P-ISSN: 2808-5957
E-ISSN: 2808-6724
ijoms.internationaljournallabs.com
2014
ASSESSING THE ONLINE TEACHING READINESS COMPETENCIES
AMONG THE COLLEGE FACULTY OF ADVENTIST MEDICAL
CENTER
Junge B. Guillena
Faculty, General Education Department, Adventist Medical Center College Iligan, Philippines
jun28guillena@gmail.com
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Published: November 30
th
,
2022
This study aimed to determine the readiness competencies for online
teaching and the confidence to teach online among the college faculty in
Adventist Medical Center College (AMCC) Iligan for the Academic Year
2020-2021. This study utilized a cross-sectional research design with forty-
one (41) sampled Adventist Medical Center College (AMCC) voluntarily
participating. Results indicated that the faculty rated very important and
more confident in creating quizzes and tests and online assignments but
noticeably scored low in creating instructional videos and managing grades
online. Demographic profiles like age, gender, the department assigned,
and years of teaching experience have no significant effect on the level of
importance of online teaching competencies and their confidence to teach
online. Thus, the result signified that the perceived assessment of the faculty
on the importance of the online teaching competencies and their ability to
conduct online were comparable across their characteristics.
Keywords: faculty readiness,
online teaching, importance,
confidence, demographic profiles
This work is licensed under CC
BY-SA 4.0
INTRODUCTION
Teaching online classes is a unique experience from teaching in a physical classroom setting.
The knowledge and abilities established for teaching physical courses are not enough preparation
for teaching online courses (Yang, 2017). In a desperate shifting of face-to-face classes to online
classes, no prerequisite standards exist for online instruction teachers to exhibit mastery of the
online teaching standards nor any other criteria related to best practice online instruction. Hence,
several teachers currently teaching online may not demonstrate vital skills and knowledge
associated with the best method of online teaching (Watson et al., 2004; Douglas, 2011). Even
though the Filipinos are among the top users of the Internet worldwide, the poor or even worst
internet connection in the country sham heavy challenges in the adoption of online instruction and
the lack of preparation of the instructors to conduct online classes (Moralista & Oducado, 2020).
Evaluating the professional competencies of the faculty members in holding online learning is one
of the most challenging aspects of successfully online learning implementation (Housmandi et al.,
2019; Lopes, 2019).
The study of Moralista and Oducado (2020) revealed that most faculty perceived themselves
to have intermediate competency in using the computer. Teachers in Turkey had medium computer
literacy (Konan, 2010). Within the local context, there is still a need to improve and enhance the
level of competency of teachers in specific skills like using complex Information, Communication,
and Technology (ICT) tools (Marcial & de la Rama, 2015). Parker (2017) revealed that College
Success Courses online would benefit counseling faculty professional development in online
curriculum training in three primary areas: course enrichment, course material, and pedagogical
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2015 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
practices. The study of Bailie (2006) showed that the faculty and students both agreed that
proficiency in communication skills, interpersonal skills, knowledge of course content, and
organization and planning skills are essential to effective distance education instruction.
In AMCC, it is even harder to teach allied health sciences or professional sciences courses
with laboratory units completely for online classes since these courses require hands-on activities
or live demonstrations. Thus, this study purposely aimed to determine the readiness competencies
for online teaching among the faculty in AMCC for the academic year 2020-2021. It also aimed
to investigate whether there are or no significant differences in the online teaching readiness
competencies and confidence among the faculty when grouped to their age, gender, the department
assigned, and years of teaching experience.
METHOD
This study utilized a cross-sectional design. It is a cross-sectional design since the study
period took place during the whole month of March 2021. An online survey questionnaire
transmitted in the google form was administered to the participants. Forty-one (41) college and
high school faculty of Adventist Medical Center College (AMCC) voluntarily participated in the
current study. Faculty who had a regular or contractual employment status in the college were
considered through a non-probability convenience sampling procedure. An online google form
link was distributed to them to simply respond to the survey at their most convenient time with no
rewards or consequences of taking the survey.
Survey questionnaire was divided into two parts: the first part consisted of the demographic
profiles of the respondents, and the second part detailed the online teaching readiness
competencies of the respondents. The first part presented the demographic profiles relative to age,
gender, the department assigned, and years of teaching experience. A survey on online teaching
readiness competencies adapted from Martin, Budhrani, and Wang (2019) was presented in the
second part. This instrument consisted of four components: course design, course communication,
time management, and technical competence. This questionnaire is a Likert-type instrument with
five choices ranging from 1 to 5, relating the importance and confidence of the faculty in online
teaching readiness. The author tested the reliability of this instrument and found out that the
Cronbach's alpha for all items for importance was 0.93 and for confidence was 0.94. The
Cronbach's alpha for the components was above 0.70, which was considered highly reliable.
Data collection was initiated once the researcher provided a consent letter form to the target
respondents of the study, the college, and the high school faculty. The survey questionnaire was
encoded in the google form and sent the link to the respondents' personal Facebook messenger.
The respondents can access the form for nearly a month, and after the allotted time given, no more
responses are accepted. All fields provided in the form were mandatory to fill in except for their
names.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic profiles and the level of online
teaching readiness competencies of the respondents (i.e., frequency and count, mean, median, and
standard deviation). One-way ANOVA was used to investigate the differences in the respondents'
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2016 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
online teaching readiness when grouped to age and years of teaching experience. Also, an
independent T-test was used to examine the differences in the respondents' online teaching
readiness competencies when grouped to gender and department assigned. The result is considered
significant if the p-value is less than or equal to a 0.05 level of significance.
Two important notions concerning the limitations of the current study. First, the study
considered only a small sample with a low response rate and a single study locale, reducing its
ability to generalize the findings to a larger group of faculty. Second, the limitation of a self-
reported survey may have resulted in response bias since self-report or perception surveys depend
heavily on the respondents' honesty.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the statistical analysis results and discusses the results with
incorporation of various previous studies cited related to the current research. The sequence of
presentations was based on the objectives of the study.
Table 1. Demographic Profiles of the Respondents (n=41)
Demographic Profiles
n
%
Mean
(SD)
Median
(Mode)
Minimum
(Maximum)
Age (in years)
22-29
30-39
40-49
50-63
12
12
11
6
29.3
29.3
26.8
14.6
37.32
(10.32)
37 (26)
22 (63)
Gender
Female
Male
27
14
65.9
34.1
Department Assigned
High School
College
13
28
31.7
68.3
Years of Teaching experience
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-26
21
12
3
4
1
51.2
29.3
7.3
9.8
2.4
6.94 (5.00)
5.00 (2.00)
< 1 (26)
Table 1 depicted that 24 or 58.6% of the faculty had 39 years of age, and 17 or 41.4%
belonged to 40-63 years of age. The mean age of the sampled faculty was 37.32 years, and the SD
of 10.32 years. Nearly two-thirds of the faculty were female, and most responses came from the
college department. Nearly half (51.2%) of the faculty had five years of teaching experience, and
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2017 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
almost 20% of them have more than a decade of teaching experience. A higher proportion of
faculty (80.5%) had teaching experience of a decade or less, whereas the lowest years of teaching
experience recorded was less than a year. Nearly two-thirds of the decade was the mean years of
teaching experience among the faculty in AMCC.
Table 2. Descriptive Results on the Importance and Confidence on Online Teaching
Competencies
Online Teaching Competencies
Importance
Confidence
A. Course Design
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
1. Create an online orientation (e.g. introduction, getting
started)
4.95
0.22
4.10
0.92
2. Write measurable learning objectives.
4.80
0.40
3.98
0.72
3. Design learning activities that provide students
opportunities for interaction (e.g. discussion forums, oral
participation)
4.68
0.61
3.95
0.86
4. Organize instructional materials into modules or units.
4.66
0.57
3.93
0.85
5. Create instructional videos (lecture video,
demonstrations, video tutorials).
4.56
0.67
3.59
1.02
6. Use different teaching methods in the online environment
(brainstorming, collaborative activities, discussions,
presentations).
4.59
0.59
3.88
0.98
7. Create quizzes and tests.
4.85
0.36
4.46
0.71
8. Create online assignments.
4.56
0.63
4.39
0.77
9. Manage grade online.
4.56
0.74
3.85
0.99
Total
4.69
0.30
4.01
0.72
B. Course Communication
10. Send announcements/email reminders to course
participants.
4.76
0.43
4.51
0.81
11. Create and moderate discussion forums.
4.41
0.67
4.00
0.89
12. Use email to communicate with the learners.
4.22
0.94
4.34
0.79
13. Respond to student questions promptly (24 to 48 hours).
4.41
0.81
4.32
0.85
14. Provide feedback on assignments (e.g. 7 days from
submission).
4.34
0.69
3.95
0.89
15. Use synchronous web conferencing tools (e.g. google
meet, zoom).
4.85
0.36
4.51
0.95
16. Communicate expectations about student behavior (e.g.
netiquette).
4.66
0.53
4.22
0.91
17. Communicate compliance regarding academic integrity
policies.
4.83
0.38
4.22
0.88
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2018 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
18. Apply copyright law and Fair Use guidelines when using
copyrighted materials.
4.59
0.63
3.98
0.85
19. Apply accessibility policies to accommodate student
needs.
4.71
0.51
4.24
0.80
Total
4.58
0.37
4.23
0.65
C. Time Management
20. Schedule time to design the course prior to delivery (e.g.
semester before delivery).
4.71
0.51
4.12
0.84
21. Schedule weekly hours to facilitate the online course.
4.73
0.45
4.22
0.91
22. Use features in Learning Management System in order
to manage time (e.g. online grading, rubrics, speedgrader,
calendar).
4.80
0.40
4.02
0.85
23. Use facilitation strategies to manage time spent on the
course (e.g. discussion board moderators, collective
feedback, grading scales).
4.56
0.63
3.98
0.85
24. Spend weekly hours to grade assignments.
4.44
0.71
4.10
0.92
25. Allocate time to learn about new strategies or tools.
4.76
0.43
4.12
0.93
Total
4.67
0.36
4.09
0.75
D. Technical Competence
26. Complete basic computer operations (e.g. files and
folder management, document creation and editing).
4.78
0.47
4.22
0.94
27. Navigate within the course in the Learning management
system (solid, google classroom, Moodle).
4.85
0.42
4.17
0.95
28. Use online collaborative tools (e.g. google Drive).
4.76
0.49
4.41
0.74
29. Create and edit videos (e.g. iMovie, Movie Maker).
4.22
0.88
3.66
1.02
30. Share open educational resources (e.g., learning
websites, web resources, games, and simulations).
4.71
0.51
4.10
0.97
Total
4.66
0.36
4.11
0.81
Table 2 displays the descriptive results on the importance and confidence of the faculty in
online teaching competencies. In the course design, creating an online orientation, e.g.,
introduction, getting started (M=4.95, SD=0.22), and completing quizzes and tests (M=4.85,
SD=0.36) were rated very important. The faculty considered creating an online orientation
significant for the students in an online learning class. Mensch (2017) stated a need for online
exposure for the students to know the dynamics of an online class and understand what the teachers
will expect from them as online learners could enhance their success within the course. Berge
(2001) also supported the result that there is some orientation for new online learners. The faculty
were rated confident in creating quizzes and tests (M=4.46, SD=0.71) and creating online
assignments (M=4.39, SD=0.77) but noticeably scored low in creating instructional videos, e.g.,
lecture videos, demonstrations, or video tutorials (M=3.59, SD=1.02). Faculty responded that they
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2019 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
could perform better in creating quizzes, tests, and online assignments in their online course. When
the faculty is equipped with knowledge of designing or creating online quizzes, tests, or tasks, that
could help the students keep interested, engaged, and motivated in an online class (Pollanen, 2007;
Vang et al., 2020). But the faculty have an average observable ability in creating instructional
videos for their students. Jayaratne and Moore (2017) revealed that creating instructional videos
was very helpful and preferred instructional activities for the students to learn online. Also,
Robertson and Flowers (2020) showed in their study that lecture or instructional video with
PowerPoint was the most effective study aid for the students.
For the course communication, using synchronous web conferencing tools, e.g., google meet
or zoom (M=4.85, SD=0.36) and communicating compliance regarding academic integrity
policies (M=4.83, SD=0.38) were rated very important. The faculty believed that synchronous
web conferencing, such as using google meet or zoom, is essential for communicating with
students in an online class. They also believed in the importance of academic integrity policies in
an online course. Due to the shifting of physical class set-up to an online class, synchronous
learning environments provide interactive learning experiences for students (Stephens & Mottet,
2008; Skylar, 2009). Thus, the teachers preferred fast and easy access to new scientific and
educational resources. They would use information and communication technology to facilitate
the teaching and learning process (Houshmandi, et al., 2019). In the case of confidence construct,
sending announcements or email reminders to course participants (M=4.51, SD=0.81) and using
synchronous web conferencing tools, e.g., google meet or zoom (M=4.51, SD=0.95), were
evaluated very confident by the faculty. The faculty perceived that they could perform well in
sending announcements or emails to their students and were skillful in using synchronous web
conferencing tools. Faculty who frequently communicate with students via notification or email
were essential online competencies. The current learning management system like Moodle,
Edmodo, and Google classroom has the features to email and send regular announcements to
online students. Sending regular announcement or emails to the student can help them updates the
online and improve the teacher-learner interaction (Palloff & Pratt, 2011; Eskey & Schulte, 2010;
Vang, Martin & Wang, 2020). The faculty rated high for using synchronous web conferencing
tools both for importance and confidence. Faculty believed that online teaching is heavily
dependent on synchronous web conferencing with the students. This result is supported by Stephen
and Mottet (2008) and Skylar (2009) that the advantages of synchronous learning modality include
real-time sharing of knowledge and learning and direct access to the teacher to ask queries and
receive feedback.
As to time management, use the learning management system features to manage time, e.g.,
online grading, rubrics, or calendar (M=4.80, SD=0.40), and allocate time to learn about new
strategies or tools (M=4.76, SD=0.43) were responded very important. Faculty perceived the
importance of using the different features in the learning management system and allocating time
to learn new strategies or tools in online teaching. Learning management systems (e.g., Moodle)
offered personalized teaching course designing with several resources and activities available.
Faculty can create classes with interactive features like embedded video, audio, animation, games,
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2020 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
and images, which provide several types of learning stimulations for their students with diverse
learning preferences and styles (Kumari, 2016). The faculty established new time management
skills when teaching online compared to traditional teaching (Levitch & Milheim, 2003). They
need more time spent on course preparation and administration (Sheridan, 2006) and the faculty's
concentration on time management when preparing to teach an online class (Jackowski & Akryod,
2010; Vang, Martin & Wang, 2020). For confidence, schedule weekly hours to facilitate the online
course (M=4.22, SD=0.91), schedule time to design the course before delivery, e.g., a semester
before delivery (M=4.12, SD=0.84), and allocate time to learn about new strategies or tools
(M=4.12, SD=0.93) were rated confident by the faculty. On their confidence to teach online, the
faculty responded that they could perform satisfactorily in scheduling weekly hours to facilitate
the online course, schedule time to design the course prior to delivery, and allocate time to learn
about new strategies or tools. It was evident that the faculty had enough time given to facilitate
and manage their weekly online course (Sheridan, 2006) and somehow learn new strategies,
teaching skills, and practices to accommodate the changing needs of the students in the online
class (Barrett, 2010).
For the technical competence, navigating within the course in the learning management
system such as Solid, Google Classroom, or Moodle (M=4.85, SD=0.42) and completing basic
computer operations (M=4.78, SD=0.47) were considered very important. With the advent of
online teaching, the faculty felt the importance of technical competencies such as navigating within
the course in the learning management system and being skillful in basic computer operations. The
faculty still regarded other technical competencies highlighted in the indicators as highly
important, except for creating and editing videos that they considered necessary (or with the lowest
mean score). Vang et al. (2020) supported the finding in their study that navigating within the
learning management system and completing basic computer operations were the competencies
that the faculty rated as very important. As fundamental consideration, the faculty should be
capable of efficiently and effectively applying the technology as necessary in teaching an online
class (Gay, 2016).
As to confidence, using online collaborative tools such as Google Drive (M=4.41, SD=0.74)
and completing basic computer operations like files and folder management, document creation,
and editing (M=4.22, SD=0.94) were rated confident. The faculty manifested that they are good
at using online collaborative tools and completing basic computer operations in teaching an online
course.
Table 3. Differences of Assessment of the Importance of Online Teaching Competencies by
Their Demographic Profiles
Demographic Profiles
Level of Importance
F-value
(t-value)
P-value
n
Mean
SD
Age (in years)
22-29
30-39
12
12
4.71
4.56
0.19
0.30
1.200
0.323
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2021 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
40-49
50-63
11
6
4.74
4.54
0.36
0.31
Gender
Female
Male
27
14
4.63
4.68
0.33
0.21
(-0.523)
0.604
Department Assigned
High School
College
13
28
4.64
4.66
0.28
0.31
(-0.175)
0.862
Years of Teaching experience
0-5
6-10
≥ 11
21
12
8
4.64
4.61
4.73
0.29
0.34
0.25
0.424
0.657
Note: All p-values exceeds 0.05 level is considered not significant
Table 3 shows the differences in assessing the importance of online teaching competencies
by their demographic profiles. The faculty viewed the importance of online teaching competencies
comparably with their age (F=1.200, p=0.323). Younger faculty (aged 22-29 years) and middle-
aged faculty (40-49 years old) have shown similar assessments of the importance of online
teaching competencies. Both male and female faculty perceived the same weight on the online
teaching competencies (t=-0.523, p=0.604). The faculty assessed the online teaching
competencies as highly important (t=-0.175, p=0.862), and novice faculty (0-5 years of service)
and experienced faculty (more than 11 years) responded as highly important on the given
competencies for online teaching (F=0.424, p=0.657). These results suggested that the
demographic profiles of the faculty have no significant effect on the variation of the importance
of online teaching competencies.
Table 4. Differences of Assessment of the Confidence to Teach Online by Their Demographic
Profiles
Demographic Profiles
Level of Confidence
F-value
(t-value)
P-value
n
Mean
SD
Age (in years)
22-29
30-39
40-49
50-63
12
12
11
6
4.18
4.07
4.11
4.05
0.44
0.62
1.06
0.43
0.066
0.978
Gender
Female
Male
27
14
4.05
4.23
0.72
0.62
(-0.811)
0.422
Department Assigned
High School
13
4.05
0.82
(-0.388)
0.700
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2022 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
College
28
4.14
0.62
Years of Teaching experience
0-5
6-10
≥ 11
21
12
8
4.12
4.06
4.15
0.77
0.76
0.22
0.045
0.956
Note: All p-values exceeds 0.05 level is considered not significant
Table 4 presents the differences in assessing the confidence to teach online among the faculty
by their demographic profiles. The faculty level of confidence to teach online was not significantly
differed by their age (F=0.066, p=0.978), gender (t=-0.811, p=0.422), department assigned (t=-
0.388, p=0.700) and years of teaching experience (F=0.045, p=0.956). Faculty who belong to 22-
29 years of age have comparable confidence levels to teach online as with that faculty with age
classified as 40-63 years old. Further, male and female faculty manifested similar confidence in
teaching an online class and whether they belonged to high school or college departments. Novice
teachers (0-5 years of experience) have the same level of confidence or self-efficacy in teaching
an online class as that experienced faculty. This result revealed that demographic profiles have no
significant effect on the faculty's level of confidence to teach online.
CONCLUSION
This study is concerned with determining the importance of the online teaching competencies
and the confidence to teach online among the faculty members in AMCC. Results revealed that
the faculty rated very important and more confident in creating quizzes, tests, and online
assignments but noticeably scored low in creating instructional videos and managing grades
online. In the case of course communication, the faculty have high regard for using synchronous
web conferencing and communication compliance regarding academic integrity policies but rated
a little lower on using email to communicate with the learners. Sending updated announcements
emailed to the students can enhance the teacher-learner interaction. In the case of time
management, the result depicted that the faculty rated it very important to use features in the
learning management system to manage time and have enough time to learn new strategies for
online teaching. This result suggested that the faculty can create courses with interactive features
which provide several types of teaching stimulations for their students with varied learning
preferences and styles. In terms of their ability, the result revealed that the faculty had scheduled
weekly hours to facilitate the online course and scheduled time to design the period before delivery.
For the case of technical competence, the faculty perceived the importance of navigating within
the course in the learning management system and basic computer operations. The faculty
considered these technical competencies highly important for teaching an online class. They are
highly capable of using online collaborative tools like Google drive and are skillful in basic
computer operations as necessary ingredients in teaching an online course. Demographic profiles
like age, gender, the department assigned, and years of teaching experience have no significant
effect on the level of importance of online teaching competencies and their confidence to teach
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2023 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
online. This result signified that the perceived assessment of the faculty on the importance of the
online teaching competencies and their ability to conduct online were comparable across their
characteristics.
REFERENCE
Al-Salman, S. M. (2011). Faculty in online learning programs: Competencies and Barriers to
Success. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 1(4), 6.
Bailie, J. L. (2006). Effective distance education competencies as perceived by online university
faculty and students (Order No. 3406623). ProQuest Central. (275907126).
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-
Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Barrett, B. (2010). Virtual teaching and strategies: Transitioning from teaching traditional classes
to online classes. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(12), 17-20.
Berge, Z. (ed.) (2001). Sustaining Distance Training. Jossey-Bass.
Chang, T.S., Lin, H.H., & Song, M.M. (2011). University faculty members’ perceptions of their
teaching efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 49-60.
Coppola, N. W., Starr, R. H., Rotter, N. G. (2014). Becoming a Virtual Professor: Pedagogical
Roles and Asynchronous Learning Networks. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(4), 169-189. doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045703
Douglas, J. A. (2011). Competency for quality online teaching (Order No. 3459455). ProQuest
Central. (875240837).
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
doi:10.1007/BF02504683
Eskey, M. T., & Schulte, M. (2010). What online college students say about online instructors and
what do online faculty members say about online instruction: A comparison of attitudes.
Journal of Online Education, 1-20.
Houshmandi, S., Rezaei, E., Hatami, J., & Molaei, B. (2019). E-learning readiness among faculty
members of medical sciences universities and provide strategies to improve it. Res Dev Med
Educ, 8(2), 105-112. doi: 10.15171/rdme.2019.020
Gay, G. H., & E. (2016). An assessment of online instructor e-learning readiness before, during,
and after course delivery. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(2), 199-220.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9115-z
Jackowski, M. B., & Akroyd, D. (2010). Technology usage among community college faculty.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(8), 624-644.
Jayaratne, K S U & Moore, G. (2017). Perceptions of college students toward online classes:
Implications for teaching online 1. NACTA Journal, Twin Falls, 61(4), 304-309.
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2024 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
Kumari, S. (2016). Personalised, flexible and blended learning features of moodle-
LMS. Educational Quest, 7(1), 53-56. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2230-
7311.2016.00018.0
Konan, N. (2010). Computer literacy levels of teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,
2(2), 2567-2571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.374
Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological
pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web.
Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21. doi:10.1007/s11251008-9075-4
Levitch, S., & Milheim, W. D. (2003). Transitioning instructor skills to the virtual classroom.
Educational Technology, 43(2), 42-46.
Lichoro, D. M. (2015). Faculty preparedness for transition to teaching online courses in the iowa
community college online consortium (Order No. 3712611). ProQuest Central.
(1706912454).
Lopes CT (2019). Evaluating e-learning readiness in a health sciences higher education
institution. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
summary?doi=10.1.1.508.8049.
Marcial, D.E., & de la Rama, P.A. (2015). ICT competency level of teacher education
professionals in the entral Visayas Region, Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research, 3(5), 28-38.
Martin, F., Budhrani, K., & Wang, C. (2019). Examining faculty perception of their readiness to
teach online. Online Learning, 23(3), 97-119. doi: 10.24059/olj.v23i3.1555
Mensch, S. (2017). Improving distance education through student online orientation classes.
Global educational Journal, 2017(1), 1-6.
Moralista, R. B., & Oducado, R. M. (2020). Faculty Perception Toward Online Education in a
State College in the Philippines during the Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) Pandemic.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(10), 4736-4742. doi:
10.13189/ujer.2020.081044.
Oliver, K., Osborne, J., & Brady, K. (2009). What are secondary students’ expectations for
teachers in virtual school’s environments? Distance Education, 30(1), 23-45.
doi:10.1080/01587910902845923
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2011). The excellent online instructor: Strategies for professional
development. Jossey-Bass.
Parker, L. (2017). Counseling faculty perceptions of challenges and benefits of online college
success courses in california community colleges (Order No. 10689198). ProQuest Central.
(1983962100).
Pollanen, M. (2007). Improving learner motivation with online assignments. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 203-213.
Pressey, B. (2013). Comparative analysis of national teacher surveys. The Joan Ganz Cooney
Center at Sesame Workshop.
Assessing the Online Teaching Readiness Competencies Among the College Faculty of Adventist
Medical Center
2025 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 2 ) , N o v ,
2022
Robertson, B. & Flowers, M. J. (2020). Determining the impact of lecture videos on student
outcomes. Learning and Teaching, Oxford, 13(2), 25-40. doi: 10.3167/latiss.2020.130203
Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Sheridan, R. (2006). Reducing the online instructor’s workload. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(3),
65-67.
Shie, R., Gummer, E., & Niess, M. (2008). The quality of a web-based course: perspectives of the
instructor in the students. TechTrends, 52(6), 61-68.
Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous
interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69-84.
Stephens, K. K., & Mottet, T. P. (2008). Interactivity in a web conference training context: Effects
on trainers and trainees. Communication Education, 57(1), 88-104.
Vang, K., Martin, F., & Wang, C. (2020). Examining community college faculty perceptions of
their preparedness to teach online. Journal of Applied Research in the Community
College, 27(1), 45-63.
Watson, J.F., Wmograd, K., & Kalmon, S. (2004). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning A
snapshot of state-level policy and practice. Learning Point Associates.
Yang, D. (2017). Instructional strategies and course design for teaching statistics online:
perspectives from online students. International Journal of STEM education, 34(4). doi:
10.1186/s40594-017-0096-x
Yang, Y., & Cornelius, L. (2005) Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. Online
Journal of distance learning administration, 8(1).
