations (r), t-test results and d scores were converted to Fisher’s Z transformation (Kyriakides, Christoforou, & Charalambous, 2013)

Organization and Student Achievement
Meta-analysis of teaching-level factors on student achievement Classroom Organization (k = 9, N = 28,862, z = .05) Structuring (k = 35, N = 157,783, z = .36) Summarizing the main points of the lesson Gradually increasing the level of difficulty of the assigned tasks during the lesson Connecting previous lessons to the lesson of the day Correlations (r), t-test results and d scores were converted to Fisher’s Z transformation (Kyriakides, Christoforou, & Charalambous, 2013)

Enthusiasm and Teacher Effectiveness
Review of 45 years of research on Teacher Enthusiasm Literature found enthusiastic teachers not only motivate, inspire and excite students but also promote learning and student achievement A vast body of teaching effectiveness research considers enthusiasm as instructional behavior and one factor of effective teaching and quality (Keller, Hoy, Goetz, & Frenzel, 2016)

8 Indicators of Displayed Teacher Enthusiasm
Vocal Delivery: Great and sudden changes from rapid excited speech to a whisper. Varied lilting, uplifting intonation. Many changes in tone, pitch Eyes: Characterized as dancing, snapping, shining, lighting up frequently opening wide, eyebrows raised Gestures: Quick and demonstrative movements of body, head, arms, hands, and face, i.e., sweeping motions, clapping hands, head nodding rapidly Movements: Large body movements, swung around, walked rapidly, unchanged pace, unpredictable, energetic Facial Expression: Appeared vibrant, demonstrative, showed surprise, awe, sadness, joy, thoughtfulness, excitement. Total smile—mouth opened wide, quick, and sudden changes in expression Overall Energy: Exuberant. Maintained high degree of energy and vitality, highly demonstrative, great, and sudden changes in voice, tone, pitch; eye, head, arm, and body movements Word Selection: High descriptive, many adjectives, great variety Acceptance of ideas and feelings: Quick and ready to accept, praise, encourage or clarify, many variations in response. Vigorous nodding of head when agreeing (Keller, Hoy, Goetz, & Frenzel, 2016)

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 connectedness with instructor are likely to be more satisfied with their learning experiences Students’ overall perceived learning was correlated with students’ satisfaction with the instructor (Richardson & Swan, 2003; Shin & Chan, 2004; Mason, Helton, & Dziegielewski, 2010; Wise et al., 2004; Schiff & Katz, 2007)

Gender and 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 & Chiou, 2010; Schiff & Katz, 2007; Frederickson et al., 1999)

Age and Student Satisfaction
Multiple studies found age influences student satisfaction General satisfaction with the field instruction was higher among the older students than the younger age groups Students in the year old range were more satisfied with on-line learning than students in the year old range (Schiff & Katz, 2007; Frederickson et al., 1999; Mulenga & Liang, 2008)

Ethnicity and Student Satisfaction
Research related to how ethnicity influences student satisfaction varied Asians were on average less satisfied with their education in their major than African American and Whites Caucasian students reporting greater satisfaction with school than minority students (Umbach & Porter, 2002; Zullig, Huebner, & Pun, 2009)

Educational Classification and Student Satisfaction
Studies reported educational classification influences student satisfaction Third year students were more satisfied with instructors than second year students Study found student satisfaction in the second year subjects was significantly lower than those in the fourth-year and year 5+ electives (Schiff & Katz, 2007; Calvo, Markauskaite, & Trigwell, 2010)

Job Status and Student Satisfaction
The literature on job status and student satisfaction was scarce One study found full-time students rated higher than part-time students for all predictors and e-learning satisfaction (Lu & Chiou, 2010)

Familiarity with Online Courses and Student Satisfaction
Studies reported familiarity with online courses influence student satisfaction One study found students with prior online experience perceived online courses more favorably than those who did not have previous online experience (Tanner et al., 2013)

Expected Academic Outcome and Student Satisfaction
No studies were found for expected academic outcome and student satisfaction

Class Size and Student Satisfaction
One study found a negative relationship between overall satisfaction and class size As the number of students enrolled in the class increases, student satisfaction decreased (Calvo, Markauskaite, & Trigwell, 2010)

Leadership and Satisfaction with the Leader
Meta-analytic studies found that leadership impacts satisfaction in the workplace Results indicated transformational leadership was positively related to follower satisfaction with leader (ρ (rho) = .71, k = 23, N = 4,349) Results indicated contingent reward was positively related to follower satisfaction with the leader (ρ (rho) = .55, k = 14, N = 4,076) Results indicated MBE-passive was negatively related to follower satisfaction with the leader (ρ (rho) = -.14, k = 8, N = 3,255) (Judge & Piccolo, 2004)

Leadership and Satisfaction with the Leader
Meta-analytic studies found how contingent reward impacts satisfaction in the workplace Results indicated a positive relationship between contingent reward and general job satisfaction, (k = 43, N = 11,461, ρ (rho) = .52) Study also found a positive relationship between contingent reward and satisfaction with the supervisor, (k = 52, N = 19,380, ρ (rho) = .55) (Podsakoff et al., 2005)

Review of Literature: Key Points
Related to Distance Education: Traditional vs. Distance Education Student satisfaction higher for traditional classroom courses than for distance education Blended learning produces stronger student learning. outcomes than learning solely through face-to-face instruction Student achievement in favor of distance education Retention outcomes found in favor of classroom instruction

Related to Leadership: Transformational leadership and contingent reward positively related to follower satisfaction with the leader MBE-Passive negatively related to follower satisfaction with the leader Contingent reward positively related to general job satisfaction and satisfaction with the supervisor in the workplace Availability and connectedness with the instructor is correlated with student satisfaction Student’s satisfaction with instructor correlated with students’ learning

Related to Satisfaction: Gender: studies produced conflicting reports. One study found females were more satisfied with online learning. One study found males were more satisfied with online learning Age: Older students more satisfied than younger age groups Ethnicity: Minority students less satisfied with school than Caucasian students

Related to Satisfaction (cont.): Educational Classification: fourth-year + students more satisfied than second-year students Job Status: full time students more satisfied with e-learning than part-time students Familiarity with online courses: students with prior online experience perceived online courses more favorably than those with no experience Class size: As the number of students enrolled in the class increases, student satisfaction decreases

Methodology

Instrumentation

Instruments Demographic Survey
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Student rates online faculty Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995; Marsh, 1982)

Operational Definitions

Operational Definition: Idealized Influence (Behavioral)
Measured using the MLQ Calculated from a mean of four items Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Bass, 1999)

Operational Definition: Inspirational Motivation
Measured using the MLQ Calculated from a mean of four items Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Avolio, 1999)

Operational Definition: Intellectual Stimulation

Operational Definition: Individual Consideration

Operational Definition: Contingent Reward

Operational Definition: Management-by-exception (Passive)

Operational Definition: Learning/Value
Measured using the SEEQ Calculated from a mean of four items Course challenging/stimulating Learned something valuable Increased subject interest Learned/understood subject matter Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Marsh, 1982)

Operational Definition: Enthusiasm
Measured using the SEEQ Calculated from a mean of four items Enthusiastic about teaching Dynamic and energetic Enhanced presentation with humor Teaching style held your interest Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Marsh, 1982)

Operational Definition: Individual Rapport
Measured using the SEEQ Calculated from a mean of four items Friendly towards students Welcomed seeking help/advice Interested in individual students Accessible to individual students Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Marsh, 1982)

Operational Definition: Organization
Measured using the SEEQ Calculated from a mean of four items Instructor explanation clear Course materials prepared and clear Objectives stated and pursued Lectures facilitated note taking Scored using a six point Likert-type scale ranging from zero to five (Marsh, 1982)

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
The Cronbach Alpha scores for the five I’s for rating of the participant’s leader fell in the range of .70 to .83 For Transactional Leadership the alpha scores fell between .73 and .74 For Passive-Avoidant behaviors, the alpha scores fell between .70 and .74 For this study, the Cronbach Alpha scores for Idealized Influence-behavioral (.69), Inspirational Motivation (.71), Intellectual Stimulation (.78), Individual Consideration (.76), Contingent Reward ( ), and MBE-Passive ( ) (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Green et al., 2013)

Student’s Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ)
Factor analysis of 329 courses consisted of the principals components method with oblimin rotation. For the student ratings, the nine factors explained 88% of the variance of the scores Factor 1, learning/value, consisted of 5 questions with an eigenvalue of 19.9 Factor 2, enthusiasm, consisted of 5 questions with an eigenvalue of 3.3 Factor 3, organization, consisted of 4 questions with an eigenvalue of 2.3 Factor 4, group interaction, consisted of 5 questions with an eigenvalue of 1.5 Factor 5, individual rapport, consisted of 4 questions with an eigenvalue of 1.2 Factor 6, breadth of coverage, consisted of 4 questions with an eigenvalue of .9 Factor 7, examinations/grading, consisted of 3 questions with an eigenvalue of .7 Factor 8, assignments, consisted of 2 questions with an eigenvalue of .6 Factor 9, workload/difficulty, consisted of 5 questions with an eigenvalue of .5 For the factor analysis of instructor self-ratings all nine factors had an eigenvalue greater than 1 (Marsh, 1982)

Student’s Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ)
Generally questions loading in a factor loaded greater than .5 The Cronbach alpha for each of the factors ranged from .88 to .97 The test-retest reliability, ratings during the course and ratings 1 year after the course, was r = .83 (Marsh, 1982)

Demographic Survey Gender – male or female (categorical variable)
Age – continuous variable Ethnicity – US Census Bureau (categorical variable) Educational Classification (categorical variable) Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Masters Post Masters

Demographic Survey (cont.)
Job Status (categorical variable) Full-time Part-time Unemployed Expected Academic Outcome (categorical variable) Grades (A / B / C / D / F) Familiarity with online courses (continuous variable) Number of completely online courses previously completed Number of (Hybrid) courses previously completed

Participants Our Lady of the Lake University Students (multiple campuses) enrolled in online courses Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Masters Post-Masters Limitation We can’t generalize to the population

Research Design

Research Design Statistical Analysis Multiple Regression
variance explained R2 t - test (dichotomous variables) Gender beta weights, zero order and partial correlations (continuous variables) Four I’s Contingent Reward MBE-Passive Age # of online courses Significant portion was online course ANOVA and Post-hoc test (dummy variables) Ethnicity Educational Classification Job Status Expected Academic Outcome

Research Design Blocks & Multiple Regression
Blocks help to control the order the variables are used in regressions Conceptual Order Statistical Limitations

Variation contributed by each independent variable Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (Dummy Variables)

Variation contributed by each independent variable Block 3 – Stepwise Method # of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) Significant portion was online course (Continuous Variable) Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (Dummy Variables)

Variation contributed by each independent variable Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (Dummy Variables) Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (Dummy Variables)

Variation contributed by each independent variable Block 7 – Stepwise Method Leader MLQ Score Idealized Influence (behavioral) Individual Consideration Intellectual Stimulation Inspirational Motivation Contingent Reward Management-by-Exception – Passive

Ethical Considerations
Voluntary Anonymous No sensitive questions are being asked Can withdraw at anytime without penalty No incentives IRB Approval Per faculty approval

Descriptive Statistics

Demographics for Participants

Gender

Of those who reported age, participants’ mean age was 38.3 (N = 172)
38.28 Median 37.50 Mode 46 Std. Deviation 10.318 Skewness .237 Kurtosis -.683 Minimum 20 Maximum 63 Of those who reported age, participants’ mean age was 38.3 (N = 172)

Degrees of Freedom and Power
If a categorical variable has small groups they may not be representative of the population Combining the small groups reduces between group degrees of freedom Reducing the between groups degrees of freedom increases the overall degrees of freedom The more overall degrees of freedom, the higher the statistical power The higher the statistical power, the lower the chance of making a Type II Error (concluding there is no effect when, in fact, there is one)

Ethnicity I kept the record but coded for the ethnicity variable for 5 Asian and 4 Other as missing (999).

Educational Classification

Expected Outcome of Online Course

Job Status

Assumption of Normality
An assumption of correlational statistics is that variables are normally distributed 3 different things that can violate that assumption Floor effects, ceiling effects or strongly skewed distributions The results of correlational statistics run with data that have floor effects, ceiling effects or are strongly skewed distributions, will be underestimated The underestimation will result in weaker correlations than we would expect to find in the population, or non-significance in this study whereas the relationship might have been significant with data that were normally distributed

Number of Online Courses
Floor effect will cause results to be underestimated. Mean 2.93 Median 3.00 Mode Std. Deviation 2.498 Skewness .952 Kurtosis .611 Minimum Maximum 10

Number of Courses with a Significant Portion Online
Floor effect will cause results to be underestimated. Mean 2.38 Median 2.00 Mode Std. Deviation 1.761 Skewness .091 Kurtosis -1.267 Minimum Maximum 5 # of courses are the numbers at the bottom.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Appeared to possibly be some communality between MLQ, such as inspirational motivation, and SEEQ enthusiasm Done at level of questions/items (6) Scales from MLQ: (4) Scales from SEEQ: Idealized Influence (Behavioral) Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individual Consideration Contingent Reward MBE-Passive Learning/Value Enthusiasm Individual Rapport Organization

Item level Exploratory Factor Analysis Principal component method with varimax rotation 5 components were found with an Eigenvalue greater than 1 Leadership Organization Learning Enthusiasm & Availability Enthusiasm & Welcoming

Rotated Component Matrixa Component
Component Leadership Organization Learning Enthusiasm & Availability Enthusiasm & Welcoming Cronbach Alpha 0.91 0.82 0.78 Idealized Influence II .839 -.001 -.063 .064 -.127 Individual Consideration I .816 -.027 -.110 .134 -.171 Idealized Influence III .742 -.078 -.034 .235 -.069 Inspirational Motivation IV .735 .090 .005 -.205 .026 Intellectual Stimulation IV .710 .013 -.153 -.039 .086 Contingent Reward I .709 -.082 .174 -.100 .027 Inspirational Motivation II .688 .092 -.032 .087 Contingent Reward IV .680 .085 .068 -.131 .088 Idealized Influence IV .672 -.085 -.080 .135 -.090 Contingent Reward III .666 .110 -.120 -.044 Inspirational Motivation III .652 .057 .103 Individual Consideration IV .625 .042 -.037 .150 MBE-Passive III .606 -.028 -.040 -.057 Individual Consideration II .531 -.051 .180 .045 .075 Organization I -.013 .932 .125 .043 .081 Individual Rapport III -.004 .930 .122 .041 Organization II .053 .809 .115 .161 .069 Organization III .736 .168 .066 .287 Organization IV -.030 .702 .093 .301 .089 Each column represents a factor loading. The standard for factor loading was greater than .5 or less than -.5. Variables noted in red loaded together.

Rotated Component Matrixa
Component Leadership Organization Learning Enthusiasm & Availability Enthusiasm & Welcoming Cronbach Alpha 0.91 0.82 0.78 Learning III -.034 .109 .820 .029 .113 Individual Rapport I -.021 .028 .781 -.008 .183 Learning II -.020 .244 .758 .149 .139 Learning IV -.042 .235 .672 .224 .074 Enthusiasm IV .019 .261 .228 .754 .260 Individual Rapport IV .070 .040 .747 .117 Enthusiasm III -.068 .241 .153 .677 .198 Individual Rapport II .056 .155 .128 .063 Enthusiasm II .203 .298 .313 .751 Enthusiasm I -.051 .240 .140 .306 .693 Each column represents a factor loading. The standard for factor loading was greater than .5 or less than -.5. Variables noted in red loaded together.

Histograms

SEEQ Scores

Organization Mean 3.9491 Median 4.0000 Mode 3.00 Std. Deviation .82004
Skewness -.476 Kurtosis -.327 Minimum 1.00 Maximum 5.00

Learning Ceiling effect: Correlations will be underestimated. Mean
4.0465 Median 4.0000 Mode 5.00 Std. Deviation .76330 Skewness -.371 Kurtosis -.853 Minimum 2.00 Maximum Ceiling effect: Correlations will be underestimated.

Enthusiasm and Availability
Mean 3.8663 Median 4.0000 Mode 3.00 Std. Deviation .75760 Skewness -.010 Kurtosis -.916 Minimum 1.67 Maximum 5.00

Enthusiasm and Welcoming
Mean 3.9205 Median 4.0000 Mode 3.00 Std. Deviation .80173 Skewness -.032 Kurtosis -1.335 Minimum 2.00 Maximum 5.00

Leadership Scores

Idealized Influence (Behavioral)
Mean 2.4506 Median 2.5000 Mode 3.00 Std. Deviation .81991 Skewness -.319 Kurtosis -.249 Minimum 0.00 Maximum 4.00 MLQ Normative Mean = 2.73 Mean from this study = 2.45 t(171) = -4.47, p = .00

Intellectual Stimulation
Mean 2.3547 Median 2.2500 Mode 2.00 Std. Deviation .66333 Skewness .154 Kurtosis -.179 Minimum .75 Maximum 4.00 MLQ Normative Mean = 2.76 Mean from this study = 2.35 t(171) = -8.01, p = .00

Individual Consideration

Inspirational Motivation

Contingent Reward MLQ Normative Mean = 2.84
2.5189 Median 2.5000 Mode 2.00 Std. Deviation .81829 Skewness -.016 Kurtosis -.479 Minimum 0.00 Maximum 4.00 MLQ Normative Mean = 2.84 Mean from this study = 2.52 t(171) = -4.99, p = .00

Passive Leadership MLQ Normative Mean = 1.02
1.8677 Median 2.0000 Mode 2.00 Std. Deviation .73121 Skewness -.021 Kurtosis .986 Minimum 0.00 Maximum 4.00 MLQ Normative Mean = 1.02 Mean from this study = 1.87 t(171) = 15.21, p = .00

Enthusiasm and Availability .504** .03
Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Age 1.00 -.381** .09 .11 -.10 -.06 .04 -.01 .06 .08 -.214** #Online_Courses -.13 -.05 -.02 .01 .00 .05 Organization .361** .416** .429** -.07 -.09 .02 Learning .339** .410** -.08 -.03 -.14 Enthusiasm and Availability .504** .03 Enthusiasm and Welcoming -.04 TFIntellectual Stimulation .567** .636** .706** .256** .525** TFIdealized Influence .733** .728** .417** .614** 19 TFInspirational Motivation .644** .347** .650** TFIndividual Consideration .369** .572** MBE Passive .323** Contingent Reward **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Age 1.00 -.381** .09 .11 -.10 -.06 .04 -.01 .06 .08 -.214** #Online_Courses -.13 -.05 -.02 .01 .00 .05 Organization .361** .416** .429** -.07 -.09 .02 Learning .339** .410** -.08 -.03 -.14 Enthusiasm and Availability .504** .03 Enthusiasm and Welcoming -.04 TFIntellectual Stimulation .567** .636** .706** .256** .525** TFIdealized Influence .733** .728** .417** .614** 19 TFInspirational Motivation .644** .347** .650** TFIndividual Consideration .369** .572** MBE Passive .323** Contingent Reward **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The inter-correlations among the student satisfaction scales were moderately correlated.

4 I’s were correlated in the range of .567 to .733
Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Age 1.00 -.381** .09 .11 -.10 -.06 .04 -.01 .06 .08 -.214** #Online_Courses -.13 -.05 -.02 .01 .00 .05 Organization .361** .416** .429** -.07 -.09 .02 Learning .339** .410** -.08 -.03 -.14 Enthusiasm and Availability .504** .03 Enthusiasm and Welcoming -.04 TFIntellectual Stimulation .567** .636** .706** .256** .525** TFIdealized Influence .733** .728** .417** .614** 19 TFInspirational Motivation .644** .347** .650** TFIndividual Consideration .369** .572** MBE Passive .323** Contingent Reward **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 4 I’s were correlated in the range of .567 to .733

Enthusiasm and Availability .504** .03
Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Age 1.00 -.381** .09 .11 -.10 -.06 .04 -.01 .06 .08 -.214** #Online_Courses -.13 -.05 -.02 .01 .00 .05 Organization .361** .416** .429** -.07 -.09 .02 Learning .339** .410** -.08 -.03 -.14 Enthusiasm and Availability .504** .03 Enthusiasm and Welcoming -.04 TFIntellectual Stimulation .567** .636** .706** .256** .525** TFIdealized Influence .733** .728** .417** .614** 19 TFInspirational Motivation .644** .347** .650** TFIndividual Consideration .369** .572** MBE Passive .323** Contingent Reward **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Research Areas Research Area 1: Research Area 2:
Predictors of Student Satisfaction Research Area 2: Predictors of Leadership Ratings of Professors

Research Area 1 Predictors of Student Satisfaction

Null Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis (Ho1) There is no relationship between online faculty leadership style (idealized influence-behavioral, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, contingent reward and management by exception-passive) and student’s satisfaction of learning when controlling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses

Null Hypothesis (Ho2) There is no relationship between online faculty leadership style (idealized influence-behavioral, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, contingent reward and management by exception-passive) and student’s assessment of the instructor’s enthusiasm and availability when controlling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses

Null Hypothesis (Ho3) There is no relationship between online faculty leadership style (idealized influence-behavioral, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, contingent reward and management by exception-passive) and student’s assessment of the instructor’s enthusiasm and welcoming behaviors when controlling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses

Null Hypothesis (Ho4) There is no relationship between online faculty leadership style (idealized influence-behavioral, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, contingent reward and management by exception-passive) and student’s assessment of the instructor’s organization when controlling for student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, and familiarity with online courses

Null Hypothesis (Ho5) There is no relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of idealized influence-behavioral No more controlling for.

Null Hypothesis (Ho6) There is no relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of intellectual stimulation

Null Hypothesis (Ho7) There is no relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of inspirational motivation

Null Hypothesis (Ho8) There is no relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of individual consideration

Null Hypothesis (Ho9) There is no relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of contingent reward

Null Hypothesis (Ho10) There is no relationship between student’s gender, age, ethnicity, educational classification, job status, expected academic outcome, familiarity with online courses and rating of student’s perception of professor’s use of management by exception-passive

Research Design Blocks & Multiple Regression
Blocks help to control the order the variables are used in regressions Conceptual Order Statistical Limitations

Do any of these variables predict Student Satisfaction with Learning?
Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (2 Dummy Variables) Block 3 – Stepwise Method Number of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) Number of courses with a significant portion online (Continuous Variable) Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (5 Dummy Variables) Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (2 Dummy Variables) Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (2 Dummy Variables) Block 7 – Stepwise Method IS, IC, IM, II, MBE-Passive, CR

Do any of these variables predict Student Satisfaction with Learning?
Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) - NO Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) - NO Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 3 – Stepwise Method Number of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) - NO Number of courses with a significant portion online (Continuous Variable) - NO Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (5 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 7 – Stepwise Method IS, IC, IM, II, MBE-Passive, CR - NO Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis

Do any of these variables predict Student Satisfaction with Enthusiasm and Availability?

Do any of these variables predict Student Satisfaction with Enthusiasm and Welcoming Behaviors?

Do any of these variables predict Student Satisfaction with Organization?

Research Area 2 Predictors of Student’s Ratings of Professors
Removed leadership as the independent variable and test each dimension of leadership as a dependent variable

Do any of these variables predict Intellectual Stimulation?
Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (2 Dummy Variables) Block 3 – Stepwise Method Number of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) Number of courses with a significant portion online (Continuous Variable) Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (5 Dummy Variables) Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (2 Dummy Variables) Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (2 Dummy Variables)

Do any of these variables predict Intellectual Stimulation?
Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) - NO Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) - NO Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 3 – Stepwise Method Number of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) - NO Number of courses with a significant portion online (Continuous Variable) - NO Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (5 Dummy Variables) - YES Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (2 Dummy Variables) - YES Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Reject the Null Hypothesis

Intellectual Stimulation
Model Summary Model R R Square R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. 1 .263a .069 2.461 5 166 .04 2 .328b .108 .039 3.555 164 .03 a. Predictors: Student Classification b. Predictors: Expected Outcome of Course Student classification explains 7 percent of the variance in how they rate the Leader’s intellectual stimulation (R² = .07, p = .04). Expected Outcome of course explained an additional 4 percent of the variance, (ΔR² = .04, p = .03)

Student Classification and Intellectual Stimulation
Using the Tukey test, Sophomore students (M = 2.53) rated professors as having more intellectual stimulation than Post-masters students (M = 2.05) Student classification explains 7 percent of the variance in how they rate the Leader’s intellectual stimulation (R² = .07, p = .04) N = 31 N = 28 N = 46 N = 32 N = 26 N = 9 Results of one-way ANOVA with Tukey test

Expected Outcome of Course and Intellectual Stimulation
Using the Tukey post hoc test, students who expected a B (M = 2.46) rated professors as having more Intellectual Stimulation than students who expected a C (M = 2.031) Expected Outcome explained an additional 4 percent of the variance, (Δ R² = .04, p = .03) Results of one-way ANOVA with Tukey test

Do any of these variables predict Idealized Influence?

Do any of these variables predict Idealized Influence?
Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) - NO Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) - NO Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 3 – Stepwise Method Number of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) - NO Number of courses with a significant portion online (Continuous Variable) - YES Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (5 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Reject the Null Hypothesis

Number of Courses with a Significant Portion Online and Idealized Influence
Model Summary Model R R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. 1 .153a .023 4.076 170 .045 a. Predictors: Number of courses with a significant portion online Number of courses with a significant portion online explained 2 percent of variance of what the students thought the leader was Idealized Influence (R² = .02, β = -.15, p = .05)

Number of Courses with a Significant Portion Online and Idealized Influence
The beta weight of explains the more online classes the students have had, the less they thought the professor demonstrated idealized influence Number of courses with a significant portion online explained 2 percent of variance in how much the students thought the leader demonstrated idealized influence (R² = .02, β = -.15, p = .05)

Do any of these variables predict Inspirational Motivation?

Do any of these variables predict Inspirational Motivation?
Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) - NO Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) - NO Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 3 – Stepwise Method Number of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) - NO Number of courses with a significant portion online (Continuous Variable) - YES Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (5 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Reject the Null Hypothesis

Number of Courses with a Significant Portion Online and Inspirational Motivation
Model Summary Model R R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. 1 .235a .055 5.839 158 .017 a. Predictors: (Constant), Number of courses with a significant portion online Number of courses with a significant portion online explained 4 percent of variance of how much the students thought the leader demonstrated inspirational motivation (R² = .04, β = -.16, p = .02)

Number of Courses with a Significant Portion Online and Inspirational Motivation
The beta weight of explains the more online classes the students have had, the less they thought the professor demonstrated inspirational motivation Number of courses with a significant portion online explained 4 percent of variance of how much the students thought the leader demonstrated inspirational motivation (R² = .04, β = -.16 p = .02) Update scatterplots – remove equation and R square linear

Do any of these variables predict Individual Consideration?

Do any of these variables predict Individual Consideration?
Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) - NO Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) - NO Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 3 – Stepwise Method Number of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) - NO Number of courses with a significant portion online (Continuous Variable) - NO Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (5 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (2 Dummy Variables) - YES Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Reject the Null Hypothesis

Expected Outcome of Course and Individual Consideration
Model Summary Model R R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. 1 .204a .042 3.680 2 169 .027 a. Predictors: Expected outcome of course Expected outcome of course explained 4 percent of variance of how much the students thought the leader demonstrated individual consideration (R² = .04, p = .03)

Expected Outcome of Course and Individual Consideration
Using the Tukey post hoc test, students who expected an A (M = 2.30) and students who expected a B (M = 2.27) rated professors as demonstrating more individual consideration than students who expected a C (M = 1.67) Expected outcome of course explained 4 percent of variance of how much the students thought the leader demonstrated individual consideration (R² = .04, p = .03) Results of one-way ANOVA with Tukey test

Do any of these variables predict Management-by-Exception Passive?

Do any of these variables predict Management-by-Exception Passive?
Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) - YES Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) - NO Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 3 – Stepwise Method Number of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) - NO Number of courses with a significant portion online (Continuous Variable) - NO Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (5 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Reject the Null Hypothesis

Age and Management-by-Exception Passive
Model Summary Model R R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. 1 .214a .046 8.131 170 .005 a. Predictors: (Constant), Age Age explained 5 percent of variance of how much the students thought the leader demonstrated MBE-Passive (R² = .05, β = -.20 p = .01)

Age and Management-by-Exception Passive
Age explained 5 percent of variance of how much the students thought the leader demonstrated MBE-Passive (R² = .05, β = -.20 p = .01) The Beta weight of -.20 explains the older the student, the less passive they rated the Leader

Do any of these variables predict Contingent Reward?

Do any of these variables predict Contingent Reward?
Block 1 – Stepwise Method Follower Age (Continuous Variable) - NO Follower Gender (Dichotomous Variable) - NO Block 2 – Enter Method Follower Ethnicity (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 3 – Stepwise Method Number of Online Courses (Continuous Variable) - NO Number of courses with a significant portion online (Continuous Variable) - NO Block 4 – Enter Method Follower Educational Classification (5 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 5 – Enter Method Follower Expected Outcome of Online Course (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Block 6 – Enter Method Follower Job Status (2 Dummy Variables) - NO Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis

Research Findings

Summary of Results: Research Area 1
Independent Variables Dependent Variables Learning/Value Enthusiasm & Welcoming Enthusiasm & Availability Organization Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Individual Consideration Intellectual Stimulation Contingent Reward MBE-Passive

Independent Variables Dependent Variables Learning/Value Enthusiasm & Welcoming Enthusiasm & Availability Organization Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Individual Consideration Intellectual Stimulation Contingent Reward MBE-Passive No Results

Independent Variables Dependent Variables Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Individual Consideration MBE Passive Student's Gender Student's Age - Student's Ethnicity Student's Classification Sophomore > Post-Masters Student's Job Status Student's Expected Academic Outcome B > C A > C Student's Familiarity with Online Courses

Independent Variables Dependent Variables Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Individual Consideration MBE Passive Student's Gender Student's Age - Student's Ethnicity Student's Classification Sophomore > Post-Masters Student's Job Status Student's Expected Academic Outcome B > C A > C Student's Familiarity with Online Courses Sophomore students rated professors higher on intellectual stimulation than Post-Masters students (R² = .07, p = .04)

Independent Variables Dependent Variables Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Individual Consideration MBE Passive Student's Gender Student's Age - Student's Ethnicity Student's Classification Sophomore > Post-Masters Student's Job Status Student's Expected Academic Outcome B > C A > C Student's Familiarity with Online Courses Students who expected a B rated professors higher on intellectual stimulation than students who expected a C (ΔR² = .04, p = .03)

Independent Variables Dependent Variables Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Individual Consideration MBE Passive Student's Gender Student's Age - Student's Ethnicity Student's Classification Sophomore > Post-Masters Student's Job Status Student's Expected Academic Outcome B > C A > C Student's Familiarity with Online Courses The more online courses the students had taken, the lower they rated their professor on demonstrating idealized influence (R² = .02, β = -.15, p = .05)

Independent Variables Dependent Variables Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Individual Consideration MBE Passive Student's Gender Student's Age - Student's Ethnicity Student's Classification Sophomore > Post-Masters Student's Job Status Student's Expected Academic Outcome B > C A > C Student's Familiarity with Online Courses The more online courses the students had taken, the lower they rated their professor on demonstrating inspirational motivation (R² = .04, β = -.16, p = .02)

Independent Variables Dependent Variables Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Individual Consideration MBE Passive Student's Gender Student's Age - Student's Ethnicity Student's Classification Sophomore > Post-Masters Student's Job Status Student's Expected Academic Outcome B > C A > C Student's Familiarity with Online Courses Students who expected an A or B rated their professor higher on individual consideration than students who expected a C (R² = .04, p = .03)

Independent Variables Dependent Variables Intellectual Stimulation Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Individual Consideration MBE Passive Student's Gender Student's Age - Student's Ethnicity Student's Classification Sophomore > Post-Masters Student's Job Status Student's Expected Academic Outcome B > C A > C Student's Familiarity with Online Courses The older the students were, the less passive they rated their professor (R² = .05, β = -.20 p = .01)

Summary: Related to Student Satisfaction: Gender: Ethnicity: Age:
Literature was mixed This study found no differences Ethnicity: Literature found Caucasian students reporting greater satisfaction with school than minority students Age: Literature found student satisfaction higher among older students This study found no relationship between age and student satisfaction

Summary: Related to Student Satisfaction: Educational Classification:
Literature found student satisfaction higher among 3rd + year students This study found no relationship between educational classification and student satisfaction Job Status: Literature found that full time students were more satisfied with e-learning than part-time students This study found no difference

Summary: Age: Related to Leadership: Educational Classification:
This study found that the older the students were, the less passive they rated their professor Educational Classification: This study found Sophomore students rated professors as having more intellectual stimulation than Post-Masters students

Summary: Related to Leadership: Academic Outcome:
No literature found This study found students who expected an A or B from the course, rated the professor higher on individual consideration and intellectual stimulation compared to students who expected a C Familiarity with Online Courses: Literature found students with prior online experience perceived online courses more favorably than students who did not have prior experience with online courses This study found the more online courses the students had taken, the less they thought of their professor as demonstrating idealized influence and inspirational motivation

Limitations: Sample of convenience
Participants were only from one university Participants were only online students Participants were only from faith based school (Catholic) Floor effect seen with # of online courses and ceiling effect seen with students satisfaction with learning My findings may be under-estimated compared to the general population

Employee Job Satisfaction Employee Performance Employee Commitment Workplace Transformational Leadership Student Course Satisfaction Student Academic Performance Student Motivation Student Perceived Instructor Credibility Student Learning Outcomes Professor Transformational Leadership Student satisfaction with learning Student satisfaction with instructors’ enthusiasm and availability Student satisfaction with instructors’ enthusiasm and welcoming behaviors Student satisfaction with instructors’ organization Students expected outcome of the course Professor Transformational Leadership in Online Classes at Private University (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Balwant, 2016)

Employee Job Satisfaction Employee Performance Employee Commitment Workplace Transformational Leadership Student Course Satisfaction Student Academic Performance Student Motivation Student Perceived Instructor Credibility Student Learning Outcomes Professor Transformational Leadership Student satisfaction with learning Student satisfaction with instructors enthusiasm and availability Student satisfaction with instructors enthusiasm and welcoming behaviors Student satisfaction with instructors organization Students expected outcome of the course Professor Transformational Leadership in Online Classes at Private University (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Balwant, 2016)

Why different results? Balwant vs. Gonzalez-Severino
Student Course Satisfaction Student Academic Performance Student Motivation Student Perceived Instructor Credibility Student Learning Outcomes Professor Transformational Leadership Student satisfaction with learning Student satisfaction with instructors enthusiasm and availability Student satisfaction with instructors enthusiasm and welcoming behaviors Student satisfaction with instructors organization Professor Transformational Leadership in Online Classes at Private University (Balwant, 2016)

Why different results? Balwant vs. Gonzalez-Severino
Heavily oriented to face-to-face classes (17) Face-to-face classes (4) Online classes (1) Hybrid Different Sample (16) Studies focused on undergraduate students (6) Studies focused on graduate students Balwant Meta-Analysis Focused solely on online classes 172 online students Sample included both undergraduate and graduate students Gonzalez-Severino (Balwant, 2016)

Study Implications: Literature found that Transformational leadership is positively related to follower satisfaction and performance This study found as the expected grade of the course increased, the more intellectual stimulation and individual consideration the students thought their professor demonstrated This could imply that the students who expected a higher grade from the course were communicating with their professor more and/or performing better in the course For online students the more familiar they were with the online delivery, the less they thought their professor was passive-avoidant

Study Implications: Recommendations to Empirically Based Research on Leadership and Distance Education Online transformational behaviors Universities should reconsider using different course evaluation for online vs. traditional classroom Use a different instrument to better measure student satisfaction with leadership style in distance education (i.e. LMX) Content Analysis analyzing responses to open-ended questions to find pattern on effective online teaching

Takeaways: Majority of literature on Transformational leadership and student satisfaction is focused on traditional classroom No relationship between aspects of Transformational Leadership and student satisfaction in online classes in a Private, faith based University The idea of being Transformational in an online setting might be more difficult

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

By: Florelisa Gonzalez-Severino

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "By: Florelisa Gonzalez-Severino"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

By: Florelisa Gonzalez-Severino

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "By: Florelisa Gonzalez-Severino"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback