Exploring Factors of Middle School Teachers’ Satisfaction with Online Training for Sustainable Professional Development under the Impact of COVID-19
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1. User Satisfaction Theory
2.2. Expectation of Online Training Quality
2.3. Perceived Online Training Quality
2.4. Perceived Online Training Value
2.5. Teacher Satisfaction with Online Training
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
3.2. Instrument
3.2.1. Expectation of Online Training Quality
3.2.2. Perceived Online Training Quality
3.2.3. Perceived Training Value
3.2.4. Teachers’ Satisfaction with Online Training
3.3. Effectiveness and Reliability of Tools
3.4. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
4.2. Correlation Analysis
4.3. Model Fitting Analysis
4.3.1. Initial Model Analysis and Correction
4.3.2. Model Fitting Analysis after Correction
5. Discussion
5.1. Expected Quality Positively Affects Perceived Quality
5.2. Expected Quality Negatively Affects Perceived Value
5.3. Perceived Online Training Quality Is Positively Related to Perceived Online Training Value
5.4. Expectation of Online Training Quality Has No Obvious Effect on Teacher Satisfaction with Online Training
5.5. Perceived Online Training Quality Has No Obvious Effect on Teacher Satisfaction with Online Training
5.6. Perceived Online Training Value Is Positively Related to Teacher Satisfaction with Online Training
6. Conclusions
6.1. Implications
6.2. Limitations and Future Works
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variable | Items | Topics |
---|---|---|
Expectation of online training quality (EX) | EX1 | You expect online training resources to be safe and virus-free, and to ensure the security of personal information. |
EX2 | You expect online study resources to be tailored to your course requirements and easy to download and use. | |
EX3 | You expect online study resources to be accurate and free of scientific errors. | |
EX4 | You expect the content of online training resources to match the subject knowledge and be closely connected. | |
EX5 | You expect the content of online training resources to directly display the learning content, which is intuitive and easy to understand. | |
EX6 | You expect that the interface design of online training resources is concise, vivid and beautiful. | |
EX7 | You expect a clear navigational structure for an online training platform. | |
EX8 | You expect various management functions to be easy to use when using online training. | |
EX9 | You expect the resources for online training to be easily accessible and convenient. | |
EX10 | You expect to receive timely feedback and help for your comments and suggestions on resources related to online training. | |
EX11 | You expect online training platforms to provide personalized services based on user characteristics and preferences. | |
Perceived online training quality (QUA) | QUA1 | Online training resources are safe and virus-free, which can ensure the security of personal information. |
QUA2 | Online study resources are tailored to the needs of the course and are easy to download and use. | |
QUA3 | The content of online training resources is accurate and in line with the curriculum standards. | |
QUA4 | The content of online training resources comes from current textbooks. | |
QUA5 | The content of online training resources is intuitive, reflecting the knowledge points of teaching materials. | |
QUA6 | The interface design of online training resources is concise and the form is vivid and beautiful. | |
QUA7 | The navigation function of the online training platform is clearly directed. | |
QUA8 | Various management functions are easy to use when using online training. | |
QUA9 | Online training resources are easily accessible and convenient. | |
QUA10 | Get timely feedback and help for comments and suggestions on resources related to online training. | |
QUA11 | Online training platforms can provide personalized services according to user characteristics and preferences. | |
Perceived online training value (VAL) | VAL1 | How you feel after using online training - the cost of using online training is the same as the time spent. |
VAL2 | Use of online training is equal to the intellectual cost paid. | |
VAL3 | Online training can help you improve your teaching. | |
VAL4 | Online study for your professional development. | |
Teacher satisfaction with online training (SAT) | SAT1 | You are currently satisfied with the content and quality of the online training resources. |
SAT2 | At present, you are satisfied with the resource function of online training. | |
SAT3 | At present, you are satisfied with the resource services of online training. | |
SAT4 | At present, you are satisfied with the overall use of resources for online training. | |
SAT5 | If necessary or if conditions permit, you will continue to use online training for learning. | |
SAT6 | You are willing to recommend the online training platform or course to others. |
References
- Liu, Y.; Zhao, L.; Su, Y.S. The impact of teacher competence in online teaching on perceived online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 outbreak: A moderated-mediation model of teacher resilience and age. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thuy, N.T.T.; Bien, N.V.; Quy, D.X. Fostering teachers’ competence of the integrated STEM education. J. Penelit. Dan Pembelajaran IPA 2020, 6, 166–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boltz, L.O.; Yadav, A.; Dillman, B.; Robertson, C. Transitioning to remote learning: Lessons from supporting k-12 teachers through a MOOC. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 1377–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.H.; Xu, Y.Y.; Wang, X.Y.; Yan, S.Y.; Zhao, L. The Selectivity and Suitability of Online Learning Resources as Predictor of the Effects of Self-Efficacy on Teacher Satisfaction During the COVID-19 Lockdown. Front. Educ. 2022, 13, 765832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, M.; Wang, M.; Zhang, H.; Cui, Y.; Ji, M. Art teachers’ attitudes toward online learning: An empirical study using self-determination theory. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 627095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmed, S.; Ambreen, M.; Ahmad, M.; Alaboudi, A.A.; Alroobaea, R.; Jhanjhi, N.Z. An effective online collaborative training in developing listening comprehension skills. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 2021, 38, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, A.E.; Zuilkowski, S.S.; Mekonnen, D.; Ramos-Mattoussi, F. Improving teacher training in Ethiopia: Shifting the content and approach of pre-service teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 70, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, Y.C.; Wang, T.H.; Wang, K.H. A web-based model for developing assessment literacy of secondary in-service teachers. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1727–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swan, K.; Shea, P.; Fredericksen, E.; Pickett, A.; Pelz, W.; Maher, G. Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2000, 23, 359–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tallent-Runnels, M.K.; Thomas, J.A.; Lan, W.Y.; Cooper, S.; Ahern, T.C.; Shaw, S.M.; Liu, X. Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Rev. Educ. Res. 2006, 76, 93–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Chen, N.S.; Tsai, C.C. The use of online synchronous discussion for web-based professional development for teachers. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 1155–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ching, C.C.; Hursh, A.W. Peer Modeling and innovation adoption among teachers in online professional development. Comput. Educ. 2014, 73, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravenscroft, A.; Schmidt, A.; Cook, J.; Bradley, C. Designing social media for informal learning and knowledge maturing in the digital workplace. J. Comput. Assist. Lear. 2012, 28, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmeister, C.; Pilz, M. Using e-learning to deliver in-service teacher training in the vocational education sector: Perception and acceptance in Poland, Italy and Germany. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, K. Professional learning of observers, collaborators, and contributors in a teacher-created online community in Korea. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2014, 34, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, L.B.; Craig, C.A. Narrative inquiry into the cultivation of self and identity of three novice teachers in Chinese colleges---through the evolution of an online knowledge community. J. Educ. Teach. 2020, 46, 646–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lay, C.D.; Allman, B.; Cutri, R.M.; Kimmons, R. Examining a decade of research in online teacher professional development. Front. Educ. 2020, 5, 573129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotler, P.; Pfoertsch, W.; Sponholz, U. H2H Marketing: The Genesis of Human-to-Human Marketing; Springer Nature AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, R.L. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. J. Retail. 1981, 57, 25–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheff, J.; Kotler, P. Crisis in the arts: The marketing response. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1996, 39, 28–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Zhang, H. Developing a new model for understanding teacher satisfaction with online learning. Sage Open 2021, 11, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, Y. Use of virtual reality technology in animation course teaching. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2021, 16, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hult, G.T.M.; Morgeson, F.V.; Morgan, N.A. Do managers know what their customers think and why? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qazi, A.; Tamjidyamcholo, A.; Raj, R.G.; Hardaker, G.; Standing, C. Assessing consumers’ satisfaction and expectations through online opinions: Expectation and disconfirmation approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 75, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ophuis, P.; Trijp, H. Perceived Quality: A Market Driven and Cnsumer Oriented Approach. Food. Qual. Prefer. 1995, 6, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.Y.; Wu, S.Y.; Jing, H. Explore the differences between perceived service quality and customer satisfaction based on customer expectation of service attributes. Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag. 2017, 23, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claes, F.; Michael, D.J.; Eugene, W.A.; Jaesung, C.; Barbara, E.B. The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings. J. Macromarketing 1996, 60, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sánchez-Fernández, R.; Iniesta-Bonillo, M.Á. The concept of perceived value: A systematic review of the research. Mark. Theor. 2007, 7, 427–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boksberger, P.E.; Melsen, L. Perceived value: A critical examination of definitions, concepts and measures for the service industry. J. Serv. Mark. 2011, 25, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churchill, G.A., Jr.; Surprenant, C. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. J. Mark. Res. 1982, 19, 491–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, M.D.; Fornell, C. A framework for comparing customer satisfaction across individuals and product categories. J. Econ. Psychol. 1991, 12, 267–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, E.W.; Sullivan, M.W. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Market. Sci. 1993, 12, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, B.; Enkawa, T. Economic influences on perceived value, quality expectations and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 33, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.S. Assessing e-commerce systems success: A respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Inform. Syst. J. 2008, 18, 529–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revilla-Camacho, M.Á.; Cossío-Silva, F.J.; Palacios-Florencio, B. Corporate responsibility under the ECSI model: An application in the hotel sector. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017, 23, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oliver, R.L. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terpstra, M.; Verbeeten, F.H. Customer satisfaction: Cost driver or value driver? Empirical evidence from the financial services industry. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, I.; Cabral, J.; Saraiva, P. An integrated framework based on the ECSI approach to link mould customers’ satisfaction and product design. Total. Qual. Manag. Bus. 2010, 21, 1383–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, H.; Raposo, M. Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total. Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2007, 18, 571–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habel, J.; Alavi, S.; Schmitz, C.; Schneider, J.V.; Wieseke, J. When do customers get what they expect? Understanding the ambivalent effects of customers service expectations on satisfaction. J. Serv. Res. 2016, 19, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kristensen, K.; Martensen, A.; Gronholdt, L. Measuring the impact of buying behavior on customer satisfaction. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 1999, 10, 602–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurico, S.; Pinto, P.; Silva, J.A.; Valle, P. A model of graduates׳ satisfaction and loyalty in tourism higher education: The role of employability. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 2015, 16, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Askariazad, M.H.; Babakhani, N. An application of European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) in business to business (B2B) context. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2015, 30, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciavolino, E.; Dahlgaard, J.J. ECSI—Customer satisfaction modelling and analysis: A case study. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2007, 18, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, I.A.; Dioko, L.D.A. Understanding the mediated moderating role of customer expectations in the customer satisfaction model: The case of casinos. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koukopoulos, Z.; Koutromanos, G.; Koukopoulos, D.; Gialamas, V. Factors influencing student and in-service teachers’ satisfaction and intention to use a user-participatory cultural heritage platform. J. Comput. Educ. 2020, 7, 333–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarantidou, P. Enriching the ECSI model using brand strength in the retail setting. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017, 26, 294–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, T.; Peng, L.; Yin, X.; Rong, J.; Yang, J.; Cong, G. Analysis of user satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare 2020, 8, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sean, B.E.H.; Joseph, W.; Nicholas, A. The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 2006, 4, 215–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Xia, E.; Jia, W. Utilisation status and user satisfaction of online education platforms. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Lear. 2020, 19, 154–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooley, W.W.; Lohnes, P.R. Multivariate Data Analysis. Technometrics 1973, 15, 648–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haughton, D.; Phong, N. Graphical and numerical descriptive analysis: Exploratory tools applied to Vietnamese data. J. Stat. Educ. 2004, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yalalova, J.; Li, Z.; Durrani, D.K. Emotional intelligence could forge self-efficacy, work effort and career satisfaction. Hum. Syst. Manag. 2017, 36, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Items | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Expectation of online training quality (EX) | EX1 | 0.840 | 0.973 | 0.974 | 0.7744 |
EX2 | 0.926 | ||||
EX3 | 0.949 | ||||
EX4 | 0.949 | ||||
EX5 | 0.746 | ||||
EX6 | 0.778 | ||||
EX7 | 0.787 | ||||
EX8 | 0.919 | ||||
EX9 | 0.945 | ||||
EX10 | 0.918 | ||||
EX11 | 0.890 | ||||
Perceived online training quality (QUA) | QUA1 | 0.802 | 0.978 | 0.9791 | 0.81 |
QUA2 | 0.968 | ||||
QUA3 | 0.906 | ||||
QUA4 | 0.961 | ||||
QUA5 | 0.904 | ||||
QUA6 | 0.907 | ||||
QUA7 | 0.887 | ||||
QUA8 | 0.935 | ||||
QUA9 | 0.831 | ||||
QUA10 | 0.906 | ||||
QUA11 | 0.879 | ||||
Perceived online training value (VAL) | VAL1 | 0.960 | 0.955 | 0.9549 | 0.8412 |
VAL2 | 0.863 | ||||
VAL3 | 0.928 | ||||
VAL4 | 0.915 | ||||
Teacher satisfaction with online training (SAT) | SAT1 | 0.907 | 0.943 | 0.9448 | 0.7415 |
SAT2 | 0.905 | ||||
SAT3 | 0.888 | ||||
SAT4 | 0.920 | ||||
SAT5 | 0.734 | ||||
SAT6 | 0.796 |
Variable | Items | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Expectation of online training quality (EX) | EX1 | 0.889 | 0.985 | 0.9847 | 0.8545 |
EX2 | 0.936 | ||||
EX3 | 0.952 | ||||
EX4 | 0.954 | ||||
EX5 | 0.945 | ||||
EX6 | 0.960 | ||||
EX7 | 0.958 | ||||
EX8 | 0.938 | ||||
EX9 | 0.900 | ||||
EX10 | 0.890 | ||||
EX11 | 0.838 | ||||
Perceived online training quality (QUA) | QUA1 | 0.820 | 0.981 | 0.9814 | 0.828 |
QUA2 | 0.901 | ||||
QUA3 | 0.874 | ||||
QUA4 | 0.910 | ||||
QUA5 | 0.928 | ||||
QUA6 | 0.938 | ||||
QUA7 | 0.924 | ||||
QUA8 | 0.944 | ||||
QUA9 | 0.936 | ||||
QUA10 | 0.949 | ||||
QUA11 | 0.877 | ||||
Perceived online training value (VAL) | VAL1 | 0.922 | 0.969 | 0.9691 | 0.8868 |
VAL2 | 0.924 | ||||
VAL3 | 0.963 | ||||
VAL4 | 0.957 | ||||
Teacher satisfaction with online training (SAT) | SAT1 | 0.902 | 0.959 | 0.9591 | 0.7969 |
SAT2 | 0.945 | ||||
SAT3 | 0.949 | ||||
SAT4 | 0.938 | ||||
SAT5 | 0.813 | ||||
SAT6 | 0.796 |
Variable | Items | The Number of People Who Chose This Option | Mean | Standard Deviation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||
Expectation of online training quality (EX) | EX1 | 9 | 3 | 30 | 63 | 292 | 4.58 | 4.61 | 0.845 |
EX2 | 8 | 4 | 19 | 80 | 286 | 4.59 | 0.801 | ||
EX3 | 9 | 3 | 22 | 66 | 297 | 4.61 | 0.817 | ||
EX4 | 9 | 3 | 20 | 70 | 296 | 4.62 | 0.801 | ||
EX5 | 11 | 1 | 20 | 68 | 297 | 4.61 | 0.830 | ||
EX6 | 10 | 2 | 23 | 60 | 302 | 4.62 | 0.828 | ||
EX7 | 10 | 3 | 21 | 67 | 296 | 4.60 | 0.834 | ||
EX8 | 8 | 1 | 23 | 63 | 302 | 4.64 | 0.778 | ||
EX9 | 8 | 3 | 19 | 66 | 301 | 4.63 | 0.785 | ||
EX10 | 7 | 2 | 26 | 68 | 294 | 4.61 | 0.782 | ||
EX11 | 8 | 3 | 29 | 69 | 288 | 4.58 | 0.824 | ||
Perceived online training quality (QUA) | QUA1 | 6 | 5 | 62 | 101 | 223 | 4.34 | 4.33 | 0.891 |
QUA2 | 7 | 6 | 69 | 105 | 210 | 4.27 | 0.922 | ||
QUA3 | 6 | 5 | 60 | 99 | 227 | 4.35 | 0.888 | ||
QUA4 | 6 | 5 | 68 | 101 | 217 | 4.30 | 0.902 | ||
QUA5 | 5 | 3 | 56 | 110 | 223 | 4.37 | 0.844 | ||
QUA6 | 5 | 3 | 61 | 101 | 227 | 4.37 | 0.859 | ||
QUA7 | 4 | 4 | 57 | 113 | 219 | 4.36 | 0.837 | ||
QUA8 | 4 | 7 | 67 | 95 | 224 | 4.33 | 0.887 | ||
QUA9 | 4 | 5 | 62 | 105 | 221 | 4.35 | 0.858 | ||
QUA10 | 5 | 6 | 67 | 98 | 221 | 4.32 | 0.894 | ||
QUA11 | 7 | 9 | 68 | 94 | 219 | 4.28 | 0.946 | ||
Perceived online training value (VAL) | VAL1 | 4 | 14 | 84 | 133 | 162 | 4.10 | 4.13 | 0.919 |
VAL2 | 5 | 12 | 83 | 136 | 161 | 4.10 | 0.917 | ||
VAL3 | 6 | 11 | 77 | 128 | 175 | 4.15 | 0.929 | ||
VAL4 | 6 | 8 | 78 | 130 | 175 | 4.16 | 0.911 | ||
Teacher satisfaction with online training (SAT) | SAT1 | 10 | 10 | 141 | 168 | 68 | 3.69 | 3.76 | 0.872 |
SAT2 | 6 | 16 | 133 | 175 | 67 | 3.71 | 0.847 | ||
SAT3 | 7 | 12 | 131 | 164 | 83 | 3.77 | 0.875 | ||
SAT4 | 6 | 13 | 136 | 161 | 81 | 3.75 | 0.868 | ||
SAT5 | 8 | 11 | 117 | 164 | 97 | 3.83 | 0.898 | ||
SAT6 | 11 | 14 | 121 | 157 | 94 | 3.78 | 0.941 |
EX | QUA | VAL | SAT | |
---|---|---|---|---|
EX | 1 | |||
QUA | 0.530 ** | 1 | ||
VAL | 0.325 ** | 0.779 ** | 1 | |
SAT | 0.232 ** | 0.462 ** | 0.548 ** | 1 |
Indicator Name | Evaluation Standard | Actual Value | Fitting Results | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Excellent | Good | |||
CMIN/DF (Chi-squared degrees of freedom ratio) | 1–3 | 3–5 | 5.380 | Bad |
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) | < 0.05 | < 0.1 | 0.105 | Bad |
GFI (Goodness-of-Fit Index) | > 0.9 | 0.7–0.9 | 0.686 | Bad |
PGFI (Parsimonious Goodness-of-Fit index) | > 0.9 | > 0.5 | 0.602 | Good |
TLI (Nonnormal Fit Index) | > 0.9 | 0.7–0.9 | 0.880 | Good |
CFI (Comparative Fit Index) | > 0.9 | 0.7–0.9 | 0.888 | Good |
IFI (Incremental Fit Index) | > 0.9 | 0.7–0.9 | 0.889 | Good |
Hypothesis | Path | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p | Supported |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | QUA←EX | 0.571 | 0.053 | 10.810 | *** | Yes |
H2 | VAL←EX | −0.155 | 0.043 | −3.584 | *** | No |
H3 | VAL←QUA | 0.913 | 0.048 | 19.132 | *** | Yes |
H4 | SAT←QUA | 0.035 | 0.069 | 0.511 | 0.609 | No |
H5 | SAT←EX | 0.036 | 0.046 | 0.773 | 0.439 | No |
H7 | SAT←VAL | 0.328 | 0.061 | 5.396 | *** | Yes |
Indicator Name | Evaluation Standard | Actual Value | Fitting Results | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Excellent | Good | |||
CMIN/DF (Chi-squared degrees of freedom ratio) | 1–3 | 3–5 | 4.624 | Good |
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) | <0.05 | <0.1 | 0.096 | Good |
GFI (Goodness-of-Fit Index) | >0.9 | 0.7–0.9 | 0.733 | Good |
PGFI (Parsimonious Goodness-of-Fit index) | >0.9 | >0.5 | 0.642 | Good |
TLI (Nonnormal Fit Index) | >0.9 | 0.7–0.9 | 0.901 | Excellent |
CFI (Comparative Fit Index) | >0.9 | 0.7–0.9 | 0.908 | Excellent |
IFI (Incremental Fit Index) | >0.9 | 0.7–0.9 | 0.908 | Excellent |
Hypothesis | Path | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p | Supported |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | QUA←EX | 0.563 | 0.052 | 10.779 | *** | Yes |
H2 | VAL←EX | −0.150 | 0.042 | −3.594 | *** | No |
H3 | VAL←QUA | 0.887 | 0.048 | 18.390 | *** | Yes |
H7 | SAT←VAL | 0.392 | 0.041 | 9.672 | *** | Yes |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 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/).
Share and Cite
Wu, W.; Hu, R.; Tan, R.; Liu, H. Exploring Factors of Middle School Teachers’ Satisfaction with Online Training for Sustainable Professional Development under the Impact of COVID-19. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013244
Wu W, Hu R, Tan R, Liu H. Exploring Factors of Middle School Teachers’ Satisfaction with Online Training for Sustainable Professional Development under the Impact of COVID-19. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013244
Chicago/Turabian StyleWu, Wentao, Ran Hu, Ruxuan Tan, and Hehai Liu. 2022. "Exploring Factors of Middle School Teachers’ Satisfaction with Online Training for Sustainable Professional Development under the Impact of COVID-19" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013244