
==== Front
J Educ Health Promot
J Educ Health Promot
JEHP
J Edu Health Promot
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
2277-9531
2319-6440
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow India

JEHP-13-241
10.4103/jehp.jehp_49_24
Original Article
A comparative study of readiness and confidence in online teaching among faculty members in health and non-health colleges within the United Arab Emirates
Mosleh Sultan M. 12
Kasasbeh Mohammed A. 3
Alrimawi Intima 4
Sawalha Murad A. 5
Elshatarat Rami A. 6
Saifan Ahmad R. 7
Azizeh Saed 1
Yacoub Mohammed I. 8
Eltayeb Mudathir M. 9
Mohamed Nermen A. 9
1 Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Science, Higher Colleges of Technology, Fujairah, United Arab Emirates
2 Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Mutah University, Karak, Jordan
3 Department of Allied Medical Sciences, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Jordan University of Sciences and Technology, Jordan
4 Department of Nursing, School of Nursing, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., United State of America
5 Department of Maternal, Child and Family Health Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan
6 Department of Medical and Surgical Nursing, College of Nursing, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia
7 Faculty of Nursing, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan
8 Department of Clinical Nursing, School of Nursing, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
9 Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, College of Nursing, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, AlKharj, Saudi Arabia
Address for correspondence: Dr. Mudathir M. Eltayeb, Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, College of Nursing, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, AlKharj, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: m.mohamedahmed@psau.edu.sa
2024
11 7 2024
13 24109 1 2024
05 3 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Education and Health Promotion
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
INTRODUCTION:

This study explores and compares the levels of readiness and confidence among faculty members in health and non-health colleges regarding online teaching in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The study adopted a cross-sectional research design and utilized a comprehensive survey instrument. A convenience sampling method was employed to enlist 412 faculty members from varied academic disciplines, comprising 278 from non-health programs and 134 from health programs. These participants offered valuable insights into their levels of preparedness and confidence for engaging in online teaching.

RESULTS:

The study uncovered nuanced differences in readiness and confidence levels between health and non-health colleges regarding online teaching preparedness. Significant gender-based variations were found, with female participants in health colleges reporting lower readiness (mean = 4.13) and confidence (mean = 4.11) compared to their counterparts in non-health colleges (mean = 4.43; mean = 4.52) (out of 5) (P < 0.05). Male participants in non-health colleges demonstrated higher readiness and confidence (P < 0.05). Academic rank and teaching experience (>5 years) positively influenced readiness and confidence (P < 0.05). Marital status, spouse working status, and years teaching online showed no significant differences. Teaching multiple online courses before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly enhanced readiness and confidence (P < 0.05). Professional development before and during the COVID-19 pandemic did not yield significant differences.

CONCLUSION:

The study contributes to the existing literature on online education, offering valuable insights into the specific challenges and opportunities faced by faculty in health and non-health colleges. The results inform decision-making processes for educational institutions and policymakers in the UAE, emphasizing the evolving global landscape of online teaching.

Faculty confidence
faculty readiness
health colleges
online teaching
United Arab Emirates
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

In recent years, higher education has undergone significant transformations globally, accelerated by the challenges posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.[12] The United Arab Emirates (UAE), committed to education, has substantially shifted toward online teaching, with faculty readiness and confidence influencing the success of this pedagogical shift.[34] Simultaneously, higher education institutions worldwide are transitioning to online teaching, necessitating faculty to swiftly adapt teaching materials and technologies.[15] However, this rapid transformation has led to disparities in faculty preparedness. Willingness to adopt online teaching is associated with the quality of teaching, emphasizing faculty experience’s impact on the effectiveness of online education.[16] The expeditious shift to online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about faculty preparedness and the quality of online course content.[78]

The unique sociocultural and educational context of the UAE adds complexity to the exploration, seeking to shed light on specific challenges and opportunities in online teaching readiness.[34] The faculty’s competency in using tools for online learning is identified as a critical aspect, with the demand for educational technology surging during the early stages of the pandemic.[491011]

Employing a cross-sectional research design, the study captures a momentary snapshot of faculty perceptions through a comprehensive survey instrument. Anticipated findings aim to contribute to the literature on online education and offer actionable insights for educational institutions and policymakers globally.[41213] The study at hand delves into the intricate dynamics of faculty readiness and confidence in online teaching in the UAE, aiming to unravel nuanced variations across academic disciplines and institutional settings. Readiness, encompassing competencies in various aspects of online teaching, is considered crucial for a successful transition.[13913]

The significance of the study lies in its potential to inform decision-making processes in the UAE and beyond, emphasizing the evolving global educational landscape.[3131415] This cross-sectional research design, utilizing a robust methodology, is expected to provide valuable insights into the unique challenges faced by faculty in the UAE, guiding targeted strategies to enhance online teaching readiness. Therefore, this research was conducted to examine faculty perspectives on competence, readiness, and satisfaction with teaching platforms in the UAE, especially during the ongoing pandemic, intending to assess the ongoing challenges of online instruction.[3161718]

This study aims to delve into the multifaceted aspects of faculty engagement in online teaching within the UAE. The primary objective was to gain a thorough understanding of participants’ teaching experiences, exposure, and practices related to online courses. By examining faculty members’ readiness and confidence, the research aims to contribute nuanced insights into the landscape of online pedagogy in both health and non-health programs. The specific objectives of this study were as follows: 1) identify participants’ teaching experience, exposure, and practice of online courses; 2) identify readiness and confidence levels for online teaching between health and non-health colleges in the UAE; and 3) explore any significant differences in readiness and confidence based on demographic and professional characteristics among faculty members in health and non-health colleges.

The theoretical framework that guides this study revolves around the concept of readiness to teach online. This readiness is defined by two fundamental constructs: the faculty’s attitude toward the importance of online teaching and their perceived ability to teach online confidently.[19] Within this framework, the study focuses on four integral domains that collectively contribute to understanding faculty readiness for online teaching.[19]

In the first domain, course design, the study examines the faculty’s capacity to develop a well-structured online version of course objectives. This includes considerations for content, activities, assessments, and interaction components. The goal is to understand the faculty’s proficiency in effectively translating traditional course elements into formats suitable for online learning. The second domain, course communication, explores the faculty’s interpersonal interaction with students within the context of online courses. Effective communication in virtual environments is deemed crucial for fostering engagement, understanding, and creating a positive learning experience for students. Within the scope of this study, the third domain is time management. This aspect relates to the faculty’s ability to redesign course objectives, content, activities, and assessments in a manner that accommodates various lifestyle commitments. The study addresses the challenges and strategies associated with balancing online teaching responsibilities alongside other professional and personal obligations. The fourth domain, digital technology, revolves around the faculty’s knowledge and skills in utilizing technology and appropriate pedagogical methods in the online classroom. This encompasses a diverse range of digital tools and platforms that are considered essential for effective online instruction.[19]

By delving into these four domains, the study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of faculty readiness for online teaching. The multifaceted dimensions of course design, communication, time management, and technological proficiency, as outlined by Martin et al. in 2019, are considered in the exploration of faculty preparedness for the online teaching environment.[19]

Materials and Methods

Study design and setting

This research adopted a cross-sectional study design to investigate faculty readiness and satisfaction with online teaching in the UAE. The primary objective was to assess the current state of preparedness for online pedagogy among faculty members across various academic disciplines and institutions in multiple regions of the UAE.

Study participants and sampling

A convenience sampling approach was employed to recruit a total of 412 faculty members, with 278 from non-health colleges and 134 from health colleges. The study aimed to investigate readiness for online pedagogy by distributing an online survey link to potential participants from diverse academic backgrounds across health and non-health colleges. Initial invitations were sent electronically, providing an overview of the study’s objectives and ensuring confidentiality.

The study focused on faculty members responsible for teaching undergraduate programs at the Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), spanning 17 campuses across various regions in the UAE. Preceding the pandemic, HCT had actively implemented professional development initiatives to enhance online teaching practices, integrating Internet resources into educational methodologies, particularly emphasizing blended and online teaching approaches. Invitations to participate were extended to faculty members from eight distinct programs via the HCT research email network.

Inclusion criteria encompassed faculty members across different academic ranks, including full-time professors, associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers, instructors, and adjunct faculty members. These participants were actively engaged in delivering online courses and instruction for both theoretical and practical subjects before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study’s sample represented a diverse range of academic disciplines within non-health programs, including Business, Computer Information Science, Engineering Technology and Science, General Academic, as well as other fields, such as Applied Media, Education, Military, and Security. Similarly, health college programs comprised divisions, such as Nursing and Allied Health, which included specialties, such as medical imaging, emergency medical services, medical laboratory, and pharmacy.

A rigorous power analysis was conducted employing G-Power software to ascertain the minimum necessary sample size, resulting in an estimated effective sample size of 382 participants. This analysis adhered to predefined parameters, including an alpha value of 0.05, a power of 80%, a moderate effect size of 0.30, and employed a t-test analysis with a two-sided approach. Of the 463 eligible faculty members invited to participate, an impressive 412 completed the survey, reflecting a robust engagement rate. The study’s methodology adopted a convenience sampling strategy, ultimately achieving a commendable final response rate of 89%.

Data collection

The study aimed to gain comprehensive insights into the preparedness of online pedagogy among faculty members. An online survey link was distributed to potential participants, encompassing faculty from diverse academic backgrounds in both health and non-health colleges. Initial invitations were electronically sent, accompanied by a detailed explanation of the study’s objectives and significance, ensuring participants’ understanding and commitment. Confidentiality and anonymity of responses were guaranteed to foster open and honest feedback.

To optimize participation, a follow-up strategy comprising three reminder emails per week was implemented, emphasizing the voluntary nature of involvement. The survey instrument covered various domains, including course design, communication, time management, and technical competence, with the primary goal of understanding faculty perceptions and confidence levels in online teaching.

Data collection occurred over a 2-month period from August 1, 2020, to November 30, 2020, conducted through an online platform. Study questionnaires were distributed via email, facilitated by HCT’s Information Technology Unit, which provided a targeted list of faculty email addresses. This approach ensured efficient outreach to intended participants, enabling the collection of comprehensive and relevant data for the study.

Instruments

The survey instrument employed in this study consisted of two primary sections. The first section focused on gathering demographic data, along with information about participants’ online teaching experience, working hours, and course development experience. This comprehensive set of information aimed to provide a detailed context for understanding the participants’ backgrounds and expertise in online teaching.

The survey’s second section featured the Faculty Readiness and Competency to Teach Online (FRTO) scale, encompassing a total of 32 items.[20] These items were strategically divided into three main concepts: competence, attitude, and ability. Within the competence section, participants were tasked with rating the importance of each item concerning online teaching, alongside providing a self-assessment of their own ability to execute these tasks. This section further consisted of four distinct subscales, namely course design (nine items), course communication (10 items), time management (six items), and technical competence (seven items). In the attitude section of the FRTO scale, respondents were prompted to rate the importance of competencies using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important). Simultaneously, the ability section required participants to gauge their own ability to accomplish the specified tasks, employing a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (I cannot do it at all) to 5 (I can do it well). This scale was adapted from the work of Martin et al.(2019)[19] and was instrumental in assessing faculty members’ readiness and competency levels in the context of online teaching.[20]

To ensure the reliability of the instrument, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for both readiness and competency overall. The results indicated a high level of internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.86 for readiness and 0.89 for competency, underscoring the reliability and robustness of the survey instrument used in this study.

Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations played a crucial role in this study, underscoring the voluntary nature of participation and safeguarding the anonymity of personal data. Approval for the research was diligently obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at HCT, aligning with the ethical guidelines outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments.[21]

Throughout the study, strict adherence to ethical guidelines was maintained, and participants were provided with detailed informed consent information. This documentation covered the research’s purpose, the voluntary aspect of participation, and the confidentiality assured for their responses. Participants were transparently informed about the voluntary nature of their involvement, and before participating, online written informed consent was secured from each individual engaged in the study. A username and password system was instituted to enhance privacy and maintain anonymity, with access restricted solely to the research team. These measures were implemented to fortify the ethical integrity of the study, ensuring the prioritization of participants’ rights and the confidentiality of their contributions throughout the research process.[21]

Data analysis

All data underwent comprehensive statistical analysis using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 23). Quantitative data obtained from the survey responses underwent rigorous statistical scrutiny. Frequency analysis, including frequency and percentage calculations, was employed to analyze participants’ demographics and teaching characteristics. Descriptive statistics, incorporating means and standard deviations (SD), were computed to concisely summarize faculty readiness and confidence scores across various domains.

For comparative analyses, t-test analyses were employed to discern significant differences in readiness and confidence among participants in health programs and non-health programs. Additionally, t-test analyses were conducted to identify significant differences in perceived readiness and confidence levels based on participants’ characteristics within health programs and non-health programs. A P value of < 0.05 was deemed statistically significant for all analyses, ensuring a rigorous and comprehensive examination of the data.

Results

The participant demographics and teaching characteristics highlight key aspects of the faculty involved in the study on online course readiness in the UAE. Among the 412 participants, 58.3% were male, with a slightly higher proportion in non-health colleges (60.4% vs. 53.7% in health colleges). The majority (80.6%) were married, with similar distributions across both college types. Academic ranks varied, with a notable presence of assistant professors, lecturers, and instructors. Most instructors were from health colleges (38.8%). The study encompassed diverse academic divisions, with general academic and engineering technology and science programs prominent in non-health colleges, and nursing and allied health programs in health colleges. In terms of teaching experience, a significant portion (73.1%) had 05 years of experience, with a higher percentage in non-health colleges (83.8%). A majority (83.9%) had 03 years of experience in online teaching, indicating recent integration. While 57.7% did not teach online in Fall/2019, 43.9% taught more than three online courses in Spring/2020, signifying increased engagement. Before the pandemic, 27.4% engaged in over 15 hours of professional development, with a notable increase during the pandemic, especially in health colleges, reflecting a proactive response to evolving educational needs [Table 1].

Table 1 Participants’ demographics and teaching characteristics

Participants’ characteristics	Total participants (n=412) n (%)	Non-health colleges (n=278) n (%)	Health colleges (n=134) n (%)	
Gender (male)	240 (58.3%)	168 (60.4%)	72 (53.7%)	
Marital status (has been married)	332 (80.6%)	226 (81.3%)	106 (79.1%)	
Spouse working status (no) (n=332)	145 (43.7%)	93 (41.2%)	52 (49.1%)	
Academic rank	
   Professor/associate professor	17 (4.1%)	13 (4.7%)	4 (2.9%)	
   Assistant professor	128 (30.6%)	98 (35.3%)	28 (20.9%)	
   Lecturer	159 (38.6%)	109 (39.3%)	50 (37.3%)	
   Instructor	110 (26.7%)	58 (20.8%)	52 (38.8%)	
Division/speciality of not health programs	
   Business program	34 (12.2%)	
   Computer Information Science program	22 (7.9%)	
   Engineering Technology and Science program	62 (22.3%)	
   General Academic program	88 (31.7%)	
   Others (Applied Media, Education, Military, and Security)	72 (25.9%)	
Division/speciality of health college programs	
   Nursing program			92 (68.7%)	
   Allied Health program (medical imaging, emergency medical services, medical laboratory, pharmacy, etc.)			42 (31.3%)	
Experience of teaching	
   0–5 years	301 (73.1%)	233 (83.8%)	68 (50.7%)	
   6–10 years	57 (13.8%)	30 (10.8%)	27 (20.1%)	
   11–15 years	24 (5.8%)	7 (2.5%)	17 (12.7%)	
   More than 15	30 (7.3%)	8 (2.9%)	22 (16.4%)	
Experience of online teaching	
   0–3 years	345 (83.9%)	233 (83.9%)	112 (83.6%)	
   4–6 years	44 (10.7%)	30 (10.8%)	14 (10.4%)	
   7–10 years	11 (2.7%)	7 (2.5%)	4 (3.0%)	
   More than ten years	12 (2.9%)	8 (2.9%)	4 (3.0%)	
A number of online courses were taught during the previous semester (Fall/2019)	
   None	235 (57.7%)	158 (56.8%)	77 (57.5%)	
   One	37 (9.0%)	25 (9%)	12 (9.0%)	
   Two	37 (9.0%)	20 (7.2%)	17 (12.7%)	
   Three	23 (5.6%)	16 (5.8%)	7 (5.2%)	
   More than three	80 (19.4%)	59 (21.2%)	21 (15.7%)	
A number of online courses were taught during current semester (Spring/2020)	
   None	11 (2.3%)	7 (2.5%)	4 (3.0%)	
   One	52 (12.6%)	31 (11.4%)	21 (16.2%)	
   Two	104 (25.2%)	59 (21.8%)	45 (34.6%)	
   Three	64 (15.5%)	47 (17.3%)	17 (13.1%)	
   More than three	181 (43.9%)	134 (43.1%)	47 (36.2%)	
Professional development hours on online teaching before the announcement of the pandemic (before February 2022) **	
   None	41 (10.0%)	27 (9.7%)	14 (10.4%)	
   1–3 hours	71 (17.2%)	57 (20.5%)	32 (23.9%)	
   4–9 hours	110 (26.7%)	78 (28.1%)	32 (23.9%)	
   10–15 hours	59 (14.3%)	38 (13.7%)	21 (15.7%)	
   More than 15 hours	113 (27.4%)	78 (28.1%)	35 (26.1%)	
Professional development hours on online teaching during the pandemic period (after February 2022)	
   1–3 hours	90 (21.8%)	13 (4.7%)	77 (57.5%)	
   4–9 hours	98 (23.8%)	69 (24.8%)	29 (21.7%)	
   10–15 hours	80 (19.4%)	73 (26.3%)	7 (5.2%)	
   More than 15 hours	143 (34.7%)	123 (44.2%)	21 (15.7%)	
** Professional development includes: courses, seminars, workshops, and conferences

Table 2 provides a comprehensive overview of faculty members’ readiness and confidence in various aspects of online teaching. In terms of course design domain, in non-health colleges, faculty members displayed a high level of readiness (M = 4.41 ± 0.57) and confidence (M = 4.33 ± 0.61) in course design, while in health colleges, the mean readiness and confidence were slightly lower (M = 4.02 ± 0.83; M = 4.0 ± 0.81, respectively). Specific indicators, such as creating an online course orientation, delivering measurable learning objectives, and organizing instructional materials into modules, received high scores across both college types. However, there is a noticeable difference in confidence levels between non-health and health colleges, with health college faculty members expressing slightly lower confidence in creating instructional videos and using various teaching methods online. In terms of course communication domain, faculty members in non-health colleges demonstrated high readiness (M = 4.50 ± 0.53) and confidence (M = 4.58 ± 0.52) in course communication, surpassing their counterparts in health colleges (M = 3.95 ± 0.84; M = 3.93 ± 0.81, respectively). Sending announcements and email reminders, responding promptly to student questions, and using synchronous web-conferencing tools received high scores across both college types. However, there is a notable difference in confidence levels related to creating and moderating discussion forums, with non-health college faculty members expressing higher confidence in these areas compared to their counterparts in health colleges. In terms of time management domain, faculty members in non-health colleges also exhibited moderate readiness (M = 3.68 ± 0.50) and confidence (M = 3.56 ± 0.59) in time management, while health college faculty members reported slightly higher levels of readiness (M = 3.69 ± 0.79) and confidence (M = 3.67 ± 0.81). Notable differences include scheduling time to facilitate online courses and using features in the learning management system to manage time, where nom-health college faculty members demonstrated higher readiness and confidence. Health college faculty members expressed lower confidence in scheduling weekly hours to facilitate online courses and using facilitation strategies to manage time spent on the course. In terms of technical competence domain, both non-health and health college faculty members exhibited a high level of readiness (M = 4.33 ± 0.63; M = 3.98 ± 0.81, respectively) and confidence (M = 4.37 ± 0.70; M = 4.01 ± 0.83, respectively) in technical competence, with slightly higher scores in non-health colleges. Navigating within the course in the learning management system, using a course roster to set up teams/groups, and accessing online help desk/resources for assistance received high scores across both college types. However, there is a noticeable difference in confidence levels related to creating and editing videos, where non-health college faculty members demonstrated higher confidence compared to their counterparts in health colleges.

Table 2 Faculty Members’ Readiness and Confidence for Online Teaching

Category	Non-health colleges	Health colleges	
Readiness (Attitude) Mean (SD)	Confidence (Ability) Mean (SD)	Readiness (Attitude) Mean (SD)	Confidence (Ability) Mean (SD)	
Course design	4.41 (0.57)	4.33 (0.61)	4.02 (0.83)	4.0 (0.81)	
   1. Create an online course orientation (e.g., introduction, getting started)	4.37 (0.87)	4.31 (0.79)	3.95 (0.81)	3.93 (0.79)	
   2. Deliver the measurable learning objectives	4.48 (0.75)	4.33 (0.80)	4.03 (0.87)	4.01 (0.85)	
   3. Design learning activities that provide student opportunities for interaction (e.g., discussion forums)	4.42 (0.76)	4.15 (0.85)	4.09 (0.81)	4.07 (0.79)	
   4. Organize the traditional instructional materials into modules or units using an online platform	4.27 (0.88)	4.20 (0.90)	4.16 (0.86)	4.14 (0.83)	
   5. Create instructional videos (e.g., lecture video, demonstrations, video tutorials)	4.03 (1.0)	3.90 (1.03)	4.03 (0.8)	4 (0.77)	
   6. Use different teaching methods in the online environment (e.g., brainstorming, presentations)	4.46 (0.72)	4.29 (0.80)	3.9 (0.85)	3.88 (0.82)	
   7.online quizzes and tests	4.52 (0.73)	4.53 (0.74)	3.95 (0.81)	3.93 (0.78)	
   8. Create online assignments	4.54 (0.68)	4.57 (0.71)	4.03 (0.89)	4.02 (0.83)	
   9. Manage grades online	4.65 (0.62)	4.64 (0.70)	4.05 (0.82)	4.04 (0.81)	
Course communication	4.50 (0.53)	4.58 (0.52)	3.95 (0.84)	3.93 (0.81)	
   1. Send announcements/email reminders to course participants	4.57 (0.72)	4.74 (0.57)	4.19 (0.83)	4.18 (0.82)	
   2. Create and moderate discussion forums	3.89 (1.02)	4.14 (0.93)	3.77 (0.84)	3.78 (0.83)	
   3. Use email to communicate with the learners	4.51 (0.75)	4.73 (0.62)	4.02 (0.92)	4.03 (0.85)	
   4. Respond to student questions promptly (e.g., 24 to 48 hours)	4.63 (0.68)	4.72 (0.60)	3.69 (0.84)	3.7 (0.85)	
   5. Provide feedback on assignments (e.g., 7 days from submission)	4.58 (0.65)	4.64 (0.64)	3.98 (0.85)	3.99 (0.86)	
   6. Use synchronous web-conferencing tools (e.g., Blackboard Collaborate, Zoom)	4.68 (0.60)	4.75 (0.55)	4.01 (0.84)	3.98 (0.85)	
   7. Communicate compliance regarding academic integrity policies and procedures	4.57 (0.67)	4.54 (0.76)	4.13 (0.96)	4.21 (0.97)	
   8. Apply accessibility policies to accommodate student needs	4.50 (0.722)	4.31 (0.92)	3.93 (0.83)	3.9 (0.84)	
Time management	3.68 (0.50)	3.56 (0.59)	3.69 (0.79)	3.67 (0.81)	
   1. Schedule time to design the course before delivery (e.g., a semester before delivery)	4.48 (0.82)	4.21 (0.96)	3.94 (0.87)	3.91 (0.88)	
   2. Schedule weekly hours to facilitate the online course	4.53 (0.73)	4.38 (0.84)	3.63 (0.77)	3.6 (0.78)	
   3. Use features in the learning management system to manage time (e.g., online grading, rubrics, SpeedGrader, calendar)	4.39 (0.76)	4.20 (0.88)	3.51 (0.84)	3.48 (0.85)	
   4. Use facilitation strategies to manage time spent on course (e.g., collective feedback, grading scales)	4.20 (0.87)	4.10 (0.93)	3.78 (0.86)	3.75 (0.85)	
   5. Spend appropriate time to grade assignments	4.52 (0.70)	4.42 (0.77)	3.71 (0.81)	3.68 (0.8)	
   6. Allocate time to learn about new strategies or tools	4.47 (0.71)	4.24 (0.93)	3.9 (0.79)	3.87 (0.78)	
Technical competence	4.33 (0.63)	4.37 (0.70)	3.98 (0.81)	4.01 (0.83)	
   1. Navigate within the course in the learning management system (e.g., Moodle, Canvas, and Blackboard)	4.55 (0.68)	4.49 (0.77)	3.96 (0.83)	3.71 (0.81)	
   2. Use a course roster in the learning management system to set up teams/groups	4.20 (0.87)	4.13 (0.95)	3.99 (0.82)	4 (0.82)	
   3. Use online collaborative tools (e.g., Google Drive and Dropbox)	4.18 (0.91)	4.16 (0.99)	4.01 (0.79)	4.03 (0.81)	
   4. Create and edit videos (e.g., iMovie and Movie Maker)	3.99 (1.08)	3.94 (1.20)	3.91 (0.74)	4.05 (0.83)	
   5. Share open educational resources (e.g., learning websites, Web resources, games, and simulations)	4.27 (0.76)	4.24 (0.90)	4.19 (0.83)	3.95 (0.8)	
   6. Access online help desk/resources for assistance	4.44 (0.67)	4.41 (0.76)	3.77 (0.84)	3.96 (0.84)	
Note: Mean values are out of 5

The t-test analysis in Table 3 aimed to pinpoint significant variances in readiness and confidence levels among faculty members in health and non-health programs across various sub-scale items. In terms of course design, a significant difference was observed in the readiness (attitude) of faculty members between non-health colleges (M = 4.41, SD = 0.57) and health colleges (M = 4.02, SD = 0.83), with a P value of 0.02. Similarly, a significant difference in confidence (ability) was found, with non-health college faculty members scoring higher (M = 4.33, SD = 0.61) than their counterparts in health colleges (M = 4.0, SD = 0.81) and a P value of 0.03. These findings suggest that faculty members in non-health colleges exhibit a higher readiness and confidence in course design compared to those in health colleges. For course communication, significant differences were observed in both readiness (attitude) and confidence (ability) between non-health and health colleges. Non-health college faculty members scored higher in readiness (M = 4.50, SD = 0.53) and confidence (M = 4.58, SD = 0.52) compared to their counterparts in health colleges (M = 3.95, SD = 0.84; M = 3.93, SD = 0.81, respectively), with P values below 0.001. This indicates that faculty members in non-health colleges have a significantly more positive attitude and higher confidence in course communication compared to those in health colleges. In the domain of time management, no significant differences were observed in either readiness (attitude) or confidence (ability) between non-health and health colleges. Both groups demonstrated similar levels of readiness (M = 3.68, SD = 0.50 for non-health colleges; M = 3.69, SD = 0.79 for health colleges) and confidence (M = 3.56, SD = 0.59 for non-health colleges; M = 3.67, SD = 0.81 for health colleges), with P values of 0.92 and 0.69, respectively. This suggests that faculty members in both types of colleges perceive similar levels of readiness and confidence in time management. In the technical competence domain, a significant difference was found in the readiness (attitude) of faculty members, with non-health college faculty members scoring higher (M = 4.33, SD = 0.63) than those in health colleges (M = 3.98, SD = 0.81), and a P value of 0.04. Additionally, a significant difference was observed in confidence (ability), with non-health college faculty members (M = 4.37, SD = 0.70) scoring higher than their counterparts in health colleges (M = 4.01, SD = 0.83), and a P value of 0.03. Overall, the t-test analysis in Table 3 highlights nuanced differences in readiness and confidence among faculty in health and non-health colleges. Notably, those in non-health programs show higher levels, emphasizing tailored support for effective teaching practices.

Table 3 T-Test Results for Readiness and Confidence in Health and Non-Health Programs

Sub-scale items	Non-health colleges	Health colleges	P*	
Course design	
   Readiness (attitude) (mean (SD) out of 5)	4.41 (±0.57)	4.02 (0.83)	0.02	
   Confidence (ability) (mean (SD) out of 5)	4.33 (±0.61)	4.0 (0.81)	0.03	
P	
Course communication	
   Readiness (attitude) (mean (SD) out of 5)	4.50 (±0.53)	3.95 (0.84)	<0.001	
   Confidence (ability) (mean (SD) out of 5)	4.58 (±0.52)	3.93 (0.81)	<0.001	
P	
Time management	
   Readiness (attitude) (mean (SD) out of 5)	3.68 (±0.50)	3.69 (0.79)	0.92	
   Confidence (ability) (mean (SD) out of 5)	3.56 (±0.59)	3.67 (0.81)	0.69	
P	
Technical competence	
   Readiness (attitude) (mean (SD) out of 5)	4.33 (±0.63)	3.98 (0.81)	0.04	
   Confidence (ability) (mean (SD) out of 5)	4.37 (±0.70)	4.01 (0.83)	0.03	
P	
Note: Mean values are out of 5. *Significant P value for t-test (<0.05) is bold

Table 4 aims to identify differences in readiness and confidence among participants in health and non-health programs based on demographic and professional traits. Noteworthy, gender-based differences emerged in both readiness and confidence levels within both participant groups, encompassing both health and non-health colleges. The computed P values stood at 0.001 for readiness and 0.045 for confidence among female participants in health colleges, and 0.002 for readiness and 0.04 for confidence among male participants in non-health colleges, all underscoring statistically significant differences. Furthermore, female faculty members in non-health colleges demonstrated heightened levels of readiness (M = 4.43, SD = 0.61) and confidence (M = 4.52, SD = 0.55) in contrast to their counterparts in health colleges (M = 4.13, SD = 0.65 for readiness; M = 4.11, SD = 0.68 for confidence). A similar pattern was observed among male faculty members, who also exhibited elevated readiness and confidence levels in non-health colleges. Moreover, significant disparities were observed based on academic rank, with faculty members holding higher ranks (assistant/associate professor or professor) in both non-health and health colleges reporting higher levels of readiness and confidence compared to their counterparts with lower ranks (lecturer or instructor). The calculated P values were less than 0.05, signifying significant differences. The number of years of teaching experience contributed to significant differences, with faculty members possessing more than 5 years of teaching experience exhibiting higher levels of readiness and confidence in both non-health and health colleges. The P values were less than 0.05, indicating statistical significance. No significant differences were identified based on marital status, with both single and married faculty members in both types of colleges reporting similar levels of readiness and confidence, as reflected in P values above the 0.05 threshold. Similarly, spouse working status did not yield significant differences in either readiness or confidence levels among participants in health and non-health colleges. Faculty members, regardless of their spouse’s working status, expressed comparable perceptions in both domains. Also, no significant differences were identified based on the number of years teaching online. Faculty members, regardless of their experience in online teaching, conveyed similar perceptions in both domains. Significant variations were observed based on the number of online courses taught before the pandemic. Faculty members who had taught more than one online course reported significantly higher levels of readiness and confidence in both non-health and health colleges. However, significant differences were found based on the number of online courses taught during the pandemic, with faculty members who taught more than three online courses displaying significantly higher levels of readiness and confidence in both non-health and health colleges. No significant differences were found based on the amount of professional development before the pandemic. Faculty members, regardless of their professional development hours, expressed similar perceptions in both domains. Similarly, no significant differences were observed based on the amount of professional development during the pandemic. Faculty members, irrespective of their professional development hours, demonstrated similar perceptions in both non-health and health colleges. Overall, the t-test analysis in Table 4 reveals nuanced patterns in readiness and confidence levels among faculty, highlighting the significance of demographic and professional factors in tailoring support for online teaching across health and non-health colleges.

Table 4 T-Test Results for Differences in Readiness and Confidence within Health Programs Based on Participants’ Characteristics

Variables	Non-health colleges	Health colleges	
Readiness	Confidence	Readiness	Confidence	
Gender	
   Female	4.43 (0.61)	4.52 (0.55)	4.13 (0.65)	4.11 (0.68)	
   Male	4.56 (0.47)	4.66 (0.46)	4.39 (0.56)	4.29 (0.73)	
   P*	0.001	0.045	0.002	0.04	
Marital status	
   Single	4.50 (0.49)	4.26 (0.63)	4.30 (0.56)	4.17 (0.83)	
   Has been married	4.39 (0.59)	4.34 (0.61)	4.19 (0.64)	4.09 (0.64)	
   P	0.206	0.335	0.115	0.582	
Spouse working status	
   Yes	4.45 (058)	4.33 (0.65)	4.12 (0.60)	4.22 (0.66)	
   No	4.34 (0.60)	4.35 (0.59)	4.09 (0.65)	4.15 (0.69)	
   P*	0.205	0.875	0.14	0.47	
Academic rank	
   Assistant/associate professor or professor	4.31 (0.47)	4.53 (0.49)	4.47 (0.63)	4.33 (0.61)	
   Lecturer or instructor	4.01 (0.73)	4.10 (0.64)	4.03 (0.77)	4.09 (0.65)	
   P*	0.02	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	
Years teaching	
   0–5 years	4.31 (0.47)	4.42 (0.46)	4.03 (0.59)	4.08 (0.45)	
   >5 years	4.53 (0.49)	4.59 (0.49)	4.41 (0.57)	4.31 (0.57)	
   P*	0.02	0.081	0.001	0.022	
Years teaching online	
   0–3 years	4.49 (0.41)	4.17 (0.46)	5.13 (0.73)	4.23 (0.72)	
   >3 years	4.44 (0.46)	4.11 (0.57)	5.19 (0.54)	4.31 (0.67)	
   P*	0.934	0.577	0.481	0.722	
A number of online courses were taught before pandemic	
   None	3.89 (0.78)	3.96 (0.62)	3.74 (0.57)	3.86 (0.55)	
   > one course	4.33 (0.75)	4.44 (0.74)	4.32 (0.58)	4.42 (0.47)	
   P*	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	
A number of online courses were taught during pandemic	
   0–3 courses	4.07 (0.55)	4.10 (0.71)	4.0 (0.88)	4.04 (0.72)	
   > three courses	4.29 (0.71)	4.27 (0.54)	4.28 (0.61)	4.31 (0.60)	
   P	0.02	0.03	<0.001	<0.001	
Amount of professional development before pandemic	
   0–9 hours	4.34 (0.68)	4.48 (0.57)	5.10 (0.88)	4.20 (0.72)	
   ≤10 hours	4.42 (0.57)	4.52 (0.51)	5.28 (0.61)	4.38 (0.60)	
   P*	0.699	0.789	0.492	0.279	
Amount of professional development during/after pandemic	
   1–15 hours	4.33 (0.52)	4.44 (0.54)	5.01 (0.80)	4.14 (0.64)	
   >15 hours	4.50 (0.52)	4.58 (0.48)	5.24 (0.67)	4.30 (0.62)	
   P*	0.112	0.114	0.231	0.352	
Note: Mean values are out of 5. * Significant P value for t-test (<0.05) is bold

Discussion

This study delves into the comprehensive examination of faculty readiness and satisfaction with online teaching in the UAE, shedding light on various demographic and professional factors that may influence their perceptions. The participant demographics presented in Table 1 offer a nuanced snapshot of the faculty members involved in the study, reflecting the diverse composition of academic roles and backgrounds. The predominance of males and the higher representation in non-health colleges may indicate variations in the distribution of online teaching responsibilities across different academic settings. This observation aligns with previous research indicating that teaching roles in health colleges may have distinct characteristics compared to other academic divisions, potentially influencing faculty readiness for online teaching.[22]

The study participants exhibited considerable commitment to professional development, with a noteworthy surge in engagement observed during the pandemic period. The increased investment in professional development activities, particularly in health colleges, suggests a proactive response to the evolving educational landscape. This finding aligns with the literature emphasizing the importance of continuous professional development to enhance faculty readiness for online teaching.[101223] The commitment to courses, seminars, workshops, and conferences underscores the recognition among faculty members of the dynamic nature of online teaching, necessitating ongoing skill enhancement.[122425]

Table 2 provides a detailed insight into faculty members’ readiness and confidence across distinct domains of online teaching. In the course design domain, non-health colleges demonstrated higher readiness and confidence levels, particularly in creating instructional videos and employing various teaching methods online. These variations might be attributed to the nature of courses in health colleges, which could involve unique considerations in design and delivery. This resonates with existing literature that underscores the importance of tailoring online course design strategies to the specific requirements of different academic disciplines.[121326] Within the course communication domain, faculty members in non-health colleges expressed higher readiness and confidence, particularly in creating and moderating discussion forums. Effective communication is crucial in online teaching, and these results suggest a potential area for targeted support in health colleges to enhance faculty confidence in fostering interactive online discussions.[11325] Time management emerged as an area with nuanced differences, indicating that faculty in non-health colleges demonstrated higher readiness and confidence in certain aspects, such as scheduling time and utilizing learning management system features. These findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions to support health college faculty in managing their time effectively in the online teaching environment.[1227] The technical competence domain revealed consistently high levels of readiness and confidence among faculty members, with slightly higher scores in non-health colleges. Notably, the confidence discrepancy in creating and editing videos underscores a potential area for focused support in health colleges. This finding aligns with the literature emphasizing the importance of technical competence in effective online teaching.[122728]

The t-test analysis presented in Table 3 unveils nuanced distinctions in readiness and confidence levels between faculty members in health and non-health colleges. The significant differences observed highlight specific areas where targeted support can be beneficial. For instance, in course design and communication, faculty in non-health colleges demonstrated higher levels of readiness and confidence. These findings underscore the need for tailored interventions, acknowledging the unique challenges and requirements within different academic disciplines.[222729]

Table 4 further extends the analysis, revealing gender-based differences in both readiness and confidence levels within both participant groups. Female participants in health colleges and male participants in non-health colleges exhibited significant variations, emphasizing the role of gender in influencing faculty perceptions of online teaching. This aligns with previous research suggesting that gender dynamics may contribute to differential experiences and needs in online teaching.[92027] Moreover, the significant disparities based on academic rank, teaching experience, and the number of online courses taught highlight the importance of considering these factors in tailoring support initiatives. Faculty members with higher ranks and more teaching experience generally reported higher levels of readiness and confidence, aligning with the literature emphasizing the impact of experience on faculty preparedness for online teaching.[91220] In conclusion, the findings of this study provide valuable insights into faculty readiness and satisfaction with online teaching in the UAE, emphasizing the need for targeted and context-specific support strategies. The observed variations across demographic and professional characteristics underscore the importance of considering the unique needs of faculty members within different colleges and disciplines. This study contributes to the existing literature by highlighting specific areas where interventions can be effective in enhancing faculty readiness and confidence for online teaching, ultimately promoting effective online pedagogy and ensuring faculty success in diverse academic contexts.

Understanding faculty readiness for online teaching is crucial, particularly in health colleges where practical skills are emphasized, as highlighted in studies within Health Sciences Education. While previous research extensively examined faculty readiness across various disciplines, limited attention has been given to faculty in health science colleges, particularly in the UAE during the COVID-19 pandemic.[2230] Previous studies emphasized the importance of tailored professional development programs and institutional support to enhance online teaching competencies.[9203031]

For example, a study at Ajman University during the pandemic found that while faculty perceived the institution as well-prepared for online learning, they viewed the teaching and learning process via online methods with moderate confidence. Challenges faced with online learning were perceived as high, with suggestions for enhancement rated at a mid-level. Differences in faculty perceptions were observed based on college and years of experience[30]. Similarly, a previous Saudi Arabian study was conducted to identify key factors affecting successful e-learning during the pandemic through interviews with students and e-learning experts. The findings of the study revealed that universities faced challenges despite rapid adoption of online learning tools, such as Blackboard.[31]

Beyond the Arab region, studies in Indonesia assessed lecturers’ attitudes toward online teaching competencies amid the COVID-19 pandemic, revealing high overall readiness among participating lecturers, with significant differences based on gender, age, and years of teaching.[32] Additionally, a study by Martin et al.(2019) compares the readiness of faculty members from the United States and Germany to teach online. It examines the perceptions of educators from both countries regarding their preparedness for online teaching. By comparing educators from two different countries, the study provides insights into potential cultural and educational system differences affecting faculty readiness for online teaching.[19] Moreover, a previous study examines Malaysian teachers’ self-efficacy using Bandura’s sources, highlighting issues, such as unreadiness, low motivation, and concerns about student acceptance. Analyzing the literature from various sources, it emphasizes mastery experiences as crucial for enhancing self-efficacy.[33] These studies underscore the importance of addressing challenges faced by faculty in online teaching through further research and targeted training tailored to faculty members, especially those in health disciplines.[30313233]

Study implementations and research recommendations

The insights derived from this study on faculty readiness and satisfaction with online teaching in the UAE lay the groundwork for practical implementations and suggest directions for future research, advancing our comprehension of online pedagogy. Drawing on the findings, several key strategies and research avenues emerge. In terms of practical implementations, addressing the observed variations in faculty readiness across different domains and demographic factors calls for tailored professional development initiatives.[325] To enhance overall faculty readiness, these initiatives should specifically target areas where faculty members in health colleges display lower confidence, such as in creating instructional videos. Workshops, training sessions, and mentorship programs focusing on these identified areas have the potential to significantly improve faculty readiness. Moreover, significant gender-based differences in readiness and confidence levels underscore the need for gender-inclusive support strategies. Implementing mentorship programs and networking opportunities that cater to both male and female faculty members can help address these variations.[1325] Creating an inclusive environment that considers diverse perspectives and experiences is crucial to ensuring that all faculty members feel supported and equipped for online teaching.[121325] Furthermore, disparities in readiness based on academic rank highlight the necessity for targeted support strategies. Tailoring mentorship programs to meet the needs of faculty at different academic ranks is essential. Senior faculty members can play a pivotal role in guiding junior colleagues, sharing experiences, and providing valuable insights to enhance their online teaching practices. The importance of technical competence in online teaching, as emphasized by the findings, suggests the integration of technology training programs as part of faculty development initiatives. These programs should focus on specific technical skills, such as video creation and editing, empowering faculty members with the tools necessary for effective online instruction.[1925]

Moving to research recommendations, exploring the long-term impact of professional development initiatives on faculty readiness and satisfaction through longitudinal studies is crucial. Tracking faculty members’ experiences and perceptions over an extended period can offer valuable insights into the sustainability and effectiveness of various development interventions.[225] To delve deeper into the cultural and contextual factors influencing online teaching readiness, future research should extend beyond the UAE. Investigating how cultural nuances and contextual elements shape faculty perceptions and practices in online teaching can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the global landscape of online education. Moreover, undertaking comparative studies across different academic disciplines can build on observed variations across health and non-health colleges. Understanding how faculty readiness differs in disciplines with unique pedagogical requirements will inform targeted interventions and support strategies tailored to the specific needs of various academic divisions.

Study limitations

This study acknowledges several limitations that warrant consideration for a nuanced interpretation of findings and future research direction. The cross-sectional design provides a snapshot, lacking insight into longitudinal fluctuations in faculty readiness. Convenience sampling may introduce selection bias, affecting the generalizability of findings to all UAE faculty. Self-report measures pose the risk of response bias, suggesting a need for diversified data collection methods. The study overlooks institutional technological nuances impacting faculty readiness, warranting a more detailed examination. Furthermore, it primarily centers on faculty perspectives, neglecting a comprehensive exploration of student viewpoints and learning outcomes. Despite these constraints, the study offers valuable insights into faculty readiness for online teaching in health and non-health colleges in the UAE.

Conclusion

This study illuminates critical insights into the readiness and confidence of faculty members for online teaching in health and non-health colleges in the UAE. The findings underscore the global shift toward online education, emphasizing the need for comprehensive understanding and targeted strategies to enhance faculty preparedness. Despite limitations, including the cross-sectional design and reliance on self-report measures, the study provides valuable contributions to the literature on online education. The identified domains of course design, communication, time management, and digital technology serve as focal points for future research and institutional interventions. As higher education continues to evolve, this study fosters informed decision-making processes, guiding institutions toward effective and sustainable online teaching practices in diverse academic settings.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

The authors express their gratitude to all participants for their valuable contributions to the study. This study is supported via funding from Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University project number (PSAU/2023/R/1445).
==== Refs
References

1. Cutri RM Mena J and Whiting EF Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: Transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. J. Teach Educ 2020 43 523 41
2. Rapanta C Botturi L Goodyear P Guàrdia L and Koole M Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity Postdigital Sci Educ 2020 2 923 45
3. Moussa NM El Khalil NS Overview of teachers’ mental challenges, competences, and readiness to the transition to distance learning in the UAE Psychological Science and Education 2021 26
4. Valsaraj BP More B Biju S Payini V Pallath V Faculty experiences on emergency remote teaching during COVID-19: A multicentre qualitative analysis. Interact Technol Smart Educ 2021 18 319 44
5. Gewertz C Exhausted and grieving: Teaching during the coronavirus crisis Educ Week 2020 39 1 10
6. Kalelioğlu F Baturay MH E-öğrenme için hazırbulunuşluk öz değerlendirme ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması Başkent Univ j educ 2017 1 22 30
7. Walters A Inequities in access to education: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter 2020 36 8 8
8. Whalen J Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic J Teach Educ 2020 28 189 99
9. Al-araibi AAM Naz’ri bin Mahrin M Yusoff RCM Technological aspect factors of E-learning readiness in higher education institutions: Delphi technique Educ Inf 2019 24 567 90
10. Paliwal M Singh A Teacher readiness for online teaching-learning during COVID − 19 outbreak: A study of Indian institutions of higher education Interact Technol Smart Educ 2021 18 403 21
11. Petko D Prasse D and Cantieni A The interplay of school readiness and teacher readiness for educational technology integration: A structural equation model Comput Sch 2018 35 1 8
12. Forman KB Faculty perceptions of readiness and confidence for teaching online: An evaluation of online professional development USA 2023
13. Cutri RM Mena J A critical reconceptualization of faculty readiness for online teaching Distance Educ 2020 41 361 80
14. Susanto R Rachmadtullah R Rachbini W Technological and pedagogical models: Analysis of factors and measurement of learning outcomes in education J Ethn Cult Stud 2020 7 1 4
15. Callo EC Yazon A Exploring the factors influencing the readiness of faculty and students on online teaching and learning as an alternative delivery mode for the new normal Universal Journal of Educational Research 2020 8 3509 318 Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Exploring+the+factors+influencing+the+readiness+of+faculty+and+students+on+online+teaching+and+learning+as+an+alternative+delivery+mode+for+the+new+normal.+Univers.+J.+Educ.+Res.+2020%3B+8%3A+3509-18.&btnG= [Last accessed on 2023 Dec 26]
16. Schaffhauser D Educators feeling stressed, anxious, overwhelmed and capable THE Journal https://thejournal com/articles/2020/06/02/survey-teachers-feeling-stressed-anxious-overwhelmed-and-capable aspx. 2020 Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Schaffhauser+D.+Educators+feeling+stressed%2C+anxious%2C+overwhelmed+and+capable.+THE+Journal+&btnG= [Last accessed on 2023 Dec 26]
17. Miller DR Online teaching at its best: Merging instructional design with teaching and learning research: by Linda B Nilson and Ludwika A. Goodson San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass 2018 264 ISBN: 978-1-119-24229-1. Taylor and Francis, 2018. Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Online+teaching+at+its+best%3A+Merging+instructional+design+with+teaching+and+learning+research&btnG= [Last accessed on 2023 Dec 26]
18. Houlden S Veletsianos G Coronavirus pushes universities to switch to online classes-but are they ready The Conservation 2020 12 923 45
19. Martin F Budhrani K Wang C Examining faculty perception of their readiness to teach online Online Learning 2019 23 97 119 Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=ar&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Martin+F%2C+Budhrani+K%2C+Wang+C.+Examining+faculty+perception+of+their+readiness+to+teach+online.+Online+Learning.+2019+Sep%3B23%283%29%3A97-119.&btnG= [Last accessed on 2023 Dec 26]
20. Bolliger DU Wasilik O Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education Distance Educ 2009 30 103 16
21. Cantín M World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Reviewing the latest version Int J Surg Sci 2014 1 339 46
22. El Alfy S Gómez JM Ivanov D Exploring instructors’ technology readiness, attitudes and behavioral intentions towards e-learning technologies in Egypt and United Arab Emirates Educ Inf 2017 22 2605 27
23. Leacock CJ and Warrican SJ Helping teachers to respond to COVID-19 in the Eastern Caribbean: Issues of readiness, equity and care J Teach Educ 2020 46 576 85
24. Espino-Díaz L Fernandez-Caminero G Hernandez-Lloret CM Gonzalez-Gonzalez H Alvarez-Castillo JL Analyzing the impact of COVID-19 on education professionals. toward a paradigm shift: ICT and neuroeducation as a binomial of action Sustainability 2020 12 5646
25. Leary H Dopp C Turley C Cheney M Simmons Z Graham CR Professional development for online teaching: A Literature Review Online Learning 2020 24 254 75
26. Korstange R Hall J Holcomb J Jackson J The online first-year experience: Defining and illustrating a new reality Adult Educ 2020 31 95 108
27. Zalat MM Hamed MS Bolbol SA The experiences, challenges, and acceptance of e-learning as a tool for teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic among university medical staff PLoS One 2021 16 e0248758 33770079
28. Gay GH An assessment of online instructor e-learning readiness before, during, and after course delivery J Comput High Educ 2016 28 199 220
29. Downing JJ Dyment JE Teacher educators’ readiness, preparation, and perceptions of preparing preservice teachers in a fully online environment: An exploratory study. Teach Educ 2013 48 96 109
30. Abdel Rahman RM Alsalhi NR Elmagzoub EM Abdellatif S Alzoubi AM Faculty perceptions of online learning during the coronavirus outbreak Int j interact mob technol 2023 17
31. Almaiah MA Al-Khasawneh A Althunibat A Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic Educ Inf Technol (Dordr) 2020 25 5261 80 32837229
32. Soeselo DA Juliawati VD Anastasia G Theresia S Winardi S Lecturers’ readiness in online teaching during COVID-19 Pandemic International Conference on Medical Education 2021 7 14 Atlantis Press Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Lecturers%E2%80%99+readiness+in+online+teaching+during+COVID-19+Pandemic&btnG= [Last accessed on 2023 Dec 26]
33. Rashid KKA Haron SC Haron SC Challenges on Malaysian teachers’s self efficacy in online teaching during COVID-19 IJ-ARBSS 2021 11 649 58
