Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
An analysis of online engagement of secondary teachers at high need schools during COVID-19 shutdowns
(USC Thesis Other)
An analysis of online engagement of secondary teachers at high need schools during COVID-19 shutdowns
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
An Analysis of Online Engagement of Secondary Teachers at High Need Schools During
COVID-19 Shutdowns
Vanessa Solomon
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2022
© Copyright by Vanessa Solomon 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Vanessa Solomon certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Tashon McKeithan
Monique Datta
Jennifer Phillips, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
This study explores the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influencing teacher
engagement in online instruction at Grade 6–12 high need secondary schools during the 2020–
2021 school year. Teacher engagement was defined as the ability to design and organize,
instruct, and facilitate Grade K–12 online learning to increase student engagement, as outlined in
Borup et al.’s adolescent community of engagement framework (2014). This qualitative study
adopted the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to identify the discrete knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences on teacher engagement in online instruction through
open-ended interviews conducted with 10 participants. Assumed influences were categorized as
needs or assets, which led to context specific and research driven recommendations to support
online instruction. Recommendations included providing teachers training on organization and
design, instructional delivery, and instructional facilitation while ensuring schools allocate
funding and resources to support teacher practice. The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) new
world model was used to propose an evaluation and implementation plan to assess the
effectiveness and efficacy of the recommendations. The intended outcome from the
recommendations is to improve the quality of online instruction which would result in increased
educational equity for students in high need contexts.
v
Acknowledgements
Thank you, Dr. Jennifer Phillips, for your motivation and feedback throughout this process.
Thank you, Dr. Monique Datta, for being an inspiration and mentor from Day 1. Thank you, Dr.
Tashon McKeithan, for being my cheerleader and advisor in multiple professional endeavors. I
am grateful to have you as my committee.
Many thanks to the participants whose time and experience made this study possible and to the
countless teachers who have put their heart and soul into educating our youth despite personal
and professional challenges during a global pandemic. You are my inspiration.
Thank you to my mother, Malati Baker, for your unconditional love for me and my children as I
spent endless hours at a desk. Thank you, Ishaan and Anushka, for seeing the importance of this
milestone for Mama, even as it cut into our family time. Thank you to my partner, Jonathan
Jordan, who made sure I crossed the finish line. My gratitude to all my friends and family who
inquired about my progress, celebrated victories along the way, and supported my efforts. I am
grateful for my tribe.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Field Context and Mission .................................................................................................. 6
Field Global Goal ................................................................................................................ 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 9
Stakeholder Group for the Study ....................................................................................... 10
Stakeholder Performance Goals ........................................................................................ 11
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ................................................................ 12
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................... 13
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ................................................... 13
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 14
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 15
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 17
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework ........................................................................ 17
The Evolution of Online Instruction ................................................................................. 18
Defining Characteristics of Online Instruction ................................................................. 19
Grade K–12 Teacher Preparedness for Online Instruction in High Need Contexts .......... 23
Best Practices in Online Teacher Engagement ................................................................. 24
Teacher Motivations Towards Online Instruction ............................................................ 34
Organizational Supports for Online Instruction ................................................................ 39
vii
Teacher Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ..................................... 42
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 52
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 56
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 57
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 58
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 58
Data Collection Method: Interviews ................................................................................. 60
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 62
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 63
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 65
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 66
Findings for Research Question 1 ..................................................................................... 67
Findings for Research Question 2 ..................................................................................... 87
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’ Data .................... 92
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ......................................................................... 94
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 94
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 96
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 113
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 114
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 114
References ................................................................................................................................... 116
Appendix A: Recruitment Questionnaire .................................................................................... 152
Appendix B: Protocols ................................................................................................................ 153
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Field Mission, Field Global Goal and Stakeholder Group’s
Performance Goal
12
Table 2: Best Practices for Designing and Organizing Online Content 27
Table 3: Best Practices for Delivering Instruction Online 30
Table 4: Best Practices for Facilitating Online Instruction 34
Table 5: Assumed Knowledge Influences 45
Table 6: Assumed Motivational Influences 49
Table 7: Assumed Organizational Influences 52
Table 8: Data Sources 58
Table 9: Demographic Information of Teachers 66
Table 10: Teacher Self-Reported Focus in Organizing and Designing Online
Content
70
Table 11: Knowledge of Frameworks by Teacher Participant 72
Table 12: Teacher Self-Reported Incorporation of Student Choice in Delivering
Online Instruction
74
Table 13: Teacher Self-Reported Integration of a Gradual Release Model in
Online Instructional Delivery
76
Table 14: Teacher Perceptions of Utility Value of Online Instructional Methods
83
Table 15: Teacher Responses Demonstrating Increased Confidence in Online
Instructional Methods
85
Table 16: Teacher Responses Demonstrating Attributions of Student Outcomes to
Instructional Ability
86
Table 17: Teacher Responses Indicating Elements of Collective Efficacy 91
Table 18: Assumed Influences Deemed As Assets or Needs
93
Table 19: Summary of Knowledge Needs and Recommendations
98
ix
Table 20: Summary of Organizational Needs and Recommendations
102
Table 21: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Evaluating Teacher Training
Program
105
Table 22: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
107
Table 23: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
110
Table 24: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
111
Table B1: A Priori Codes Aligned to Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences
154
Table B2: Interview Protocol Crosswalk 156
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Factors Influencing Teacher Engagement in Online Instruction 53
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The 2017 National Education Technology Plan established quality online teaching as a
national priority (United States Department of Education, 2017) and the Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19) pandemic and related school closures beginning in Spring 2020 has brought this
priority renewed urgency. High quality online instruction was especially necessary at high need
schools (Dorn et al., 2020; Kuhlfeld & Tarasawa, 2020; Psacharopoulos et al., 2020), which
serve a high percentage of students performing below grade level and with 76% or more of the
student population eligible for free or reduced lunch (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
During pandemic-related school shutdowns, adolescent students in high need contexts were
disproportionately impacted (Dorn et al., 2020; Golberstein et al., 2020; Gross & Opalka, 2020;
Psacharopoulos et al., 2020) and the degree to which a school was able to offer engaging
instruction predicted student engagement levels (Domina et al., 2021).
Online pedagogy is an emerging field of research, with multiple studies aiming to
identify effective teacher roles and approaches (Lawrence, 2020; Nortvig et al., 2018; Saltmarsh
& Sutherland-Smith, 2010). A unique set of skills is required for successful online teaching
(Alvarez et al., 2009; Oomen-Early & Murphy, 2009) and the past decade has seen an increase in
research focused on online instruction in Grade K–12 contexts (Barbour 2018). Yet, there is a
gap in research for instructional approaches for specific audiences (Lawrence, 2020). For
example, Tandy and Meacham’s (2009) found that online pedagogy often does not consider the
needs of students with disabilities.
This study examined factors influencing teacher engagement in an online environment
among Grade 6–12 teachers employed at high need schools during the 2020–2021 school year.
The Clark and Estes Framework (2008) provided a conceptual framework to identify key
2
knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors influencing online teacher engagement. The
term teacher engagement, from the adolescent community of engagement framework, was used
to categorize three main functions that support the social and cognitive learning processes of
adolescent learners in an online environment: facilitation, organization, and instruction (Borup,
2014).
Context and Background of the Problem
Forty years of research has established teacher preparedness as the most important factor
in determining student outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2001; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; Zee &
Koomen, 2016). Teacher quality remains a national priority for policy makers (Tatto et al., 2016;
U.S. Department of Education, 2011, 2014) as access to high-quality teachers remains a struggle
across the nation (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Goldhaber et al., 2015). Technology integration has
emerged as a crucial element of Grade K–12 education in the past decade, with the Every
Student Succeeds Act of 2015 encouraging the use of technology to safely and effectively
improve student learning (NCES, 2018). Online instruction was added as a requirement in
teacher preparation by the U.S. Department of Education in 2017 with the National Education
Technology Plan.
Meeting the needs of online students necessitates effective training and support for
teachers (Dorn et al., 2020; Kennedy & Ferdig, 2018), but teacher preparation programs
nationally offer little to no explicit instruction in online instruction. A 2016 survey conducted by
the Michigan Virtual Learning Institute found only 4.1% of 363 teacher education programs in
the United States provided clear explanations of the online teaching experiences for their
teachers in training while 88.2% reported not providing any training in online instruction
(Archambault & Kennedy). Further, the number of years of teaching experience in a face-to-face
3
environment does not correlate with teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness for remote
instruction (Kennedy & Ferdig, 2018). Recurring barriers to technology integration in Grade K–
12 classrooms include access to technology, effective training, administrative support, and
teacher beliefs regarding technology integration (Francom, 2020). The leading barrier has been
identified as inadequate time to plan and test learning experiences that integrate technology prior
to instruction (Hechter & Vermette, 2013; Kale & Goh, 2014).
The COVID-19 pandemic brought on a significant challenge as the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (2020) recommended either fully or partial online instruction to reduce
the transmission risk of COVID-19 in the 2020–2021 school year. Educator preparedness for
online instruction was stressed in multiple school re-opening recommendations from Summer
2020 (Chiefs of Change & Johns Hopkins School of Education, 2020; Public Impact, 2020).
Research emerged on the potential impact of this sudden shift. In a typical school year, a certain
amount of learning loss is expected for all students over summer break (von Hippel & Hamrock,
2019). In this case, the extended school closures in 2020 were expected to compound the
summer slide, with initial projections anticipating a half to full year of loss in learning gains in
math and literacy for incoming third through eighth grade students in the United States (Kuhlfeld
& Tarasawa, 2020).
Social interactions were also restricted during the pandemic, adding to the stress of
school transitions for students. School transitions are critical to the academic and social-
emotional development of adolescents, particularly in middle school. Students experience
increasingly negative feelings towards school between Grade 6 to 8 and the transition to sixth
grade has been linked to increased depression and a disconnectedness than in elementary school
(Lippold et al., 2013). In a study of 90,000 New York City middle school students, Schwartz et
4
al. (2016) found a correlation between the perceived social standing of adolescents with feelings
of belonging and academic achievement. At the high school level, a survey of 2,000 students
reported that connections with peers and teachers played a big role in student engagement with
school (Geraci et al., 2017). The combined impact of extended social isolation, economic
instability, and a global public health crisis may have led to chronic stress among adolescents,
further impacting academic achievement (Golberstein et al., 2020).
The 2020–2021 school year started with 17 of the 20 largest school districts in the United
States offering fully remote instruction (Education Week, 2020). Stories of hardship for teachers
were common and Grade K–12 teachers earned the title of “first responders” (Jackson &
Keirstead, 2020). A survey administered by the United Teachers Los Angeles to Los Angeles
Grade K–12 teachers in Fall of 2020 found that 91% of teachers were working more than the
hours outlined in their contractual agreement with the district (United Teachers Los Angeles,
2020). Lack of adequate professional development left teachers ill equipped to teach during
school shutdowns and the quality of professional development offered was found to be
ineffective (Garcia & Weiss, 2020). The constraints of physical distancing, the practice of
maintaining six feet distance from others, limited access to traditional professional development
opportunities for teachers (Gudmundsdottir & Hathaway, 2020). The rushed shift to online
learning with limited training left teachers feeling unprepared in their roles (Adams, 2020;
Beteille et al., 2020; Haverback, 2020; Trust, 2020).
The impact of school shutdowns was especially pronounced in high need schools
(Kuhlfeld & Tarasawa, 2020). Students of color were disproportionately impacted because of
school closures, widening persistent educational and technological inequities in the United States
(Dorn et al., 2020; Psacharopoulos et al., 2020). Six weeks into school closures in early 2020,
5
56% of school districts nationally had not established remote learning systems to track student
engagement and attendance (Lake & Dusseault, 2020). Districts with remote learning systems
offered online instruction in asynchronous and synchronous settings. Learners worked
independently and self-paced in asynchronous settings while synchronous settings allowed for
real-time communication and interactions (Fabriz et al., 2021). Synchronous modes incorporated
an audiovisual platform component, such as Zoom or Google Meet. Asynchronous learning
allowed families to consider varied home schedules and availability of technology when
attending to learning while synchronous instruction allowed for real-time wellness checks and
interaction between teachers and students (Chambers et al., 2020). Whether or not a school was
able to offer diverse, relevant, and engaging instruction through asynchronous or synchronous
instruction predicted levels of student engagement (Domina et al., 2021). Districts with high
concentrations of students from low-income households were half as likely to engage students
through live online instruction as their counterparts (Gross & Opalka, 2020). Typical levels of
summer learning loss were exacerbated, especially in schools serving black and Latinx students
(Dorn et al., 2020). For example, at the Los Angeles Unified School District, 15% of high
schoolers never attended an online session in the Spring 2020 semester and one out of four
students logged on infrequently (Domina et al., 2021). The lack of teacher preparation in online
instruction and greater student needs posed significant challenges for the 2020–2021 school year.
Despite these challenges, some studies indicated an increase in teacher motivation towards
student achievement despite the negative impact of COVID-19 (Gudmundsdottir & Hathaway,
2020; Wong & Moorhouse, 2020).
Trust (2020) recommended further research on how teachers approach online instruction
due to an emergency remote teaching situation to inform professional learning for greater teacher
6
preparedness. This study collected data from Grade 6–12 teachers who taught online in a
synchronous format at high need schools during the 2020–2021 school year. With the use of the
Clark and Estes Framework (2008), the data were categorized as knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences on teacher engagement in online instruction. Analyzing stakeholder
capacity in relation to achieving organizational goals led to recommendations for strengthening
online instructional practices for teachers.
Field Context and Mission
This study was a field study focused on Grade 6–12 teachers who taught online during
the 2020–2021 school year. In the 2017–2018 school year, approximately 3.4 million teachers
served public school Grade K–12 students in the United States of whom 79% were White, 7%
were Black, 9% were Latinx, 39% held a bachelor’s degree, and 49% held a master’s degree
(Digest of Education Statistics, 2019). Roughly 77% of teachers were female and the average
level of experience was 14 years (Walker, 2018). The number of novice teachers with two years
or less of experience in the workforce grew from 6.8% of the workforce in 2011–2012 to 9.4% in
2015–2016 (García & Weiss, 2019).
Further, the focus of this study was limited to Grade 6–12 teachers employed at high need
schools during the 2020–2021 school year. A 2016 report from the Learning Policy Institute
found that high-poverty, high-minority schools experienced lower rates of teacher quality and
retention (Sutcher et al., 2016) Teachers were four times more likely to be uncertified, 50% more
likely to leave the profession, and twice as likely to report severe dissatisfaction with their
administration when compared to low-poverty, low-minority schools (Sutcher et al., 2020).
Disadvantaged children were consistently more likely to be taught by underprepared teachers
(García & Weiss, 2019).
7
The U.S. Department of Education’s Teacher Preparation Regulations released in 2016
maintains a commitment to preparing teachers to succeed and ensuring all students are taught by
a great educator (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). The National Education Technology
Plan of 2017 was aimed at leveraging technology and online learning as a method of increasing
access to high-quality, engaging instruction for all students, in turn increasing education equity
for students (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
Field Global Goal
The U.S. Department of Education (2017) views the integration of technology in
education as a method of addressing educational equity gaps, meeting needs of all learners, and
facilitating greater collaboration and learning among educators. Educational equity encompasses
fairness and inclusion for all students (Field et al., 2007). Through the approach identified in the
National Education Technology Plan, the U.S. Department of Education (2016) developed an
infrastructure that allows continuous cycles of learning of educational technology through
greater connectivity, resources, and accessibility for educators. The U.S. Department of
Education committed to updating the plan, most recently through a webinar and blog series that
shared effective teaching practices with technology during the pandemic (Office of Educational
Technology, 2021)
Schools serving a high percentage of students at risk of dropping out and in need of
additional support are categorized as high need schools; student categorizations include
minorities, students performing below grade level, and students living in poverty, experiencing
homelessness, foster care, or incarceration (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). In the 2007–
2008 school year, 87% of students attending high need secondary schools were Black and Latinx
(U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Achieving equity in education means that educational
8
attainment is not dependent on gender, socio-economic status, or ethnicity and all students
receive a quality, basic education (Field et al., 2007). Between the years of 1992 and 2020,
reading achievement levels of high need eighth grade students has increased but with no
significant increase between 2012 and 2020 (The Nation’s Report Card, 2021). Scores for high
need eighth grade students in mathematics have declined overall between 2012 and 2020 (The
Nation’s Report Card, 2021). Scores in reading have dropped and scores in mathematics have
stagnated between 2005 and 2020 for high need 12th grade students (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2020). The achievement levels are determined through the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which administers a knowledge and skills
assessment for fourth, eighth, and 12th grade students nationally; NAEP’s “Nation’s Report
Card” tracks academic achievement for all and subgroups of American students (National
Assessment Governing Board).
Returning from school closures in the 2020–2021 school year tested the readiness of
schools to transition to an online environment. School districts published their guiding principles
and priorities as they entered the 2020–2021 school year. For example, the nation’s two largest
school districts, The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) and the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD), prioritized student achievement in their annual goals. The
NYCDOE stated academic achievement through high quality instruction, tailored enrichment,
and culturally responsive pedagogy as a key value (NYC Department of Education, 2020);
LAUSD identified lesson planning, data analysis, effective classroom instruction, and during and
after school interventions among their focus areas (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2020).
Across the nation, the field global goal was to increase educational equity for Grade 6–12
students in high need contexts given the transition to online instruction during the 2020–2021
9
school year. This study recruited participants who have taught online in a high need secondary
school during the 2020–2021 school year. The research presented in literature review spans
Grade K–12 contexts, but this study focused on teacher engagement for adolescents attending
secondary schools, or Grade 6–12, to expand on the numerous studies indicating a correlation
between connectedness with school and academic performance (Geraci et al., 2017; Golberstein
et al., 2020; Schwartz et al., 2016).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Multiple stakeholder groups impact and inform teacher engagement in online instruction
in high need schools, including public school teachers, school administrators, and educational
policymakers:
● Public school teachers: Public school teachers were a central focus during the 2020
pandemic, facing political pressure to return to classrooms to provide essential
childcare, educational, and social needs for the nation’s children (Hartney & Flinger,
2020). In a 2012 study on the factors affecting the retention of teachers in high-need
schools, “caring” had greater influence on a teacher’s decision to stay than financial
factors (Petty et al., 2012).
● School administrators: In Spring 2020, principals indicated shifting priorities for the
2020–2021 school year, with a greater focus on emergency preparedness, minimizing
student learning gaps, and addressing mental health needs (Hamilton et al., 2020). In
the 2007–2008 school year, 12% of all secondary school principals worked in high
need schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Nationally, 21% of principals at
high need schools turn over annually (Goldring & Taie, 2018). The pandemic has
exacerbated principal retention, with a survey of 424 secondary schools indicating
10
42%, or nearly half of all principals, were considering leaving the profession due to a
heavy workload, lack of support, and high-stakes accountability among other factors
(Levin et al., 2020). Principal turnover has a ripple effect, leading to teacher attrition
and a negative impact on student achievement (Beteille & Kalogrides, 2012).
● Policymakers: In a press release released on August 25, 2020, Linda Darling-
Hammond, the CEO of the Learning Policy Institute, stated that policymakers have a
historic opportunity to rethink equity and innovation in education (The Learning
Policy Institute). Supporting teacher preparation programs geared towards teacher
efficacy and retention in high need communities is a recommendation for
policymakers repeated by multiple research institutions (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2020; Hamilton et al., 2020).
Stakeholder Group for the Study
The salient stakeholder group for the study include Grade 6–12 public school educators
instructing students attending high need schools in an online environment during the 2020–2021
school year. A Rand Institute study from Spring 2020 found educators indicated a need for
additional support with remote instruction, strategies for student engagement, and reliable access
to technology for students (Hamilton et al., 2020). The nation braced for a disruptive impact on
the teaching workforce during the COVID-19 school shutdowns, with studies citing up to 20% of
teachers subsequently leaving the profession (Hammond et al., 2020). High need schools would
be particularly impacted as teacher attrition historically impacts high need schools at a higher
rate, with negative consequences on student achievement (Ronfeldt et al., 2013). However, the
individual behavior of a teacher can be influenced by the relationship between social factors,
organizational factors, and policy, which in turn has an impact on teacher efficacy and student
11
achievement (Elder et al., 2007). Understanding the elements contributing to teacher
engagement in an online environment in the 2020–2021 school year can have long term
implications on how policy and preparation programs position teacher training and support to
maximize student outcomes, especially in high need contexts.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
The performance goal for Grade 6–12 teachers employed at high need schools is to
successfully engage in online instruction to meet the field global goal of increasing educational
equity for Grade 6–12 students in high need contexts given the transition to online instruction
during the 2020–2021 school year. In an online environment, student results are dependent on a
teacher’s ability to design, deliver, and facilitate effective interactions between the content,
student, instructor, and peers (Andrade, 2015; Rice, 2006; Shulman, 2005; Ustati & Hassan,
2013). The adolescent community of engagement framework (Borup, 2014) defines effective
teacher engagement in an online environment as organizing and designing, instructing, and
facilitating content. Effective teacher engagement in online instruction meets the field’s mission
of ensuring all teachers are prepared for success in the classroom and all students are guaranteed
a great teacher (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Table 1 outlines the stakeholder’s
performance goal, the field’s mission, and the field's global goal.
12
Table 1
Field Mission, Field Global Goal and Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goal
Field mission
Increase access to high-quality, engaging instruction for all students by leveraging
technology and online learning.
Field global goal
Increase educational equity among Grade 6–12 students attending high need schools with the
transition to online instruction during the 2020–2021 school year
Stakeholder group goal
Sixth through 12th grade teachers employed at high need schools successfully engage in
online instruction through quality course content design, instructional delivery, and
facilitation of online interactions.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study examined factors influencing teacher engagement in online instruction during
the 2020–2021 school year to uncover the specific knowledge, motivational, and organizational
gaps teachers in high need contexts experienced. The possible needs associated with the teacher
engagement in online instruction were categorized using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
model. While a complete gap analysis would include all stakeholders, a convenience sampling of
secondary teachers employed at high need schools was the participant group of focus for this
study. Recommendations to influence secondary teacher engagement in online instruction are
provided in Chapter 5 based on the findings associated with the following research questions:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of Grade 6–12 teachers in high need
classrooms related to engaging in online instruction through successful course content
design, instructional delivery, and facilitation of online interactions?
13
2. How do organizational influences impact engagement in online instruction through
successful course content design, instructional delivery, and facilitation of online
interactions among Grade 6–12 teachers in high need classrooms?
Importance of the Study
The impact of COVID-19 school closures and resulting loss of learning is expected to
disproportionately impact the future economic opportunities for disadvantaged children
(Psacharopoulos et al., 2020; United Nations, 2020). Effective teacher engagement is a crucial
first step to limiting the anticipated negative impact (Clausen, 2020). For students attending high
need schools, prolonged disengagement can exacerbate negative impacts such as dropping out of
school, risk of poverty, poor health outcomes, and interaction with the criminal justice system
(Fredricks & McColskey, 2011). With higher levels of engagements, students attending high-
need schools can gain up to two and a half more months of learning compared to their peers
(TNTP, 2018). Research on Grade K–12 online teaching is in early stages and further
investigation is needed to concretely identify challenges and opportunities for effective online
instruction (Zweig & Stafford, 2018). Informing professional development and training from
learnings during the COVID-19 pandemic can prepare teachers for future emergency remote
learning, online learning, and blended learning situations (Trust, 2020).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework methodically examines stakeholder
performance in relation to the organizational goal to effectively inform improvement
strategies. This is done through identifying discrete knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences on stakeholder performance. This study evaluated teacher engagement in online
instruction using a qualitative research design. Through a semi-structured qualitative approach,
14
evidence was collected through open-ended interview questions aligned with research themes
and analyzed through a coding process (Blandford, 2013). The open-ended nature of the
interview promotes dialogue for a deeper understanding of participant experiences and enables
the co-creation of meaning by both the participant and the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The coding process used to analyze interview data supports with determining patterns,
contributing factors, and proposing future outcomes (Creswell, 2014).
Definitions
● Instructional design: Instructional design is described as creating learning
experiences that are efficient and effective at transferring knowledge and skills to
students (Chen, 2016).
● Instructional delivery: Delivering instruction is described as the transfer of
knowledge from teacher to learner through clarity in content being taught, practiced,
and assessed (Baran et al., 2013). Incorporating a gradual release of responsibility,
student agency, and timely and regular feedback are also elements of instructional
delivery (Fisher & Frey, 2008).
● Facilitation of online interactions: Online facilitation is defined in the adolescent
community of engagement framework as nurturing a caring and safe environment,
monitoring and motivating student engagement, and facilitating discourse (Borup,
2014).
● Engagement: A combination of internal and external affective, behavioral, and
cognitive processes and actions in response to a learning environment (Appleton et
al., 2006; Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Lawson & Lawson, 2013).
15
● High need schools: Schools serving a high percentage of students at risk of dropping
out and in need of additional support are categorized as high need schools; student
categorizations include minorities, students performing below grade level, and
students living in poverty, experiencing homelessness, foster care, or incarceration
(U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
● Highly qualified teacher: All Grade K–12 teachers employed by a local educational
agency who possess a full State certification, demonstrate subject-matter expertise,
and hold a minimum of a bachelor’s degree (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002).
● Teacher presence: Described by the Communities of Inquiry framework as the
facilitation of social and cognitive learning processes conveyed through discourse,
direct instruction, and instructional design (Garrison, 2006).
● Teacher engagement: The adolescent community of engagement framework (Borup
et al., 2014) defined three main functions of teacher engagement as facilitating,
organizing, and instructing to support social and cognitive learning processes with an
emphasis on the strengths and needs of adolescent learners in an online environment
(Borup, 2014).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduced the key concepts related
to teacher preparedness for online instruction, giving particular attention to the context of
COVID-19 school closures. Chapter 1 also previewed the Clark and Estes gap analysis research
framework used in the study. Chapter 2 reviews current literature relevant to the scope of study.
Chapter 3 defines the methodology related to the choice of research participants, data collection,
and data analysis. Chapter 4 assesses and analyzes the data and results. Chapter 5 offers
16
recommendations for influencing teacher preparedness for online instruction, substantiated by
the results of the study alongside the literature.
17
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter 1 shared key concepts related to teacher preparedness for online instruction in
the context of COVID-19 school closure. Chapter 2 presents the conceptual framework that
guides this study followed by a review of the evolution of online instruction from earlier forms
of distance learning. Defining characteristics of quality online education are presented with three
theoretical frameworks that underpin the conceptual understanding of online instruction in the
Grade K–12 context. The chapter elaborates on the concept of teacher engagement in online
instruction followed by a discussion of considerations for online instruction in high need
contexts and implications of the COVID-19 school shutdowns. Finally, the assumed knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences on teacher engagement in online instruction are
identified using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. The scope of this study
focused on Grade 6–12 online instruction, which is a subsection of the broader Grade K–12
research on online instruction presented in Chapter 2.
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework
The gap analysis framework is a conceptual framework developed by Clark and Estes
(2008) designed to improve organizational performance. Through research-based evidence, gaps
between actual stakeholder performance and ideal stakeholder performance in relation to
organizational goals are uncovered (Clark & Estes, 2008). These gaps are categorized as discrete
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on stakeholder performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Skill and knowledge gaps are distinguished as factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Rueda, 2011). Assessing
stakeholder understanding can reveal skill development needs to ensure successful attainment
and application of knowledge and skills required to meet organizational goals (Clark & Estes,
18
2008). Effort and productivity within an organization can also be influenced by identifying and
addressing motivational gaps and changing stakeholder behaviors and perceptions (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Finally, organizational influences are identified as cultural models and cultural
settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Shared cultural mental structures and practices are
known as cultural models whereas the structures and processes in an organization are known as
the cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Addressing gaps in organizational
structures can create the ideal environment in which stakeholders can meet ideal performance
goals in relation to organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Performance gaps in the 2020–
2021 school year were especially prevalent because the rate of adoption of online instruction in
Grade K–12 contexts during COVID-19 school shutdowns outpaced the availability and
adoption of research driven practices in Grade K–12 online instruction.
The Evolution of Online Instruction
Distance learning is defined as education that takes place in a non-traditional
environment in which the teacher and student are separated (Hanson et al., 1997). This learning
environment is built on the premise that students and teachers do not need to be physically in the
same space to engage in learning (Kentnor, 2015). Distance learning emerged from the need to
increase access to professional studies to learners for the past 150 years, specifically in higher
education settings (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009). Radio broadcasting and visual media were seen as
promising avenues for online learning (Kentnor, 2015); while radio and television grew in
popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, they remained as supplemental tools for instruction rather
than a vehicle for distance learning (Kentnor, 2015). In the 1990s, corporations and institutions
started utilizing online programs as a method of distance learning (Carlson & Carnevale, 2001).
19
Today, online instruction has become the primary method of distance learning in America (Allen
& Seaman, 2007).
Researchers disagree on the overlap between original distance education and online
learning approaches, with some using both terms synonymously and others identifying online
learning as a paradigm shift that differs from and makes obsolete original forms of distance
learning (Guri-Rosenblit, 2009). Sener (2012) claimed that the rapid adoption of online
instruction has shifted distance learning’s original goal of increased access for learners to
improving the field of education. Anderson and Dron (2011) delineated three generations of
online instruction enabled through technological advances: first, a structured, mass approach
dependent on a high degree of learner autonomy; second, a collaborative approach blending
synchronous and asynchronous components to promote dialogue; and third, connectivism, which
promotes the co-creation of real-time content facilitated by information and networked
connections. The social processes in these networked connections, or communities, are being
seen as the ideal method of instruction in the 21st century (Dawson & Siemens, 2014). While
technology allows for innovation in education, it is effective pedagogy that builds community
that make effective teaching and learning through technology possible (Shulman, 2005). The
success of an online course is therefore contingent upon the instructor’s ability to create effective
interactions between the student with the content, peers, and instructor (Andrade, 2015; Rice,
2006; Ustati & Hassan, 2013).
Defining Characteristics of Online Instruction
Theories and frameworks allow for the grounded and accurate discussion of concepts,
providing language to describe, conceptualize, and apply shared understandings about a
phenomenon (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Reviews of literature on Grade K–12 online learning
20
demonstrate an acceleration of research on the topic. In 2011, a study of 262 articles on online
learning by Barbour revealed less than 10% related to the Grade K–12 classroom context
(Barbour, 2013). Barbour’s analysis of 356 articles on online learning conducted in 2018
revealed 40% of articles related to the Grade K–12 classroom context, with many of them
published in 2016 (Barbour, 2018). While online research has identified successful online
instructional practices (Kennedy & Ferdig, 2018; Schutt et al., 2009), theoretical frameworks
allow for a shared understanding and analysis of the complex dynamics of online instruction,
including the community of inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000). Garrison et al.’s
(2000) framework remains a popular framework for understanding the online learning
effectiveness among numerous emerging models (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). The CoI
framework is explained in the next section as a foundational element of Borup’s (2014)
adolescent community of engagement framework (ACE), which extended the understanding of
online instruction to adolescent learners. The concept of teacher engagement is an extension of
the CoI framework defined by the ACE Framework, which guided the categorization of assumed
knowledge influences in this study. (Borup et al., 2014).
Community of Inquiry Framework
Garrison et al. (2000)’s community of inquiry framework (CoI) defines the online
educational experience as the interplay between social presence, cognitive presence, and
teaching presence. While computers make interactions in a remote setting possible, learning is
possible within an active community in which learners interact with the content, the instructor,
and with each other (Swan, 2002). Social presence can be defined as “immediacy” (Weiner &
Mehrabian, 1965) and “intimacy” (Argyle & Dean, 1965). Immediacy refers to participant
behaviors that reduce perceived distance between participants through nonverbal interactions,
21
such as nodding or smiling, which builds intimacy between participants, or the collection of
verbal and non-verbal behaviors that reduce perceived transactional distance in a course (Rettie,
2008). Social presence relates to participant behaviors that increase psychological distance, such
as nodding and smiling (Weiner & Mehrabian, 1968) or projecting affect through verbal and
nonverbal communication. CoI defines teacher presence as the students’ perceptions of a
teacher’s communication and course facilitation in an online setting (Cole & Nicolini, 2017).
Garrison (2006) further defined three major constructs of teacher presence: facilitation of
discourse, direct instruction, and instructional design and organization.
Numerous studies confirm the central role and impact of teacher presence on student
learning outcomes. Teaching presence has been defined as the binding element because cognitive
and social presences cannot be established without the teacher’s involvement in designing,
planning, delivering, and facilitating the course (Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison et al., 2000;
Persico et al., 2010). Low teacher presence resulted in a higher level of social activity compared
to cognitive activity (Szeto, 2015) while excessive teacher presence inhibited learner interactions
(Zheng & Warschauer, 2015). Quality teacher presence supported learners to build a
commitment to learning outcomes (Dawson, 2008) and resulted in higher perceived learning
outcomes (Wendt & Courduff, 2018). Kurek and Muller-Harmann (2018) found quality teacher
presence reduced the learners’ emotional tensions related to online instruction and established a
positive learning atmosphere. Specific pedagogical interventions related to discourse, design, and
instructional constructs of teacher presence have been found to positively impact student online
learning behaviors and participation and are recommended for training future teachers (Kurek &
Muller-Harmann, 2019). Research on teacher presence primarily concentrated on adult learners
in online higher education courses (Garrison et al., 2010) and through the analyses of online
22
discussion boards (Anderson et al., 2001). Researchers have recommended expanding the
concept of teacher presence to adolescent populations engaged in online learning in contexts
beyond discussion boards (Anderson et al., 2001; Cavanauagh, 2009; Garrison et al., 2010).
Adolescent Community of Engagement Framework
Adolescent learners are influenced by interactions with their environment, including
families, workplaces, and communities (Anderson, 2004; Burnham & Walden, 1997). As such,
multiple researchers have called attention to the limited definitions of teacher presence in the CoI
framework, which was primarily developed for adult learners in higher education courses
(Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison et al., 2010). Borup et al. (2014) designed the adolescent
community of engagement (ACE) framework to identify a distinction between adult and
adolescent learners: adolescents’ ability to engage in learning increases when they are supported
by their environment. ACE is an extension of the CoI framework, which defined the unique
characteristics of adolescent online learning environments through four constructs: student
engagement, peer engagement, teacher engagement, and parent engagement. The framework
established that students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement was strengthened
through peer, parent, and teacher engagement (Borup & Stevens, 2016). Further, Borup and
Stevens’ definition of teacher engagement extended the roles of facilitating, designing, and
instructing in CoI to include tasks not confined to discussion boards (Borup et al., 2014).
ACE established facilitating, organizing, and instructing as the three main functions of
teacher engagement (Annamalai & Tan, 2015). The three functions were further defined as ten
tasks, which are nurturing, monitoring, motivating, facilitating discourse, organizing materials
and environment, designing materials, organizing timeliness and schedule, providing instruction,
23
and offering assignment help (Oviatt et al., 2016). For each task, Borup (2014) presented a set of
teacher practices to maximize learner outcomes.
Grade K–12 Teacher Preparedness for Online Instruction in High Need Contexts
Students identified as high need are at risk of drop out or in need of supports and include
students living in poverty, attending schools serving a high percentage of minority students,
English learners, having disabilities, performing below grade level, at risk of not graduating, or
are experiencing homelessness, foster care, or incarceration (U.S. Department of Education,
2012). Students who do not complete school experience a significant decrease in quality of life,
with nearly one out of four living in poverty (Repetto & Spitler, 2014). Archambault et al. (2010)
emphasized the need for any teacher entering a high-need school to have essential training and
experience needed to close achievement gaps in students prior to entering an online teaching
environment. However, access to high quality teachers continues to remain a struggle for
learners, and especially those attending high need schools (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Goldhaber,
et al., 2015). Teacher preparation programs nationwide provide little to no instruction in online
instruction (Archambault & Kennedy, 2016). The lack of preparation in online instruction
methods is especially concerning as novice teachers are more likely to be placed in schools
predominantly serving underperforming minority students (Clotfelter et al., 2005; Isenberg, et
al., 2013; Kalogrides et al., 2013; Lankford, et al., 2002). A 2008 survey of 884 credentialed
online teachers found that over 80% of teachers reported needing professional development
opportunities in how to provide modifications, interventions, enrichment, or personalization for
high need students (Rice et al., 2008). The number of adequately trained teachers for online
learning is exceeded by the demand for online learning (Hathaway & Norton, 2012).
24
Quality of instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic is further impacted by lack of
teacher preparedness for online instruction. Expertise in instruction in a face-to-face environment
does not correlate with teachers’ perceptions of preparedness for online instruction (Kennedy &
Ferdig, 2018). Further, recurring barriers to the quality and occurrence of technology integration
in Grade K–12 classrooms include access to technology, effective training, administrative
support, and teacher beliefs regarding technology integration (Francom, 2020). The leading
barrier has been identified as inadequate time to plan and test learning experiences that integrate
technology prior to instruction (Hechter & Vermette, 2013; Kale & Goh, 2014). When designing
and delivering online instruction, additional preparation time is needed when compared to in
person courses, especially for early career teachers (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). Such barriers
contribute to disparities in the quality of online instruction, which are further pronounced in
urban schools when compared to rural and suburban Grade K–12 schools (Kormos, 2018).
Best Practices in Online Teacher Engagement
With an increasingly diverse group of students, teachers must utilize online pedagogical
practices that minimize barriers and increase engagement among students (Novak & Thibodeau,
2016) and need to be prepared to interact and engage with students who are separated from them
in space and time (Kennedy & Archambault, 2014; Ustati & Hassan, 2013). The adolescent
community of engagement framework (ACE) suggested facilitating, designing and organizing,
and instructing as three elements of teacher engagement for Grade K–12 online learning to
increase student engagement (Borup et al., 2014). Borup (2014) further defined facilitation as
nurturing a caring and safe environment, monitoring and motivating student engagement, and
facilitating discourse. The following sections describe best practices for online teacher
engagement in high need contexts aligned with the ACE Framework.
25
Designing and Organizing Online Content
When presented with an online learning environment, teachers often attempt to transfer
in-person curricular design methods (Arabasz et al., 2003; Conrad, 2004). Transferring
pedagogical practices from an in-person environment to online instruction is ineffective as in
person practices do not directly translate to online learning (Goodyear et al. 2001; Smith, 2005;
Sugar et al., 2007). In an in-person environment, increasing accessibility for students in
instructional design might include removing sensory or physical barriers, such as providing
alternate formats for a document or increasing font size (Basham et al., 2016). In an online
setting, accessibility to content incorporates considerations of whether the learner can
understand, navigate, and interact through the platform, or the “cognitive usability” (Smith &
Harvey, 2014, p. 224).
An online class can be taught in synchronous and asynchronous formats. During
synchronous instruction, students experience natural communication, feedback, and verbal and
nonverbal communication cues, which reduce the perceived distance between students, the
instructor, and their peers (Blau et al., 2017). Asynchronous formats remove constraints of time
and space for students, allowing for self-paced and independent study of content and requiring
self-study skills and digital skills to successfully meet learning goals (Fabriz et al., 2021).
Regardless of format, teachers must deeply know their content matter and be able to deconstruct,
organize, and reconstruct the content in a manner that provides students access to new content
(Lofstrom & Nevgi, 2008; Rodgers, 2006).
With the growing demand for online learning, research on theoretical approaches to and
models of instructional design have emerged (Gyabak, et al., 2015). Integrated course design
(Fink, 2003) follows the process of selecting student-centered learning goals and creating
26
learning experiences aligned with six dimensions (foundational knowledge, application,
integration, human dimension, caring, and reflection). The final element of integrated course
design is to determine a grading strategy, anticipate and address challenges students might face,
and design a feedback method to inform course design and effectiveness (Allen & Tanner, 2017).
integrated course design is based on backwards design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) in which the
course designer first selects learning goals, determines evidence of student learning, and finally
designs learning experiences that facilitate student understanding.
Universal design for learning (UDL) is an instructional framework that provides teachers
with instructional design methods for addressing diverse needs of students (Novak & Thibodeau,
2016). Backed by neuroscience research and developmental psychology, it presents three
principles (varied representation, varied action and expression, and varied engagement) which
activate the recognition, strategic, and affective networks of the human brain (Smith & Harvey,
2014). The UDL framework provides methods of addressing barriers to cognitive engagement
for students. For example, to increase organization and coherence in online discussions,
submissions can be labeled or reference a previous discussion for better coordination (Pfister &
Oehl, 2008). UDL builds on this research by suggesting teachers model discussion protocols by
referencing a previous topic in discussions or classify their communication as a question,
explanation, or feedback to cue the learner of what their next action will be in the discussion
(Novak & Thibodeau, 2016).
Majeski et al. (2016) proposed a conceptual model for online course design in which new
information and learning activities are well organized and displayed so that the learner’s
attention, and cognitive load, is directed towards the most important concepts presented.
Instructional designers can “chunk”, or group, information presented at a time to include no more
27
than seven pieces of content, following psychological research that finds more than seven pieces
of information shared in a short period of time leads to confusion, poor retention, and memory
overload in people (Clement, 1985; Miller, 1956). Another method of chunking content is
through learning cycles: new content is presented, students apply and interact with the content,
and a combination of formal assessments, peer assessments, self-assessments and feedback close
the learning cycle prior to presenting new information (Johnson & Aragon, 2003). Table 2
summarizes best practices for designing and organizing online content.
Table 2
Best Practices for Designing and Organizing Online Content
Teacher engagement Practice Research-based support
Design Integrated course design: create learning
experiences with foundational
knowledge, application, integration,
human dimension, caring, and
reflection
Fink, 2003
Design Universal design for learning: varied
representation, action and expression,
and engagement
Novak & Thibodeau,
2016
Organize Chunking content into seven or less
pieces of information
Majeski et al., 2016
Organize
Creating learning cycles with new
content, student interaction,
assessment, and feedback
Johnson & Aragon,
2003
28
Delivering Online Instruction
Direct instruction describes the strategies used to share content knowledge with students
and “provide intellectual and scholarly leadership” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 8). Anderson et al.
(2001) described intellectual leadership as including questioning, highlighting concepts,
summarizing student discourse, and offering additional resources to students. Direct instruction
is seen as an effective teaching method in online environments when embedded in a gradual
release model (Novak & Thibodeau, 2016). A gradual release of responsibility model includes
four phases within a lesson: direct instruction for modeling desired skills, guided practice to
support learner understanding, peer collaborative learning, and finally independent work (Fisher
& Frey, 2008). The gradual release of responsibility model is strengthened by clear vertical
alignment between content standards with the skills being taught, practiced, and assessed to
ensure grade appropriate rigor for students (Fisher & Frey, 2008).
Communicating clear expectations of course and lesson pacing supports student learning
in online environments (Sanders & Lokey-Vega, 2020). Pacing is described as the time dedicated
to instructional activity and student engagement during instruction, with the latter contributing to
more effective instruction (Simmons, 2020). A number of course design strategies consider
student choice in pacing. Moreno and Mayer (2007) stated that allowing students to control the
pace of learning new information supports their processing of the information. Further,
incorporating metacognitive tasks, such as reflecting on learners’ attention, mastery of goals, and
perceptions of course content support learner motivation (Moreno & Mayer, 2007). Johnson and
Aragon (2003) suggested providing content through varied technological formats (discussion
boards, videos, articles), allowing students control over how they move through the course
29
topics, and providing choice in how students organize information (i.e., graphic organizers or
note-taking templates) account for learner differences.
Timely and regular feedback is suggested as being critical to teacher presence (Sanders &
Lokey-Vega, 2020). Borup (2014) found that instructor feedback and responsiveness to student
needs as a crucial element of online instruction. Feedback as a targeted intervention for students
experiencing social-behavioral issues has been found to build students’ sense of belonging and
trust in their school (Thayer, 2017). Utilizing a variety of platforms (i.e., video feedback or
email) and increasing student agency in receiving and responding to feedback strengthens online
teacher practice (Burstein, 2020). In addition, Dyment et al. (2013) suggested encouraging
students for feedback on how the online learning environment can be improved for increased
engagement. Table 3 summarizes best practices in delivering online instruction.
30
Table 3
Best Practices for Delivering Instruction Online
Teacher engagement Practice Research-based support
Deliver Gradual release of responsibility: direct
instruction, guided practice, peer
collaborative learning, independent
practice
Novak & Thibodeau,
2016
Deliver Vertical alignment between content
standards, skills being taught, practice
and assessed
Fisher & Frey, 2008;
Smedley, 2001
Deliver Student choice in pacing Johnson & Aragon,
2003; Moreno & Mayer,
2007; Sanders & Lokey-
Vega, 2020
Deliver Timely and regular feedback Borup, 2014; Sanders &
Lokey-Vega, 2020;
Thayer, 2017
Deliver Increasing student agency in receiving,
responding to, and providing feedback
Burstein, 2020; Dyment
et al., 2013
Facilitating Online Instruction
The National Standards for Quality Online Teaching (2019) positions the teachers’ ability
to facilitate interaction and collaboration among learners, between the teacher and learner, and
between the learner and content as two of the eight core competencies of effective online
teaching. Borup (2014) describes effective facilitation of online instruction as being able to
nurture a safe environment, monitor and motivate student engagement, and facilitate discourse.
Nurture a Caring and Safe Environment
31
The act of caring is described as a relational act of building social bonds in which the
care provider supports and the cared-for acknowledges and accepts the support (Miller, 2021).
Nurturing a caring environment can be difficult in an online environment (Hawkins et al., 2012)
yet both teachers and students identify relationship building as crucial to building a strong
community and student success (Miller, 2021). Rovai (2002) described a sense of community as
creating a feeling of belonging among learners who engage in common goals and activities.
Specifically, the quality of interactions, not the quantity, contributed to a student’s sense of
belonging in the learning community (Bernard et al., 2009). Nurturing a safe environment is
equally important, with an emphasis on teachers expressing behavioral requirements, fostering
safe communication, and identifying and addressing cyberbullying effectively (Borup, 2014).
Caring relationships are vital to the academic success of struggling students (Carter,
2012); however, high need urban schools are less likely to display a culture of care than high
performing urban schools (Tichnor-Wager & Allen, 2016). The increasing focus on high stakes
testing influenced teachers’ perceptions of their role as knowledge and skill builders over
relationship builders or teachers are unable to find the time and resources to build relationships
in an authentic manner (Miller, 2021). Teachers found it difficult to communicate with students
who seemed reluctant or absent from classes due to pervasively high attrition rates in online
instruction (Rice, 2006). Additionally, the approach through which teachers demonstrated care
might not be acknowledged or received by students as such leading to a disconnect or distrust,
especially when there is a cultural mismatch between teachers and students (Davis, 2003).
Monitor and Motivate Student Engagement
During the 2020–2021 school shutdowns, access to technology was disproportionately
limited for students from low socio-economic backgrounds, which exacerbated the isolation high
32
need students experience in their learning community (Miller, 2021). Several best practices can
be identified to monitor and motivate student engagement in Grade K–12 classrooms if access to
technology is available. Sanders and Lokey-Vega (2020) found Grade K–12 online teachers
encouraged students to interact using whiteboards, chats, and small group discussions, and to
share their personalities by posting pictures and videos of themselves in courses. In addition,
teachers can exercise a range of motivational strategies, such as verbally praising students,
highlighting exemplary work, providing incentives, and delivering firm reprimands as needed
(Borup et al., 2014). One study found administrators posting daily motivational videos and
teachers socially interacting with students in activities such as a Zoom scavenger hunt (Borup,
2020).
Miller (2021) found teachers placed an emphasis on learning about students’ cultural
perspectives. This approach allows for culturally responsive methods of building relationships
and trust (Gay, 2018). Cleveland-Innes and Campbell (2012) suggested teachers manage and
encourage emotive displays from online students to support cognitive processes. Teachers can
respond to negative emotions student experience in online learning to mitigate negative student
outcomes (Cleveland-Innes & Campbell, 2012). Students can share their emotions related to the
design and organization of the course, technology, their success with learning, and social issues
(O’Regan, 2003).
Facilitate Discourse
Including synchronous communication tools allow for organic social interactions
between peers and the teacher (Dyment et al., 2013). More frequent peer interactions had a
greater impact on student achievement when compared with student to content interactions and
teacher-student interactions in synchronous, asynchronous, and blended learning environments
33
(Bernard et al., 2009). Instructors must start with defining the purpose of instruction, student
roles as participants, expected outcomes, and the behaviors that will support the individual
learner and the group in meeting the objectives (Schwarz, 2017). Verbal and non-verbal
interactions, such as praise, humor, eye contact, and gestures, lead to greater outcomes for
students during in person instruction (Gorham, 1988; Swan, 2002; Weiner & Mehrabian, 1968);
however, verbal behaviors play a greater role in creating community in online environments
since physical presence is removed (LaRose & Whitten, 2000; Richardson & Swan, 2001). For
example, Ting and Jiang (2000) found a direct correlation between the average number of
responses of learners in an online discussion with the average number of responses from the
teacher per student. Table 4 summarizes best practices in facilitating online instruction.
34
Table 4
Best Practices for Facilitating Online Instruction
Teacher engagement Practice Research-based support
Nurture Create caring teacher-student
relationships
Miller, 2021; Rovai,
2002; Bernard et al.,
2009; Tichnor-Wager
& Allen, 2016
Nurture Create safe environment Borup, 2014
Monitor and motivate Variety of tools for student engagement:
whiteboards, chats, small group
discussions, videos
Borup et al., 2014;
Sanders & Lokey-
Vega, 2020
Monitor and motivate Learn about students’ cultural
perspectives
Miller, 2021; Gay,
2018
Monitor and motivate Encourage student emotions Cleveland-Innes &
Campbell, 2012;
O’Regan, 2003
Facilitate discourse Verbal and non-verbal interactions, such
as eye contact, humor, and gestures
Gorham, 1988; LaRose
& Whitten, 2000;
Richardson & Swan,
2001; Ting and Jiang,
2000; Weiner &
Mehrabian, 1968
Facilitate discourse Facilitate meaningful peer interactions Bernard et al., 2009;
Schwarz, 2017
Teacher Motivations Towards Online Instruction
During the 2020–2021 school year, teachers were forced to adapt to remote learning with
little regard for their perceptions of online instruction. Shifting from face-to-face instruction to
online instruction required adaptation, particularly the need to acquire new skills and knowledge.
Overall, teacher adaptability to change is considered a central feature of effective teaching
35
(Collie & Martin, 2017). Adaptability is defined as the ability to adjust thoughts, actions, and
emotional responses to novel, uncertain, and changing situations (Collie & Martin, 2017). In the
first few months of the pandemic, the speed at which teachers were required to shift to a new
method of instruction led to a high level of uncertainty (Kim & Asbury, 2020). Uncertainty leads
to resistance, as people are more likely to resist change when they do not believe in the need for
change (Sokal, 2020). Whether or not a teacher is emotionally able to accept a change has been
linked with their intention to initiate or maintain changed behavior (Azjen, 2005), which in this
case is to engage in online instruction in a manner that maintains student achievement.
A practicing teacher’s motivation to try new teaching methods hinges on their
perceptions of how complex the new knowledge is, the urgency for implementing new
knowledge, and the sources of knowledge (Buehl & Fives, 2009). Teachers who view gaps in
knowledge as opportunities for further growth and development have been found to be more
resilient during change and accepting of new knowledge (Buehl & Fives, 2008). Several research
studies conducted during the school shutdowns indicate that teachers were aware of the gaps in
their knowledge and skills in online instruction and found methods of addressing these gaps. A
national survey conducted by Hamilton et al. (2021) revealed 45% of teachers were requesting
strategies to engage and motivate students online, 17% requested strategies to adapt curriculum
to online learning, and 12% requested opportunities to learn from other teachers or networks in
the Spring 2020 semester. In a survey of 121 teachers in California, 92% reported that they found
new teaching methods, 81% shared they created new pedagogical materials, and 72% shared
they created new pedagogical strategies (Inverness Institute, 2021).
One key consideration in studying teacher motivations is the value they placed on online
instruction. When remote learning was valued, it opened opportunities for teachers to engage
36
meaningfully and increase their motivations and skills (Runhaar et al., 2019). Cognitive
engagement with new knowledge can be characterized as shallow processing and deep
processing; shallow processing relates to superficially engaging in new material while deep
processing relates to connecting new information with previous knowledge to create intricate
knowledge structures (Ravindran et al., 2005). Deep processing of new pedagogical knowledge
has been found to be positively correlated with the value teachers placed on the source of new
information, teacher beliefs about the malleability of knowledge, and the teacher’s motivation for
increasing one’s own knowledge (Ravindran et al., 2005).
Values are defined as a set of beliefs or concepts about the desired end state or behavior
in a particular context that drive behavior and events (Aride & Pamies-Pallise, 2019). The term
belief is defined as an individual’s judgment on how true or false a proposition is (Pajares, 1992).
Value theory links an individual’s choice, persistence, and performance on an activity to the
value they see in the activity (Eccles, 2006). In the case of the shift to online learning during the
pandemic, teachers viewed remote learning as necessary for continuity of learning and safety for
students (Sokal, 2020). These views can be explained by the concept of utility value, as online
teaching would be necessary for the continued education of students. Teachers also believed that
online instruction was magnifying educational inequities and placing additional and unnecessary
burdens on teachers and parents (Sokal, 2020), the cost caused by the shift. Kim and Asbury
(2020) found that a subset of teachers viewed the uncertainty caused by the pandemic as “a
strange but very exciting” challenge (1070). Viewing opportunity in the face of uncertainty
demonstrates the intrinsic value teachers might see in finding solutions to unique challenges
caused by the pandemic. In one study, secondary teachers responded neutrally when asked about
the value they placed on online instruction during the 2020–2021 school year, which has
37
implications for the likelihood of the teachers using online instruction as a continued teaching
practice (Dolighan & Owen, 2021).
Teacher perceptions towards online learning are also shaped by what factors teachers
attribute their experiences to. Attribution theory studies the perceptions of why certain outcomes
occur (Weiner, 1972). According to Gilbert and Malone (1995), an individual first perceives the
situation, forms expectations for how they will respond, interprets the behavioral response, and
then attributes the cause of behavior to an internal or external factor. What the individual
believes to be the cause of a certain outcome and perceptions of success or failure influences
their reported level of satisfaction with the experience (Snead et al., 2015). Attribution theory
research on educators has largely focused on teacher views on the causes of students’ academic
performance, or student success or failure (Wang & Hall, 2018), which directly relates to this
study’s global goal of ensuring students in high need contexts maintain academic outcomes from
previous years despite the shift to online learning.
Fundamental attribution error, or the tendency to underestimate external factors and
overestimate dispositional factors in behavioral outcomes, is a repeated theme in research on
teacher attributions on student achievement (Wang & Hall, 2018). Teachers have been found to
attribute poor academic performance to lack of effort, persistence, or parental involvement while
inadequate instruction was attributed to lack of resources or low-quality curriculum (Jussim &
Robustelli, 2009). Teachers rarely cite instructional quality as a contributing factor for low
student achievement (Jussim & Robustelli, 2009). However, a teacher’s sense of internal
commitment to a particular outcome, or sense of responsibility, are increased when the outcomes
are favorable (i.e., student achievement) while there is greater variance in sense of responsibility
when outcomes are unfavorable (Aliakbari & Kafshgar, 2013). A greater sense of responsibility
38
in teachers has been found to result in greater work engagement and, consequently, increased
academic outcomes because of the influence on a teacher’s resulting instructional behaviors
(Lauermann & Berger, 2021).
Self-efficacy also plays a significant role in effective teacher practice (Gibson & Dembo,
1984; Haverback & Mae, 2015). Teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to practice
greater student autonomy and flexibility in instructional approaches (Cheon et al., 2018; Leroy et
al., 2007), approaches that have been found to yield higher success in online learning
environments (Moreno & Mayer, 2007). While self-efficacy beliefs have a direct impact on
behavior, the degree of self-efficacy can fluctuate based on the context of a particular task; a
teacher reporting a high level of self-efficacy in one teaching environment may have low self-
efficacy in a new context (Haverback & Mee, 2015; Sokal et al., 2020). In the context of online
instruction, teachers who perceive a high degree of self-efficacy with using technology have
been found to be more willing to incorporate technology in their teaching and have higher
expectations for positive outcomes (Compaeu & Higgins, 1995).
For the 2020–2021 school year, teacher perceptions of success related to online
instruction during school shutdowns were mixed. In a study of eighty–two elementary school
mathematics teachers in Australia, more than half of the teachers shared that remote learning did
not allow for the monitoring, reflecting, facilitating, and scaffolding of instruction that was
possible in face-to-face instruction (Russo et al., 2021). A Fall 2020 study of 1,082 Grade K–12
public school teachers in the United States found that 59% of teachers believed the majority of
their students were significantly less prepared academically and able to engage in grade level
content in the 2020–2021 school year than the previous school year (Diliberti & Kaufman,
2020). Kim and Asbury (2000) surveyed primary school teachers who found that the learning
39
plans and practices put in place were effective in engaging students and that families were
supportive of them. A longitudinal study of 1,626 Canadian found that teachers’ sense of
success was significantly higher in June 2020 than in April 2020, with teachers reporting a sense
of success once or more a week (Sokal et al., 2020).
Studies also pointed to relationships between perceptions of success and other factors. A
survey of 7,841 teachers across nine states conducted in Spring 2020 found that 47% of teachers
did not report a decreased sense of success (Kraft et al., 2000). Further, the study found that only
6% of teachers with less than ten years of experience shared discomfort with online teaching
compared to 22% of teachers over thirty years of experience (Kraft et al., 2000). However, early
career teachers’ sense of success dropped to a greater degree than mid-career and veteran
teachers (Kraft & Simon, 2020). Finally, a study of 121 teachers surveyed in January 2021 found
that 48% of teachers felt that they have found success with distance learning as a direct result of
their effort (Inverness Institute, 2021). One study of 980 in-service Romanian teachers who
taught online during the pandemic found that teachers who attribute successes in online
instruction to their effort and consider themselves as effective online instructors are more likely
to continue utilizing online instruction in the future (Panisoara et al., 2020). Overall, research on
perceptions and motivations of teachers’ long-term usage of online learning, especially in the
context of a crisis, is limited (Panisoara et al., 2020).
Organizational Supports for Online Instruction
The quick transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic raised criticism
over unintended consequences in high need school environments. First, a gaping digital divide
was exposed in the United States. The digital divide is defined as the gap between
socioeconomic groups that have and do not have access to computers and internet connection
40
(van Dijk, 2006). Access to technological resources for both teachers and students was a
common barrier reported by teachers. In a national survey of 5,987 Grade K–12 teachers in
Spring 2020, the biggest challenge reported by teachers was student lack of access to devices, the
internet, or challenges with using technology (Stelitano et al., 2020). This issue was significantly
higher at high need schools, with 83% of teachers at low-poverty schools stating students having
internet access while only 30% of teachers at high need schools reported students having internet
access (Stelitano et al., 2020). As a result, schools rushed in to fill the divide in partnership with
government and private institutions (Lee, 2020). Anecdotes of teachers and administrators
dropping off Chromebooks and hotspots to student homes were common (Borup et al., 2020).
Immediately following school closures in the Spring 2020 semester, 84% of all U.S. Grade K–12
public schools distributed roughly 8,000 laptops to students to ensure students could participate
in online learning (Domina et al., 2021).
Technology integration had been an optional methodology for teachers until the 2020–
2021 school year, when teachers were required to adapt curricular elements from in person to
online instruction in a short amount of time (Espino-Diaz et al., 2020). The resulting blanket
approach to transferring pedagogy online did not take into consideration individual student
needs, interests, motivation, and engagement (Hodges et al., 2020). The negative impact on
instructional practices influenced the execution of the curriculum and student outcomes (Vegas
& Winthrop, 2020). Experts coined the process as emergency remote teaching, which differs
from the intentional, time-consuming task necessary to plan for quality online instruction
(Hodges et al., 2020). Teachers reported a lack of influence and control over the course material
and inability to provide students with customized and effective curriculum (Farmer & West,
2019). In a national survey of teachers, 25% of elementary school teachers reported having a
41
major need for lesson plans for social and emotional learning while 16% reported academic
lesson plans as a major need (Hamilton et al., 2020). In the same study, 17% of teachers noted
needing methods of adapting curriculum used during in person instruction for online learning
(Hamilton et al., 2020).
In Spring 2021, policy guidelines for school reopening emphasized establishing social
emotional support for students to address anxiety, depression, or trauma (Bailey & Hess, 2020).
For successful school reopening, curriculum would need to include social and emotional
development opportunities through increased interaction and collaboration, safety precautions
such as handwashing and hygiene, and cognitive engagement (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020).
This rebalanced curriculum would be necessary to promote a greater sense of student agency,
self-monitoring, and time-management skills necessitated because of social distancing
requirements (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020). Studies also suggested prioritizing instruction in
language and mathematics, where learning losses would be detrimental for future years of
schooling (Hares & Mundy, 2020; Kuhfeld & Tarasawa, 2020).
Teachers navigating remote instruction also faced challenges with balancing parenting
with professional demands. A large portion of America’s mostly female teaching force has
young children at home and policies were not in place from districts on how to support teachers
who found themselves as simultaneous caregivers and instructors (Barnum, 2020). Additional
pressure mounted as children sought greater comfort and attachment from working parents
because of the crisis (Charland et al., 2021). General guidelines ranged from expecting a
minimum number of hours of synchronous instruction to providing asynchronous instruction but
remaining available through email (Barnum, 2020). During the Spring 2021 semester, the United
Teachers Los Angeles union demanded that Los Angeles Unified School District offer childcare
42
for teachers as a condition for returning to schools; the district offered a $500 monthly childcare
stipend for teachers with young children as a result (Mays, 2021).
Despite the barriers and challenges, teachers working at high need schools who reported
having a highly supportive school culture reported a high degree of success (Kraft & Simon,
2020). Teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy relate to the influences that exist in the school
environment, or the group (Goddard et al., 2004), which leads to a shared sense of collective
efficacy. Collective efficacy reinforces a shared belief in the ability of the group to produce
positive outcomes (Bandura, 2000). Teachers who reported a highly supportive school
environment particularly valued targeted professional development, recognized effort,
meaningful collaboration, and effective communication (Kraft & Simon, 2020). Many of these
factors are tied to group dynamics. Groups thrive on social partnerships, when the learner feels
like they are part of a team with other learners (Mayer, 2011). Groups can also be motivated by
performance goals to achieve mastery and avoid performing poorly, especially when in a group
setting (Mayer, 2011). Research on collective efficacy in school contexts is an emerging field,
with research focused on how to develop collective efficacy and lacking in substantial links to
achievement and unintended consequences (Hoogsteen, 2020).
Teacher Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This section presents research findings relevant to the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on teacher engagement in an online environment. Specifically, the
findings center on the ability of Grade 6–12 teachers to successfully engage in online instruction
to meet the field global goal of increasing educational equity for Grade 6–12 students in high
need contexts given the transition to online instruction during the 2020–2021 school year. The
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework was utilized to systematically
43
analyze the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on the stakeholder goal and
current performance to uncover root causes. Performance gaps can then be addressed by
increasing specific knowledge, skills, and motivations towards the stakeholder goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Teacher Knowledge and Skills
There are four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
(Anderson et al., 2005). Factual knowledge includes basic information such as terminology,
logistics, and details (Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge includes the frameworks and models
related to a task (Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge focuses on the implementation of skills
through techniques, methodologies, and processes (Rueda, 2011). Finally, metacognitive
knowledge is developed through the reflection of one’s own learning processes, which
strengthens an understanding of the context and purpose of using specific knowledge (Rueda,
2011).
The following sections present three assumed knowledge influences related to the
stakeholder goal of ensuring teachers can design and organize, facilitate, and instruct in online
learning environments. Understanding the knowledge categories these influences fall informed
recommendations for online engagement of Grade 6–12 teachers employed at high need schools
to meet the field global goal of increasing educational equity for Grade 6–12 students in high
need contexts given the transition to online instruction during the 2020–2021 school year.
Teachers Need to Be Able to Design and Organize Instruction
Designing instruction in an online environment requires a different skill set than
designing instruction for in person instruction (Rice, 2006). A student new to an online
classroom first assesses the structure and tools available in their environment before they can
44
cognitively engage and learn (Lofstrom & Nevgi, 2007). Traditional methods of course design
can be viewed as disorganized and unclear by learners (Allen & Tanner, 2017). To effectively
design and organize instruction, teachers must know their content as well as instructional design
methods that remove cognitive barriers for learners. Teachers must be able to create learning
cycles that integrate new content, student interactions, assessment, and feedback practices. This
study uncovered teacher knowledge related to instructional design and organization in an online
environment as it relates to removing cognitive barriers for learners.
Teachers Need to Be Able to Deliver Instruction
Delivering instruction with challenging course material is key to ensuring equitable
access to quality education for high need students (Smedley, 2001). When delivering instruction
online, the role of the teacher shifts to guiding learner independence and autonomy (Baran et al.,
2013). Teachers must know how to move from a teacher-centered approach to one that fosters
guided practice, peer collaboration, and independent learning for students through a gradual
release of responsibility (Fisher & Frey, 2008). Methods of delivering instruction that increase
student agency could include student choice, pacing decisions, timely and regular feedback,
soliciting feedback from students, and clarity in content being taught, practiced, and assessed.
This study was designed to uncover teacher knowledge related to methods of delivering
instruction in an online environment as it relates to methods of increasing student agency.
Teachers Need to Be Able to Facilitate Instruction
Facilitating learner experiences has been established as key to effective online teaching.
According to the adolescent community of engagement framework, effective facilitation of
online instruction in a Grade K–12 setting includes being able to nurture a safe environment,
monitor and motivate student engagement, and facilitate discourse (Borup, 2014). Teachers can
45
understand their students’ perspectives, motivations, and emotions and use a range of verbal and
nonverbal strategies to engage and motivate students in an online environment. Through
facilitation, teachers model presence, availability, and communication as participation modes for
students and engage learners in the process (Martin et al., 2020). Facilitation of a caring
environment is especially important in high need contexts, where a culture of care is less likely
to be observed than in high performing urban schools (Tichnor-Wager & Allen, 2016). This
study was expected to uncover methods teachers used to create a caring and safe online
environment, motivate students, and facilitate meaningful teacher-student and peer interactions.
Table 5 presents the assumed knowledge influences of teacher engagement: designing and
organizing instruction, delivering instruction, and facilitating instruction in online learning
environments.
Table 5
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Knowledge types Assumed knowledge influences
Procedural Teachers need to be able to design and organize online
content.
Procedural Teachers need to be able to deliver instruction in an online
environment.
Procedural Teachers need to be able to facilitate online instruction
through nurturing a caring and safe environment,
monitoring and motivating student engagement, and
facilitating discourse.
46
Teacher Motivations
Teacher motivation is an emerging field of study with implications for retention,
performance, and student outcomes (Mansfield et al., 2012). Motivation is defined as the act of
driving an individual or situation into movement (Pintrich, 2003) and is influenced by internal
factors, such as cognitive and affective influences, as well as external factors, such as cultural
and societal influences (Rueda, 2011). Mayer (2011) outlined five conceptions by which
motivation is activated: interests, beliefs, attributions, goals, and social partnerships. Interest
based motivation is activated when the learning material is valuable and interesting, belief-based
motivation is grounded in an intrinsic belief of ability, and attribution-based motivation is
activated in a belief that a task can be accomplished through sustained effort (Mayer, 2011).
Once activated, motivation is the engine that drives action as it ensures that what individuals
know to do is converted into what individuals want and will do (Rueda, 2011). This process is
driven by three influences: active choice, when individuals deliberately pursue a goal,
persistence, when they progress towards goals despite obstacles, and the application of mental
effort in pursuing goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). These influences are shaped by an individual’s
personal past experiences and beliefs about self, colleagues, and future goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). The following section presents value theory, attribution theory, and self-efficacy as three
motivational influences on the stakeholder goal of ensuring the academic outcomes of Grade K–
12 students receiving online instruction at high needs in the 2020–2021 school year remains
consistent with previous years.
Teachers Need to Value Online Instruction
This study was designed to uncover the value teachers placed on their engagement in
online instruction during the 2020–2021 school year. The values were then be categorized into
47
components of value theory: intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, and cost (Eccles,
2006). The enjoyment one gains from engaging in a task is intrinsic value. The importance one
gives to doing well on a task is attainment value. Utility value is the applicability of the task to
one’s future. Finally, the cost of engaging in a task takes into consideration to what degree it
limits access to other activities, the degree of effort needed to complete the task, and the
emotional cost of engaging in the task (Eccles, 2006). Uncovering and categorizing the value of
online instruction for teachers can inform methods of addressing motivational gaps pertaining to
teachers valuing their engagement in online instruction.
Teachers Need to Believe They Can Teach Online
Self-efficacy is the core belief in one’s ability to reach goals despite obstacles (Pajares,
2006). Teaching efficacy is defined as the beliefs and perceptions about being able to “carry out
good teaching in the classroom” (Christophersen et al., 2016, p. 2) and has been found to
influence behaviors related to the use of technology in teaching (Hatlevik, 2017; Jung et al.,
2019). Self-efficacy beliefs are developed through experiencing mastery through active
experiences, observing others, verbal persuasion from others, and an individual’s emotional and
physiological reaction during performance (Artino, 2012).
Research in teacher self-efficacy as it relates to the transition to online teaching in the
time of crisis is lacking currently (Dolighan & Owen, 2021). This is significant because teacher
self-efficacy has been found to be a central barrier to integrating technology and instruction
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Further, experiencing teacher self-efficacy in the context of face-to-
face learning does not translate to self-efficacy in the context of online learning (Haverback &
Mee, 2015; Sokal et al., 2020) because self-efficacy relates to the perceptions of one’s ability as
it relates to a particular context of functioning and related goal (Bandura, 1997).
48
In this study, the perceptions of self-efficacy teachers felt about being able to maintain
student achievement through online instruction during the 2020–2021 school year were assessed.
Further, the factors influencing those beliefs were identified as observations, verbal persuasion,
individuals’ reactions, or active experiences. Understanding factors influencing teachers’ self-
efficacy inform methods of ensuring teachers feel confident to engage in the design, delivery,
facilitation of online instruction.
Teachers Need to Be Aware of Their Impact on Student Achievement
Research on attribution theory as it relates to online teaching environments is limited. In
face-to-face environments, teachers were more likely to attribute poor student outcomes to
internal factors in students, such as lack of effort, compared to low quality of instruction (Jussim
& Robustelli, 2009). A teacher’s sense of responsibility is more likely to increase with positive
student outcomes whereas negative student outcomes produce more variance in teachers’ sense
of responsibility (Aliakbari & Kafshgar, 2013). The belief that instructional behaviors are
directly related to student outcomes leads to greater work engagement producing positive student
outcomes (Lauermann & Berger, 2021). This study identified internal and external factors
teachers attribute to student outcomes because of online instruction during the 2020–2021 school
year. Table 6 presents the assumed motivational influences of teacher engagement in online
learning through successful course content design, instructional delivery, and facilitation of
online interactions.
49
Table 6
Assumed Motivational Influences
Motivation types Assumed motivation influences
Utility value Teachers need to value their engagement in online instruction.
Self-efficacy Teachers need to be confident they can design, deliver, and
facilitate effective online instruction.
Attribution Teachers need to believe that their instructional behaviors
directly result in sustained or increased student achievement.
Organizational Influences
The ways in which culture is shaped, shared, and interpreted are complex. This section
will first address the general theory on the construct of culture followed by stakeholder specific
applications. Singh (2002) traced back the experience of culture to mental schemas, or structures,
individuals create as they make sense of themselves, society, and the environment. These
schemas are reinforced through emotions and feelings that, with repeated positive and negative
reinforcements, drive human motivation to act in certain predictable ways (Singh, 2002).
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) propose setting and model analysis as a strategy to study
culture in a manner that accounts for variability within the group. Cultural models are the shared
cultural practices and schemas, and settings are the concrete elements of a culture such as
individuals, roles, and social contexts that exist in the culture. While settings birth and house a
culture with observable patterns, models encompass the assumptions that are taken for granted
evolved from the shared experiences of interpreting and enacting behavior patterns (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural shifts at schools were also necessary to ensure positive outcomes
(Lee, 2020). This is significant as an individual’s sense of self-efficacy, beliefs, and motivations
50
are influenced by behaviors in the culture in which the individual is immersed (Bandura, 2012).
Collective efficacy is an extension of the self-efficacy theory (Pajares, 2006). Collective efficacy
harnesses the shared belief in the ability of the group to produce effects (Bandura, 2000).
The following three lenses offer perspectives on cultural models and settings influencing
the online engagement of teachers: the availability of curricular resources for online instruction,
the availability of technological resources and support for teachers tailored to work from home
environments, and a culture of collective efficacy.
Schools Need to Provide Technical Resources
In anticipation of the 2020–2021 school year, a Summer 2020 survey found that only
20% of 1,200 surveyed American teachers and administrators believed their schools were
prepared for remote learning and 41% shared the schools had technology but lacked in processes
(Promethean, 2020). This trend continued into 2021, with 41% of 121 surveyed California Grade
K–12 teachers sharing student lack of access to technology and the internet remains a continued
barrier (Inverness Institute, 2021). Availability of technology also posed challenges for teachers;
a national study conducted by Hamilton et al. (2020) found 18% of teachers at schools
predominantly serving students of color required technological devices for remote instruction
compared to 11% of teachers employed at predominantly white Grade K–12 schools.
Schools Need to Provide Curricular Resources
Four interdependent elements are part of how the modern curriculum is defined: the
student, teacher, content matter, and the learning environment (Charland et al., 2021). The
interrelatedness of these four factors was apparent during school shutdowns; schools that were
unable to provide relevant, engaging, and effective curriculum and instruction experienced
higher levels of student disengagement and learning losses (Domina et al., 2021). This study will
51
examine the availability and need of curricular resources for teachers from their schools and the
perceived impact it has had on their engagement in online instruction.
Schools Need to Have a Culture of Collective Efficacy
During school shutdowns, teachers working at high need schools who experienced high
levels of support at their school experienced a high level of success in their teaching (Kraft &
Simon, 2020). This finding was consistent with research findings that an environment of
collective efficacy strongly influences an individual teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy, quality of
instruction, and overall school climate (Goddard et al., 2004). It is important to note, research on
collective efficacy in school contexts is an emerging field, with research focused on how to
develop collective efficacy; demonstrated links to achievement and unintended consequences are
missing from the literature on collective efficacy (Hoogsteen, 2020). This study aimed to
uncover cultural models, or shared practices, that teachers perceived as organizational supports
during the transition to online instruction and whether they contributed to an organizational
culture of collective efficacy. Table 7 presents the assumed organizational influences of teacher
engagement in online learning through the availability of technical resources that support online
learning, availability of curricular resources that support online learning, and the presence of a
shared culture of collective efficacy in online instruction.
52
Table 7
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational types Assumed organizational influences
Cultural setting Schools need to provide technical resources that support
teachers and students in an online learning model, including
in work from home situations.
Cultural setting Schools need to provide curricular resources to support
teacher lesson planning and delivery in an online
environment.
Cultural model Schools need to have a culture of collective efficacy for online
instruction.
Conceptual Framework
A key component of research design is the underlying context of assumptions and
theories included in a study known as the conceptual framework (Maxwell, 2013). The
conceptual framework includes a graphic and narrative of how and why the key concepts being
studied are included (Maxwell, 2013). Conceptual frameworks are a theory of the phenomena
being studied (Maxwell, 2013) and the key elements of the framework retain their meaning
independent of the context in which they are applied (Holmberg, 2016). Chapter 2 introduced the
community of inquiry framework and adolescent community of engagement framework to
inform the study of knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences related to teacher
engagement in online instruction. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework serves as
the lens through which the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on teacher
engagement will be uncovered and categorized to inform recommendations for performance
improvement.
53
The organizational, knowledge, and motivational influences on teacher engagement in
online instruction are captured in Figure 1. The availability of technological and curricular
resources and support in the form of collective efficacy are organizational responsibilities that
have an impact on motivational factors and knowledge factors. The ability to design, organize,
deliver, and facilitate online instruction is impacted by teaching efficacy and the perceived value
of online instruction. The outcomes of online instruction then impact motivational factors based
on teacher attributions. The interplay of all three factors influences the overall preparedness and
effectiveness of teacher engagement in online instruction.
Figure 1
Factors Influencing Teacher Engagement in Online Instruction
Teacher
Engagement
in Online
Instruction
Knowledge Factors
Design, organize,
deliver, and facilitate
online instruction
Organizational Factors
A culture of collective
efficacy and availability of
resources
Motivational Factors
Teaching efficacy, value of
online instruction, and
attribution of outcomes
54
Summary
Online instruction is the primary method of remote instruction in America (Allen &
Seaman, 2007). The evolution of online instruction has shifted from relaying information
remotely to mass audiences to networked connections where students are co-creators of
knowledge (Dawson & Siemens, 2014). Facilitating these networked connections through quality
pedagogy is necessary to make learning through technology possible (Shulman, 2005). Three
theoretical frameworks provide a shared lens of understanding and analysis of the dynamics in
online instruction: Moore’s (1980) Transactional Distance Theory, Garrison et al.’s (2000)
community of inquiry framework, and Borup et al.’s (2014) adolescent community of
engagement framework. Each framework describes the interactions between the student, course,
and instructor that occur in online learning. Teacher engagement was defined as the ability to
effectively design, facilitate, and instruct in an online environment (Borup, 2014). These abilities
were defined as the knowledge influences for this study. Motivational influences on teacher
engagement were identified as the degree to which teachers value online instruction, the degree
to which they feel competent teaching online, and the degree to which they report a sense of
success with student outcomes. Finally, organizational influences on teacher engagement were
identified as the availability of technical and curricular resources and a sense of collective
efficacy shared within the organization.
The impact of COVID-19 school shutdowns on the existing inequities in high need Grade
6–12 contexts was elaborated upon. A general lack of teacher preparedness for online instruction
exists within Grade 6–12 classrooms, which is amplified in schools serving high need
populations. Inadequate preparation time, lack of administrative support, and lack of effective
training are barriers that contribute to the disparities in quality online instruction in high need
55
schools. The purpose of this study is to further explore the factors influencing teacher
engagement in online instruction during the 2020–2021 school year to uncover the specific
knowledge, motivational, and organizational gaps teachers in high need contexts experienced.
Chapter 3 describes the research methods employed in this study.
56
Chapter Three: Methodology
Following COVID-19 school closures in 2020, the global goal in the field of education
was to reduce educational inequities for Grade 6–12 students at high need schools despite the
transition to online learning. The stakeholder group for the study are teachers employed by high
need schools serving Grade 6–12 students. The purpose of this study is to conduct a gap analysis
(Clark & Estes, 2008) to gain understanding of the factors influencing the engagement of Grade
6–12 public school educators instructing students attending high need schools in an online
environment during the 2020–2021 school year.
In Chapter 2, literature related to indicators of teacher engagement in online settings were
shared. The gap analysis framework was used to identify the specific indicators of knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational influences on the engagement of teachers in online
learning through successful course design, instructional delivery, and facilitation of online
interactions. The gap analysis approach supports targeting resources towards the factors which
cause gaps in performance, strengthening the resulting recommendations from the study (Rueda,
2011).
Chapter 3 expands on the methodological approach to collecting data through interviews
in this research study and methods utilized to ensure validity and reliability of the study along
with limitations of the study. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework guided the
development of the following research questions:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of Grade 6–12 teachers in high need
classrooms related to engaging in online instruction through successful course content
design, instructional delivery, and facilitation of online interactions?
57
2. How do organizational influences impact engagement in online instruction through
successful course content design, instructional delivery, and facilitation of online
interactions among Grade 6–12 teachers in high needs classrooms?
Overview of Design
Evaluative studies collect evidence on the effectiveness and value of a process to inform
judgments and improvements regarding the process (Patton, 2015). A constructivist paradigm
guided the design of this evaluative study, which required dialogue between the researcher and
participants and leads to co-construction of meaning based on the experiences of the researcher
and the participants (Mills et al., 2006). The purpose of the dialogue was to understand
experiences of the participants, which Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest requires a qualitative
research design. Blandford (2013) stated qualitative methods are “essential” in research to
understand the needs and behaviors of participants related to the use of technology.
In this study, the three influence types generated through the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis framework in Chapter 2 were investigated using a semi-structured qualitative approach.
A semi-structured qualitative approach collects evidence through open-ended interview
questions tied to research themes and interprets the evidence through a coding process
(Blandford, 2013). The process supported with determining patterns, determining contributing
factors, and proposing future outcomes (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2018). Table 8
identifies the data sources for the two research questions in this study.
58
Table 8
Data Sources
Research questions Interview
RQ1: What is the knowledge and motivation of Grade 6–12
teachers in high need classrooms related to engaging in online
instruction through successful course content design, instructional
delivery, and facilitation of online interactions?
X
RQ2: How do organizational influences impact engagement in
online instruction through successful course content design,
instructional delivery, and facilitation of online interactions
among Grade 6–12 teachers in high needs classrooms?
X
Research Setting
This study recruited Grade 6–12 teachers employed at high-need schools. Teachers taught
at least one Grade 6–12 course online in a synchronous format during the 2020–2021 school year
and were credentialed in a Grade 6–12 content area. Through the selective recruitment of
participants, the study uncovered specific knowledge, motivational, and organizational gaps that
contributed to teacher engagement in online instruction in a high need context in the 2020–2021
school year.
The Researcher
I am a multi-racial female (Asian-Indian and White) with 15 years of experience in the
field of education. I have served as a high school classroom teacher in high need NYCDOE
public schools, a program director for a teacher-training program housed within the NYCDOE,
and as a professor at a public state university in Los Angeles. I founded a consulting agency that
specializes in teacher and leadership development and assists university and Grade K–12 school
partners with program creation and implementation. My professional network consists of
59
teachers and administrators working in high need Grade K–12 schools in multiple urban school
districts, which I leveraged to recruit participants. Pre-existing professional relationships with
potential participants did not include any current direct, hierarchical relationships. I did not teach
or serve as an administrator with a school district at the time of the study.
Researcher perceptions influence outcomes in semi-structured interviews because the
emerging narrative is co-constructed by the participant and interviewer (Blandford, 2013).
Therefore, Blandford (2013) stated that researcher reflexivity is required in all phases of the
study: data collection, analysis, and reporting. Researcher reflexivity is the recognition of how
personal position and perceptions influence the research process (Raskind et al., 2019). This
study established ethical considerations, prioritized ongoing reflection, and addressed my
positionality as the researcher as methods of ensuring continuous reflexivity. To address any
discomfort participants might experience during the study, I maintained a clear division of roles,
conducting the researcher as a doctoral student instead of a professional acquaintance. This
maintained the structure of a traditional interview in which the roles individuals may have
outside of the research setting are superseded by the roles of interviewer and participant required
in the interview (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). The participants also received ethical
safeguards discussed in the ethics section of this chapter; they addressed the three main ethical
concerns identified in Blandford (2013) as vulnerability, informed consent, and privacy. The
third consideration was the use of field notes that will be used to capture assumptions, reactions,
and decisions I made during the research process, personal factors that researchers should subject
to critical assessment to maintain reflexivity during research (Deggs & Hernandez, 2018;
Raskind et al., 2019).
60
Data Collection Method: Interviews
The data source used in this study consisted of one-to-one, semi-structured interviews via
Zoom with teachers who volunteered for the study. The following sections include the
description of and rationale for data collection procedures. Given the nature of this study,
interviews were the only data collection method.
Participating Stakeholders
Voluntary participants were recruited to participate in this study through convenience
sampling. The criteria for participation include being credentialed to teach in a Grade 6–12
content area, being employed at a high need school during the 2020–2021 school year, and
having taught a Grade 6–12 course in an online setting during the 2020–2021 school year. All
teachers worked in high need schools in large urban school districts in the United States during
the 2020–2021 school year.
Instrumentation
The semi-structured interview protocol in this study included 15 questions that aimed at
uncovering information on the assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences
on teacher practice. Questions such as “Describe your approach to designing an online lesson”
uncovered the teacher’s knowledge of effective instructional design. Questions such as “Describe
the goals or priorities the school had during the 2020–2021 school year” uncovered the teacher’s
perceptions of the organizational influence on the teacher’s practice. Questions such as “In what
ways has online instruction during the 2020–2021 school year impacted your overall approach to
teaching and learning?” uncovered motivational influences on teacher practice. All questions
were designed by the researcher in alignment with the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences described in Chapter 2. A variety of formats recommended by Merriam
61
and Tisdell (2016) are used to ensure the questioning produces rich responses, including feeling,
knowledge, opinion, and experience questions. The interview protocol, along with a table of a
priori codes aligned to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, is in Appendix
B.
Data Collection Procedures
Initial communication to potential participants emphasized the importance of the study
and assured confidentiality to increase participant willingness to participate (Pazzaglia et al.,
2016). Potential participants were identified through convenience sampling within my network
by contacting teachers who have participated in the Los Angeles Urban Teacher Residency and
New York City Teaching Collaborative programs, both of which partner with high need schools.
Initial contact with potential participants was made by email. Recruited participants were also
asked to recommend other teachers in their network who met the criteria of the study.
A recruitment questionnaire, which is in Appendix A, was shared to screen for interest
and criteria. The questionnaire was linked in the email sent as initial contact to potential
participants. Screened potential participants received documentation of the research steps and
study limitations prior to requesting consent (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The communication
was standardized, with the interviews and all related communication conducted electronically for
all participants.
All interviews were conducted via Zoom. Interviews were recorded and transcribed on a
password-protected computer that remained locked in an unused office space. The data were
evaluated using the University of Southern California’s survey product Qualtrics.
62
Data Analysis
Data analysis involves the interpretation and synthesis of the information provided by the
participant to make meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data analysis for this study utilized a
multi-step process. The analysis started with open coding, or tagging any information that was
relevant to the study, and led to axial coding in which categories of data were refined (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The categories aligned with the identified knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences in the conceptual framework using a priori codes. Finally, selective
codes were created from the emerging themes if themes were not aligned to the a priori codes
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
According to Maxwell (2012), “educational research desperately needs qualitative
approaches and methods if it is to make valid and useful claims about what works” (p. 655).
However, Mojtahed et al. (2014) suggest a challenge of this design being that results can be
drawn exclusively from how the researcher interprets the interview evidence. This raises the
question of the study’s credibility and trustworthiness. Lincoln and Guba (1985) described
trustworthiness as demonstrating that the research findings are worthy of study. Credibility is the
process of ensuring that the data from the study addresses the intended purpose (Satu et al.,
2014). Two approaches were used in this study to minimize this effect and increase credibility
and trustworthiness of the findings.
First is the use of a semi-structured interview process in which the dominant research
perspectives guide the discussion between the researcher and participants (Mojtahed et al.,
2014). Individual semi-structured interviews include a set of predetermined questions, last
approximately one hour, and allow for other questions to emerge from the conversation
63
(DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). A semi-structured interview structure supports the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study as it encourages participants to share their viewpoints
guided by a set of themed questions (Beeman, 1995). The second approach is to ensure the data
are consistent with what the interviewee shared, which Creswell and Poth (2018) described as
member-checks. This has been stated as being critical to ensuring credibility (Satu et al., 2014).
During the member-check process, interviewees received transcriptions to ensure accuracy
(Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Ethics
This research study followed the ethical guidelines set forth by the institutional review
board (IRB) at all stages of the study and received approval from University of Southern
California’s IRB prior to conducting research. It was my responsibility to maintain respect for
others, minimize risk for stakeholders, and maximize benefits, especially for vulnerable
populations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Blandford (2013) named the three main ethical concerns
in research as vulnerability, informed consent, and privacy. To address issues of vulnerability,
my role as an interviewer superseded all other modes of affiliation I might have had with
participants. This clear division of roles was intended to conform with traditional roles during the
interview (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). To ensure informed consent, participation
remained voluntary, with the ability to withdraw from the study at any time without explanation
or penalty (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Participants were provided a copy of the information
sheet for exempt studies, which is in Appendix C, and participant consent was obtained prior to
any data collection.
A third goal was to ensure privacy for all interviewees by ensuring participant identities
were not compromised during data collection, analysis, and reporting (Kaiser, 2009). All data
64
collected through interviews were saved on a password-protected device that will be locked in an
unused office space. Participant identities were confidential, with names being replaced with
numeric codes in transcripts and all work products; this process is known as data cleaning
(Kaiser, 2009). Any potentially identifying data were redacted during the transcription process.
The names of schools were not shared in the reporting of results.
65
Chapter Four: Findings
Qualitative data were collected through 10 interviews to inform findings presented in
Chapter 4. The data were analyzed to uncover the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences on teacher engagement in online environments during the 2020–2021 school year,
particularly in high need schools. All the results were compared with the assumed knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences identified in Chapter 2. The data were used to
determine whether each influence was an asset or a need. Recommendations to address needs
will be discussed in Chapter 5.
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was used to organize the findings in
three sections: Findings for knowledge influences, findings for motivational influences, and
findings for organizational influences. The following research questions guided this study.
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of Grade 6–12 teachers in high need classrooms
related to engaging in online instruction through successful course content design,
instructional delivery, and facilitation of online interactions?
2. How do organizational influences impact engagement in online instruction through
successful course content design, instructional delivery, and facilitation of online
interactions among Grade 6–12 teachers in high needs classrooms?
Findings from this study are important because they uncover the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences on teacher performance in online environments,
which impacted outcomes related to the field’s global goal of reducing educational inequities for
Grade 6–12 students receiving online instruction in high need schools during the 2020–2021
school year.
66
Participating Stakeholders
Ten Grade 6–12 teachers volunteered to participate in this study, including six middle
school teachers, three high school teachers, and one teacher who taught at both the middle school
and high school levels during the 2020–2021 school year. Five teachers were credentialed in
science and mathematics, one was credentialed in English Language Arts, one was credentialed
in History, and three were credentialed Special Education teachers. The experience level of
teachers varied, with four teachers with between 4 to 6 years of experience, four teachers with
between 7 to 9 years of experience, and two teachers with over ten years of experience. Two
teachers referred one additional volunteer at their school site who was subsequently interviewed.
Table 9
Demographic Information of Teachers
Interview
participant
Teaching
experience
Grade/subject area Region
Participant 1 7 years 8/Science New York City
Participant 2 8 years 11–12/English New York City
Participant 3 5 years 7/History New York City
Participant 4 6 years 6/Math New York City
Participant 5 11 years 6, 8/English New York City
Participant 6 6 years 9, 10/Math New York City
Participant 7 8 years 9–12/Special Education Los Angeles
Participant 8 4 years 7, 8/Special Education Los Angeles
Participant 9 14 years 7, 9–12/Special Education New York City
Participant 10 8 years 6–8/English New York City
67
Findings for Research Question 1
The following sections share the findings collected from interview questions designed to
uncover knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on teacher engagement in online
instruction. Influences were deemed an asset if seven or more participants of the 10 reported
influences consistent with the assumed influences presented in Chapter 2. Influences were
deemed a need if six or fewer participants reported data consistent with the assumed influences
presented in Chapter 2. The following sections share the findings collected through interviews
and compare these findings to the assumed knowledge and motivation influences.
Knowledge Influences’ Findings
This section presents findings captured from data for three assumed knowledge
influences. These three influences included teachers’ ability to organize and design online
content, deliver online content, and facilitate online instruction. The findings were labeled as
“limited” when seven or more of the participants demonstrated a lack of a comprehensive
understanding of all practices aligned with each assumed knowledge influence as identified in
Chapter 2. The findings were labeled as “mixed” when seven or more of the participants
demonstrated understanding of select practices but lack of understanding in remaining practices
aligned with each assumed knowledge influence.
Teachers Demonstrated Mixed Knowledge of Organizing and Designing Online Content
The use of two content design frameworks, integrated course design (Fink, 2003) and
universal design for learning (Novak and Thibodeau, 2016), and cognitive usability (Smith and
Harvey, 2014) were specific approaches aligned with the assumed knowledge influence of
organizing and designing online content presented in Chapter 2. All 10 participants mentioned
incorporating some elements of integrated course design and universal design for learning when
68
designing and organizing online content. All 10 participants’ interview responses demonstrated a
strong focus on cognitive usability when designing and organizing online content.
Knowledge of Content Design Frameworks. integrated course design is the process of
designing goal-driven learning experiences that align with six dimensions: foundational
knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, and reflection. Two elements of
integrated course design (Fink, 2003) emerged in the interviews with participants. Nine
participants mentioned foundational knowledge and application as priorities in decisions related
to designing and organizing instruction. The importance of caring in delivering instruction was
highlighted in interview responses from all 10 participants but was not mentioned as
foundational to designing and organizing online content.
Knowledge of Universal Design for Learning. Universal design for learning (Novak &
Thibodeau, 2016) provides methods of addressing barriers to cognitive engagement for students.
The importance of visual representation of material and student engagement, two elements of
universal design for learning, was shared by all 10 participants. When speaking about designing
online instruction, Participant 10 mentioned “a lot of the things that were needed were things that
I was already doing as a matter of best practice, like universal design for learning, Backwards
Planning, and teaching with scaffolds that can help all students.” Additionally, Participants 4, 6,
and 8 spoke about the importance of students being able to digitally interact with math
manipulatives when designing content. Participant 4 spoke about incorporating digital content
that “best emulated a hands-on approach and made it interactive for students.”
Knowledge of Cognitive Usability. The degree to which learners understand, navigate,
and interact in online learning platforms was coined as “cognitive usability” by Smith and
Harvey (2014, p. 224). Cognitive usability emerged as a priority for participants in this study
69
when organizing and designing online content; all 10 participants’ responses shared a strong
focus on organizing and designing online content to minimize barriers for students when
selecting digital platforms. Teachers reported prioritizing student usability, familiarity, and
routine in the organization and design of online content. All 10 participants also spoke about
reducing the amount of content shared at one time, which aligns with Majeski et al.’s (2016)
study findings that suggested online content should be chunked into seven or less pieces of
information. “I found beauty in simplicity” was a reflection shared by Participant 1. Participant 5
gathered student feedback on the use of digital platforms but shared limited teacher capacity to
incorporate changes as “coming up with something different that might have made [students]
happier was outside of our capacity at that point.”
Table 10 shares the participants’ self-reported focus on embedding elements of integrated
course design, universal design for learning, and cognitive usability when designing and
organizing online instruction. Table 11 identifies responses that included two of the six
dimensions while designing instruction as and three of the six dimensions while designing
instruction as +.
70
Table 10
Teacher Self-Reported Focus in Organizing and Designing Online Content
Framework Approach to organizing and designing online content
Universal design for
learning
Participant 4 “tried to find software that best emulated a
hands-on approach to make learning interactive for students.
We didn’t want instruction to be a bunch of boring lectures
for 10 to 11-year-olds.”
Participant 6 reported choosing platforms that allowed
students easy access to features app: “The biggest hurdle for
me was figuring out the best modality to teach content.
Google Docs for math was a no.”
Participant 8 reported prioritizing platforms with digital math
manipulatives and interactive capabilities and organized
materials using Schoology and Google Classroom.
Designing online instruction was “not about just answering
a question online. It’s like building an experience.”
Integrated course design Participant 5 reported paring down online curriculum by
prioritizing instruction necessary for student performance
on assessments and then selecting interactive learning
platforms to “get the kids as engaged as possible.”
Participant 9 reported using “hyper docs”, or documents with
links to instructional materials, because they found this
format “best suited for students to work independently.”
Cognitive usability Participant 1 “kept it simple with what we were familiar with
(Google Classroom, Amplify Science, Zoom). Whenever I
did try to use a different platform, the whole lesson was
spent troubleshooting. So, I kept it to the basics.”
Participant 2 reported choosing Google classroom to organize
instruction because students had difficulty managing
different tabs.
Participant 10 reported using Google docs and decided to
“stick to one thing and just work on that. You start to make
a little progress and think (the students) know the routine.
Routine and expectations are very important.”
71
Participant responses shared a mixed understanding of cognitive usability, integrated
course design, and universal design for learning, as demonstrated in Table 11. The findings were
labeled as “mixed” when seven or more of the participants demonstrated understanding of select
practices but lack of understanding in remaining practices aligned with each assumed knowledge
influence. All 10 participants were able to share an understanding and application of elements of
cognitive usability, which is represented with “ +” in Table 11. Participant responses
indicating an understanding of two or fewer factors of the universal design for learning and
integrated course design frameworks were represented with the symbol “ ” in Table 11. Table
11 findings reveal that a comprehensive understanding of all three practices aligned with the
assumed knowledge influences presented in Chapter 2 was not demonstrated by any participant.
72
Table 11
Knowledge of Frameworks by Teacher Participant
Participant Universal design for
learning
Integrated course
design
Cognitive usability
Participant 1
+
Participant 2
+
Participant 3
+
Participant 4 +
+
Participant 5 +
+
Participant 6 +
+
Participant 7
+
Participant 8 +
+
Participant 9
+ +
Participant 10
+
Note. All 10 participants were able to share an understanding and application of elements of
cognitive usability, which is represented with “ +.” Participant responses indicating an
understanding of two or fewer factors of the universal design for learning and integrated course
design frameworks were represented with the symbol “ .”
Teachers Demonstrated Limited Knowledge of Delivering Online Content
Incorporating student choice in pacing and representation of content, a gradual release
instructional model (Novak & Thibodeau, 2016), vertical alignment of instruction with standards
73
and goals, and timely and regular feedback were specific approaches aligned with the assumed
knowledge influence of delivering online content presented in Chapter 2. All participants
reported at least one example of how they integrated student choice, the gradual release model,
or instructional alignment in their delivery of online instruction. All participants shared they
prioritized feedback to students during lesson delivery as a method of promoting student
engagement.
Student Choice. Johnson and Aragon (2003) suggested that allowing student choice over
navigating course topics through varied technological formats (discussion boards, videos,
articles) addressed learner differences in an online environment. The self-reported use of student
choice in pacing and representation of content was limited among participants. Participants 1 and
7 reported allowing for student control over pacing using hyper docs. Participant 8 reported
allowing choice in work product to assess “where that student feels comfortable without actually
saying it through their choice…How they show their work was up to them.”
Two participant responses revealed a reduction in student choice to promote engagement.
Participant 3 said they preferred to control the pace of the lesson to ensure engagement but
would “occasionally” incorporate collaborative activities in which students could choose their
Zoom break-out room. Participant 9 said they initially incorporated student choice in pacing and
representation of content with the intention to build in “much more independence and creativity.”
However, Participant 9 reported that this led to student disengagement. Table 12 provides
examples participants reported of their limited incorporation of student choice.
74
Table 12
Teacher Self-Reported Incorporation of Student Choice in Delivering Online Instruction
Approach Examples of student choice in instructional delivery
Pacing Participant 1 shared using a self-paced format in Google slides
while Participant 1 monitored engagement.
Participant 10 shared de-emphasizing camera use for
instruction to allow student choice on “how to attend class.”
Selecting Zoom room Participant 2 reported co-teaching in two virtual rooms and
gave students choice in which lesson they wanted to join.
Participant 3 shared, “I haven’t done much with student
choice. Occasionally, there would be collaborative activities
in which students choose their Zoom break-out room.”
Content choice Participant 4 reported that students designed assessment
questions. Participant 4 shared that they administered the
assessment with questions designed by student peers.
Participant 6 reported presenting students a list of topics in a
unit and asked students how they would prioritize the
topics. Students shared a list of questions related to the
topics that Participant 6 would address throughout the unit.
Participant 7 reported including resources and activities as
links in Google slides: “I was engaging more them in the
work because now they were choosing what they want to
practice and how they want to present their understanding,
such as a recording.”
Participant 8 reported including leveled assessment questions
for students to choose which indicated “where that student
feels comfortable without actually saying it through their
choice.”
Participant 9 reported integrating a variety of content
resources to bring “much more independence and
creativity.” They shared that this led to the unintended
consequence of student disengagement.
75
Gradual Release Model. Novak and Thibodeau (2016) suggested a gradual release
model for online instruction. This model includes direct instruction to model skills, guided
practice to support understanding, peer collaborative learning, and independent work (Fisher &
Frey, 2008). All participants shared a lesson delivery format that included two or more stages of
the gradual release model; Table 13 shares examples from participant responses.
76
Table 13
Teacher Self-Reported Integration of a Gradual Release Model in Online Instructional Delivery
Participant Use of gradual release model in online instructional delivery
Participant 2
Teacher reported starting class with whole group reading,
guided practice, and checking for understanding before
independent practice. Teacher “chatted with students or
added comments to the Google Doc in the moment” to
provide feedback and check for understanding.
Participant 5 Teacher reported delivering lessons with a “brief overview of
the objective”, “one question per slide for each concept”
that students would respond to through a poll, and
approximately seven minutes of independent practice
compared to “20 minutes of independent practice I would
normally have in my class.”
Participant 7 Teacher reported starting lesson with a warmup (review,
preview, or social emotional check-in) followed by guided
practice. Students would share responses verbally or
through chat and often had cameras off. Then, students
would “do their problems, they would share, and we’d
correct it together. I’d give them a small assessment at the
end to show they mastered the standard.”
Participant 8 Teacher reported modeling instruction and provided guided
practice with messages that “showed up like a text message
in a little red box” before independent worktime.
Participant 9 “My best approach to teaching was ‘let’s do this together.’
Anytime I had students do something independent, so few
of them did. And I recognized this. So, I had them watch a
video independently and we’d come back and talk about it.
Or they would read a document and we’d come back and
talk about it.”
The gradual release of responsibility model is strengthened by clear vertical alignment
between content standards with learning objectives to ensure grade appropriate rigor for students
(Fisher & Frey, 2008). Data from four participant interview responses shared a limited use of
77
alignment between standards and learning objectives. Participant 3 stated that they approached
lesson delivery aligned to a content and skill-based objective that was tied to a “broader thematic
framework.” Participant 5 shared their lesson delivery regularly started with “a brief overview of
the objective of the lesson” and instructional goals that were essential for student performance on
assessments was prioritized. Participant 3 shared aligning “content, knowledge, and skill fit
within a broader thematic framework. A lot of what I took was from [the school district’s]
internally produced curriculum.” However, Participant 1 shared that “aligning instruction to a
summative performance task” was deprioritized as teachers focused on “trying to deliver quality
lessons every day.”
Timely and regular feedback was the final approach aligned with the assumed knowledge
influence of delivering online content presented in Chapter 2. All 10 participants provided
examples of giving feedback using multiple technological platforms, such as Google Doc, the
Zoom chat room, and Nearpod. Participant 3 said they prioritized “continuous cycles of feedback
to make sure students were making progress along the way.” Participant 8 stated that “if I did
not provide feedback on every slide, a student would just give up. Having a green checkmark
was a huge thing because they would keep trying. They wouldn’t give up.”
All 10 participants were able to share at least one example of approaches used to deliver
instruction in online environments aligned with practices listed in Chapter 2. However, this
knowledge influence was deemed a need because less than seven participants were able to share
a comprehensive understanding of all elements of the assumed knowledge influence as outlined
in Chapter 2.
78
Teachers Demonstrated Mixed Knowledge of Facilitating Online Instruction
Nurturing a caring and safe environment, monitoring and motivating student
engagement, and facilitating discourse were approaches aligned with the assumed knowledge
influence of facilitating online instruction presented in Chapter 2. All 10 participants reported
emphasizing the importance of creating caring teacher-student relationship in online
environments. All 10 participants also gave one or more techniques to monitor and motivate
students and facilitate discourse with approaches listed in Chapter 2, but they shared challenges
in doing so because of limited student video use and attendance issues. In addition, the
importance of coteaching emerged as a method of facilitating online instruction.
Nurturing a Caring and Safe Environment. Creating caring teacher-student
relationships (Miller, 2021; Rovai, 2002; Bernard et al., 2009; Tichnor-Wager & Allen, 2016)
and creating a safe environment (Borup, 2014) were two approaches to nurture as presented in
Chapter 2. Both approaches emerged as a priority for all participants in the study. According to
Participant 6, “student achievement was secondary to relationship building” during the 2020–
2021 school year. However, all participants also shared limitations to building relationships in an
online environment. Participant 10 shared that “somewhere between January and March I got to
a place in my relationship with my students that usually I would have by early to mid-October.”
Participant 8 reported they explicitly taught students how to use technology to communicate with
the instructor (i.e., how to send a message to the teacher using Schoology) because they
recognized students were not used to the online format.
Participant responses shared varied approaches to creating a safe environment for student
learning. Participant 8 reported delivering lessons on digital citizenship that emphasized for
students “you need to protect yourself out there” for a week. Participants 5 and 9 shared they de-
79
emphasized the importance of having cameras turned on. Participant 5 reported thinking “kids
didn’t want us to see what their homes looked like.” Participant 2 said they tied student
attendance to safety concerns; they regularly communicated with parents with guidance on how
to reinforce a healthy learning environment at home and worked with the guidance counselors to
conduct home visits for students who had excessive lateness.
Monitoring and Motivating Students. Using a variety of digital tools for student
engagement (Borup et al., 2014; Sanders & Lokey-Vega, 2020), learning about students’ cultural
perspectives (Miller, 2021; Gay, 2018), and encouraging student emotions (Cleveland-Innes &
Campbell, 2012; O’Regan, 2003) were three practices aligned with monitoring and motivating
students as presented in Chapter 2. The findings pointed to all participants trying a variety of
digital tools for student engagement and settling on a few tools that they thought best maximized
student engagement. For example, Participant 1 said they found it difficult to convert hands-on
science experiments and investigations to an online format and attempted to demonstrate using a
webcam or recordings. They also used online simulations that were included in the online
curriculum. Ultimately, Participant 1 shared they found the most success with including a variety
of representations through linked resources on Google slides. In addition, Participant 1
mentioned having three tabs open with Zoom chat, Google slides, and Zoom video on the
instructor’s end to be able to toggle between students and for individualized support and
feedback. Participant 2 reported allowing students to switch between devices (Chromebook,
iPad, and cell phones) to access resources to maintain student engagement. While they tried
various tools, Participant 2 realized that students “did not know how to manage different
tabs…how to listen to me and also not delete the zoom call and then go on another tab at the
same time.” Ultimately, Participant 2 said they shifted all learning to Google classroom to
80
maintain engagement. Participant 4 shared they aimed for “heavily interactive” instruction; they
“didn’t want more than 3 minutes to go by before students were either speaking, trying to model
an idea on their own, or drawing something for the teacher or peers to see.” In addition to Google
platforms, participants shared use of Pear Deck, Google Jamboard, Schoology, Desmos, videos,
and webcams to engage students.
Learning about students’ cultural perspectives (Miller, 2021; Gay, 2018) and encouraging
student emotions (Cleveland-Innes & Campbell, 2012; O’Regan, 2003) are practices that have
been found to support monitoring and motivating students in online environments, as shared in
Chapter 2. Five participants shared family and community dynamics that influenced instructional
decisions, specifically student and family access to and comfort with technology use, parent and
family involvement in supporting student learning, access to childcare resources, and access to
translation services. Participant 6 shared a comprehensive focus on trauma informed instruction
and culturally responsive instruction in engaging with students. All participants encouraged
students to share experiences and emotions related to the pandemic or personal situations.
Teachers reported that they promoted student sharing during one-on-one conversations, advisory
periods, informal check ins before and after class, or formal lunch periods where students were
invited to engage with the teacher and peers.
Facilitating discourse was the final approach aligned with the assumed knowledge
influence of facilitating online instruction presented in Chapter 2 and included two practices:
verbal and non-verbal interactions such as eye contact, humor, and gestures (Gorham, 1988;
LaRose & Whitten, 2000; Richardson & Swan, 2001; Ting and Jiang, 2000; Weiner &
Mehrabian, 1968) and facilitating meaningful peer interactions (Bernard et al., 2009; Schwarz,
2017). All 10 participants prioritized written interactions with students when audio/visual
81
connections were not possible. Teachers reported using Google docs, chat, or feedback on
assignments as written methods of communication. Four participants tied student engagement to
a sense of informality or humor. Participant 3 shared that the compliance measures that were in
place before remote instruction “dissipated,” which led to a “culture shift towards levity.” For
Participant 3, the cultural shift included “being comfortable showing a little bit more of myself.”
Participants 2 and 6 reported that they conducted virtual “apartment tours” to show students their
living spaces and encouraged students to do the same. Participant 9 reported being intentional
about interacting with the co-teachers with humor: “Students saw us joking and lively, which
helped create a foundation of this class can be fun, we care about you, and we want to make sure
you recognize there are four adults here to make sure that you’re learning information.”
All participants reported encouraging instances of facilitated or unfacilitated peer
interactions. Participants built in time in the lesson or daily schedule for students to virtually
engage with one another, share personal experiences, and get to know each other. In addition to
structured time, two participants built on and encouraged informal connections students were
making with each other outside of instructional time. Participant 3 stated they knew that students
had built informal networks through video conferencing because students would report doing
homework together. Participant 4 started an informal group for poetry writing after a student
submitted a poem to the instructor and the participants asked for the student’s permission to
share the poem with other students.
Summary of Findings for Knowledge Influences
Findings for three knowledge factors contributing to online teacher engagement were
examined in this section: teachers’ ability to organize and design online content, deliver online
content, and facilitate online instruction. Responses from six or fewer participants demonstrated
82
data consistent with the assumed influences presented in Chapter 2. Therefore, all three
knowledge influences were categorized as needs in this study.
Motivational Influences
This section presents findings for three assumed motivational influences. These three
influences included teachers’ perceptions of the utility of online instruction, teachers’ self-
efficacy in online instruction, and teachers’ attribution of student outcomes to the teacher’s effort
and competency in online instruction. The findings were labeled as an asset when seven or more
of the participants valued the utility of online learning, were confident in their instructional
abilities, and believed that their instructional behaviors directly resulted in sustained or increased
student achievement. The findings were labeled as a need when six or fewer participants did not
agree with the statements related to motivational influences.
Teachers Valued the Utility of Online Instruction
Utility value is defined as the perceptions of applicability of a task to one’s future
(Eccles, 2006). Participant perceptions of the utility value of online instruction were categorized
from responses related to the value teachers placed on online instruction. Seven participants
shared applicability of online instructional methods in future teaching, as presented in Table 14.
However, Participant 10 shared that their experience with online instruction at their organization
has led them to believe that “online teaching is wildly ineffective.”
83
Table 14
Teacher Perceptions of Utility Value of Online Instructional Methods
Participant Perception of utility value of online instructional methods
Participant 2 Teacher reported continued use of Google Classroom as a
technology platform during in person instruction for student
access to resources and communication.
Participant 3 Teacher suggested online instruction as a method to support
academic remediation (i.e., Saturday school or summer
school) or engagement during extended classroom absences
(i.e., trips).
Participant 4 Teacher shared that the online platform used during the 2020–
2021 school year was still being used because “we see a lot
of value in its visual capabilities.” Teacher also shared
having “new tools to accomplish what I want to do with
providing meaningful feedback quickly, the importance of
modeling, and making thinking visible.”
Participant 5 Teacher shared that certain children “flourished” and
“blossomed” in an online environment. If students were
taught how to learn online, “remote and online learning can
be a wonderful option for a lot of kids.”
Participant 6 “Technology can help differentiate and help kids see and
understand something that I can’t do verbally.”
Participant 7 “I think [online instruction] is very valuable because when
you structure online instruction in an optimal way, they
don’t have to be on campus to get the same instruction.”
Participant 8 Teacher reported using instruction platform used in 2020–
2021 in current in person instruction: “I used to have a
whole cabinet full of graphic organizers and now they are
neatly on the computer. There’s no way I’m going back.”
84
Teachers Self-Efficacy in Online Instruction Increased in 2020–2021
Seven participants reported feeling “more comfortable” or “more confident” in teaching
online because of the 2020–2021 school year. Table 15 shares participant responses
demonstrating increased confidence in online instructional methods. Participant 10 shared
increased confidence in their ability to teach online but paired this with “less confidence in the
effectiveness of remote learning in general, at least in the way I experienced it.”
However, Participants 4 and 5 reported decreased confidence. Participant 4 shared “I
don’t feel confident that I was the best teacher last year. I’m much more hesitant. If I had to
teach students online with no prior relationships, I don’t know if I would be as successful as I am
in during a normal year.” Participant 5 shared that their confidence level in online instruction
“might have gotten worse” and “I would love to never have to do remote teaching again.”
85
Table 15
Teacher Responses Demonstrating Increased Confidence in Online Instructional Methods
Participant Perception of confidence in online instructional methods
Participant 1 “I feel more comfortable now. I have gotten very comfortable
collaborating and multitasking on the computer. Could I
effectively teach online? Assuming no barriers for anyone
on the other end? Of course, I could.”
Participant 2 “My confidence did go up. I almost felt like I fought a war
and was able to survive and pull my troops with me and
then come out successful.”
Participant 3 Shared that they started the 2020–2021 school year with high
confidence in their ability to teach online.
Participant 6 “My confidence in teaching has increased because now I
know what’s possible. I feel better because I figured out
what works for me and how my teaching style looks like
online.”
Participant 7 Shared confidence in both in person and online methods
because they were “self-motivated to learning different
platforms and resources to create something that was
optimal for my students and work out better for me.”
Participant 8 “I felt very well prepared. My [teacher preparation] program
had a huge focus on online teaching and learning so for me
it was cool to finally use the skills.”
Teachers Attributed Student Outcomes to Their Online Instructional Abilities
All 10 participants directly tied specific instructional practices to student outcomes.
When speaking about the organization, instruction, and facilitation of materials, teachers
consistently made decisions based on student engagement and performance. Table 16 shares
specific examples of teacher attributions of outcomes to instructional ability.
86
Table 16
Teacher Responses Demonstrating Attributions of Student Outcomes to Instructional Ability
Participant Attributions of student outcomes to instructional ability
Participant 1 “Students are getting better at making observations and using
evidence to explain what is going on. I can sense that
students got better things that I wanted them to get better at,
even if they didn’t get to the level that I would want them to
be at the end of the year.”
Participant 2 “I felt like I was a novice teacher again six years in. But the
work and product that came at the end of it and the
relationships and connections I have with students were
done well.” Reported students sharing “you taught us so
much. We need you next year to continue learning English.”
Participant 3 “Online teaching was harder, but I do think kids knew that we
were in school. This portal was no different than the
classroom with no difference in expectations.”
Participant 4 Reported impact of classroom instructional strategies on “the
entire culture of our school.” This perceived impact “helped
us realize early on the importance of visualizing our work
and communicating with each other.”
Participant 5 “If I were more confident and laid out foundations differently,
I think that my group could have been more successful.”
Participant 6 “I do think I was a good teacher. But I define my ability to
teach well on my students’ success and I don’t think anyone
can feel like they’re a good teacher. That’s because, in terms
of meeting and learning math standards, my students didn’t
meet them. I feel a lot of guilt because kids deserve better.”
Participant 7 “When students saw routines, plans, and structures I had, they
stepped up to it. They knew what was expected. They were
successful and I’m not going to take credit because they had
to step up to it themselves.”
Participant 8 Reported their class provided students a sense of normalcy
which “made them able to relax. They would show up ready
to go. I was super proud of them. I think they wanted to be
there.”
87
Summary of Findings for Motivational Influences
Findings for three motivational factors contributing to online teacher engagement were
examined in this section: teachers’ perceptions of the utility of online instruction, teachers’ self-
efficacy in online instruction, and teachers’ attribution of student outcomes to the teacher’s effort
and competency in online instruction. Responses from seven or more participants for each factor
demonstrated all three motivational influences as assets in this study.
Findings for Research Question 2
Influences within a school environment impact teachers’ motivational perception
(Goddard et al., 2004). Despite the barriers and challenges, teachers working at high need
schools who reported having a highly supportive school culture reported a high degree of success
with online instruction (Kraft & Simon, 2020). This section presents findings for three assumed
organizational influences presented in Chapter 3 as essential for successful teacher engagement
in high need schools: the availability of technical resources for teachers and students, the
availability of curricular resources for online instruction, and a culture of collective efficacy. The
findings were labeled as an asset when seven or more of the participants shared positive
perceptions of the availability of the organizational influence. The findings were labeled as a
need when six or less participants did not agree with the statements related to organizational
influences.
Teacher Reported Access to Technical Resources for Teachers and Students With Challenges
Participant responses indicated schools ensured teachers and students had access to
technical resources. All 10 participants reported that teachers and students used Google
classroom to organize and share documents and Zoom to engage in synchronous instruction.
Participants 7 and 9 also used the Schoology platform. Eight participants shared steps taken by
88
schools to ensure students and teachers received access to Wi-Fi, iPads, and Chromebooks for
the 2020–2021 school year. Participants 1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 mentioned that they already had
personal devices from previous years that they continued to use during the 2020–2021 school
year. Participant 3 shared that “ninety percent of kids had access to technology. It wasn’t perfect,
it wasn’t done smoothly, but kids did have it.” As a result, ensuring teachers and students access
to technical resources was deemed an asset.
Challenges emerged in responses from 5 participants related to access to technical
resources for teachers. Participant 2 mentioned that their school did not prioritize teacher access
to technology: “It was a really difficult process. I had to get a computer from the DOE that took
seven months to get. My cousin helped get Google Chromebooks for me and my students.”
Participant 7 shared that “Chromebooks were not optimal for making lessons engaging and
interesting. I used my own laptop. A lot of teachers used Donors Choose to get some
equipment.” Participant 8 observed that access to technical resources for teachers varied between
content departments.
Challenges also emerged in responses from 6 participants related to access to technical
resources for students. Participant 1 mentioned delays in students receiving devices from their
district office. Participant 8 reported that several students did not pick up devices from schools at
the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year. Participants 6 and 10 mentioned a lack of clarity
and accountability for ensuring that technology was being used effectively and efficiently as
student Wi-Fi and devices were being shared by family members. Participants 6, 7, 8, and 9
shared that students and families needed training on how to access and use devices, which was
not provided by the schools. Participant 9 noted that “the Chromebooks were outdated. We were
talking to parents on the phone verbally telling them how to update these old computers.”
89
Participant 6 mentioned that “giving kids equipment and the internet doesn’t mean they know
what to do with it.” They described the rollout of technology for students as “an absolute
disaster.”
Teachers Reported Schools Provided Inadequate Curricular Resources to Support Instruction
All participants experienced receiving inadequate curricular resources to support online
instruction from their organizations. The lack of quality professional development emerged as a
barrier. Participant 4 noted “there wasn’t a lot of support” in transitioning to online curriculum
from the school. Professional development provided by schools was described as “very basic
beginner stuff” by Participant 8. Participant 7 shared that “the district had [curriculum resources]
for us but if you were not tech savvy it was hard to access it.” Participant 10’s experience with
online teaching was ‘really emotionally taxing because my fellow remote teachers and I were not
provided institutional and school supports.” According to Participant 1, “rigor across curriculum
was less emphasized [by administrators] given the constraints of how much we were actually
able to teach and the engagement we had with student.”
Teachers also noted not having curricular support in special need areas. This finding is
consistent with Byrd and Alexandar’s 2020 study which shared that general education teachers
do not have a robust set of skills or knowledge on how to support students with special needs in
their classrooms. Three participants were teaching classes with a high number of students with
special needs without additional training, curricular supports, or skilled co-teachers. Participant 2
noted the impact of a changing student body: “Eight students didn’t speak English [and] were
reading Spanish at a pre-kindergarten reading level in Spanish. I had no support. I asked for an
ENL teacher and [the school] told me no. I didn’t have a special education teacher until the
second semester.” Participant 10 reported teaching five classes across three grade levels with
90
students mandated to have integrated co-teaching without the support of a teacher credentialed in
special education. Participated 6 also shared not having instruction support despite having five
online students with individual education plans.
Teacher Responses Indicated Elements of a Culture of Collective Efficacy
Collaboration is a source of collective efficacy beliefs (Goddard et al., 2004), which
emerged as an organizational support for teachers during the transition to online instruction in
participant responses. Teachers reported building knowledge and capacity through collaboration
at their respective school sites. Teacher persistence, resilience, effort, and willingness to try new
teaching approaches are observable in environments with a culture of collective efficacy
(Hoogsteen, 2020). Table 17 shares quotes from participants that indicate a culture of collective
efficacy through collaboration and persistence during change at their respective schools.
The role administrators played in promoting teacher collaboration varied in interview
responses. Multiple participants shared teacher-directed collaboration as opposed to school
leadership. “The senior teaching staff took on informal leadership opportunities within the school
to provide professional development” at Participant 3’s school. Participant 4 shared that teachers
“really depended on kind of our individual research and some people we knew informally in
other schools to figure out what worked best for our immediate needs and our students.” At
Participant 10’s school, “the remote [teachers] set up this time period from 8:30 to 9:00 that was
like a prep time and meeting time.” According to Participant 10, administrators discouraged
these daily meetings and they had to stop. Participant 6 directly attributed the school’s ability to
infuse culturally relevant pedagogy into online instruction to the priorities set by the
administrator in past years: “Relationship building was not a foreign concept to use as a school
because of the administrator’s leadership and priorities.”
91
Table 17
Teacher Responses Indicating Elements of Collective Efficacy
Participant Responses indicating elements of collective efficacy
Participant 3 “There was a switch where teachers communicated with other
teachers about some of the more effective digital forms of
remote teaching. That’s when there was much more of a
recovery in academic performance because teachers learned
how to use and share documents and best practices for
online teaching.”
Participant 4 “Luckily we had a good network of teachers to keep trying
things and be persistent with it.”
Participant 5 Participant noted that the focus for the year was on social
emotional health. “Early in the school year [administrators
and teachers] brainstormed our priorities and we decided
that our priority was making sure everyone’s healthy.”
Participant 7 Participant shared that they unofficially mentored a co-teacher
who was a novice teacher during a co-taught class: “She
observed me for a while and then she started. We ended up
planning lessons for different days. That’s how we built our
curriculum.”
Participant 9 “My colleague really encouraged findings ways of [making
online learning fun]. I was so appreciative because I don’t
think that would have been on my mind.”
Participant shared that the structure set up in a cotaught
classroom, “ended up being a lot of fun. The class structure
made it feel a lot more like this is something we can do. It
doesn’t have to be terrible. We just had the ability to do it
and we took advantage of it.”
Participant 10 “I spoke with my team and friends who are SpEd teachers and
asked them what to do. I tried every manner to get kids
engaged. Then you get tired, like this sheet is not working.
So, then you find and stick to one thing, like sharing Google
docs and just work on that. Then you start to make a little
progress with that and add to it. At least you know that
routines are very important, and expectations are very
important and you learn to let go of the little obstacles.”
92
Findings for three organizational factors contributing to online teacher engagement were
examined in this section: the availability of technical resources for teachers and students, the
availability of curricular resources for online instruction, and a culture of collective efficacy.
Responses from seven or more participants regarding the availability of technical resources
demonstrated this influence as an asset in this study, albeit with challenges. Responses from
seven or more participants regarding the lack of curricular resources demonstrated the
organizational factor as a need in this study. Responses from seven or more participants
demonstrated a culture of collective efficacy as an asset in this study.
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences’ Data
Of the nine assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on teacher
engagement in online environments presented in Chapter 3, four were deemed as needs and five
were assets. Table 18 presents the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences
explored in this study and their determination as an asset or a need.
93
Table 18
Assumed Influences Deemed As Assets or Needs
Assumed influence Asset or need
Teachers need to be able to design and organize online content. Need
Teachers need to be able to deliver instruction in an online
environment.
Need
Teachers need to be able to facilitate online instruction through
nurturing a caring and safe environment, monitoring and
motivating student engagement, and facilitating discourse
Need
Teachers value the utility of online instruction. Asset
Teachers need to be confident they can design, deliver, and
facilitate effective online instruction.
Asset
Teachers need to believe that their instructional behaviors
directly result in sustained or increased student achievement.
Asset
Schools need to provide technical resources that support
teachers and students in an online learning model, including
in work from home situations.
Asset
Schools need to provide curricular resources to support teacher
lesson planning and delivery in an online environment.
Need
Schools need to have a culture of collective efficacy for online
instruction.
Asset
94
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This study examined the factors influencing teacher engagement in an online
environment among sixth through 12th grade teachers employed at high need schools during the
2020–2021 school year. Teacher engagement was described as quality course content design,
instructional delivery, and facilitation of online interactions. The possible needs associated with
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture related to teacher engagement in online
instruction were categorized using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model. Ten teachers
participated in a semi-structured interview with 15 questions aimed at uncovering information on
the assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences presented in Chapter 2.
Influences were identified as a need if six or fewer participants reported influences consistent
with the assumed influences presented in Chapter 3.
Discussion of Findings
The sudden shift to online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic left teachers with
the tremendous burden of supporting our students academically, socially, and emotionally with
little to no support. Participants in this study demonstrated limited or a lack of understanding in
three assumed knowledge influences: organizing and designing instruction, delivering
instruction, and facilitating instruction. These findings were consistent with conclusions from
numerous studies on the lack of training teachers receive in online instruction (Archambault &
Kennedy, 2016; Kennedy & Ferdig, 2018) and barriers to planning and testing technology
integration prior to instruction (Hechter & Vermette, 2013; Kale & Goh, 2014). The quality of
professional development offered to teachers was also ineffective (Garcia & Weiss, 2020). In
order to adequately support teachers in the integration of technology and future emergency
remote learning situations, additional training and support would be required to develop a new
95
skill set among teachers. Quality in-person pedagogy cannot guarantee quality online teaching
(Alvarez et al., 2009; Oomen-Early & Murphy, 2009). Organizational supports were also lacking
to build teacher skills. Specifically, seven participants reported needing support with instructing
students with special needs in online environments. This organizational need is consistent with
past findings that online pedagogy often does not consider the needs of students with disabilities
(Barbour, 2018; Lawrence, 2020). The recommendations presented in the following section
include methods of supporting teachers with curricular materials to address this need paired with
training and mentoring.
Teachers showed drive, resourcefulness, and camaraderie when faced with online
instruction. Findings related to motivational influences in this study revealed that seven or more
teachers reported increased confidence and value in online instruction. All participants directly
tied instructional practices to student outcomes and made instructional decisions based on
student engagement and performance. Seven participants shared methods of incorporating
elements of online instruction in future practice. The field global goal of technology integration
to reduce educational inequities can only be accomplished with teacher motivation as an asset.
Based on conclusions from this study, motivational influences were embedded in the proposed
training program presented in Chapter 5 to augment recommendations.
Further, teachers reported a culture of collective efficacy at their respective school sites in
this study. Teachers shared the integral role collaboration and a supportive school environment
played in building knowledge and capacity for online instruction at their respective school sites.
Methods of maintaining collective efficacy will be integrated into the proposed training solution
to augment recommendations. Kraft and Simon have found that teachers who report a highly
supportive school environment particularly valued targeted professional development,
96
meaningful collaboration, and effective communication (2020). This finding emphasizes the
importance of school culture on teacher performance and intended student outcomes.
Schools prioritized providing students and teachers access to technology during school
shutdowns (Lee, 2020; Borup et al., 2020; Domina et al., 2021), albeit with drawbacks. Findings
related to organizational influences revealed that technical resources were provided for teachers
and students in this study. Eight participants shared steps taken by schools to ensure students and
teachers received access to Wi-Fi, iPads, and Chromebooks for the 2020–2021 school year.
However, participants shared challenges related to the technology access as well, which is
consistent with Stelitano’s findings that access to technological resources for both teachers and
students was a common barrier reported by teachers during school shutdowns (2020).
The findings revealed there was a need to develop essential knowledge of teachers and
provide organizational supports so that teachers working in online environments remain
motivated to reduce the educational inequities in high need schools. The next section proposes
recommendations to address needs in knowledge and organizational influences. The solutions
will be integrated with the four phases of the new world model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) to propose a training program to address needs.
Recommendations
Six recommendations are presented to address knowledge influences deemed as needs for
Grade 6–12 teacher engagement in online instruction: teachers’ ability to design and organize,
deliver, and facilitate online instruction. The recommendations align with Clark and Estes’
(2008) proposed four categories of solutions for addressing needs: information, job aids, training,
and education. Two additional recommendations are presented to address the organizational need
for schools to provide curricular resources that support teacher lesson planning and delivery in an
97
online environment. Motivational and organizational influences that were identified as assets
augment recommendations provided in the integrated training program, which follows the sub-
sections on the knowledge and organizational recommendations.
Knowledge Recommendations
Findings revealed a gap in all three procedural knowledge influences among participants.
Procedural knowledge includes the skills and techniques on how to complete tasks (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Needs were noted in the areas of designing and organizing online content,
delivering instruction in online environments, and facilitating online instruction. Facilitation of
instruction included nurturing a caring and safe environment, monitoring and motivating student
engagement, and facilitating discourse. Less than six of 10 participants were able to share
instructional methods that demonstrated thorough understanding and application of each
procedural knowledge influence.
Clark and Estes (2008) categorize solutions for knowledge gaps as information, job aids,
training, and education. Providing individuals with knowledge to perform on their own is
information; instructions detailing steps to follow are job aids; information with job aids,
practice, and feedback are features of training; and providing conceptual and theoretical
knowledge to build individuals’ understanding and critical thinking is education (Clark & Estes,
2008). Table 19 identifies recommendations for each assumed knowledge influence validated
through data analysis. The recommendations detailed in Table 19 include solutions in the form of
information, training, and education.
98
Table 19
Summary of Knowledge Needs and Recommendations
Knowledge
influence need
Practice and research-based support Recommendation
Teachers need to be
able to design and
organize online
content.
Training in technology integration
should be grounded in competency
domains that specify
understandings teachers should
develop and practice (Oliver &
Townsend, 2013).
Training in use of technology should
focus on student-centered pedagogy
(Oliver & Townsend, 2013).
Provide information on
online teaching
competencies.
Provide training on methods
of technology use grounded
in student-centered
pedagogy.
Teachers need to be
able to deliver
instruction in an
online
environment.
Quality job-embedded professional
development delivered
approximately 49 hours over 6 to
12 months can increase student
achievement (Yoon et al., 2007)
Provide coaching, modeling, and
scaffolded support during
performance to enhance learning
(Mayer, 2011)
Include opportunities for teachers to
self-evaluate and adjust learning
(Denler et al., 2009).
Provide remote training on
online teaching
methodologies and student-
centered resources over a
span of 6 to 12 months.
Provide training through
ongoing observations and
feedback, including
opportunities for self-
reflection.
Teachers need to be
able to facilitate
online instruction
through nurturing a
caring and safe
environment,
monitoring and
motivating student
engagement, and
facilitating
discourse
The ability to make use of research-
based approaches are crucial to
teachers’ practice (Bottcher-
Oschmann et al., 2021)
Analyzing data on student online
engagement supports instructional
adjustments that improve student
interactions and discourse
(Naujokaitiene, 2020)
Educate teachers on
conceptual knowledge of
online facilitation and
student engagement.
Train teachers on how to
collect and analyze student
engagement data to inform
instructional facilitation.
99
Teachers need to be able to design and organize, deliver, and facilitate online content. In
this study, participant responses shared a mixed understanding of how to design and organize
and facilitate online content; the participants possessed a limited understanding of how to deliver
online content. The findings were labeled as “mixed” when seven or more of the participants
demonstrated understanding of select practices but lack of understanding in the remaining
practices aligned with each assumed knowledge influence. The findings were labeled as
“limited” when seven or more of the participants demonstrated a lack of a comprehensive
understanding of all practices aligned with each assumed knowledge influence as identified in
Chapter 2.
The first recommendation is to provide teachers information on online teaching
competencies and training on methods of technology use grounded in student-centered
pedagogy. Teachers need exposure to technical skills for setting up, integrating, and
troubleshooting technology (Kumar & Vigil, 2011). Technology integration should focus on
student-centered goals, such as making clear curricular connections, fostering student-teacher
and student-student communications, embedding teaching methodologies, and promoting higher-
order thinking skills (Oliver & Townsend, 2013). Training should be grounded in competency
domains that specify understandings teachers should develop and practice (Oliver & Townsend,
2013). For example, Guzman and Nussbaum (2009) listed six competency domains for
technology integration: “instrumental/technological, pedagogical/curricular,
didactic/methodological, evaluative/investigative, communicational/relational, and
personal/attitudinal” (p. 467).
The second recommendation is to deliver remote job-embedded training over a span of 6
to 12 months with opportunities for observation, feedback, and self-reflection. Teachers need to
100
be able to deliver instruction in an online environment. Mayer (2011) recommended providing
coaching, modeling, and scaffolded support during performance to enhance learning.
Additionally, Denler et al. (2009) suggested including opportunities for reflection and adjusting
instruction during training. This suggests included job-embedded training opportunities that
allow for feedback, reflection, and growth. Rahmadi (2021) found teachers are more likely to use
technological platforms and devices integrated in their daily lives in remote instruction. This
suggests participants will benefit from training delivered remotely using classroom friendly
platforms. Finally, the training period must also be considered; Yoon (2007) found that quality
job-embedded training delivered approximately 49 hours over 6 to 12 months can increase
student achievement. As a result, the training recommended follows this approach of job-
embedded training over a 6–12-month period.
Third, teachers need to be able to facilitate online instruction. Kumar and Vigil (2011)
found that informal experiences teachers have with social networking and online collaboration
do not translate into online instructional facilitation. Analyzing data on student online
engagement supports instructional adjustments that improve student interactions and discourse
(Naujokaitiene, 2020). This suggests an understanding of how to collect, analyze, and use data.
Bottcher-Oschmann et al. (2021) found that the ability to make data driven decisions using
research-based approaches are crucial to teachers’ practice. The third recommendation is to
educate teachers on the conceptual knowledge of student engagement and train teachers on how
to collect and analyze student engagement data to inform instructional facilitation.
Organizational Recommendations
Three organizational factors contributing to online teacher engagement were examined in
this study: the availability of technical resources for teachers and students, the availability of
101
curricular resources for online instruction, and a culture of collective efficacy. Responses from
seven or more participants indicated that one of the assumed organizational influences, the
availability of curricular resources, was an organizational need in this study. Table 20 shares
recommendations to address the organizational need.
102
Table 20
Summary of Organizational Needs and Recommendations
Organizational
influence need
Practice and research-based
support
Recommendation
Schools need to
provide curricular
resources to support
teacher lesson
planning and
delivery in an online
environment.
Schools need to provide curricular
supports that target students’
academic development because
of the pandemic (Domina et al.,
2021).
The administrator’s role at a
school site includes facilitating
and guiding teachers through the
process of adopting, practicing,
and sharing knowledge around
curricular supports (Bratt, 1991).
Providing special education
training for general education
teachers and school leaders will
support teacher capacity,
alleviate the demands on special
education teachers, and increase
outcomes for all students
(Ondrasek et al., 2020).
Educating disadvantaged students
requires twice the cost as
educating students from affluent
backgrounds (Duncombe &
Yinger, 2004)
Consider instructional goals and
approaches during budget
development to ensure fiscal
resources are supporting desired
improvement efforts (Willis et
al., 2019)
Provide administrators and
teachers education and
training on curricular
supports for academic
development of students
with special needs as well
as all learners.
Provide administrators
training on how to support
teachers to implement
curricular resources for
students with special
needs.
Allocate budget for
resources support
instruction.
103
The first recommendation to address the organizational need in this study is to include
education and training on curricular strategies for students with special needs for administrators
and general education teachers. In this study, all participants reported curricular needs for their
online classes during the 2020–2021 school year. Three participants reported teaching classes
with a high number of students with special needs without additional training, adapted
curriculum for diverse learners, or skilled co-teachers. Schools need to provide curricular
supports that target students’ academic development because of the pandemic (Domina et al.,
2021). Providing special education training for general education teachers and school
administrators will support teacher capacity, alleviate the demands on special education teachers,
and increase outcomes for all students (Ondrasek et al., 2020).
A second recommendation is to increase the capacity of administrators through training
to support teachers with implementing curricular resources for students with special needs.
Administrators were not the primary stakeholder of this study, but they play a significant role in
supporting teachers in professional development. The administrator’s role at a school site
includes facilitating and guiding teachers through the process of adopting, practicing, and sharing
knowledge around curricular supports (Bratt, 1991). Ondrasek et al. (2020) found that many
administrators lack a basic understanding of special education needs and supports.
The final recommendation is to allocate funding and resources to support instruction.
Duncombe and Yinger (2004) have found that resources required for educating students in high
need contexts requires up to double the cost as educating students from affluent backgrounds.
Willis et al. (2019) recommended keeping instructional goals and approaches at the forefront
during budget development to ensure fiscal resources are supporting desired improvement
efforts.
104
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The effectiveness of the proposed training solutions for addressing gaps in teacher
performance in online environments will be assessed through an integrated implementation and
evaluation plan guided by the new world model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The training
solution, ABC Training Program, will include both a remote online training component for
teachers and in-person facilitation for teachers over a period of 6 to 12 months.
The training evaluation model for ABC Training Program will be developed in four
levels: the fourth level focuses on the results of the change effort by examining leading
indicators related to desired outcomes, the third level focuses on monitoring critical stakeholder
behavior related to the change process and methods of reinforcing performance, the second level
assess stakeholder perceptions of motivational influences, and the first level studies stakeholder
satisfaction and reactions to the overall training experience. The four levels will be further
described in the following sections to detail the implementation and evaluation plan for ABC
Training Program.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Results and indicators for Level 4 of the Kirkpatrick model are internal and external
outcomes that demonstrate a high level of organizational performance (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 21 outlines the external and internal outcomes related to implementing
the ABC Training Program to address knowledge and organizational needs. The intention of the
ABC Training Program is to increase student achievement, and students are being considered as
external stakeholders for the training program because the primary stakeholders of this study and
the proposed training program are teachers.
105
Table 21
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Evaluating Teacher Training Program
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External outcomes
Academic outcomes
increase for online
students.
State testing shows passing scores
for online Grade 6–12 students.
State test reports released in
August annually.
Academic outcomes
increase for online
students with
special needs.
State testing shows passing scores
for online Grade 6–12 students
with special needs.
State test reports released in
August annually.
Internal outcome
Teachers deliver high
quality instruction
in online
environments.
Online teachers receive passing
scores on annual school-based
performance evaluations.
Annual performance
evaluations during spring
semester conducted by
school administrator.
Level 3: Behavior
Level 3 outlines specific behaviors that are required to achieve Level 4 outcomes. This
phase includes critical behaviors and required drivers. The focus is on the application of key
understandings and skills that are acquired during training to drive organizational change
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The critical behaviors tied to the ABC Training Program are
specified, observed, and measured. Change in teacher performance is driven by the metrics,
methods, and timing of the critical behaviors. Three critical behaviors are proposed as part of the
implementation and evaluation plan. The first critical behavior is teachers engage in remote
online training elements daily. Metric collected from the ABC Training Program system will
include the individual and group average time spent interacting with the ABC Training Program
and individual and group percent completion of ABC Training Program elements. The
administrator will gather data from program on a weekly and quarterly basis.
106
Teacher Critical Behaviors. The second critical behavior is teacher engagement in
monthly job-embedded training as part of the ABC Training Program. Teacher collaboration will
be incuded in the job-embedded training; Schleicher (2016) found that opportunities for
collaboration among teachers as part of training support promotes teacher self-efficacy, which
emerged as a motivational asset among participants in this study. Teacher collaboration has also
been found to positively influence student learning (Vescio et al., 2008), which will impact Level
4 desired outcomes in the implementation plan for ABC Training Program. The metrics gathered
for the critical behavior include the instances of the use of information and job aids towards
developing student-centered online instruction and the number of positive survey responses on
ABC Training Program elements from participants. The ABC Training Program facilitator will
gather the metrics monthly for the administrators to use during ongoing support.
The third critical behavior is teacher review of ABC Training Program reports for
feedback, reflection, and goal setting on a weekly basis. The metrics collected for this critical
behavior would be the submission of a weekly reflection report from teachers. Administrators
would collect the reports to inform weekly observations and feedback to teachers. Teachers
would also share from their weekly reflection reports during monthly meetings as part of the
ABC Training Program.
Required Drivers. Drivers reinforce critical behaviors through accountability and
support and include four categories: monitoring, reinforcing, encouraging, and rewarding
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 22 outlines required drivers for the ABC Training
Program.
107
Table 22
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s)
Timing
Critical
behaviors
supported
Reinforcing
ABC Training Program provides teachers with individual and
group-based information, training, education, and job aids in
a remote online environment.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
ABC Training Program provides leadership training to
administrators.
Monthly 1, 3
ABC Training Program provides key competencies for training
and evaluation components tied to online instruction
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Administrators determine personalized goals for ABC Training
Program for teachers
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Administrators provide opportunities for collaboration among
teachers
Ongoing 2, 3
Administrators require completion of ABC Training Program
elements
Weekly 1
Encouraging
Administrators provided observation feedback and scaffolded
support
Ongoing 2, 3
Teachers link student data outcomes to teacher engagement and
personalized ABC Training Program goals
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Administrators acknowledge teacher performance during
meetings and communications
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Teachers and administrators monitor progress on ABC
Training Program.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Teachers and administrators monitor student performance data Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Level 2: Learning
Level 2 addresses learnings and attitude participants gain through training, which include
knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment of participants (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The following sections demonstrate how the ABC Training Program
108
elements will establish learning goals, program structures, and evaluation components of
learning to support participant performance growth.
Learning goals. Teachers will be able to demonstrate the following upon implementing
the recommendations described in Tables 23, 24, and 25.
1. Design, organize, and deliver instruction in an online environment (procedural
knowledge).
2. Nurture a caring and safe environment for students online (procedural knowledge).
3. Monitor and motivate student engagement (procedural knowledge).
4. Analyze student engagement data to inform online instructional practice (attribution).
5. Recognize value of technology in instructional practice (utility value).
6. Demonstrate confidence in their ability to teach online (self-efficacy).
Program. The training solution, ABC Training Program, will include a remote online
training component, in-person collaborative training sessions, and ongoing observations and
feedback for teachers over a period of six months. Teachers will engage in the remote online
training component on a weekly basis and in-person sessions monthly. The ongoing observations
and feedback will be provided through weekly observation walk-throughs conducted by the
administrators. ABC Training Program will also provide administrators with training and support
on how to lead teachers through change towards desired outcomes.
Opportunities for reflection will be embedded in the ABC Training Program to build
motivation. Reflecting on the interconnectedness of self-efficacy and attribution of student
achievement can strengthen teaching (Van der Zanden, 2013); both teacher self-efficacy and
attribution of student achievement emerged as assets in this study. Therefore, teachers will be
given the opportunity to reflect on the relationship between student outcomes and online
109
teaching performance on a weekly basis to augment motivational influences on teacher
performance. Further, Kale and Akcaoglu (2018) have suggested that reflecting on role of
technology increased utility value of technology for future practice. Opportunities for reflection
will also include prompts regarding the incorporation of technology in future lessons.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning. The effectiveness of the ABC Training
Program in meeting program learning goals will be assessed through a variety of methods and
activities. The methods are categorized into declarative knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence,
and commitment of teachers towards the training program. The purpose of establishing
evaluation criteria for learnings supports the expectation of engaging in and learning from the
ABC Training Program. Table 23 outlines the methods and activities used to evaluate the
components of learning.
110
Table 23
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
Competency aligned diagnostic tasks. September
Diagnostic checks prior to monthly meetings At the beginning of
meeting
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now.”
Role play during monthly meetings During meetings
Formative tasks presented during weekly remote training Weekly
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Administrators observe teacher participation in weekly training
reports
Weekly
Administrators observe teacher participation in monthly meetings Monthly
Administrators receive weekly goal-setting report Weekly
Provide participant surveys to monitor utility value. Monthly
Completer survey with utility-value scale administered two
months after program completion.
February
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Administrators and teachers discuss setbacks and obstacles to
meeting program learning goals
Ongoing
Administrators scaffold supports for teachers Ongoing
Share student performance and outcomes related to teacher
performance on ABC Training Program learning goals
Ongoing
Completer survey with confidence scale administered two months
after program completion.
February
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Provide participants surveys to monitor application of learnings
to future lessons.
At the end of
meetings
Competency aligned teacher evaluations at the end of ABC
Training Program
December
Level 1: Reaction
The engagement and reaction of participants is the focus of Level 1, which includes three
categories: engagement, customer satisfaction, and relevance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Ideally, stakeholders are actively participating in and contributing to the meetings, believe the
111
training is pertinent to their work, and find the program elements favorable. Table 24 outlines
components used to measure participant reactions to the program.
Table 24
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Weekly training and tasks through remote instruction Weekly
Observation walk-throughs Weekly
Collaborative training meetings Monthly
Relevance
Participants’ feedback survey At the end of
meetings
Program evaluation two months after completion February
Customer Satisfaction
Participants’ feedback survey At the end of
meetings
Program evaluation at completion of program December
112
Data Analysis and Reporting. The Kirkpatrick evaluation model adopted for the ABC
Training Program’s integration and evaluation plan identifies four levels of data collection and
analysis. The model seeks to understand the degree to which participants positively experience
training (Level 1), the degree to which participants acquire knowledge, skills, and motivation
intended by the training (Level 2), the degree to which participants apply learnings on the job
(Level 3), and the degree to which training results in targeted outcomes (Level 4). In this
manner, the plan defines outcomes followed by levels of data that contribute to achieving the set
outcomes. By following the levels of the implementation and evaluation plan, the improved
practice of teachers will result in higher student academic outcomes and effective instruction in
an online environment.
Stakeholder data outlined in Levels 1, 2, and 3 outcomes and Level 4 results will be
aggregated and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the ABC Training Program to meet
the goal of raising Grade 6–12 student achievement through instruction in online environments
in high need contexts. Data will be displayed in numeric formats as well as infographics to
clarify program impact on teacher performance and attitude and student achievement.
Administrators will receive and use the data to inform decisions regarding the implementation of
the program.
Summary
A training program, the ABC Training Program, is proposed in alignment with the four
stages of the new world model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Key knowledge and
organizational needs identified in this study were addressed through identifying program results
and outcomes in a methodical manner. This method allows for considering the organizational
goals, aligned stakeholder behaviors, critical supports needed, and the reactions of program
113
participants. The intention of the development of the ABC Training Program is to strengthen the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on Grade 6–12 teacher engagement in
online instruction in high need contexts.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on Grade
6–12 teacher performance in online environments in high need contexts. A variety of limitations
and delimitations exist due to the parameters under which the study was conducted. Limitations
are constraints that cannot be controlled because of the research methodology that affect the
degree to which outcomes can be generalized (Miles, 2019). Three limitations were identified for
this study. The first limitation is the limited number of participants, which was 10, each of whom
participated in only one interview in which they shared self-reported data. Response bias, or the
tendency of participants to share responses that are not accurate, is the second limitation of this
study. To mitigate response bias, interview participants were assured of confidentiality during
the study (Kaiser, 2009). However, participants might have answered in ways that they thought
the research expects them to answer or they might have not chosen to reveal their true insights
due to personal preference (Glasgow, 2005). Finally, the third limitation was the use of open-
ended questions that resulted in qualitative data that is not quantifiable (Miles, 2019).
Delimitations are researcher-imposed constraints and parameters on the study design that
limit the degree to which findings can be generalized (Miles, 2019). Three delimitations were
identified in the design of the study. First, the purpose of the study was to highlight factors
influencing teacher engagement in online instruction during COVID-19 school shutdowns in
2020–2021. The timing of the study occurred after the completion of the 2020–2021 school year.
Teacher perceptions of the knowledge, skills, and resources available during school shutdowns
114
during the 2020–2021 school year might have shifted as they reflect on past experiences at the
time of the study. Second, the study focused on the experiences of teachers employed at high
need schools in urban environments. Their experiences might not be reflective of the larger
teacher population in the United States. Finally, this study did not interview other key
stakeholders, such as administrators, parents, and students, who are directly impacted by or
contribute to factors that influence teacher engagement in online instruction.
Recommendations for Future Research
Due to the limitations and delimitations of this study, further research is recommended to
expand on the findings of this study. This study was qualitative in nature and included 10
volunteers. Therefore, findings cannot be generalized to all Grade 6–12 online teachers in high
need contexts. The same study could be conducted with an expanded participant pool of Grade
6–12 teachers to incorporate varying experiences and perspectives to inform findings and
recommendations. The study could also be conducted with a focus on specific credential areas to
uncover content-specific needs that contribute to teacher performance in online environments. A
final recommendation for future study is to examine how technology integration and online
instruction is taught in teacher preparation programs. Technology integration is a priority in
Grade K–12 schools and requires that new teachers enter classrooms with essential skills for in-
person and virtual methods. An in-depth study exploring teacher preparation programs and
methods of preparing teachers will add to the knowledge base of how to support in service
teachers for online instruction.
Conclusions
Educational inequities persistent in high need secondary schools widened as a result of
school shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. One contributing factor was the lack of
115
training and organizational supports teachers received during this transition. Lack of access to
high quality online instruction in high need schools coupled with the lack of teacher preparation
led to widespread student disengagement and significant learning losses since the onset of the
pandemic. The resulting learning losses are expected to disproportionately impact the future
economic opportunities for disadvantaged children (Psacharopoulos et al., 2020; United Nations,
2020). The findings from this study intend to illuminate the gaps in teacher knowledge and
organizational supports while acknowledging the immense drive and dedication of the Grade 6–
12 teachers in meeting the needs of students during a global pandemic. With the rapid evolution
of technology in all sectors of life, it is imperative that our teachers and students are well versed
in learning from and demonstrating knowledge in online environments.
The study recommends increasing teachers’ knowledge of how to design and organize,
deliver, and facilitate instruction in online environments. The findings also pointed to a need for
schools to allocate funding and resources to support instruction. Lastly, the study recommends
supporting administrators in how to guide teachers to instruct students with special needs. The
proposed recommendations from this study can add to the body of emerging research on how
schools and teachers can integrate online instruction.
116
References
Adams, C. (2020). Teachers need lots of training to do online well: Coronavirus closures gave
many just days. The Herchinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/teachers-need-lots-of-
training-to-do-online-learning-well-coronavirus-closures-gave-many-just-days/
Aliakbari, M. & Kafshgar, N. (2013). On the relationship between teachers’ sense of
responsibility and their job satisfaction: The case of Iranian high school teachers. European
Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 487–501.
Allen, D. & Tanner, K. (2017). Putting the horse back in front of the cart: Using visions and
decisions about high quality learning experiences to drive course design. CBE - Life
Sciences Education, 6(2), 85–89.
Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. The Sloan
Consortium. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529699.pdf
Alvarez, I., Guasch, T., and Espasa, A. (2009). University teacher roles and competencies in
online learning environments: a theoretical analysis of teaching and learning practices.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 321–336.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in
computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Anderson, T. (2004). Models of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and
research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance
education (pp. 1–17). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Anderson, L. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 31(2–3), 102–113.
117
Anderson, T. & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97.
Andrade, M. (2014). Dialogue and structure: enabling learner self-regulation in technology-
enhanced learning environments. European Educational Research Journal, 13(5), 563–
574.
Andrade, M. (2015). Teaching online: A theory-based approach to student success. Journal of
Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 1–9.
Annamalai, N. & Tan, K. E. (2015). Exploring two teachers’ engagement with their students in
an online writing environment. The EUROCALL Review, 23(2), 58–73.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of
School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445.
Arabasz, P., Pirani, J. A., & Fawcett, D. (2003). Supporting e–learning in higher education.
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
https://library.educause.edu/resources/2003/7/supporting-elearning-in-higher-education
Archambault, I., Diamon, D., Coffey, M., Force-Aalbu, D., Richardson, J., Zygouris-Coe, V.,
Brown, R., & Cavanaugh, C. (2010) Research committee issues brief: An exploration of at-
risk learners and online education, International Association for K–12 Online Learning
(iNACOL). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509620.pdf
Archambault, L., & Kennedy, K. (2016). Examining teacher education programs and field
experiences in K–12 online learning environments. Michigan Virtual Learning Research
Institute. https://media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/examinete2016.pdf
118
Aride, O. & Pamies-Pallise, M. (2019). From values to behavior: Proposition of an integrating
model. Sustainability, 11, 1–19.
Artino, A. (2012). Academic self-efficacy: from educational theory to instructional practice.
Perspectives on Medical Education, 1(2), 76–85.
Azjen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behavior is alive and well, and not ready to retire: A
commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araujo-Soraes. Health Psychology Review, 9(2),
131–137.
Bailey, J. P., & Hess, F. (2020). A blueprint for back to school. The American Enterprise
Institute. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/A-Blueprint-for-Back-to-
School.pdf
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44.
Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. D. (2013). Tracing successful online teaching in
higher education: Voices of exemplary online teachers. Teachers College Record, 115(3),
1–41.
Barbour, M., Arnesen, K., Hveem, J., Short, C., & West, R. (2018). K–12 online learning journal
articles; trends from two decades of scholarship. Distance Education, 40(1), 32–53
Barbour, M. K. (2013). The landscape of K–12 online learning: Examining what is known. In M.
G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 574–593). Routledge.
119
Barnum, M. (2020, March 31). When teaching and parenting collide: As schools shift online,
many educators manage two roles. Chalkbeat.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/3/31/21225538/when-teaching-and-parenting-collide-as-
schools-shift-online-many-educators-manage-two-roles
Basham, J., Smith, S., & Satter, A. (2016). Universal design for learning: Scanning for alignment
in K–12 blended and fully online learning materials. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 3(3), 147–155.
Beeman, S. (1995). Maximizing credibility and accountability in qualitative data collection and
data analysis. The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 22(4), 99–114.
Belaja, K., Sai, G., & Lin, A. (2012). Effects of lecturer’s transactional presence towards
learners’ intrinsic motivation in learning English as a second language through distance
education. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 77–97.
Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student Learning: Theory,
practice, and assessment. Stylus.
Béteille, T., Ding, E., Molina, E. (2020). Three principles to support teacher effectiveness during
COVID-19. The World Bank. https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/33775
Béteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and
school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41(4), 904–919.
Blandford, A (2013). Semi-structured qualitative studies. In Mads Soegaard & Rikke Friis Dam
(Eds.), The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. The Interaction Design
Foundation. http://www.interactiondesign.org/encyclopedia/semi-
structured_qualitative_studies.html
120
Blau I., Weiser O., Eshet-Alkalai Y. (2017). How do medium naturalness and personality traits
shape academic achievement and perceived learning? An experimental study of face-to-
face and synchronous e-learning. Research in Learning Technology, 25.
Blondy, L. (2007). Evaluation and application of andragogical assumptions to the adult online
learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 116–130.
Blume, H., & Kohli, S. (2020, March 3). 15,000 L.A. high school students are AWOL online,
40,000 fail to check in daily amid coronavirus closures. Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-30/coronavirus-los-angeles-schools-
15000-high-school-students-absent
Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online
teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30, 103–116.
Bottcher-Oschmann, F., Ophoff, J. G., & Thiel, F. (2021). Preparing teacher training students for
evidence-based practice promoting students’ research competencies in research-learning
projects. Fronteirs in Education, 6.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.642107/full
Borup, J., Graham, C., & Drysdale, J. (2014). The nature of teacher engagement at an online
high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793–806.
Borup, J. & Stevens, M. A. (2016). Parents’ perceptions of teacher support at a cyber charter
high school. Journal of ONline Learning Research, 2(3), 227–246.
Borup, J., Jensen, M., Archambault, L., Short, C., & Graham, C. (2020). Supporting students
during COVID-19: Developing and leveraging academic communities of engagement in a
time of crisis. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 161–169.
121
Brieger, E., Arghode, V., McLean, G. (2019). Connecting theory and practice: Reviewing six
learning theories to inform online instruction. European Journal of Training and
Development, 44(4), 321–339.
Buehl, M. M., & Fives, H. (2008). Exploring teachers’ beliefs about teaching knowledge: Where
does it come from? Does it change? The Journal of Experimental Education, 1, 1–54.
Bunker, E., Gayol, Y., Nti, N., & Reidell, P. (1996). A study of transactional distance in an
international audioconferencing course. Proceedings of seventh international conference of
the Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education. Phoenix.
Burnham, B. R., & Walden, B. (1997). Interactions in distance education: A report from the
other side. Annual Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 49–54).
Burstein, R. (2020). Research eclipsed: How educators are reinventing research-informed
practice during the pandemic. Edsurge.
https://d3btwko586hcvj.cloudfront.net/uploads/pdf/file/212/Research_Eclipsed_FINAL-
1600884157.pdf
California Department of Education, (2020). Stronger together: A guidebook for safely
reopening schools. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/documents/strongertogether.pdf
Cardichon, J., Darling-Hammond, L., Yang, M., Scott, C., Shields, P. M., & Burns, D.
(2020). Inequitable opportunity to learn: Student access to certified and experienced
teachers. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-
files/CRDC_Teacher_Access_REPORT.pdf
Carlson, S., & Carnevale, D. (2001). Debating the demise of NYUonline. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/debating-the-demise-of-nyuonline/
122
Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K–12 online
learning: A review of open access literature. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 10(1), 1–13.
Charland, P., Martineau, M., Gadais, T., Arvisais, Ol, Turgeon, N., Vinuesa, V., Cyr, S. (2021).
Curriculum response to the crisis. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-020-
09526-6
Chen, Y. J., & Willits, F. K. (1998). A path analysis of the concepts in moore’s theory of
transactional distance in a videoconferencing learning environment. Journal of Distance
Education, 13(2), 51–65.
Chen, L. (2016). A model for effective online instructional design. Literacy Information and
Computer Education Journal, 6(2), 2303–2308.
Chiefs for Change & Johns Hopkins School of Education: Institute for Education Policy. (2020).
The return: How should education leaders prepare for reentry and beyond.
https://chiefsforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CFC-TheReturn_5-13-20.pdf
Christophersen, K. A., Elstad, E., Turmo, A., & Solhaug, T. (2016). Teacher education
programmes and their contribution to student teacher efficacy in classroom management
and pupil engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 240–254.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pub
Clausen, J. (2020). Professional development to improve communication and reduce the
homework gap in grades 7–12 during COVID-19 transition to remote instruction. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 443–451.
123
Clement, F. J. (1985). The rule of seven revisited. Performance and Instruction Journal, 24(2),
6–8.
Clotfelter, C., Glennie, E., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2008). Would higher salaries keep teachers in
high-poverty schools? Evidence from a policy intervention in North Carolina. Journal of
Public Economics, 92, 1352–1370.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). How and why do teacher credentials matter
for student achievement? National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w12828.pdf
Cole, A. W., Allen, M., Anderson, C., Bunton, T., Cherney, M. R., Draeger, Jr., R., Featherston,
M., Fisher, V. C., Motel, L., Nicolini, K. M., & Peck, B. (2017). Student predisposition to
instructor feedback and perceptions of teaching presence predict motivation toward online
courses. Online Learning, 21(4), 245–262.
Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2017). Teachers' sense of adaptability: Examining links with
perceived autonomy support, teachers' psychological functioning, and students' numeracy
achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 29–39.
Compeau, D. & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Developmental of a measure and
initial test, MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
Cooper, H., Nye, B., & Charlton, K. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test
scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227–
268.
Conrad, D. (2004). University instructors’ reflection on their first online teaching experiences.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 31–44.
124
Coronavirus and School Closures (2020). Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-coronavirus-and-school-
closures.html
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. 4th ed. SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership,
58(8), 12–17.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does
“scientifically-based research” actually tell us?, Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
Darling-Hammond, L., Schachner, A., & Edgerton, A. (2020). Restarting and reinventing school:
Learning in the time of COVID and beyond. Learning Policy Institute. https://restart-
reinvent.learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-
files/Restart_Reinvent_Schools_COVID_REPORT.pdf
Dawson, S. (2008). A study of the relationship between student social networks and sense of
community. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 224–238.
Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Analytics to literacies: The development of a learning
analytics framework for multiliteracies assessment. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(4), 284–305.
Deggs, D. & Hernandez, F. (2018). Enhancing the value of qualitative field notes through
purposeful reflection. The Qualitative Report, 23(10), 2552–2560.
125
Dennis, B., Watland, P., Pirotte, S., and Verday, N. (2004). “Role and competencies of the e-
tutor,” in In Proceedings of the Networked Learning Conference 2004.
Di-Cicco-Bloom, B. & Crabtree, B. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical
Education, 40(4), 314-321.
Digest of Education Statistics (December, 2019). National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/ch_2.asp
Diliberti, M. & Kaufman, J. (2020). Will this school year be another casualty of the pandemic?
RAND Publications. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-4.html
Diliberti, M. & Kaufman, J. (2021). Teachers are not all right: How the COVID-19 pandemic is
taking a toll on the nation’s leaders. RAND Publications. https://crpe.org/wp-
content/uploads/final-EP-teachers-synthesis.pdf
Dolighan, T. & Owen, M. (2021). Teacher efficacy for online teaching during the COVID-
19pandemic. A Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 30(1), 95–116.
Domina, T., Renzulla, L., & Murray B. (2021). Remote or removed: Predicting successful
engagement with online learning during COVID-19. Socius.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120988200
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2020). COVID-19 and student learning
in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/covid-19-and-student-
learning-in-the-united-states-the-hurt-could-last-a-lifetime
Duncombe, W. D., & Yinger, J. (2004). How much more does a disadvantaged student cost?
Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University.
https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=cpr
126
Elyakim, N., Reychav, I., Offir, B., & McHaney, R. (2017). Perceptions of transactional distance
in blended learning using location-based mobile devices. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 57(1), 131-169.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25, 68–81.
Education Week (2020, July 15). School Districts’ Reopening Plans: A Snapshot.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-districts-reopening-plans-a-snapshot/2020/07
Espino-Diaz, L., Fernandez-Camineroa, G., Hernandez-Lloret, M., Gonzalez, H., & Alvarez-
Catillo, J. L. (2020). Analyzing the impact of COVID-19on education professionals.
Towards a paradigm shift: ICT and neuroeducation as a binomial of action. MDPI.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5646/pdf
Fabriz, S., Mendzheritskaya, J., & Stehle, S. (2021). Impact of synchronous and asynchronous
settings of online teaching and learning in higher education on students' learning
experience during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
Farmer, T. & West, R. (2019). Exploring the concerns of online K–12 teachers. Journal of
Online Learning Research, 5(1), 97-118. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1208818.pdf
Field S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education.
http://www.oecd.org/education/school/ nomorefailurestenstepstoequityineducation.htm
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to
Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S.
L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 97–132). New York, NY: Springer.
127
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Better Learning through Structured Teaching: A Framework for
the Gradual Release of Responsibility. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Francom, G. M. (2020). Barriers to technology integration: A time-series survey study. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 1–16.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011).
Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: a description of
21 instruments. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1),
45-56.
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2019) The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and worse than
we thought. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-teacher-
shortage-is-real-large-and-growing-and-worse-than-we-thought-the-first-report-in-the-
perfect-storm-in-the-teacher-labor-market-series/
Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2020). COVID-19and student performance, equity, and the U.S.
education policy. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-
consequences-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-education-performance-and-equity-in-the-
united-states-what-can-we-learn-from-pre-pandemic-research-to-inform-relief-recovery-
and-rebuilding/
128
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2, 87–105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of
inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5–9
Garrison, R. & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework:
Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.
Geraci, J., Palmerini, M., Cirillo, P., & McDougald, V. (2017). What teens want from their
schools: A national survey of high school student engagement, Fordham Institute.
https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/(06.27)%20What%20Teens
%20Want%20From%20Their%20Schools%20-
%20A%20National%20Survey%20of%20High%20School%20Student%20Engagement.pd
f
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Gilbert, D. & Malone, P. (1995). The correspondence bias. American Psychological Association,
117(1), 21–38.
Glasgow, P. (2005). Fundamentals of Survey Research Methodology, Washington C3 Center.
https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/05_0638.pdf
Glazerman, S., Max, J. (2011). Do low-income students have equal access to the Highest-
performing teachers? (No. 6955). Mathematica Policy Research.
Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments,
empirical evidence, and future directions, Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13.
129
Gokool-Ramdoo, S. (2008). Beyond the theoretical impasse: Extending the applications of
transactional distance education theory. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 9(3), 1–17.
Golberstein E, Wen H, Miller BF. Coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) and mental health for
children and adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456
Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Uneven playing field? assessing the
teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational
Researcher, 44(5), 293–307.
Goldring, R., & Taie, S. (2018). Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2016–17
principal follow-up survey first look. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics
Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. Competences for online
teaching: A special report. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1),
65–72.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student
learning, Communication Education, 37, 40–53.
Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 1–11.
Gudmundsdottir, G. B. & Hathaway, D. M. (2020). “We always make it work”: Teachers’
agency in the time of crisis. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 239.
Guri-Rosenblit, Sarah. (2009). Distance education in the digital age: Common misconceptions
and challenging tasks. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 105-122.
130
Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in the
classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 453–469.
Gyabak, K, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Ray, J. (2015). Teachers using designerly thinking in K–
12 online course design. Journal of Online Learning Research, 1(3), 253–274.
Hamilton, L., Kaufman, J., & Diliberti, M. (2020). Teaching and leading through a pandemic:
Key findings from the American educator panels Spring 2020 COVID-19Surveys. Rand
Institute. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-2.html
Hanson, D., Maushak, N., Schlosser, C., Anderson, M., & Sorensen, M. (1997). Distance
education: Review of the literature, (2nd ed.). Association for Educational
Communications and Technology.
Hanushek, E. A. & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of
teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100(2), 267–271.
Hartney, M. & Finger, L. (2020). Politics, Markets, and Pandemics: Public Education’s
Response to COVID-19. EdWorkingPaper. 20–304,
Hartnett, M. (2015). Influences that undermine learners’ perceptions of autonomy, competence,
and relatedness in an online context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
31(1), 86–99.
Hatlevik, O. (2017). Examining the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy, their digital
competence, strategies to evaluate information, and use of ICT at school. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 61(5), 555–567.
Hares, S. & Mundy, K. (2020). Equity focused approaches to learning loss during Covid-19.
UKFIET- The Education and Development Forum. https://www.ukfiet.org/2020/equity-
focused-approaches-to-learning-loss-during-covid-19/
131
Haverback, H. (2020). Middle level teachers quarantine, teach, and increase self-efficacy beliefs:
Using theory to build practice during COVID-19. Middle Grades Review: 6(2), 1–6.
Haverback, H.R., & Mee, M. (2015). Reading and teaching in an urban middle school:
Preservice teachers' self-efficacy beliefs and field-based experiences. Middle Grades
Research Journal, 10(1), 17–3.
Hechter, R. P., & Vermette, L. A. (2013). Technology integration in K–12 science classrooms:
An analysis of barriers and implications. Themes in Science and Technology
Education, 6(2), 73–90.
Hodgest, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, A. (2020). The Difference Between
Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-
teaching-and-online-learning
Holmberg, J. (2017). Applying a conceptual design framework to study teachers’ use of
educational technology, Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2333–2349.
Hoogsteen, T. J. (2020). Collective efficacy: Toward a new narrative of its development and role
in achievement, Palgrave Communications, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-
0381-z
Huang, X., Chandra, A., DePaolo, C., Cribbs, J., & Simmons, L. (2015). Measuring
transactional distance in web-based learning environments: an initial instrument
development, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 30(2), 106–
126.
132
Huang, X., Chandra, A., DePaola, A., & Simmons, L. (2016). Understanding transactional
distance in web-based learning environments: An empirical study. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 47(4), 734–747.
Inverness Institute (2021). Teachers reflect on a year of learning under Covid: A survey of
California teachers by the Inverness Institute. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2021/teachers-reflect-on-a-year-of-learning-under-covid-california-
teacher-consultant-response-network/648206
Isenberg, E., Max, J., Gleason, P., Potamites, L., Santillano, R., Hock, H., & Hansen, M. (2013).
Access to effective teaching for disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544345.pdf
Jackson, C. & Keirstead, C. (2020). Schools first and forever responders: Preparing and
supporting teachers in the time of COVID-19. Rockville, MD: National Comprehensive
Center at Westat.
https://www.compcenternetwork.org/sites/default/files/archive/TeacherSupportBrief-
FINAL.pdf
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
approaches. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Jung, Y., Ykungwha, C., Won, S. (2019). Revisiting critical factors on teachers’ technology
integration: the differences between elementary and secondary teachers. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 39(4), 548–561.
133
Johnson, S., Kraft, M., & Papay, J. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: the effects
of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’
achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–39.
Kaiser K. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative health
research, 19(11), 1632–1641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309350879
Kale, U. & Akcaoglu, M. (2018). The role of relevance in future teachers’ utility value and
interest toward technology. Educational Technology Research Development, 66(2), 283–
311.
Kale, U., & Goh, D. (2014). Teaching style, ICT experience and teachers’ attitudes toward
teaching with web 2.0. Education and Information Technologies, 19(1), 41–60.
doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9210-3.
Kang, H. & Gyorke, A (2008). Rethinking distance learning activities: A comparison of
transactional distance theory and activity theory. The Journal of Open, Distance, and e-
Learning, 23(3), 203–214.
Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S., & Beteille, T. (2013). Systematic sorting: Teacher characteristics and
class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86, 103–123.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-
based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20–23.
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2014). Teacher preparation for K–12 online and blended
learning. In R. E. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K–12 online and
blended learning (pp. 225–244). ETC Press.
Kennedy, K. & Ferdig, R. E. (2018) Handbook of research on K–12 online and blended learning:
Second edition. Carnegie Mellon University.
134
https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/Handbook_of_Research_on_K–
12_Online_and_Blended_Learning_Second_Edition_/6686813
Kentnore, H. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United
States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1).
Kim, L. & Asbury, K. (2020). ‘Like a rug had been pulled from under you’: The impact of
COVID-19on teachers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 1062–1083.
Kolb, D. A. (1939). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development.
Prentice Hall.
Kraft, M. & Simon, N. (2020). Teachers’ experiences working from home during the COVID-
19pandemic. Teach Update. https://education.brown.edu/sites/g/files/dprerj366/files/2020-
06/Upbeat%20Memo%20-%20Kraft.pdf
Kraft, M., Simon, N., Lyon, M. (2020). Sustaining a sense of success: The importance of teacher
working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Annenberg Brown University:
EdworkingPaper, 20, 279. https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai20-
279.pdf
Kormos, E. M. (2018). The unseen digital divide: Urban, suburban, and rural teacher use and
perceptions of web-based classroom technologies. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 19–31.
Kuhfeld, M. & Tarasawa, B. (2020). The COVID-19slide: What summer learning loss can tell us
about the potential impact of school closures on student academic achievement. NWEA.
https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Collaborative-Brief_Covid19-Slide-
APR20.pdf
135
Kumar, S., & Vigil, K. (2011). The net generation as preservice teachers; Transferring
familiarity with new technologies to eduational environments. Journal of Digital Learning
in Teacher Education, 27(4), 144–153.
Kurek, M. & Müeller-Hartman, A. (2018). “I feel more confident now”– modelling teaching
presence in teacher training online intercultural exchanges. The European Journal of
Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 7(2), 157–177.
Kurek, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2019). The formative role of teaching presence in blended
virtual exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 52–73.
LaRose, R. & Whitten, P. (2000) Re-thinking instructional immediacy for web courses: a social
cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49, 320–338.
Lake, R. & Dusseault (2020). Remote classes are in session for more school districts, but
attendance plans are still absent. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
https://www.crpe.org/thelens/remote-classes-are-session-more-school-districts-attendance-
plans-are-still-absent
Lawrence, A. (2020). Teaching as dialogue: An emerging model of culturally responsive online
pedagogy. Journal of Online Learning Research, 6(1), 5–33.
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement
research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A
descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37–62.
The Learning Policy Institute (2020, August 25). Restarting and reinventing schools in the time
of COVID-19: A comprehensive framework for policymakers and educators. [Press
136
release]. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-
files/Restart_Reinvent_Schools_COVID_20200825_PRESS.pdf
Lee, J. (2014) The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a
myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185.
Levin, S., Scott, C., Yang, M., & Leung, M. (2020, April). Supporting a strong, stable principal
workforce: What matters and what can be done. https://www.nassp.org/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2020/04/LPI-and-NASSP-Research-Agenda-Final-Report.pdf
Lewis, L. K. (2011) Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Lincoln, S. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lippold, M. (2013). The timing of school transitions and early adolescent problem behavior.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(6), 821–844.
Loeb, S. (2000, November 27-28). Teacher quality: Its enhancement and potential for improving
pupil achievement. Paper presented at the National Invitational Conference, Improving
Educational Productivity: Lessons from Economics, Washington, D.C.
Los Angeles Unified School District (2020). Instructional handbook: Online learning and hybrid
model.
https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/1303/Instructional_Ha
ndbook_Distance_Learning_and_Hybrid_FINAL.pdf
Majeski, R., Stover, M., & Ronch, J. (2016). Making asynchronous online learning more learner-
oriented: An integrated conceptual model with applications for course design and
instruction. Educational Gerontology, 42(2), 109–119.
137
Mansfield, C., Beltman, S., Price, A., & McConney, A. (2012) Don’t sweat the small stuff:
Understanding teacher resilience at the chalkface. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28(3), 357–367.
Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2020). Facilitation matters: Instructor perception of
helpfulness of facilitation strategies in online courses. Online Learning, 2(1), 28–49.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design. Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning to multimedia instruction. In J. P. Mestre
& B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 77–108). Elsevier
Academic Press.
Mays, M. (April 2021). Los Angeles teachers will get child care stipend for young kids. Politico.
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/04/05/los-angeles-teachers-will-
get-child-care-stipend-for-young-kids-
1371732#:~:text=SACRAMENTO%20%E2%80%94%20Los%20Angeles%20Unified%
20teachers,a%20year%20of%20campus%20closures.
McCaslin, M. L., & Scott, K. W. (2003). Method for studying a human ecology: an adaptation of
the grounded theory tradition, The Researcher, 17(1), 26–32.
Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
4th ed. Jossey-Bass.
Miles, D. (2019). Let’s stop the madness part 2: Understanding the difference between
limitations vs. delimitations.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334279571_ARTICLE_Research_Methods_an
d_Strategies_Let's_Stop_the_Madness_Part_2_Understanding_the_Difference_Between_
Limitations_vs_Delimitations
138
Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review,
36, 60–72.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 63,
81–97.
Mills, J., Bonner, A. & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25-35
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education,
3(2), 1–6.
Moore, M. (1991). Editorial: distance education theory. American Journal of Distance
Education, 5(3), 1–6.
Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance as found. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical
principles of distance education. Routledge.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.
Nagler, M., Piopiunik, M., West, M. R. (2017). Weak markets, strong teachers: Recession at
career start and teacher effectiveness. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(2), 453–500.
National Assessment Governing Board. What is NAEP? https://www.nagb.gov/about-naep/what-
is-naep.html
National Center for Education Statistics (2020). National assessment of educational progress
(NAEP), 2019 reading assessment.
139
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/supportive_files/2019_appendix_reading_g12
.pdf
National Standards for Quality Online Learning. (2019, February 28). Quality Online Teaching.
https://www.nsqol.org/the-standards/quality-online-teaching/
New York City Department of Education (2020). District school reopening plan.
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-year-20-21/district-school-reopening-plan-
submission-to-nysed/introduction-and-communications
Nortvig, A, Petersen, A. K., & Hattesen, S. (2018). A literature review of the factors influencing
e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction, and
engagement. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16(1), 46–55.
Novak, K. & Thibodeau, T. (2016). UDL In The Cloud: How to Design and Deliver Online
Education Using Universal Design for Learning. Cast Professional Publishing.
NYU Steinhardt (2021). NYC Public Schools: What does it mean to be the nation’s largest
school district? https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/research-alliance/research/spotlight-nyc-
schools/nyc-public-schools-what-does-it-mean-be-nations
O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). A conceptual framework for defining user engagement
with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 59(6), 938–955.
Office of Educational Technology (2021, September 20). Announcement: New Office of
Educational Technology Webinar and blog series: Planning for changing.
https://medium.com/@OfficeofEdTech/announcement-new-office-of-educational-
technology-webinar-and-blog-series-planning-for-changing-c4b0b0e63dc1
140
Oliver, K. & Townsend, L. (2013) Preparing teachers for technology integration: Programs,
competencies, and factors from literature. National Teacher Education Journal, 6(3), 41–
60.
Ondrasek, N., Carver-Thomas, D., Scott, C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). California’s
special education teacher shortage. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/pace-california-special-education-teacher-
shortage-brief
Oomen-Early, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). Self-actualizing and e-learning: a qualitative
investigation of university faculty’s perceived barriers to effective online instruction.
Instructional Journal of E Learning, 8, 223–240.
Oviatt, D., Graham, C., Borup, J., Davies, R. (2016). Online student perceptions of the need for a
proximate community of engagement at an independent study program. Journal of Online
Learning Research, 2(4), 333–365.
Pajares, F. (2002). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic contexts: An outline.
https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/efftalk.html
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development.
In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research.
The Guilford Press.
Panisoara, I., Lazar, I., Panisoara, G., Chirca, R., & Ursu, A. S. (2020). Motivation and
continuance intention towards online instruction among teachers during the COVID-19
pandemic: The mediating effect of burnout and technostress. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 1–29.
141
PDK International. (2016). Why school? The 48th annual PDK poll of the public’s attitudes
toward the public schools. https://www.heartland.org/_template-
assets/documents/publications/ PDKpollofpublicopinion2016.pdf
Paradis, A., Lutovac, S., Jokikokko, K., & Kaasila, R. (2019). Towards a relational
conceptualisation of teacher autonomy. Research in Comparative and International
Education.
Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice
(4th ed.). Sage.
Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L., (2010). Monitoring collaborative activities in computer
supported collaborative learning. Distance Education, 31(1), 5–22.
Petty, T., Fitchett, P., & O’Connor, K. (2012). Attracting and keeping teachers in high need
schools. American Secondary Education, 40(2), 67-88.
Pfister, H. & Ohel, M. (2009). The impact of goal focus, task type and group size on
synchronous net-based collaborative learning discourses. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 25(2), 161–167.
Picciano, A. (1998) Developing an asynchronous course model at a large, urban university,
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(1), 1–14.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Potts, A. (2015). A theory for educational research: socialization theory and symbolic
interaction. Education Research and Perspectives, 42, 633–654.
142
Promethean (2020). The State of Technology in Education, 2020–2021 Report.
https://www.prometheanworld.com/microsites/the-2020-state-of-technology-in-
education/
Raskind, I., Shelton, R., Comeau, D., Cooper, H., Griffith, D., & Kegler, M. (2019). A review of
qualitative data analysis practices in health education and health behavior research. health
Education & Behavior, 46(1), 32–39.
Reimers, F. & Schleicher, A. (2020). School disrupted, schooling rethought: How the COVID-19
pandemic is changing education. Harvard.
https://globaled.gse.harvard.edu/files/geii/files/education_continuity_v3.pdf
Repetto, J. B., & Spitler, C. J. (2014). Research on at-risk learners in K–12 online learning. In R.
E. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K–12 online and blended
learning (pp. 107–134). ETC Press.
Repetto, J., Cavanaugh, C., Wayer, N., & Liu, F. (2010). Virtual high schools: Improving
outcomes for students with disabilities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(20),
91–104.
Rice, K. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K–12 context. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–449.
Rice, K., Dawley, L., Gasell, C., & Flores, C. (2008) Going virtual! Unique needs and
challenges of K–12 online teachers. North American Council for Online Learning.
Richardson, J. & Swan, K. (2001) An examination of social presence in online learning:
Students’ perceived learning and satisfaction, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
143
Ringer, M. (2002). Group action: The dynamics of groups in therapeutic, educational and
corporate settings. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Roddy, C., Amiet, D. L., Chung, J., Holt, C., Shaw, L., McKenzie, S., Garivaldis, F., Lodge, J.
M., & Edward Mundy, M. (2017). Applying best practice online learning, teaching and
support to intensive online environments: An integrative review. Frontiers in Education,
2, 59.
Rodgers, C. & Raider-Roth, M. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 12(3).
265–287.
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36.
Rovai, A. (2002a). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1–16.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College
Press.
Runhaar, P., Bouwmans, M., & Vermeulen, M. (2019). Exploring teachers’ career self
management. Considering the roles of organizational career management, occupational
self-efficacy, and learning goal orientation. Human Resource Development International,
22(4), 364–384.
Russo, J., Bobis, J., Downton, A., Livy, S., & Sullivan, P. (2021). Primary teacher attitudes
towards productive struggle in mathematics in remote learning versus classroom-based
settings. Education Sciences, 11(2), 35.
144
Saba, F. (2003). Distance education theory, methodology and epistemology: A Pragmatic
Paradigm. In Handbook of distance education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–20). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Satu, E., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on
trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–10.
Saltmarsh, S. & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2010). S(t)imulating learning: Pedagogy, subjectivity,
and teacher education in online environments. London Review of Education, 8(1), 15–24.
Sanders, K. & Lokey-Vega, A. (2020). K–12 community of inquiry: A case study of the
applicability of the Community of Inquiry framework in the K–12 online learning
environment.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons., Inc.
Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching excellence through professional learning and policy reform:
Lessons from around the world. International Summit on the Teaching Profession,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252059-en.
Schutt, M., Allen, B. S., & Laumakis, M. A. (2009). The effects of instructor immediacy
behaviors in online learning environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
10(2), 135–148.
Schwartz, A., Stiefel, L., & Rothbart, M. (2016). Do top dogs rule in middle school? Evidence
on bullying, safety, and belonging. American Educational Research Journal- Social and
Institutional Analysis, 53(5), 1450–1484.
Sener, J. (2012). The seven futures of American education: Improving learning and teaching in a
screen captured world. CreateSpace.
145
Sheffield, S. L., McSweeney, J. M., & Panych, A. (2015). Exploring future teachers' awareness,
competence, confidence, and attitudes regarding teaching online: Incorporating
Blended/Online experience into the "teaching and learning in higher education" course
for graduate students. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(3), 1–14.
Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications.
Toronto.
Silliman, R., & Schleifer, D. (2018). Our next assignment: Where Americans stand on public K–
12 education. Public Agenda. https://hewlett.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/PublicAgenda_OurNextAssignment_2018.pdf
Simmons, C. (2020). Pacing lessons for optimal learning. Educational Leadership, 77, 46-52.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/jun20/vol77/num09/Pacing-
Lessons-for-Optimal-Learning.aspx
Singh, N. (2002) From cultural models to cultural categories: a framework for cultural analysis,
Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 239–240.
Smedley, B. D. (2001). Inequality in Teaching and Schooling: How Opportunity Is Rationed to
Students of Color in America. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223640/
Smith, R. (2003). Teacher education for teacher learner autonomy. In Symposium for Language
Teacher Educators: Papers from THree IALS Symposia, Ed: Gollin, J., Ferguson, G., &
Trappes-Lomax, H. University of Edinburgh, UK.
Smith, S. & Harvey, E. (2014). K–12 online lesson alignment to the principles of Universal
Design for Learning: the Khan Academy, Open Learning: The Journal of Open,
Distance, and e-Learning, 29(3), 222–242.
146
Smith, T. C. (2005). Fifty-one competencies for online instruction, The Journal of Educators
Online, 2(2), 1–18.
Snead, K., Magal, S., Christensen, L., & Ndede-Amadi, A. (2014). Attribution theory: A
theoretical framework for understanding information systems success. Systematic
Practice and Action Research, 28(3), 273–288.
Sokal, L. (2020). Canadian teachers’ attitudes toward change, efficacy, and burnout during the
COVID-19pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research, 1.
Song, J. (2021). Expanding teacher reflection on emotions in online teaching: Grappling with
teacher identity and student (non)participation. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching
Research, 9(3), 77–91.
Stelitano, L., Doan, S., Wood, A., Diliberti, M., Kaufman, J., & Henry, D. (2020). The Digital
Divide and COVID-19. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-3.html
Sugar, W., Martindale, T., & Crawley, F. E. (2007). One professor’s face-to-face teaching
strategies while becoming an online instructor. The Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 8(4), 365–385.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of
interaction. Education, Communication, & Information, 21, 23-49.
Szeto, E. (2015). Community of inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching,
social, and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching?
Computer & Education, 81, 191–201.
Tandy, C., and Meacham, M. (2009). Removing the barriers for students with disabilities:
Accessing online and web-enhanced courses. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29(3).
147
Thayer, A., Cook, C., Fiat, A., Bartlett-Chase, M., & Kember, J. (2017). Wise feedback as a
timely intervention for at-risk students transitioning into high school. School Psychology
Review, 47(30), 275–290.
The Nation’s Report Card (2021). NAEP long-term trend assessment results: Reading and
mathematics. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt/?age=9
Thomas, C. (1998). Culture defined: A twenty-first century perspective. Educational Horizons,
76(3), 122–126.
Ting, E. & Jiang, M. (2000). A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a
web-based course environment. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 6(4), 317–338.
Tschirhart & Rigler (2009). LondonMet e-packs: a pragmatic approach to learner/teacher
autonomy. The Language Learning Journal, 37(1), 71–83.
TNTP. (2018). The opportunity myth. https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP_The-Opportunity-
Myth_Web.pdf
Trikoilis, D., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2020). The potential of research for professional
development in isolated settings during the COVID-19 crisis and beyond. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 295.
Trust, T. (2020). Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned
from the COVID-19pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2),
189–199.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online
classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
148
Turner-Lee, N. (2020, March 5). Bridging digital divides between schools and communities.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/bridging-digital-divides-between-schools-and-
communities/#footnote-4.
Ustati, R. & Hassan, S. (2013). Distance learning students’ need: evaluating interactions from
Moore’s Theory of Transactional Distance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 14(2), 292–304.
UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, ed. P. Hine. 2nd End.
UNESCO.
United Nations (2020) Policy brief: The impact of COVID-19on children.
https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/policy_brief_on_covid_impact_on_children_16
_april_2020.pdf
United Teachers Los Angeles (2000). Fall 2020 member survey.
https://laist.com/latest/post/20201023/utla-fall-survey-distance-learning-reopening
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Getting America’s students ready for the 21st century:
meeting the technology literacy challenge. A report to the nation on technology and
education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED398899.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). The condition of education 2010.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Education department releases final teacher preparation
regulations. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-department-releases-final-
teacher-preparation-regulations
149
U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (OET). (2017). Future ready
learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education.
https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/ NETP16.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (OET). (2011). Educational
technology in teacher preparation challenge. https://tech. ed.gov/edtechtprep.
Van der Zanden, P. (2013). Teachers’ attribution style, self-efficacy beliefs and their beliefs
about differentiation. Student Research Conference.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279867873_Teachers'_attribution_style_self-
efficacy_beliefs_and_their_beliefs_about_differentiation
Vegas, E. & Winthrop, R. (2020). Beyond reopening schools: How education can emerge
stronger than before COVID-19. Brookings Institute.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/beyond-reopening-schools-how-education-can-
emerge-stronger-than-before-covid-19/
von Hippel, P. & Hamrock, C. (2019) Do test score gaps grow before, during, or between the
school years? Measurement artifacts and what we can know in spite of them. Sociological
Science, 6, 43–80.
Vongkulluksn, V. W., Bowman, M., & Xie, K. (2018) The role of value on teachers’
internalization of external barriers and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom
technology integration. Computers & Education, 118, 70–81
Walker, T. (2018). Who is the average U.S. teacher? NEA Today.
http://neatoday.org/2018/06/08/who-is-the-average-u-s-teacher/
Wang, H. & Hall, N. (2018). A systematic review of teachers’ causal attributions: Prevalence,
correlates, and consequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2305.
150
Wendt, J., & Courduff, J. (2018). The relationship between teaching presence and student course
outcomes in an online international population. International Journal on E-Learning,
17(1), 111–129.
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process.
Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203–215.
Weiner, M. & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within Language: Immediacy, A Channel In
Verbal Communication. New York.
Weiss, M. & Belland, B. (2018). PBL group autonomy in a high school environmental science
class. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 23(1), 83–107.
Wheeler, S. (2007). The influence of communication technologies and approaches to study on
transactional distance in blended learning. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology,
15(2), 103–117.
Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design, Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Willis, J., Krausen, K., Caparas, R., Taylor, T. (2019). Resource allocation strategies to support
the four domains for rapid school improvement. The Center On School Turnaround,
WestEd. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602981.pdf
Wong, K. M. & Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). The impact of social uncertainty, protests, and
COVID-19 on Hong Kong teachers. Journal of loss and trauma.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1080/15325024.2020.1776523
Young, J., Hamilton, C., & Cason, M. (2017). Interactive whiteboards in mathematics spaces: An
examination of technology integration in an urban middle school. Contemporary
151
Educational Technology, 8(4), 303–318. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2135157675?accountid=14749
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W-Y., Scarloss, B., and Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues and
Answers Report, 33. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effect on classroom processes,
student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research.
Review of Educational Research, 86(4).
Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Participation, interaction, and academic achievement in an
online discussion environment. Computers & Education, 84, 78–89.
152
Appendix A: Recruitment Questionnaire
Five screening questions were utilized:
1. Name
2. Contact info (Phone/email)
3. Were you employed at a high need school during the 2020–2021 school year?
4. Which grade(s) did you teach in 2020–2021? (Choose all that apply)
5. Did you teach in an online environment in the 2020–2021 school year?
153
Appendix B: Protocols
Research questions:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of Grade 6–12 teachers in high need
classrooms related to engaging in online instruction through successful course content
design, instructional delivery, and facilitation of online interactions?
2. How do organizational influences impact engagement in online instruction through
successful course content design, instructional delivery, and facilitation of online
interactions among Grade 6–12 teachers in high needs classrooms?
154
Table B1
A Priori Codes Aligned to Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
KMO Influence RQ Code
Knowledge:
Procedural 1
Ability to design and organize online content RQ1 K-P1
Knowledge:
Procedural 2
Ability to deliver instruction in an online
environment
RQ1 K-P2
Knowledge:
Procedural 3
Ability to facilitate online instruction through
nurturing a caring and safe environment
RQ1 K-P3-Env
Knowledge:
Procedural 3
Ability to facilitate online instruction through
monitoring and motivating student engagement
RQ1 K-P3-Mot
Knowledge:
Procedural 3
Ability to facilitate online instruction through
facilitating discourse
RQ1 K-P3-Dis
Motivation:
value theory
Value engagement in online learning RQ1 M-Val
Motivation:
self efficacy
theory
Confidence in ability to design, deliver, and
facilitate online instruction
RQ1 M-Eff
Motivation:
attribution
theory
Believe instructional behaviors directly resulted
in sustained or increased student achievement
RQ1 M-Att
Organizational:
cultural
setting
Availability of technology RQ2 O-Tech
Organizational:
cultural
setting
Availability of curricular resources RQ2 O-Curr
Organizational:
cultural
model
Culture of collective efficacy RQ2 O-Eff
155
Ten introductory prompts were utilized:
• Thank you.
• Who you are.
• purpose of study
• information sheet
• Emphasize voluntary nature and ability to skip questions or stop interview.
• confidentiality
• recording details
• How you will ensure security of recording?
• How you will transcribe and destroy recording?
• Any questions?
156
Table B2
Interview Protocol Crosswalk
Question
number
Question RQ A priori code
1 How long have you been a classroom teacher?
2 What grade level did you teach during the 2020–2021
school year?
3 Describe your experience with the transition to online
instruction in the 2020–2021 school year.
RQ1
RQ2
K/M/O
4 How did your school ensure, if at all, that students had
access to technology during the transition to online
instruction during the 2020–2021 school year?
RQ2 O-Tech
5 How did your school ensure, if at all, that you and the other
teaching staff had access to technology during the
transition to online instruction?
RQ2 O-Tech
6 How would you describe the goals or priorities the school
had during the 2020–2021 school year related to
maintaining student achievement through online
instruction?
RQ2 O-Eff
7 In what ways, if any, did your fellow teachers and
administrators show their commitment to the goals (or
priorities) the school had related to maintaining high
quality online instruction?
Were there key influencers who ensured a shared
commitment towards a common goal?
What were their actions?
RQ2 O-Eff
8 What shifts, if any, were needed to adapt the curriculum
from an in person teaching mode to online instruction?
What support, if any, did you have or need in this transition
from the school?
What other resources or supports beyond what was provided
by the school, if any, did you use?
RQ1 O-Cur
9 Describe your approach to designing an online lesson. Did
you use a prescribed curriculum or create your own?
What other resources did you use frequently?
RQ1 K-P1
157
Question
number
Question RQ A priori code
10 What teaching strategies or approaches did you include that
were unique to the online environment, if any?
Would you say they were successful? How did you know?
Can you give me an example.
RQ1 K-P1
11 In what ways, if at all, were you able to incorporate student
choice or agency in the online environment?
How did students receive and interact with feedback?
RQ1 K-P2
12 To what degree, if at all, were you able to align your
instruction content to state standards?
How does this compare with the alignment of your
instruction with state standards when teaching in person
in previous years?
RQ1 K-P3-Mot
13 In what ways, if any, were you able to build teacher-student
relationships in an online environment?
In what ways, if any, was maintaining a safe environment
unique in online instruction?
RQ1 K-P3-Nurt
14 In what ways did students interact with one another, if at
all?
What role, if any, did you play in facilitating this?
RQ1 K-P3-Dis
15 How has your confidence in being able to teach online
changed, if at all, from the start of school shutdowns till
the end of the school year?
What contributed to this change?
RQ1 M-Eff
16 Looking back, how would you describe the impact, if any,
your ability to and comfort with online instruction had on
student learning outcomes?
How successful were students, if at all, in learning in an
online environment?
How do you know this to be true?
RQ1 M-Att
17 Now that we have entered a new school year, what value, if
any, do you see in designing and facilitating online
instruction?
What are your reasons for this?
In what ways has online instruction during the 2020–2021
school year impacted your overall approach to teaching
and learning, if at all?
RQ1 M-Val
158
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Studies
STUDY TITLE: An Analysis of Online Engagement of Secondary Teachers at High Need
Schools During COVID-19 Shutdowns
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Vanessa Solomon
FACULTY ADVISOR: Jennifer Phillips, D.L.S.
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to describe the preparedness of teachers for online instruction in
secondary high need contexts during the 2020–2021 school year. We hope to learn knowledge,
skill, motivational, and organizational factors that influence teacher engagement in an online
environment. You are invited as a possible participant because you are a credentialed secondary
teacher serving in a high need school and taught online during the 2020–2021 school year.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participants are asked to respond to fifteen questions related to their experience teaching online
during the 2020–2021 school year. The interview will be conducted using Zoom and will last one
hour. The interview will be recorded. Participants will be provided a transcript of their interview
to verify accuracy by email within two weeks of the interview.
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to sign a consent form and schedule and attend a
virtual meeting via Zoom for one hour.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
All interviews will be conducted via Zoom. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed on a
password-protected computer that will remain locked in an unused office space. The data will be
evaluated using the University of Southern California’s survey product Qualtrics. Participant
identities will remain confidential, with names being replaced with alphanumeric codes in
transcripts and all work products. Any potentially identifying data will be redacted during the
transcription process. The names of schools will not be shared in the reporting of results.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Vanessa Solomon at 347-343-0569
and/or email solomonv@usc.edu.
159
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study explores the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influencing teacher engagement in online instruction at Grade 6–12 high need secondary schools during the 2020–2021 school year. Teacher engagement was defined as the ability to design and organize, instruct, and facilitate Grade K–12 online learning to increase student engagement, as outlined in Borup et al.’s adolescent community of engagement framework (2014). This qualitative study adopted the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to identify the discrete knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on teacher engagement in online instruction through open-ended interviews conducted with 10 participants. Assumed influences were categorized as needs or assets, which led to context specific and research driven recommendations to support online instruction. Recommendations included providing teachers training on organization and design, instructional delivery, and instructional facilitation while ensuring schools allocate funding and resources to support teacher practice. The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) new world model was used to propose an evaluation and implementation plan to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of the recommendations. The intended outcome from the recommendations is to improve the quality of online instruction which would result in increased educational equity for students in high need contexts.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study
PDF
Foreign-language teachers' needs to achieve better results: the role of differentiated instruction
PDF
Employee engagement in a post-COVID era: the mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction in remote and hybrid work environments
PDF
An evaluation of project based learning implementation in STEM
PDF
Teacher retention influences: an evaluation study
PDF
An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness
PDF
High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study
PDF
Teaching in the time of COVID: secondary educators’ experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic
PDF
Academic, social, and emotional supports for high school students in online schools
PDF
Facilitation of postsecondary opportunities for secondary students with special needs: an evaluation study
PDF
The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support at Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of teacher needs
PDF
TikToking and Instagramming: following high school teacher influencers' roles in supporting and informing teacher practices
PDF
Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners
PDF
Student engagement in online learning: examining undergraduate student engagement in online learning communities to improve instruction
PDF
Affluent teens and school stress: an evaluation study
PDF
Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study
PDF
Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives
PDF
Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study
PDF
Online graduate-level student learning and engagement: developing critical competencies for future leadership roles: an evaluation study
PDF
Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis
Asset Metadata
Creator
Solomon, Vanessa (author)
Core Title
An analysis of online engagement of secondary teachers at high need schools during COVID-19 shutdowns
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2022-12
Publication Date
12/02/2022
Defense Date
08/08/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
COVID-19,distance learning,high need schools,High School,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,online learning,online teaching,secondary teachers
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Phillips, Jennifer (
committee chair
), Datta, Monique (
committee member
), McKeithan, Tashon (
committee member
)
Creator Email
vanessalsolomon@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112617591
Unique identifier
UC112617591
Identifier
etd-SolomonVan-11338.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SolomonVan-11338
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Solomon, Vanessa
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20221207-usctheses-batch-994
(batch),
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
COVID-19
distance learning
high need schools
online learning
online teaching
secondary teachers