The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-354X.htm

I am engaged, therefore my Role of

teachers’
students are satisfied! Unleashing interaction and
sensitivity
the role of teachers’ interaction and
sensitivity based on self-
determination perspective Received 19 May 2020
Revised 12 July 2020
Accepted 20 August 2020
Ahmad Raza Bilal
Sohar University, Sohar, Oman
Tehreem Fatima
The University of Lahore, Sargodha Campus, Sargodha, Pakistan
Khyzer Bin Dost
Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan, and
Muhammad Kashif Imran
The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – Students’ satisfaction is termed as their subjective evaluation of the fulfillment of expectations and
pleasure experienced from the teaching services. This study intends to examine the role of teachers’ work
engagement in inculcating students’ satisfaction from their teachers taking a self-determination perspective. It
moreover highlights the underlying mechanisms of teacher–student interaction and teachers’ sensitivity.
Design/methodology/approach – We used 278 valid and matched responses from teachers and students of
higher secondary/intermediate/degree colleges operating in Pakistan through multi-stage sampling. The data
were gathered in three waves and multiple mediation analysis was conducted using PROCESS model 4 to
analyze the data and infer results.
Findings – The results revealed that college teachers’ work engagement (i.e. vigor, dedication and absorption)
is required to create their willingness and motivation to invest in effective pedagogical decisions and inculcate
students’ satisfaction. This engagement, in turn, improves their interaction with students and makes them
more sensitive in meeting the needs of students that causes students to have satisfying educational
experiences.
Originality/value – This research has taken a unique standpoint of considering teachers’ engagement as a
precursor of students’ satisfaction, in contrast to the prior focus on assessing the role of institutional dynamics,
demographics and teachers’ competence. It has also unraveled the role of teachers’ sensitivity and student–
teacher interaction in the above-mentioned association based on self-determination theory (SDT). Moreover, it
has emphasized the teaching dynamics and its outcomes in the college sector instead of the much-examined
university and school settings.
Keywords Work engagement, Teacher–student interaction, Teachers’ sensitivity, Student satisfaction,
Intermediate/degree colleges, Management in education, Self-determination theory
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Pakistan is an emergent economy in the South Asian region. The educational sector of
Pakistan comprise of primary education (till fifth grade), middle education (from sixth to
eighth grade), secondary education (ninth and tenth grade), higher secondary (eleventh and
twelfth grade) and tertiary education (undergraduate and postgraduate level that is above
twelfth grade) (Hunter, 2020). The colleges in Pakistan offer higher secondary education International Journal of
Educational Management
(known as intermediate level colleges) and some offer undergraduate/postgraduate level © Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-354X
programs in addition to intermediate education (known as degree colleges) in affiliation with DOI 10.1108/IJEM-05-2020-0258
IJEM authorized Degree Awarding Institutions (DAIs). The ratio of colleges (higher secondary/
inter/degree) has increased over the past decade and they constitute a major portion of
educational institutes in Pakistan (AEPAM, 2019).
In recent times, the educational field has witnessed a massive change toward a highly
competitive, complex and dynamic business environment (Calma and Deane, 2020;
Subrahmanyam, 2017; Wadhwa and Jha 2014). This paradigm shift has made it more
commercialized, competitive and customer-centered where student enrollment and retention
are key success factors (Foroudi et al., 2019). The public and private sector colleges in
Pakistan are also facing cut-throat competition in attracting and retaining students from their
counterparts (Nisar, 2017). Students are one of the prime stakeholders in this sector and from
this standpoint, they are termed as “customers”, of educational institutes as “students
exchange money in return for education” (Grace et al., 2012, p. 36). Therefore, ensuring
students’ satisfaction is receiving increased importance in this domain (Calma and Deane,
2020). It is the students’ subjective evaluation of educational services in terms of fulfillment of
expectations and pleasure experienced from these services (Nasser et al., 2008).
Despite the importance of examining student satisfaction in the college cadre, this concept
is mostly examined in university settings (Bates et al., 2019; Grag, 2020; Joo et al., 2011;
Richardson et al., 2017; Zhai et al., 2017). Keeping in view the concept of “students as
customers” in the contemporary educational sector (Carter and Yeo, 2016; Calma and Deane,
2020; Thien and Jamil, 2020), and lack of research on this construct in the Pakistani college
sector, investigating precursors of student satisfaction becomes an important call.
Campus community (Elkins et al., 2019), service quality, program quality, institutional
image (Chandra et al., 2019; Osman and Saputr, 2019), learning styles and demographical
factors (Merritt, 2019) are among the prime factors predicting students’ satisfaction.
Moreover, evidence from the literature has suggested that apart from these factors better-
performing teachers have a higher probability to be evaluated positively by the students
(Bobe and Cooper, 2020; Zeng and Xu, 2020). Like in any educational institute, teachers are the
prime service transformers and have a substantial impact on students’ satisfaction (Grag,
2020; Sneyers and De Witte, 2017). Owing to this significant linearity, researchers have given
attention to the role of teachers’ education, instructional methodology and their strong grip of
subject knowledge in harnessing students’ satisfaction (Bobe and Cooper, 2020; Biasutti and
Heba, 2012; Dalton and Denson, 2009; Smith et al., 2019). But, recent studies revealed that
apart from the institutional framework and higher qualification, most of the teachers
indicated not being engaged in their work and some indicated being actively disengaged due
to several reasons (Nazari et al., 2020; Zeng and Xu, 2020). This controversial situation
highlights that mere infrastructural, policy-specific, demographical and teachers’
competence-related factors are not sufficient to drive students’ satisfaction and teachers’
psychological capabilities like their work engagement should also be investigated this aspect
(Hoigaard et al., 2012; Han et al., 2020). The concept of teachers’ work engagement has been
examined in the field of educational management either as an outcome (Dong et al., 2019) or
some studies found it to inculcate positive behaviors in teachers (Bakker and Bal., 2010;
Granziera and Perera, 2019; Li et al., 2017). Yet its role in harnessing student-related outcomes,
specifically student satisfaction needs further attention (Kangas et al., 2017).
Work engagement is a positive and fulfilling state of mind regarding a person’s job
that creates vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al. 2006). It has been
established that service sector employees that are engaged in their work are more likely to
have improved consumer experiences and satisfaction (Han et al., 2020; Kaur, 2014;
Nazari et al., 2020; Saks, 2006). On this basis, we argue that teachers who are actively
engaged are likely to have more enthusiasm and passion for their work (Smith et al., 2019;
Timms et al., 2007) and yield to positive students’ outcomes including students’
satisfaction (Kangas et al., 2017).
 We further add to the scantly examined teachers’ work engagement and students’ Role of
satisfaction research stream by unlocking the intervening variables based on Self- teachers’
determination Theory (SDT). This theory holds that intrinsic motivational factors manifest
positive work outcomes as compared to extrinsic factors and yield better engagement leading
interaction and
to positive outcomes (Deci and Ryan, 2012). Work engagement of teachers signals their sensitivity
internal motivation and pervasive state of mind to extend work effort (Schaufeli et al., 2006).
This engagement improves their level of interaction with students (Headar et al., 2013) as well
as it causes them to be more sensitive toward their students’ needs (Pianta et al., 2012). Better
interaction among students and teachers as well as a sensitive attitude towards students
stemming from their higher work engagement is indicated to improve the level of students’
satisfaction (Headar et al., 2013; Pianta et al., 2012).
In this backdrop, the present investigation aims to find the impact of teacher’s work
engagement on students’ satisfaction in colleges of Punjab, Pakistan. In addition, to further
examine mechanisms underlying this association, the mediating role of teachers’ interaction
and sensitivity toward students will be investigated based on SDT. This study offer
contribution to theory, policy and practice in the field of educational management.
Theoretically, this research extends beyond the infrastructural, policy-related,
demographical and teachers’ competency related factors as a precursor of students’
satisfaction. Based on the seminal insights from Kangas et al. (2017) this study has taken an
intrinsic perspective of teachers’ work engagement based on SDT as a predictor of students’
satisfaction. It has also clarified learner–instructor interaction and sensitivity as mediating
mechanisms in the teachers’ work engagement and students’ satisfaction link. Thereby it has
shown that the work engagement of teachers not only improves their behavior toward
students but also enhances their satisfaction. Practically it offers suggestions for the public
and private sector colleges’ teachers for their active engagement, interaction and sensitivity
toward their students for making them satisfied. The findings also have implications for the
college administration to develop the policy guidelines for improvement of teachers’ work
engagement and subsequent student satisfaction to survive this aggressive competition.
Following research objectives are proposed for this research:
(1) To find out the impact of teachers’ work engagement on students’ satisfaction in
public and private sector colleges of Punjab, Pakistan.
(2) To investigate the mediating role of teacher–student interaction and teachers’
sensitivity in the relationship between teachers’ work engagement and student
satisfaction in public and private sector colleges of Punjab, Pakistan.

2. Literature review
2.1 Satisfaction of students
Satisfaction, in general, is the feeling of pleasure gained by the use of a product or obtaining
services which means that expectations of users are met (Kotler and Keller, 2009). Satisfaction
is defined as a subjective evaluation of features of products and services regarding a
pleasurable level of fulfillment or consumption (Bates et al., 2019; Oliver, 2014). The students
are considered as consumers of educational institutions (Sarrico and Rosa, 2014). So, student
satisfaction is referred to as the short-term subjective evaluation of students regarding the
educational services, experience and facilities. It is the feeling of fulfillment obtained after
receiving educational services (Nasser et al., 2008). When the teaching services are good and
as per the level of student’s expectations they will be contented and satisfied. In short, the
students’ satisfaction is shaped based on the relative experiences of students and perceived
performance regarding teaching and educational services (Carey et al., 2002; Weerasinghe
and Fernando, 2017).
IJEM 2.2 Teachers’ work engagement
Konermann (2012) identified that teachers who are passionate, enthusiastic and take pride in
their profession have a higher level of work engagement. Work engagement is a fulfilling and
positive work-related mind-set. It occurs when employees fully harness themselves in work
and feel positive about it. Work engagement has three elements, i.e. vigor, dedication and
absorption. Vigor means having a high willingness to invest in work and put more effort and
energy, such people have more resilience and persistence in performing difficult tasks.
Dedication incorporates the overall sense of inspiration, enthusiasm and pride one takes in
his work. Lastly, absorption is the ability to be fully and happily engrossed in someone’s work
(Kahn, 1990). Such people are fully indulged in their work and they happily invest time in
their work (Han et al., 2020; Schaufeli et al., 2002). In this aspect teachers’ work engagement is
referred to as their willingness to extend effort with enthusiasm and delightful engrossment
in performing their job duties (Fontan et al., 2019).

2.3 Teachers’ work engagement and students’ satisfaction

Teachers who are highly engaged in their service delivery have better performance (Bakker
and Bal, 2010; Nazari et al., 2020). SDT holds that the individuals who feel competent,
autonomous and have fulfilled belongingness needs, they are intrinsically motivated to put
maximum work effort (Deci and Ryan, 2012). Teachers occupy a certain level of autonomy
over the way they perform their job duties have opportunities of social connection, as well as,
they are subject matter experts who have an internal quest for work engagement (Reeve,
2009; Timms and Brough, 2013). Therefore, teachers tend to develop an intrinsic drive for
work engagement.
The literature has shown that highly engaged employees are better in performance and
they can satisfy their consumers by excellent service delivery (Kaur, 2014). Teaching
effectiveness enhances the motivation, loyalty and performance of the students. The
performance of the teacher is the main determinant of motivation and satisfaction of students
(Rodie and Kleine, 2000; Skrbinjek and Dermol, 2019). Kangas et al. (2017) found that the
teachers who are engaged in performing their pedagogical services have more satisfied
students. This shows that better performing teachers are positively evaluated by the students
(Edstrom, 2008). As students are the prime customers in educational settings (Sarrico and
Rosa, 2014), therefore, if they perceive that their teacher is dedicated and enthusiastic their
level of satisfaction tends to enhance (Shahid, 2019). Employees’ dedication, absorption and
vigor have been linked with higher customer satisfaction (Rodriguez et al., 2010). Based on
SDT that posits internal motivation reflected in work engagement yields positive outcomes
(Deci and Ryan, 2012; Reeve et al., 2008; Gagne, 2014) and the concept of student as customers
(Thien and Jamil, 2020), we assume the same is true for the case of teachers and students in
colleges. The dedication in delivering teaching services, more indulgence in academic
activities and being fully indulged in teaching makes the students perceive that their teachers
are engaged and hence the students’ expectations regarding educational services and
teaching proficiency are better fulfilled. Thus we argue that the students of engaged teachers
are more satisfied as compared to those who show less level of wok engagement. So, it is
hypothesized:
H1. There is a positive relationship in teachers’ engagement (a) vigor, (b) dedication and
(c) absorption and students’ satisfaction.

2.4 Mediating role of teacher–student interaction and teachers’ sensitivity

Highly engaged teachers put more work effort and they take more interest in their job beyond
the teaching of content (Zeng et al., 2019). As suggested by SDT perspective (Reeve et al.,
2008), engaged teachers are more interested in responding to the needs of their students and
have a strong bond with them given their innate internal motivation to fulfill competence, Role of
connection and autonomy needs (Konermann, 2012; Poysa et al., 2019). In this aspect, teachers’
interactivity between the teacher and students may also increase when the teachers are more
engaged by being dedicated, absorbed and delightedly indulged in offering their services
interaction and
(Williford et al., 2017). In the learning literature, Moore (1993) indicated that interaction in sensitivity
teacher and student takes place when the knowledge is delivered expertly, the
misconceptions of students are properly clarified and students are motivated to learn. This
kind of interaction causes the teacher to be more vigilant in designing the course content and
devising the instruction method in such a manner that improves the students’ overall interest
in the content being taught (Liu and Chiang, 2019). It makes students more self-directed and
self-motivated. Headar et al. (2013) found the teacher and student interaction is one of the
major elements in the development of students’ satisfaction. Therefore, it is argued that
engaged teachers will have active interaction and bonding with their students, which will
ultimately make them more satisfied.
H2. Teachers–student interaction mediates the relationship between teachers’ work
engagement (a) vigor, (b) dedication and (c) absorption and students’ satisfaction.
Being sensitive requires the teachers to have attention toward the students’ behavior in class
and respond to it accordingly (Haug and Odegaard, 2015; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2002). So,
more engaged teachers have a higher tendency to have more passion and put more effort into
sensing and observing the students’ behavior and acting accordingly to respond (Macey and
Schneider, 2008; Shahid, 2019). We argue on the tenet of SDT that the engaged teachers based
will have an internal persistent urge to invest effort, feel enthusiasm and happily concentrate
(Fontan et al., 2019) to take action in managing issues arising in class and respond to the needs
of students (Williford et al., 2017). Based on the need to excel, such teachers address the
questions, needs and concerns of students in an efficient manner (Haug and Odegaard, 2015).
The quest for active engagement and connection makes teachers sensitive to provide a more
caring and warm social environment (Reeve et al., 2008). Teachers who are more attentive
toward the needs and wants of students have a timely responsive attitude toward the
students (Ahmed et al., 2014; Dessus et al., 2016). They are well motivated to create
environments in which the students feel safe to express themselves and enhance their
learning. These teachers are more vigilant regarding the needs of students and know them
well enough (Kim and Connelly, 2019; Pianta et al., 2012). Sensitive teachers have a better
tendency to deliver lectures and maintain a good and inclusive class environment given their
responsiveness that leads toward student satisfaction (Ahmed et al., 2014; Tasi, 2017). Thus,
we postulate that,
H3. Teachers’ sensitivity mediates the relationship between teachers’ work engagement
(a) vigor, (b) dedication and (c) absorption and students’ satisfaction.
The hypothesized associations are shown in the theoretical model (see Figure 1).

3. Methodology
3.1 Design of the study
Research approach selection relies on the aims and objectives of the study (Creswell and
Creswell, 2017). As the objective of this research to investigate a cause and effect relationship
between the teachers’ engagement and student’ satisfaction in private sector colleges in
Punjab, so we adopted a positivist paradigm and built on a quantitative approach. The
objectives of the research are best served by using a survey design as the data is to be
collected from a large number of participants and this method is well accepted in social
sciences and fits for quantitative research inquiries (Cooper et al., 2006). Moreover, collecting
IJEM Teachers’ work Teacher-student
engagement Interaction

Vigor Teachers’ sensitivity

Student’s
Dedication Satisfaction

Absorption
Figure 1.
Theoretical model

data from multiple sources (students and teachers) and at multiple times (3 waves) reduce the
common method bias (MacKenzie and Podsakof, 2012).

3.2 Sampling
The participants of the research are the students and the teaching faculty of public and
private colleges in Pakistan, which are offering general education for intermediate and degree
level students. Multi-stage sampling is used in this study in which province wise clusters are
developed in stage-1. A total of 6,561 higher secondary and degree colleges are operational
across Pakistan among 3,005 are exist in only Punjab province that is 45% of the total
numbers. Based on the highest proportionate ratio, Punjab-cluster is selected for data
collection. In stage 2, two strata were developed as on the basis of the public and private
sector as 43% of institutions are operated in the public sector and 57% in the private sector.
The questionnaires were distributed proportionately for random data collection from each
stratum. In stage 3, following the method of teacher–student sample selection as devised by
Ahmed et al. (2014), who suggested approximate teacher to student ratio of 1:22 to be
adequate for analysis. We chose 20 teachers, 9 teachers were selected from the public sector
and 11 from the private sector. The data of work engagement (wave-I) were obtained from the
selected teachers. We distributed 500 questionnaires (25 students per teacher) to the
respective teachers’ students provided data on their perception of teacher–student
interaction, teachers’ sensitivity (wave-II) and finally satisfaction level (wave-III). Out of
500, questionnaires were distributed out of which 334 were received in wave-II, and 293 in
wave-III. We matched the students’ and teachers’ data as well as the time II and time III data
of students by subject, class and section identifiers that resulted in 278 useable matched
responses. The overall analysis size is deemed to be adequate as by being well above the
Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2007) threshold, that is N 5 50 þ 8m, where m is a number of
predictors (90 5 50 þ 8 3 5).

3.3 Instrumentation
The questionnaires were adapted as per the context of educational settings and all the items
were measured using a 5-point Likert scale from “1-strongly disagree” to “5-strongly agree”
(see Annex for full questionnaire items). Work engagement was measured by the 17-item
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) in which five items measured dedication (sample
item “I am enthusiastic about teaching”), six items (sample item “I feel happy when I am
teaching intensely”), measured absorption and six items measured vigor (sample item: “When
I am teaching, I feel bursting with energy”) (Schaufeli et al., 2006).
 Student satisfaction was measured through a three-item scale developed by Wise et al. Role of
(2004), a sample item is “ I am satisfied with the teaching quality”. teachers’
Teachers’ sensitivity was measured as per the recommendations of Rimm-Kaufman et al.
(2002) using four items, a sample item is “My teacher is sensitive towards my needs of
interaction and
autonomy, independence, and mastery”. sensitivity
Teacher–student interaction was measured adapting the scale developed Headar et al.
(2013) having five items, a sample item is “I am able to interact with my teacher during the
course discussions”.

3.4 Data collection

The data were collected using a self-administrated survey in three waves 2 weeks apart. This
duration is well enough to minimize the common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We
collected the data about work engagement from teachers in the first wave, and the data on
teachers’ sensitivity, student–teacher interaction and student satisfaction was obtained from
students in second and third waves respectively. Overall, we obtained 278 matched responses
out of 500, yielding the response rate of 55.6%.

3.5 Techniques to analyze data

For analyzing the data gathered through questionnaires, we employed SPSS 22. First of all,
we computed descriptive statistics (mean, SD, and correlations). The reliability and validity
were tested and confirmatory factor analysis was done through AMOS 21. To rule out the
issue of common method bias, the one-factor test devised by Herman was used. Lastly, for
testing the study hypotheses, multiple regression and Hayes (2017) PROCESS macro (Model
4) was used.

4. Results
4.1 Reliability and validity of the scale items used in this study
Cronbach’s (1951) alpha was employed to find out the reliability of scale items, all the items
were having reliability above the threshold level of 0.7 that indicated adequate level of
internal consistency (George and Mallery, 2003) see Table 1. It was found that the constructs
were valid as shown by the values of convergent validity (V 5 0.61, D 5 0.58, A 5 0.60,
SS 5 0.52, TS 5 0.57, TSI 5 0.61, AVE > 0.50). Convergent validity was also found as
(MSV < AVE and ASV < AVE). Composite reliability was reflected because CR > 0.70
(V 5 0.71, D 5 0.70, A 5 0.82, SS 5 0.83, TS 5 0.73, TSI 5 0.80) which lies within in the limits
outlined by Hair et al. (2010).

Construct No. of items Alpha AVE CR MSV ASV

Vigor (V) 9 0.80 0.61 0.71 0.43 0.32

Dedication (D) 8 0.73 0.58 0.70 0.42 0.38
Absorption (A) 7 0.89 0.60 0.82 0.37 0.36
Teacher–Student Interaction (TSI) 5 0.73 0.57 0.80 0.42 0.39
Teachers’ Sensitivity (TS) 3 0.73 0.61 0.73 0.38 0.35
Student Satisfaction (SS) 5 0.85 0.52 0.83 0.29 0.33
Note(s): “Reliability ranges: ≥0.9 5 excellent, ≥0.8 5 good, ≥0.7 5 acceptable, ≥0.6 5 questionable Table 1.
≥ 5 0.5 5 poor and <0.5 5 unacceptable”, “AVE 5 average variance extracted, CR 5 composite reliability, Reliability and validity
MSV 5 maximum shared variance, ASV 5 average shared variance” analysis
IJEM 4.2 Model fit indices and common method variance
We ensured to reduce the common method bias by having data from two sources, i.e. teachers
and students and collecting data in three waves. To find out the level of common method bias,
we employed the Harman single-factor test. The results showed that one factor contributed
less than 50% variance (21.98%). AMOS 20 was used for conducting a Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) through which we tested the model fit. We developed two measurement
models, i.e. one with four factors, i.e. teachers’ work engagement, teacher–student interaction,
teachers’ sensitivity and students’ satisfaction but the model did not show a good fit,
χ 2 (df) 5 989.31(664), χ 2/df 5 1.48; comparative fit index (CFI) 5 0.41; incremental fit index
(IFI) 5 0.20; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 5 0.21; standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR) 5 0.12. Then we tested a six-factor model having separate
dimensions of teachers’ work engagement, i.e. vigor, dedication and absorption, teacher–
student interaction, teachers’ sensitivity and students’ satisfaction and the model revealed a
better fit, χ 2 (df) 5 386.11(264), χ 2/df 5 1.46; CFI 5 0.93; IFI 5 0.90; RMSEA 5 0.051;
SRMR 5 0.064.

4.3 Mean, standard deviation and correlation of the variables in the study
The descriptive statistics of the study variables are indicated in Table 2. That shows a
positive correlation among the variables under investigation and the mean values ranged
from 2.09 to 2.22, whereas the values of standard deviation were from 0.71 to 0.91.

4.4 Test of direct association among the study variables through multiple regression
In the first instance, the direct association between dimensions of teachers’ engagement (a)
vigor (b) dedication and (c) absorption was established with students’ satisfaction were tested
using multiple regression as proposed in H1a, H1b and H1c. It was shown via multiple
regression analysis that all dimensions of teachers’ work engagement, i.e. vigor (β 5 0.29,
t 5 3.01, p ≤ 0.05), dedication (β 5 0.37, t 5 4.11, p ≤ 0.05) and absorption (β 5 0.45, t 5 5.23,
p ≤ 0.01), has a significant positive relationship with students’ satisfaction. Thus, H1 (a, b, c)
are accepted (See Table 3).

4.5 Testing the multiple mediations

The mediation impacts were tested via PROCESS macro (Model 4) that is suitable to test
multiple parallel mediations (Hayes, 2017). The impact of the independent variable on the
mediator was checked (path a), then the impact of mediating variables on dependent
variables was tested (path b). The total impact of the independent variable on dependent
variables was tested (path c) and after that, the direct impact of the independent variable on
dependent variables was checked while controlling the mediators (path c’). If the direct impact

Standard
1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean deviation

Dedication 1 2.21 0.83

Absorption 0.618** 1 2.09 0.91
Vigor 0.543** 0.312** 1 2.31 0.90
** ** **
Teacher–student 0.533 0.522 0.441 1 2.10 0.79
interaction
Table 2. Teachers’ sensitivity 0.609** 0.543** 0.501** 0.634** 1 2.15 0.80
Descriptive and Students’ satisfaction 0.422** 0.577** 0.655** 0.451** 0.567** 1 2.22 0.71
correlation analysis Note(s): **p ≤ 0.01, Dimensions of teachers’ work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption)
(path c’) turns insignificant after the mediators were controlled it is termed as full mediation Role of
and if this impact is significantly reduced then partial mediation is declared. The mediation teachers’
analysis was supplemented with the measure of indirect effect size that shows the combined
and individual impact of mediators, using bias-corrected accelerated (BCa) bootstrapping
interaction and
having a 95% confidence interval [CI] (see Tables 4 and 5). sensitivity
The intervening impact of teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–student interaction was
measured simultaneously between each of the dimensions of teachers’ work engagement (i.e.
vigor, dedication and absorption) and students’ satisfaction. First of all, these multiple
mediators were tested between the first dimension of teachers’ work engagement, i.e. vigor
and students’ satisfaction as proposed in hypotheses H2a and H3a. The impact of teachers’
vigor on teachers’ sensitivity was found to be significant and positive (Path a1: β 5 0.60
t 5 14.04, р ≤ 0.01) and in turn, teachers’ sensitivity was also linked with students’
satisfaction in a significantly positive manner (Path b1: β 5 0.71, t 5 17.30, р ≤ 0.01).
After that, it was shown that teachers’ vigor had a positive relationship with teacher–
student interaction (Path a2: β 5 0.78 t 5 18.8, р ≤ 0.01) and that was positively linked to
students’ satisfaction (Path b2: β 5 0.23, t 5 3.2, р ≤ 0.05).
The total impact of teachers’ vigor on students’ satisfaction was positive and significant
(Path c: β 5 0.53, t 5 12.01, р ≤ 0.01). However, it was evident that the control of mediators
(teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–student interaction) the direct impact of teachers’ vigor on
students’ satisfaction was significantly reduced (Path c’ β 5 0.28 t 5 3.21, р ≤ 0.001).
Thus, it proved that teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–student interaction, in part, mediate
the teachers’ vigor and students’ satisfaction association. The bootstrapping results affirmed
this partial mediation as the confidence intervals (BCa, 95%) had no zero and showed the
overall mediation effect size of 0.6547. The relative effect size revealed that teacher–student
interaction was a stronger mediator (0.5021) in comparison to teachers’ sensitivity (0.1526).
The overall model was fit as R2 5 0.779, Adj. R2 5 0.771, F 5 332.44 and sig 5 0.000. These
results indicated partial support for H2a and H3a.
The multiple mediating role of teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–student interaction was
tested between the second dimension of teachers’ work engagement, i.e. teachers’ dedication
and satisfaction of students as postulated in H2b and H3b. The results showed that there was
a positive relationship between teachers’ dedication and teachers’ sensitivity (Path a1:
β 5 0.84 t 5 20.49, р ≤ 0.01) and teachers’ sensitivity was positively linked to students’
satisfaction (Path b1: β 5 0.65, t 5 9.2, р ≤ 0.01). Moreover, it was shown that teachers’
dedication was linked positively to teachers–student interaction (Path a2: β 5 0.61 t 5 17.22,
р ≤ 0.01) and teacher–student interaction had a significant association with students’
satisfaction (Path b2: β 5 0.18, t 5 2.9, р ≤ 0.05).
The total impact of teachers’ dedication on students’ satisfaction was also significantly
positive (Path c: β 5 0.67, t 5 16.11, р ≤ 0.01). We obtained evidence that controlling the

Variables Students’ satisfaction

Teachers’ work engagement β t-value

Vigor 0.29* 3.01

Dedication 0.37* 4.11
Table 3.
Absorption 0.45** 5.23 Multiple regression
R2 0.669 analysis showing the
Adj. R2 0.624 impact of dimensions
F-stat 127.005 of work engagement on
Note(s): **p ≤ 0.01, *p ≤ 0.05 students’ satisfaction
IJEM Teacher–
Teachers’ Vigor→ student Vigor→ Vigor→
Vigor→ sensitivity→ teacher– interaction→ students’ students’
teachers’ students’ student students’ satisfaction satisfaction
sensitivity satisfaction interaction satisfaction total impact direct impact
path a1 path b1 path a2 path b2 path c path c’

β 0.60** 0.71** 0.78** 0.23* 0.53** 0.28*

Se 0.037 0.056 0.038 0.057 0.037 0.041
t- 14.04 17.30 18.8 3.20 12.01 3.21
value
R2 0.779
Adj. 0.771
R2
F 332.44
Dedication → Teachers’ Dedication Teacher– Dedication → Dedication →
teachers’ sensitivity→ → teacher– student students’ students’
sensitivity students’ student interaction→ satisfaction satisfaction
path a1 satisfaction interaction students’ Total Impact Direct Impact
path b1 path a2 satisfaction path c path c’
path b2
β 0.84** 0.66** 0.61** 0.18* 0.67** 0.02
Se 0.031 0.055 0.022 0.070 0.033 0.041
t- 20.49 9.21 17.22 2.90 16.11 1.23
value
R2 0.675
Adj. 0.654
R2
F 321.43
Absorption→ Teachers’ Absorption Teacher– Absorption Absorption
teachers’ sensitivity→ → teacher– student → students’ → students’
sensitivity students’ student interaction→ satisfaction satisfaction
path a1 satisfaction interaction students’ Total Impact Direct Impact
path b1 path a2 satisfaction path c Path c’
path b2
β 0.57** 0.61** 0.71** 0.24* 0.68** 0.19*
Se 0.037 0.045 0.023 0.058 0.033 0.043
t- 13.09 9.01 21.02 3.2 19.03 2.81
value
R2 0.732
Adj. 0.711
R2
Table 4. F 289.31
Mediating impact of
teachers’ sensitivity Note(s): a
***p ≤ 0.01, **p ≤ 0.05
and teacher–student
b
V 5 vigor, D 5 dedication, A 5 absorption, TSI 5 teacher–student interaction, TS 5 teachers’ sensitivity,
interaction between SS 5 student satisfaction
dimensions of teachers’ “ Path a 5 IV→ M, Path b 5 M→ DV (IV-controlled), Path c 5 IV→ DV -Total effect (c 5 c’ þ ab), Path c’ 5 IV→
c

work engagement and DV- Direct effect (M controlled/ c’ 5 cab)

students’ satisfaction dPaths a1, b1, c, c’ show mediating impact of CI, Paths a2, b2, c, c’ show mediating impact”

mediators (teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–student interaction), the direct link of teachers’
dedication to students’ satisfaction became insignificant (Path c’ β 5 0.02 t 5 1.23, р ≥ 0.01).
Thus, teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–student interaction acted as full mediators
between teachers’ dedication and students’ satisfaction. The bootstrapping results showed
that both mediators had an overall impact of 0.5041. The individual impact of teachers’
Indirect impact Bias corrected accelerated (BCa) CI Effect size
Role of
Lower Upper teachers’
interaction and
Teachers’ vigor, teachers’ sensitivity, teacher–student interaction, students’ satisfaction
Total 0.4025 0.6031 0.6547 sensitivity
Teachers’ sensitivity 0.0185 0.2327 0.1526
Teacher–student interaction 0.2835 0.5354 0.5021
Teachers’ dedication, teachers’ sensitivity, teacher–student interaction, students’ satisfaction
Total 0.4347 0.6359 0.5041
Teachers’ sensitivity 0.0222 0.2421 0.2352
Teacher–student interaction 0.2903 0.5712 0.2689
Teachers’ absorption, teachers’ sensitivity, teacher–student interaction, students’ satisfaction
Total 0.3272 0.5471 0.5701
Teachers’ sensitivity 0.0206 0.2727 0.3809 Table 5.
Teacher–student interaction 0.2408 0.4891 0.1982 Bootstrapping for
Note(s): CI 5 95%, No. of bootstraps are samples 5 5,000, BCa 5 Bias Corrected and accelerated indirect impacts

sensitivity was 0.2352 and that of teacher–student interaction was 0.2689. The BCa CI at 95%
contained no zero in the interval. The model was fit as R2 5 0.675, Adj. R2 5 0.654, F 5 321.43
and sig 5 0.000. Full support was found for H2b and H3b.
Lastly, we tested the multiple mediating impact of teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–
student interaction between the third dimension of teachers’ work engagement, i.e.
teachers’ absorption and satisfaction of students as hypothesized in H2c and H3c. It was
found that teachers’ absorption has a positive relationship with teachers’ sensitivity (Path
a1: β 5 0.57 t 5 13.09, р ≤ 0.01) and teachers’ sensitivity is linked positively to students’
satisfaction (Path b1: β 5 0.61, t 5 9.0, р ≤ 0.01). It was also found that teachers’ absorption
has a positive relationship with teachers–student interaction (Path a2: β 5 0.71 t 5 21.02,
р ≤ 0.01) and teacher–student interaction has a significant link to SS (Path b2: β 5 0.24,
t 5 3.2, р ≤ 0.05).
The total impact of teachers’ absorption on students’ satisfaction was significantly
positive (Path c: β 5 0.68, t 5 19.03, р ≤ 0.01). After the mediators (teachers’ sensitivity and
teacher–student interaction) were controlled the direct impact of teachers’ absorption on
students’ satisfaction reduced in a significant manner (Path c’ β 5 0.19 t 5 2.8, р ≤ 0.05). Both
teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–student interaction acted as partial mediators between
teachers’ absorption on students’ satisfaction. The results of bootstrapping showed that CI
(BCa, 95%) does not contain 0 with a combined mediating effect size of 0.5071. Teachers’
sensitivity had a greater impact (0.3089) than teacher–student interaction (0.1982). Model fit
was indicated as, R2 5 0.732, Adj. R2 5 0.711, F 5 289.31 and sig 5 0.000. Thus, our results
supported H2c and H3c partially.

5. Discussion
This research was conducted to examine the impact of teachers’ work engagement, i.e. vigor,
dedication and absorption on students’ satisfaction in the college sector of Pakistan. Besides
this, the indirect impact of teacher–student interaction and teachers’ sensitivity was also
examined in the said relationship based on the tenet of SDT.
The study findings supported the notion that all dimensions of teachers’ work
engagement were positively linked to the satisfaction of students with their teacher as we
postulated in H1a, H1b and H1c. This shows that the argument of Kaur (2014) is also true in
educational settings showing a positive link in the service sector employee engagement and
IJEM satisfaction of customers. This shows that students are deemed as “customers” in the modern
education system (Calma and Deane, 2020) and the better performing teachers are positively
evaluated by the students (Edstrom, 2008). SDT posits that internal motivation is inherent in
engaged employees and they have positive behaviors and better performance as compared to
less engaged or disengaged counterparts (Deci and Ryan, 2012; Reeve et al., 2008; Meyer and
Gagne, 2008).
The findings affirmed that teachers’ vigor yields satisfied students. Engaged teachers are
vigorous, and they are willing to put their maximum effort, organize the learning activities
with more energy (Zeng and Xu, 2019). Their resilience and inherent persistence enable them
to manage a classroom environment where creative and innovative learning takes place that
goes beyond the traditional lecture method (Bay et al., 2014). Teachers’ intrinsic drive to
invest work effort and energy in lecture delivery and addressing students’ needs inculcates
satisfaction in students (Kangas et al., 2017).
The results offered support for the direct relationship between teachers’ dedication and
students’ satisfaction. The engaged teachers are fully dedicated, they act proactively and
employ their full capacity in teaching and creating an effective teaching-learning
environment (Latif et al., 2019; Poysa et al., 2019). They take pride in their work and
design their teaching activities in an enthusiastic and challenging way rather than focusing
on mediocre and status quo teaching routines (Bay et al., 2014). The improved teaching
services offered by the highly engaged teachers reflected in their dedication, enhance the
perception of students regarding the satisfactory learning experiences. This confirms the
conception that teachers play a main role in creating satisfied students (Haug and Odegaard,
2015; Kim and Connelly, 2019; Sneyers and De Witte, 2017).
It was validated through the results that the teachers’ absorption is a precursor of
students’ satisfaction. Engaged teachers are absorbed and fully immersed in their job duties
and have a great interest in enhancing student learning. Apart from just teaching reactively,
they feel pleasure in their job and are more attentive to the emergent needs and demands
based on the abilities of students and modern learning standards. In contrast, disengaged
teachers perform their job with frustration and hardly go beyond the bookish content that
leads toward poor lecture delivery and lower level of satisfied pupils (Van Wingerden et al.,
2017). This research confirms that teachers are the prime actors that shape the educational
experience for the students (Hoigaard et al., 2012) and more engaged teachers can satisfy the
learning needs of their student in a better way (Kangas et al., 2017; Konermann, 2012).
This research also clarified the underlying mechanism between teachers’ engagement and
students’ satisfaction relationship based on theoretical foundations of SDT (Deci and Ryan,
2012) as we theorized in H2a, H2b, H2c, H3a, H3b and H3b. We posited that all dimensions of
teachers’ work engagement (i.e. vigor, dedication and absorption) are linked to students’
satisfaction via teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–student interaction. The findings revealed
that the relationship of teachers’ vigor and absorption with students’ satisfaction was
partially mediated by teachers’ sensitivity and teacher–student interaction; while full
mediation was witnessed in the case of teachers’ dedication and students’ satisfaction
association.
Our results showed that engaged teachers have better interaction with their students and
in turn, the students feel more satisfied. This affirmed the conception of Havik and
Westergard (2020) who revealed that actively engaged teachers have a higher tendency to
build a bond with students. Backed by SDT (Deci and Ryan, 2012; Reeve et al., 2008), the
internal drive in engaged teachers spurs vigor, dedication and absorption. Therefore, they are
more interested in responding to the needs of their students and have a strong bond with
them given their innate internal motivation to fulfill competence, connection and autonomy
needs (Konermann, 2012; Poysa et al., 2019). As per the SDT perspective, engagement is an
internal drive and it builds on the need to develop quality interpersonal relationships
(Goodboy et al., 2020). Hence, the high working effort, enthusiasm and willingness to happily Role of
indulge in one’s work make the engaged teachers have better relationships with their teachers’
students. This causes effective knowledge delivery and removal of misconceptions to
students (Liu and Chiang, 2019; Moore, 1993). Engaged teachers are willing to exert more
interaction and
effort than passively delivering the contents and pay attention to having good interpersonal sensitivity
terms with their students. It has been indicated that immediacy is one of the major element
that enhances the learning experience satisfaction. Students are more satisfied with the
teacher who has better interaction with them (Poysa et al., 2019; Pianta et al., 2012).
The results indicated that teachers’ engagement makes them more sensitive toward the
need of students that ultimately improved students’ satisfaction level. This is in line with the
assertions of Kim and Connelly (2019) who deemed teachers’ sensitivity as an essential skill in
today’s changing dynamics of educational settings. In light of SDT, the intrinsic motivation
of engaged teachers develops an internal persistent urge to invest effort, feel enthusiasm and
happily concentrate on their job (Fontan et al., 2019). So that such teachers have energy,
dedication and indulgence required to tackle class matters and to respond to the needs of
students with interest (Williford et al., 2017). The underlying need to excel in engaged
teachers makes them address the questions, needs and concerns of students in an efficient
manner (Haug and Odegaard, 2015). Furthermore, actively engaged people have more
enthusiasm, energy and full indulgence in their work. In this way, they are proactive in
handling the situations and act more sensitively toward the demands in work settings.
Engaged teachers are more caring and attentive toward the needs and want of students and
have a timely responsive attitude toward the students (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2002). They are
energetic and motivated to build environments in which the students feel safe to express
themselves and enhance their learning. These teachers are more vigilant regarding the needs
of students and know them well enough (Pianta et al., 2012). A more attentive and responsive
teacher is positively evaluated by the students (Ansari and Pianta, 2019). Thus engaged
teachers behave in a sensitive manner that allows effective teaching and inclusive
environment that is a precursor of student satisfaction.

6. Conclusion
In this study we conjectured that college sector teachers’ work engagement (i.e. vigor,
dedication and absorption) is directly linked to student’s satisfaction and this relationships is
mediated by teacher–student interaction and teachers’ sensitivity based on SDT. Based on
empirical findings, the present research has concluded that college teachers’ active
engagement is required to create their willingness and motivation to invest in effective
pedagogical decisions and actions that makes their students satisfied. Their work
engagement, consecutively, improves their interaction with students and makes them
more sensitive in meeting the needs of students that causes students to have satisfying
educational experiences. The stated intervening role is fully witnessed in the case of teachers’
dedication while it’s partially present in case of teachers’ vigor and absorption.

7. Research implications (theory, policy and practice)

Extending the prior focus on service quality, program quality, institutional image (Chandra
et al., 2019; Khoo et al. 2017; Latif et al., 2019; Osman and Saputr, 2019), learning styles,
demographical factors (Merritt, 2019), teachers’ education and competence (Aslam et al.,
2016), academic experience, teaching quality, campus life, the campus community and
facilities (Elkins et al., 2019; Van Wingerden et al., 2017). Moreover, it has also moved beyond
the positive teacher-level outcomes of work engagement (Bakker and Bal, 2010; Granziera
and Perera, 2019; Li et al., 2017) and shown that it also impacts the students’ outcomes. Based
IJEM on SDT, this research has shown the importance of teachers’ intrinsic motivation depicted in
their work engagement as a precursor of students’ satisfaction.
It has brought to the surface that more than the infrastructural factors and qualification of
teachers, building students’ satisfaction is also dependent on the teachers’ characteristics
intrinsic psychological states like their level of engagement (Deci and Ryan, 2012; Fontan
et al., 2019; Goodboy et al., 2020; Reeve et al., 2008). Also, it has put forth the argument of
Kangas et al. (2017) who indicated that students were more satisfied in interactive
environments when their teachers were actively engaged. This study has unlocked the direct
link of teachers’ work engagement and students’ satisfaction based on SDT and clarified that
teachers’ work engagement leads to better interaction with students and makes them
sensitive towards the students’ needs. Hence, it has empirically proved teacher–student
interaction and teachers’ sensitivity as a mediating mechanism in the stated relationship.
Further, it has examined the teachers’ work engagement and students’ satisfaction in the
college sector as a contrast to the previously focused university and school settings (Kangas
et al., 2017; Naidoo et al., 2019; Van Wingerden et al., 2017).
The college administration can use this research to devise policies to enhance student
satisfaction through teachers’ work engagement. Teachers’ training sessions can be carried
out to educate them regarding the development of effective engagement in classrooms. The
techniques of developing better interaction and communication can be taught and teachers
can be trained to become more vigilant towards the needs of students and give quick
responses. In addition, rewards can be tied to the teachers whose work engagement and
student satisfaction evaluations are high as rewards are indicated as one of the effective ways
to promote work engagement. Besides recognition and verbal praise should also be used
(Sacks, 2006). As suggested by Rana et al. (2014) the job design of teachers in colleges should
also be challenging rather than the conventional practice of covering course content
laboriously.
Teachers should also put time, energy and efforts to develop the course content that is
according to the contemporary requirements and contain activities beyond the traditional
lecture delivery method. They should focus on the cues and observe the behavior of students
in the class to have an immediate response to their issues. It is essential to have competent and
knowledgeable teachers but active engagement is needed to further develop and transfer that
knowledge into visible student outcomes (Loughran, 2012).

8. Limitations and future research directions

The present study is quantitative and time-lagged in nature so care should be taken in
drawing causal inferences. Future studies can benefit from longitudinal, experimental and
mixed-method designs to advance the methodological rigor. Besides, the prime focus of this
research is intermediate/degree colleges in Pakistan so the findings could differ across the
sector. So, we suggest future researchers can also replicate the model in other settings and
national contexts.
This study examined only mediators explaining the teachers’ work engagement and
students’ satisfaction relationship, in future, this could be extended by investigation of
conditional impacts to shed light on the factors that enhance or undermine the teachers’
engagement and student satisfaction association, i.e. the working environment, proactive
personality, work demands (Rana et al., 2014).
Moreover, we had a focus on outcomes of teachers’ work engagement in the college sector and
does not offer insights about the factors that promote engagement. Therefore, this research also
calls for further investigation on the antecedents that promote the teachers’ engagement in college
settings, i.e. job characteristics, peer support, family support, organizational culture, rewards, etc.
(Fiorilli et al., 2019; Fontan et al., 2019; Rana et al., 2014; Sacks, 2006).
References Role of
AEPAM (2019), “Pakistan education statistics 2018-19”, available at: http://library.aepam.edu.pk/ teachers’
Books/Pakistan%20Education%20Statistics%202016-17.pdf.
interaction and
Ahmed, I., Ismail, W.K.W., Amin, S.M. and Islam, T. (2014), “Role of perceived organizational support sensitivity
in teachers’ responsiveness and students’ outcomes”, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 246-256.
Ansari, A. and Pianta, R.C. (2019), “Teacher–child interaction quality as a function of classroom age
diversity and teachers’ beliefs and qualifications”, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 294-304.
Aslam, U., Rehman, M., Imran, M.K. and Muqadas, F. (2016), “The impact of teacher qualifications and
experience on student satisfaction: a mediating and moderating research model”, Pakistan
Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 505-524.
Bakker, A.B. and Bal, M.P. (2010), “Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among
starting teachers”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 189-206.
Bates, E.A., Kaye, L.K. and McCann, J.J. (2019), “A snapshot of the student experience: exploring
student satisfaction through the use of photographic elicitation”, Journal of Further and Higher
Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 291-304.
Bay, A.B., An, I.L. and Laguador, J.M. (2014), “Organizational satisfaction and work engagement of
Filipino teachers in an Asian university”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic
Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 32-41.
Biasutti, M. and Heba, E.D. (2012), “Using Wiki in teacher education: impact on knowledge
management processes and student satisfaction”, Computers and Education, Vol. 59 No. 3,
pp. 861-872.
Bobe, B.J. and Cooper, B.J. (2020), “Accounting students’ perceptions of effective teaching and
approaches to learning: impact on overall student satisfaction”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 60
No. 3, pp. 2099-2143.
Calma, A. and Deane, C. (2020), “The student as customer and quality in higher education”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 1221-1235.
Carey, K., Cambiano, R. and De Vore, J. (2002), “Student to faculty satisfaction at a Midwestern
university in the USA”, available at: www.Herdsa.org.au.
Carter, S. and Yeo, A.C.M. (2016), “Students-as-customers’ satisfaction, predictive retention with
marketing implications”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 635-652.
Chandra, T., Hafni, L., Chandra, S., Purwati, A.A. and Chandra, J. (2019), “The influence of service
quality, university image on student satisfaction and student loyalty”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1533-1549.
Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S. and Sun, J. (2006), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill Irwin,
New York.
Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2017), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Sage Publications, London.
Dalton, H. and Denson, N. (2009), “Student evaluation: what predicts satisfaction”, in The Student
Experience, Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference, Darwin, pp. 6-9.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometric, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 297-334.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2012), Self-Determination Theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dessus, P., Cosnefroy, O. and Luengo, V. (2016), “‘Keep your eyes on’em all!’: a mobile eye-tracking
analysis of teachers’ sensitivity to students”, European Conference on Technology Enhanced
Learning, Springer, Cham, pp. 72-84..
IJEM Dong, Y., Xu, C., Song, X., Fu, Q., Chai, C.S. and Huang, Y. (2019), “Exploring the effects of contextual
factors on in-service teachers’ engagement in STEM teaching”, The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Edstr€om, K. (2008), “Doing course evaluation as if learning matters most”, Higher Education Research
and Development, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 95-106.
Elkins, A., Forrester, S. and Elkins, D. (2019), “Examining the relationship between students’
perceived sense of campus community and satisfaction with school life”, College Student Affairs
Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 28-38.
Fiorilli, C., Schneider, B., Buonomo, I. and Romano, L. (2019), “Family and nonfamily support in
relation to burnout and work engagement among Italian teachers”, Psychology in the Schools,
Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 781-791.
Fontan, E., Senoran, M., Rodriguez, A. and Gonzalez, A. (2019), “Teachers’ ICT-related self-efficacy, job
resources, and positive emotions: their structural relations with autonomous motivation and
work engagement”, Computers and Education, Vol. 134, pp. 63-77, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.
02.007.
Foroudi, P., Yu, Q., Gupta, S. and Foroudi, M.M. (2019), “Enhancing university brand image and
reputation through customer value co-creation behaviour”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 138, pp. 218-227.
Gagne, M. (Ed.) (2014), The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-
Determination Theory, Oxford University Press.
Garg, N. (2020), “Exploring role of gratitude in developing teacher leadership in Indian universities”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 881-901.
George, D. and Mallery, M. (2003), Using SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and
Reference, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Goodboy, A.K., Martin, M.M. and Bolkan, S. (2020), “Workplace bullying and work engagement: a self-
determination model”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 35 Nos 21-22, pp. 4686-4708, doi:
10.1177/0886260517717492.
Grace, D., Weaven, S., Bodey, K., Ross, M. and Weaven, K. (2012), “Putting student evaluations into
perspective: the course experience quality and satisfaction model (CEQS)”, Studies in
Educational Evaluation, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 35-43.
Granziera, H. and Perera, H.N. (2019), “Relations among teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, engagement,
and work satisfaction: a social cognitive view”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 58,
pp. 75-84, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.003.
Han, J., Yin, H., Wang, J. and Bai, Y. (2020), “Challenge job demands and job resources to university
teacher well-being: the mediation of teacher efficacy”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 45 No. 8,
pp. 1771-1785.
Haug, B.S. and Odegaard, M. (2015), “Formative assessment and teachers’ sensitivity to student
responses”, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 629-654.
Havik, T. and Westergard, E. (2020), “Do teachers matter? Students’ perceptions of classroom
interactions and student engagement”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 64
No. 4, pp. 488-507.
Hayes, A.F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Publications.
Headar, M.M., Elaref, N. and Yacout, O.M. (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of student
satisfaction with e-learning: the case of private universities in Egypt”, Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 226-257.
Hoigaard, R., Giske, R. and Sundsli, K. (2012), “Newly qualified teachers’ work engagement and
teacher efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to quit”, European
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 347-357.
Hunter, R. (2020), “Education system profile, education in Pakistan”, available at: https://wenr.wes.org/ Role of
2020/02/education-in-pakistan.
teachers’
Joo, Y.J., Lim, K.Y. and Kim, E.K. (2011), “Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence:
examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural
interaction and
model”, Computers and Education, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 1654-1664. sensitivity
Kangas, M., Siklander, P., Randolph, J. and Ruokamo, H. (2017), “Teachers’ engagement and students’
satisfaction with a playful learning environment”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 63,
pp. 274-284.
Kaur, S. (2014), “The role of employee engagement in customer satisfaction in hospitality industry an
analytical study”, available at: http://shodh.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/1522/1/
synopsis.pdf.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Khoo, S., Ha, H. and McGregor, S.L. (2017), “Service quality and student/customer satisfaction in the
private tertiary education sector in Singapore”, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 430-444.
Kim, H. and Connelly, J. (2019), “Preservice teachers’ multicultural attitudes, intercultural sensitivity,
and their multicultural teaching efficacy”, Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 42
No. 4, pp. 3-20.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2009), Marketing Management, Pearson Education.
Konermann, J. (2012), “Teachers’ work engagement: a deeper understanding of the role of job and
personal resources in relationship to work engagement, its antecedents, and its outcomes”,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente.
Latif, K.F., Latif, I., Sahibzada, U.F. and Ullah, M. (2019), “In search of quality: measuring higher
education service quality (HiEduQual)”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
Vol. 30 Nos 7-8, pp. 768-791.
Li, M., Wang, Z., Gao, J. and You, X. (2017), “Proactive personality and job satisfaction: the mediating
effects of self-efficacy and work engagement in teachers”, Current Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 48-55.
Liu, R. and Chiang, Y.L. (2019), “Who is more motivated to learn? The roles of family background and
teacher-student interaction in motivating student learning”, The Journal of Chinese Sociology,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 2-17.
Loughran, J. (2012), What Expert Teachers Do: Enhancing Professional Knowledge for Classroom
Practice, Routledge, Abingdon.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms,
and procedural remedies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 542-555.
Merritt, A.C. (2019), “Learning Styles, and demographic predictors of college student satisfaction in an
online learning environment”, Doctoral Dissertation, Dissertation, Gwynedd Mercy University.
Meyer, J.P. and Gagne, M. (2008), “Employee engagement from a self-determination theory
perspective”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 60-62.
Moore, M.J. (1993), “Three types of interaction”, in Harry, K., John, M. and Keegan, D. (Eds), Distance
Education Theory, Routledge, New York, pp. 19-24.
Naidoo, V., Abarantyne, I. and Rugimbana, R. (2019), “The impact of psychological contracts on
employee engagement at a university of technology”, SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
IJEM Nasser, R.N., Khoury, B. and Abouchedid, K. (2008), “University students’ knowledge of services and
programs in relation to satisfaction: a case study of a private university in Lebanon”, Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 80-97.
Nazari, M., Dastoorpoor, M., Ghasemzadeh, R. and Moradi, N. (2020), “Relationship between work
engagement and voice complaints among elementary school teachers”, Journal of Voice, In
press. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.12.001.
Nisar, A. (2017), “Comparison of public-private education in Pakistan”, available at: http://www.
pakistaneconomist.com/2017/07/31/comparison-of-public-private-education-in-pakistan/.
Oliver, R.L. (2014), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer: A Behavioral Perspective on
the Consumer, Routledge, Abingdon.
Osman, A.R. and Saputra, R.S. (2019), “A pragmatic model of student satisfaction: a viewpoint of
private higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education. Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 142-165.
Pianta, R.C., Hamre, B.K. and Allen, J.P. (2012), “Teacher-student relationships and engagement:
conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions”, Handbook
of Research on Student Engagement, Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 365-386.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Poysa, S., Vasalampi, K., Muotka, J., Lerkkanen, M.K., Poikkeus, A.M. and Nurmi, J.E. (2019),
“Teacher–student interaction and lower secondary school students’ situational engagement”,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 374-392.
Rana, S., Ardichvili, A. and Tkachenko, O. (2014), “A theoretical model of the antecedents and
outcomes of employee engagement”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 26 Nos 3/4,
pp. 249-266.
Reeve, J., Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. and Jang, H. (2008), “Understanding and promoting autonomous self-
regulation: a self-determination theory perspective”, Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning:
Theory, Research, and Applications, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 223-244.
Reeve, J. (2009), “Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they
can become more autonomy supportive”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 159-175.
Richardson, J.C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J. and Caskurlu, S. (2017), “Social presence in relation to students’
satisfaction and learning in the online environment: a meta-analysis”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 402-417.
Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Early, D.M., Cox, M.J., Saluja, G., Pianta, R.C., Bradley, R.H. and Payne, C. (2002),
“Early behavioral attributes and teachers’ sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior in the
kindergarten classroom”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 451-470.
Rodie, A.R. and Kleine, S.S. (2000), “Customer participation in services production and delivery”,
Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, pp. 111-125.
Rodriguez, N., Dandy, K.R., Lane, S., Import, L. and Deringer, E. (2010), “Employee engagement and
customer satisfaction”, Academy of Health Care Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Sarrico, C.S. and Rosa, M.J. (2014), “Student satisfaction with Portuguese higher education institutions:
the view of different types of students”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 165-178.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a Role of
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716. teachers’
Shahid, A. (2019), “The employee engagement framework: high impact drivers and outcomes”, Journal
interaction and
of Management Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 45. sensitivity
Skrbinjek, V. and Dermol, V. (2019), “Predicting students’ satisfaction using a decision tree”, Tertiary
Education and Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 101-113.
Smith, C.A., Zhou, G., Potter, M., Wang, D., Pecoraro, M. and Paulino, R. (2019), “Variability by
individual student characteristics of student satisfaction with promising international student
teaching practices”, Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3,
p. 3160.
Sneyers, E. and De Witte, K. (2017), “The effect of an academic dismissal policy on dropout,
graduation rates and student satisfaction: evidence from The Netherlands”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 354-389.
Subrahmanyam, A. (2017), “Relationship between service quality, satisfaction, motivation and loyalty:
a multi-dimensional perspective”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 171-188.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, Pearson, Boston, MA.
Thien, L.M. and Jamil, H. (2020), “Students as ‘customers’: unmasking course experience and
satisfaction of undergraduate students at a Malaysian research university”, Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2019.1660045.
Timms, C. and Brough, P. (2013), “I like being a teacher”, Journal of Educational Administration,
Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 768-789.
Timms, C., Graham, D. and Cottrell, D. (2007), “I just want to teach”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 569-586.
Tsai, K.C. (2017), “Teacher-student relationships, satisfaction, and achievement among art and design
college students in Macau”, Journal of Education and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 12-16.
Van Wingerden, J., Derks, D. and Bakker, A.B. (2017), “The impact of personal resources and job
crafting interventions on work engagement and performance”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Wadhwa, R. and Jha, S. (2014), “Internationalization of higher education: implications for policy
making”, Higher Education for the Future, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 99-119.
Weerasinghe, I.S. and Fernando, R.L. (2017), “Students’ satisfaction in higher education”, American
Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 533-539.
Williford, A.P., Carter, L.M., Maier, M.F., Hamre, B.K., Cash, A., Pianta, R.C. and Downer, J.T. (2017),
“Teacher engagement in core components of an effective, early childhood professional
development course: links to changes in teacher–child interactions”, Journal of Early Childhood
Teacher Education, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 102-118.
Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T. and Del Valle, R. (2004), “The effects of teacher social presence on
student satisfaction, engagement, and learning”, Journal of Educational Computing Research,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 247-271.
Zeng, J. and Xu, G. (2020), “Ethical leadership and young university teachers’ work engagement: a
moderated mediation model”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 21.
Zeng, G., Chen, X., Cheung, H.Y. and Peng, K. (2019), “Teachers’ growth mindset and work
engagement in the Chinese educational context: well-being and perseverance of effort as
mediators”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00839.
Zhai, X., Gu, J., Liu, H., Liang, J.C. and Tsai, C.C. (2017), “An experiential learning perspective on
students’ satisfaction model in a flipped classroom context”, Journal of Educational Technology
and Society, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 198-210.
IJEM Further reading
Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2004), “The theoretical underpinnings of customer asset
management: a framework and propositions for future research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 271-292.
Harry, K., John, M. and Keegan, D. (2013), Distance Education: New Perspectives, Routledge, Abingdon.
Islam, A.A. and Sheikh, A. (2020), “A study of the determinants of postgraduate students’ satisfaction
of using online research databases”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 273-287.
Mukhtar, U., Anwar, S., Ahmed, U. and Baloch, M.A. (2015), “Factors effecting the service quality of
public and private sector universities comparatively: an empirical investigation”, Researchers
World, Vol. 6 No. 3, p. 132.

Annex
Questionnaire items

Teachers’ work engagement

When I am teaching, I feel bursting with energy (VI1).
I find teaching full of meaning and purpose (DE1).
Time flies when I am teaching (AB1).
When I am teaching, I feel strong and vigorous (VI2).
I am enthusiastic about teaching (DE2).
When I am teaching, I forget everything else around me. (AB2).
The teaching inspires me (DE3).
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to college for teaching (VI3).
I feel happy when I am teaching intensely (AB3).
I am proud of teaching (DE4).
I am immersed in my teaching job (AB4).
I can continue teaching for very long periods at a time (VI4).
To me, teaching challenging (DE5).
I get carried away when I am teaching (AB5).
While performing my teaching duties, I am very resilient, mentally (VI5).
It is difficult to detach myself from teaching (AB6).
During teaching, I always persevere, even when things do not go well (VI6).
AB 5 absorption, DE 5 dedication, VI 5 vigor.

Student satisfaction with teacher

I am satisfied with the teaching quality.
The learning experience meets my expectations.
I am interested in taking another course from this teacher.

Teacher’s sensitivity
My teacher is sensitive to my needs for autonomy, independence, and mastery.
My teacher imposes his agenda on me regardless of my needs (R).
My teacher half-heartedly responds to my queries (R).
 My teacher has a lack of awareness of my needs for appropriate interactions with activities, Role of
materials, and peers.
teachers’
interaction and
sensitivity
Teacher–student interaction
My teacher encouraged me to become actively involved in the course discussions.
My teacher provided feedback on my work through comments.
I have the opportunity to interact with my teacher during the course discussions.
My teacher treats me as an individual.

Corresponding author
Tehreem Fatima can be contacted at: tehreem.fatima@lbs.uol.edu.pk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com