Nursing faculty readiness to teach online: a survey of nursing educators from Saudi Arabia and the UK

Abstract

Background

Nursing Faculty’s readiness to teach online has been recognized as a critical prerequisite for effective online teaching.

Aim

To examine the Nursing Faculty’s level of readiness to teach online among a sample of nursing educators from Saudi Arabia and the UK.

Methods

A convenient sample of 152 (46%) Nursing Faculty from five universities across Saudi Arabia and the UK completed Part 2 of The Faculty Readiness to Teach Online (FRTO)’ survey between February – June 2021. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance tests were used to examine the differences in the average median scores of the participants’ responses across selected independent variables.

Results

Nursing Faculty from Saudi Arabia universities have scored significantly higher Median score than their British counterparts on the Course Design subscale (z=-2.6, p = 0.01) and Time Management subscale (z=-4.403, p = 0.001), and Nursing Faculty who completed a training course before they can teach online have also scored significantly higher median score than those who didn’t on the same two subscales respectively (X₂ = 6.15, df = 2, p = 0.05), (X₂ = 12, df = 2, p = 0.002). Female Nursing Faculty scored significantly higher median score than male Nursing Faculty on the Course Communication subscale (z=-2.73,p = 0.006). Moreover, Nursing Faculty who mostly used asynchronous online teaching significantly scored the highest median score on the technical subscale (X₂ = 8.64, df = 3, p = 0.03). The number of years of teaching online emerged as a key factor for defining the Nursing Faculty’s level of readiness to teach online. For example, those Nursing Faculty with 6 years and longer of online teaching experience have scored significantly higher median scores on in Course Communication (X₂ = 23.4, df = 4, p = 0.00), Time Management (X₂ = 13.2, df = 4, p = 0.01) and Technical (X₂ = 10.13, df = 4, p = 0.008) subscales compared with those with less than 6 year of online teaching experience. Nursing Faculty across Saudi and British universities who teach on MSc program have scored significantly higher median scores than those who teach on other programs on all four subscales.

Conclusion

The Nursing Faculty expressed a high level of competency in teaching online, with significant variations based on socio-demographic parameters. Future research needs to examine the factors that shape the Nursing Faculty’s readiness to teach online.

Introduction

The use of online teaching has witnessed a rapid expansion in the last few years, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a significant impact on the student’s and Faculty’s learning and teaching experience, but also on the nurses’ long-term practice. Nurses are increasingly practicing in digitally driven work environments that require complex digital skills and capabilities [1].

Learning Management System (LMS), which is the main platform for delivering online teaching, plays a pivotal role in higher education’s teaching paradigm, and this role has become more critical with the sudden shift to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, where some educational institutions have managed to switch more quickly, and others have shown more resilience when to it came to initiating online teaching whilst maintaining the quality of their teaching to the best possible standards [2]. Choi et al. [3] conducted a study to examine the laboratory and clinical teaching experiences of Korean Nursing Faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nineteen nursing faculty members from different Korean universities participated in 4 focus group interviews. Thematic analysis revealed several themes including Acceptance of change, and preparing for future practice training. The findings confirmed the need and feasibility of non-face-to-face education; hence it is imperative that classes utilizing technology will be actively developed for nurse education. The participants in this study were all females, so the extent of how the gender role has shaped the participants’ views remains unclear.

The Blackboard system has emerged as one of the most widely used LMS in many universities in Saudi Arabia, with 87% of the Saudi universities successfully integrating the Blackboard Learn^® platform into their educational curriculum[4]. Many of these universities have a dedicated Deanship of E-learning which provides substantial support to both Faculty members and students to facilitate the use of the Blackboards platform, and when it comes to utilizing online digital platforms for learning, the nursing students’ access to digital knowledge, skills, and technology is said to be critical for successful delivery and utilization of learning [1]. Equally, however, the role of nursing academic staff, and their pedagogical readiness and performance to teach online, was also reported to be a pre-requisite for effective online teaching[5]. Ibrahim and his colleagues [6] examined Faculty members’ perceptions of using Blackboard in the teaching system at one University in Saudi Arabia. 174 Faculty members from several colleges were invited to complete an online survey (including Nursing Faculty) on their perceived usefulness, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenges toward the use of the Blackboard. The results showed that Faculty members had an overall positive attitude toward the implementation of the Blackboard system, although there was no differential analysis to identify the Nursing Faculty views toward their level of competence in using the Blackboard platform for teaching. The findings stressed the importance of periodically training Faculty members and students on the use of the Blackboard system. In other countries such as the UK, the most frequently used virtual learning environments by higher education institutions are Moodle (51%), Blackboard (20%), and Canvas (19%)[7].

Castro et al. [8] evaluated the nursing educators’ and students’ perspectives on the change in teaching approaches to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional study recruited 120 nursing instructors and 350 nursing students from five higher academic institutions in Saudi Arabia between November and December 2020. The participants were asked to complete the Test of e-Learning Related Attitudes Scale. The findings indicate that both nursing students and Faculty share similar very positive attitudes toward online learning and teaching.

Published evidence from the literature pointed out to the international comparisons among Faculty members on the use of online teaching. Martin et al. [9] investigated Faculty perspectives in the US and Germany regarding their preparedness to teach online. Overall, the US Faculty gave the competencies higher ratings in terms of perceived relevance and self-efficacy than the German Faculty did. Based on factors like gender, training, degree of teaching, and age, there were significant variations in how important the Nursing Faculty thought their competencies were. When it came to self-efficacy, there were big differences in the Faculty’s age, years of experience teaching online, and teaching style (synchronous, asynchronous, or hybrid).

Nursing Faculty are bound to have the relevant digital skills that lead to successful delivery of nursing education. Nashwan et al. [10] pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly brought forth significant difficulties and uncertainty for nursing education, but there is an unequivocal need to adjust to the “new norm” to better prepare the next generation of nurses and nursing students to meet global health challenges. In this context, an international comparison of the Nursing Faculty’s readiness to teach online is likely to provide a significant perspective, and in post COVID-19 era, this knowledge is critical to showcase the diverse approaches to online learning environments, the strengths of these approaches, capacities that some institutions are utilizing and areas which may need further professional development considerations.

Saudi Arabia is undergoing rapid transformation in its health system and education sector. Allmnakrah & Evers [11] reported that Saudi Arabia is one of those nations that implemented Vision 2030 intending to diversify its economy and improve teaching programs. Saudi Arabian Vision 2030 has emphasized the integration of modern technology and digital solutions into most sectors, including health education [12]. With increased demands for well-trained nursing professionals, there is an imminent call for the adoption of more innovative and adaptive teaching methods such as online education to effectively meet such demand. Arguably, the readiness of nursing educators within Saudi Arabia to embrace online teaching methods is critical to inform policies and strategies that can best support this transition in ensuring a high-quality nursing education.

In the context of the UK, adopting online teaching in higher education has also gained momentum in the last two decades, even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Cutri et al. [13] study found that the UK represents a state with an established tradition of online education and a properly developed healthcare system. Having been among the leading countries applying online teaching methods within their institutions of higher education for quite a long time, Henshall et al. [14] argue that UK higher education institutions have built up valuable insights and models that would be effective in implementation. As most of the nursing programs have shifted a portion of their activities online, the UK can be taken as a standard for measuring some of the challenges and successes associated with the subject of online nursing education. Comparison between Saudi Arabia and UK faculty readiness gives insight into the global landscape of online nursing education. It, therefore, opens potential ways for cross-cultural learning and collaboration, hence contributing to universally developing nursing education.

To date, no study has examined the level of readiness for online teaching among Nursing Faculty across both the UK and Saudi Arabia. The current study aims to bridge this gap in the literature.

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to examine the Nursing Faculty’s level of readiness to teach online among a sample of nursing educators from Saudi Arabia and the UK.

Methods

This study adopted a quantitative methodology, using a self-reported and cross-sectional survey design for data collection. The study is broadly reported based on the STROBE Guidelines for reporting observational and cross-sectional studies.

Instrument

The Faculty Readiness to Teach Online (FRTO) instrument [15] was adopted in this study. The FRTO instrument stems from the original theoretical framework which was developed by Martin et al. [15]. and was based on the Health Behavior Change approach [16]. The framework refers to the concept of Readiness as the sum of the interplay of three main drivers: Knowledge, Attitude, and Ability toward online teaching. This instrument is in two parts, each has 32 items that represent competencies in online teaching and are grouped into four dimensions: Course Design, Course Communication, Time Management, and Technical Competence. The items in the two parts are identical, however, the first part asks the participants to rate how important these competencies-related tasks are for online teaching in their opinion (Perception construct), and the second part asks the participants to rate how well they are able to accomplish these competencies-related tasks (ability construct) on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (I cannot do it at all) to 5 (I can do it well). Completing a 64-item survey, in addition to the demographics questions is likely to disengage the participants, particularly with busy professionals like the Nursing Faculty, which may lead to a potentially poor response rate [17]. Therefore, the decision was made to only utilize the second part of the FRTO instrument in this study, which examines the Nursing Faculty’s perceived level of readiness to accomplish the relevant online tasks (ability). The instrument’s psychometric properties have been previously tested and demonstrated excellent validity and reliability measures. Cronbach’s alpha for the second part (i.e., ability construct) was reported to be 0.92 [15]. Eight sociodemographic factors were also added to the instrument: Age, gender, academic rank, delivery method, a program which the Nursing Faculty are teaching on (BSc, MSc, or PhD), years of teaching and years of teaching online, and country of employment. The instrument was pilot-tested on a sample of 20 Nursing Faculty to ensure the readability and understanding of the instrument.

Sampling setting and participants

A Convenience sampling technique was used to recruit eligible Nursing Faculty members across three Colleges/Departments of Nursing in Eastern, Northern and Western Provinces of Saudi Arabia (A, B and C respectively) and two Schools of Nursing from the UK’ Southeast and East of England respectively (D and E). Collectively, these Colleges/Departments employed around 330 Nursing Faculty which represents the sampling frame from which the study’s sample was drawn.

Participants` inclusion criteria included:

1. The Nursing Faculty must be employed by their Nursing College/ Department for at least one year.

2. The Nursing Faculty must have an assigned teaching load for the last year before the study was conducted.

Participants Exclusion criteria:

1. Guest speakers/locum Nursing Faculty and those with occasional/seasonal teaching assignments.

2. Midwifery Faculty.

3. Nursing Faculty with less than one year of employment at the selected Nursing Colleges/Departments.

Recruitment of participants

After securing the ethical approvals and with the permissions of the senior management team from the participating academic institutions, eligible Nursing Faculty were sent an email with an invitation to complete the online survey. A reminder was sent two weeks later to enhance the response rate [18]. The first two sections of the survey provided the participants with a Participant Information Sheet (PIS), a consent form, and the researcher’s contact details. Data collection lasted between February and June 2021.

Ethical issues

The first page of the online survey included the Participants Information Sheets (PIS), which explained the purpose of the study, its voluntary nature, and the likely benefits and potential risks. This was an anonymous online survey and participation was voluntary. Each participant needed to read the first two sections and tick the box for the consent form before proceeding to complete the online survey. The approvals of the Institute Review Boards and Faculty Research Ethics Committees for each of the participating institutions were secured prior to commencing data collection. As the members of the research team and the potential participants were bound to have collegial relationships at work settings, the invitation email was sent by a third party (i.e. Staff administrator) who sits outside the Colleges/Departments of Nursing. This is to minimize any feeling of coercion among the participants to participate in this study, although such feelings may have not been completely neutralized.

Data analysis

Version 28 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics (i.e., Frequencies, means and standard deviations) were used to report the demographic information. Average mean scores for the four subscales (Course Design, Course Communication, Time Management,and Technical Competence) and the overall scores for the faculty “readiness” to teach online were calculated. The datasets were initially analyzed using histograms and Shapiro-Wilk’s test to assess the extent to which the data is normally distributed, which would subsequently inform the decision to choose parametric vs. none-parametric statistical tests to examine any significant differences in average mean scores for the Faculty’s ability to teach online in relation to the sample subgroups [19].

Results

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants in the selected study sample. 152 (46%) participants completed the online survey, 91 (60%) of them were based at universities from Saudi Arabia, and the rest were from the UK (n = 61, 40%). Most of the participants were female (n = 101, 66%), with age range between 30 and 60 years (n = 136, 90%) and mainly teaching BSc nursing students (n = 134, 88.2%). Although the participants had academic teaching experience ranging from 1 to more than 15 years, the majority of them come from middle academic ranks (Lecturer, Senior Lecturer and Assistant Professor) with up to 5 years of prior online teaching experience (n = 118, 77.6%). Combined Asynchronous/ Synchronous online or Hybrid/ Blended teaching were the most two commonly used modes of teaching instructions utilized by the participants (n = 51, 33.6%, n = 65, 42.8%) respectively. The participants indicated that Faculty mentoring and Peer support was the most sought source of support when preparing their online teaching sessions (n = 99, 65.1%). Around 38% (n = 57) of the participants confirmed that they had completed a university-mandated online training before they were able or allowed to teach an online course, while the remaining participants either hadn’t or preferred not to say (n = 95, 62%).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics

Variables demographics		n (%)
Gender
Male		51 (34)
Female		101 (66)
Age
Less than 20 years		0
21–30		10 (6.6)
31–40		45 (29.6)
41–50		55 (36.2)
51–60		36 (23.7)
More than 60 years old		6 (3.9)
Years of teaching
1–5		33 (21.7)
6–10		43 (28.3)
11–15		39 (25.7)
More than 15		35 (23)
Missing		2 (1.3)
Years of teaching online
0		9 (5.9)
1–5		118 (77.6)
6–10		16 (10.5)
11–15		4 (2.6)
More than 15 years		5 (3.3)
Academic Rank
Full Professor		5 (3.3)
Associate Professor		14 (9.2)
Assistant Professor		36 (23.7)
Senior Lecture		44 (28.9)
Lecturer		38 (25)
Demonstrator,  Clinical Skill Tutor  Instructor  Others		15 (9.9)
Which types of support helped you while preparing to teach online? * (Check all that apply)
Professional development workshops / training / webinars		114 (75)
One-on-one consultation with instructional designers		64 (42.1)
Seeking advice from online learning experts		78 (51.3)
Faculty / peer mentoring		99 (65.1)
Accessing web resources or tutorials for teaching online		83 (54.6)
Using instructional videos or other documentation (handbook) on the learning platform		81 (53.3)
Online helpdesk or support		60 (39.5)
Primary Online Method of Teaching
Asynchronous Online.		18 (11.8)
Synchronous Online.		18 (11.8)
Combined (Sync and sync.		51 (33.6)
Hybrid/Blended		65 (42.8)
Face to face.		0
Does your university/college require you to complete an online training before you teach an online course?
Yes		57 (37.5)
No		74 (48.7)
Prefer not to say		21 (13.8)
At what level do you teach? * (Check all that apply)
BSc		134 (88.2)
MSc		73 (48)
PhD		11 (7.2)
University/College
KSA	A	35 (23)
	B	26 (17.1)
	C	31 (20.3)
UK	D	25 (16.4)
	E	35 (23.1)

*These frequencies represent the number of participants who answered Yes from each category. The number is not mutually exclusive (there could be participants who answered yes for every category- such as the level which the participant was teaching: BSc, MSc and PhD)

Table 2 shows the average mean scores for the reported level of online teaching skills among Nursing Faculty from both the Saudi and British Universities. For the Course Design subscale, Nursing Faculty from Saudi universities reported the highest level of readiness for creating online assignments (M = 4.42, SD = 0.76), whereas Organize instructional materials into modules or units was rated highest by Nursing Faculty from British Universities (M = 4.17, SD = 0.7). For the Course Communication subscale, the skills on email to communicate with the learners had the highest level of readiness by Nursing Faculty from both Saudi and British University (M = 4.6, SD = 0.68 and M = 4.63, SD = 0.67 respectively), although Send announcements / email reminders to course participants item was similarly rated the highest by the Nursing Faculty from the British Universities (M = 4.63, SD = 0.58), compared with those Nursing Faculty from Saudi Arabia Universities (M = 4.50, SD = 0.82). In terms of the Time Management subscale, The Nursing Faculty from Saudi universities rated Schedule weekly hours to facilitate the online course as their most ready-to-do skill (M = 4.27, SD = 0.76 ), whereas Nursing Faculty from British universities indicated they are mostly ready to do both using facilitation strategies to manage time spent on course (e.g., discussion board moderators, collective feedback, grading scales) as well as Spend weekly hours to grade assignments (M = 3.92, SD = 0.91 M = 3.92, SD = 0.91 respectively). Finally, Nursing Faculty from both Saudi and British Universities have indicated that they are readily very competent in completing basic computer operations (e.g., creating and editing documents, managing files and folders) skills (M = 4.35, SD = 0.82 and M = 4.62, SD = 0.49). When examining the Cronbach alpha values for each subscale, the table shows very good to excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach Alpha values ranging from 0.88 to 0.91, and 0.84 for the overall scale.

Table 2.

The average mean scores for the reported level of readiness for online teaching among Nursing Faculty from both Saudi and British universities

Variables	Alpha	KSA	UK	Total
Course Design	0.91	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
1. Create an online course orientation (e.g., Introduction, getting started)		4.21 (0.87)	4.10 (0.71)	4.16 (0.81)
2. Write measurable learning objectives		4.21 (0.67)	4.15 (0.66)	4.18 (0.67)
3. Design learning activities that provide students opportunities for interaction (e.g., Discussion forums, wikis).		4.21 (0.88)	4.05 (0.72)	4.24 (0.83)
4. Organize instructional materials into modules or units.		4.02 (0.85)	4.17 (0.7)	4.08 (0.8)
5. Create instructional videos (e.g. lecture video, demonstrations, video tutorials)		3.98 (0.93)	4.02 (0.75)	3.99 (0.086)
6. Use different teaching methods in the online environment (e.g. brainstorming, collaborative activities, discussions, presentations)		4.20 (0.90)	4.05 (0.72)	4.14 (0.8)
7. Create online quizzes and tests		4.42 (0.84)	3.87 (0.95)	4.20 (0.92)
8. Create online assignments		4.43 (0.76)	3.88 (0.89)	4.22 (0.86)
9. Manage grades online		4.35 (0.9)	3.92 (1.03)	4.18 (0.97)
Total:		4.26 (0.68)	4.20 (0.61)	4.16 (0.66)
Course Communication
10. Send announcements / email reminders to course participants	0.90	4.50 (0.82)	4.63 (0.58)	4.55 (0.74)
11. Create and moderate discussion forums		4.28 (0.86)	4.12 (0.85)	4.22 (0.85)
12. Use email to communicate with the learners		4.6 (0.68)	4.63 (0.67)	4.59(0.68)
13. Respond to student questions promptly (e.g. 24 to 48 h)		4.51 (0.75)	4.45 (0.62)	4.49 (0.70)
14. Provide feedback on assignments (e.g. 7 days from submission)		4.41 (0.85)	4.37 (0.74)	4.39 (0.81)
15. Use synchronous web conferencing tools (e.g. Adobe Connect, Webex, Blackboard Collaborate, Skype)		4.37 (0.86)	4.27 (0.63)	4.33 (0.78)
16. Communicate expectations about student behavior (e.g. netiquette)		4.07 (0.85)	4.30 (0.79)	4.16 (0.83)
17. Communicate compliance regarding academic integrity policies		4.16 (0.82)	4.22 (0.67)	4.18 (0.76)
18. Apply copyright law and Fair Use guidelines when using copyrighted materials		4.05 (0.86)	3.93 (0.71)	4.01 (0.80)
19. Apply accessibility policies to accommodate student needs		4.14 (0.83)	3.88 (0.76)	4.04 (0.81)
Total:		4.31 (0.60)	4.28 (0.50)	4.30 (0.56)
Time Management
20. Schedule time to design the course prior to delivery (e.g. a semester before delivery)	0.91	4.16 (0.84)	3.75 (0.84)	4.00 (0.86)
21. Schedule weekly hours to facilitate the online course		4.27 (0.76)	3.90 (0.8)	4.12 (0.8)
22. Use features in Learning Management System in order to manage time (e.g. online grading, rubrics, speed grader, calendar)		4.23 (0.8)	3.70 (0.96)	4.02 (0.90)
23. Use facilitation strategies to manage time spent on course (e.g., discussion board moderators, collective feedback, grading scales)		4.16 (0.87)	3.92 (0.91)	4.12 (0.82)
24. Spend weekly hours to grade assignments		4.25 (0.74)	3.92 (0.91)	4.12 (0.82)
25. Allocate time to learn about new strategies or tools		4.15 (0.81)	3.27 (1.1)	3.80 (1.03)
Total:		4.20 (0.68)	3.71 (0.73)	4.01 (0.74)
Technical
26. Complete basic computer operations (e.g., creating and editing documents, managing files and folders)	0.88	4.35 (0.82)	4.62 (0.49)	4.45 (0.72)
27. Navigate within the course in the Learning Management System (e.g. Moodle, Canvas, Blackboard etc.)		4.15 (0.83)	4.35 (0.58)	4.23 (0.74)
28. Use course roster in the Learning Management System to set up teams/groups		4.03 (0.94)	3.70 (1.01)	3.9 (0.98)
29. Use online collaborative tools (e.g. Google Drive, Dropbox)		4.22 (0.89)	3.90 (0.82)	4.09 (0.87)
30. Create and edit videos (e.g. iMovie, Movie Maker, Kaltura)		3.8 (1.09)	3.43 (1.14)	4.09 (0.87)
31. Share open educational resources (e.g. learning websites, web resources, games and simulations)		4.01 (0.94)	3.80 (0.94)	3.93 (0.94)
32. Access online help desk/resources for assistance		4.16 (0.84)	4.05 (0.68)	4.12 (0.78)
Total:		4.10 (0.71)	3.98 (0.63)	4.10 (0.68)

The differences between the average mean scores for Nursing Faculty’ online teaching skills were examined using selected demographical variables. To decide the most appropriate inferential statistical tests to employ, the assumptions for the parametric vs. non-parametric tests were examined. The independent variables for the four subscales (Course Design, Course Communication, Time Management, and Technical) were tested for normal sample distribution using the Shapiro and Kolmogorov test and all of them showed significant values (p < 0.05), which confirmed that the distributions of the data in these variables were not normal. Visual inspection of the histogram shapes for the above variables also suggested that data representing these variables were not normally distributed, with clustering values clearly evident in the shape of the histogram. Therefore, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine any significant differences in the average median scores for those binary independent variables (i.e., Gender, country and the academic level which each Nursing Faculty was teaching such as BSc, MSc and PhD individually), and Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to compare the differences in the average median scores among variables with more than two groups (i.e. All the remaining demographic variables) [20].

Table 3 Shows the differences between average median scores for the study variables and selected demographic variables. The female nursing instructors have scored significantly higher median score on the Course Communication subscale compared with the male nursing Faculty (z=-2.73,p = 0.006). Moreover, the nursing Faculty from Saudi Arabia universities scored significantly higher median score than their counterparts from British universities on both the Course Design subscale (z=-2.6,p = 0.01) and Time Management subscale (z=-4.403,p = 0.001). Those Faculty with six years and above of online teaching experience have generally scored significantly higher median scores in Course Communication (X₂ = 23.4, df = 4, p = 0.00), Time Management (X₂ = 13.2, df = 4,p = 0.01) and Technical (X₂ = 10.13, df = 4,p = 0.008) subscales compared with those with less than six years of online teaching experience. Across both Saudi and British universities, the nursing Faculty who used asynchronous online-only teaching as their primary teaching method had significantly higher median score on the technical subscale compared with those who used other online teaching methods as their primary ones (X₂ = 8.64, df = 3, p = 0.03). Moreover, those nursing Faculty who were required to complete online training before they could teach online courses have significantly higher median scores than those faculty who didn’t on the Course Design (X₂ = 6.15, df = 2, p = 0.05) and Time Management (X₂ = 12, df = 2, p = 0.002) subscales. Interestingly, nursing Faculty across Saudi and British universities who teach on MSc program have scored consistently higher median scores than those who didn’t on all four subscales. There were no significant differences in the median scores among the nursing Faculty across all four subscales based on their age, academic rank, years of teaching experience, and whether they were teaching on the BSc or PhD programs

Table 3.

The differences in the average mean scores for the study variables and selected demographic variables

		n	Course Design	Course Communication	Time Management	Technical
			Median (Min-Max)	Median (Min-Max)	Median (Min-Max)	Median (Min-Max)
Gender	Male	51	4.1 (1.88- 5)	4.2 (202-5)	4.0 (2.33 -5)	4.1 (2.57–5)
	Female	101	4.13 (1.38–5.0)	4.4 (1.5-5.0)	4.0 (1.0–5.0)	4.0 (1.29–5.0)
	Test Statistics		U = 2491, z=-0.33, p = 0.74	U = 1876, z=-2.73, p = 0.006	U = 7648, z=-0.33, p = 0.74	U = 2497, z=-0.308, p = 0.76
Country	KSA	92	4.4 (1.38-5.0)	4.3 (1.5-5)	4.2 (1.0–5.0)	4.1 (1.29-5)
	UK	60	4.0 (2.38-5.0)	4.25 (2.2-5)	3.8 (1.83-5.0)	4.0 (2.14-5)
	Test Statistics		U = 2083, z=-2.6, p = 0.01	U = 2552, z= -0.78, p = 0.43	U = 1598.5, z=-4.403, p = 0.001	U = 2426.5, z=-1.26, p = 0.21
Age in Years	< 20	0
	21–30	10	4.1 (2.63-5.0)	4.4 (2.2-5.0)	4.4 (2.76-5.0)	4.0 (3.14-5.0)
	31–40	45	4.1 (1.88-5.0)	4.2 (3–5.0)	4.0 (2.83-5.0)	4.1 (2.71-5.0)
	41–50	54	4.1 (1.38-5.0)	4.3 (1.5-5.0)	4.0 (1.5-5.0)	4.0 (1.0–5.0)
	51–60	36	4.1 (2.88-5.0)	4.4 (3.6-5)	4.0 (2.33-5.0)	3.4 (2.14–4.71)
	> 60	6	4.1(2.38-5.0)	4.6 (2.2–4.9)	3.9 (1.0–5.0)	3.36 (2.38–4.9)
	Test Statistics		K = 0.4, X2 = 0.4, df = 4, p = 0.98	K = 2.7, X2 = 2.33, df = 4, p = 0.68	K = 4.41, X2 = 6, df = 4, p = 0.2	K = 5.9, X2 = 3.4, df = 4, p = 0.5
Years of Teaching	0	2	3.75 (3.75)	4.2 (4.1–4.4)	4.3 (3.76–4.83)	4.0 (4.0)
	1–5	33	4.0 (2.63-5)	4.3 (2.2-5.0)	4.3 (2.67-5.0)	4.0 (3.0–5.0)
	6–10	43	4.1 (1.88-5)	4.2 (3.3-5.0)	4.2 (2.83-5.0)	4.0 (2.71-5.0)
	11–15	39	4.4 (2.88-5)	4.4 (3.5-5.0)	4.4 (2.67-5.0)	4.1 (2.57-5.0)
	> 15	35	4.3 (1.38-5)	4.4 (1.5-5.0)	4.4 (1–5.0)	4.0 (1.29-5.0)
	Test Statistics		K = 6.5, X2 = 8.5, df = 4, p = 0.08	K = 1.6, X2 = 1.5, df = 4, p = 0.83	K = 1.14, X2 = 1.67, df = 4,p = 0.78	K = 2.46, X2 = 2.8, df = 4, p = 0.65
Years of Teaching Online	0	9	4.0 (2.33–4.38)	4.4 (3.6–4.7)	3.7 (3.17–4.83)	4.0 (2-4.86)
	1–5	118	4.1 (1.38-5)	4.3 (1.5-5.0)	4.0 (1.0–5.0)	4.0 (1.29-5.0)
	6–10	16	4.9 (3.88-5)	4.6 (3.9-5.0)	4.4 (3.17-5.0)	4.6 (3.14-5.0)
	11–15	4	4.8 (3.88-5)	4.8 (4.3-5.0)	4.6 (4.3-5.0)	4.93 (4.71-5.0)
	> 15	5	4.8 (4.0–5.0)	5 (3.8-5.0)	4.8 (3.8-5.0)	4.6 (4.0-4.86)
	Test Statistics		K = 5.7, X2 = 4.3, df = 4, p = 0.34	K = 9.4, X2 = 23.4, df = 4, p = 0.00	K = 15.3, X2 = 13.2, df = 4,p = 0.01	K = 15.8, X2 = 10.13, df = 4,p = 0.008
Does your university/college require you to complete an online training before you teach an online course?	Yes	57	4.4 (1.88–5.0)	4.5 (2.2-5.0)	4.3 (2.67-5.0)	4.2 (2.71-5.0)
	No	74	4.0 (1.38 -5.0)	4.3 (1.5 -5.0)	3.8 (1.0–5.0)	4.0 (1.29-5.0)
	Prefer not to say	21	4.1 (3.0–5.0)	4.2 (3.0–5.0)	4.0 (3.0–5.0)	4.0 (2.86-5.0)
	Test Statistics		K = 6.0, X2 = 6.15, df = 2, p = 0.05	K = 2.8, X2 = 2.4, df = 2, p = 0.3	K = 19, X2 = 12, df = 2, p = 0.002	K = 5.2, X2 = 3.8, df = 2, p = 0.15
Academic Rank	Full Professor	5	3.8 (2.38–4.75)	3.0 (2.2–4.2)	4.0 (2.0–4.83)	3.4 (2.14–4.86)
	Asso. Professor	14	4.6 (3.38- 5)	4.3 (3.8–5.0)	4.2 (2.33–5.0)	4.3 (2.86-5)
	Assis.Professor	36	4.6 (1.38- 5)	4.7 (1.5–5.0)	4.4 (1.0–5.0)	4.3 (1.29-5)
	Senior Lecture	44	4.0 (2.88- 5)	4.2 (3.3–5.0)	3.8 (1.83–5.0)	4.0 (2.71-5)
	Lecturer	38	4.1 (1.88–5)	4.3 (3.75–5.0)	4.0 (2.67–5.0)	4.0 (2.57-5)
	Demonstrator Clinical Skill Tutor Instructor Others	15	4.0 (1.38-5.0)	4.0 (1.5–5.0)	4.0 (1.0–5.0)	4.0 (1.29–5.0)
	Test Statistics		K = 2.88, X2 = 2.55, df = 4, p = 0.64	K = 5.50, X2 = 2.44, df = 4, p = 0.66	K = 2.04, X2 = 1.60, df = 4,p = 0.81	K = 6.01, X2 = 3.88, df = 4,p = 0.42
Primary Online Method of Teaching	Asynch Online.	18	4.3 (2.88–5)	4.7 (3.4-5)	4.5 (2.57- 5)	4.7 (2.57-5)
	Synch Online.	18	4.4 (2.38–5)	4.3 (2.2-5)	4.08 (3.5-5)	3.9 (2.14-5)
	Combined (Sync & sync)	51	4.3 (1.38-5)	4.5 (1.5-5)	4.0 (1–5)	4.0 (1–5)
	Hybrid/ Blended	65	4.0 (1.88–5)	4.2 (2.2-5)	4.0 (1.83-5)	4.0 (1.83-5)
	Face to Face	0	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
	Test Statistics		K = 5, X2 = 2.6, df = 3, p = 0.46	K = 4.7, X2 = 6.9, df = 3, p = 0.75	K = 5.5, X2 = 1.9, df = 3, p = 0.6	K = 11, X2 = 8.64, df = 3, p = 0.03
At what level do you teach: (BSc)	Yes	18	4.2 (1.38 -5)	4.4 (1.5-5)	4.0 (3.33-5)	4.0 (1.29-5)
	No	134	4.0 (2.88–5)	4.2 (3.2-5)	4.0 (1–5)	4.0 (3.14-5)
	Test Statistics		U = 983, z= -1.27, p = 0.2	U = 1111, z= -1.38, p = 0.17	U = 1327 z= -0.29, p = 0.77	U = 10,237 z= -0.08, p = 0.94
At what level do you teach: (MSc)	Yes	73	4.3 (2.38-5.0)	4.4 (2.2-5.0)	4.2 (1.83-5.0)	4.3 (2.14-5.0)
	No	79	4.0 (1.38-5.0)	4.2 (1.5-5.0)	4.0 (1.0–5.0)	4.0 (1.29-5.0)
	Test Statistics		U = 338, z= -2.02, p = 0.04	U = 5432, z= -2.2, p = 0.024	U = 2343, z= -2.00, p = 0.04	U = 2263, z= -2.30, p = 0.02
At what level do you teach: (PhD)	Yes	11	4.0 (2.38-5.0)	4.0 (2.2-5.0)	4.0 (2.0–5.0)	4.0 (2.14-5.0)
	No	141	4.1 (1.38-5.0)	4.4 (1.5-5.0)	4.0 (1.0–5.0)	4.0 (1.29-4.0)
	Test Statistics		U = 667, z= -0.78, p = 0.4	U = 514, z= -1.86, p = 0.06	U = 734, z= -0.29, p = 0.77	U = 657, z= -0.84, p = 0.4

Discussion

The aim of this study is to examine the Nursing Faculty’s level of readiness to teach online among a sample of nursing educators from Saudi Arabia and the UK, and to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study which provides insight from those two countries. Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 era was associated with many challenges in nursing education and for the higher education sector in general, but it has equally brought in sizeable opportunities for future online teaching within the academic community.

The findings from this study highlighted the current trend in the adoption of communication styles in the digital teaching approach. In the current study, the Female Nursing Faculty scored higher on the Communication subscale than the Male Nursing Faculty, implying that they employ better communication skills when managing the students via the e-learning platform. This is in line with previous evidence from the literature which confirms that female academic tends to employ a superior communication skill toward students in higher education [21]. But more widely, female care providers tend to exploit opportunities to express communication empathy more frequently when presented with such opportunities than their male counterparts [22]. This reinforces the perception that females in general lean toward employing more positive communication skills when managing individuals and teams, including in academic settings and elsewhere.

The findings suggest that Nursing Faculty across Saudi and British Universities have overall scored high on Course Design and Time Management subscale. Recent studies have confirmed that effective course design has a positive impact on the actual use of the e-learning system in higher educational institutions, including in Saudi Arabian universities [23]. Nursing Faculty from Saudi Arabia universities scored significantly higher on those two subscales compared with their British counterparts. This outlines the substantial level of competency that Nursing Faculty from Saudi universities have arguably achieved in terms of improving their digital skills in course design and managing their time during online teaching effectively, given the fact that most Saudi Universities are considered emerging ones compared with more well-established British universities.

The number of years of teaching online was found to be a key factor when it comes to evaluating the readiness of Nursing Faculty to teach online while having prior training courses in online teaching was influential for the Course Design and Time Management subscales. These findings support earlier published evidence in the literature which generally accepts that the length of Faculty experience in online teaching plays a significant role in the educator’s level of competency in online learning outcomes [24, 25]. In nursing education, prior experience with digital literacy and online teaching was also found to be a strong predictor for providing successful online teaching by Nursing Faculty [26]. On the other hand, the literature shows mixed evidence on the true impact of providing the required e-learning training and instructional support on the level of online teaching competency and quality of online teaching among Nursing Faculty, where some argue for its benefits [27, 28]. Others were more doubtful [26]. Further research is needed to ascertain whether this is context-bound, demographics-related, or applies to overall Nursing Faculty across the board.

The ability to deliver Asynchronous and Synchronous teaching remains a critical skill for Nursing Faculty and the wider academic community. Collectively, both help the Nursing Faculty to address and manage challenges related to the course materials and class access. Online teaching is predominantly delivered using asynchronous methods [29]. Nursing Faculty and students alike are bound to develop more technical competency in asynchronous online teaching as it is more frequently used as a teaching method, although previous evidence suggests that this may not necessarily have an impact on the students’ academic performance and that pre-licensure nursing students can – for example- learn essential didactic contents using synchronized and asynchronized online teaching [30, 31]. Unlike undergraduate nursing education which is said to focus heavily on the theoretical part of learning, the postgraduate study offers a more self-directed learning style. Thus, the Nursing Faculty may be better prepared to engage in a postgraduate student learning experience with its flexible attributes and consequently develop better competency in the long term [32]. Yeung et al. 2023). Postgraduate nursing students were also found to be better prepared for the Pedagogical Shift from face-to-face to online [33], though more research is needed to examine if this is more unique to the master or the more research-intensive PhD programs.

Limitations

The Nursing Faculty was selected using a convenient sampling approach, which limits the generalisability to other settings. Also, the study relied on the Faculty’s self-assessment of their readiness to teach online, which may have elements of subjectivity with the subsequent implications on the actual level of readiness. The study, however, offered an important insight into a contemporary educational issue that is likely to contribute to future debate on embedding online teaching in nursing education.

Implications for the study

The study has important implications for practice. The number of years of experience in teaching online emerged as a critical factor for determining the level of readiness to teach online; academic institutions must therefore start to draw plans to invest in training the Nursing Faculty in online teaching, via both structured training or unstructured, informal one which help to build a critical mass of Nursing Faculty who are competent in teaching online. Parallel investment in the e-learning infrastructure is also imperative to make such levels of readiness more sustainable.The COVID-19 era has renewed the interest in online teaching in nursing education. Moreover, this international perspective on the Nursing Faculty’s level of readiness to teach online provides impetus toward benchmarking the skills and competencies that nursing faculty should strive to acquire, either via formal or informal training, to ensure the delivery of effective online nursing education. It is crucial that Nursing Faculty, students, and other stakeholders, are consulted when defining what skills and competencies are required for future, post-COVID-19 online nursing education.

Conclusion

This research explored the level of readiness to teach online among a selected sample of Nursing Faculty from two countries: Saudi Arabia and the UK. Whilst Nursing Faculty have overall expressed a high level of skills and readiness to teach online, there were some significant differences based on gender, countries where they are based, and the use of Asynchronous vs. synchronous online teaching. Future research needs to consider the empirical testing of those factors in post the COVID-19 era, and their actual impact on the students’ learning experience. Policymakers and nursing academic educational leaders should consider those factors when planning future formal and informal training to improve the Nursing Faculty’s readiness to teach online. Previous years of experience in online teaching emerged as a strong factor in shaping the nursing faculty’s level of readiness to teach online. Any prospective initiative to uplift the skills of online teaching among Nursing Faculty may include a peer learning system where those Nursing Faculty with significant years of online teaching can mentor and support less experienced peers.

Author contributions

Conceptualization (MM). Methodology/ Design (MM, NA, AH, HA, RS). Data Collection (MM, NA, AH, HA, RS, FA, SM). Formal analysis (MM, NA, AH, HA, RS, FA, SM). Original draft Writing (MM, SM). Draft Review, Editing, and Approval of the final manuscript (MM, NA, AH, HA, RS, FA, SM).

Funding

None

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, and subject to the approval of the relevant Research Ethics Committees. Request can be made to the corresponding author Dr. Mansour Manasour. Contact email: mansour.mansour@actvet.gov.ae.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Each participant needed to read the first two sections and tick the box for the consent form before proceeding to complete the online survey, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Research Ethical approvals have been secured from the following Ethical Committees for each research site: 1) Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University – Saudi Arabia: Approval No: IRB-2021-04-108. 2) Al Jouf University – Saudi Arabia: Approval No. HAP-13-S-001. 3) Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences – Saudi Arabia- IRB approval No: 195/IRB/2021. 4) University of Bedfordshire, Institute for Health Research Ethics Committee -UK: Approval No. IHREC967. 5) Anglia Ruskin University Research Ethics Committee- Approval no. NM-SREP-20-05. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations (e.g. in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki).

Consent for publication

N/A

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.