Assessment the satisfaction level of faculty members from virtual teaching during corona crisis in Rafsanjan School of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Evaluating the experiences and the satisfaction level of the academic members is an important parameter in planning for virtual education during COVID-19 pandemic. The present study was designed to evaluate the satisfaction level of faculty members of Rafsanjan School of Medicine regarding virtual education in COVID-19 crisis in two stages between 2019 and 2022.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

This descriptive study was conducted on the faculty members of Rafsanjan Medical School. The satisfaction level with virtual education during the COVID-19 pandemic was determined using a researcher-made questionnaire with appropriate validity and reliability. For analysing of quantitative variables, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, independent t tests and one-way analysis of variance and multiple linear regression were used.

RESULTS:

Data showed that only 15.2% of the faculty members had a previous experience of virtual teaching prior to the pandemic and 30.3% had a history of passing the empowerment course on virtual education before the COVID-19 crisis. Moreover, 68.2% passed the empowerment course on virtual education at the same time as the COVID-19 epidemic spread. The overall satisfaction with virtual education in the first and second stages of the study was 49.05 and 49.22 out of 100, respectively. The satisfaction of NAVID learning management system was 66.66 percent among faculty members. The level of satisfaction in non-clinical members was significantly more than clinical members.

CONCLUSION:

The overall satisfaction of faculty members with virtual education was at an average or medium level. From the point of view of the faculty members, some aspects of virtual education need to be improved. Therefore, it seems necessary to improve the infrastructure and empower the faculty members to enhance the quality of virtual education.

Introduction

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) emerged in China at the end of 2019 and spread rapidly worldwide. This pandemic created serious challenges and huge burdens for healthcare systems.[1] This pandemic with a severe transmission led to a global lockdown and the closure of public places such as universities and schools since social distancing and quarantine could reduce the epidemic effects and could break the transmission chain.[2,3,4]

Closure of educational institutes had lots of educational consequences such as academic decline, delaying training courses, and forgetting previous educational contents; so changing the teaching method to the electronic or distance method was an essential educational strategy.[3,5] Electronic learning (E-learning) which is described as formal learning approach through electronic resources has been a helpful and necessary option during the days of the COVID-19 pandemic.[6]

COVID-19 had disrupting effects on medical education and implementing of virtual learning techniques including live online lectures or self-study online recorded lectures could diminish the scale of that disruption.[7] Virtual teaching has some advantages such as possessing enough time for study the contents, reviewing training programs and student-oriented nature.[8,9] On the other hand, virtual learning has some disadvantages because in this method, teachers cannot control students properly, there is a lack in the interactive discussions and beneficial interaction between trainer and trainee and student assessment is a great challenge.[10,11,12] Virtual learning as an effective alternative for the conventional or face-to-face educational approaches raises the students learning and helps instructor to present their content during pandemic.[13,14]

Faculty members as the most important leaders in designing and evaluating the teaching methods tried to define advantageous online courses for the students and learning management systems (LMS) as infrastructures grew up to provide formal foundations for virtual educations management. Moreover, assessment the satisfaction level of faculty members is a valuable indicator for determining the effectiveness and quality of online programs.[15,16]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences continued educational activities via virtual learning and online classes through NAVID (the national LMS) or other online platforms. The education development center of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences through the empowerment courses and educational sessions for the faculty members engaged them into online teaching activities.[17]

In the current study, we aimed to evaluate the satisfaction level of the faculty members of medical school with regard to providing educational contents virtually with the hope of eliminating the possible defects and shortcomings in online teaching and providing more convenient approaches for students during COVID-19 pandemic in a two section study beginning from 2019.

Materials and Methods

Study design and setting

The current descriptive study was performed in the second semester of the academic year 2019-2020 (at the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic) and in the second semester of academic year 2021-2022 to study the satisfaction level of the faculty members of Rafsanjan Medical School on virtual training during pandemic.

Study participants and sampling

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: all faculty members in the both basic and clinical departments with at least one year educational experience in medical school. Exclusion criteria: the faculty members who did not fulfil the questionnaire after three times invitation.

Questionnaire design

In this study, for collecting the necessary data we used a researcher-made questionnaire that was designed and edited based on previous studies.[18,19] Questionnaire consisted several sections including demographic characteristics of faculty members such as age, gender, marital status, education level, and academic rank in the first part of the questionnaire. The second part of the questionnaire included some questions about experiences in virtual teaching before the COVID-19 pandemic, having experience in preparation of e-learning and content production empowerment courses before the COVID-19 pandemic, participation experience in virtual content production empowerment courses during the COVID-19 pandemic and some questions about the familiarity with electronic learning. These questions were scored in the range of 0-100, more percent means more familiarity and satisfaction. The final part of the questionnaire consisted the questions of satisfaction with the NAVID platform function during COVID-19 including interaction and discussion with the student, student assessment, homework and feedback that were scored on the five ranges (1 = the least satisfaction, 5 = the most satisfaction). The questionnaire had overall 25 questions and was designed user-friendly with an answering time of 5-10 minutes.

Validity and reliability determination

For the validity of the questionnaire, the content validity method was used. The CVI (content validity index) for each question was more than 0.9, which was appropriate according to Lawshe’s table and there was no need to omit any questions. The CVR index (content validity ratio) for all items was more than 0.8, which there was no need to omit any questions. In order to determine the reliability, test–retest method was used. The Pearson correlation coefficient of the scores in two measurements was equal to 0.758, which indicated the good reliability of the questionnaire.[20,21]

Data collection tool and technique

By the reason of social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic and for appropriate accessibility, we designed the questionnaire virtually on the ePoll platform (a national online poll system). This study was performed in two stages. The first stage was performed in the second semester of 2019-2020 and the next stage was done in the second semester of 2021-2022. The questionnaire access link was sent to faculty members through different ways such as email, formal office university system and national/international instant messaging platforms (time to answer: one week). The data were extracted from the ePoll system as an Excel file and used for statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis

Collected data were analysed by SPSS software version 23 for windows. We used descriptive statistics indicators such as mean and standard deviation for demonstrating quantitative data and frequency and percentage indices for qualitative data. For analysing the normal distribution of quantitative variables, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used, and for the variables with normal distribution, independent t tests and one-way analysis of variance and multiple linear regression were performed. In this study P value <0.05 was considered the significance level.

Ethical consideration

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences (IR.RUMS.REC.1400.027). The participants were selected among the faculty members of the medical school; in the first part of the study 66 people and in the second part of the study 43 people participated.

Results

This study was performed in two stages at a two-year interval. In the first stage, 66 and the second stage 43 faculty members of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences (Medical School) participated in the study. In the first stage, 36 people (54.5%) were men, 27 people (40.9%) were between 30 and 40 years old, 54 members (81.8%) were married, 26 people (39.4%) had Ph.D. degrees, 39 people (43.9%) had over 10 years work experience, 41 people (62.1%) were native, and 42 people (63.6%) had assistant professor ranks. Table 1 demonstrated the frequency distribution of different qualitative variables of participants in both stages of the study.

Table 1.

Frequency distribution of different demographic variables of faculty members who participated in both stages of the study

Variable	Variable levels	First stage		Second stage
		Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Gender	Female	28	42.4	23	53.5
	Male	36	54.5	18	41.9
	Unknown	2	3.0	2	4.7
Age (years)	30-40	27	40.9	23	53.5
	40-50	20	30.3	14	32.6
	50-60	14	21.2	4	9.3
	>60	3	4.5	0	0
	Unknown	2	3.0	2	4.7
Marital status	Single	9	13.6	3	7.0
	Married	54	81.8	38	88.4
	Unknown	3	4.5	2	4.7
Education level	MSc	6	9.1	1	2.3
	Specialist	22	33.3	19	44.2
	Super specialist	10	15.2	6	14.0
	PhD	26	39.4	15	34.9
	Unknown	2	3.0	2	4.7
Work experience (year)	<5 years	21	31.8	15	34.9
	5-10 years	14	21.2	14	32.6
	>10 years	29	43.9	12	27.9
	Unknown	2	3.0	2	4.7
Native status	Native	41	62.1	26	60.5
	Non-native	22	33.3	15	34.9
	Unknown	3	4.5	2	4.7
Academic rank	Instructor	8	12.1	2	4.7
	Assistant professor	42	63.6	33	76.7
	Associate professor	10	15.2	5	11.6
	Professor	3	4.5	0	0
	Unknown	3	4.5	3	7.0

In the first stage, only 10 people (15.2%) had the experience in virtual teaching before COVID-19 pandemic, 20 people (30.3%) had experience in e-learning and content production empowerment courses before COVID-19 pandemic, but during corona crisis 45 people (68.2%) participated in the empowerment courses of virtual education and content production [Table 2].

Table 2.

Status of passing virtual education empowerment courses in the faculty members who participated in the study (only for the first stage of study)

Variable	Variable levels	Number	Percentage
Previous experience in virtual teaching before the corona crisis	Yes	10	15.2
	No	55	83.3
	Unknown	1	1.5
Previous experience in participation in the e-learning and content production empowerment courses before corona period	Yes	20	30.3
	No	45	68.2
	Unknown	1	1.5
Recent experience in participation in the e-learning and content production empowerment courses during corona crisis	Yes	45	68.2
	No	19	28.8
	Unknown	2	3.0

The faculty of members who participated in the first stage of the study scored between 0 and 100 to their familiarity with electronic learning before the corona crisis and the average of these scores was 31.06 ± 26.43 (from 100). Moreover, in the first stage the satisfaction with the NAVID platform during the corona crisis was 66.66 ± 23.6 (from 100). Several questions were asked from the participants about the level of satisfaction with electronic learning. The participant scored these questions in five options (very low satisfaction = 1, very high satisfaction = 5). The final satisfaction scores were calculated and were analysed in a range of 0-100. The average satisfaction scores of all members in the first stage of study was 49.05 ± 15.04 and in the second stage was 49.22 ± 19.33. The hypothesis of normality of the quantitative variables was examined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the satisfaction scores in both stages of the study had a normal distribution [Table 3].

Table 3.

The average and standard deviation of satisfaction level from electronic learning in faculty members who participated in the study

Variable level	The least	The most	Average	Standard deviation	P*
The familiarity with electronic learning before corona crisis	0.00	95.00	31.06	26.43	<0.001
The level of satisfaction with NAVID	0.00	100.00	66.66	23.60	<0.001
Satisfaction level with electronic learning in the first stage of the study	16.67	87.50	49.05	15.04	0.256
Satisfaction level with electronic learning in the second stage of the study	12.50	95.83	49.22	19.33	0.831

*Kolmogorov–Smirnov test

The satisfaction status of different questions in the questionnaire, in both stages, from very low to very high has been reported as a number (percentage) in Table 4. The questions were related to interaction with the student, formative and summative assessments, homework, feedback, software and facilities used in the content.

Table 4.

The frequency distribution of satisfaction status in faculty members with electronic training during COVID-19 pandemic based on every question in the questionnaire

Variable levels	Very low	Low	No opinion	High	Very high
The satisfaction with interaction, and discussion with the student in virtual teaching
The first stage	4 (6.1)	36 (54.5)	15 (22.7)	11 (16.7)	0 (0)
The second stage	3 (7)	15 (34.9)	11 (25.6)	12 (27.9)	2 (4.7)
The satisfaction with the summative and formative assessments
The first stage	6 (9.1)	30 (45.5)	14 (21.2)	15 (22.7)	1 (1.5)
The second stage	1 (2.3)	19 (44.2)	11 (25.6)	10 (23.3)	2 (4.7)
The satisfaction with the summative and formative assessments
The first stage	0 (0)	26 (39.4)	15 (22.7)	24 (36.4)	1 (1.5)
The second stage	1 (2.3)	16 (37.2)	12 (27.9)	12 (27.9)	2 (4.7)
The satisfaction with the software used in the contents
The first stage	1 (1.5)	6 (9.1)	14 (21.2)	41 (62.1)	4 (6.1)
The second stage	3 (7.0)	7 (16.3)	7 (16.3)	20 (46.5)	6 (14.0)
The satisfaction with facilities in content production
The first stage	1 (1.5)	16 (24.2)	16 (24.2)	27 (40.9)	6 (9.1)
The second stage	3 (7.0)	11 (25.6)	10 (23.3)	14 (32.6)	5 (11.6)
The satisfaction with student feedback during the virtual teaching
The first stage	3 (4.5)	31 (47.0)	16 (24.2)	14 (21.2)	2 (3.0)
The second stage	7 (16.3)	17 (39.5)	9 (20.9)	8 (18.6)	2 (4.7)

In each measurement steps, via independent t test, the mean of satisfaction scores was compared at different levels of demographic variables, and also in each level of demographic variable, the mean of satisfaction scores of two measurement stages was compared. In both stages of the study, the satisfaction score in men was more than women, but this difference was not significant in the first stage (P = 0.822) and the second stage (P = 0.783). In both genders, the satisfaction score in the second stage was increased compared with the first stage, but this increase in any genders [female (P = 0.989), male (P = 0.842)] was not statistically significant. The relationship between satisfaction score and marital status and nativeness variables is also reported in Table 5.

Table 5.

The average of satisfaction level in faculty members who participated in the two stages of the study in terms of gender, marital status, and native/non-native status

Variable	Variable levels	The first stage			The second stage			P*
		Number	Average	Standard Deviation	Number	Average	Standard Deviation
Gender	Female	28	48.66	15.42	23	48.73	21.36	0.989
	Male	36	49.53	15.32	18	50.46	17.32	0.842
	P*		0.822			0.783
Martial statues	Single	9	49.07	12.80	3	49.38	8.33	0.910
	Married	54	49.38	15.78	38	50.00	20.32	0.985
	P*		0.956			0.964
Nativeness status	Native	41	48.47	15.72	26	52.08	19.86	0412
	Non-native	22	49.81	14.74	15	45.00	19.04	0.393
	P*		0.744			0.271

*Independent t test

In each step of measurement, the average of satisfaction score in different demographic variables was compared together using a one-way analysis of variance. In each level of demographic variables, the mean of satisfaction score was measured and was compared in two stages using an independent t test. In both stages, a significant difference was not observed between different age groups in terms of satisfaction (the first stage: P = 0.384; the second stage: P = 0.288). The rate of satisfaction in age groups of 40-50 years old was increased, but it was not significant (P = 0.256). The relation between satisfaction scores and education level, work experience, and academic ranks were reported in Table 6. The difference in satisfaction score means was not statistically significant in these variables.

Table 6.

The average of the satisfaction level in faculty members who participated in the two stages of the study in terms of age, education level, work experience, and academic rank

Variable	Variable level	The first stage			The second stage			P*
		Number	Average	Standard Deviation	Number	Average	Standard Deviation
Age (year)	30-40	27	49.23	18.31	23	46.19	20.75	0.586
	40-50	20	49.58	14.68	14	56.25	18.90	0.256
	50-60	14	45.54	8.87	4	44.79	10.41	0.888
	>60	3	62.50	7.22	0	0	0	-
	P**	0.384			0.288
Education level	M.Sc.	6	61.11	13.86	1	41.66	0	-
	Specialist	22	45.83	15.64	19	44.29	18.95	0.778
	Superspecialist	10	48.33	14.33	6	50.96	17.95	0.775
	PhD	26	49.52	14.97	15	56.11	20.88	0.248
	P**	0.190			0.370
Work experience	<5 years	21	47.62	17.41	15	45.00	23.31	0.702
	5-10 years	14	52.38	17.43	14	52.38	19.59	0.999
	>10 years	29	48.71	12.60	12	51.73	14.59	0.508
	P**	0.656			0.548
Academic Rank	Instructor	8	59.90	13.16	2	33.33	11.78	0.032
	Assistant Professor	42	47.52	15.65	33	51.38	20.66	0.359
	Associate Professor	10	47.50	13.06	5	45.00	14.259	0.740
	Professor	3	51.39	17.35	0	0	0	-
	P**	0.203			0.401

*Independent t-test, **One-way analysis of variance

The mean score of satisfaction in the first stage of the study in groups with and without an experience in empowerment courses was compared using an independent t test. The satisfaction in members who did not have experience in virtual teaching before the corona period was four units (out of 100) more than others, but this difference was not statistically significant (0.436). The satisfaction in members who had experience in the empowerment courses of virtual teaching before the corona period was five units (out of 100) more than others, but this difference was not statistically significant (0.170). The satisfaction in both groups with or without having experience in the empowerment courses and content production during the corona period was approximately equal (0.752) [Table 7].

Table 7.

The average of the satisfaction level in faculty members who participated in the first stages of the study in terms of experience in the empowerment courses

Variable	Variable level	Number	Average	Standard deviation	P*
Previous experience in virtual teaching before corona crisis	Yes	10	45.00	16.05	0.436
	No	55	49.39	14.75
Previous experience in the empowerment courses of virtual teaching and content production before the corona crisis	Yes	20	52.71	15.25	0.170
	No	45	47.13	14.83
Recent experience in participation in the e-learning and content production empowerment courses during corona crisis	Yes	45	49.35	14.84	0.752
	No	19	48.03	16.28

*Independent t-test

The simultaneous effect of different variables on the level of faculty member satisfaction with the virtual education was evaluated using multiple linear regression. According to the results of this method, only the effect of the education degree on the level of satisfaction has been significant, so that if the other variables are constant, the level of satisfaction with the virtual education in people with PhD and MSc degrees (non-clinical) was averagely 10.69 units more than the specialist and super specialist physicians (clinical groups, P: 0.013). The level of satisfaction in the second stage was 1.64 units more than the first stage (P: 0.651). The rate of satisfaction in men was 0.10 units more than women (P: 0.978), in marrieds was 7 units less than singles (P: 0.275), in non-native people was 0.57 units less than native ones (P: 0.878). The satisfaction level in people aged over 40 years was 7.14 units more than younger ones (under 40 years) (P: 0.150), in people with over 10 years of work experience was 5.14 units less than the others (P: 0.304) and in people with the academic rank of professor and associate professor was 8.64 units less than the assistant professors and instructors (P: 0.106) [Table 8].

Table 8.

The simultaneous effect of different variables on the level of faculty member satisfaction with the virtual education

Variable	B	Std. Error	Beta	t	P
Constant	83.947	18.108		4.636	0.000
Stage (the second stage compared to the first stage)	1.649	3.632	0.047	0.454	0.651
Gender (men compared with women)	0.106	3.819	0.003	0.028	0.978
Martial statues (married compared with single)	-6.998	6.373	-0.122	-1.098	0.275
Native status (non-native compared with native)	-0.574	3.732	-0.016	-0.154	0.878
Age (over 40 years compared with under 40 years)	7.143	4.914	0.207	1.453	0.150
Education level (specialist and super specialist physicians compared with non-clinical members)	-10.698	4.216	-0.311	-2.537	0.013
Work experience (over 10 years compared with under 10 years)	-5.142	4.976	-0.147	-1.033	0.304
Academic rank (professor and associate professor compared with assistant professor and instructor)	-8.641	5.291	-0.189	-1.633	0.106

Discussion

Assessment the satisfaction level of the faculty members, as the key elements in the educational processes, with the online or virtual training is an important indicator in educational programs and the main determinant in providing a successful virtual teaching. In the current study, we evaluated the satisfaction level of the Rafsanjan Medical School faculty members on virtual teaching in two stages with the interval of two years (at the beginning of the pandemic and two years later) in order to clarify the challenges and organizing the possible facilities for an appropriate virtual teaching program. The results of this study showed that faculty members did not used e-learning in the large scale before pandemic due to the lack of need and necessity and only 15.2% of faculty members experienced virtual training and also only 30.3% of faculty members had experience in participation in the e-learning and content production empowerment courses before the pandemic. In this study, the average score of the familiarity with electronic learning before the corona crisis was 31.06 out of 100.

Several studies demonstrated that unfamiliarity with virtual training is an important challenge for the instructors and students during COVID-19 pandemic. Iravani et al.[19] showed that lack of familiarity of academic members with online teaching and learning methods is a barrier for efficacious teaching for the students and the satisfaction level of the student was at the low or moderate level and they suggested that the quality of e-learning needs improvements. Sadati et al.[22] in their study showed that empowerment in the field of virtual education is an important factor in virtual training in universities and they categorized the virtual teaching obstacles based on the educator perspectives. Li et al.[23] in another study demonstrated that professors should improve their digital literacy to address the student educational needs in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, Almazova et al.[24] exhibited that computer literacy level hinders the implementation of an efficient online education.

According to the previous studies and our results in the current study, lack of previous experiences and inability of professors in dealing with virtual techniques has been considered as a main challenge in virtual learning and teaching. Therefore, planning for educational workshops and empowerment courses in the e-learning and content production could be a critical strategy for universities during COVID-19 pandemic.[25] The education development centre of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences initiated the empowering courses for teachers in virtual education with the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic and our results showed that 68.2% of faculty members participated in the e-learning and content production empowerment courses during the corona crisis.

The evaluation of academic member satisfaction with NAVID system showed the satisfaction score of the 66.66 from 100 which revealed a moderate satisfaction with this learning management system. Abdullahi Isah et al.[26] reported a successful experience in virtual and blended education with NAVID platform and discussed the role of infrastructures and pre-crisis management strategies and teacher empowerment and focused on the achievements in the medical education during COVID-19 pandemic. On the contrary, Nachvak et al.[27] reported a weak quality of NAVID platform in different domains of user experience and suggested its improvement. As regards the differences among studies in the field of NAVID platform, it is essential to evaluate the professor and student viewpoints to modify NAVID facilities.

Our results showed that the faculty member’s satisfaction level with the virtual education in first stage of the study was 49.05 out of 100 at the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic and it was 49.22 out of 100 two years after the start of pandemic. Although the satisfaction level in second stage of study was a little more, this increase was not significant.

The assessment of different dimensions of faculty members satisfaction with virtual education showed that in both stages of the study, most of the members were not satisfied with the interaction and discussion with students which indicates that one of problems in virtual learning is the lack of effective interaction with students and several strategies have been suggested to overcome these challenges such as synchronous education, blended education, gamification, and discussion in small groups.[28,29,30]

Our evaluation in the satisfaction level with the formative and summative assessments showed that professors were not satisfied with this field and the satisfaction score in first stage of the study was 45.5% and was 44.2% in the second stage of the study. Walsh et al.[31] reported a higher rate of cheating in the online examination in comparison with the conventional exams and evaluated the reasons for this matter in students. In another study, the effect of COVID-19 on cheating in virtual exams was evaluated and results showed the closure of educational institutes and universities during corona period has increased anxiety levels among students and increased cheating-related behaviours.[32]

Our study showed that the faculty members relatively satisfied with the software and facilities in content preparing. In the software field, 68.1% of members in first stage had very high and high satisfaction and 60.5% of members in the second stage had very high and high satisfaction. In facilities in content preparation field 50% of faculty members in the first stage had very high and high satisfaction and in the second stage 44.2% had very high and high satisfaction. As regards the passing of two year, the percentage of member satisfaction in these two fields has been decreased. It seems that one of the future goals of the vice-chancellor of education could be the need assessment of professors in content creation tools and existing facilities.

Limitation and recommendation

The limitations of the current study were the lack of participation in the educational researches during COVID-19 pandemic and the problems in completing the online questionnaires. Furthermore, the expenses related to designing the online questionnaires and preparing an easy to complete online questionnaires were the current study challenges. Educational interventions for maximizing the faculty member virtual skills, administration of novel teaching methods in virtual education and comparing different learning management systems are recommended.

Conclusion

The overall satisfaction of faculty members with virtual education was at an average or medium level (around 50%) in Rafsanjan Medical School. The level of satisfaction with the virtual education in members with PhD and MSc degrees (non-clinical) was more than specialist and super specialist physicians. Faculty member viewpoints showed that some aspects of virtual education need to be improved, including the level of interaction with students, providing student feedback and formative and summative assessments. Therefore, it is suggested to ameliorate the infrastructures and empower the faculty members in technology-based teaching methods and enhance the quality of virtual teaching in COVID-19 pandemic and post-COVID-19 era.

Financial support and sponsorship

Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences (code No; 990100).

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.