Exploring predictors of instructional resilience during emergency remote teaching in higher education

Weidlich, Joshua; Kalz, Marco

doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00278-7

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

Table 5 Results of hierarchical regression with four blocks of predictors and instructional resilience as dependent variable

From: Exploring predictors of instructional resilience during emergency remote teaching in higher education

		Model 1			Model 2			Model 3				Model 4
		β	t	p	β	t	p	β	t	p		β	t	p
	Intercept	3.21	17.69	< .001	2.22	2.10	.04	2.00	1.80	.07		2.44	2.01	.04
Block 1: control variables	Age
	< 46–< 36 years	0.23	1.03	.31	0.13	0.62	.54	0.11	0.53	.60		0.12	0.55	.58
	< 56–< 36 years	0.23	0.98	.33	0.05	0.23	.82	− 0.01	− 0.50	.96		0.00	0.01	.99
	> 56–< 36 years	0.61	2.28*	.03	0.36	1.35	.18	0.29	1.13	.26		0.25	0.95	.34
	Gender
	Female–male	− 0.01	− 0.05	.96	− 0.18	− 0.99	.33	− 0.18	− 1.04	.30		− 0.21	− 1.19	.24
Block 2: personality attributes	General resilience				− 0.05	− 0.38	.33	− 0.03	− 0.20	.84		− 0.01	− 0.08	.94
	BF extraversion				− 0.15	− 1.27	.71	− 0.17	− 1.51	.14		− 0.13	− 1.10	.28
	BF agreeableness				0.12	1.01	.21	0.08	0.63	.53		0.04	0.31	.76
	BF conscientiousness				0.37	3.19**	.002	0.28	2.50*	.01		0.28	2.38*	.02
	BF neuroticism				0.07	0.12	.55	0.08	0.67	.51		0.09	0.71	.48
	Impersonal causality				− 0.25	− 2.46*	.016	− 0.22	− 2.27*	.03		− 0.21	− 2.08*	.04
	Autonomous causality				0.13	1.37	.18	0.13	1.48	.14		0.15	1.55	.13
Block 3: relevant experience	Prof. development
	No–yes							− 0.4	− 1.88	.06		− 0.45	− 1.96	.05
	Teaching with technol							0.19	2.04*	.04		0.20	− 2.03*	.04
	TEL/DE related field
	No–yes							0.00	0.04	.97		0.00	0.05	.96
	Institution type
	(some) online–offline							0.01	0.08	.94		− 0.00	− 0.01	.99
Block 4: institutional factors	Organizational support											− 0.12	− 1.03	.31
	Social support											0.08	0.71	.48
	Technical support											0.05	0.50	.62
	Workload											− 0.12	− 0.97	.33
	Model fit	R = .23			R = .49			R = .58				R = .60
	Model fit	R² = .05			R² = .24			R² = .34				R² = .36
	Model comparison	ΔR² = .18, F(7, 87) = 3.00**, p = .007					ΔR² = .09, F(4, 83) = 3.04**, p = .022				ΔR² = .02, F(3, 80) = 0.62, p = .65

Significant coefficients are highlighted in bold
*p < .05, **p < .005

Back to article page