Measuring Instructor Self -Efficacy when Migrating Face-to-Face Courses Online

• Autorzy: Yanyue Yuan , Jace Hargis
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study measures instructors' online teaching self -effi cacy with an aim to capture their immediate and initial perception of migrating their teaching online and identify potential instructional needs and support. The authors sent a survey to all instructors in our institution four days prior to the first day of classes in spring 2020 and received 73 responses (60% response rate). The number of years of experience with online tools was low (88%). Instructors reported high confidence in their ability to teach online (82%); realization of the effort to create quality online experiences (90%); belief that teaching online would be different (90%); recognition of having to modify their assessment (77%); ability of adjusting teaching effi ciently with unexpected events (82%); knowledge of where to seek teaching and technology guidance (86% & 89%); and confi dence in developing a similar rapport with students (71%). Respondents were split in their beliefs about offering similar active learning opportunities. This study supplements research on instructors' perception of online teaching as a well -planned and intentional event, offering implications over the immediate and long -term support to be offered to instructors regarding migrating courses online both in times of crisis and when such opportunities arise. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Self-esteem; Teaching; e-learning; Teaching method; Motivation to learn

PL

Samoocena; Nauczanie; Zdalne nauczanie; Metody nauczania; Motywacja do nauki

• Czasopismo: Eastern European Journal of Transnational Relations
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: 4
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 97--113

Twórcy

autor

Yanyue Yuan

• NYU Shanghai, China

autor

Jace Hargis

• NYU Shanghai, China

Bibliografia

• 1. Angelo, T., & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.
• 2. Baghdadchi, S., Hardesty, R., Hadjipieris, P., & Hargis, J. (2018). Active techniques implemented in an introductory signal processing course to help students achieve higher levels of learning. Proceedings from the American Society of Engineering Education Conference, June 24-27. Salt Lake City, Utah: American Society for Engineering Education.
• 3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self -efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
• 4. Bandura, A. (1982). Self -efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122.
• 5. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self -efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3.
• 6. Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Rep. No. R-1589/7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140.Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2005/R1589.7.pdf.
• 7. Chiasson, K., Terras, K., & Smart, K. (2015). Faculty Perceptions Of Moving A Face -To-Face Course To Online Instruction. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 12(3), 321-240. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v12i3.9315.
• 8. Conrad, D. (2004). University instructors' reflections on their first online teaching experiences. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 31-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v8i2.1826.
• 9. De Gagne, J.C., & Walters, K. (2009). Online teaching experience: A qualitative metasynthesis (QMS). MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5 (4), 577-589. Retrieved from https://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no4/degagne_1209.pdf.
• 10. Foster, K.M. (2006). Bridging troubled waters: principles for teaching in times of crisis. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education. Retrieved from https://urbanedjournal.gse.upenn.edu/node/163.
• 11. Freeman S., Eddy, S., McDonough, M, Smith, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. & Wenderoth, M. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410-8415.
• 12. Freeman, L.A. (2013). Instructor time requirements to develop and teach online courses. Proceedings of the 2013 AIS SIGED: IAIM International Conference on Information Systems Education and Research, 8. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/siged2013/8.
• 13. Hill, R., Hargis, J., & Park, E. (2016). Developing, teaching and assessing hybrid English courses. International Journal for the Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 123-134.
• 14. Knowlton, D.S. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A defense and delineation of a student -centered pedagogy. In R.E. Weiss, D.S. Knowlton, & B.W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp. 5-14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey -Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.841.
• 15. Kuh, G., O'Donnell, K., & Schneider, C. G. (2017). HIPs at Ten at ten. Change: Higher Learning, 49(5), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1366805.
• 16. Lewis, C., & Abdul -Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9010-z.
• 17. Lockard, E., & Hargis, J. (2017). Andragogical design thinking: A transition to anarchy in and beyond the classroom. Transformative Dialogues, 10(3). Retrieved from https://kpu.ca/sites/default/files/Transformative%20Dialogues/TD.10.3.3_Lockhard%26Hargis_Andragogical_Design_Thinking.pdf.
• 18. McKeachie, W. (2005). McKeachie's Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. 12th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• 19. Mills, S.J., Yanes, M.J., & Casebeer, C.M. (2009). Perceptions of distance learning among faculty of a college of education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Technology, 5(1), 19-28. Retrieved from https://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no1/mills_0309.pdf.
• 20. Mintz, S. (2020, February 13). Online Course Design. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/online-course-design.
• 21. Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Ruben R. Puentedura Weblog. Retrieved March 28, 2020 from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/.
• 22. Puentedura, R. (2012). The SAMR model: Background and examples. Ruben R. Puentedura Weblog. Retrieved March 28, 2020 from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000073.html.
• 23. Ray, J. (2009). Faculty perspective: Training and course development for the online classroom. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 263-276. Retrieved from https://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/ray_0609.pdf.
• 24. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self -Effi cacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp.35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER -NELSON.
• 25. Stewart, C., Bachman, C., & Johnson, R. (2010). Predictors of faculty acceptance of online education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 597-616. Retrieved from https://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no3/stewartc_0910.pdf.
• 26. Tschannen -Moran, M., Woolfolk -Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher -efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543068002202.
• 27. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). Understanding by Design guide. Alexandria, VA: ASC.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15290/eejtr.2020.04.01.05