Is online teaching challenging faculty well-being?

Mosquera, Pilar; Albuquerque, Paula; Picoto, Winnie Ng Article Is online teaching challenging faculty well-being? Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Mosquera, Pilar; Albuquerque, Paula; Picoto, Winnie Ng (2022) : Is online teaching challenging faculty well-being?, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 12, Iss. 4, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040147 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/275417 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Mosquera, Pilar, Paula C. Albuquerque, and Winnie Ng Picoto. 2022. Is Online Teaching Challenging Faculty Well-Being? Administrative Sciences 12: 147. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/admsci12040147 Received: 30 September 2022 Accepted: 25 October 2022 Published: 27 October 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Is Online Teaching Challenging Faculty Well-Being? Pilar Mosquera 1,* , Paula C. Albuquerque 2and Winnie Ng Picoto 1 1ADVANCE, ISEG—Lisbon School of Economics & Management, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal 2SOCIUS/CSG, ISEG—Lisbon School of Economics & Management, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal *Correspondence: pilar[email protected] Abstract: Organizations that practice Sustainable Human Resource Management are socially responsible and concerned with the safety, health and satisfaction of their employees. Under this sustainability orientation, it is very relevant to analyze whether the sudden transition to e-learning as a strategy of adaptation to the COVID-19 pandemic affected the well-being of faculty. One hundred and two college teachers at a business school in Lisbon completed a web-based questionnaire administrated during the second lockdown due to the pandemic. The questionnaire included the Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey (OFSS) and the Work-Related Quality of Life (WRQoL) questionnaire. We use Partial Least Squares Path Modeling to derive to what extent the satisfaction with online teaching has impacted faculty well-being measured by the quality of working life. Results show that interaction with students, student engagement, flexibility and technology are the most relevant factors to faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Having control at work, good working conditions and general wellbeing are the most relevant factors for faculty overall well-being. As proposed, faculty satisfaction with online teaching positively and significantly influences faculty general well-being, home–work interface and job and career satisfaction. Keywords: online teaching; faculty; well-being; sustainable HRM 1. Introduction Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are an important player toward the accomplishment of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals established by the United Nations. In fact, HEIs are increasingly aware of the need to extend the objectives of environmental and economic sustainability to human and social sustainability by incorporating concerns with their human resources dimension, namely, with the well-being of the academic community (Wolff and Ehrström 2020). Whatever the type of sustainability considered, the focus is always on the preservation of resources. Human sustainability is concerned with the conservation and development of human capital (Osranek and Zink 2014;Pfeffer 2010). This is, in turn, directly linked to the meso–micro interpretations of Sustainable Human Resource Management (Ehnert et al. 2014) and the one adopted in this paper: the human resource practices that are responsible for sustainable organizations, with lasting successful performances and enduring competitive advantages (Ehnert et al. 2014;Zaugg et al. 2001). The employee-centered management focused on the health and well-being of the workforce creates a positive environment to enable the achievement of the organization’s goals and its long-term viability (Ehnert et al. 2014;Osranek and Zink 2014). In this context, it is interesting to analyze how the HEIs managed the transition to online teaching in a sustainable way. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, teaching was mostly conducted in a face-to-face format, and digital technologies served mainly to enrich in-person teaching. The pandemic resulted in the physical closure of HEIs, the acceleration of digitalization and the conversion of traditional education to online learning (Abdulamir and Hafidh 2020); Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040147 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147 2 of 16 (Daumiller et al. 2021). The sudden move to the new teaching environment raised unique challenges that may have affected faculty well-being. During the pandemic, the faculty had to implement online teaching in a short time, without being able to identify the best methods and tools that would facilitate distance learning (Arcila Hernández et al. 2021). In fact, online teaching experiences during the pandemic were quite challenging, with teachers reporting considerable feelings of stress and tension during the period of adaptation to the online format damaging faculty well-being (Besser et al. 2022). Numerous studies indicate that college teachers consider that, to implement online teaching, more time and intensive work are required, which turns out to be an additional barrier to faculty adherence and satisfaction with online teaching (Owens et al. 2018). Furthermore, the increasingly demanding work has been recognized as a cause of stress in the academic context, operating frequently through work–family conflict (Mudrak et al. 2018). Most of the existing studies about online learning focus on its impact on students (e.g., students’ learning processes or students’ satisfaction with this type of education) or on the goals and needs of HEIs, with scarce studies that attempt to measure faculty satisfaction with online learning (Bolliger and Wasilik 2009). Given the relevance of teachers to the success of learning, it is important to know their satisfaction with online teaching, as well as the reasons that may lead them to accept or reject it (Hiltz et al. 2010;Owens et al. 2018). Therefore, the main objective of the present study is to understand faculty satisfaction with online teaching and its impact on teachers’ well-being. This study shows that faculty satisfaction with online teaching positively and significantly influences some dimensions of teachers’ well-being, namely, general well-being, home–work interface and job and career satisfaction. The most relevant factors to faculty satisfaction with online teaching are interaction with students, student engagement, flexibility and technology. Having control at work, good working conditions and general well-being are the most relevant factors for faculty overall well-being. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Online Teaching Online teaching is a type of distance education—distance in time and/or space (Moore and Kearsley 1996)—with courses that are delivered using internet-based technologies (Tallent-Runnels et al. 2006). These types of courses are also referred to as “e-learning” (Murphy 2020). When they combine online with traditional, face-to-face components, they are called “hybrid” or “blended”. Online classes can be asynchronous—the teacher records the lectures and each student chooses when to log on—or synchronous—the teacher and the students are online at the same time (Tallent-Runnels et al. 2006). Several benefits and limitations of online education have been identified, the most referred-to advantage being flexibility. Asynchronous classes provide both time and space flexibility, whereas synchronous classes are only flexible in the spatial dimension (Van Wart et al. 2020). They can be particularly attractive to those with caring duties, who prefer to attend classes from home, who live far from the university or those who are frequent travelers (Conrad 2004;Li and Irby 2008). The multimedia experience may also be motivating for some students, and the potential use of self-assessment tools can help students and instructors (Mupinga 2005). Technology may be engaging and facilitate collaboration between students and teachers (Aguilera-Hermida 2020). Moreover, the enhancement of digital skills can also be considered a benefit from the point of view of the institutions, once the lower need for and use of physical infrastructure is cost-saving (Van Wart et al. 2020). On the other hand, online learning may be experienced as impersonal and distant, failing to provide an environment favorable to social and cultural learning, as the use of computers does not ensure interaction and it may be difficult to stimulate students’ participation (Jacobs 2013;Rumble 2001). Additionally, online teaching is frequently accused of contributing to increasing faculty workload (Bolliger and Wasilik 2009) because of the required adaptation to a new teaching environment, the design and development Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147 3 of 16 of an online course and the additional volume of messaging that requires more time to answer than verbal class interactions (Rumble 2001). This argument implicitly assumes that verbal interaction is more typical of the in-person classes than the online classes. As the use of technology requires preparation, both students and teachers should have the necessary skills, otherwise stress and frustration result (Minutillo et al. 2020;Mupinga 2005). It has also been observed that the intensive use of electronic devices can have health costs (e.g., musculoskeletal disorders) (Mahadik et al. 2017), and the lack of social interaction may even have mental health consequences (Minutillo et al. 2020). The overlap between classes and home life may also pose difficulties, particularly when dedicated private spaces are not available (Minutillo et al. 2020). The lack of an appropriate internet connection is another frequently mentioned problem (Mishra et al. 2020;Saha et al. 2022). Although theoretical disciplines work well in the online environment, that is not true for sports or other disciplines with more hands-on activities (Adedoyin and Soykan 2020;Saha et al. 2022). There is an increasing number of studies that indicate the benefits of integrating the media in education (Greenhow et al. 2020). These means can extend learning beyond the classroom to other networks of contacts (networking), introduce a specialized hybrid model (former students, professionals in the field), mix different types of information and resources, reshape the role of teachers and build and solidify student/teacher relationships, contributing to greater engagement, socialization and learning outcomes (Greenhow and Galvin 2020). The creation and management of a profile on social networks can complement the interaction between teachers and students during distance learning, mitigating one of the disadvantages of distance learning—permitting fewer opportunities for informal identity sharing (e.g., casual conversations in hallways, conversations before and after classes, and conversations over lunch). Teachers may be encouraged to connect with students on topics or ideas that are not limited to the content of the lessons (e.g., personal hobbies and interests), helping teachers to build strong relationships with diverse students (Greenhow and Galvin 2020) . Teachers should consider using social media platforms designed for educational purposes that work within closed and limited networks, guaranteeing transparency, privacy and ethics (Krutka et al. 2019). However, the adoption of technology in education programs was limited until the COVID-19 pandemic turned online teaching and learning into the only possible way of maintaining the regular delivery of classes (Dubey and Pandey 2020). Although not all countries in the world were technologically prepared to implement online teaching (Sintema 2020), several studies show that online teaching was successfully used in most HEIs, as long as there was technical support and an appropriate environment (Basilaia and Kvavadze 2020). Nevertheless, several authors (Adedoyin and Soykan 2020; Aguilera-Hermida 2020 ; Bozkurt and Sharma 2020;Hodges et al. 2020) note that the conditions of these emergency remote education (ERE) programs are substantially different from those of well-planned online programs. Given the significant advances in technology that are likely to continue for decades to come, all faculty members must be prepared to implement best practices in online teaching, ensuring positive outcomes in students’ retention and engagement (Davis et al. 2019). For a successful transition from face-to-face to online teaching, faculty have to change traditional teaching methods used within the “traditional classroom” and learn new skills. However, for the success of this change, it is essential that faculty not only strive to learn the technologies associated with online learning, but also understand the need to radically change and transform their pedagogical approaches and teaching methods (Keengwe and Kidd 2010). Satisfaction with Online Teaching Students’ motivation and performance in distance learning courses can be directly affected by faculty satisfaction with online teaching (Hartman et al. 2019). Thus, it is of Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147 4 of 16 the utmost importance to identify the factors that influence faculty satisfaction with online teaching. Bolliger and Wasilik (2009) present a typology of factors that may be relevant to explain teachers’ satisfaction (or lack of it) with online teaching: 1. Student-related factors: on the one hand, the possibility of reaching a more diverse population and engaging students in a highly interactive communication, but, on the other hand, the limited interaction with students, due to the lack of personal contact; 2. Faculty-related factors: on the one hand, promoting positive results in students (selfgratification), receiving recognition for the work they do and having opportunities for professional development and research, but, on the other hand, dealing with technological difficulties or inadequate tools; 3. Institution-related factors: on the one hand, the value placed by the organization on online teaching and the existing policies that support faculty with this, but, on the other hand, workload issues and possible negative impact in pedagogical evaluation. The institutions’ support is considerably important to help teachers deal with the transition (Naylor and Nyanjom 2021;Ntereke et al. 2021). Instructors who received timely technical support and training for software and hardware deal better with the stress of the change. Positive emotions and a sense of a shared vision facilitate a constructive approach (Naylor and Nyanjom 2021). In contrast, the lack of recognition of the additional time needed to research and implement online teaching creates discontent. Unfortunately, the lack of confidence in their technical skills to design effective online instruction is a common experience for university teachers (Ntereke et al. 2021;Tsegay et al. 2022). Another motive of discontent is the difficulty in interacting with students: teachers are not absolutely sure whether students are really there or only appearing online (Ntereke et al. 2021). Catching students’ attention and provoking their enthusiasm is frequently particularly challenging (Mishra et al. 2020;Saha et al. 2022). 2.2. Faculty Well-Being Well-being at work results from the interaction between the organizational environment and personal characteristics (Abid et al. 2020). There are different approaches to well-being at work. One of these approaches focuses on subjective experiences and work performance, considering satisfaction and commitment to be key elements of happiness at work (Pagán-Castaño et al. 2020), with satisfaction being more related to work and commitment to the organization as a whole (Fisher 2010). Another approach focuses on the quality of interactions and relationships between employees, managers and/or organization (Grant et al. 2007). A different approach to well-being focuses on the impact that work experiences and stressors can have on employees’ health, both physical and mental (e.g., stress, anxiety and burnout) (McCoy et al. 2013). Stressors usually manifest themselves in the form of threats, obstacles and challenges in the work environment, affecting employees’ effectiveness, levels of performance and well-being (Ahmed et al. 2019). In this paper, we will follow the last approach and consider ERE as a challenge that faculty had to face due to the COVID-19 pandemic with potential negative impact on faculty’s well-being. Most of the literature on faculty well-being has focused on job satisfaction, that is, the extent to which people like or dislike their jobs (Mudrak et al. 2018), partly because job satisfaction is relevant to increase faculty retention (McCoy et al. 2013). Even though job satisfaction is considered a key index of well-being (Seipel and Larson 2018), in our study we preferred to use a more holistic construct to encompass other variables that may give a better overview of the work experience and better explain how various factors interact to affect individuals at work (Kandasamy and Ancheri 2009). Therefore, in our study, we evaluated faculty well-being using a measure of the quality of working life that includes not only job satisfaction, but a set of other relevant constructs for faculty well-being. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147 5 of 16 Quality of Working Life The quality of working life is associated with an environment where employees feel safe and happy, do not feel stressed, are satisfied with their work, their personal and professional needs are met and work–life balance is ensured. Diverse benefits have been associated with a high work-related quality of life, such as: higher job performance; higher organizational performance; increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment and general well-being; and reduced absenteeism, intention to leave and burnout (Akar 2018; Gokhale 2015). According to Easton and Van Laar (2018), existing theoretical approaches to quality of working life are inconsistently defined and sometimes even contradictory. They proposed a broader conceptualization of quality of working life that included six dimensions: (i) general well-being; (ii) home–work interface; (iii) job and career satisfaction; (iv) control at work; (v) working conditions; and (vi) stress at work. 1. General well-being indicates the extent to which an individual feels good and/or satisfied with their life in general. It includes both physical and psychological wellbeing, which are deeply connected (e.g., physical illness affects job performance, which in turn can affect psychological well-being). 2. Home–work interface relates to the conciliation between personal and work demands. 3. Job and career satisfaction reflect how satisfied the individual is with his or her job and how fulfilled they feel. 4. Control at work is the level at which individuals feel involved in decisions that affect them at work. 5. Working conditions refer to the essential resources provided by the organizations to employees so they can do their work safely and effectively. 6. Stress at work is a harmful physical and emotional response that occurs when work demands do not match a worker’s abilities, resources or needs (e.g., when an individual perceives and feels excessive pressures and feels he is unable to fulfill the job requirements). Higher education has long been considered a low-stress job given the flexible working hours, autonomy and low workload that were associated with an academic career. In most countries, before the COVID-19 pandemic, academic work was associated with high levels of job satisfaction (Mudrak et al. 2018). However, in recent decades, around the world, HEIs have undergone significant changes (e.g., massification, increasing internationalization, diversification of the academic work, profound changes in the way universities are managed, etc.) (Bentley et al. 2013) that increased faculty challenges and demands and decreased the quality of their working life (McCoy et al. 2013). The abrupt transition to online teaching during the pandemic imposed new challenges that may have had an impact on job satisfaction as well as other components of faculty quality of working life (Krugielka et al. 2021). Recent studies (Chen et al. 2022) have reported that low levels of satisfaction with online teaching have a negative impact on teachers’ psychological well-being. In reverse, faculty being satisfied with online teaching may have a positive impact on well-being. H1. Faculty satisfaction with online teaching has a positive impact on general well-being. Home–work interface relates to the conciliation between personal and work demands (Easton and Van Laar 2018). The most relevant issues that impact this balance can be adequate facilities at work, flexible working hours, working from home, job rotation, maternity and parental leave and care for children and dependents (Chen et al. 2014). Convenience and flexibility are important characteristics of the online teaching environment, and previous research has found a positive relationship between those characteristics and the online teaching satisfaction (Elshami et al. 2021). Furthermore, a study carried out by (Bhattarai 2020) during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that the affordances from working from home can be important to achieve an enhanced work–life balance. This has important implications for the faculty well-being, as the lack of balance between work and family Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147 6 of 16 can have a negative impact on individuals, both physical and psychological (e.g., depression, hypertension, risk of burnout, etc.) and also on organizations (e.g., job satisfaction; job performance, etc.) (Easton and Van Laar 2018). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H2. Faculty satisfaction with online teaching has a positive impact on home–work interface. Job and career satisfaction reflect how satisfied the individual is with his or her job and how fulfilled they feel (Easton and Van Laar 2018). Some authors state that job satisfaction depends on both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Having role and objectives clearly defined, a good recognition and reward system capable of satisfying employees’ personal development, career improvement and training needs, good working conditions and positive social relationships with coworkers and the supervisor are aspects that contribute to job and career satisfaction. Online teaching often affords several tools that improve communication between students and the faculty, facilitating the interactions between them, thus creating a supportive learning environment (Wu et al. 2010) with a positive impact in terms of the learning quality and student performance. As teaching is one of the main activities of faculty members (Ortan et al. 2021), if they are satisfied with online teaching, this will positively impact job and career satisfaction. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H3. Faculty satisfaction with online teaching has a positive impact on job and career satisfaction. Control at work is the level at which individuals feel involved in decisions that affect them at work (Easton and Van Laar 2018). Individual perceptions of control at work influence negative emotional reactions, both short-term (headaches or stomach-aches) and long-term (cardiovascular disease), and also counterproductive behavior at work (Easton and Van Laar 2018). During the pandemic, teachers were compelled to turn suddenly to a new format of online teaching without the required previous preparation (Minutillo et al. 2020;Mupinga 2005), which may have affected their perceptions of control at work. Nevertheless, many HEIs provided teachers with the appropriate technical support which increased their satisfaction with online teaching (Basilaia and Kvavadze 2020) and their sense of control at work. Thus, we propose: H4. Faculty satisfaction with online teaching has a positive impact on general control at work. Working conditions refer to the essential resources provided by the organizations to allow their employees to do their work safely and effectively (Easton and Van Laar 2018). Adverse working conditions (e.g., dust, fumes, heat, etc.), can affect workers that may want to avoid the workplace, increasing turnover (Easton and Van Laar 2018). If the online teaching environment can provide faculty members with the necessary tools to effectively perform their jobs, it will positively impact the working conditions dimension of well-being (Bhattarai 2020). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H5. Faculty satisfaction with online teaching has a positive impact on working conditions. Stress at work is a harmful physical and emotional response that occurs when work demands do not match a worker’s abilities, resources or needs (e.g., when an individual perceives and feels excessive pressures and feels he is unable to fulfil the job requirements) (Easton and Van Laar 2018). Previous researchers have found that online teaching often increases workload, is more difficult to engage students in the learning processes and needs more time for class preparation (Elshami et al. 2021). These factors are related with higher levels of stress among the faculty community (Ortan et al. 2021). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H6. Faculty satisfaction with online teaching has a negative impact on stress at work. Figure 1presents the research model that portrays the relationships under study. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147 7 of 16 Adm.Sci.2022,12,xFORPEERREVIEW7of17   Figure1presentstheresearchmodelthatportraystherelationshipsunderstudy.  Figure1.ResearchModel. 3.ResearchMethods Thisstudyaimstounderstandtheimpactofonlineteachingontheoverallwell‐being ofthefacultystaffatabusinessschoolinLisbon.Toaccessthevalidityoftheproposed researchmodelandhypotheses,aquantitativeapproachbasedondatacollectedthrough aquestionnairesenttoallfacultymembersoftheBusinessSchoolwasadopted.Forthe operationalizationoftheresearchmodel,constructitemswereadaptedfromexisting scales(AppendixA).Allitemsweremeasuredwithafive‐pointLikertscale,rangingfrom ‘stronglydisagree’to‘stronglyagree’. TovalidatethequestionnairetranslationfromEnglishtoPortuguese,theback‐trans‐ lationproceduresuggestedby(SekaranandBougie2016)wasapplied.Apretestwasconductedwithfivefacultymembers,whichresultedintherestructuringofsomesentences toenhanceclarity. Giventhatwehavealatentvariablemodelandasmallsamplesize,PartialLeast Squares(PLS)PathModelingwasadoptedinthisstudyasimplementedbytheSmartPLS 3.0software(Ringleetal.2015)toassessthequalityofthemeasurementandthestructural models. 3.1.DataCollectionandParticipants ThequestionnairewasadministeredonlinewithQualtricsXMandsentbyemailto allfacultymembersofthebusinessschool,leadingtoanonprobabilisticsampling.Data werecollectedbetweenMarchandAprilof2021,duringthesecondconfinementperiod duetoCOVID‐19pandemic,whenteachingwasbeingconductedonlyremotely.After onefollow‐uptoincreasetheresponserate,atotalof139responsesweregathered,which correspondstoaresponserateof54.3%.Fromthetotalof139responses,102wereconsideredvalid,correspondingto39.8%ofthepopulation. Regardingthedemographiccharacterizationofthefinalsample,thereisaslightly highernumberofmalerespondents(54.9%);41.2%arefemalesand3.9%decidedtonot Figure 1. Research Model. 3. Research Methods This study aims to understand the impact of online teaching on the overall well-being of the faculty staff at a business school in Lisbon. To access the validity of the proposed research model and hypotheses, a quantitative approach based on data collected through a questionnaire sent to all faculty members of the Business School was adopted. For the operationalization of the research model, construct items were adapted from existing scales (Appendix A). All items were measured with a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. To validate the questionnaire translation from English to Portuguese, the back-translation procedure suggested by Sekaran and Bougie (2016) was applied. A pretest was conducted with five faculty members, which resulted in the restructuring of some sentences to enhance clarity. Given that we have a latent variable model and a small sample size, Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modeling was adopted in this study as implemented by the SmartPLS 3.0 software (Ringle et al. 2015) to assess the quality of the measurement and the structural models. 3.1. Data Collection and Participants The questionnaire was administered online with Qualtrics XM and sent by email to all faculty members of the business school, leading to a nonprobabilistic sampling. Data were collected between March and April of 2021, during the second confinement period due to COVID-19 pandemic, when teaching was being conducted only remotely. After one followup to increase the response rate, a total of 139 responses were gathered, which corresponds to a response rate of 54.3%. From the total of 139 responses, 102 were considered valid, corresponding to 39.8% of the population. Regarding the demographic characterization of the final sample, there is a slightly higher number of male respondents (54.9%); 41.2% are females and 3.9% decided to not reveal their gender. Concerning age, 21.9% of respondents are millennials and the rest are over 40 years old, the average being 48.44 years. Most of the faculty participating in Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147 8 of 16 this study (63.6%) live in households with three or more people, 27.3% live in households of two people and only 9.1% live alone. Most respondents (63.7%) are in the university teaching career, while the remaining ones are invited professors (36.3%). To further characterize our final sample, we computed some additional descriptive statistics. Respondents who are most satisfied with work and career (average = 3.70) are the ones with the most numerous households (more than 2 members), and the least satisfied ones are the faculty members that live alone (average = 2.90). Additionally, there are statistically significant differences in satisfaction with online education, as invited faculty members are more satisfied (average = 3.09) than career faculty members (average = 2.72). Furthermore, we also found statistically significant differences regarding the satisfaction with online education (F = 3.736; p< 0.05), where younger faculty members are the most satisfied ones with online teaching (average = 3.05). 3.2. Measures The two scales that make up the final questionnaire have already been validated in samples of faculty members with good levels of reliability. The Work-Related Quality of Life (WRQoL), developed by Easton and Van Laar (2018), measures work-related quality of life, and was used as a measure of the well-being construct in the present study. It was previously applied in several other universities and countries and has shown good psychometric quality. It includes six dimensions: (i) general well-being; (ii) home–work interface; (iii) job and career satisfaction; (iv) control at work; (v) working conditions; and (vi) stress at work. The Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey Revised (OFSS-R) was adapted by Blundell et al. (2020) from the Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey (OFSS) developed by Bolliger and Wasilik (2009) to measure faculty’s satisfaction with online education. The first 15 items of the original instrument were excluded because they belonged to the introductory question of Bolliger and Wasilik (2009), which was not evaluated by Blundell et al. (2020), thus resulting in a scale of only 28 items. These items measure the faculty satisfaction with different aspects of online education that, according to the authors, would be related to students, the institution, and faculty. In addition to these three dimensions, they included a fourth one to measure general satisfaction with online teaching. Once we could not reproduce the proposed factorial structure, we grouped the items in six different dimensions based on their content. The student-related dimensions are: student engagement (e.g., “My online students are more enthusiastic about their learning than their traditional counterparts”); student Interaction (e.g., “The level of my interactions with students in an online class is higher than in a traditional face-to-face class”); and flexibility (e.g., “Online teaching is gratifying because it provides me with an opportunity to reach students who otherwise would not be able to take courses”). The institution-related dimension is workload (e.g., “I have a higher workload with online teaching compared to traditional teaching”). The faculty-related dimension is technology (e.g., “I use fewer resources in online teaching than in face-to-face teaching”). The sixth-dimension measures general satisfaction with online teaching—overall satisfaction with online teaching (e.g., “I look forward to teaching my next online course”). Appendix Apresents the complete operationalization for each latent variable of the research model. 4. Results 4.1. Measurement Model Assessment To assess the measurement model quality, we assessed indicators for reliability (composite reliability for internal consistency) and evaluated convergent and discriminant validities (Table 1). Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147 15 of 16 Daumiller, Martin, Raven Rinas, Julia Hein, Stefan Janke, Oliver Dickhäuser, and Markus Dresel. 2021. Shifting from Face-to-Face to Online Teaching during COVID-19: The Role of University Faculty Achievement Goals for Attitudes towards This Sudden Change, and Their Relevance for Burnout/Engagement and Student Evaluations of Teaching Quality. Computers in Human Behavior 118: 106677. [CrossRef] Davis, Cindy, Ruth Greenaway, Matthew Moore, and Lyle Cooper. 2019. Online Teaching in Social Work Education: Understanding the Challenges. Australian Social Work 72: 34–46. [CrossRef] Dubey, Pushkar, and Deepak Pandey. 2020. Distance Learning in Higher Education during Pandemic: Challenges and Opportunities. The International Journal of Indian Psychology 8: 43–46. Easton, Simon, and Darren Van Laar. 2018. User Manual for the Work-Related Quality of Life (WRQoL) Scale: A Measure of Quality of Working Life. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth. [CrossRef] Ehnert, Ina, Wes Harry, and Klaus J. Zink, eds. 2014. Sustainability and HRM. In Sustainability and Human Resource Management. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 3–32. [CrossRef] Elshami, Wiam, Mohamed H. Taha, Mohamed Abuzaid, Coumaravelou Saravanan, Sausan Al Kawas, and Mohamed Elhassan Abdalla. 2021. Satisfaction with Online Learning in the New Normal: Perspective of Students and Faculty at Medical and Health Sciences Colleges. Medical Education Online 26: 1920090. [CrossRef] Fisher, Cynthia D. 2010. Happiness at Work: Happiness at Work. International Journal of Management Reviews 12: 384–412. [CrossRef] Gokhale, Meenakshi. 2015. Work-Related Quality of Life and Work Engagement of College Teachers. Annamalai International Journal of Business Studies & Research. pp. 60–63. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Meenakshi-Gokhale/ publication/309231676_Work-Related_Quality_of_Life_and_Work_Engagement_of_College_Teachers/links/5b71b067a6fdcc8 7df744295/Work-Related-Quality-of-Life-and-Work-Engagement-of-College-Teachers.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2022). Grant, Adam M., Marlys K. Christianson, and Richard H. Price. 2007. Happiness, Health, or Relationships? Managerial Practices and Employee Well-Being Tradeoffs. Academy of Management Perspectives 21: 51–63. [CrossRef] Greenhow, Christine, and Sarah Galvin. 2020. Teaching with Social Media: Evidence-Based Strategies for Making Remote Higher Education Less Remote. Information and Learning Sciences 121: 513–24. [CrossRef] Greenhow, Christine, Sarah M. Galvin, Diana L. Brandon, and Emilia Askari. 2020. A Decade of Research on K–12 Teaching and Teacher Learning with Social Media: Insights on the State of the Field. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 122: 1–72. [CrossRef] Hair, Joe F., Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19: 139–52. [CrossRef] Hartman, Joel, Charles Dziuban, and Patsy Moskal. 2019. Faculty Satisfaction in ALNs: A Dependent or Independent Variable? Online Learning 4: 155–79. [CrossRef] Henseler, Jörg, Christian M. Ringle, and Rudolf R. Sinkovics. 2009. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. Advances in International Marketing 20: 277–319. [CrossRef] Hiltz, Starr Roxanne, Peter Shea, and Eunhee Kim. 2010. Using Focus Groups to Study ALN Faculty Motivation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 14: 21–38. Hodges, Charles B., Stephanie Moore, Barbara B. Lockee, Torrey Trust, and Mark Aaron Bond. 2020. The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. Educause Review. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/rekxcrq (accessed on 14 September 2022). Jacobs, Pearl. 2013. The Challenges of Online Courses for the Instructor. Research in Higher Education Journal 21: 1–18. Kandasamy, Indira, and Sreekumar Ancheri. 2009. Hotel Employees’ Expectations of QWL: A Qualitative Study. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28: 328–37. [CrossRef] Keengwe, Jared, and Terry T. Kidd. 2010. Towards Best Practices in Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6: 533–41. Krugielka, Agnieszka, Grazyna Bartkowiak, and Sebastian Dama. 2021. Functioning of Academic Teachers in the Conditions of the COVID-19 Epidemy in Poland in 2020 (Qualitative Test on the Basis of Self-Assessment). European Research Studies Journal 24: 269–87. [CrossRef] Krutka, Daniel G., Marie K. Heath, and K. Bret Staudt Willet. 2019. Foregrounding Technoethics: Toward Critical Perspectives in Technology and Teacher Education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 27: 555–74. Li, Chi-Sung, and Beverly Irby. 2008. An Overview of Online Education: Attractiveness, Benefits, Challenges, Concerns and Recommendations. College Student Journal 42: 449–59. Mahadik, Aishwarya, Neha Bajpai, Garima Sharma, and D. S. Rathore. 2017. Prevalence and statistical analysis of musculoskeletal disorders among academicians from higher education. International Journal of Physiotherapy and Research 5: 1807–11. [CrossRef] McCoy, Shannon K., Ellen E. Newell, and Susan K. Gardner. 2013. Seeking Balance: The Importance of Environmental Conditions in Men and Women Faculty’s Well-Being. Innovative Higher Education 38: 309–22. [CrossRef] Minutillo, Susannah, Michelle Cleary, and Denis Visentin. 2020. The Mental Health of Online Learners within the Educational Sector. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 41: 963–65. [CrossRef] Mishra, Lokanath, Tushar Gupta, and Abha Shree. 2020. Online Teaching-Learning in Higher Education during Lockdown Period of COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open 1: 100012. [CrossRef] Moore, Michael G., and Greg Kearsley. 1996. Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont, Albany and Bonn: Wadsworth. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 147 16 of 16 Mudrak, Jiri, Katerina Zabrodska, Petr Kveton, Martin Jelinek, Marek Blatny, Iva Solcova, and Katerina Machovcova. 2018. Occupational Well-Being Among University Faculty: A Job Demands-Resources Model. Research in Higher Education 59: 325–48. [CrossRef] Mupinga, Davison M. 2005. Distance Education in High Schools: Benefits, Challenges, and Suggestions. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 78: 105–9. [CrossRef] Murphy, Michael P. A. 2020. COVID-19 and Emergency ELearning: Consequences of the Securitization of Higher Education for Post-Pandemic Pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy 41: 492–505. [CrossRef] Naylor, Dawn, and Julie Nyanjom. 2021. Educators’ Emotions Involved in the Transition to Online Teaching in Higher Education. Higher Education Research & Development 40: 1236–50. [CrossRef] Ntereke, Beauty Boikanyo, Brigid Goitse Conteh, Boitumelo Tiny Ramoroka, and Keokgale Basetsana Tlhobogang. 2021. Teaching and Learning Online during the Pandemic: Lecturers’ Perceptions and Experiences. MOSENODI: International Journal of the Educational Studies 24: 22–47. Available online: https://journals.ub.bw/index.php/mosenodi/article/view/1983/1261 (accessed on 14 September 2022). Ortan, Florica, Ciprian Simut, and Ramona Simut. 2021. Self-Efficacy, Job Satisfaction and Teacher Well-Being in the K-12 Educational System. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 12763. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Osranek, Regina, and Klaus J. Zink. 2014. Corporate Human Capital and Social Sustainability of Human Resources. In Sustainability and Human Resource Management. Edited by Ina Ehnert, Wes Harry and Klaus J. Zink. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 105–26. [CrossRef] Owens, Joan, Carol Kottwitz, Jane Tiedt, and Jeffery Ramirez. 2018. Strategies to Attain Faculty Work-Life Balance. Building Healthy Academic Communities Journal 2: 58. [CrossRef] Pagán-Castaño, Esther, Araceli Maseda-Moreno, and Cristina Santos-Rojo. 2020. Wellbeing in Work Environments. Journal of Business Research 115: 469–74. [CrossRef] Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 2010. Building Sustainable Organizations: The Human Factor. Academy of Management Perspectives 24: 34–45. [CrossRef] Ringle, Christian M., Sven Wende, and Jan-Michael Becker. 2015. SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. Rumble, Greville. 2001. Whose Benefits, Whose Costs? Inaugural Lecture 21. Available online: http://www.c3l.uni-oldenburg.de/cde/ econ/readings/rumbl01b.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2022). Saha, Sourav Mohan, Sadia Afrin Pranty, Md. Jaber Rana, Md. Jahurul Islam, and Md. Emran Hossain. 2022. Teaching during a Pandemic: Do University Teachers Prefer Online Teaching? Heliyon 8: e08663. [CrossRef] Seipel, Matthew T., and Lisa M. Larson. 2018. Supporting Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Well-Being. Journal of Career Assessment 26: 154–71. [CrossRef] Sekaran, Uma, and Roger Bougie. 2016. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 7th ed. Chichester: Wiley. Sintema, Edgar John. 2020. Effect of COVID-19 on the Performance of Grade 12 Students: Implications for STEM Education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 16: em1851. [CrossRef] Tallent-Runnels, Mary K., Julie A. Thomas, William Y. Lan, Sandi Cooper, Terence C. Ahern, Shana M. Shaw, and Xiaoming Liu. 2006. Teaching Courses Online: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research 76: 93–135. [CrossRef] Toto, Giusi Antonia, and Pierpaolo Limone. 2021. Motivation, Stress and Impact of Online Teaching on Italian Teachers during COVID-19. Computers 10: 75. [CrossRef] Tsegay, Samson Maekele, Muhammad Azeem Ashraf, Shahnaz Perveen, and Mulugeta Zemuy Zegergish. 2022. Online Teaching during COVID-19 Pandemic: Teachers’ Experiences from a Chinese University. Sustainability 14: 568. [CrossRef] Van Wart, Montgomery, Anna Ni, Pamela Medina, Jesus Canelon, Melika Kordrostami, Jing Zhang, and Yu Liu. 2020. Integrating Students’ Perspectives about Online Learning: A Hierarchy of Factors. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 17: 53. [CrossRef] Wolff, Lili-Ann, and Peter Ehrström. 2020. Social Sustainability and Transformation in Higher Educational Settings: A Utopia or Possibility? Sustainability 12: 4176. [CrossRef] Wu, Jen-Her, Robert D. Tennyson, and Tzyh-Lih Hsia. 2010. A Study of Student Satisfaction in a Blended E-Learning System Environment. Computers & Education 55: 155–64. [CrossRef] Zaugg, Robert J., Adrian Blum, and Norbert Thom. 2001. Sustainability in Human Resource Management. Berne: IOP-Press. Available online: https://empiricon.ch/assets/Publikationen/Personalmanagement/03.5-EN-sustainability-in-hrm-200106.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2022).