Predictors of teacher satisfaction with online professional development: evidence from the USA’s e‐Learning for Educators initiative
Abstract
Online professional development (OPD) is proliferating in an effort to eliminate barriers to high‐quality in‐service teacher training. Using the Internet as a vehicle for continuing professional development, however, introduces new concerns largely absent in its face‐to‐face counterpart. For example, evidence from the USA’s e‐Learning for Educators (EfE) initiative suggests that some OPD participants do not complete the online courses in which they enrol. In response to this evidence, the present study (N = 3998) investigates factors associated with teacher satisfaction with OPD via secondary analysis of EfE evaluation data. After considering participant variables, factors examined previously in the e‐learning and professional development satisfaction literatures as well as novel predictors, a blockwise ordinary least squares regression model explains a considerably large share of the variance in participants’ satisfaction with OPD (48.1%). Implications for the design and implementation of OPD and the training of facilitators to increase satisfaction are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Effective learning occurred when the student was dedicated, prepared, self-motivated, had good support, and provided relevant comments that increased participation and quality interaction.
“Effective learning occurred when the student was dedicated, prepared, self-motivated, had good support (Muir et al. 2019), and provided relevant comments that increased participation and quality interaction (Reeves. and Pedulla 2011;Tang and Lam 2014).”
From COVID-19 and teacher education: a literature review of online teaching and learning practices (2020) · cites this paper as Reeves. and Pedulla 2011
Cited by
Sorted by citations
COVID-19 and teacher education: a literature review of online teaching and learning practices
Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020) · European Journal of Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184 · Cited by 1,019 · see citing works
Meyer, A., Kleinknecht, M., & Richter, D. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104805 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
- Authors
- Reeves, T. D., & Pedulla, J. J.
- Affiliations
- Boston College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reeves, Todd D.
- ORCID
- Reeves, Todd D.
- Venue
- Professional Development in Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 591-611
- ISSN
- 1941-5257 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-5265
- OpenAlex
- W1982972873
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 15.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Professional Development in Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Boston College
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Keywords
- online professional development, teacher job satisfaction, continuing teacher education, course completion, online course design, facilitator training, predictors of satisfaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review