University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Professional development for teaching online

(USC Thesis Other)

Professional development for teaching online

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PROFESIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHING ONLINE

by

Magan Arleta Mitchell

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Magan Arleta Mitchell
ii
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ because with Him
all things are possible. I am so grateful and blessed to have such a loving and
supportive family. Mom and Dad thank you for your continuous encouragement
throughout my entire life. You both have always been there for me and I will always
love you for being the great parents that you are. To my three sisters, Monique, Kim
and Mia, thank you for inspiring and motivating me to be the best me I can possible
be and tolerating me throughout this process. To my best friend in the whole wide
world, Myetta, thank you for your support and assistance in keeping me focused
amidst my tears and complaints.
Second, to my committee chairperson, Dr. Melora Sundt, thank you for your
guidance and advice. Your support through this process has been invaluable and
your attention to writing conventions has challenged me to become a better writer.
I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Dominic Brewer and Dr.
Lawrence Picus. It has been a privilege to engage in such thoughtful conversations
about my study.
Third, a huge thank you to Dr. Dennis Hocevar, for his patience and guidance
through the data analysis process, and to Kevin Collins, for his assistance with the
IRB process. In addition, thank you to Dr. Fischer, Lisa Galvan and to Yevgeniya
Kopeleva for your persistence and assistance.

iii
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Overview 1
Background 4
Benefits of Professional Development 4
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 15
Importance of Study 16
Limitations 17
Definition of Terms 17
Organization of the Dissertation 18
iv
Chapter Two: Literature Review 20
Introduction 20
Adult Learning 22
Characteristics of Andragogy 23
Background 24
Principles of Andragogy 25
Andragogy and Professional Development 27
Self-Efficacy 29
Self – Efficacy and Technolog 30
Professional Development and Self-Efficacy 33
Professional Development Training for Teaching Online 34
Characteristics of Effective Training 34
Online Professional Development Content 37
Length as a Proxy for Engagement 39
Online Professional Development Format 40
Role of Prior Experience 41
Professional Development Evaluation 44
Principal Models of Evaluation 45
Tyler’s Evaluation Model 45
Metfessel and Michael’s Evaluation Model 46
Hammond’s Evaluation Model 46
Scriven’s Goal Free Evaluation Model 47
Sufflebeam’s CIPP Evaluation Model 47
Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model 48
Variables 49
Summary 52

Chapter 3: Methodology 55
Introduction 55
Research Method and Design 56
Site Selection 63
Study Participants 64
Intervention 65
Instrument Description 67
Pre-Test Surve 67
Interview Method 68
Post-Test Survey 70
Descriptive Statistics 71
Analysis 71
Reliability and Validity 71
Limitations 72
v
Chapter 4: Results 74
Introduction 74
Descriptive Results 75
Data Analysis 75
Sample Demographics 76
Findings 77
Findings Related to Research Question 1 78
Findings Related to Research Question 2 80
Findings Related to Research Question 3 81
Findings Related to Research Question 4 83
Findings Related to Research Question 5 91
Summary of Findings 93

Chapter 5: Conclusions 95
Summary of Findings 96
Technology Self-Efficacy 96
Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy 97
Online Pedagogy Self-Efficacy 98
Prior Experience Teaching Face-to-Face vs. Online 98
Effective Training Strategies 100
Level One: Reactions 102
Level Two: Learning 102
Level Three: Transfer 103
Level Four: Results 104
Implications for Practice 104
Recommendations for Future Research 107
Conclusion 109

References 111

Appendices 122
Appendix A: Pre-Test 122
Appendix B: Interview 126
Appendix C: Post - Test 128

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Study Population

65
Table 2: Interview Matrix

70
Table 3: Reliabilities

72
Table 4: Response Rates

75
Table 5: Comparison Between Matched and Non-Matched Subsamples

76
Table 6: Sample Demographics

77
Table 7: Results for Technology Self-Efficacy

79
Table 8: Results for Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy

81
Table 9: Results for Online Pedagogy Self-Efficacy

82
Table 10: F-test for Online Statistical Interactions

83
Table 11: F-test for Face-to-Face Statistical Interactions

88
Table 12: Ranked Teaching Strategies

92

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Synchronous Online Class

11
Figure 2: Pedagogical, Technological, Content Knowledge Framework

38
Figure 3: Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels (Kirkpatrick, 2006)

57
Figure 4: Online Teaching Experience vs. Technology Self-Efficacy

84
Figure 5: Online Teaching Experience vs. Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy

85
Figure 6: Online Teaching Experience vs. Online Pedagogy Self-Efficacy

86
Figure 7: Face-to-Face Teaching Experience vs. Technology Self-Efficacy

89
Figure 8: Face-to-Face Teaching Experience vs. Content Knowledge Self-
Efficacy

90
Figure 9: Face-to-Face Teaching Experience vs. Online Pedagogy Self-
Efficacy

91

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Overview
As a means of increasing educational capacity, many universities are
choosing to offer online courses and programs. Currently, over 65% of degree
granting postsecondary institutions in the United States offer college-level distance
education courses (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008). The Sloan 2010
survey of online learning reveals that approximately 5.6 million students were
enrolled in at least one online course in fall 2009 and 55% of all institutions in the
United States offer at least one blended course (Allen, Seaman, & Garret, 2010).
According to Horgan (1998), “Universities are feeling the pressure to control costs,
improve quality, focus directly on customer needs and respond to competitive
pressures” (p.1).
Current evolutionary changes in educational technology and pedagogy are
changing the nature of higher education from face-to-face courses to online and
hybrid courses using digital technologies to support constructivist, collaborative
student-centered pedagogy (Hiltz & Turoff, 2005). This exponential growth in
online education is causing a paradigm shift in learning. Institutional leaders in
higher education are faced with the challenge of ensuring that their faculty
members are trained in teaching online (Pagliari, Batts & McFadden, 2009;
Shepherd, Alpert, & Koeller, 2008; Yang & Corneilus, 2005).
The online learning environment is a potentially promising arena in which
new practices, relationships and the diversity of students can make significant
2
contributions to learning. Currently, over 50% of U.S. students are returning to
acquire a postsecondary education after work and often have families (Hiltz &
Turoff, 2005). Online learning enrollment growth is largely attributed to time
constraints on adult learners who are balancing career, family, and the need to
obtain an education in an ever-changing workforce (McAllister, 2002). Distance
education offers flexibility to those individuals whose schedules and responsibilities
prevent them from attending a traditional brick and mortar program (McAllister,
2002).
There are several benefits to the students and the institutions that are the
driving forces for online learning. Aside from flexibility, students often times select
online learning because of the increased collaboration with peers and faculty
members that are not always as obvious on ground. In addition, students are able to
select their own learning environment and are attracted to the advanced
technologies and course delivery. Institutions also reap benefits associated with
offering online courses. Universities are able to reach students around the world
without hiring additional staff (Kosak, Manning, Dobson, Rogerson, Cotnam, Colaric,
& McFadden, 2004). Benefits may also include reduction in costs. McMahon (1997)
suggests that it is significantly less expensive to produce materials electronically
than in printed form. In the long term the online class may lead to savings in
teaching and real estate costs. However, Bennett, Priest, and Macpherson (1999)
argue that although printing costs may fall, design and development costs may rise
substantially and change continuously.
3
Innovations in instruction often times face the challenges of establishing that
they do not negatively impact the quality of instruction. Both advocates and
opponents of online learning have questioned the quality of online teaching.
According to Bower (2001), “at minimum, the experience of a distance learning
student should be as rich, both intellectually and affectively, as the experience of a
student in a traditional classroom”. Thus, the expectation of online learning is that
it should offer improved and enhanced quality. In higher education, quality of
instruction is measured through access to resources such as libraries, labs, and the
faculty and the degree to which it includes life experiences and affective
development via student interaction with one another (Bower, 2001). Both of these
quality measures are not done well in terms of distance learning.
Guskey (2000) ascertains that “Schools can be no better than the educators
who work within them, and professional development remains key to educators’
progress and professional growth” (p.226). Research advocates that training, and
development must efficiently and effectively confront all of the challenges
associated with online learning to ensure that the quality of instruction is not
compromised.
Due to the fact that online teaching is a relatively new phenomenon, most
faculty have little to no experience with teaching online (Bennet, Priest, &
Mcpherson, 1999). Some of the faculty lack familiarity with the technology while
others experience difficulty in discovering new ways in which to engage learners
while utilizing the best delivery method for the content. To date, professional
4
development opportunities in the area of online teaching have been limited (Bennet,
Priest, & Mcpherson, 1999).
Targeted professional developments can provide instructors with the
experiences of online learning that will enable them to see beyond the technological
jargon and make connections with the content and pedagogy needed for effective
teaching online. The United States Department of Education (2000) found in a
longitudinal three-year study that “professional development focused on specific,
higher-order teaching strategies increases teachers’ use of those strategies in the
classroom” (p.5). This study explored the training strategies that attributed to an
instructor’s self-efficacy to teach online.
Background
In 1957, the National Society for Study of Education published a
comprehensive book that challenged the narrow assumptions about professional
development that had been dominant in the 20
th
century (Liberman, 1995). The
book proposed that schools and staff members become collaborators in providing
training. Due to the fact that teachers’ status was increasing in society the idea of
them contributing to professional development gained creditability within the
education field (Liberman, 1995). Interestingly, the climate for professional
development changes often (King and Lawler, 2003).
Benefits of Professional Development
Today, more importance has been placed on professional development than
ever before due to the fact that education is a dynamic professional field with a
5
continually expanding knowledge base (Guskey, 2000). There are several benefits
associated with professional development. Some benefits of professional
development are that it improves quality of education and increases student
outcomes, enhances educators’ knowledge and skills, and is essential to educators’
progress and growth (Guskey, 2000).
Professional development is both an ongoing and systematic process
(Guskey, 2000). Essentially, every effort to improve the quality of education and
increase student outcomes has taken place in the last decade (Sparks & Hirsh,
2000). Since the increased reform efforts, teachers continue to teach as they have
taught in the past. A growing body of research suggests that improving teacher
knowledge and teaching skills is necessary for increasing student outcomes. Many
educators view professional development as a complete waste of time and
unrelated to their daily work duties. Overall, researchers suggest that professional
development should be encouraged and supported at the organizational level or
even the most promising innovation will fail (Sparks & Hirsh, 1997).
Professional development also serves as a vehicle for assisting participants
in enhancing their knowledge and skills. This can be achieved through exploring
theory to understand the concepts behind a skill or strategy. An effective
professional development program through the acquisition of knowledge and skills
should incite positive attitude changes, bring forth awareness of new curricula,
practices or academic content and transfer this information into practice (Joyce &
Showers, 2003).
6
Lastly, professional development promotes professional growth among the
participants (Guskey, 2000). Through participation in professional development,
participants can reach their fullest potential through looking beyond the present
and taking a long-term, holistic view of their careers and recognizing how this new
knowledge presented in the training can aid in obtaining their professional goals.
Professional development can also serve as a tool in supporting educators as
lifelong learners by providing opportunities for them to talk about and reflect over
subject matter, students and their learning, and their own teaching (Wilson & Berne,
1999).
As the general and working population has become increasingly diverse in
recent years, educators face the varied needs of students of different nationalities,
languages, gender, sexual orientation, and educational background with multiple
needs and skills (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). How do instructors of adults learn to
teach this changing population of students? Professional development. Thus,
implications of adult education are of great interest. Although adult education is a
relatively recent field of study it is not a new concept (Brookfield, 1984). One early
theorist in particular, Lindeman, influenced this field. As early as 1926, Lindeman
raised ethical questions in his writings in regards to adult education (Brookfield,
1984). He provided a conceptualization of adult education and introduced the idea
of andragogy into American education. Lindeman offered the most succinct
definition of adult education in his paper entitled “What is Adult Education?” written
7
in 1925 (Brookfield, 1984; Knowles, 1990). Here Lindeman defines adult education
as,
a co-operative venture in on-authoritarian, informal learning the chief
purpose of which is to discover the meaning of experience; a quest of
the mind which digs down to the roots of the preconceptions which
formulate our conduct; a technique of learning for adults which
makes education coterminous with life and hence elevates living itself
to the level of an experiment (Lindeman, 1925, p. 3)
Prior to this discussion of andragogy there was only one theoretical framework for
all of education, pedagogy. In spite of the fact that pedagogy literally means “the art
and science of leading children” (Knowles, 1990, p. 10), theorists believed that
adults learn in the same manner as children. Pedagogy teaches students what
society feels they should learn and allows teachers to assume responsibility for how
they should learn the desired skill or knowledge. However, Knowles (1973) learned
that unlike children, adult learners have a reservoir of experience, are ready to
engage in learning experiences that are necessary for solving real-life tasks or
problems and are self-directed. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics (2002), online learners include adult learners.
The information age has affected education. With increased access to
broadband and previous communications such as text, images, videos and sound
clips are now easily available through use of the Internet. Students are now able to
take a number of academic courses via distance learning. Many institutions deliver
these courses using the World Wide Web, e-mail, standard mail, telephone,
prerecorded video, live video, software or other means (Mariani, 2001). Several
universities are taking advantage of the new opportunities to offer instruction to a
8
diverse student population online.
Since the knowledge base in education grows at such a rapid pace, it is
necessary that educators keep abreast of emerging information to refine their craft
(Guskey, 2000). The United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA)
conducted a survey which revealed that 80% of respondents participated in an in-
house training and 98% relied on conventional instructor –led training while nearly
75% used an intranet /Internet –based delivery system for their training for
teaching online (Wolf, 2006).
This study focused on a postsecondary organization in California, which has
embarked on a groundbreaking, highly interactive online Master of Arts in Teaching
Program. This program provides students with the flexibility and ability to not only
share and interact with peers from across the nation but also work with a diverse
group of instructors. The advanced technologies enable students to stream videos,
gain twenty-four hour access to lectures, readings and assignments, and engage in
virtual face-to-face classes. As some of the faculty members of the institution
transition to teaching online, this study assessed their impression of the
professional development received and evaluated how the training has affected
their self-efficacy to teach online.
Statement of the Problem
There is a vast amount of information available about how to teach
effectively face-to-face. According to Ball (2009), “Skillful teaching requires
appropriately using and integrating specific moves and activities in particular cases
9
and contexts, based on knowledge and understanding of one's pupils and on the
application of professional judgment” (p. 497). Ladson – Billings (1995) suggests
that effective teachers are culturally relevant teachers who utilize students’ cultures
as a vehicle for learning. To this end, Darling-Hammond (2005) states “effective
teachers are able to figure out not only what they want to teach, but also how to do
so in a way that builds understanding” (p. 88). Performing these activities
effectively is an intricate work and requires practice, exemplars and professional
training. According to Ball (2009), “Such training would involve seeing examples of
each task, learning to dissect and analyze the work, watching demonstrations, and
then practicing under close supervision and with detailed coaching aimed at
fostering improvement” (p. 497). However, effective teaching strategies and
pedagogy is generally disseminated in teacher education programs.
Although there is a great deal of information available on teaching face-to-
face, there is a limited amount of literature on effective teaching online when using
asynchronous tools. In asynchronous online learning, students can access the
materials and content online anytime. The challenge for educators of asynchronous
online learning is how to design instruction for both machines and humans and how
the two interact with each other (Anderson, 2008). According to Schoenfeld-Tacher
and Persichitte, (2006) distance learning educators should have the “ability to
construct an organized presentation, project enthusiasm for the subject matter and
appropriately pace a lecture” (p.258). Goodyear, Salmon, Spector, Steeples &
Tickner (2001), outline the major roles of a competent online teacher:
10
• Content facilitator – concerned with the learners’ understanding
of the course content.
• Technologist – makes technological choices that improve the
learner environment for students.
• Designer: designs worthwhile online tasks
• Manager/Administrator: concerned with issues of learner
registration, security and record keeping.
• Facilitator: facilitates the range of online activities that support
student learning.
• Adviser: offer counseling to students on an individual basis to
help students get the most out of their engagement with the
course.
• Assessor: provide grades, feedback, and validation of learners’
work
• Researcher: concerned with engagement in production of new
knowledge of relevance to the content areas being taught.
There is even less guidance available for teaching effectively for synchronous
online learning environments. Synchronous online learning allows for real-time
interaction (live video feed) between students and instructors.

11
Figure 1: Synchronous Online Class

It is said that teaching in this type of environment is very different from
teaching face-to-face or even asynchronously. There are several challenges and
barriers associated with teaching online. According to Palloff and Pratt (2000),
many faculty and administrators believe that the online classroom is no different
than that of a face-to-face classroom and all that is needed to successfully teach
online is to “convert” the course material. There are definitely differences between
teaching online and teaching face-to-face. These challenges include but are not
limited to poor training on technology and effective pedagogy, lack of support,
absence of community building, and complexity of assessing students.
Faculty members in higher education are poorly trained in teaching both on
ground and online. According to faculty members, one of the deterrents to teaching
12
online is the lack of training (Maguire, 2005). Little consideration is given to
authentic faculty training and the training rarely proceeds at a steady, predictable
and reliable pace (Caffarella & Zinn, 1999; Kidd, Keengwe, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009).
It is often assumed that faculty members will learn the necessary strategies to
accommodate their instructional needs, and intuitively know how to effectively
teach online (Kidd, Keengwe, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009; Palloff & Pratt, 2001). A study
of online teaching faculty from the State University of West Georgia found that a
majority of instructors, 62% received one to five hours of instruction before
teaching their first online course (McKenzie, Mims, Bennett, & Waugh, 2000).
Many organizations use professional development as a competitive
advantage (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2000). Bartlett and Ghosal (2000), ascertains that
successful organizations “consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely
throughout the organization, and quickly embody it in new technologies and
products” (p.681). In order to train faculty members for the online teaching
environment, faculty members will participate in professional developments.
Therefore, if universities knew more about evaluating professional developments
for their effectiveness, institutions could make more strategic use of resources. This
evaluation will aid in justifying spending and budget, deciding whether or not to
continue or discontinue the program or gaining information on how to improve
future professional developments.
According to Killion (2007), high quality professional developments are data
driven, research based and well defined. Kirkpatrick (2006) suggests that there are
13
only three things an instructor can teach: knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Therefore, the participants at the selected University were given a posttest to assess
the faculty member’s self-efficacy for teaching online as result of attending the
professional development. Kirkpatrick (2006) also provides four levels that can be
utilized in evaluating professional development programs. These levels include
reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Through use of this evaluation model, one
will be able to identify strengths and weaknesses and increase the effectiveness of
training teachers to teach online.
In evaluating the professional developments provided to faculty, one should
look carefully at the design of the professional development. The participants of the
professional developments are adults; therefore, the professional developments
should consider how adults learn best and what role andragogy plays in the style,
format and content of the professional development. Andragogy can be defined as
the art and science of teaching adults (Terehoff, 2002). Knowles (1990) spent his
entire career formulating a theory on adult learning based on research and
experience related to characteristics of the adult learner. In andragogy, the learner
is regarded as being an adult learner, self-directed, internally motivated, and
problem centered to orientation to learning (Knowles, 1990; Houle, 1974). In
addition, Gibb (1960) presented the functional theory which suggests that learning
must be problem centered, experience must be meaningful to the learner, the
learner must be free to look at experience, goals must be pursued by the learner,
and the learner must have feedback about progress toward goals. Frequent
14
criticism of professional developments is that it is strong in theory but weak on
practical application which can cause adults to become bored and unproductive if
the learning is not stimulating (Brookfield, 1986; Terehoff, 2002).
In order to provide a quality education online, faculty must be trained in
teaching online and hold a high self-efficacy in regard to their ability to teach.
Studies have shown a relationship between a high level of teacher’s self-efficacy and
higher student achievement (Watson, 2006). Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy
(1998) suggested that self-efficacy influences various student outcomes, such as
achievement, motivation, and student efficacy for learning. Thus, proper analysis of
the teacher’s self-efficacy after the completion of the professional development is
necessary when evaluating the program. Bandura (1977) defines self- efficacy as a
belief in one’s own abilities to perform an action or activity necessary to achieve a
goal. People’s self-efficacy beliefs determine their level of motivation, the amount of
effort they will exert and how long they will persevere toward achieving a particular
goal (Bandura, 1989; Bandura, 1983). According to the National Education
Association (2000) survey, 50% of faculty expressed negative or uncertain feelings
towards distance learning. There is a need to focus on faculty’s perceptions,
attitudes and other motivating and inhibiting factors that affect the teacher’s self-
efficacy towards teaching online (Williams, 2002; Dillon & Walsh, 1992). Knowing
more about the faculty’s prior teaching experience, and their perceptions of gains in
self-efficacy to teach online could potentially help us improve training in an area
15
that is growing at an exponential rate and very little formal research currently
exists.
Purpose of the Study
As more colleges and universities move toward offering more classes online,
more teachers will need to be properly trained in teaching online. This is often a
daunting task due to the various skill levels among faculty members. According to
Whitesel (1998), “Technology does not teach students; effective teachers do” (p. 2).
Thus, faculty members must not only be trained in how to properly use the
technology but must also be familiar with the best pedagogical practices associated
with teaching online.
Understanding faculty perceptions of professional developments provided
by institutions is necessary to meet the needs of the staff in the future. This study
identifies the characteristics of professional development are related teacher’s self-
efficacy about teaching online. Variables such as the faculty’s previous experience,
perceptions, age, and gender enhanced the understanding of the problem at hand. In
addition, to these factors, the researcher also bore in mind how the facilitator,
content, format, duration, and style of the professional development may impact
this relationship.
Research Questions
1. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to technology
and teaching in an online environment?
16
2. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to content
knowledge and teaching in an online environment?
3. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to online
pedagogy and teaching in an online environment?
4. To what extent does a faculty member’s perception of training for online
courses in terms of technology, content and online pedagogy vary by the
faculty member’s prior experience teaching online or face-to-face?
5. Which training strategies, if any, do the participants identify as effective
in producing the greatest gains in self-efficacy?
Importance of Study
This study directly links educational research to practical advances and
development of research-based tools and processes that can then be used by
practitioners (Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2003). The relationship between the
teacher’s self-efficacy and the provided professional development was identified
and analyzed. Once this is achieved, best practices for effectively training faculty
members were outlined and can be replicated in future professional developments.
The results of this mixed method study provided deans and administrators at
institution the opportunity to analyze the findings and allocate resources to further
develop the skills of their faculty members in terms of teaching online. This study
also identified the relationship between the professional development provided by
17
the institution and the teacher’s self-efficacy in teaching an online course in terms of
technology, content knowledge and online pedagogy. Several instructors are eager
to learn effective online teaching strategies, but they must be trained. This study
assisted in clarifying the needs of the online faculty and provided suggestions on
improving the delivery of professional development.
Limitations
A limitation is some aspect of the study that the researcher knows may
negatively affect the results or generalizability of the results but over which he or
she has no control (Gay, 2003). Survey, research is limited to what respondents are
willing to disclose to researchers (Fowler, 2002). Some instructors were not candid
during the interview due to fear of their responses having a negative impact on their
employment with the institution. It was presumed that the participants will provide
truthful answers.
Definition of Terms
Adult Learner – students outside of the k-12 educational system. They are
characterized as being self-directed, goal and relevance oriented, and as having life
experiences and practical knowledge (Knowles, Holten & Swanson, 2005)
Andragogy – the art or sciences of teaching adults (Terehoff, 2002)
Asynchronous Internet-based technologies – used for courses that are not based on
simultaneous computer-based instruction (NCES, 2008)
Blended/Hybrid Course – courses that combine face-to-face learning experiences
with web-based learning experiences (Allen & Seaman, 2007)
18
Distance Education – a formal education process in which the students and
instructor are not in the same place. Thus, instruction may be synchronous or
asynchronous and it may involve communication through the use of video, audio, or
computer technologies, or by correspondence (NCES, 2008)
E-pedagogy – “electronic pedagogy” the art of teaching online (Palloff & Pratt, 2001).
Face-to-face – conducting a class with no online technology (Allen & Seaman, 2007).
Online Learning – delivering 80% or more of course content online with typically no
face-to-face meetings (Allen & Seaman, 2007)
Pedagogy - the art and science of leading children (Knowles, 1990)
Professional Development – processes and activities designed to enhance the
professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators so that they might in turn
improve the learning of students (Guskey, 2000 p.16)
Program Evaluation – the systematic investigation of merit or worth (Guskey, 2000,
p.41)
Self-efficacy - a belief in one’s own abilities to perform an action or activity
necessary to achieve a goal (Bandura, 1997)
Synchronous Internet –based technologies – simultaneous or ‘real-time” computer
based instruction (NCES, 2008)
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters. It is within the first chapter that
an introduction, background of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose of
the study, research questions, significance of the study, limitations, and definitions
19
of key terms are provided. The aim of this study was to discover the relationship
between the faculty member’s self-efficacy to teach online and the professional
development and training provided by the institution and which training strategies
contributed to gains in self-efficacy.
Chapter two presents a review of the literature pertaining to this problem. It
describes concepts such adult learning, self-efficacy, and professional development
evaluation and how it relates to online teaching. Looking to the literature to assess
what research has been conducted on these topics and how the findings contribute
to the further development of this study.
Chapter three discusses the mixed methods used to collect and interpret
data. This chapter outlines the research design, site selection, study participants,
intervention, instrument description and collection methods. The purpose of this
chapter is to also describe the statistical techniques used to analyze the data and
address the reliability and validity of the data.
Chapter four details the findings organized by the research questions of this
study. The results of both the interviews and pre/post tests are outlined and
interpreted for significance and meaning.
The final chapter provides an overview of the research findings and the
conclusions of the study. Chapter five presents recommendations and implications
for practice. In addition, this chapter will also delineate the limitations of this
research and present suggestions for future research.
20
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Introduction
Distance education is growing at an exponential rate as universities strive to
create educational capacity. Allen and Seaman (2007) conducted a survey, which
revealed that nearly 3.5 million students were enrolled in at least one online course
during the fall of 2006 compared to more than 1.5 million in 2002. Higher education
institutions that offer online courses within the United States predict that their
enrollments for online will continue to grow (Allen & Seaman, 2010).
This new learning environment offers various benefits and challenges. These
benefits include student flexibility and some even suggest a reduction in costs
(McMahon, 1997). However, some challenges faced in the online learning
environment include maintaining a high quality of instruction online (Bower, 2001),
converting course materials from a face-to-face classroom to online (Palloff & Pratt,
2001), absence of community building (Rovai & Jordan, 2004), and complexity of
assessing students (Palloff & Pratt, 2001). Most importantly, faculty members
teaching online are faced with the challenge of learning how to teach online. There
are distinctive skills and instructional strategies necessary for an online
environment that differs from those of a face-to-face classroom environment
(Palloff & Pratt, 2001). Keengwe, Kidd, Kyei-Blankson (2009) suggest that more
successful faculty in online environments participate in training and development
prior to teaching online. Part of the success of a professional development program
depends on the content and pedagogy of the training provided (Barancato, 2003).
21
In order to understand the relationship between faculty’s participation in a
professional development and the faculty’s self-efficacy in regards to teaching in an
online environment, this literature review examines professional development for
online teaching, adult learning, teacher self-efficacy, and the theoretical framework
behind evaluating professional developments. Analysis of prior research and
findings will assist in the further development of this study.
Although many institutions provide training for their faculty for teaching
online, the manner in which the training is conducted and the content of the
professional development may not be effective (Kosak, Manning, Rogerson, Cotman,
Colaric, and McFadden, 2004). Research suggest that professional development
should be ongoing, allow teachers time to practice, provide modeling of instruction,
and offer feedback (Lowden, 2005; Tschannen- Moran & McMaster, 2009).
Research has suggested that self-efficacy influences various student
outcomes, such as achievement, motivation, and students’ own self-efficacy for
learning (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfok Hoy, 1998). It is said that professional
developments represent another way to increase teacher knowledge and efficacy
(Tschannen-Moran and McMaster, 2009). Thus, increased knowledge and higher
self-efficacy can contribute to effective teaching and make positive impacts on
student outcomes.
Andragogy has become very influential in how facilitators consider effective
means of facilitating adult learning (Brookfield, 1986). Educators and trainers can
never predict with certainty how one adult will respond to new ideas,
22
interpretations, skill sets, experiences, or materials (Brookfield, 1986). Therefore,
identification of effective practices should be discussed and analyzed when
facilitating adult learning (Brookfield, 1986).
Since we live in an age of accountability, it is necessary to employ a
systematic means of measuring the “effectiveness” of any given professional
development program (Guskey, 2000). Thus, effective professional development is
viewed as the center of educational reform (Dilworth & Imig, 1995). Lowden
(2005) posits that evaluations of professional developments must search means of
better understanding the influence of professional development on teachers and its
impact on student learning. In addition, Champion (2003) suggested that
evaluations should be designed around what participants actually learned versus
their impressions and reactions in order to determine the impact on student
achievement.
This chapter will identify the gaps and trends within the current literature.
The chapter will open with a discussion of adult learning followed by an analysis of
teacher self-efficacy, professional development for teaching online and professional
development evaluation. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the
variables that appear, and the patterns and themes that reoccur throughout the
literature.
Adult Learning
The central question of how adults learn has seized the attention of many
scholars and practitioners since the founding of adult education as a professional
23
field of practice (Merriam, 2001). The participants of the professional development
are adults; thus, adult learning and andragogy are necessary for full examination of
this research question. Adults are characterized as being independent, goal-
oriented, and experienced (Newton, 1977; Terehoff, 2002; Brookfield, 1986). Smith
(1982) identified six general observations regarding learning which suggest that it
is lifelong, personal, ever changing, a function of developing as a human, pertains to
experience and somewhat intuitive. Thus, adult learning styles vary due to
physiology, culture, and personality (Brookfield, 1986). The pedagogy and content
of the professional development provided by the institution should reflect that of
the literature available on adult learning.
Characteristics of Andragogy
Research asserts that adults do learn differently than children (Terehoff,
2002). Therefore, researchers suggest that the pedagogy utilized during
professional development should address the needs of adult learners (Knowles,
1984). Andragogy is the art and science of teaching adults. Adults enter into
education for different reasons than children. To a child, education is just a process
of learning a subject matter that may or may not be used later in life (Terehoff,
2002). However, to adults, education is a process of improving their ability to solve
life problems they currently face. Understanding adults’ orientation to learning
from this perspective requires that professional developments create learning
experiences that will address and resolve problem areas they face (Terehoff, 2002;
Ingralls, 1984).
24
In andragogy, experience is valued and serves as a resource for adult
learning (Knowles, 1980). If their personal experiences are not being utilized they
can feel as if they are being rejected and become bored (Brookfield, 1986; Terehoff,
2002; Knowles, 1980). The idea of experience reestablishes Lindeman’s (1926)
view of experience as the resource of highest value in adult education. According to
Terehoff (2002), new experiences become more meaningful when they are
entwined and linked to previous and current experiences.
Readiness to learn is another characteristic evident in andragogy (Terehoff,
2002; Knowles, 1908; Ingralls, 1984). Unlike children, adults’ learning is not
generally contingent on structured activities. The adult’s readiness for learning is
evident in his societal role as an organizational member, parent and spouse
(Newton, 1977). In terms of professional development, facilitators should be aware
of the fact that each participant’s learning needs and interests may differ from one
another and may not all experience the readiness to learn at the same time
(Terehoff, 2002). Thus, teachers should be placed in groups based on their learning
needs (Terehoff, 2002; Knowles, 1980). Knowles (1980) recommended that
workshops work best for adults because it gives the participants the flexibility and
opportunity to collaborate with colleagues with similar learning needs.
Background
Knowles (1978) looks at adult learning from a historical perspective.
Knowles (1978) references Edward L. Thorndike as well as Edward C. Lindeman
and their pioneering theories on andragogy. Thorndike was responsible for
25
extensive investigation of adult learning. In 1928 he published adult learning and
which focused on primarily adults ability to learn. Lindeman identifies several key
assumptions about adult learning, which were further supported by later research.
Knowles also provides a comparison of andragogy in Europe and the United States.
Many scholars in Europe have researched andragogy for some time. Andragogy has
become increasingly more visible by educators in France, England, Venezuela, and
Canada where a bachelor’s degree in andragogy was established (Knowles, 1978).
In the United States, a number of articles and research on the applications of
andragogy in the education field are impacting the way in which adults are being
trained and educated (Knowles, 1978).
Principles of Andragogy
Brookfield (1986) presents seminal principles related to understanding and
facilitating adult learning. He opens with a review of effective practices in adult
learning and identifies the research and theory associated with adult learning over
the past twenty-five years. One of the earliest principles of adult learning was
presented by Gibb (1960). Gibb (1960) founded the basis for the “functional
theory.” This theory suggest that learning must be problem centered, meaningful
experience to the learner, the learner must be allowed to integrate experience, goals
must be established and pursued by the learner, and the learner must obtain
feedback in regards to their progress toward achieving their goals (Gibb, 1960).
Following Gibb (1960), Miller (1964) argued that adults must be motivated
to change behavior and aware of the inadequacies associated with the present
26
behaviors. In addition to being motivated and identifying the undesired behaviors,
the learner must be able to visualize the behavior required and an opportunity to
practice the desired behavior. Kidd (1973) presented concepts rather than
principles pertaining to adult education. His ideas were derived from adult’s life
span and role changes in the lives of adults. Similar to that of Kidd (1973), Knox
(1977) conducted a study, which examined the development of adults and their
learning based on observations. Knox (1977) concluded from his survey, “almost
any adult can learn anything they want given time, persistence, and assistance”
(p.469).
Lastly, Brundage and Mackeracher (1980) identified 36 learning principles
and noted planning implications of each principle. Brundage and Mackeracher
(1980) view adults as strongly motivated to learn in relevant areas of their lives and
believes that voluntary participation creates a nonthreatening environment that
will produce the greatest amount of learning. All of these principles can be
summarized as the following: Adults learn throughout their lives and they exhibit
different learning styles. Thus, when investigating the professional development
training provided to the faculty at this university, adult-learning principles will be
identified and noted when observed to assess its influence on increasing a faculty
member’s self-efficacy to teach online.
Brookfield (1986) introduces research instruments applied to examining the
extent to which principles of adult learning are being implied in any given setting.
The instruments designed to measure and test the facilitation of adult learning
27
included the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS), Andragogy in Practice
Inventory (API) and the Delphi. PALS was created by Conti (1978, 1979, 1983,
1985) to measure the extent to which facilitators supported the collaborative model
of teaching learning (Brookfield, 1986). The instrument was tested for construct,
content, validity by adult education professors (Brookfield, 1986). The end
resulted in a 44 item rating scale that can be used to measure the effectiveness of
adult learning in any given in-service or training. Since its initial conception, PALS
has been used in a numerous amount of training and developments (Brookfield,
1986).
Andragogy and Professional Development
Professional development provided to faculty members teaching online
should integrate strategies that support them as adult learners. Knowles (1984) in
his work on andragogy identified seven components that he suggests are replicable
in a variety of programs in various institutions: Facilitators must establish a climate
conducive to learning both physical and psychological; facilitators must involve
learners in planning; participants should feel as if they have played a participatory,
contributory role; facilitators should allow participants to diagnose their own
learning needs; facilitators encourage participants to identify resources and
strategies for accomplishing their objectives; facilitators assists participants in
carrying out their learning plans; facilitators involve learners in evaluating their
learning (Knowles, 1984). Prior to developing these recommendations, Knowles
(1984), established the idea of adult learning through analysis of earlier theorists.
28
Birkenholz wrote a book entitled Effective Adult Learning. Birkenholz’s
(1999) book serves as a reference for individuals who are interested in planning
and conducting educational programs for adult learners. Unlike Brookfield, it does
not provide theories on adult learning but rather provides an overview of principles
and practices for operating adult education programs. The text outlines teaching
methods as to type, purpose and suggested strategies for increased learning for
adults. Birkenholz (1999), advises that programs that are well planned and based
on a needs assessment are more likely to render results than a program that is
designed solely on the perspective of the individual.
Terehoff (2002) examines the concept and philosophy of andragogy the role
it plays in teacher professional development. Often times principals and school
leaders employ the methods used with students when planning professional
development. When using this method the leadership takes responsibility for what
is being taught and learned (Terehoff, 2002). Ingralls (1984) suggests that
elements of adult learning should be incorporated in the planning and designing of
professional development to help in establishing a positive learning environment
and a spirit of mutual inquiry. In essence, the leadership’s knowledge and
consideration of andragogical concept can enhance their capacity to aid in the
professional growth of others (Boucouvalas & Krupp, 1989).
Often times, in professional development adult learners are characterized as
student learners. Terehoff (2002) outlines three distinctions that are highlighted in
the areas of adults’ self-concept, experience, readiness to learn and orientation to
29
learning. Teachers are adults and responsible for themselves and capable of self-
direction in learning as they are in other activities of their lives (Terehoff, 2002;
Ingrall, 1984; Knowles, 1980; Newton, 1977). Translated into the context of
professional development, a teacher’s self-concept suggest that learning should
involve a personal freedom to choose the relevance of experiences during learning
and presented the choice of what they are learning (Terehoff, 2002). Thus, creating
an environment conducive to self-directedness can assist teachers’ development.
Suanmali (1981) created API, which is a ten-item inventory of educator
practices (Brookfield, 1986). Contrary to PALS, API was examined by 147 members
of the American Commission of Professors of Adult Education (Brookfield, 1986).
The professors agreed and felt that the practices identified in the inventory were
indicative of good andragogical practices and assisted adults in enhancing their
capability to function as self-directed learners (Brookfield, 1986). Finally, James
(1983) and Manley (1984) developed the Delphi through investigations of what
practitioners and professors of adult education identified as principles of practices
that facilitate adult learning. Manley (1984) recognized very similar categories and
practices to that of the PALS and API instrument although the survey was conducted
on such a small scale; just eighteen members of the American Commission of
Professors of Adult Education (Brookfield, 1986).
Self-Efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy has been associated with many educational outcomes
such as teacher’s persistence, enthusiasm, commitment and instructional behavior
30
(Tschannen-Moran, 2001). It has also been suggested that teacher self-efficacy
positively impacts student outcomes such as achievement, motivation, and self-
efficacy beliefs. Studies have shown a link between a high level of teacher’s self-
efficacy and higher student achievement (Watson, 2006). Professional
developments in general attempt to strengthen teacher’s self-efficacy due to the
various associated desired outcomes. This dissertation seeks to discover how the
professional development and training may have increased a faculty member’s self-
efficacy to teach online.
Bandura (1977) defines self-efficacy as a belief in one’s own abilities to
perform an action or activity necessary to achieve a goal or a task. It is said that
self-efficacy affects thought patterns that may aid or hinder a person’s ability to
complete a task. The stronger the perceived self-efficacy the higher the goals people
set for themselves and the stronger the commitment to achieving goals. Those who
feel that they are incapable of achieving certain tasks are more inclined to
undermine their performance by dwelling on things that could go wrong. While
more efficacious individuals are more likely to prepare themselves educationally for
different occupational pursuits and intensify their efforts when their performances
fall short and persist until they succeed.
Self – Efficacy and Technology
There have been several long-term studies of technology use and feelings of
efficacy in regards to computer and Internet use (Watson, 2006). Milbraith & Kinzie
(2000) conducted a three-year study of pre-service teachers and found that feelings
31
of self-efficacy and computer technology increased between years one and two.
Another study conducted by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) for the U.S.
Department of Education (2000) researched the Eisenhower Professional
Development Program. Their conclusion disclosed that teachers’ inability to
develop improved strategies and improve teaching practice correlated with the
amount and quality of professional development received over the course of the
study. Lastly, Christensen (2003) researched a professional development program
that had in-service teachers participating in a two-day technology training with a
follow-up day training every six weeks throughout the year. The results of this
group of teachers were compared with a control group of teachers that did not
receive any training. The findings indicated that the professional development had
a positive effect on teachers’ attitudes and anxiety with technology.
Joo, Bong & Choi (2000) studied the participant’s self-efficacy beliefs, or their
confidence in using computer technologies in general. The role of self-efficacy for
self-regulated learning in web-based instruction (WBI) was also explored in this
study. Important background variables such as gender, prior academic achievement
and previous experience with computers were incorporated. Bandura (1977, 1997)
affirms that previous personal experience with the given task is often the strongest
predictor of one’s percept of efficacy.
The participants included 152 sophomores in a junior high school in Seoul
Korea. The sample consisted of 112 males and 40 females. Students’ responded to a
questionnaire asking about their self-efficacy in terms of WBI and self-regulated
32
learning. A series of t tests were conducted to determine if there were any gender
differences and prior experience correlation with self-efficacy. Females displayed
superiority in both self-regulated learning and cognitive strategy use (Joo, Bong &
Choi, 2000; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). A significant difference was
detected between males previous computer experience compared to females.
However, although males demonstrated a slightly higher Internet self-efficacy than
females, the difference was not statistically significant. This study identifies gender
as being a possible variable, which contributes to one’s ability to work with
technology.
Watson (2006) conducted a study on technology professional development
and the long- term effects the training has on teacher self-efficacy. He focused on a
West Virginia program to train teachers on integrating the Internet into science and
mathematics curriculum. A five-day summer workshop was provided to teachers
on basic skills on using the Internet, e-mail, and search engines. The online courses
served as reinforcement for the basic skills obtained in the summer workshop. At
the close of the program teachers submitted unit plans, which integrated the
Internet.
At least 389 teachers were surveyed before and after the workshop using the
Personal Internet Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Scale. Six years after teachers completed
the training, 296 of the original 389 were surveyed again. The results indicate that
teacher training has a long-term effect on teacher self-efficacy towards integrating
technology in the classroom. The study also analyzed how external factors such as
33
teaching experience may have affected the survey group. All in all, this study
concluded that feelings of self-efficacy using the Internet levels remain high over
time.
Professional Development and Self-Efficacy
Ingvarson, Meiers, and Beavis (2005) conducted a study on the factors that
affect the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge,
practice, student outcomes and efficacy. The purpose of the study was to identify
structural and process features of professional development programs that effect
teachers’ knowledge, practice and efficacy (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005). For
this study data was gathered from 40 different professional development programs
and 1,731 primary and secondary teacher participants in Australia.
The professional developments evaluated utilized a variety of delivery
modes such as: coaching, mentoring, online learning, formal award programs,
conferences and seminars (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005). Participants were
asked to complete a common survey instrument which asked them to describe both
the processes of learning they experienced and the impact the professional
developments had on their knowledge, practice, sense of efficacy and their students’
learning (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005).
Similar to other research, this study indicates that participants reported that
opportunities to focus on what students learn, examine student work
collaboratively, reflect on their practice and time to test new teaching methods
components of the professional development were deemed as effective to the
34
participants. The findings from this study were also consistent with other research
findings, which suggest that pre-existing level of support for professional
development in a school has an indirect effect on outcomes of programs. Perhaps
one of the most interesting findings in this study was how rarely designers built in
opportunities for feedback and coaching in the workplace.
Professional Development Training for Teaching Online
Researchers advocate that training and development are essential to the
success of technology adoption in higher education and must involve all
stakeholders, faculty, administrators, trainers, information technology personnel
and in some cases students (Keengwe, Kidd, Kyei-Blankson, 2009). Faculty
members cannot be expected to intuitively know how to effectively teach online
(Palloff & Pratt, 2001) or assume that they will learn the necessary strategies to
accommodate their instructional needs (Keengwe, Kidd, Kyei-Blankson, 2009).
According to Levy (2003), online faculty members are faced with a number of new
situations that differ from those of a traditional class setting. These include: course
layout and design; delivery methods for the content; communication methods;
increasing and maintaining student engagement; appropriate student assessments
and a working knowledge of the technologies and tools available online.
Characteristics of Effective Training
A comprehensive literature review revealed a limited amount of scholarly
research concerning training faculty to teach online (Wolf, 2006). Organizations
have always had training programs however, the quality and effectiveness of the
35
training provided is debatable. Training for online teaching should be an ongoing
process, which lasts longer than a half-day workshop (Salmon, 2003). According to
Guskey (2000) concurs that professional development should be an ongoing
process. Education is such a dynamic field with an expanding knowledge base,
educators should be continuous learners and view professional development as a
tool toward becoming a lifelong learner. Brancato (2003) in a study of professional
development in higher education, asserts that faculty development must be
strategically planned, implemented and sustainable over a period of time not only
increases their specific knowledge of discipline content but also keeps them abreast
of teaching innovations. Researchers suggest that in order for faculty members in
higher education to optimize the use of technological tools, the faculty be presented
with quality training that is aligned with the goals, policies and procedures of the
organization (Keengwe, Kidd, Kyei-Blankson, 2009).
Wolf ‘s (2006) research focused on training for teaching online. Her work
revealed the scarcity of scholarly work in this area. Wolf (2006) focused on a
faculty-training program used at the University of Maryland University College
(UMUC) as a case study. UMUC is a nontraditional university, which caters to
working adults and active duty military personnel. UMUC was selected as the case
study due to accessibility, mature and stable faculty training program, and the fact
that UMUC is often regarded as a world leader in distance education (Wolf, 2006).
For this study UMUC’s training program for online teaching was reviewed and
interviews were conducted with the experts and experienced online faculty at the
36
University. Approximately 30 experts in the field of distance education were
contacted and asked to participate; subsequently, 25 were interviewed.
The end product of this research resulted in a list of best practices for
training faculty to teach online. Wolf (2006) found those faculty members who will
be teaching online are successful when they participate in formal training. Success
is defined as completing at least one online course with student evaluation scores
and student complaints within accepted limits for the University (Wolf, 2006).
Interestingly, the study points out that faculty need not have face-to-face teaching
experience before teaching online (Wolf, 2006; Muirhead, 2000). The study
recommends that successful faculty have a minimum set of computing and technical
skills prior to teaching online. Wolf (2006) also found that effective training
programs are designed so that faculty is trained using the same course delivery
system which they will use to teach online. The researcher advocates that faculty
participate first as students and learn the various features of the system such as
submitting assignments and working in study groups through training (Wolf, 2006).
Lastly, the study found that successful training programs encompass pedagogy.
Although the methods for introducing pedagogy differ, the study supports
integrating adult learning principles as well as many other pedagogical practices.
Wolf (2006) concludes that when developing online training programs
faculty members must first have a desire to teach online and have a minimum
technology competency. Wolf (2006) strongly recommends that all online faculty
be required to participate in a formal training that has a clear mission be provided
37
with the necessary financial, human, and infrastructure resources. Finally, Wolf
(2006) proposes that universities should understand the differences in teaching
adults who bring a wealth of experiences. Wolf’s (2006) study presents research-
based findings that are meaningful to investigation of this research question. The
list of practices will serve as a benchmark when comparing the professional
development provided to the participants of this study.
Research on the effectiveness of online learning professional development
has focused on three primary areas: content of training, length of training and
format of the training. Each of these bodies of research is reviewed below with
references to literature on adult learning. There are both similarities as well as
differences pertaining to professional development for online learning and
andragogy.
Online Professional Development Content
One salient framework is the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The TPACK captures some of the essential
qualities of knowledge necessary for online teachers (Mishra & Koehler, 2006;
Archambault & Crippen, 2009). At the center of the TPACK framework, is the
intricate interplay of three primary forms of knowledge: content pedagogy, and
technology. See Figure below.

38

Figure 2: Pedagogical Technological Content Knowledge Framework: The three
circles, content, pedagogy, and technology, overlap to lead to four more kinds of
interrelated knowledge. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1025)

Mishra & Koehler (2006) used surveys to track changes in how participants
thought about the various components of the TPACK model. The study found that
participants exhibited demonstrable change away from thinking about content,
pedagogy and technology as separate components with little or no relationship
between these knowledge bases (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In addition to surveys,
the researchers used discourse analysis to analyze the conversations during a
semester-long investigation in which faculty members worked together to develop
online courses (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This analysis found that participants
tended to become specialized and spoke about their topic only. They became more
specialized in either technology, content, or pedagogy. However, later in the
39
semester the conversations tended to fall in multiple categories and expertise
became more evenly distributed and they were considered generalists
Archambault and Crippen (2009) conducted a study of 596 K-12 online
teachers to explore the nature of the factors comprising the TPACK model and
student achievement. Most of the participants were females and between the ages
of 26 and 45. The study suggested that participants had a difficulty distinguishing
between pedagogical and content knowledge, meaning that more experienced
teachers consider methods for teaching a certain topic as part and parcel of the
content. The study concluded that TPACK is a framework for teacher knowledge
and is helpful to those planning professional development for teachers by
illuminating what teachers need to know about technology, pedagogy, and content
and their interrelationships (Archambault & Crippen, 2009).
Length as a Proxy for Engagement
Kosak et al.’s (2004) conducted a study which examined the degree to which
university faculty were receiving sufficient training and support in developing
online curriculum, the amount of training the faculty obtained at various
institutions as well as their attitudes toward developing curriculum for online
learning. This study utilized a 25-question web based survey as a means of
collecting data. It targeted 125 potential respondents with online experience at 12
different university campuses. However, the researchers were unable to gain
support of all of the universities during the planning phase of the study and
encountered resistance from some of the institutions. Of the 125 potential
40
participants, 83 actually completed the survey. Three quarters of the 83
respondents were full professors, or assistant professors and the remainder were
either self-classified as instructor, lecturer, or adjunct. More than half of the faculty
was experienced educators with greater than 10 years of experience. In addition,
more than three quarters of the respondents had taught the curriculum from the
online classes in a face-to-face class setting prior to teaching it online.
Kosak et al.’s (2004) findings indicate that the opportunity to attend training
for online teaching was evident. Nearly half of the respondents indicated they
attended training, rather than conferences on other campuses. Similar to that of a
study pertaining to online faculty from the State University of West Georgia, 62% of
the instructors received one to five hours of instruction before teaching their first
online course (McKenzie, Mims, Bennett, & Waugh, 2000). Kosak et al. (2004) also
observed that greater than half of the respondents received training on best
practices for online pedagogy, while nearly three fourths indicated that technical
training was offered. The study concluded that professional development
contributed to positive results in teaching online courses.
Online Professional Development Format
According to Brown, Benson, and Uhde (2004), there are five areas of
emphasis that must be considered when developing a training and development for
faculty members on technology use: Limit the number of participants; Encourage
participants to leave the training with an goal to implement the new skill learned;
41
provide the opportunity for follow-up; provide technical support; and reduce
advising loads or other assignments for training.
The literature suggests that the training should be delivered online so that
faculty members can experience the same type of learning that their students will
engage in. The training should also discuss strategies and pedagogical practices
needed for teaching online. The pedagogy is often referred to as e-pedagogy. The
literature suggests that all of the normal cues, such as body language and eye
contact and other affective information are removed in the online learning
environment. Therefore, instructors are forced to rely on other forms of
assessments and class engagement to assess online learning. Moreover, the
technology continues to evolve and this is less evident with synchronous, live video
instruction. However, not many institutions are utilizing this vehicle at the present.
Role of Prior Experience
Kim and Bonk (2006) gathered data on the future of online teaching and
learning in higher education. The study was a part of a longitudinal effort to
understand the use of technology in teaching in both higher education and
corporate training settings (Kim & Bonk, 2006). To gather data, a survey was
conducted of more than 560 college instructors and administrators who were either
a member of the Multimedia Education Resource for Learning and Online Teaching
(MERLOT) or the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications
(WCET) associations. The online survey consisted of 42 questions regarding the
respondents’ demographic information, current status of online learning at the
42
respondents’ organizations and predictions about online teaching and learning (Kim
& Bonk, 2006). Sixty-six percent of the respondents held teaching positions while
the remaining respondents were administrators. Nearly half of the respondents
predicted that monetary support for pedagogical competency would aid in the
success of online education (Kim & Bonk, 2006). In addition, instructor’s technical
competency was the third most pressing factor for being ready for the online
teaching environment. Lastly, majority of the respondents disclosed that they
expected that online instructors would typically receive some sort of training for
teaching online. Similar to that of Wolf’s (2006) study, Kim and Bonk (2006)
emphasizes the importance of providing some type of training for online faculty.
This study raises the question of how demographics may impact the effectiveness of
the professional development provided.
Keengwe, Kidd and Kyei-Blankson (2009) conducted a study of the factors
affecting Information and Communication (ICT) adoption process and implications
for faculty training. The study showed that in order for faculty to effectively adopt
technology, administration must facilitate an environment that helps faculty to
familiarize with technology and its potential use. Respondents disclosed that they
would be more likely to adopt new technology if they were given guided practice,
examples and remedial support in using the tools available. This step requires not
only technology training but involves instructional training as well. According to
the researchers, for best results this training should occur early during the adoption
process. Contrary to Wolf (2006), Keengwe, Kidd and Kyei-Blankson (2009)
43
recommend that the institution not rely entirely on online delivery for training but
offer face-to-face training for instructors as well. This study concluded that in order
for faculty to effectively adopt ICT they must be familiarized with technology, use
the technology, integrate the technology, realign their teaching and student
outcomes with the technology, and finally become revolutionized in their teaching
practices (Keengwe, Kidd and Kyei-Blankson, 2009). These findings are important
to this study because they address the content of the professional development.
Keengwe, Kidd and Kyei-Blankson (2009) draw attention to the fact that
instructional practices should be covered during the training.
Orr, Williams, and Pennington (2009) also conducted research on effective
processes, practices and infrastructure that are fundamental components of
successful online teaching. The researchers examined various factors that might
influence faculty’s success online such as tenure, faculty member’s perceptions,
institution support and compensation. The goal of this qualitative research was to
understand the experiences and perceptions of online faculty. Data were collected
from two universities in the Southeastern United States. A total of ten faculty
members, five from each university were interviewed. The study found that these
two institutions were doing well in addressing barriers and identifying areas for
improvement. In terms of compensation the faculty members were pleased with
the incentives associated with teaching online. Parker (2003) completed an analysis
of over one hundred articles that lead to the conclusion that faculty generally teach
in distance education programs for the same incentives that they teach traditional
44
courses; for intrinsic rewards. This study identified self-satisfaction, flexible
scheduling and wider audience as the intrinsic rewards and stipends, decreased
workload, release time and new technology as the extrinsic motivators for teaching
online (Parker, 2003). However, one theme that emerged was the fact that the
extrinsic motivators were not major motivators for teaching online.
Orr, Williams, and Pennington (2009) provide two suggestions for
improvement. One recommendation for enhancing faculty member’s success with
teaching online is for instructors to understand how their efforts fit with the
institutional efforts. Second, during the initial implementation of distance education
the development of technology and pedagogical skills is necessary for success.
Professional Development Evaluation
Guskey (2000) defines evaluation as the systematic evaluation of and
investigation or merit or worth. According to Kirkpatrick (2006), there are several
factors that should be carefully considered when planning and implementing an
effective training program. These factors include: needs, objectives, subject content,
participants, schedule, facilities, instructors, audiovisual aids, and evaluation of the
program (Kirkpatrick, 2006). Guskey (2000) suggests that principles of effective
professional development differ from that of Kirkpatrick (2006). He includes a clear
focus, an emphasis on organization change, changes guided by a vision, and
professional development that is procedurally embedded as factors of great
importance (Guskey, 2000). Failure of professional developments in the past have
been attributed to unclear criteria for effectiveness, lack of backwards mapping and
45
neglect of quality issues (Guskey, 2000). Lastly, Kirkpatrick (2006) suggests that
evaluating can lead to justification of the existence of the training program,
decisions on whether to continue or discontinue the program and to gain
information on how to improve future training programs (Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Principal Models of Evaluation
Evaluation of professional development can be a very complex task and
requires the use of both a theoretical and conceptual framework (Guskey, 2000).
The models of evaluation that are most applicable in evaluating professional
development include (a) Tyler’s Evaluation Model, (b) Metfessel and Michael’s
Evaluation Model, (c) Hammond’s Evaluation Model, (d) Sciven’s Goal-Free
Evaluation Model, (e) Stufflebeam’s CIPP Evaluation Model, (f) Kirkpatrick’s
Evaluation Model (Guskey, 2000). For the purpose of this study the discussion of
each model will aid in determining the most effective evaluative model to
implement when evaluating the professional development provided by this
institution.
Tyler’s Evaluation Model
Ralph W. Tyler has been noted as being one of the earliest, far-reaching and
most influential individuals in designing a model for evaluation of professional
developments. (Alkin, 2004; Guskey, 2000). Tyler believes that an evaluation
should be systematic, therefore his model included a series of steps: (1) establish
goals or objectives (2) classify the goals or objectives (3) Define the goals or
objectives in observable terms (4) Find situations were achievement of the
46
objectives are demonstrated (5) Select measurement techniques (6) Collect data (7)
Compare data with objectives (Guskey, 2000). Tyler, felt that the most crucial step
in the entire process was the clarification of the program’s goals and objectives
(Guskey, 2000). Overall, Tyler’s model was simple, and easy to implement, thus it
influenced many subsequent evaluation theorists (Guskey, 2000).
Metfessel and Michael’s Evaluation Model
Metfessel and Michael (1967) suggest an extended version of Tyler’s
evaluation model. It expanded the methods of data collection strongly suggested
that broad-based involvement in the evaluation process implemented. They
outlined eight steps in the evaluation model: (1) Involve the school community and
facilitators in the process (2) Formulate goals and objectives (3) Translate
objectives into a communicable form (4) Construct instruments to measure
program effectiveness (5) Carry out periodic observations (6) Analyze the data (7)
Interpret data using standards (8) Develop recommendations (Guskey, 2000).
Metfessel and Michael (1967) focused on establishing clear objectives and using
data to measure effectiveness and added the development of recommendations for
further implementation.
Hammond’s Evaluation Model
In 1973, Hammond proposed an even more detailed evaluation model
influenced by Tyler as well (Guskey, 2000). Hammond also felt that the attainment
of goals and objectives were important be also believed that why the goals and
objectives were achieved were equally as important (Guskey, 2000). In order to
47
investigate the “why” questions, Hammonds developed a three-dimensional model
to organize the factors, which influence the attainment of the desired goals and
objectives (Guskey, 2000). Hammond’s model is more complex when compared to
Tyler and Metfessel and Michael’s (1967) evaluation models.
Scriven’s Goal Free Evaluation Model
Similar to that of Tyler and Metfessel and Michael (1967), Scriven (1967)
feel that goals help clarify the evaluation process and ensures that evaluations yield
relevant information (Guskey, 2000). Scriven believes that the goals of a program
should be examined and evaluated in order to avoid possible bias and improve
objectivity. Thus, he recommends that a goal-free evaluation should be
implemented in order to focus on actual outcomes. Scriven suggests that the
likelihood that unintended outcomes will be identified and noted as a result of goal-
free evaluations.
Sufflebeam’s CIPP Evaluation Model
Another model of evaluation was designed by Sufflebeam, which focused on
the decision-making process rather than being very goal-oriented. This model is
based on four different evaluation tenets that administrators need in order to make
decisions. First, Sufflebeam’s model evaluates context in order to make planning
decisions. The model focuses on problems, needs and opportunities that exist
within the educational community. Secondly, the model evaluates input that
centers the structuring decisions. It provides information on how to best allocate
resources to achieve goals (Guskey, 2000). Thirdly, the process evaluation provides
48
information for implementation. The purpose of the process evaluation is to
identify strengths and weaknesses associated with the program in order to create a
remedy for the defects in the program design (Guskey, 2000). Lastly, the model
evaluates the product and attempts to determine and interpret the outcomes. This
information assists administrators in determining whether to continue, modify, or
refocus the program (Guskey, 2000).
Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model
Kirkpatrick’s model seeks to measure quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of
training through a four-level evaluation model (Guskey, 2000). The levels are
reaction, learning, behavior and results (Kirkpatrick, 2006; Guskey, 2000). Since
the programs are designed to assist the participants, Kirkpatrick (2006) advocates
that it important to determine how satisfied the participants were with the training
they received (Guskey, 2000). At the second level, the knowledge, skills and
attitudes of the participants acquired as a result of the professional development
are measured. This is usually achieved through use of a paper-and-pencil test such
as a pre/post test. Behavior evaluation is the third level. It is at this level that
consideration is given to participants’ likelihood to change their behavior on-the-job
as a result of the training. Kirkpatrick (2006) suggests in order for behavior to
change the participant must first desire to change and they must know how to do it.
When evaluating behavior the facilitator allows time for behavior to actually
change. Lastly, at level four results are measured. This level measures the results
that occurred to the participants due to participation in the program. Kirkpatrick
49
(2006) recommends that results should be measured both before and after the
training.
Many researchers have offered modifications to Kirkpatrick’s model (Guskey,
2000). Some suggests that a fifth level needs to be added to reflect the economic
benefits or human good of the training provided (Kaufman & Keller, 1994). The
model has also been criticized for not being research based (Alliger & Janak, 1989)
and should be referred to as a taxonomy rather than a evaluation model (Holton,
1996). Nonetheless, this model has been implemented in training programs around
the world due to its practicality and simplicity (Guskey, 2000).
Blank, de las Alas, and Smith (2008) analyzed evaluation studies of 25
professional development programs and sought to determine if teacher professional
development has any effects on teaching and learning. Interestingly, of the 25
programs only seven reported any measureable effects. It is generally assumed that
there is a direct correlation between professional development and improvements
in student learning (Guskey, 1986). Killion (2007) focuses on the impact of
professional learning on student learning and illustrates ways to assess a program.
According to Killion (2007), high quality professional developments are data driven,
research based and well defined.
Variables
The literature presents several variables that appear to affect the
relationship between participating in a professional development and the faculty’s
feelings of self-efficacy toward teaching online. The variables can be categorized
50
into two groups: professional development and participants. Each one of these
groups present factors that were evident within the literature and display
significance in terms of identifying teachers’ self-efficacy towards teaching online.
The professional development provided by the institution must consider
several variables when designing and implementing the training. First, the
literature suggests that facilitators of professional development should exhibit a
working knowledge of adult learning. The lack of presence of andragogy can result
in participant disinterest and loss of motivation. Research also suggests that the
facilitator should maintain a non-authoritarian style and create a friendly social
environment.
Secondly, the professional development’s content should be relevant to the
work that the faculty is doing online. Easton (2008) asserts, “The most beneficial
learning activities are those that are embedded in the work that educators do.” A
needs assessment can serve as a tool for identifying what knowledge the faculty feel
is needed for teaching online. According to the TPACK, the training should address
not only technology, but also integrate the content and pedagogy necessary for
teaching online (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Archambault & Crippen, 2009). According
to the literature, most trainings for online learning focus primarily on technology
and neglect to integrate the content and pedagogy for teaching online (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006; Archambault & Crippen, 2009).
There are unique challenges associated with online teaching. One challenge
is the lack of cues. The online learning environment makes it difficult to observe
51
body language and voice intonations (Lewis, 2000; Morris, 2002). Another
challenge faced in the online environment is the administration and management of
the layout and design of the course delivery method for content. The online
environment presents various communication methods that both the students and
faculty will have to learn how to effectively communicate via email, discussion
boards and chat boxes. Online faculty are faced with the challenge of increasing and
maintaining student involvement while utilizing appropriate student assessments
for online learning.
The format, duration and style of the professional development are also
variables in which must be considered. According to Berge (1995), learning should
involve two types of interaction: interaction with content and interpersonal
interaction. Thus, the level of collaboration built into the professional development
is a variable for this study as well. Berge (1995) suggests that the facilitator should
use questions and probe for participants’ responses that focus discussion on critical
concepts, principles and skills.
The variables pertaining to the participants include their perceptions, age,
gender and experience. The attitude of faculty towards online instruction affects
the willingness of instructors to teach online. In terms of gender, research suggests
that males expressed a slightly higher Internet self-efficacy compared with females
(Joo, Bong & Choi, 2000). Prior teaching experience as well as technology
experience has also been deemed as factors that effect the current success of a
52
faculty member’s ability to teach online. A participant’s age may impact the
technological experience.
Summary
There are various components were considered when determining the
relationship between participating in a professional development and the faculty’s
self-efficacy in regards to teaching in an online environment. Proper analysis of this
question requires the investigation of adult learning, self-efficacy, online
professional development as well as effective evaluation of professional
development. The literature also denotes one variable that may be related to one’s
self-efficacy to teach online, prior experience. Within the current literature there are
some identifiable gaps and trends in regards to teaching online.
Online learning is growing at an exponential rate (Allen & Seaman, 2007). As
new courses and online programs are developed, online teachers are needed at this
same exponential rate. Currently, there is a vast amount of knowledge on how to
effectively teach face-to-face. However, there is very little literature available on
how to teach effectively online, especially when using synchronous tools.
Institutions assume that faculty members will obtain the necessary skills for online
teaching on their own, thus, they provide technological training only (Palloff & Pratt,
2001). Therefore, professional development serves as the gateway for developing
faculty members to be effective online and increase student outcomes (Keengwe,
Kidd, Kyei-Blankson, 2009; Kosak et al., 2004; Salmon, 2003).
53
Through analysis of the literature it is evident that professional development
is suggested for online faculty members. However, researchers suggest that there
are certain characteristics the professional development must hold in order for it to
be deemed as effective. These characteristics include the format, content and
evaluation of the professional development.
First, the participants of the professional development are adults. Therefore,
andragogical strategies should be employed (Terehoff, 2002; Brookfield, 1986;
Knowles, 1984). Although, andragogy is still debatable for many, the literature
clearly delineates the difference between andragogy and pedagogy (Terehoff, 2002;
Newton, 1977; Lindeman, 1925). It is also apparent within the literature that there
are some common traits associated with adults and should be considered when
deigning professional developments (Terehoff, 2002; Boucouvalas & Krupp, 1989;
Ingralls, 1984). Not only should the professional development incorporate
andragogical strategies but should be delivered in the same format as the platform
used for the students (Wolf, 2006; Brown, Benson & Uhde, 2004). However, other
researchers suggest that not only online training be provided but face-to-face
trainings should be offered to instructors as well (Keengwe et. al, 2009).
Secondly, researchers suggest that most trainings provided by institutions
cover mostly technology. According to the TPACK framework, the professional
development should not only address technology, but also explore content and
pedagogical knowledge, thus creating a new fourth knowledge integrating all three
components (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Archambault & Crippen, 2009, Archambault
54
& Barnett, 2010). Keengwe et. al (2009) also recommends that the professional
development provided to online faculty members consists of guided practice,
examples, and remedial support in using the available tools.
Thirdly, once a professional development for learning to teach online is
developed it should be evaluated for its effectiveness (Guskey, 2000). There are
several models available for evaluating professional developments. Kirkpatrick
(2006) and Champion (2003) are quite similar and incorporate four different levels
of evaluation. Through research, it is conclusive that these models are derived from
previous evaluative models. Kirkpatrick’s model is of great interest due to its
simplicity and practicality (Guskey, 2000) and use of a pre/post test.
Despite the literature available on professional development evaluation and
online learning, there lacks empirical research on how to effectively train faculty to
teach online. This study explored the relationship between all of these many factors
and measured how each component contributed to one’s self-efficacy to teach
online.

55
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to establish the relationship between the
participants’ self-efficacy to teach online and participation in the professional
development training provided by the institution, with particular interest in any
specific training strategies that correlate with significant gains in self-efficacy. Once
this was achieved, best practices for effectively training faculty members were
outlined and can be replicated in future professional developments.
The research questions that framed the study were:
1. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to technology
and teaching in an online environment?
2. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to content
knowledge and teaching in an online environment?
3. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to online
pedagogy and teaching in an online environment?
4. To what extent does a faculty member’s perception of training for online
courses in terms of technology, content and online pedagogy vary by the
faculty member’s prior experience teaching online or face-to-face?
56
5. Which training strategies, if any, do the participants identify as effective
in producing the greatest gains in self-efficacy?
Research Method and Design
There are basically two reasons for conducting research: (a) to discover
something new or make a contribution to a field of knowledge, or (b) to illuminate a
societal concern (Patton, 2002, p.13) and then test a method, program, or policy for
possible recommendation to practitioners as a useful practice to solve that problem.
Many research studies in education test whether the intervention being considered
causes a particular outcome to change (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Thus,
researchers in education should strive to answer these five questions:
1. The causal question: Does it work?
2. The process question: How does it work?
3. The cost question: Is it worthwhile?
4. The usability question: Will it work for me?
5. The evaluation question: Is it working? (McEwan & McEwan, 2003, p.4)
First, the answer to the causal question will assist institutions in determining
if professional development and training aid staff and acquiring new skills that
increase their self-efficacy towards teaching online. In addition, the answers to the
process question will divulge how the professional development and training work.
Thirdly, the cost question will reveal whether or not the current professional
development provided by the institution is worthwhile and cost effective. The
fourth question addresses if the strategies used in the professional development
57
will work for other faculty members. This question also identifies which strategies
contributed to the most gains in self-efficacy. Lastly, the evaluation question will
determine if the professional development and training is effective. All of these
questions will aid in obtaining significant information that can be used in the
education realm.
The primary research design will resemble that of Kirkpatrick (1998).
Similar to Kirkpatrick (1998), this study seeks to determine how effective the
professional development provided by the institution increases one’s self-efficacy to
teach online. Kirkpatrick’s model involves four levels of evaluation: Reaction,
learning, behavior and results. See figure below. Kirkpatrick (1998) outlines each
level and methods for assessing each level. This study will utilize components of
this research design in order to identify the relationship between the participants’
self -efficacy to teach online and the professional development provided.
Figure 3: Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels (Kirkpatrick, 2006)

58
The first level determines the reaction of the participants to the training. One
means of measuring a participant’s reaction is through the use of a survey.
Hopefully, the reaction to training will be positive and favorable so that the
participants are motivated to participate in future trainings (Kirkpatrick, 1998).
Champion (2002) asserts that the participants’ reaction to different aspects of the
experience, such as content, process and context should be measured during this
level. The second level measures the level of learning that has occurred due to the
professional development. “Learning can be defined as the extent to which
participants change attitudes, improve knowledge, and or increase skills as a result
of attending the program” (Kirkpatrick, 1998, p. 20). Both interviews and surveys
will assist in evaluating the learning that the participants experienced as a result of
the professional development. According to Champion (2002), “Pre- and post-
assessments address questions about what participant knew about the content
before entering the program” (p.79).
At the third level the extent to which change in behavior has occurred
because the participant attended the training program is measured. Kirkpatrick
(1998) suggests that the researcher allows time for behavior change to take place.
Thus, the participants will be evaluated both before and after the program. In
addition, one or more of the following will be interviewed: trainees, their
immediate supervisor, their subordinates, and others who often observe their
behavior. An evaluation of behavior should also determine whether participants
59
tailor what they learned to fit their context and if they adapt their new learning to
their work setting (Champion, 2002).
The final level evaluates results. Results can be defined as final results that
occurred because the participants attended the program (Kirkpatrick, 1998). This is
often regarded as one of the most difficult parts of the process. Since professional
learning experience is only one factor in improvement, it is necessary to consider
other factors such as change in leadership, curriculum adoptions, schedule
alterations, and staff changes when analyzing results (Champion, 2002).
Consequently, time must be allowed for results to be achieved and this can be very
costly (Kirkpatrick, 198, Champion, 2002).
This dissertation utilized both qualitative and quantitative components.
Thus, a mixed-method approach was used for this study. Factors that affected the
decision of selecting mixed methods over other design approaches included: the
research problem, the personal experiences of the researcher, and the audience (s)
for whom the report will be written (Creswell, 2003).
Quantitative researchers seek to study the effects of a cause on an outcome
by manipulating of the cause and measuring the effect of the manipulation on the
outcome or through the observation of the natural correlation between the cause
and the effect. The main purpose of quantitative research is to generate new
knowledge in the form of generalizable cause and effect principles. The
philosophical assumption associated with quantitative research is “postpositivism.”
Postpositivism refers to the thinking that challenges the traditional notion of the
60
absolute truth of knowledge (Phillips and Burbules, 2000). It is often referred to as
the scientific method, “science” research, or empirical science (Creswell, 2003).
Methods of data gathering vary but typically use true experiments with the random
assignment of subjects to treatment conditions as well as quasi-experiments
(Keppel, 1991) or surveys which include cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
(Babbie, 1990). Quantitative evidence may also include self and other ratings,
performance metrics and tests, and manipulations.
There are both strengths and weaknesses associated with quantitative
research. Quantitative research provides precise, numerical data. Due to the
statistical software available it is generally less time consuming and is useful when
studying large numbers of people. The research results are relatively independent
of the researcher, thus many individuals such as administrators and politicians hold
quantitative research as being more credible. However, along with all of these
strengths there are also some weaknesses related to quantitative inquiry. First, the
knowledge obtained might be too general for direct application to specific local
situations, contexts and individuals. In addition, the researcher may experience
confirmation bias, which is when the researcher misses a phenomena occurring
because of the focus on theory or hypothesis generation.
In contrast, qualitative inquiry seeks to describe, understand and interpret
educational phenomena in a holistic framework (Patton, 2002). It usually does not
involve hypotheses and measured variables. Qualitative researchers view
subjectivity, perception and intuition as valid and necessary for understanding the
61
world. Qualitative research is based on a constructivist paradigm in learning in
which human beings construct meanings as they engage with the world they are
interpreting (Crotty, 1998). Qualitative research is empirical but the data are
largely in the form of words, quotes, narrative, stories and in turn analyzed for
meaning and themes. The methods used for collecting qualitative data include
open-ended written questionnaires or surveys, interviews, observations, and
existing artifacts and documents. The main purpose of qualitative research is the
generation of new knowledge through theory generation.
Qualitative research has many benefits and disadvantages. One benefit is
that it is useful for studying a limited number of cases in depth and provides
individual case information. Qualitative inquiry can also describe in detail people’s
personal experiences and determine how participants interpret constructs. A
disadvantage involved with using qualitative research is the knowledge produced
might not be generaliable to other people or other settings. In addition, its
credibility is questioned because results are more easily influenced by the
researcher’s personal biases and idiosyncrasies.
Finally, according to Creswell (2003), “a mixed methods approach is one in
which the researcher tends to base knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds and
employ strategies of inquiry that involve collecting data either simultaneously or
sequentially to best understand the research problem” (p.21). A great deal of debate
has occurred since the 1960s on the usefulness of combining qualitative and
quantitative research methodologies in the same study (Creswell, 2003; Taskakkori
62
& Teddlie, 1998; Thomas, 2003). The concept of mixing different methods most
likely originated in1959, by Campbell and Fiske (Creswell, 2008). They used
multiple methods to study validity of psychological traits and encouraged others to
employ their "multimethod matrix" to other areas of research.
The data collection for this study involved the gathering of both numeric
information as well as text information so that the final database represents both
quantitative and qualitative information. The quantitative data may include closed-
ended data such as instruments, checklists, and records (Creswell, 2008). On the
other hand qualitative data is more open-ended, and may consist of interviews,
observations, documents and audio-visual materials (Creswell, 2008). Mixed
methods employ strategies of inquiry that involve collecting data either
simultaneously or sequentially to best understand the research question.
This approach is valuable because it presents multiple angles to approach an
argument and provides more evidence to support a claim, which is a principle of
triangulation (Creswell, 2008).
According to Creswell (2008), there are various values associated with mixed
methods over either quantitative or qualitative approaches alone. These include:
1. Either quantitative or qualitative may be insufficient by itself
2. Quantitative and qualitative both paint different pictures
3. Combined quantitative and qualitative provides more evidence
4. Mixed methods may be the preferred approach within a scholarly
community
63
5. It is the latest methodology
6. It mirrors “real life” (Creswell, 2008).
Site Selection
This study was conducted at an institution of higher education located in
Southern California. The research site will remain anonymous and referred to as
the “institution.” The institution was selected for a number of unique reasons. The
institution has implemented a groundbreaking, highly interactive live synchronous
online Masters of Arts Teaching program. Currently the program has approximately
1500 students from 45 states and 25 countries. This program provides students
with the flexibility and ability to share and interact with not only peers from across
the nation but also diverse instructors and many of the faculty teach the same
course both online and face-to-face.
Surveys disclosed faculty knowledge and attitudes toward transitioning to
the online teaching environment. This new platform presents advanced
technologies that blend social networking with live video-assisted instruction. Due
to the complexity of the platform it is unlikely that a faculty member can just open a
manual and receive the necessary specialized training for teaching online. The
learning management system (LMS) also provides simultaneous instructional tools
such as chat, twitter, polling, and ability to share documents and videos.
Unlike other MAT programs online, the institution offers a program that is
identical both on ground and online in terms of courses offered and degree
awarded. This means that students in both programs have access to the same
64
curriculum as well as the same faculty. The online classes range in student
enrollment. A typical course may include anywhere from 20 to 25 students
enrolled. Each course meets once a week for two hours.
During instruction the faculty members are able to access several
instructional tools that resemble a traditional classroom such as whiteboards and
breakout rooms. The students and instructors communicate with one another
outside of class through either email or posts on the wall of the platform. Each class
session is recorded and available for viewing online anytime. This program is
unique in the fact that it requires that the student record, edit and upload
multimedia assignments that are peer-reviewed and posted for grading. These
videos can also be submitted as a partial fulfillment of their electronic portfolio,
which is required for completion of the program.
Study Participants
The participants consisted of both full-time faculty members as well as part-
time faculty members. The full-time faculty includes some faculty members who
have taught for the institution for five years or more. It is most likely that these
members have little to no experience teaching online since they were hired prior to
the development of online teaching. Due to the fact that the program is so
accelerated, more experienced professors have the opportunity to teach multiple
sections of the same course throughout an academic school year in comparison to
teaching one section face-to-face during an academic school year. There are two
types of full-time faculty members. The institution currently employs two tenure
65
track faculty members in their program. Tenure track faculty split most of their
time between teaching and conducting research and usually hold a nine-month
contract. In contrast, clinical track faculty members are faculty members who
participate in a broad range of teaching and/or clinical activities, and who provide
service to the University and the community. There are currently 25 members who
serve in this capacity. Over 100 members of the faculty are considered to be adjunct
faculty who may or may not have prior online teaching experience. Lastly, an email
was sent to 144 participants, which included both full-time and adjunct faculty
members. This number represented the number of faculty members teaching a
course online during the 2011 Fall academic semester. The institution provided the
email addresses of these faculty members.
Table 1: Study Population
Teach Service Research Number of
Units
Taught
Length of
Contract
Full-time Tenure
Track
40% 20% 40% 16 units 9 months
Off-
SiteClinical
Track
95% 5% 0% 24 units 12 months
On-Site
Clinical
Track
80% 20% 0% 32 – 36 units 12 months
Part-time Adjunct 100% 0% 0% 2-16 units 12 months

Intervention
The institution provides professional development and training for faculty
members prior to teaching online. The professional development may take place in
66
the form of a one-day group workshop. At this time, the professional development
primarily deals with the technological side of teaching online, the essential
fundamentals associated with the platform and includes training on the following
subjects:
• Audio conference
• Breakout rooms
• Live sessions
• Recording live sessions
• Chat
• Polling
• Gradebook
• Forum grading
• Paper grading
• Video assignment grading
In addition, the institution also provides short tutorials for faculty members
to view online as an easy convenient means of becoming familiar with the platform.
The training neglects to address the pedagogical practices or content knowledge
that is necessary for effectively teaching online. The professional development on
the technology is provided by an outside company, which provides not only training
but also offers technology support for each instructor.
The institution will be providing additional professional development and
training that pertains to the pedagogy and content necessary for teaching online. It
67
is the institution’s desire to have the lead teachers for each course conduct
professional development on the content and pedagogical practices for effective
teaching online. The institution is developing an intervention that addresses how
adults learn best in order to support teachers past the technological needs. This
training will be offered online using the learning management system in which the
students utilize for the program.
Instrument Description
Pre-Test Survey
The main instrument of data that employed for this study was a survey. I
anticipated at least 60% response rate. Sapsford (2006) asserts that one of the
benefits to using surveys is that it presents flexibility and deals with various types of
data. A survey was selected as the primary instrument for this study to ascertain
faculty members’ knowledge and attitudes towards the professional development
and training provided by the institution and assess how the professional
development and training may be related to their self-efficacy to teach online. The
survey used a Likert Scale model. Likert scales allow for three or more choices that
increase in value and allow for a continuum of responses (Robinson-Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006). Faculty members were asked to respond to a series of items
pertaining to teaching online by indicating whether their feelings of self-efficacy
were Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), Very Good (4), Excellent (5) in terms of
technology, content knowledge and online pedagogy. Each category of the survey
related to a specific research question. The pre-test reflected findings for three
68
domains: technology, content knowledge and online pedagogy. To determine
efficacy in technology, efficacy in content knowledge, and efficacy in online
pedagogy the pre- and post survey can be grouped by these domains. These
groupings are (Archambault & Crippen, 2009):
Technological Knowledge: Items (a), (g), (q)
Content Knowledge: Items (b), (d), (m)
Pedagogical Knowledge: Items (j), (c), (r)
Technological Content Knowledge Items (o), (t), (v)
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Items (f), (i), (s), (u)
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Items (h), (l), (n), (p)
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Items (e), (k), (w), (x)
Some descriptive statistics were utilized through numbered responses. The
survey was divided into four different constructs:
1. Demographic information
2. Teaching Experience
3. Self-Efficacy for teaching online
4. Effective professional development strategies
Interview Method
Interviews served as another research instrument for this study. The
interview was semi-structured, audio taped and transcribed (Creswell, 2008). The
questions were developed in such a manner that they were narrowing of the central
questions and sub-questions of this research study (Creswell, 2008). The faculty of
69
the institution was asked open-ended questions. Some of the interviews were
conducted via the telephone due to the fact that the researcher did not have direct
access to individuals. When possible, in-person interviews did take place. A
qualitative approach was used to analyze the open-ended questions.
The open-ended questions allowed respondents to provide their opinions
and personal experiences in regards to online teaching. Creswell (2003) asserts
that qualitative allows the researcher to analyze the words of the respondents in
order to increase understanding of a topic and look for new approaches to help
other practitioners. The protocols were designed to provide data in regards to all of
the research questions: (1) What is the relationship between participating in a
professional development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to technology
and teaching in an online environment? (2) What is the relationship between
participating in a professional development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in
regards to content knowledge and teaching in an online environment? (3) What is
the relationship between participating in a professional development on faculty
member’s self-efficacy in regards to online pedagogy and teaching in an online
environment? (4) To what extent does a faculty member’s perception of training for
online courses in terms of technology, content and online pedagogy vary by the
faculty member’s prior experience teaching online or face-to-face? (5) Which
training strategies, if any, do the participants identify as effective in producing the
greatest gains in self-efficacy?

70
Table 2: Interview Matrix

Question 1 is designed to assess how the faculty member’s prior experience
with teaching online may have influenced their perception of the professional
development. This is similar to a study conducted by Wolf (2006), which focused on
training for teaching online. Questions 2, 3, and 4 address specific training needs
for the online teaching environment. According to Wolf (2006), there are specific
instructional challenges that are present in the online learning environment. These
challenges should be addressed in the content of the professional development to
assist in promoting self-efficacy to teach online. Question 10 directly addresses how
prepared the faculty members are they were for the online teaching experience. It
also identifies which areas the instructor felt least prepared and how they could
have been prepared more.
Post-Test Survey
A Post-Test survey link was distributed via email to all faculty members who
completed the Pre-Test survey at the close of the semester. The survey was
available via Survey Monkey for four weeks; email reminders were sent to faculty
members every week until the survey closed. The Post-Test survey included the
same questions from the Pre-Test pertaining to teaching online. In addition,
professors were asked to identify training strategies the felt were most effective in
N Faculty
In Person 3
Phone 19
Skype 4
Male 7
Female 19
71
producing the greatest gains in their self-efficacy to teach online using a 5-point
Likert scale. Respondents were asked to rate training strategies using the following
anchors: 1 = Not Effective, 2 = Somewhat Effective, 3 = Effective, 4 = Very Effective
and 5 = Not Applicable. The Post-Test included open-ended questions as well.
Descriptive Statistics
According to Salkind (2008), descriptive statistics are used to organize and
describe the characteristics of a collection of data. Percentages and frequencies of
participants’ responses will be calculated. Variables such as gender, age and
experience were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Analysis
The main purpose of the analysis was to determine whether the pre/post
results are significant (p, <.05). The test that was used to demonstrate this
comparison using the same faculty members was a dependent groups t-test. In
addition, Cronbach’s Alpha was applied to provide internal consistency and
determine the degree to which they align with one another. The analysis of the
statistical significance depended on the effect size. Effect size is the ratio of a
difference of the two means to the standard deviation of the difference. It is helpful
in determining whether results obtained are practically significant.
Reliability and Validity
In order for this study to be useful, power and reliability must be considered.
Reliability can be defined as the extent to which a measure is consistent across
different times, items, judges or samples. There are three influences on reliability:
72
(1) test length, (2) size of inter-item correlations, and (3) range of sample. This
study will need to have enough power (n > 50) and secure reliability (> .70). Thus,
internal and external validity must also be considered as limitations as well. In
terms of internal validity one threat is selection bias. Some faculty members may
feel that their responses may be identified and have a negative impact on their
position. A limitation of pre-post design is that it lacks the internal validity which is
the change in the outcome may be attributable to other factors other than the
program or intervention. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to further determine the
reliability of this study. The survey instrument can be grouped into three different
domains: technology, content knowledge and online pedagogy.
Table 3: Reliabilities

Reliabilities are shown in Table 3 above. All reliabilities are very high and sufficient
for research purposes.
Limitations
As with most methods of quantitative data collection a survey is limited by
its items and scales. Fowler (2002) suggests that online surveys have their own
Reliability Cronbach’s
Alpha
Technology
.887
Content Knowledge
Online Pedagogy
.931

.878

73
disadvantages, which include: not having personal contact during the
administration and the fact that there is no incentive to encourage participation.
This limitation can potentially result in a lower response rate.
There are also limitations associated with structured interviews. The sample
size is usually smaller and does not use random methods to select the participants.
Subsequently, the results may not be generalized. Moreover, an individual interview
takes into account situational and individual factors making it difficult to draw
general conclusions. Individual interviews may allow for an exhaustive
identification of effects and possible causes, but cannot be used to measure impacts
or causes.

74
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The primary purpose of this study was to test whether the professional
development provided by an institution increased participants’ perception of their
self-efficacy in regards to technology, content knowledge and online pedagogy. The
secondary purpose was to investigate a faculty member’s perception of training for
online courses in terms of technology, content knowledge and online pedagogy
based on prior experience teaching online or face-to-face. The study placed a
particular interest in identifying which training strategies if any, the participants
identified as effective in producing significant gains in self-efficacy.
The pre-test was administered at the beginning of the fall semester and the
post-test was administered after the closing of that same semester. The study
employed a mixed methods approach to examine the degree to which faculty
perceived the professional development provided by the institution as increasing
one’s self-efficacy to teach online and utilized the four levels of the Kirkpatrick’s
model for further examination.
This chapter consists of two main components, which are the data analysis
and findings. The data analysis section discusses the survey results. Participants’
demographics such as gender, age, and years of teaching experience in higher
education are presented and analyzed within the first section. The findings are then
organized by research question. This section also summarizes some comments and
75
suggestions made by participants during the interview and in the open-ended
questions on the survey instrument.
Descriptive Results
Data Analysis
A database was created and 144 email addresses were compiled of faculty
members that teach online for the institution. An email was sent to each individual
at the beginning of the semester requesting his or her participation in the study.
Initially, 76 individuals participated in the pre-test, which represented 52.8% of the
total staff surveyed.
After the close of the semester, the same 76 individuals who participated in
the pre-test were invited to participate in the post-test. There were 29 matched
respondents to both the pre and post surveys. The response rates for both the pre-
and post-test are illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: Response Rates

An effort was made to compare the matched sample with the non-matched pre- and
post-test in terms of variables such as gender, age, and length of time teaching

N Response
Rate
Pre-Test Survey
Post-Test Survey
Matched Pre- /Post- Survey
76

49

29
52.8%
34.0%

76
online or face-to-face. Table 5 outlines that statistically there was no significant
difference between the responding sample and the matched sample in terms of
demographics and scores. Neither test produced significant findings at the .05 level
(p < .05).
Table 5: Comparison between Matched and Non-Matched Subsamples

Sample Demographics
Table 6 displays the demographics of the participants on the pre- and post-
test. The sample population included mostly female participants. Some participants
declined to answer the question pertaining to gender thus resulting in only 70.4% of
the respondents reporting their gender. The majority of the participants were over

Test
Statistic
Value
Obs.
Probability
Gender
Years Taught Face-to-Face
Age
Years Taught Online

Years of Teaching Experience

Technology

Content Knowledge

Online Pedagogy

Chi-Square
Chi-Square
t-Test
t- Test
t-Test
t-Test
t-Test
t-Test
1.057
3.128
1.151
.307
.325
.248
.861
1.248

.590
.793
.254
.760
.746
.805
.392
.216

77
the age of 50. Lastly, 67.6% of the faculty members had six years or less teaching
experience in higher education.
Table 6: Sample Demographics
Type
Percent
(N= 29)

Gender
Female

Male

48.0%

22.4%

Age
Under the age of 40
Between the ages of 40 and 50
Over the age of 50

33.3%
27.6%
39.1%

Experience in Higher Education

Six years or less

Between 7 and 15 years

16 or more years

67.6%

19.2%

13.2%

Findings
The research questions, which framed this investigation, were:
1. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to technology
and teaching in an online environment?
78
2. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to content
knowledge and teaching in an online environment?
3. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to online
pedagogy and teaching in an online environment?
4. To what extent does a faculty member’s perception of training for online
courses in terms of technology, content and online pedagogy vary by the
faculty member’s prior experience teaching online or face-to-face?
5. Which training strategies, if any, do the participants identify as effective
in producing the greatest gains in self-efficacy?
Findings Related to Research Question 1
Research question one examined the relationship between participating in a
professional development and faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to
technology and teaching online. This question addresses level one of Kirkpatrick’s
model. Both the pre and post-test questions that examined professors’ self-efficacy
in regards to Technology used a 5-point Likert scale. Responses to each question
were determined using the following anchors: 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Very
Good and 5 = Excellent. Table 7 shows the results for Technology Self-Efficacy. The
results indicate that the Technology mean increased from pre-workshop to post-
workshop by .080 points. However, this difference was not statistically significant at
the .05 level, t(28)=.652, p=.520.
79
Table 7: Results for Technology Self-Efficacy

Approximately 26 online faculty members voluntarily participated in a brief
interview prior to administering the pre- and post-test. The interview questions
were framed around learning to teach online. In regards to research question one,
the 27% of those interviewed identified Technology as being one area in which they
were least prepared. Overall, most participants felt that they obtained the basics
but desired additional training on how to use all of the “bells and whistles” of the
platform. One faculty member shared their thoughts regarding their technology
self-efficacy.
I was least prepared for the complexities of the platform and for the
technological issues as they arose. I knew how to open it up, I knew how to
get into my session, I knew how to manage, how to get them on but not all of
the things that the platform can do and I think if I would have been able to
know that better and feel more comfortable with doing all of the different
things that it can do…So that’s what I was least prepared for.
In addition, the pre- and post-test included open-ended questions. According
to the pre-test open-ended questions, 73% of the participants identified technology
as being the number one teaching task associated with online teaching that they
were least prepared. One participant stated:

Mean
N
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Before
After

3.3103

3.3908

29
29
1.03866

.97618
.19287

.18127

80
Maximizing the use of certain aspects of online platform components such as
breakout groups, notepads, surveys, and other features. I am comfortable
with the basics and some of the advance features, but would like to learn
more about the advanced features in order to fully utilize the online
capabilities to enhance learning for students.
The post-test revealed that 80% of the participants felt that they were very
prepared to effectively teach online when technology worked properly. In
comparison to quantitative data, faculty members demonstrated an increase in
technology self-efficacy at the close of the semester.
Findings Related to Research Question 2
Research question two explored the relationship between participating in
training on faculty’s self-efficacy in regards to content knowledge and teaching
online. Level one of Kirkpatrick’s model is addressed in research question two.
Table 8 shows the results for Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy in regards to teaching
online. The results indicate that the Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy mean
increased from pre-workshop to post-workshop by 0.237 points. This difference
was statistically significant at the .05 level, t(28)=.2.726, p=.011. Thus, there was a
positive relationship between participating in the professional development
provided and the faculty members’ content knowledge self-efficacy, meaning that
the participants felt more confident after participating in the professional
development. The program provided by the institution was primarily regarding
technology. However, participants reported a growth in content knowledge after
participating in the program.
81
Table 8: Results for Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy

During the interviews, most participants expressed that they felt quite prepared in
terms of content knowledge. When asked about teaching online, majority of the
respondents immediately associated preparedness for teaching online with
technology. Often times, respondents had to be redirected to even consider content
knowledge as being a possible skill set needed for teaching online. One participant
shared, “In terms of content and pedagogy... I felt fully prepared.”
The post-test open-ended questions revealed that 14% of the individuals
identified content knowledge as being the teaching task associated with online
teaching for which they felt most prepared. In addition, when asked to describe
which tasks associated with online teaching for which they felt least prepared for,
no respondents stated content knowledge.
Findings Related to Research Question 3
The third research question investigated the relationship between
participating in professional development on faculty members’ self-efficacy in
regards to online pedagogy and teaching online. This research question primarily

Mean
N
Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Before
After

4.0977

4.3345

29
29

.80489

.55923
.14946

.10385
82
addresses level one of Kirkpatrick’s model. Table 9 shows the results for Online
Pedagogy Self-Efficacy. The t-test output indicates that the Online Pedagogy Self-
Efficacy mean increased from pre-workshop to post-workshop by .233 points. This
difference was statistically significant at the .05 level, t(28)=.2.095, p=.045. Thus, in
terms of online pedagogy self-efficacy, participants displayed gains after
participating in the training.
Table 9: Results for Online Pedagogy Self-Efficacy

The interviews disclosed that a few participants felt unprepared in terms of
online pedagogy. One participant shared that “there wasn’t too much planning or
discussion on the pedagogy for teaching online. I think it was partly because I was
brand new and I don’t think they knew either.” Additionally, another respondent
shared, “In terms of strategies and pedagogy, I did not feel at all prepared. I think
that a lot of the technology I had to figure out on my own.”
Initially, on the pre-test 22% of the respondents shared that they were
concerned about online pedagogy and teaching online. However, the post-survey

Mean
N
Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Before
After
3.4920

3.7253

29
29
.97259

.69668
.18060

.12937
83
displayed that only 8% of the respondents still had a concern regarding online
pedagogy after receiving professional development or completing the semester.
Findings Related to Research Question 4
The extent to which a faculty members’ perception of training for online
courses in terms of technology, content and online pedagogy varied by faculty
members’ prior experience teaching online was also investigated. In terms of
Kirkpatrick’s model, this research question addresses level one. Table10 illustrates
the analysis of variance for online teaching experience and presents the significance
level of each variable tested.
Table 10: F test for Online Statistical Interactions

Faculty members were grouped into two groups. Group1 consisted of faculty
members who had taught 0 to 5 years online and Group 2 was comprised of those
members, who had taught six or more years online. Participants were grouped as
such due to the manner in which the survey instrument was designed. In order to
answer these particular questions, participants had to select a range pertaining to

df
F
Obs.
Probability

Technology

Content Knowledge

Online Pedagogy
F (1, 27)

F (1, 27)

F (1, 27)
5.434
.646
.000
.027

.428

1.000
84
the length of time they have taught, 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16 -20, 21-25, or 26 or more
years of teaching experience. The data exhibited very few participants in each of the
subgroups above six years of experience. Further analysis of the data displayed that
respondents either had five years or less experience or six years or more.
Figure 4 compares the novice group of faculty members with more
experienced faculty members with teaching online in terms of their self-efficacy in
regards to technology. The novice group initially had a lower self-efficacy in regards
to technology however, after being provided professional development their self-
efficacy increased. However, the more experienced faculty members’ had a greater
self-efficacy in technology but after participating in professional development may
have realized that they were not as confident in technology as they initially thought.
Figure 4: Online Teaching Experience vs. Technology Self-Efficacy

Technology Self-Efficacy
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Group 1: 0 to 5 yrs.
Group 2: 6 yrs. or more

85
Based on the interviews, respondents often referred to either the lack of
experience or the vast amount of experience they had teaching online as well as
face-to-face. One respondent shared:
You know it was a huge learning curve because I hadn’t done it before… not
because I couldn’t do it, I just hadn’t…it was all brand new …
Another participant stated:
Well you know … it was trial by fire for me… I hadn’t done very much online
work … I had had done Skype and I know the Skype technology and things
like that so there is a really … thank goodness I had the content and the
leaning pedagogy down, so I didn’t have to deal with that…
In figure 5, in terms of Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy both groups of
faculty members equally benefitted from the professional development provided.
Thus, the graph indicates an increase in content self-efficacy for both novice and
experienced faculty members. The interaction was not statistically significant
measures because the lines are parallel.
86
Figure 5: Online Teaching Experience vs. Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy

Figure 6 suggests that self-efficacy for online pedagogy between both groups of
faculty members experienced the same effect. Both groups of faculty members’ self-
efficacy in terms of online pedagogy increased after participating in the professional
development.
Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy
Group 1: 0 to 5 yrs.
Group 2: 6 yrs. or more

Pre-Test Post-Test
87
Figure 6: Online Teaching Experience vs. Online Pedagogy Self-Efficacy

In addition, the extent a faculty members perception of training for online
courses in terms of technology, content knowledge and online pedagogy varied by
the faculty members prior experience teaching face-to-face was investigated. Table
11 illustrates the analysis of variance and presents the significance level of each
variable tested.
Online Pedagogy Self-Efficacy
Pre-Test Post-Test
Group 1: 0 to 5 yrs.
Group 2: 6 yrs. or more

88
Table 11: F test for Face to Face Statistical Interaction

Novice face-to-face teachers displayed a greater self-efficacy in terms of
technology and teaching online in figure 7. However, more experienced face-to-face
teachers had a lower self-efficacy in regards to technology and teaching online.
Both groups indicated growth in self-efficacy in technology after participating in
professional development.

df
F
Obs.
Probability
Technology
Content
Online Pedagogy

F (1, 27)

F (1, 27)

F (1, 27)
0.25
.987
3.746
.875

.329

.063
89
Figure 7: Face-to-Face Teaching Experience vs. Technology Self-Efficacy

Interestingly, in terms of content knowledge novice face-to-face teachers
displayed a lower self-efficacy in terms of content knowledge at the close of the
semester when compared to more experienced face-to-face faculty members.
Figure 8 demonstrates the growth in self-efficacy between the pre- and post-test for
both groups of teachers. Both groups indicated growth in self-efficacy in
technology after participating in professional development.

Technology Self-Efficacy
Pre-Test Post-Test
Group 1: 0 to 5 yrs.
Group 2: 6 yrs. or more

90
Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy
Figure 8: Face-to-Face Teaching Experience vs. Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy

Lastly, Figure 9 illustrates faculty members’ online pedagogy self-efficacy.
Group 1 clearly had maintained the same level of self-efficacy before and after the
professional development. The more experienced face-to-face faculty members’
indicated a large increase in online pedagogy self-efficacy after participating in the
professional development. As shown in figure 9, this interaction was close to
statistical significance.

Pre-Test
Post-Test
Group 1: 0 to 5 yrs.
Group 2: 6 yrs. or more

91
Online Pedagogy Self-Efficacy
Figure 9: Face-to-Face Teaching Experience vs. Online Pedagogy Self-Efficacy

Findings Related to Research Question 5
During the post-test, participants were asked to identify training strategies if
any they deemed as being the most effective in producing the greatest gains in self-
efficacy to teach online. This research question pertains to level one of the
Kirkpatrick Model. Responses to each strategy were determined using the following
anchors: 1 = Not Effective, 2 = Somewhat Effective, 3 = Effective, 4 = Very Effective,
5 = Not Applicable. Table 12 displays the mean results for various training
strategies that are available and often used. According to Table 12, hands-on
training was ranked the highest for producing gains in one’s self-efficacy to teach
online. In contrast, video tutorials were ranked as being the least effective in terms
of increasing self-efficacy to teach online.
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Group 1: 0 to 5 yrs.
Group 2: 6 yrs. or more
92
Table 12: Ranked Teaching Strategies
Training Strategy Mean SD

Hands-on Training
Coaching
Involvement with Curriculum Design
Mentoring
Face-to-Face Workshops
Examining Student Work
Action Research
Online Workshops
Study Groups
Lesson Study
Case Discussions
Video Tutorials

3.605
3.535
3.511
3.452
3.439
3.391
3.229
3.159
3.027
2.895
2.878
2.870

.660
.702
.695
.705
.709
.802
.770
.805
.897
.863
.812
.859

According to the post-test open-ended question on which aspects of the
training did they identify as being the most beneficial in preparing them for online
teaching, most participants identified the top three aspects as being: (1) hands-on
experience (2) collaboration with colleagues and (3) technology support. The
interviewees revealed suggestions for ways in which they could have been more
prepared for the online teaching experience. The general consensus appeared to be
that the participants are requesting for additional training in smaller groups,
addressing some of the higher-level things that the platform can do. One respondent
stated during an interview:
Uhmmm … I learn best by doing. I had the orientation probably three or four
weeks before my first class started and I really needed to practice in
between… and I think I didn’t have the course information up and accessible
to you until a day or two before the class started. So I didn’t get to practice as
much as I would have liked, so the first time I didn’t feel quite as prepared
which I guess is natural because I guess it was the first time.

93
Another faculty member shared:

Everything was there…like I didn’t know what questions to ask… there are
handouts, resources up the kazoo and so I just had to learn … I had to click on
everything. So it was time consuming at the beginning but I think that is part
of so many teaching experiences and we had weekly faculty meetings with
our faculty advisor and that helped a lot because we would meet online and
talk about what worked and sharing strategies… that helped.

Lastly, another respondent disclosed:

More training. The training needs to be in smaller groups. I think we should
be in study groups too. We have these huge faculty meetings and a lot of us
are paying more attention to the clock or absent … we should do the same
thing with the instructors when we are together … so we can learn from each
other … just more collaboration.

Interestingly, one participant suggested:

The way that the online platform was described and explained was direct
instruction, more observation… this is just a little thing… the actual pedagogy
that was used to teach us how to use the technology. If effective pedagogy
was used I probably would have learned it better.

Summary of Findings
This study resulted in some statistically significant findings. The responses
obtained from the interviews and the open-ended questions from both the pre- and
post-survey further supported these findings. Through examination of participants’
feelings of self-efficacy in terms of technology, content knowledge, and online
pedagogy, it was evident that most participants’ self-efficacy increased between the
pre- and post surveys. Although there was an increase in self-efficacy within all
domains, the reasoning for this increase cannot totally be attributed to the
professional development provided by the institution.

94
However, there were several areas in which findings were not statistically
significant. When comparing more experienced teachers with novice teachers,
under certain domains they demonstrated an increase in self-efficacy at the same
rate. Therefore, over the academic semester mostly all participants demonstrated a
gain in their self-efficacy to teach online. Lastly, the study also identified
professional development strategies, which the participants found most beneficial
for increasing their confidence to teach online.
The next chapter will review the findings outlined and this chapter and relate
the findings to research literature on self-efficacy, professional development, and
online teaching. Implications for practice and suggestions for future research will
also be discussed in the following chapter.
95
Chapter 5: Conclusions

In this technological age, more and more institutions are moving toward
providing degree programs online. Thus, faculty members will need to be trained
on how to effectively teach online. This study examined one particular institution
and sought to understand faculty perceptions of professional developments
provided by the institution in regards to teaching online. Faculty members were
asked to assess their self-efficacy in terms of technology, content knowledge and
online pedagogy and teaching online. In addition, the study identified professional
development strategies that related to gains in teacher’s self-efficacy to teach online.
Variables such as the faculty’s previous experience, age, and gender enhanced the
understanding of the questions at hand.
Inquiry was conducted through the use of individual interviews and
administration of a pre-test and post-test. The research was driven by five primary
research questions. Specifically, they were:
1. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to technology
and teaching in an online environment?
2. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to content
knowledge and teaching in an online environment?
96
3. What is the relationship between participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to online
pedagogy and teaching in an online environment?
4. To what extent does a faculty member’s perception of training for online
courses in terms of technology, content and online pedagogy vary by the
faculty member’s prior experience teaching online or face-to-face?
5. Which training strategies, if any, do the participants identify as effective
in producing the greatest gains in self-efficacy?
These questions were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Kirkpatrick’s
model was also used for further examination of teacher’s self-efficacy in terms of
teaching online.
Participants for this study volunteered to engage in an interview, complete a
pre-test and post-test pertaining to their self-efficacy to teach online after
participating in professional development. This chapter will begin with a brief
description of the findings for the five research questions and utilize current
research literature to contextualize these findings.
Summary of Findings
Technology Self-Efficacy
According to Kim and Bonk (2006), “Technology has played and continues to
play an important role in the development and expansion of online education” (p.
23). This study first examined the effect of participating in a professional
development on faculty member’s self-efficacy in regards to technology and
97
teaching in an online environment. According to the pre/post-test results, the
participants’ self-efficacy increased. However, the difference was not statistically
significant. Recent studies on teachers’ self-efficacy and technology indicate that
teacher training in technology has a long-term effect on teacher self-efficacy
towards teaching online (Watson, 2006 and Christensen, 2003). In this study the
time span between the pre and post-test equated to only one academic semester.
Based on the findings and the research it may have been too soon to determine if
there were any effects on faculty’s self-efficacy about teaching online.
Content Knowledge Self-Efficacy
In relation to content knowledge self-efficacy, the results indicated a
statistically significant increase in the mean from pre-test to post-test. According to
the literature, most participants of the TPACK survey demonstrated difficulty
distinguishing between pedagogical and content knowledge (Archambault &
Crippen, 2009). The TPACK also suggested that participants exhibited
demonstrable change from thinking about just content to looking at pedagogy and
technology as separate components.
The results of this study reflected that participants’ content self-efficacy
mean increased from pre- to post. The open-ended responses displayed that
teachers were least concerned about content knowledge in terms of teaching online.
This result could be due to previous teaching experience on ground as well as
content knowledge being most related to the activities of traditional teaching.
98
Therefore, it is not surprising to learn that most teachers did not view content as an
area of concern.
Online Pedagogy Self-Efficacy
Effective teaching strategies and pedagogy are usually disseminated in
teacher education programs, however, very little guidance is available typically for
teaching online effectively in terms of online pedagogy. Only 22% of the
participants disclosed that they were concerned about online pedagogy and
teaching online during the pre-test. This concern decreased to only 8% when asked
on the open-ended portion of the post-test. The mean score of online pedagogy
self-efficacy also increased from the pre to post-test. Interestingly, during the
interviews respondents demonstrated difficulty separating pedagogy and content.
Similar to the results of recent research, faculty with a high level of teaching
experience viewed their content as being inextricably linked to the pedagogy they
used to teach a particular topic (Archambault & Crippen, 2009). Therefore, since
the participants held a high level of content knowledge they tended to feel a high
self-efficacy in terms of online pedagogy as well.
Prior Experience Teaching Face-to-Face vs. Online
It is often said that experience is a good teacher. This study looked at the
role face-to face teaching experience and online teaching experience may or may not
play in faculty self-efficacy in all three domains: technology, content knowledge and
online pedagogy. According to current research studies, respondents’ experience
with online teaching varied from none to more than 10 years (Kim and Bonk, 2006).
99
This same experience range was evident within this study as well. Thus,
participants were separated into two major groups. Within this accelerated
program, some faculty members had the opportunity to teach multiple sections of
the same course throughout the academic year online. Therefore, a more
experienced teacher could also be identified as one having taught more courses
rather than having taught more years. This online learning environment has
changed the traditional measurement of faculty teaching experience. Participants
shared that there was a huge learning curve for teaching online and that the more
courses they taught the higher their self-efficacy was for teaching effectively online.
Within this study each online group of faculty members displayed a different
level of self-efficacy in regards to technology, content knowledge and online
pedagogy. In terms of technology faculty with more experience teaching online had
a greater self-efficacy initially and during the post-test displayed a decreased feeling
of self-efficacy in regards to technology. The more experienced teachers may have
thought that they knew how to teach in this new learning environment but were
then confronted with a very different teaching environment than what is
traditionally thought of as “online.” Prior to this program, faculty members
associated online teaching with posting discussion questions, grading threads and
creating assignments to further support learning. This online program is changing
the traditional understanding of what teaching online requires in terms of
technological knowledge.
100
Novice faculty members displayed an increase in self-efficacy. Given how the
novice professors’ confidence increased after one semester perhaps the 0 to 5 years
of online experience may be too large. In the future, careful consideration should be
given to the grouping of experienced and novice professors. Due to the fact that this
program is not considered a “traditional” online program, previous online
experience may not effect one’s ability to effectively teach online.
The study reflected that in terms of content knowledge efficacy both groups
displayed an increase in self-efficacy. This increase could be attributed to either the
participation in the professional development provided or either the opportunity of
having taught the course online for a semester. Lastly, both groups of online faculty
experienced the same effect in self-efficacy for online pedagogy. Both groups’ self-
efficacy increased.
Faculty face-to-face experience was also analyzed within this study. Novice
faculty displayed a greater sense of self-efficacy in terms of technology and online
pedagogy. Newer teachers’ self-efficacy may not have increased due to the
possibility that they were more technological advanced and more open to new ways
of teaching and learning. More experienced faculty members indicated a large
increase in online pedagogy self-efficacy during the post-test.
Effective Training Strategies
Researchers advocate that training and development are necessary to the
success of technology adoption in higher education (Keengwe, Kidd, Kyei-Blankson,
2009). Many institutions provide training for their faculty members however; the
101
manner and the content in which they are trained in may not be effective (Kosak,
Manning, Rogerson, Cotman, Colaric, and McFadden, 2004). Thus, andragogy
becomes a growing concern within the development of training workshops for
teaching online. Knowles (1984) identified several components that are replicable
in various professional developments.
This study presented several professional development strategies which
current research has deemed as effective. Coaching, mentoring, online learning,
formal award programs, conferences and seminars were identified as being
effective modes of delivery (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005). Study participants
were asked to identify which training strategies they deemed as being the most
effective in producing the greatest gains in self-efficacy to teach online. Most
participants identified hands-on experience, coaching, and collaboration with
colleagues, as being the top strategies that were most beneficial in preparing them
for online teaching. Most participants also disclosed that additional hands-on
training would have prepared them more for teaching online. Contrary to other
research, participants did not find opportunities to focus on student learning,
examining student work, and time to reflect on their practice as components of
professional development as effective or these components were not available
throughout the semester.
Kirkpatrick’s Model
As discussed in Chapter 3, in order to further determine the effects of
professional development on faculty members’ self-efficacy to teach online,
102
Kirkpatrick’s model was used to assess the effects of the participants’ self-efficacy to
teach online in terms of technology, content knowledge and online pedagogy.
Kirkpatrick’s model includes four levels: (1) Reactions (2) Learning (3) Transfer
and (4) Results. All four levels are designed to evaluate professional development
through measuring participants’ responses.
Level One: Reactions
At level one, Kirkpatrick suggest that participants’ reactions and feelings to
the professional development should be evaluated. Kirkpatrick (2008) proposes
that if participants’ reactions are positive they are more likely to learn and
participate in future trainings. This study displayed that participants had mixed
feelings regarding the professional development provided. In both the interviews
and open-ended questions on the pre- and post-test, respondents disclosed a sense
of lack of preparedness in certain areas such as technology. Although most
participants were fond of the one-on-one support and guidance, they would have
liked more time to collaborate with colleagues. However, Clark and Estes (2008)
suggest that participants’ enjoying the training does not equate to improved job
performance.
Level Two: Learning
The second level of Kirkpatrick’s model measures the participant’s learning
that has occurred as a result of the professional development. In regards to
participants learning, conclusions were limited due to the scope of the study. This
study primarily measured one’s self-efficacy to teach online. However, during the
103
interviews and open-ended questions participants did share some instances in
which they increased skills, changed attitudes, and improved knowledge in regards
to teaching online. Faculty members self- reported their learning rather than
demonstrated that learning took place. To better capture changes in learning, the
pre- and post-tests could have included factual knowledge questions. Modifications
like this will be discussed in the “future research” section, below. And even these
self-reported gains cannot be totally attributed to participating in the training and
development provided by the institution as the faculty also had spent a semester
using and developing their skills on the job.
Level Three: Transfer
Level three assesses the learning that transfers to actual job performance.
Are the participants actually doing what they said they are going to do? This study
relied on self-reported data regarding faculty members’ perceptions of their
effectiveness to teach online. During the post-test 63% of the participants shared
that the teaching task associated with online teaching that they were most prepared
for was online pedagogy. It was evident within the responses that learning how to
effectively utilize the technology enabled most to employ various teaching
strategies online. The online teaching experience as well as the professional
development appeared to result in changes in their teaching online. In detail they
shared ways in which their teaching has improved online and strategies they now
infuse since the pre-test. In the future, because classes are recorded, this level could
be more directly assessed through observation. Nonetheless, transfer cannot be
104
accurately measured in this study due to the research design, which will be
discussed, below.
Level Four: Results
Lastly, Level four examines whether or not the professional development
provided had a positive impact on student learning. Kirkpatrick (1998) suggests
that time must be allowed for results to be achieved. This study measured faculty’s
perception of self-efficacy at the beginning and close of the same academic
semester. The depth of this study did not include examining student outcomes in
online courses.
Implications for Practice
Professional development in higher education is almost unheard of
especially in research-based institutions. There is limited research available on
professional development in higher education and the unanticipated benefit of
these types of trainings is absent. This study’s findings are limited to the program,
generally and the sample faculty, specifically. This section will outline how the
study’s findings translate into recommended practices for the program. First, the
program should continue to provide training on technology and all of the online
tools and platform components. Interestingly, professional development on
technology can serve as a gateway to effective teaching. As professors become more
confident in technology, they are able to infuse more effective strategies, convey
their content in multiple representations and create opportunities for greater
collaboration. Faculty will begin to engage in conversations about how to teach
105
using this cutting edge technology. The format of the training should be that of a
“hands-on” format while employing principles of andragogy. Participants should
not only be trained in technology prior to teaching an online course but should
receive continuous and frequent training on technology throughout the course of
the year. Due to the fact that a technology gap appears between novice and
experienced faculty members, faculty should be grouped based on experience level.
Second, the study found that participants desired more frequent
opportunities to collaborate with other faculty members in regards to content.
Participants also disclosed that they appreciated the faculty leads and weekly
faculty meetings and found them beneficial in acquiring more in depth content
knowledge. In the future, the program should provide models of teaching online by
professors who excel at teaching online. In addition, respondents requested a
portfolio of unit lesson plans available for each course so that the faculty had a
uniformed curriculum for each course.
Third, related to online pedagogy the institution should continue to provide
support in terms of online pedagogy after the post-test. Most participants felt
confident in terms of online pedagogy. Some participants requested strategies and
tips for engaging students online, interactive activities, and ways for creating an
effective learning environment, which meets the needs of all students.
Ideally, faculty members would receive a longer more extensive orientation
that not only addressed technology but also trained faculty on content knowledge,
and online pedagogy prior to teaching online. This orientation should be designed
106
to the meet the needs of the participants. Prior to attending this orientation faculty
members should complete a needs assessment outlining their current technology
comfort level and identifying areas in which they feel they need training on prior to
teaching a course. This needs assessment can be in the form of a survey and can be
completed online. Once the surveys are collected, participants should be placed in
small learning groups based on experience, content, and pedagogical needs. In
small groups, the participants will be given the opportunity to experiment with the
platform and collaborate with one another in terms of lesson planning all while still
receiving one-on-one technical support. Professional developments will occur
continuously throughout the semester and evaluated for effectiveness at the close of
each training session.
Lastly, based on the findings from this study, participants found hands-on
training, collaboration with colleagues and technology support the most beneficial
training strategies. The program should provide more hands-on experiences for
faculty members. The institution should continue to provide faculty with time to
experiment with the platform and troubleshoot hardware and software issues
however this should be conducted in smaller groups. In comparison to other online
programs in higher education, this institution provides far more common structure
such as common syllabi, common units, and hold weekly meetings to discuss plans
for the upcoming week. However, participants are requesting even greater
structure. Participants should also be provided access to colleagues’’ video tapings.
107
This will provide faculty members the opportunity to observe others and in some
cases view the same unit of study being taught by another professor.
In addition, the actual pedagogy that was used to train faculty members
should reflect that of andragogy in order to be more effective. First, andragogy
suggest that adults are motivated to learn in a nonthreatening environment, which
is based on voluntary participation (Brundage & Mackeracher, 1980). In order to
produce the greatest amount of learning, faculty members should be aware of their
own inadequacies and be able to diagnose their own needs in regards to teaching
online. Once these undesired behaviors are identified the facilitator should involve
the faculty in the planning of the professional developments. The faculty members
should feel as if they have played both a participatory and contributory role in the
provided professional developments. Facilitators should aid participants in
identifying resources and strategies needed for accomplishing objectives and assist
the professors in carrying out their learning plans. Lastly, the professors should
evaluate the training provided and the information derived from the evaluations
should be used to improve future professional developments.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study specifically examined online faculty members’ efficacy to teach
online in terms of technology, content knowledge and online pedagogy. There are
several suggestions for strengthening and or extending the study.
First, as with all methods of data collection, one disadvantage is the sample
size. The small sample size made it difficult to make generalizations, predict
108
outcomes and derive at definitive conclusions. In future studies, incentives should
be offered to encourage participation.
Second, since the study consisted of participants self-reporting their self-
efficacy to teach online rather than measurement of observable behavior, it was
difficult to apply Kirkpatrick’s third and fourth levels, transfer and results. Self-
reporting is often susceptible to biases. Methods to reduce potential for social
desirability bias such as wording survey items with neutral language, self-
administration of the instrument, and ensuring anonymous responses were
employed (Fowler, 2002; Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2003). However, it is possible that
bias still occurred.
In the future, video recordings can be observed and more fact- based
questions can be asked during both the pre- and post-test. Faculty can conduct
demonstration lessons off the cuff prior to participating in training and then once
they have participated in the training they can conduct another demonstration
lesson to determine if their learning has actually transferred into practice. This
cycle can continue throughout the semester. In addition, this study did not utilize a
control group. Optional training can be offered to faculty members in the future and
then using a matched sample, where possible the researcher can see how those
opting out of the training performed compared to those faculty members that
elected to participate in the training. This may raise an ethical issue within the
institution. The institution would have to be comfortable ethically with placing
students in professor’s courses who opted to not participate in the training and be
109
fully aware of the quality of instruction those students would receive in those
courses.
Lastly, to expand this study student outcomes should be considered and
evaluated. In addition, student surveys and interviews can be conducted to address
which teaching tasks they found to be most effective within any given online course.
In addition, since class sessions are videotaped, one may want to include videotapes
as part of the data collection. The videotapes can be viewed at the beginning of the
semester and than reviewed at the close of the semester once participants have
received training. Since the same curriculum is used face-to-face and online,
student performance can be analyzed both on ground and online.
Conclusion
New technologies have changed the nature of online education. Institutions
are able to create learning communities of students and professors despite their
different geographical location. More and more faculty members’ find themselves
teaching an online course. The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of
participating in a professional development on faculty member’s self-efficacy to
teach online. The findings of the study were supported by current research.
The study utilized the TPACK as a means of assessing faculty member’s self-
efficacy in regards to technology, content knowledge, and online pedagogy. The
findings have important implications, especially for this institution and other
institutions alike. The institution will need to prepare teachers to adapt to settings
other than the traditional classroom setting effectively. These settings include the
110
integration of technology throughout various content areas where online pedagogy
can be contextualized.
Although there is a vast amount of future research to be conducted in this
area, this study represents one of the first steps in examining faculty member’s self-
efficacy for teaching online. Raising awareness to professional development and its
impact on teacher self-efficacy is necessary for ensuring that every faculty member
is effectively trained to teach online.

111
References
Alkin, M.J., (2004) “An Evaluation Theory Tree.” Evaluation Roots:
Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning.
The Sloan Consortium.

Allen, E. & Seaman (2010). Class differences—online education in the United States,
2010. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved January 23, 2011 from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences

Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: thirty
years later. Personnel Psychology, 42, 331–342.

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. The theory and practice
of online learning. P45-74.

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online
distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology
and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved October 19, 2009, from
http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm.

Babbie, E. (1990) Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ball, D.L., Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A., Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms
governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 45(5), 1017-1028.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Bartlett, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. (2000). Transitional management: text, cases, and
readings in cross-border management (3
rd
ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Bennett, S., Priest, A. & Macpherson, C. (1999). Learning about Online learning: an
approach to staff development for university teachers. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 15 (3), pp. 207-221.
112
Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the
field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30.

Birkenholz, R. J. (1999). Effective Adult Learning. Danville, Illinois: Interstate
Publishers, Inc.

Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2008). Does teacher professional
development have effects on teaching and learning? Evaluation findings from
programs in 14 states. Retrieved from Council of Chief State School Officers
website: http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/cross-
state_study_rpt_final.pdf.

Boucouvalas, M., & Krupp, J.A. (1989). Adult development and learning. Handbook
for adult and continuing education, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Bower, B.L. (2001). Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html.

Brancato, V. C. (2003), Professional Development in Higher Education. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003: 59–66.

Brookfield, S. (1984). The contribution of eduard lindeman to the development of
theory and philosophy in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 34(4),
185 – 196.

Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Brown, A., Benson, B., & Uhde, A. (2004). You’re doing what with technology? An
expose on “Jane Doe” college professor. College Teaching, 52(3), 100-104.

Brundage, D. & MacKeracher, D. (1980) Adult Learning Principles and Their
Application to Program Planning. Toronto: The Minister of Education.

Burkhardt & Schoenfeld (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more
useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational
Researcher, 32(9), 3-14.

Caffarella, R.S. & Zinn, L.F. (1999). Professional development for faculty: A
conceptual framework of barriers and supports. Innovative Higher
Education, 23(4), 241-254.

113
Champion, R. (2002). Taking measure: The real measure of a professional
Development program's effectiveness lies in what participants learn. Journal
of Staff Development, 24(1).

Christensen, R. (2003). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes
of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
34(4), 411-434.

Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta GA: CEP Press.

Conti, G.J. (1978). Principles of adult learning scale: An instrument for measuring
teacher behavior related to collaborative teaching-learning mode.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Northern
Illinois University.

Conti, G.J. (1979). Principles of adult learning scale. Proceedings of the Adult
Education Research Conference, (20). Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.

Conti, G.J. (1983). Principles of adult learning scale: Follow-up and factor analysis.
Proceedings of the Adult Education Research Conference, (25). Raleigh:
North Carolina State University.

Conti, G.J. (1985). Assessing teaching style in adult education: How and why.
Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years, 8(8), 7-11, 28.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Creswell, J., W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research, 3rd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson
Educational International

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspectives in
the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2005). Professional development schools: Schools for
developing a profession (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dillon, C. L., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance
education. The American Journal of Distance Education. 6(3), 5-21.

114
Dilworth, M.E. & Imig, D.G. (1995). Reconceptualizing Professional Teacher
Development. The ERIC Review, 3(3), 5-11.

Easton, L. B. (2008). From professional development to professional learning. Phi
Delta Kappan, 89(10), 755-759.

Fowler, F.J. (2002). Survey research methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7
th

ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis
and applications (7
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gibb, J.R. (1960).“Learning theory in adult education. In M.S. Knowles (ed.)
Handbook of adult education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Adult
Education Association of the U.S.A.

Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C. & Tickner, S. (2001).
Competencies for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 49(1), 65-72.

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.

Hiltz, S.R. & Turoff, M. (2005). The evolution of online learning and the revolution in
higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 59 – 64.

Holton, E. F., III. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5-21.

Horgan, B. (1998). “Transforming higher education using information technology:
first steps, “ in Microsoft in higher education. Retrieved January 22, 2011,
from http://Microsoft.com/education/hed/vision.htm.

Houle, C. (1974). The changing goals of education in the perspective of lifelong
learning. International Review of Education, 20(4), 430-446.

Ingalls, J. (1984). A trainer’s guide to andragogy: Its concepts, experiences and
application. Waltham Massachusetts: Data Education, Inc.

115
Irani, T. & Telg, R.W. (2001). Planning for the new wave: Assessing current faculty
distance education training and development needs. Journal of Applied
Communications, 85(4).

Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of
professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student
outcomes, and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1-26.

James, W.B. (1983). An analysis of perceptions of the practices of adult educators
from five different settings. Proceedings of the Adult Education Research
Conference, (24). Montreal: Concordia University.

Joo, Y. J., Bong, M., and Choi, H. J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning,
academic self-efficacy, and Internet self-efficacy in Web-based instruction.
Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 48(2): 5–18.

Kaufman, R. & Keller, J. (1994: Winter) Levels of Evaluation: Beyond Kirkpatrick.
Human Resources Quarterly. Vol. 5, No. 4. Pp. 371-380.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kidd, T., Keengwe, J., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009). Faculty and technology:
Implications for faculty training and technology leadership. Journal of
science education and technology, 18(1), 23-28.

Kidd, J. R. (1973). How adults learn. New York: Association Press,
46. 8.
Killion, J. (2007). Assessing impact – Evaluating staff development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher
education: The Survey Says... Educause Quarterly, 29(4).

King, K., Lawler, P. (2003). Trends and issues in the professional development of
teachers of adults. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98, 5-
13.

Kirkpatrick, D.,(1998). The E-ware war: Competition comes to enterprise
software. Fortune(7),102–112.

Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs. Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc.

116
Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2005). The adult learner. Burlington,
Elsevier.

Knowles, M. S. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf
Publishing Co.

Knowles, M.S. (1978). The Adult Learner. Houston, Tx: Gulf Publishing. (second
edition).

Knowles, M.S. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education. Chicago: Follett
Publishing. (revised edition).

Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4
th
ed.). Houston:
Gulf Publishing Co.

Knox, A.B. (1977). Adult development and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2006). Introducing tpck. AACTE Committee on
Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical
content knowledge (tpck) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Kosak, L., Manning, D., Dobson, E., Rogers, L., Cotnam, S., Colaric, S., & McFadden, C.
(Fall/ 2004). Prepared to teach online? Perspectives of faculty in the university of
North Carolina system, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7
(3) Retrieved on February 23, 2011 from
http://www/westga/edi%7Edistance/ojdla/fall73/kosak73.html.

Ladson-Billings, G.J. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Education Research Journal, 35, 465-491.

Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning
programs in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, VI (I), Spring 2003. Retrieved October 26, 2010 from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm.

Lewis, C. (2000). Taming the Lions and Tigers and Bears. In K. W. White & B. H.
Weight (Eds.), The Online Teaching Guide: A Handbook of Attitudes, Strategies,
and Techniques for the Virtual Classroom (pp. 13-23), Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Liberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional development. The phi delta kappa, 76(8), 591-
596.
117
Lindeman, Edward C. (1926). Andragogik: The Method of Teaching Adults.
Workers’ Education, 4: 38.

Linderman, E.C. (1925). What is adult education. Unpublished manuscript,
Columbia University, Butler Library Lindeman Archive, New York.

Lowden, C. (2005). Evaluating the impact of professional development. The Journal
of Research in Professional Learning. Retrieved May12, 21, 2011 from
http://www.nsdc.org.

Maguire, L.L. (2005) Literature Review – Faculty participation in online distance
education: Barriers and motivators. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 8(1), 1-16.

Manley, M.J. (1984). A delphi study of adult learning principles. Unpublished paper,
Center for Adult Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Mariani, M. (2001). Distance learning in postsecondary education: Learning
whenever, wherever. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 45(2), 2.

McAllister, M. (2004). An online learning community for clinical educators: Nurse
Education in Practice, 6 (2). 106-111.

McEwan, E. K. & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s
not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

McKenzie, B. K., Mims, N., Bennett, E. & Waugh, M. (2000). Needs, concerns and
practices of online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration,1(3). Retrieved February 8, 2011, from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/fall33/mckenzie33.html.

McMahon, M. (1997). Social constructivism and the World Wide Web - A paradigm
for learning. In R. Kevill, R. Oliver & R. Phillips (eds), Proceedings of
ASCILITE'97. 14th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for
Computers in Tertiary Education, 411-417.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth97/papers/Mcmahon/Mcmah
on.html.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning.î In The New Up- date
on Adult Learning Theory. New Directions for Adult and Continu- ing
Education no. 89, edited by S. B. Merriam, pp. 3-13. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

118
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Metfessel, N.S. & Michael, W.B. (1967) A paradigm involving multiple criterion
measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, pp. 931–943.

Milbrath, Y. L., & Kinzie, M. B. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective
teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 8: 373-396.

Miller, H.L. (1964). Teaching and learning in adult education. NY: Macmillan.

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers
College Record, 108(6), 1017- 1054.

Morris, L. (2002). Tracking, student behavior, persistence, and achievement in
online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 8 (3), 221-231.

Muirhead, W. D. (2000). Online education in school [Electronic version]. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 14 (7), 315-324.

National Education Association. (2000). A survey of traditional and distance
learning higher education members. Washington, D.C: The National
Educational Association.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Distance Education at
postsecondary education institutions. Washington, D.C.: The National
Educational Association.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Distance education at degree-
granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-07. Retrieved January 26, 2011,
from http://nces.ed.gov.

Newton. E.S. (1977). Andragogy: understanding the adult as learner. Journal of
Reading, 20, 5, 361-363.

Orr, R., Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support
faculty in online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 257-268.

119
Pagliari, L., Batts, D., & McFadden, C. (2009). Desired versus actual training for
online instructors in community colleges. Online Journal of Distance
Administration, 12(4). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter124/pagliari124.html.

Pallof, R. & Pratt, K. (2000). Making the Transition: Helping Teachers to Teach
Online.

Pallof, R.M. & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The
Realities of Online Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Parker, A. (2003). Motivation and incentives for distance faculty. Retrieved on
October 26, 2010 from
www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/parker63.htm .

Patton, M. Q. (2003). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivismand educa- tional
research.New York:Rowman & Littlefield.

Robinson Kurpius, S. E. & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-
friendly guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rovai, A.P and Jordan, H.M., 2004, ‘Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A
Comparative Analysis with Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses’,
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, August
2004.

Salmon G. (2003). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London,
Routledge Falmer.

Sapsford, R. (2006). Data collection and analysis. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., & Persichitte, K. A. (2006). Differential skills and
competencies required of faculty teaching distance education courses.
International Journal of Educational Technology 2(1), 1-17. Retrieved
February 19, 2011, from
http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n1/schoenfeld-tacher/index.html.

Scriven, M. (1967) The methodology of evaluation, in: R.W. Tyler, R.M. Gagne & M.
Scriven (Eds) Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation, pp. 39–83 American
Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Evaluation 1
(Chicago, Rand McNally).
120
Shepherd, C., Alpert, M. & Koeller, M. (2008, January). Mentoring seasoned faculty
for online efficacy. 12th Cambridge International Conference on Open and
distance Learning. Cambridge, England.

Smith, R. M. (1982). Learning how to learn. Chicago: Follett.

Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD

Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional
development. (Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council).

Suanmali, C. (1981). The core concepts of andragogy. Doctoral Dissertation.
Columbia University Teachers College. Dissertation Abstracts International,
University Microfilms No. 8207343.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998) Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Vol. 46. Applied Social Research Methods Series.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Terehoff, I. (2002). Elements of adult learning in teacher professional development.
NASSP Bulletin, 86(632), 65 – 77.

Thomas, S. J. (2003). Designing Surveys That Work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four
professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and
implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal,
110(2), 228-245.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. and Hoy, W.K. (1998), “Teacher efficacy: its
meaning and measure”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 68, pp. 202-48.

Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on
teacher self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1),
151 – 165.

Whitesel, C. (1998). Reframing our classrooms, reframing ourselves: Perspectives
from a virtual paladin. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from
http://www.technologysource.org/article/reframing_our_classrooms_refra
ming_ourselves/.

121
Williams, C. (2002). Learning online: A review of recent literature in a rapidly
expanding field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26, 263-272.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary
professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of
research in education, Vol. 24. (pp. 173–210). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.

Wolf, P.D. (2006). Best practices in the training of faculty to teach online. Journal of
computing in higher education, 17(2), 47-78.

Yang, Yi & Cornelious, L. F. (Spring, 2005). Preparing instructors for quality online
instruction. Online Journal of Distance Education Learning Administration,
8(1). Retrieved on August 19, 2011, from
http://westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/spring81/yang81.htm.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated
learning: Relating grade, sex and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, (1) 51– 59.

122
Appendix A: Pre-Test
Learning to Teach Online

Introduction
You are invited to participate in a research study on learning to teach online. The
purpose of this study is to establish the relationship between the participants’ self-
efficacy to teach online after participating in the professional development training
and identify characteristics, if any, of the professional development which
contributed to an increase in your self-efficacy to teach online.

If you volunteer to participate in this study, your responses will remain anonymous
and any identifiable information will be kept confidential. By completing this
survey you agree to be a participant. You may withdraw your consent at any time
during the survey.

Thank you in advance for sharing your views and experiences regarding teaching
online.

Participating Identification Number
In the box below please enter the year of your birth followed by the last four digits
of your telephone number (YYYYPPPP).

For example, if your birth year is 1978 and last four digits of your phone number
are 1234, please enter 19781234.

Demographic Information
*Gender
o Female
o Male

*Age

*How many years have you taught in higher education?

*How many years have you taught online?

123
Survey

How would you rate your own knowledge in doing the following tasks associated
with teaching in a distance education setting?

For each of the statements below, please indicate your level of knowledge in the
following areas. If you feel your knowledge is poor in a particular area, please
indicate (1). If you feel your knowledge in a particular area is fair, please indicate
(2). If you feel your knowledge in a particular are is good, please indicate (3). If
you feel your knowledge in a particular area is very good, please indicate (4) and if
you feel it is excellent, please indicate (5).

Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
Item
#
a. My ability troubleshoot technical problems
associated with hardware (e.g., network
connections)

1 2 3 4 5
b. My ability to create materials that map to
specific course objectives and professional
competencies.

1 2 3 4 5
c. My ability to use a variety of teaching strategies
to relate various concepts to students

1 2 3 4 5
d. My ability to decide on the scope of concepts
taught within in my class.
1 2 3 4 5
124

Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
e. My ability to use online student assessment to
modify instruction.
1 2 3 4 5
f. My ability to distinguish between correct and
incorrect problem solving attempts by students
1 2 3 4 5
g. My ability to address various computer issues
related to software (e.g., downloading
appropriate plug-ins, installing programs)
1 2 3 4 5
h. My ability to create an online environment
which allows students to build new knowledge
and skills.
1 2 3 4 5
i. My ability to anticipate likely student
misconceptions within a particular topic
1 2 3 4 5
j. My ability to determine a particular strategy
best suited to teach a specific concept.
1 2 3 4 5
k. My ability to use technology to predict students'
skill/understanding of a particular topic
1 2 3 4 5
l. My ability to implement different methods of
teaching online
1 2 3 4 5
m. My ability to plan the sequence of concepts
taught within my class.
1 2 3 4 5
n. My ability to moderate online interactivity
among students

1 2 3 4 5
o. My ability to use technological representations
(i.e. multimedia, visual demonstrations, etc.) to
demonstrate specific concepts in my content
area.
1 2 3 4 5
p. My ability to encourage online interactivity
among students
1 2 3 4 5
q. My ability to assist students with
troubleshooting technical problems with their
personal computers
1 2 3 4 5
r. My ability to adjust teaching methodology based
on student performance/feedback.

1 2 3 4 5
125

Poor
Fair
Good
Very
Good
Excellent
s. My ability to comfortably produce lesson plans
with an appreciation for the topic
1 2 3 4 5
t. My ability to implement district curriculum in
an online environment
1 2 3 4 5
u. My ability to assist students in noticing
connections between various concepts in a
curriculum
1 2 3 4 5
v. My ability to use various courseware programs
to deliver instruction (e.g., Laulima, Blackboard
Elluminate)

1 2 3 4 5
w. My ability to use technology to create effective
representations of content that depart from
textbook knowledge
1 2 3 4 5
x. My ability to meet the overall demands of online
teaching.
1 2 3 4 5

Short Answer

* Do you have any concerns regarding your level of preparation to teach online at
this time?

126
Appendix B: Interview
Learning to Teach Online

Introduction
You are invited to participate in a research study on learning to teach online. The
purpose of this study is to establish the relationship between the participants’ self-
efficacy to teach online after participating in the professional development training
and identify characteristics, if any, of the professional development which
contributed to an increase in your self-efficacy to teach online.

If you volunteer to participate in this study, your responses will remain anonymous
and any identifiable information will be kept confidential. By completing this
interview you agree to be a participant. You may withdraw your consent at any
time during the interview.

Thank you in advance for sharing your views and experiences regarding teaching
online.

Interview Questions
1. How many classes have you taught online using 2SC?

2. Have you taught any classes before 2SC – of what nature?
(Synchronous/Asynchronous)

3. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being the most positive and 10 being the most
negative) what was the level of enjoyment or impression of transitioning to
2SC?

4. In many ways instruction on the 2SC platform resembles a campus-based
classroom-live discussion, breakouts, use of whiteboards, etc. What were the
2-3 most significant differences you discovered between the online
classroom and traditional classroom experience?

5. What are the biggest instructional challenges you experienced using 2SC as
compared to brick/mortar?
127
6. What specific changes in your teaching did you make to address these
challenges?

7. Tell me about classroom management in the online setting. How did you
structure class time on 2SC vs. in an on-campus class? How did you monitor
the classroom climate?

8. Tell me about facilitating discussion online. How did you get students to
engage? To what extent are those strategies the same/different from those
you use in a face-to-face class?

9. Tell me about assessing student learning online. Could you assess learning
the same way as in a face –to-face classroom? (If no: What changes did you
make in order to determine student outcomes?)

10. How did you engage students? What were your experiences with student
persona on camera? With your own persona?

11. How did you build community within your online classes? How did building
community online differ from working with on campus classes?

12. How prepared do you feel you were for the online teaching experience?
Where were you least prepared? What would have prepared you more?

128
Appendix C: Post - Test

Learning to Teach Online

Introduction
You are invited to participate in a research study on learning to teach online. The
purpose of this study is to establish the relationship between the participants’ self-
efficacy to teach online after participating in the professional development training
and identify characteristics, if any, of the professional development which
contributed to an increase in your self-efficacy to teach online.

If you volunteer to participate in this study, your responses will remain anonymous
and any identifiable information will be kept confidential. By completing this
survey you agree to be a participant. You may withdraw your consent at any time
during the survey.

Thank you in advance for sharing your views and experiences regarding teaching
online.

Participating Identification Number
In the box below please enter the year of your birth followed by the last four digits
of your telephone number (YYYYPPPP).

For example, if your birth year is 1978 and last four digits of your phone number
are 1234, please enter 19781234.

129
Survey

Self-Efficacy
How would you rate your own knowledge in doing the following tasks associated
with teaching in a distance education setting?

For each of the statements below, please indicate your level of knowledge in the
following areas. If you feel your knowledge is poor in a particular area, please
indicate (1). If you feel your knowledge in a particular area is fair, please indicate
(2). If you feel your knowledge in a particular are is good, please indicate (3). If
you feel your knowledge in a particular area is very good, please indicate (4) and if
you feel it is excellent, please indicate (5).

Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
Item
#
a. My ability troubleshoot technical problems
associated with hardware (e.g., network
connections)

1 2 3 4 5
b. My ability to create materials that map to
specific course objectives and professional
competencies.

1 2 3 4 5
c. My ability to use a variety of teaching strategies
to relate various concepts to students

1 2 3 4 5
130
d. My ability to decide on the scope of concepts
taught within in my class.
1 2 3 4 5

Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
e. My ability to use online student assessment to
modify instruction.
1 2 3 4 5
f. My ability to distinguish between correct and
incorrect problem solving attempts by students
1 2 3 4 5
g. My ability to address various computer issues
related to software (e.g., downloading
appropriate plug-ins, installing programs)
1 2 3 4 5
h. My ability to create an online environment
which allows students to build new knowledge
and skills.
1 2 3 4 5
i. My ability to anticipate likely student
misconceptions within a particular topic
1 2 3 4 5
j. My ability to determine a particular strategy
best suited to teach a specific concept.
1 2 3 4 5
k. My ability to use technology to predict students'
skill/understanding of a particular topic
1 2 3 4 5
l. My ability to implement different methods of
teaching online
1 2 3 4 5
m. My ability to plan the sequence of concepts
taught within my class.
1 2 3 4 5
n. My ability to moderate online interactivity
among students

1 2 3 4 5
o. My ability to use technological representations
(i.e. multimedia, visual demonstrations, etc.) to
demonstrate specific concepts in my content
area.
1 2 3 4 5
p. My ability to encourage online interactivity
among students
1 2 3 4 5
q. My ability to assist students with
troubleshooting technical problems with their
personal computers
1 2 3 4 5
r. My ability to adjust teaching methodology based
on student performance/feedback.
1 2 3 4 5
131

Poor
Fair
Good
Very
Good
Excellent
s. My ability to comfortably produce lesson plans
with an appreciation for the topic
1 2 3 4 5
t. My ability to implement district curriculum in
an online environment
1 2 3 4 5
u. My ability to assist students in noticing
connections between various concepts in a
curriculum
1 2 3 4 5
v. My ability to use various courseware programs
to deliver instruction (e.g., Laulima, Blackboard
Elluminate)

1 2 3 4 5
w. My ability to use technology to create effective
representations of content that depart from
textbook knowledge
1 2 3 4 5
x. My ability to meet the overall demands of online
teaching.
1 2 3 4 5

Training Strategies

For each of the statements below, which training strategies used this past semester,
if any, do you identify as being the most effective in producing the greatest gains in
your self-efficacy to teach online. If you feel the training strategy was not effective
please indicate (1). If you feel that the training strategy was somewhat effective
please indicate (2). If you feel that the training strategy was effective please
indicate (3). If you feel that the training strategy was very effective please indicate
(4). If this training strategy was not applicable please indicate (5).
132

Not Effective
Somewhat
Effective

Effective
Very
Effective

N/A
a. Face-to-Face Workshops 1 2 3 4 5
b. Online Workshops 1 2 3 4 5
c. Study Groups 1 2 3 4 5
d. Coaching 1 2 3 4 5
e. Mentoring 1 2 3 4 5
f. Video Tutorials 1 2 3 4 5
g. Hands-on Training 1 2 3 4 5
h. Lesson Study 1 2 3 4 5
i. Case Discussions 1 2 3 4 5
j. Involvement with Curriculum Design 1 2 3 4 5
k. Action Research 1 2 3 4 5
l. Examining Student Work 1 2 3 4 5

*How prepared do you feel you are for an online teaching experience?

*What teaching tasks associated with online teaching are you most prepared?

*What teaching tasks associated with online teaching are you least prepared?

*What would have prepared you more?

*What three aspects of the training did you find most useful in preparing you for
online teaching?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study focused on a postsecondary organization in California, which has embarked on a groundbreaking, highly interactive online Master of Arts in Teaching Program. This program provides students with the flexibility and ability to not only share and interact with peers from across the nation but also work with a diverse group of instructors. As some of the faculty members of the institution transition to teaching online, this study assessed their impression of the professional development received and evaluated how the training has affected their self-efficacy to teach online.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Professional development: a six-year data evaluation of HIDTA law enforecement task force training programs

PDF

Effective professional development strategies to support the advancement of women into senior student affairs officer positions

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?

PDF

School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

Teacher perception on coaching and effective professional development implementation

PDF

A comparison of student motivation by program delivery method: self-efficacy, goal orientation, and belongingness in a synchronous online and traditional face-to-face environment

PDF

Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

The implications of golf instructors teaching golf fitness to clients

PDF

Raising cultural self-efficacy among faculty and staff of a private native Hawaiian school system

PDF

A professional development program evaluation: teacher efficacy, learning, and transfer

PDF

Recruiting and hiring online learning teachers for online high schools

PDF

Adequacy in education: an evidence-based approach to resource allocation in alternative learning environments

PDF

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

Google Apps: an opportunity to collaborate

PDF

Supporting faculty for successful online instruction: factors for effective onboarding and professional development

PDF

Online, flipped, and traditional instruction: a comparison of student performance in higher education

Asset Metadata

Creator Mitchell, Magan Arleta (author)

Core Title Professional development for teaching online

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 05/03/2012

Defense Date 03/29/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,online teaching,professional development,self-efficacy

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email mamitchee@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-27429

Unique identifier UC11289110

Identifier usctheses-c3-27429 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MitchellMa-738-0.pdf

Dmrecord 27429

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mitchell, Magan Arleta

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA