Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)


Mathematical Sciences

First Advisor

Thomas J. Marcinkowski

Second Advisor

Samantha R. Fowler

Third Advisor

Joo Young Park

Fourth Advisor

A. Celeste Harvey


To support the pursuit of quality in MOOCs, this study follows the Sloan Consortium online education quality framework. This framework includes five pillars of quality online education that need to be assessed on an ongoing basis: learning effectiveness, cost effectiveness, access, faculty satisfaction, and student satisfaction. At present, there is no measures for any of these five pillars. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a measure for one pillar, faculty satisfaction, the MOOC Instructor Satisfaction Measure (MISM). This was a quantitative study which used instrument development methods to develop the MISM and examine its validity and reliability, and survey methods to gather data from study participants. This study used a combination of instrument development steps mentioned in five frameworks in the literature. Those steps were divided into three phases: Phase I: Purpose and Construct Definition; Phase II: Item Generation; Phase III: Instrument Validation. The purpose of the first phase was to specify purpose of the instrument and provide construct definition to determine clearly what I was measuring. In this phase, I confirmed that there was no existing instrument that adequately served the purpose of measuring instructor satisfaction in MOOCs. I concluded this phase by specifying six dimensions of instructor satisfaction and defining each dimension: student-related, instructor-related, system-related, instruction-related, support-related, and feedback-related. The second phase involved item generation. First, I generated an item pool and used a Kano survey to review them. Then, I selected and developed a scaling technique for use with these items. A panel of five experts, each of whom had taught more than two MOOCs, reviewed the initial pool for content and face validity. The results from that expert review were used to revise the initial items. In the pilot study of the MISM, I administered the revised MISM to a sample of MOOC instructors who had used edX, Coursera, and FutureLearn, and examined their responses (n=29) for psychometric properties. At the end of this second phase, I revised the items based on these analyses of pilot data. In the final phase, I administered MISM to a larger sample of MOOC instructors drawn from that population (n=84) and examined its reliability and validity. Results from the Maximum Likelihood method of Exploratory Factor Analysis were used to answer the research question about which dimensions or factors were most useful in assessing MOOCs instructor satisfaction. Although eight factors had Eigenvalues greater than 1.0, the best model was found to be the 9-factor solution. The total variance explained by nine factors was 73.57%. The Chi-square for goodness of fit was 102.8 (p = 0.299). Those nine factors were: intrinsic rewards, extrinsic reword, resources, platform, interactions, percentage of students, time, administration and technical support. The reliability of the MISM was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Those results were used to answer the second question, which asked about the extent to which the estimates of the MISM validity and reliability fell within an acceptable range. In final administration of the MISM, the alpha value was 0.845, which is considered fairly high and reliable. The procedures and results from each of the 13 steps to build MISM were documented. The generalizability, implication, and recommendations for research relative to study delimitations, limitations, and limitations were offered.