Diverse Faculty Members’ Satisfaction with Virtual Professional Development during the
Covid-19 Pandemic
Dr. Marzoq

Abstract
The study aimed to assess the level of satisfaction and perceptions of the diverse faculty
members regarding virtual PDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus of this study was to
identify the level of satisfaction with three variables in mind: outcomes and content, trainers, and
logistics. The participants are lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors, and full
professors from 20 colleges at a significant Saudi university. Six hundred faculty members
participated in this study. The study utilized a quantitative technique and an online questionnaire
to gather essential data. The data was examined and tested for validity and reliability using SPSS
software. Analyses such as the mean, standard deviation, and ANOVA tests explored the data.
The study found no significant differences between males and females regarding content,
trainers, and logistics. However, F-value was substantial for females in academic rankings
related to the content, trainers, and logistics. Moreover, the virtual PDs events were generally
well-received by all attendees, regardless of their academic rank or gender. This is the first study
investigating faculty members' perception of virtual PDs events during the corona pandemic.
This study is expected to assist university administrators, educators, and program developers in
developing more practical educational plans in the event of a crisis. The study concluded with
suggestions for program leaders and administrators and recommendations for further studies in
this area.
Keywords: Professional Development, Satisfaction, Faculty Perceptions, Distance Learning,
COVID-19 Pandemic
Marzoq Bataeineh
Deanship of Academic Development, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (IAU),
Dammam 31441, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; mfbataeineh@iau.edu.sa (M.B.).
ORCID iD https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8112-3085
https://www.iau.edu.sa/en/colleges/deanship-of-academic-development/faculty/prof-marzoqfalah-mutlaq-bataeineh
Introduction
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, it has affected every aspect of human life,
including economics, politics, social issues, public health, and educational systems. More than
one billion students worldwide were affected by the Covid-19 epidemic, which forced the
closure of thousands of schools. UN data shows that more than 190 countries shut down their
educational institutions to curb the spread of the virus and lessen its impact (Alqoot, 2021).

A pandemic's impact on higher education is one of several areas where governments are
scrambling to intervene and lessen the severity of its ramifications. Universities in Saudi Arabia
have closed their doors, halted all traditional learning services, and now rely on digital learning
and remote work methods to educate their students. They take advantage of the digital systems
supplied by the 4IR and apply the most appropriate learning systems. Their work runs smoothly
throughout the many academic and administrative levels following the technological
communication and work systems.
As the COVID-19 pandemic spread in early 2020, colleges, universities, and K-12 institutions
worldwide were compelled to hastily switch from face-to-face classes to what is known as
"emergency remote teaching" (ERT; Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). This pandemic significantly
impacted education and learning systems in various countries, necessitating government action.
Governments implemented digital educational platforms to overcome the high costs of
traditional education and distribute electronic content to all citizens. One of the most effective
ways to teach these days is through an educational platform (Yanhong, 2018; Ramadan, 2020;
Ng et al., 2013).
According to a virtual meeting conducted by the National Center for E-Learning at the beginning
of the crisis, Saudi universities "succeeded" in dealing with the task of completely transitioning
to E-Learning during the COVID 19 crisis with the participation of various university deans.
Distance education in Saudi universities finished the educational journey of both male and
female students during the pandemic. For more than a year now, Dr. Hamad bin Muhammad AlSheikh, the Minister of Education, has been instructing Saudi universities to revise their
emergency plans, increase their precautions, and find appropriate educational alternatives.
Doctoral students and freshly recruited faculty in higher education have been criticized for their
lack of preparedness (Alkathiri, 2019). In today's job market, it's critical to keep one's
professional abilities up to date with the latest advancements in today's job market. To
accomplish this, they were designed to help experts. " It's been a turbulent few years for faculty
development centers. Academic research has been transferred to institutional design and program
assessment. A failure to meet public expectations and support the long-term existence of centers
is due to this. On the other hand, the evaluation procedure indicates the amount of training
required in a particular area. The training needs assessment also helps identify resources, select
appropriate training approaches and technologies, and evaluate the activity to gauge its
effectiveness (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Blanchard & Thacker, 2004).
Statement of the problem
The Saudi higher education institutions have traditionally focused on faculty professional
development and career advancement for teaching excellence as an integral component of their
overall reform plan. As a general rule, faculty members are well-versed in their subject matter
but not in the methodologies of teaching their subjects (Austin, 2002; Austin & McDaniels,
2006; Brew, Boud & Namgung, 2011; Healey, 2000). Higher education groups and the general
public have questioned faculty members' teaching abilities and readiness as institutions have

come under increased scrutiny (Altbach, 2011). This study aimed to gauge faculty members'
perceptions of distance professional development events during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Objectives of the study
Many studies have examined the perceptions of university faculty who taught online courses
during the Covid-19 pandemic; however, other studies have examined students' perceptions of Elearning. This study is being carried out to fill up a knowledge gap. The study, which we believe
to be the first of its kind, looked at virtual PDs events from various Saudi higher education
academic disciplines. The study examines faculty members' perceptions and experiences of
virtual professional development training events concerning outcomes and content, trainers,
support, and logistics during the COVID -19 pandemic. Further, it seeks to determine what
topics they would be more likely to learn. It also looks to understand how important the
participants believe professional development can enhance their pedagogy. This research
ultimately will help training centers create better professional development programs that could
entice faculty to attend. If they participate in well-conceived programs that meet their needs, this
may improve classroom teaching overall. Future planning for PDs programs could benefit from
the outcomes of this study. The overarching research question for this study is: What is the
faculty members’ satisfaction with virtual professional development during the Covid-19
Pandemic. This research study aimed to answer the following questions:
1. Is there a correlation between the satisfaction of faculty members with PDs and their gender
during the COVID 19 epidemic in terms of outcomes, trainers, and logistics?
2. Does faculty satisfaction with PDs and their ranks during the COVID 19 pandemic link with
outcomes, trainers, and logistics?
Literature review
Professional development programs can improve faculty members' perceptions and teaching
abilities (Chang, Lin & Song, 2011; Coffey & Gibbs, 2000). (Chang, Lin & Song, 2011; Coffey
& Gibbs, 2000). One case for improving the significance of teaching in higher education has
been made by revisiting how administrators and faculty members talk about it (Kucsera &
Svinicki, 2010; Chism et al., 2002; Sorcinelli & Davis, 1996).
Some education professionals argue that professors should be forced to participate in
professional development opportunities (Chism & Szabo, 1998; Coffey & Gibbs, 2000; Kucsera
& Svinicki, 2010). (Chism & Szabo, 1998; Coffey & Gibbs, 2000; Kucsera & Svinicki, 2010).
Many academics are hostile to the idea, stating that it undermines the traditional culture of
academia or diverts time away from their core job of performing original research (Buchanan,
2011; Akerlind, 2011). Despite the significant dispute, several studies have determined that
university instruction is bad. Higher accountability demands (Altbach, 2011; Schuster &
Finkelstein, 2007) necessitate that schools improve the quality of their teaching staff.
According to Muammar and Alkathiri's (2021) study on faculty satisfaction with teaching
professional development programs, seven factors accounted for 72% of satisfaction and had the
most significant impact on positive ratings. When evaluating a program's suitability, it looked at
its ability to achieve goals, the appropriateness of its topics, activities, and academic developers'
teaching abilities.

Several studies have found that faculty development programs and services should be examined
from a new perspective (Chalmers & Gardiner, 2015; Kolomitro & Anstey, 2017; Kreber &
Brook, 2001; Spowart et al., 2017). Due to the usage of "inadequate or instrumental evaluation
procedures" in educational advancement, scholars such as Bamber and Stefani (2016)
recommend that "impact" should be rethought as "evidence value" (p. 242). (p. 242). The study's
findings reveal that faculty development programs and services are commonly appraised based
on participant satisfaction and assessments. There is a large quantity of proof (Kolomitro &
Anstey; Spowart et al., 2017). (Kolomitro & Anstey, 2017; Spowart et al., 2017). Although
satisfaction statistics only provide a regional and flawed degree of possible influence on faculty
development, we feel that such data may exist to improve programs, resulting in increased
professional development experiences for academics.
Higher education institutions have a vested interest in ensuring that their faculty members are
satisfied with their professional development. According to Pifer and his colleagues (2015),
successful faculty development may enhance and improve students' experiences and outcomes at
the institution (2015). Successful professional development programs can also boost the quality
of teaching and learning at a school. Furthermore, it can improve the school's broader impact on
higher education and society in various ways.
Developing one's professional abilities and expertise is crucial to advancing one's career.
Professional development encompasses formal assignments, conferences, and on-the-job
training. Educators' claimed and actual educational practices contradict their teaching ideas
(Desimone, 1997; Ebert et al., 2011; Murray & Macdonald, 1997). Due to a scarcity of data, it
isn't easy to establish definite conclusions on the benefits of professional progress.
Dysvik and Kuvaas (2008) argue that "trainee evaluations, or learner value assessments, are the
fundamental manner through which organizations evaluate training programs" (p. 139). Staff
satisfaction surveys are regularly done with past staff training and development. It is standard
practice to have participants rate their experience with an exercise. "However, even though they
are routinely evaluated in practice, trainee reactions are still poorly understood" (Dysvik &
Kuvaas, 2008, p. 139). More research is needed to uncover the essential aspects impacting
contentment. More outstanding education faculty professional development has been examined
to understand what features contribute to better satisfaction for effective faculty development
programs. These qualities must be discovered to prioritize the most critical tasks and activities.
Many aspects of the virtual context have been discovered through research to increase
professional development opportunities. At least four advantages have been shown in the
literature, including improved technology efficiency, expanded campus and community
networking, and enhanced support for reflective learning over traditional classroom settings
(Ertmer, 2005; Mackey, 2008; Tuzlukova et al., 2013).
A variety of virtual environment features has been found to enhance professional growth. There
are at least four advantages to using technology, campus and community networking, and
encouraging reflective learning in a generally excellent way to classroom contexts (Ertmer,
2005; Mackey, 2008; Tuzlukova et al., 2013).
There are various online training alternatives available. However, there are few instances of how
online educators see training to gain these abilities (Bigatel et al., 2012; Grabowski et al., 2016).
(Bigatel et al., 2012; Grabowski et al., 2016). Researchers cannot quantify the influence of

professional development on teaching and learning in the absence of this research (Meyer 2014).
According to studies, instructors may not use all available professional development chances on
an equitable basis. According to Pagliari et al. (2009), teachers are not always available to
participate in online training. Faculty may choose not to participate in events for various reasons,
including a lack of pedagogical tools and resources for encouraging active learning and student
involvement inside the virtual classroom (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Wingo et al., 2017). Kang
(2012) interviewed professors in an online program who felt the same way about professional
development training, which they deemed "useless" as it was unrelated to their teaching needs
but "useful" since it gave technical information. Inadequate instructor preparation will hinder
their ability to educate and support students enrolled in distant learning programs (Grabowski et
al., 2016).
Methodology
Research Design
This study used a quantitative research design to answer the research questions. The study aimed
to determine if there were substantial disparities in faculty perceptions of virtual professional
development during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The staff professional development center in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia surveyed
faculty members who attended professional development events. Before data collection, the
questionnaire was pretested among several professors enrolled in academic and professional
development programs. The first section of the survey includes the demographic variables of
gender, years of teaching experience, and educational levels. The second part of the survey
inquired about participants' satisfaction with the COVID 19 pandemic's training events. The
Kirkpatrick Model-level one is a widely accepted method for evaluating training and learning
programs. The participants were instructed to complete an electronic monkey survey.
Respondents were sent an email with an electronic copy of the study. Participants were invited to
participate in the study, detailed in full in the questionnaire. The respondents' personal
information was kept confidential. They were instructed to complete the survey only once, and
their participation was entirely voluntary. The data gathered for this inquiry was analyzed using
SPSS version 21.0. (SPSS Inc, ILL, USA, 2003). Descriptive statistics were applied to interpret
the data better.
This study aimed to examine the level of satisfaction of various faculty members with virtual
professional development during the Covid-19 Pandemic in terms of outcomes and content,
trainers, support, and logistics. Three essential topics were covered in the data collection:
curriculum creation, instructional methods, and assessment. In addition to lectures and miniworkshops, participants participated in forums and hands-on exercises. Each session lasted an
average of 2.5 hours. Small workshops were held as part of a specific program, and small
workshops were held (less than one day). Other programs took longer to complete and required
more time and effort (up to four days).

Study Sample
The total number of participants was 600, among which 446 were female and 154 male faculty
members, comprising 26% and 74%, respectively. The training events were held at a significant
Saudi university in the Eastern Province. The study included Saudi and non-Saudi academic
members from 20 colleges. The fact that are more women than men in the faculty reflects female
domination—21% lecturers, 52% assistant professors, 20% associate professors, and 7%
professors. Table 1 displays the demographics of the study participants.
Table 1: study participant' demographics

Valid

Valid

M
F
Total
Lecturer
Assistant Prof
Associate Prof
Full Prof
Total

Frequency
154
446
600
128
313
119
40
600

Percent
25.7
74.3
100.0
21.3
52.2
19.8
6.7
100.0

Valid
Percent
25.7
74.3
100.0
21.3
52.2
19.8
6.7
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
25.7
100.0
21.3
73.5
93.3
100.0

Table 1 shows a total of 600 respondents have completed the questionnaire. Distant professional
development events had an overall satisfaction score of 93%. The satisfaction rate was slightly
higher in faculties that had previously engaged before the Covid-19 pandemic (82%), which
controverts the common belief that face-to-face training is more effective than virtual training.
Assistant professors comprised 52.2 % of the respondents (n=313). More than two-thirds of
respondents (n=128) were lecturers, and almost one-third (n=119) were associate professors.
However, just 6.7 % (n=40) of the responders were full professors.
Instrumentation and Data Collections
The staff professional development center conducted a faculty event assessment summary, which
prepared a 22-item questionnaire. The necessary measures have been taken to ensure the validity
and reliability of the results. Content validity and face validity were considered when creating
the questionnaire (De Vos & Fouché, 1998:82) - measured what it was designed to measure and
had enough information about the subject matter at hand (Leedy, 1989). The Cronbach’s Alpha
for three items was (.690). The questionnaire's content validity was ensured by conducting an
exhaustive literature review and requesting experts review each item's phrasing and field
assignments. Participating faculty members received an email invitation to complete an online
survey following each session between (August 2021 and November 30, 2021), to reflect on their
experiences after attending professional development teaching and learning events. Participants
were asked for their opinions on the event and suggestions to improve the programs in the survey
(Kirkpatrick, 2016). The Likert scale questions used a six-point scale of 1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 =slightly disagree, 4 = slightly agree, 5= agree, 6= strongly agree

Results
Table (2) faculty members’ satisfaction overall with professional development events over
a one semester
Overall Evaluation

Mean

Overall Satisfaction with the event

9.35

Would recommend it to a colleague

9.28

Overall Evaluation of event

9.32

Overall Evaluation

(8.2 in 2020)

9.32/10

Table (2) depicted an overall rating of 9.35/10, suggesting that most academics had a positive
experience with virtual PD events Pre-Corona Pandemic training events achieved a rating of 8.2
out of 10. It illustrates that virtual training events proved effective compared to face-to-face
training events.
To answer the first question: ". Is there a correlation between the satisfaction of faculty members
with PDs and their gender during the COVID 19 epidemic in terms of outcomes, trainers, and
logistics?" The researcher calculated the mean and standard deviation of the level of satisfaction
with the events concerning the content, trainer, and logistics based on gender. Table 3 displays
the result.
Table-3: Mean and Standard Deviation ANOVA for the level of satisfaction based on gender

M

SD

M

SD

5.526

0.70

5.489

.69

0.577

5.668

.53

5.639

.62

0.605

5.270

.91

5.141

.94

0.144

Items
level of satisfaction with the
content
satisfaction with the trainer
satisfaction with logistics
differ

Female
N=446

P-value

Male
N=154

Table (3) shows the gender-based mean and standard deviations of faculty members' satisfaction
with distance PD events.

The study shows no significant differences between males and females regarding content,
trainers, and logistics. For example, males have a mean of 5.52 and a standard deviation of 0.70
regarding content, whilst females have a mean of 5.48 and a standard deviation of 0.69. Males
mean 5.27 and a standard deviation of 0.91 in logistics, whereas females have a mean of 5.14
and a standard deviation of 0.94.
To answer the second question: " Does faculty satisfaction with PDs and their ranks during the
COVID 19 pandemic have any link with outcomes, trainers, and logistics?
Table 4: Mean and Standard Deviation ANOVA for the level of satisfaction based on ranks

level of satisfaction with
the outcomes and content
satisfaction with the
trainer
satisfaction with logistics

Assistant
Prof
N=313
M
SD

Associate
Prof
N=119
M
SD

M

SD

5.48

.68

5.46

.71

5.62

5.66

51

5.60

.03

5.22

92

5.08

.93

Full Prof
N=40

P-value

Items

Lecturer
N=128

M

SD

.57

5.41

.91

0.15

5.76

.48

5.51

.60

0.04

5.39

.92

5.05

.97

0.01

Males' mean and standard deviation indicates a positive experience with no statistically
significant difference. However, both sexes actively participated in the discussion because they
found the content interesting.
Table 5: ANOVA Results for the level of satisfaction based on Ranks
ANOVA for the level of satisfaction with the outcomes and content
Sum of Squares df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
2.594
3
.865
1.778
.150
There is no statistically
Within Groups
289.795
596
.486
significant difference
Total
292.388
599
ANOVA for satisfaction with the trainer differ
Mean
Square
1.013
.364

Sum of Squares Df
Between Groups
3.040
3
Within Groups
216.901
596
Total
219.942
599
ANOVA for satisfaction with logistics differ
Sum of
Squares
Df
Mean Square
Between Groups
8.836
3
2.945

F
2.785

F
3.367

Sig.
.040
statistically
significant difference

Sig.
.018
statistically
significant

Within Groups

521.309

596

Total

530.145

599

.875

The researcher used an ANOVA analysis to determine the validity of the differences and results
depicted in Table 5. As seen in Table (5), the study shows significant differences between males
and females in academic ranks corresponding with females in content, trainers, and logistics. The
degree of satisfaction with professional development progress is almost the same for both
genders. Professional development is crucial for both men and women. There was gender
disparity in professional outcomes and content, trainers, and logistical preparations. Outcomes
had average differences of 0.150, with statistically significant differences in satisfaction owing to
gender at (0.05). F = (0.865) was the level of statistical significance. Trainers have average
difference of .040 f = (1.013), and logistics of .018 f = (2.945). There was a statistically
significant logistical difference, but this is expected given the novelty of delivering professional
development over the internet. However, faculty members' ranks and logistics are significant
because of the participation discrepancy among females. There is a gender difference in faculty
members' ratings of events outcomes and content usefulness and application.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Faculty members were generally pleased with their virtual PD experiences, with an average
rating of 9.35 out of 10. Professional development activities held in 2020 before the Corona
Pandemic received an overall evaluation grade of 8.2. However, a new survey shows that the
general experience of distance professional growth can be improved. The events were wellreceived by all participants. According to an analysis of variance and F-value, there were no
statistically significant differences in the outcomes, trainers, and logistics of virtual PDS events
between genders. On the other hand, the F-value is essential for the three variables relating to
ranks by females. Findings from the current study are in accordance with results from other
studies conducted in different countries (Adnan, 2018; Ag-Ahmad, 2020; Tuzlukova, 2017).
Although Muammar and Alkathiri's study "What really matters to faculty members attending
professional development programs in higher education" reveals that logistical and supporting
facilities are minor significant factors for faculty members' satisfaction, this does not mean that
these factors are of no importance. It is imperative that the center for staff professional
development come up with other options, such as bridging the academic gap. Virtual learning is
a new and fast-growing tool for faculty members and professional development facilitators.
Assuming there is another COVID-19 outbreak, this could be the best way to keep professionals
prepared.
Recommendations
This study makes some recommendations for academic developers, educators, and others in
higher education who want to ensure faculty satisfaction with professional development
programs and optimize the positive impact of these initiatives. The participants suggested
decision-makers and higher administration recommendations to develop new themes that address
future events enhancement. Some proposed changes include: (a) adopting more explicit event

guidelines; (b) coping with students from varied ethnic backgrounds and academic difficulties (c)
using techniques in the digital age for delivering lectures and making them more interactive. (d)
employing artificial intelligence in education and training. (e) utilizing remote assessment
methods used by students in practice. (f) implementing university teaching approaches to
promote students' creativity and social responsibility through emotional intelligence. (g)
managing virtual rooms in remote learning environments
Implications for Future Practice and Research Recommendations
Many aspects of our society have been transformed by technological advancements, including
how we work and communicate. Online communities for teacher learning have received support
in professional development literature (Duncan-Howell 2010; Lock 2006).
The staff professional development center should encourage educators to take a more active role
in critical debates and expand the curriculum beyond traditional ideas. Using modern
technologies, various knowledge sources, and collaborative methods will help them have the best
face-to-face engagement. Other scholars interested in the same field of study are likely to
collaborate on further research on this issue. Adult education ideas and practices will benefit
from investigating virtual PDs, particularly in educational training and practice variety. By
identifying more inclusive areas and effectively exploiting diversity, this study can help establish
a welcome teaching and learning environment for a culturally and educationally diverse teaching
community. Finally, educators aren't the only ones who have a responsibility to keep up with
their professional development. Institutions must provide support and training to help faculty
integrate new forms of professional development into their curricula.

References
Alqoot, A. R. M. (2021). Professional development of the performance of faculty members in the
field of dealing with entrepreneurship distance learning platforms in light of the corona
pandemic (covid-19) suggested framework. Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education, 24(3), 1-23.
Adnan, M. (2018). Professional development in the transition to online teaching: The voice of
entrant online instructors. ReCALL, 30(1), 88-111.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344017000106

Alkathiri, M. S. (2019). Assessing doctoral student development of self-authorship: The
epistemological, intrapersonal, and interpersonal growths. International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, 14, 597–611. https://doi.org/10.28945/4413
Altbach, P. G. (2011). Harsh realities: The professoriate in the twenty-first century. In P. G.
Altbach, P. J. Gumport, and R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher education in the
twenty-first century (3rd ed., pp. 38-69). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ag-Ahmad, N. (2020). Open and distance learning (odl): Preferences, issues and challenges
amidst Covid-19 pandemic. Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching
(CPLT), 8(2), 1-14. https://cplt.uitm.edu.my/v1/index.php/journal-volume/volume-82020/vol-8-no-2-nov-2020
Aguinis, H. and Kraiger, K. (2009), "Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams organizations, and society", Annual Review of Psychology, 60 (1), 451-474
Akerlind, G. (2011). Separating the "teaching" from the "academic": Possible unintended
consequences. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 183-195.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization
to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0001
Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Using doctoral education to prepare faculty to work
within Boyer’s four domains of scholarship. New Directions for Institutional Research,
2006(129), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.171
•

Bamber, V., & Stefani, L. (2016). Taking up the challenge of evidencing value in educational
development: From theory to practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(3),
242-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1100112

Blanchard, P.N. and Thacker, J.W. (2004), Effective training: Systems, strategies, and practices.
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bigatel, P. M., Ragan, L. C., Kennan, S., May, J., & Redmond, B. F. (2012). The identification
of competencies for online teaching success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 16(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i1.215
Brew, A., Boud, D., & Un Namgung, S. (2011). Influences on the formation of academics: The
role of the doctorate and structured development opportunities. Studies in Continuing
Education, 33(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2010.515575
Buchanan, J. (2011). Quality teaching: means for its enhancement?.Australian Universities'
Review, The, 53(1), 66-72.

Bilal, Guraya, S. Y., and Chen, S. (2019). The impact and effectiveness of faculty development
program in fostering the faculty's knowledge, skills, and professional competence: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 26 (4), 688–
697.
Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online
teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910902845949
Chalmers, D., & Gardiner, D. (2015). The measurement and impact of university teacher
development programs. Educar, 51(1), 53-80. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev
Chang, T., Lin, H., & Song, M. (2011). University faculty members' perceptions of their teaching
efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 49-60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.543770
Coffey, M., & Gibbs, G. (2000). Can academics benefit from training? Some preliminary
evidence. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 385-389.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713699136
Desimone, LM (2009). Improving Impact Studies of Teachers' Professional Development:
Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181 - 199.
De Vos, A. S., & Fouché, C. B. (1998). General introduction into research. Pretoria: Van Schaik
Publishers.
Duncan‐Howell, J. (2010). Teachers making connections: Online communities as a source of
professional learning. British journal of educational technology, 41(2), 324-340.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00953.x

Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2008). The relationship between perceived training opportunities,
work motivation and employee outcomes. International Journal of Training and
development, 12(3), 138-157.
Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011).
What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development
programs. BioScience, 61(7), 550-558.
Ertmer, P.A. (2005) Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development. 53(4), 25-39.
Grabowski, B. L., Beaudoin, M., & Koszalka, T. A. (2016). Competencies for designers,
instructors, and online learners. Wiley handbook of learning technology, 221-241.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9194-0(0123456789().,-vol)(0123456789().,-vol)
Healey, M. (2000, August). Promoting lifelong professional development in geographical
education: developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education in the 21st century.
In Invited paper presented to the plenary session of the 29th International Geographical
Congress on'Developing Geographical Educators for the 21st Century.
Kang, H. (2012). Training online faculty: A phenomenology study. International Journal on ELearning, 11(4), 391–406. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/35440/.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. Association
for Talent Development.

Kolomitro, K., & Anstey, L. M. (2017). A survey on evaluation practices in teaching and
learning centres. International Journal for Academic Development, 22(3), 186–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2017.1313162
Kreber, C., & Brook, P. (2001). Impact evaluation of educational development programmes.
International Journal for Academic Development, 6(2), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13601440110090749
Kucsera, J. V., & Svinicki, M. (2010). Rigorous evaluations of faculty development programs.
The Journal of Faculty Development, 24(2), 5-18.
Leedy, P. D. (1989). Practical research: Planning and design. In Practical research: planning
and design (pp. 318-318).
Lock, J. V. (2006). A new image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional
development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663-678.
Mackey, J. (2008). Blending real work experiences and virtual professional. Proceedings
Ascilite. Melbourne, 2008.
Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE
higher education report, 40(6), 1-114. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20018

Muammar, O. M., & Alkathiri, M. S. (2021). What matters to faculty members attending
professional development programs in higher education. International Journal for
Academic Development, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2021.1897987
Murray, K., & Macdonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers' conceptions of teaching
and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education, 33(3), 331-349.
Ng, K., Parahakaran, S., Febro, R., Weisheit, E., & Lee, T. (2013). Promoting sustainable living
in the borderless world through blended learning platforms. Open Praxis, 5(4), 275-288.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/130663/
Pagliari, L., Batts, D., & McFadden, C. (2009). Desired versus actual training for online
instructors in community colleges. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 12(4).
Pifer, M. J., Baker, V. L., & Lunsford, L. G. (2015). Academic departments as networks of
informal learning: Faculty development at liberal arts colleges. International Journal for
Academic Development, 20(2), 178–192.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1028065
Ramadan, M.J.M. (2020). The role of distance education in solving the problems of the new
Corona epidemic. Educational Journal, Sohag University, (77), 1531-1543.
Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2007). On the brink: Assessing the status of the American
faculty. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1ch73352
Sorcinelli, M. D., & Davis, B. G. (1996). Honoring exemplary teaching in research universities.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(65), 71–76.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966513
Spowart, L., Winter, J., Turner, R., Muneer, R., McKenna, C., & Kneale, P. (2017). Evidencing
the impact of teaching-related CPD: Beyond the 'happy sheets'. International Journal for
Academic Development, 22(4), 360–372.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2017.1340294
Tuzlukova, V., & Hall, A. (2017). A virtual professional development model: Bringing
innovation to language teaching practice. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and
Academic Purposes, 4(3), 603-614. http://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1603603T
Tuzlukova, V., Greenwood, L., Al-Siyabi J & Scully, J. (2013). Language teachers’ perceived
computer self-efficacy:Identifying knowledge and skills gaps for teacher-driven
professional development. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ). 4(3), 284-299.
Chism, N., & Szabo, B. (1998). How faculty development programs evaluate their services. The
Journal of Staff, Program & Organization Development, 15(2), 55-62.

Chism, N., Lees, N. D., & Evenbeck, S. (2002). Faculty development for teaching innovation.
Liberal Education, 88, 34–41.Wasilik, O., & Bolliger, D. U. (2009). Faculty satisfaction
in the online environment: An institutional study. The Internet and Higher
Education, 12(3-4), 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.05.001
Wingo,N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017) Faculty perceptions about teaching online:
exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing
framework, Online Learning, 21(1), 15-35. http://doi.org/10.10.24059/olj.v21i1.761
Yanhong, S. (2018). Design of Digital Network Shared Learning Platform Based on SCORM
Standard. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(7),
214-227.