See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/374081026

Exploring Teachers' Experiences of Teaching Online During the COVID-19

Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Multi-Phase Study

Thesis · September 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18645.60646

CITATION READS

1 423

1 author:

Tim Dolighan
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS 138 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tim Dolighan on 21 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Exploring Teachers’ Experiences of Teaching Online During the COVID-19 Pandemic:

A Mixed Methods Multi-Phase Study

Tim Dolighan

Department of Educational Studies

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Studies

Faculty of Education, Brock University

St. Catharines, Ontario

© Tim Dolighan 2023

 Abstract

This is a mixed methods multi-phase study that measured teachers’ sense of efficacy for teaching

online at the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020. As the pandemic

persisted into the 2020-21 school year, the study was expanded to include a second phase that

sought to understand teacher efficacy and experience of teaching online one year into the

transition to emergency remote online teaching during the pandemic. The aim of this research

was to better understand how to best support teachers as they adapted to online teaching and to

use the data to build ongoing and professional learning support for effective online teaching. The

study examined the impact of prior experience teaching online, experience teaching online

during the pandemic, and access to online training on teacher self-efficacy as teachers adapted to

online learning in the context of the pandemic. What became clear was that teaching remotely

online under emergency measures is different from normal online teaching. The results of the

study in the initial phase found correlations between teachers’ sense of efficacy for teaching

online with using a learning management system (LMS) before transitioning online. Having had

online training and access to virtual tech support were also associated with a higher sense of

efficacy. In the second phase, teachers’ collaboration with colleagues to solve issues and learn

affected teacher efficacy. The study also found that access to technical and pedagogical support

resources impacted teachers’ sense of efficacy and experience teaching online. One outcome of

this study is support for the argument distinguishing between emergency remote teaching and

learning and online teaching and learning. Further, the findings emerge from this study support

recommendations for dedicated teacher professional development that addresses the challenges

and opportunities of designing and implementing emergency remote teaching and learning

environments.
Keywords: Teacher Self-efficacy, Professional Learning, Online Teaching, Pandemic
 Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the support and guidance of my committee members, Dr.

Kara Smith and Dr. Tanya Kaefer, and the wisdom and direction from my supervisor, Dr.

Michael Owen. The entire endeavor would not have been possible without the patience, support,

and love of my wife, Mary Dolighan.

 Table of Contents

Title Page………………………………………………………………………………

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………..

Keywords………………………………………………………………………………

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………...

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………..

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 1

The Problem ..................................................................................................................... 1

The Purpose of This Research .......................................................................................... 4

Method .............................................................................................................................. 4

Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 6

Assumptions and Limitations ........................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 13

Theoretical Positioning of the Research ......................................................................... 14

Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teaching Online .................................................................. 18

Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning .................................................................. 22

Mental Health and Well-being ....................................................................................... 27

K-12 Online Teaching and Learning .............................................................................. 29

Collaborative Online Learning ....................................................................................... 34

Collaborative Teacher Professional Learning ................................................................ 35

Online Professional Learning Communities .................................................................. 38

Implications for Future Research ................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 43

Methodology................................................................................................................... 42

Quantitative Methods ..................................................................................................... 44

Procedures ...................................................................................................................... 45

Population ....................................................................................................................... 44

Qualitative Methods ....................................................................................................... 46

Population ....................................................................................................................... 48

Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. 48

CHAPTER FOUR: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................... 50

Experience Teaching Online .......................................................................................... 60

Using a Learning Management System (LMS) .............................................................. 63

Support and Training for Teachers Teaching Online ..................................................... 66

Additional Qualification (AQ) Courses Online .............................................................. 67

Teaching at the Virtual School ....................................................................................... 68

Collaborating With Colleagues ...................................................................................... 69

Willingness to Teach Online .......................................................................................... 70

Teaching Assignment ..................................................................................................... 71

CHAPTER FIVE: QUALITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................... 73

Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 76

Student Engagement ....................................................................................................... 81

The Use of Technology .................................................................................................. 83

Online Instruction and Assessment ................................................................................ 85

Mental and Physical Well-Being .................................................................................... 88

Home Support for Families ............................................................................................ 90

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 91

CHAPTER SIX: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH .................... 92

Recognize Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning (ERT&L) is Distinct from

Online Learning ……………………………………………………………………….93

Leverage Collaborative Inquiry for Ongoing Professional Learning………………….95

Foster and Support Teacher Collaboration in the Online Context…………………….99

View Assessment as an Integral Component of the Learning Process……………....103

Value Pedagogy and Technology as Interconnected………………………………... 104

Administrative Support for Collaborative Teacher Online Professional Learning…..108

Recognize the Impact on Mental Health and Well-being…………………………….109

Cultivate a Positive Attitude and Willingness to Teach in an Online Context……….111

Make Connections with Novice Teachers and Teacher Preparation Programs………112

Limitations……………………………………………………………………….…... 115

Future Research……………………………………………………………………… 120

References .................................................................................................................. 1233

Appendix A: TSEOT Survey Phase 1 .......................................................................... 151

Appendix B: TSEOT Survey Phase 2 .......................................................................... 161

Appendix C: Qualitative Questionnaire ....................................................................... 171

Appendix D: Ethical Approval Phase 1........................................................................ 172

Appendix E: Ethical Approval Phase 2 ........................................................................ 173

Appendix F: Informed Consent Phase 1 ....................................................................... 174

Appendix G: Informed Survey Consent Phase 2 .......................................................... 175

Appendix H: Informed Consent Questionnaire ............................................................ 176

Appendix I: Recruitment E-mail Scripts ...................................................................... 177

 List of Tables

Table 1 Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy for Online Teaching Scores Phase 1 and
Phase 2………………………………………………………………………………… 51
Table 2 Pearson Correlation Matrix for Phase 1……………………………………….52
Table 3 Pearson Correlation Matrix for Phase 2……………………………………….54
Table 4 Regression Analysis Phase 1………………………………………………….56
Table 5 Regression Analysis Phase 2………………………………………………….58
Table 6 Qualitative Response Themes…………………………………………………75
 List of Figures

Figure 1 Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al., 2000) ………………...99

Figure 2 Fully Online Learning Community (Blayone et al., 2017) ………………..107

 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

In the first wave of global spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in the spring of

2020, K-12 teachers and students, as well as post-secondary students and instructors, rapidly

transitioned to fully online teaching and learning. With a return to classrooms in the fall of 2021

in many jurisdictions in Canada and internationally, school authorities offered several modes of

teaching and learning. In Ontario, elementary schools offered virtual learning as well as in

person learning. Ontario’s secondary schools offered in person learning with hybrid learning as

well as virtual schools. The hybrid model had students in cohorts, with one cohort learning in

person and the other cohort learning from home online. The challenges, frustrations, successes,

and failures experienced by teachers throughout these first two years of the pandemic provided

an opportunity to better understand how to support novice online teachers as well as more

experienced teachers as they transition to new approaches to teaching that include digital spaces

and online environments. The transition to remote teaching during the pandemic was different

than prior shifts to alternate modes of instruction and pedagogy (Barbour, 2022). The transition

during the pandemic had the added challenge of navigating social and health concerns associated

with the pandemic as well as the need for all teachers and students to rapidly learn new

technology in an online context.

The Problem

Prior to the transition to emergency remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic in

the spring of 2020, the Ontario Ministry of Education (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2020),

through Ontario policy program memorandum (PPM) 164, had implemented a requirement of

two eLearning course credits for the secondary school diploma. The initial transition to online

teaching and learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic exposed several challenges and
 2

shortcomings of online learning capabilities across the province and the country. These

challenges and shortcomings related to the availability of educational technologies, robust and

reliable IT bandwidths in rural and urban communities, students’ access to appropriate

technologies, parental capacities for supervision of students during online learning periods, and

teachers’ efficacy instructing in online environments. Teachers who transitioned to online

teaching in the spring of 2020 reported a low sense of efficacy for online teaching in the context

of the pandemic and the restrictions imposed by the Ontario government (Dolighan & Owen,

2021). These restrictions during the initial transition to online teaching and learning included

constraints on assessments and grading that were designed to mitigate the impact of stress and

anxiety on students, many of whom were new to online learning. Marshall et al. (2021) reported

that teachers felt a loss of perceived control, professional autonomy, and the ability to hold

students accountable, which impacted their sense of efficacy.

The return to face-to-face classrooms in the 2020-2021 school year, the second year of

the COVID-19 pandemic, brought additional challenges for teachers and administrators

professionally and personally. In Ontario, in person classrooms were divided into cohorts to

reduce class sizes and follow social distancing protocols set by the Ontario Ministry of Health

and Long-Term Care, the Ontario Ministry of Education, and school districts. Some school

districts established virtual schools for secondary and elementary students. These schools were

staffed with teachers who chose, for personal or health reasons, to teach virtually as well as

teachers who were placed in these virtual school to meet school district staffing requirements.

School boards also adopted hybrid learning models to meet the needs of students who had to

quarantine or remain at home for personal or family reasons. As COVID-19 case numbers

continued to rise during the 2020-2021 school year, all schools in Ontario once again pivoted to
 3

fully emergency remote online teaching and learning (ERT&L) by the spring of 2021. The need

for real-time and ongoing training and support for online teaching only increased.

The Ontario Ministry of Education distinguished between virtual online learning or

remote learning and eLearning. The latter has been part of education in Ontario since the

emergence of the internet in the late 1990s (Barbour & LaBonte, 2018). The Ontario Ministry of

Education defined secondary school eLearning courses, also known as distance learning courses,

as courses that are delivered entirely using the internet and do not require students to be

physically present in the classroom (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2020). Such courses are

delivered asynchronously and school services such as guidance, mental health, and well-being

supports are intended to be accessed by students in person at their home school. As the pandemic

began to take hold, the Ontario Ministry of Education introduced a requirement for secondary

students to complete two credits of online secondary learning to be eligible for their Ontario

secondary School Diploma (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2022). The challenge for schools and

ministries in Ontario and elsewhere was to seize the opportunities that the rapid change and

adaptation to online teaching and learning presented to better serve students and to support

teachers in that task. One such opportunity is providing ongoing opportunities for professional

learning for online teaching. I used the term professional learning as it pertains to teacher

learning for online teaching that is active, collaborative, and ongoing. In contrast, professional

development refers to teacher training that is traditionally passive, top down and a one size fits

all approach. The aim of my study was to inform provincial and district school authorities as they

provide customized PL and supports for teachers to teach effectively online. Furthermore, the

benefits of planning and designing online learning opportunities can also enhance in class
 4

learning using online technologies and online teaching strategies that align with 21st century

learning and transferable skills (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2022).

The Purpose of This Research

The focus of my thesis was to better understand teachers’ experience transitioning and

adapting to teaching online during the pandemic and to transform such understanding to support

teachers who teach in online environments. This research was unique at the outset in that it

investigates teachers’ perceived efficacy and experience transitioning to and teaching online in

the context of the pandemic in a particular Catholic school board in the Greater Toronto Area.

This study sought to better understand how to improve teacher efficacy and support teacher PL

for designing and implementing effective online learning experiences for students. This research

investigation incorporated a multi-phase and multi-method research design to better understand

the impact of the response to the pandemic on teacher self-efficacy for teaching in online spaces

in an emerging “new normal” (Barbour et al., 2020). As education in Ontario emerged from the

emergency measures of the pandemic and as school leaders and teachers looked to the future of

schooling, understanding the challenges faced by teachers adapting to online learning

environments can help inform a way forward that seizes the opportunity and learning provided

by the pandemic to improve online teaching and learning, and to consider how assessments of

online teaching and learning, including emergency remote teaching and learning, can improve

face-to-face instruction.

Method

This study employed a mixed-methods, multi-phase design, based on Creswell and Plano

Clark (2017), to investigate teachers’ sense of efficacy for designing online learning experiences
 5

and teaching online during the unprecedented shift to online teaching and learning due to

COVID-19 public health measures in Ontario. The study explored teachers’ experience of

teaching in online settings.

This study was conducted in two phases. The multi-phase design allowed for an

examination of the ongoing challenges teachers experienced as the pandemic persisted, including

how resources were initially needed to support the emergency transition to online teaching but

then evolved as teachers adapted to multiple new modes of teaching and learning.

In Phase 1 of the research, the intention was to better understand how teachers perceived

their efficacy for teaching online and engaging students during the initial transition to online

schooling. The following research questions were developed:

1. How confident do secondary teachers feel preparing, conducting, and evaluating

online courses?

2. Is there a difference in online teaching efficacy in relation to the variables:

(a) age,

(b) gender,

(c) number of years of face-to-face teaching experience, and

(d) number of years of online teaching experience?

3. In what ways does experience with online teaching, completing an online Additional

Qualifications course (AQ), taking professional development, and perceived support

from experts or instructional designers influence teachers’ reported self-efficacy for

online teaching?

The second phase of this study sought to measure and understand teachers’ sense of

efficacy one year into the transition to ERT&L during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, in
 6

Phase 2, I investigated the relationships between prior experience teaching online and self-

efficacy and also between access to online training and self-efficacy amongst teachers as they

adapted to online learning in the context of the pandemic. In addition, I investigated the

relationship between teacher self-efficacy and collaborating with colleagues to solve issues and

learn new technology. Finally, the second phase of the study investigated the impact of access to

technical and pedagogical support from technical support teams (e.g., tech support, instructional

designers) on teachers’ self-efficacy. During Phase 2 of the study, the following research

questions were asked:

1. How confident do teachers feel preparing, conducting, and evaluating online courses?

2. Is there a difference in online teaching self-efficacy one year into the pandemic

compared to the initial transition?

3. In what ways do teaching assignments, the choice to teach virtual or face-to-face, and

willingness to continue teaching online impact teacher self-efficacy?

4. In what ways does experience with online teaching, collaborating with colleagues,

and training, resources, and support from the school board influence teacher-reported

self-efficacy for online teaching?

Definitions

It is important that I provide clarity of terms used in this dissertation. During the

pandemic, for example, terms such as online learning, emergency remote teaching, hybrid

learning, and hyflex teaching were used interchangeably by administrators, teachers, and

students. However, for this dissertation and drawing on the scholarly literature, these and other

terms often have precise meanings. These terms are defined below.

In-person learning is the traditional model of learning where students are enrolled in a
 7

brick-and-mortar school and engage in their learning with teachers located at their school

in a typical classroom setting (Nagle et al., 2021).

Online learning is teacher-led education that takes place over the Internet, with the

teacher and student separated geographically, using a web-based educational delivery system that

includes software to provide a structured learning environment. It may be synchronous

(communication in which participants interact in real time, such as online video) or

asynchronous (communication separated by time, such as email or online discussion forums). It

may be accessed from multiple settings (in school and/or out of school buildings).

Supplemental online programs provide a small number of courses to students who are

enrolled in a school separate from the online program (, 2015).

Fully online schools, also called cyberschools, work with students who are enrolled

primarily (often only) in the online school. Cyberschools typically are responsible for their

students’ scores on state assessments. In some American states, most full-time online schools are

charter schools. In several studies, virtual learning has been used to reflect the movement to

emergency remote learning and remote learning during the pandemic (Marshall et al., 2022;

Neiss & Gillow-Wiles, 2021). Virtual schools are fully online modes of learning where students

are enrolled in the online school and teachers dedicated to that school are responsible for

instruction, assessments, and grades.

Blended learning is a formal education program in which students learn, in part, through

online delivery of content and instruction with some element of student control over time, place,

path, and pace. In blended learning environments, students also are supervised at a brick-and-

mortar location away from home (Barbour, 2015).

 8

Hybrid learning was a model where one group of students, or a cohort, learned in-person

in their classroom some of the time while another group of students were learning at home, both

instructed by the same classroom-based teacher. The two cohort groups alternate between in-

person and at-home learning (Nagle et al., 2021).

Emergency Remote Teaching “involves the use of fully remote teaching solutions for

instruction or education that would otherwise be delivered primarily face-to-face and that will

return to that format once the crisis or emergency has abated. The primary objective in these

circumstances is not to re-create a robust educational ecosystem but rather to provide temporary

access to instruction and instructional supports in a manner that is quick to set up and is reliably

available during an emergency or crisis” (Barbour et al., 2020, p.6).

Remote teaching is described as true contingency planning for remote or distance

delivery of instruction based on the realities of the pandemic at a given point in time. In contrast

to ERT, the distance delivery of instruction includes planning and strategies to ensure

instructional continuity (Nagle et al., 2021).

Teacher self-efficacy refers to “the teacher's belief in his or her capability to organize and

execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a

particular context” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p. 233). In this study, teacher self-efficacy

was examined as one’s belief of competency with regards to the process of teaching, instruction,

classroom management, student engagement, and use of computers and technology. For teachers,

self-perception of teaching competence and beliefs about the task requirements in a particular

teaching context contribute to teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

 9

Additional Qualification (AQ) courses are courses accredited by the Ontario College of

Teachers (OCT) that qualified teachers can take to upgrade their knowledge and skills and gain

qualifications in a certain teaching division or subject.

Professional Learning (PL) refers to ongoing learning about teaching content knowledge,

pedagogy, and processes that lead to effective practice. PL is active, collaborative and supports a

constructivist understanding of learning (Scherff, 2018).

Professional Development (PD) refers to teacher training that is passive, “happens to”

teachers, is often associated with one-time workshops, seminars, or lectures, and is typically a

one-size-fits all approach” (Scherff, 2018, paragraph 2)

Assumptions and Limitations

This study sought to better understand the process and learning that teachers who are new

to online teaching go through to help those developing effective training and targeted supports.

The unique context of the pandemic posed several research challenges that affected access to

teaching staff and influenced the timing of the data collection. In my data collection, I assumed

that the sample of teaching staff in both phases of the study was representative of the teacher

population in the school board. Access to teachers was limited by health protocols. The personal

stress and anxiety that teachers experienced may have had an impact on how many teachers

responded to the survey, especially in Phase 2, where 265 out of 1631 teachers (16.25%)

employed at the board responded.

In this study, COVID-19 provided an opportunity to study online teaching in the context

of a pandemic. In 2003, the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak closed four

schools in Canada’s largest jurisdiction – the Toronto District School Board. The school board

did not implement full scale virtual learning but did put material online to supplement student
 10

learning (Barbour, 2022). Previous to SARS, the polio pandemic of the 1950s and the flu

pandemic of 1919 also closed schools (Mlynaryk & Makovac, 2020). Unfortunately, despite

experience with school closures and the need for continuity of learning, the lessons learned and

documented were not heeded and Canada was unprepared for the March 2020 COVID-19

pandemic (Barbour, 2022). The opportunity to expand understanding of how teachers

transitioned to online teaching also extended to understanding the impacts of restrictions to the

learning environment and parameters to teaching and assessing students that do not exist in a

non-pandemic context. Although there is extensive research that links teacher efficacy to student

achievement (Armor, 1976; Bruce et al., 2010; Ross et al., 2006) and higher levels of student

engagement (Good & Brophy, 2003; Martin et al., 2012), it was unknown what impact the

pandemic has had on teachers’ perceived self-efficacy for teaching, especially in the uncharted

context of ERT&L. The research for teachers’ self-efficacy for online teaching is not as

extensive as teacher self-efficacy for classroom setting, especially in the K-12 context (Martin et

al., 2021). While there is emerging research on teachers’ experience during the pandemic, at the

time this study was initiated, other Canadian and international researchers had just begun to try

to understand the impact of the pandemic and teachers’ experience and efficacy for teaching

online in the pandemic context. In my case, I also recognized the difference between normal

online teaching and the ERT&L that teachers were engaged in during the pandemic (Hodges et

al., 2020).

All data were collected during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Analysis

of the data was in a in a bounded context of the population studied and statistical comparison to

efficacy scores from previous studies was impossible. Even within this study, the population was

expanded in Phase 2 and the design was anonymous so any comparative analysis between self-
 11

efficacy scores is not possible. A longitudinal design using the same participants in both phases

would have been necessary for statistical comparison. I made the decision to have teacher

anonymity to encourage participation and ease teachers’ concern for potential reprisal from their

employer for any negative responses.

Another limitation is the nature of self-reporting of efficacy that can be affected by self-

promotion or social desirability. Self-reported efficacy is a perceived competence in one’s ability

to complete a task successfully and not an actual measure of competence or performance. The

voluntary and anonymous component of the questionnaires was designed to mitigate some of

these limitations as well as protect the participants.

The initial response to the pandemic in the spring of 2020, with the sudden transition to

online teaching and learning, also influenced the research design and implementation. The

research design was modified and the timeline for acquisition of research approval from both the

university and the school board were accelerated due to the sudden and fluid response to the

pandemic by the Ontario government and school boards across the province. In this case, the

timing of the initial survey depended on receiving research ethics clearance (Appendix D) and

took into consideration teachers’ levels of stress and lack of time to complete a survey. At the

same time, the intention was to investigate the perceived self-efficacy level of secondary teachers

as they transitioned to online teaching in the initial stages of the pandemic. Although the

response of secondary teachers in the first phase was 31%, as the population was expanded for

Phase 2 one year later to include both secondary and elementary school teachers in one school

board, the rate of response was much lower at 16.25%. While the number of secondary panel

respondents remained almost the same (n = 130), the number of elementary panel respondents

was n = 135 or 11% of the elementary teachers invited to participate. Further research into
 12

differences in workload or familiarity with technology between secondary and elementary

teachers or other unknown factors related to the pandemic could account for the difference in

response rate.

In the context of the pandemic, teachers who were teaching face-to-face before the

pandemic had to transition to an online setting with little to no experience or training for online

teaching. After examining various teacher self-efficacy measures, the decision to adapt the

Michigan Nurse Educators Sense of Efficacy for Online Teaching (MNESEOT) survey to reflect

K-12 teachers’ experience was made and several questions were changed to customize the

survey to the K-12 environment. (See Appendices A and B). Although the instrument used is

reflective of important traditional tasks that teachers must master and is general enough to still

apply to the teaching context today, the way technology is used and reflected in the subscale use

of computers may warrant revisiting to reflect current online design and online learning

strategies more accurately (Blayone et al., 2017; Garrison, 2017).

Dissertation Outline:

In this chapter, I provided a summary of the research project’s inception, importance, and

methodology. In Chapter 2, I provided an analysis of existing research literature on K-12 online

teaching and learning and the research on education’s response to the global pandemic. Chapter

3 provided the methodology and research design for the multiphase mixed methods study.

Chapter 4 detailed the quantitative results and analysis of the data in Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Chapter 5 reported the qualitative findings and analysis of the data from Phase 2 of the study. In

Chapter 6, I provided recommendations on how to support teachers who are new to online

teaching and learning as well as supports for teachers’ ongoing professional learning for teaching

in online and blended learning contexts.

 13

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this literature review is to bring together relevant research that examined

teachers’ ability to effectively design and implement online learning for K-12 students and

provide a framework based on the literature of teacher efficacy for online teaching. This research

study was done in the context of the pandemic and the impact pandemic restrictions had on the

transition to online teaching and the continuing professional learning (PL) for teaching and

designing online learning. The main question of interest was how to best support teachers in this

transition with ongoing professional learning for teaching online.

Understanding teachers’ online teaching self-efficacy beliefs are useful to develop

support and resources to best meet online teaching development needs. Hence, analyzing

troublesome knowledge and barriers to learning to teaching online encountered by teachers can

provide insight into their self-perceptions of and confidence levels about how well they

understand online education and perceive their own practical skills and learning needs

(Northcote et al., 2015). Research suggested that teacher anxiety about online teaching could

result from the negative impact that barriers, such as a perceived lack of knowledge and lack of

practical and technical skills, have on self-efficacy (Shepherd et al., 2007). The added stress of

continually changing teaching contexts and coping with the stress produced by the pandemic also

affects teachers’ confidence and self-efficacy for teaching online (Panisoara et al., 2020). My

study considered what skills and resources teachers identified as needed for effective online

teaching. I employed a constructivist approach as a philosophical standpoint to provide a

framework for examining how some teachers were able to effectively transition to online

teaching in the difficult circumstances of a global pandemic. This literature review explored

relevant literature on teachers’ efficacy for teaching online and how to best support teachers who
 14

faced challenges and barriers to online teaching, as well as successful practices adopted by

teachers as they learned to teach in online contexts during the pandemic.

Theoretical Positioning of the Research

Social constructivism is a theoretical framework that provides a philosophical standpoint

to examine teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning that address the individual perceptions

and beliefs about reality and learning. The theoretical framework proposed by Garrison (2016)

described a “collaborative constructivist” perspective that recognizes the relationship between

the social environment and personal meaning making, and that “collaboration and constructivism

correspond respectively to the teaching and learning responsibilities of an educational

experience” (p. 9). Garrison attributed the work of John Dewey, an influential early 20th century

educational thinker, to the philosophical perspective in that meaning is constructed through

iteratively sharing thoughts and ideas (Garrison, 2016). Dewey described educational

experiences as a “transaction taking place between an individual and what, at the time,

constitutes his [sic] environment…” (Dewey, 1938, as cited in Garrison, 2017, p. 10) Garrison

also incorporates the contribution of Lev Vygotsky (1978) who saw high level cognitive function

as happening through interactions from which the individual constructs personal meaning.

Learning activities needed to be rooted in experiment, inquiry, creativity, and critical thinking so

that as meaning is constructed by the learner, deeper rather than surface learning occurs.

Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the importance of the learning environment and the learner's

interaction with it. For Vygotsky, artifacts were seen as transforming mental functioning in

fundamental ways. According to Cole and Wertsch, Vygotsky (1981, as cited in Cole & Wertsch,

1996) argued that,

 15

[t]he inclusion of a tool in the process of behavior (a) introduces several new functions

connected with the use of the given tool and with its control.(b) abolishes and makes

unnecessary several natural processes, whose work is accomplished by the tool.(c) alters

the course and individual features (the intensity, duration, sequence, etc.) of all the mental

processes that enter into the composition of the instrumental act, replacing some functions

with others (i.e., it re-creates the whole structure of labor operations) (p. 252).

During the pandemic, the tools in the case of teacher PL were the digital tools that are required

for the learning to take place in the online context. The digital space recreated and mediated

social interactions that are part of the learning process.

In terms of teachers’ PL, the use of technological tools in online learning, social

constructivism provides a useful framework for this study. If learning is not passive or done in

isolation but includes a social aspect, teacher professional learning should be examined with the

view that learning is a constructivist and socially and culturally situated process (Bandura, 1989).

Garrison (2017) argued that we never learn in isolation and that we cannot avoid being

influenced by our environment. In his social cognitive theory, Bandura (1977) distinguished

between self-efficacy and locus of control. Bandura (1977) describes self-efficacy as an

individual’s perception of their ability to achieve a particular outcome. According to Bandura

(1977), perceived self-efficacy is “a judgment of one’s capability to accomplish a given level of

performance, whereas outcome expectation is a judgment of the likely consequences such

behavior will produce” (p. 391). Bandura (1993) asserted, “teachers’ beliefs in their personal

efficacy to motivate and promote learning affects the types of learning environments they create

and the level of academic achievement their students achieve” (p. 117). Teacher self-efficacy is a

construct that represents confidence in one’s ability to facilitate learning in students through the
 16

development of students’ knowledge, abilities, and values and the dynamic interaction of the

person, environment, and behavior (Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy beliefs are correlated with the

effort people are willing to expend to attain a goal and how persistent they are in the face of

adversity and in their recovery from setbacks (Bandura, 1986, 1993). The pandemic provided

numerous setbacks and adversity that was an interesting context to investigate teacher self-

efficacy as they transitioned to online teaching and learning contexts.

Appropriate digital tools can be effective tools for learning specific content. Salomon and

Perkins (1998) suggest that tools play dual roles as devices for learning as well as devices of

learning. For example, the authors point out how a smartphone is used as a tool to communicate

and how its use must be learned. They examined the effects of tools on the learner in a particular

task and found that as the learner uses and becomes familiar with a particular tool, the cognitive

load for the task is redistributed between the learner and the device (Perkins, 1993), and the

capacity of the tool is expanded. As teachers integrate and use technology for learning, they learn

to use various instructional tools. In a systematic review of studies that examined teachers’

pedagogical beliefs and their use of technology for learning, Tondeur et al. (2012) revealed that

learning experiences with technology have the potential to change teachers’ beliefs towards more

student-centered, constructivist beliefs. Similarly, teachers with constructivist beliefs are more

likely to use technology in student-centered ways. Tondeur and colleagues' review showed

teachers' pedagogical beliefs that were more teacher-centered or traditional hindered or

prevented effective technology integration. It is worth noting that this is consistent with other

findings (Donnelly et al., 2011; Ertmer et al., 2015) that suggested constructivist beliefs lead to

the use of technology that supports 21st century learning, and transferable skills and beliefs lead

to action that reaffirms beliefs. Researchers have demonstrated that teacher efficacy and self-
 17

efficacy is reflective of teachers’ beliefs regarding teaching and learning (Park & Ertmer, 2008).

In an online teacher learning context, the digital space that is used in a collaborative learning

experience can also be for and of learning when specific technologies are chosen as part of the

learning process (Blayone et al., 2017). The professional learning for online teaching that takes

place as collaborative inquiry supports a social-constructivist model of learning that challenges

traditional content driven and siloed online learning experiences (Blayone et al., 2017; Garrison,

2017)

Bandura’s (1986, 1997) social cognitive theory provides a basis for understanding how

teachers can learn through interactions and experience in a particular social context. Northcote et

al. (2015) connected Bandura’s contextually appropriate social experiential learning with the

tension of cognitive dissonance that teachers might face when they transition from face-to-face

to online teaching. Bandura (1997) emphasizes that individuals are agents of their own change.

Pintrich et al. (1993) described how efficacy beliefs played a role in mediating conceptual

change, which suggests teachers can change their beliefs about online learning versus face-to-

face learning by building self-efficacy through experience and appropriate professional learning

opportunities. The online learning context and pedagogy are sufficiently different from face-to-

face learning and warrant a distinct examination of the relationship between teacher self-efficacy

and student success in the online context (Corry & Stella, 2018). Novice online teachers often

face barriers to developing the skills they need to be effective online teachers. Northcote and her

colleagues conducted a multiphase study with teaching faculty in an Australian university who

were transitioning to online teaching. Northcote et al. (2011) connected novice teachers’ sense of

efficacy with the barriers and challenges they faced as they learned how to teach in online

settings. The study examined the use of threshold concepts, introduced by Meyer and Land
 18

(2003), and how self-efficacy for online teaching can be improved by identifying and addressing

troublesome knowledge that teachers encounter as they develop online pedagogical and

technological skills. As teachers engage in learning about how to teach online, they encounter

barriers and troublesome knowledge that act as thresholds for learning and building knowledge

and skills for online teaching (Kilgour et al., 2019; Northcote et al., 2015).

Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teaching Online

Teacher efficacy has been studied extensively (Armor et al., 1976; Berman et al., 1977;

Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Teaching self-efficacy is a construct that represents teachers’

confidence in their ability to facilitate learning in students (Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy beliefs,

(as noted in Chapter 1) are correlated with the effort people are willing to expend to attain a goal

and how persistent they are in the face of adversity and recover from setbacks (Bandura, 1986,

1993). Previous studies have found teacher self-efficacy is negatively associated with teacher

burnout and positively associated with commitment to teaching (Pas et al, 2012; Skaalvik &

Skaalvik, 2007; Sokal et al., 2020a; Zee & Koomen, 2016). Teachers with higher self-efficacy

are more likely to try new teaching methods and are more persistent in the face of challenges

(Pressley et al., 2018). Additionally, previous research has found teacher self-efficacy impacts

student outcomes and instructional quality (Klassen et al., 2010). Teachers with higher self-

efficacy are more likely to build relationships with students thus increasing student engagement

(Good & Brophy, 2003; Martin et al, 2012; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

Studying teachers’ perceived efficacy for online teaching, Corry and Stella (2018)

conducted a systematic review of the literature on teacher self-efficacy in online education. The

authors found that researchers have examined the balance of technological and pedagogical

knowledge that supports the development of teacher self-efficacy, the role of learner self-
 19

efficacy, and whether teacher self-efficacy differs fundamentally in online education. Further,

Corry and Stella suggest that the association of teacher self-efficacy and student success has yet

to be empirically validated. The authors conclude that the literature supports further research

investigating the construct of teacher self-efficacy in online education and possible correlations

between self-efficacy and student success in the online learning environment. Corry and Stella

(2018) advocate for additional research that ties together teacher self-efficacy and technology

integration with online teaching and learning. While the link between teacher self-efficacy and

integrating technology into the classroom is made by researchers (Kopcha & Alger, 2011;

Mishra & Koehler, 2006), the role this link plays in how confident teachers are teaching online

needs to be studied further.

Research into how K-12 teachers’ self-efficacy influences their development of online

instructional expertise is not extensive. However, studies such as Northcote et al. (2011; 2015;

2019) found that a multi-phased approach to professional learning programs based on identifying

threshold concepts for online teaching abilities and pedagogy increases efficacy of teachers in

their design and delivery of online learning. The authors conducted a mixed-methods, three

phase study that used quantitative data from the Online Teaching Self-Efficacy Inventory

(OTSEI; Gosselin, 2009) and qualitative data from questionnaires and reflective journals given

to both novice and experienced faculty members teaching online to identify threshold concepts

that are crucial to learning how to teach online effectively. The data were used to identify

threshold concepts and barriers that were used to inform professional development for staff who

were transitioning from face-to-face to online teaching.

For K-12 teachers, studies examining self-efficacy for online teaching is sparse. Corry,

Dardick, and Reichenberg (2021) refer to the lack of research on teacher self-efficacy in K-12
 20

online learning environments compared to face-to face environments. Research on teacher self-

efficacy for K-12 online teaching has emerged in the context of the forced transition and

restrictions imposed by the pandemic (Dolighan & Owen, 2021). Using the self-efficacy

measurement that was developed by Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) and then modified for online

instructors by Robinia and Anderson (2010) provides a familiar framework of K-12 teaching

tasks such as instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management with the

inclusion of measures for technology use and online instructional strategies. Dolighan and Owen

(2021) sampled 132 secondary teachers and measured their self-efficacy for teaching online

during the pandemic. In this study, which was conducted during initial stages of the pandemic,

the authors found that teacher self-efficacy for online teaching was positively correlated with

previously online training or completion of an online Additional Qualifications (AQ) course.

Accessing virtual technical support and using a school board provided learning management

system (LMS) were also correlated with higher self-efficacy, which supports the similar findings

of Cardullo et al. (2021). Dolighan and Owen (2021) found no relationship with experience

teaching online and overall efficacy scores. Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) model emphasizes

the strong cyclical nature of teacher efficacy, which is enhanced by mastery experiences

encouraging greater effort, persistence, and performance on task. Both Robinia and Anderson

(2010) and Horvitz et al. (2015) found that higher education faculty who had more experience

teaching online courses reported higher self-efficacy. Although the study by Dolighan and Owen

(2021) did not find a relationship between self-efficacy and online teaching experience for

secondary teachers in the context of the early pandemic, experience was still strongly related to

self-efficacy in teaching face-to-face (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the

circumstances of the pandemic may have influenced experienced online teachers’ sense of
 21

efficacy for teaching online. Since the pandemic was a forced transition, the stress and

challenges may have affected teachers’ perception of efficacy, even if they had prior online

teaching experience.

Research on teacher self-efficacy during COVID-19 is emerging (Pressley, 2021).

Several researchers who studied the impact of the pandemic on teacher efficacy have examined

the impact of the changes in teaching modes and health and safety restrictions imposed during

the pandemic on teacher efficacy (Dolighan & Owen, 2021; Pellerone, 2021; Pressley, 2021;

Pressley & Ha, 2022; Rabaglietti et al., 2021). Rabaglietti et al. (2021) found European teachers’

self-efficacy decreased when teachers faced more difficulty with distance learning. The authors

also found that self-efficacy acted as a mediator for teachers’ perceived stress associated with

distance learning (Rabaglietti et al., 2021). Sokal et al. (2020a) found that exhaustion and stress

negatively impacted teacher efficacy and performance during the pandemic. They define

exhaustion “as perceptions of having not enough resources to meet demand” (Sokal et al., 2020a,

p. 6) and suggest mitigating exhaustion can avert teacher burnout. According to Kilgour et al.

(2019), an individual who transitions into an online pedagogical environment may encounter

new concepts and confront barriers to effective teaching in an online context even if they have in

person teaching experience. For school districts, developing capacity and competence for online

pedagogy and design may involve overcoming barriers of technological knowledge and

pedagogical knowledge for online environments as well as barriers caused by stress and

exhaustion. Teacher efficacy provides a measure for determining how to assess teachers’ comfort

and competence using online technology for designing professional learning and professional

development but also may be useful, given the relationship to exhaustion, for developing

measures to address negative thoughts and feelings that lead to burnout (Sokal et al., 2020b).
 22

Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that being prepared to transition quickly to

remote teaching and learning is no longer a hypothetical option but is an imperative that school

boards and teachers needed to address during and following the COVID-19 pandemic. The

distinction between emergency remote teaching (ERT) and online teaching and learning is key.

In this study I refer to ERT as emergency remote teaching and learning (ERT&L) to reflect the

relationship between teaching and learning. This distinction between online teaching and

learning and what came to be known as ERT was first identified by Hodges et al. (2020).

Barbour et al. (2020), in the first in a series of reports for Canadian eLearning Network

(CANeLearn), found that teachers’ experience with emergency remote teaching during the

pandemic revealed a need for far more planning and intentional design around teacher

preparation, digital infrastructure, education policy, and learning and teaching resources if

teachers were to provide quality instructional continuity during a crisis. The CANeLearn report

made recommendations on how schools can be better prepared for teaching in person and

remotely during a crisis. In the same series from CANeLearn, Nagle et al. (2021) reviewed how

Canadian provincial and territorial educational jurisdictions prepared for and implemented

learning strategies for the reopening of schools in the fall of 2020, the second school year of the

pandemic. This latter report by Nagle and colleagues identified teaching modes that were

employed across jurisdictions in Canada:

• In person learning, where students engage with their teacher in a traditional

classroom environment.

• Distance/online, where the teacher and student are separated physically and

temporally (also referred to as eLearning)

 23

• Hybrid learning, where one cohort of students learns in person while another

learns online with the same teacher. In this case cohorts alternated days in person

and at home.

• Concurrent learning, where a classroom teacher teaches some students in person

and some students live online at the same time.

• Remote learning, designed to be temporary, is a variation of distance learning

used during school closures where the teacher and students engage live online

when in person learning is unavailable (Nagle et al., 2021).

In Ontario, the Ministry of Education required in person learning and remote learning, as

outlined in PPM 164. Most school boards in Ontario could not offer a full curriculum via

distance education and were required to provide a concurrent hybrid model for students who

opted or were required to stay at home. According to Nagle et al. (2021), teachers’ experiences

in the hybrid and concurrent models used in Ontario reflect how difficult it was to manage the

learning environment. Teachers expressed frustration with the hybrid/concurrent model as they

had no training for and little experience with navigating the technology and be able to engage

and occupy students in their classrooms while managing and engaging students online (Wong,

2021). Stewart (2021) argues that the demands of the hybrid model disrupted the relationship

building that teachers do in face-to-face classrooms and encouraged a default to simple, slower

paced, teacher-led instruction. Nagle et al. (2021) indicate that while provinces like British

Columbia and Nova Scotia that had continuity of remote learning were well prepared for and

situated to transition to a “new normal,” Ontario was not as well prepared. In January 2021,

facing a new surge in COVID-19 cases, schools across Canada were again closed, and teachers

and students returned to emergency remote teaching and learning. Nagle et al. (2021)
 24

admonished jurisdictions that failed to put ERT&L plans in place given the lessons that should

have been learned during the rapid transition to ERT&L in the spring of 2020.

Acknowledging the difference between ERT&L and online teaching and learning

presents a starting point for developing a strategy to allow for uninterrupted continuity of

learning (Nagle et al., 2021). Research shows that effective online learning results from

intentional instructional design and planning, using a systematic model for design and

development (Branch & Dousay, 2015; Martin et al., 2012). A study by Marshall et al. (2020)

examining American teachers’ experience of teaching during the initial stages of the pandemic

identified several concerns and barriers teachers faced that were more related to dealing with the

impact of the pandemic than challenges associated with a normal transition to online teaching.

Marshall and colleagues surveyed American teachers who transitioned to online teaching.

Teachers reported having difficulty providing adequate instruction with the appropriate amount

of rigor and lacking the ability to hold students accountable. Other concerns expressed by these

teachers were a lack of equity in access to technology and internet service and minimal training

of teachers in effective online teaching. Teachers with children of their own also reported

difficulties managing teaching while supporting their children who may have been learning at

home. Teacher training prior to the pandemic assumed teaching would take place face-to-face.

Most of what teachers learned and shared during the initial transition was from their own

research or experienced shared by other teachers (Marshall et al., 2020). Marshall et al. (2020)

recommended that digital learning days be incorporated into the school year so that future

transitions to emergency remote learning will not be as drastic nor as fraught. Digital learning

days could include components of at home learning that are graded the same as in person

learning so that students see it as important.

 25

Online teaching and learning (OT&L) have two modes of delivery: synchronous and

asynchronous. The synchronous mode is delivered in real-time and is interactive. Asynchronous

learning refers to online delivery that is not done at the same time and is temporally and

physically distant. During the pandemic, in most cases, teachers with no training or experience

were required to navigate both modes of delivery (Marshall et al., 2020). During the pandemic,

synchronous software such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams, amongst others, helped teachers and

students connect in real time. Most jurisdictions in Canada required set amounts of time teachers

and students were to be live online for ERT&L (Nagle et al., 2021). Therefore, distinguishing

between remote or virtual teaching and traditional distance education has implications for how

understanding how teachers responded to the transition to ERT&L and how jurisdictions could

build on and support OT&L beyond the current pandemic.

Asynchronous delivery using affordances such as online discussion boards can be an

effective way of promoting critical thinking in online and face-to-face learning environments

(Aloni & Harrington, 2018). The temporal distance that asynchronous design supports require

structure and planning to be effective (Garrison, 2017). During the 2020-21 school year, Nagle et

al. (2021) described a concurrent mode of delivery that had students divided into cohorts,

alternating days learning online and in person. The online learning was almost exclusively

asynchronous and challenged teachers to plan learning opportunities for students at home and in

person. Hrastinski (2008) described the benefits of asynchronous learning designs such as

supporting flexible schedules and allowing learners more time for reflection and response.

Hrastinski argued that including asynchronous components in face-to-face learning allows for a

more effective use of in person time to dig deeper into material as is the case in a flipped-

classroom model which involves students engaging the content themselves first (often online)
 26

and then digging deeper in class with the support of the teacher. The potential to enhance

learning face-to-face through technology and flexibility and familiarity with digital learning also

supported emergency remote transition preparedness (Marshall et al., 2020). The dichotomy

between synchronous and asynchronous, referred to as bichronous by Martin et al. (2021), in

online learning needs to be studied further, both in the context of ERT&L and online learning.

Although Ontario mandated ERT&L measures that limited assessment and evaluations to

promote equity and ease mental health concerns for students, Barbour and Hodges (2021) found

that the most common types of assessments used in online learning are possible and appropriate

with some adjustments in ERT&L contexts. The authors identify some of those common types of

assessments as written assignments, e-portfolios, presentations, and tests, quizzes, and exams.

While these are traditional and familiar assessment modalities, flexibility and creativity can be

useful in differentiating ways that students can respond and demonstrate learning with video or

audio submissions, video and audio conferencing, and self and peer feedback (Martin et al.,

2021). These modalities can be effective forms of assessment during ERT&L.

The first step in effective assessment, Croslin et al. (2018) observed, is to consider how

assessment is framed for students. Are tests designed to involve students as co-learners and

partners in their own learning or to catch students as possible cheaters? Are assessments

designed to help with the learning process or serve as a “gotcha!” for students not doing the

work? Croslin and colleagues (2018) suggest that the best strategy to promote academic integrity

during emergency remote learning may be to use both lower stakes assessments and assessments

that require higher order thinking skills. Using assessment for learning and involving students as

partners in their own learning through assessment enhances accountability and promotes self-

regulatory learning in face-to-face settings (Lock et al., 2017) and, potentially, in OT&L. Using
 27

online tools and involving students in assessment through self-assessment and peer-assessment

strategies reflects a collaborative approach to the learning process and fosters student

accountability (Galanti et al., 2021). A more authentic approach to online assessment changes the

emphasis from the competitive and selective approach of summative assessment of learning to a

collaborative and self-reflective assessment for learning (Hughes, 2014)

Mental Health and Well-being

Transitioning to an unfamiliar mode of teaching usually involves a certain amount of

stress, even in normal times. Northcote et al. (2011) noted that there is an emotional element of

the paradigm shift experienced by teachers as they transitioned from face-to-face to online

teaching in postsecondary educational contexts. Anecdotal descriptions of exhaustion and stress

associated with increased workloads and a lack of time affecting instructors’ ability to work are

detailed in several studies of teachers’ experiences during the pandemic (Barbour & LaBonte,

2020; Cavanaugh & DeWeese, 2020; Marshall et al., 2020). These findings are supported by

Pressley and Ha (2022), who found teacher exhaustion and stress levels directly impacted

teachers’ sense of efficacy. Research on teacher health and well-being identified anxiety, stress,

and feelings of overwhelm as common emotions experienced by teachers during the pandemic

(Pressley, 2021; Pressley & Ha, 2021; Sokal et al., 2020b). Stress affected teachers' health and

relationships on a personal level. Stress also had a negative impact on teachers’ attention levels,

performance, and decision-making on a professional level (Barbour et al., 2021). In a

longitudinal study of Canadian teachers during the pandemic, Sokal et al. (2020b) examined

teachers' attitudes towards change. In the initial stages of the pandemic, the authors reported that

teachers demonstrated increasing exhaustion and cynicism but also increased efficacy for

classroom management and an increased sense of accomplishment. As the pandemic persisted,

 28

teachers' cognitive and emotional attitudes toward change became increasingly negative, which

led to burnout due to perceived increases in job demands versus resources. Burnout may be

viewed as one form of poor mental health and well-being (MHWB).

To support teachers’ MHWB, Sokal et al. (2022b) recommended that, in addition to

required training and resources, supporting teachers as learners and valued members of a

community was vital. Poor MHWB can negatively affect student learning outcomes according to

Madigan & Kim (2021). Sokal et al. (2020a, 2020b) and Kim et al. (2022) used Bakker and

Demerouti’s (2007) Job Demands and Resources (JD-R) model to examine the range of job

demands and job resources impacting teachers during the pandemic and the impact of these

demands and the availability of essential resources had on teacher efficacy. Kim et al. (2022)

discussed how job demands such as workload and time spent preparing to teach and teaching

increased during the pandemic, putting added pressure on teachers’ MHWB. Job resources,

according to the JD-R model, are social support and work autonomy that can buffer the effects of

job demands. Kim et al. (2022) suggest there needs to be ongoing efforts to balance job demands

and resources that affect teachers’ MHWB. In their study, Sokal et al. (2020a) revealed that

increased workload and lack of resources were strongly correlated with exhaustion, but not as

strongly correlated with burnout. The authors explained that most of the research related to the

JD-R model predicted that the availability of required resources is most strongly correlated with

accomplishment or cynicism (Alarcon, 2011). Sokal and colleagues (2020a) reported that some

of the job resources such as personal relationships, learning technology, and sleep behaved more

like demands in the sense that they all are correlated positively and most strongly with

exhaustion. They postulated that the added attention to personal relationships, learning

technology, and attending counselling may be perceived as extra stressors by exhausted teachers
 29

in the context of the pandemic (Sokal et al., 2020a). A review of the research that emerged

during the COVID-19 pandemic by Moore et al. (2022) found that 75.5% of published research

on this topic they reviewed either commits the correlation does not equal causation error or

asserts a causal relationship even when it fails to establish correlations. Moore et al. caution that

causal inferences of online and remote learning on mental health is not well established in the

research. They further suggest that research that does not assume a direct relationship between

mental health and online learning provides the best possible strategies to address mental health

concerns. The stress, anxiety and exhaustion experienced by teachers as they transitioned to ERT

is different from transitions to teaching online in normal circumstances (Hodges et al., 2020).

Distinguishing between ERT&L and OT&L is a critical aspect for identifying and addressing

mental health concerns post-pandemic. Effective professional development should consider the

balance of job demands and resources and how each impact MHWB. Future research could

examine the impact of resources such as collaborative teacher learning communities on

perceived job demands and stress.

K-12 Online Teaching and Learning

Prior to the pandemic, K-12 online and blended teaching and learning continued to grow;

however, the research base remains narrow and has not kept pace with practice, leaving little

evidence-based guidance on designing and implementing effective online learning (Barbour,

2022). The shift to online teaching and learning during the pandemic further widened the gap,

with many teachers having no training or support at the outset of the transition and no experience

with online teaching experience from which to draw. Research shows that effective online

learning results from intentional instructional design and planning that considers how both

synchronous and asynchronous modalities are used to enhance student learning in the online
 30

environment (Branch & Dousay, 2015; Martin et al., 2012). Bozkurt and Sharma (2020) argue

agency, responsibility, flexibility, and choice are key elements to the online learning experience

as are planning and designing with the goal of creating a learning community. The social support

and teaching strategies that exist in a face-to-face setting do not necessarily transfer to effective

online teaching (Corry & Stella, 2018). Teaching strategies are often constructed on a sense of

control over and autonomy in face-to-face settings

Teachers’ loss of perceived control was a factor in their sense of efficacy for teaching

online (Marshall et al., 2020). One of the factors contributing to teacher stress and burnout, as

reported by Kim, Oxley, and Asbury (2022), was a lack of autonomy. In Canada, provincial

governments and school boards set policies that were aimed at reducing student stress (Ontario

Ministry of Education, 2020). Anecdotally, teachers reported that these policies also reduced

student accountability during the initial stages of the pandemic (Marshall et al., (2020). The

provincial policy response and its impact on teachers is evident in the research emerging on

teachers’ experience during the crisis. Researchers found that teachers’ sense of efficacy was

lowest for student engagement in the initial stages of the pandemic (Dolighan and Owen, 2021)

when teachers felt they had little control and found it difficult to hold students accountable

(Marshall et al., 2020).

As previously discussed, effective online learning differs from ERT&L in that effective

online learning involves intentional design, planning of instruction, learning activities, and

assessment that is structured for the online environment (Means et al., 2014). Effective online

learning strives to create community, recognizing that learning is both a social and a cognitive

process (Hodges et al., 2020; Garrison, 2017). According to Ferrell et al. (2018), pedagogy

should be the priority when designing online learning experiences. Effective online learning
 31

requires an engaged learning community centered around learning as a shared goal. Tzavara

(2021) describes effective OT&L as students and educators actively engaged to collaboratively

create a meaningful learning experience. The teacher's role according to Tzavara is to design the

online learning experience as a shared space and to facilitate learning rather than dispense

content to students. Teacher PL needs to be structured in a way that considers both the content

being taught and the use of technology in the delivery. Mishra and Koehler (2006) offer a useful

framework to understand the knowledge that teachers require for effective technology

integration, which is key for designing online learning experiences. According to Mishra and

Koehler (2006), Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) focuses on the

connections between technologies, curriculum content, and specific pedagogical approaches,

showing how a teacher’s understandings of technology, pedagogy, and content interact with one

another for effective use of technology that enhances student learning. The framework has three

interdependent components of teachers’ knowledge: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical

knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK). All are framed within and influenced by

contextual knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge is at the intersection of teacher CK and

PK. Classroom pedagogy recognizes the need to differentiate instructional and assessment

strategies based on student learning needs. The integration of technology that enhances student

learning considers the student’s needs in the online context and the need for the student to learn

the digital affordances used for learning. TPACK measures teachers’ understanding and

communicating representations of concepts based on using technologies; pedagogical techniques

that apply technologies appropriately to teach content in differentiated ways that reflect students’

learning needs. Niess and Gillow-Wiles (2021) examined teachers’ TPACK who were teaching

virtually during the pandemic. Qualitative observations of two middle school classrooms
 32

revealed teachers’ pedagogical knowledge requires developing their TPACK for teaching in both

face-to-face and virtual contexts. Furthermore, teaching virtually relies on a social presence that

fosters students’ sense of belonging, which encourages engagement in virtual learning

experiences. Acknowledging that effective online learning differs from ERT&L, Niess and

Gillow-Wiles (2021) suggest that research needs to be done to determine how to establish and

maintain a K-12 social presence that promotes meaningful communication among students and

teachers. Collaborative online learners need to learn how to interact socially in a K-12 online

context in ways that they can meet and trust each other as they explore ideas and develop content

knowledge.

As teachers and school boards struggled, in the spring of 2020, to rapidly transition to

online learning during the first phase of the pandemic, there was no time and few resources in

place to consider and support effective and intentional online course design. Face-to-face

learning communities that had been previously established dissolved during remote learning; the

social element of learning amongst and between teachers and students was lost, which further

exasperated teachers and students with the social isolation imposed by the pandemic (Sokal et

al., 2020a). To leverage the opportunity provided by and learnings from the experience of the

pandemic, building online learning communities must be part of the intentional design for

teacher learning and student learning, as proposed by Garrison (2017). The community of

inquiry (CoI) model for online learning (Garrison et al., 2010) recognizes learning as a

collaborative, constructivist process that happens through the intersection of three dimensions:

social presence (SP), cognitive presence (CP), and teaching presence (TP) in the online context.

Clark and Barbour (2015) describe the emergence of both online and blended learning in

American schools but pointedly noted there is still a need for research in the emerging field of K-
 33

12 distance, online and blended learning. Identifying the role teachers play in facilitating

collaborative learning online is important for designing support for teachers in online contexts.

One example of the role teachers play in facilitating student collaboration is in a case study by

Borup (2026) of a full-time online charter high school in the United States. Borup (2016)

examined teacher perceptions of learner-to-learner interactions. The analysis used the adolescent

community of engagement (ACE) framework developed by Borup et al. (2014) and identified

four student behaviours that have a positive impact on student engagement and learning:

befriending, motivating, instructing, and collaborating. This study found that using the ACE

framework explained that social presence as an enabling variable since it increased the likelihood

that others would positively affect student learning. The author suggested teachers need to

establish a conducive atmosphere for learner-to-learner interactions at the start of the course.

Further research by Borup et al., (2020) examined two schools that went to remote teaching and

learning during the pandemic. The study used the ACE framework to identify communities of

support that affected student engagement. The findings supported the need for facilitators of

student engagement from both the course community and the personal community with the

adolescent learners. Although these studies are based on limited case studies, further research

could examine the role teachers need to play fostering collaborative learning in adolescent

learners in blended and online learning environments.

Much of the research on teachers’ experience teaching online emerging from the

pandemic focused on the lack of support and resources (Dolighan & Owen, 2021; Graziano et

al., 2023; Marshall et al., 2020; Pressley, 2020; Wyatt et al., 2023). In Ontario, the Ministry of

Education provided teachers with access to a virtual learning environment that included free

access to the learning management system Brightspace. Brightspace (formerly D2L) also offered
 34

support such as webinars, teaching resources, and virtual learning environment training (Nagle et

al., 2021). The degree to which teachers accessed or were aware of these resources was not

reported. It is clear that the pandemic accelerated the emergence of K-12 online learning and

exposed how unprepared many jurisdictions are to support increased distance, online, and

blended learning in education.

Collaborative Online Learning

Collaboration in online learning has been studied extensively (Curtis & Lawson, 2001;

Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Garrison, 2017). The use of a tool as part of the learning of and

for the learning process, as introduced by Salomon and Perkins (1998), sets the foundation for

understanding the digital space and the technology used in collaborative online learning. The

process of learning has an aspect of learning how to use the technology (tool) for learning as well

as the learning the technology enables. Garrison (2017) connects the learning transaction to the

dynamics of a collaborative and constructive educational experience. The community aspect of

the CoI model is “defined by purpose, collaboration and trust” (p.11). Garrison argues that

learning is not done in isolation and that learning is influenced through experiences with the

physical world and communication with others. Garrison (2017) drew on Dewey’s notion of

practical inquiry whereby learning happens by applying ideas and getting feedback on actions

taken. For Garrison practical inquiry revealed the connection between the individual and the

community. The community of inquiry brings together the personal and social aspects in a

collaborative approach to thinking and learning. Garrison (2017) credited the advent of

information and communication technologies that holds the possibility of deeper shared learning

experience through formal and informal contact of those in the community of inquiry. In terms of

teacher PL, collaborative thinking and learning in a community of learners that has purpose,
 35

creates an environment that is conducive to cooperation versus competition (Garrison, 2017).

Advancements in communication technologies offers Blayone et al. (2017) described the digital

space in which online teaching and learning happens as an integral part of the learning process

rather than an externality as is the case with the COI model. Blayone et al. (2017) described the

fully online learning community (FOLC) as a “divergent fork” of the CoI model, but resisted

reducing digital technologies and competencies as external to the core learning model. In the

FOLC, the digital context has mediating influences on the social presence and cognitive presence

essential for collaborative and shared learning experience (Blayone et al., 2017). The authors

also argued that the FOLC model emphasizes collaborative transactional learning and supports

21st century competencies and transferable skills. The FOLC and CoI models also foster the

transferable skills outlined in the Ontario curriculum by the Ontario Ministry of Education

(2022). Both FOLC and CoI emphasize community and collaboration as essential elements of

learning and are models that can transform K-12 eLearning experiences from individualistic,

dissemination of information to a collaborative constructivist experience that builds community

(Garrison, 2017).

Collaborative Teacher Professional Learning

Effective collaborative online teacher learning involves active social and cognitive

presence (Garrison, 2011). Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) described effective teacher

professional development (PD) as both collaborative and active:

[Active learning] incorporates the elements of collaboration, coaching, feedback, and

reflection and the use of models and modeling ... activities often involve modeling the

sought-after practices and constructing opportunities for teachers to analyze, try out, and

reflect on the new strategies. Active learning opportunities allow teachers to transform
 36

their teaching and not simply layer new strategies on top of the old, a hallmark of adult

learning theory (p. 7).

In the case of online teacher PL, Blayone et al. (2017) argued that the online learning experience

includes a negotiated digital space as described in the FOLC. Online professional learning for

teachers can happen within the digital space and with tools teachers are learning to use in the

context of effective online pedagogy. The online collaborative learning framework, inclusive of

integrated digital space, offers a model for teachers to learn for designing online learning

opportunities for their students while learning the technology tools they are using. Drawing on

both the CoI model and the FOLC model is not without controversy. Garrison (2011) contended

that including technology and the competencies required to use that technology in the model

make professional learning initiatives too complex. Blayone et al. (2017) argued that TP be

absorbed into the other presences to reflect a more democratic process of learning. The digital

space, according to Blayone and colleagues (2017), is a negotiated space where educators would

choose the platforms and technologies that would support their learning. The FOLC uses the

General Technology Competency and Use framework (GTCU) (Desjardins, 2005) that includes,

“four dimensions of human-computer-human interaction (technical, informational, social, and

epistemological/computational) and their accompanying competencies as prerequisite layers

supporting SP, CP, and collaborative learning” (Blayone et al., 2017, p. 6). Interaction and

collaboration are core aspects to these models in terms of effective teacher PL.

Garrison (2011) explained that interaction and collaboration in an online learning

environment are important elements in a learning process that support a constructivist view of

learning. vanOostveen et al. (2019) claimed that a learner-centred collaborative online learning

environment for teacher professional development has the potential to change teachers’ beliefs
 37

about learning by changing the online learning experience of teachers. The authors developed a

fully online learning experience for teachers that facilitated constructivist aspects of learning,

providing an opportunity to experience new pedagogies that challenge traditional notions of

teaching while supporting the development of effective online teaching strategies. Collaborative

inquiry focuses on the needs of the learner and engages the learner by employing a learner-

driven approach through collaborative knowledge construction (vanOostveen et al., 2019).

VanOostveen and colleagues attempted to address resistance to research-based PL for teachers

by engaging teachers with a series of learning tasks and a video-based case study (referred to as

Professional Development Learning Environments) embedded in an online learning environment

that required the collaboration of users to solve problems. While the problem-based learning

(PBL) is not specific to online teaching, the teachers are exposed to online learning pedagogy

that is grounded in the principles of socio-constructivism that can challenge traditional teacher-

centred beliefs about learning.

Traditional modes used for professional development required by government directives,

guidelines, and policy are done normally on professional activity days or require release time for

teachers to attend while classes are in session. Most traditional PD sessions focus on information

disseminated from administrators or consultants to passive teacher audiences in one day

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). In professional development, the teacher is the learner. The CoI

framework (Garrison et al., 2000), which provides an understanding of how computer mediated

communication can support learning online, enables research on and the implementation of

effective online pedagogy and the teacher is a co-creator and co-learner, whether in an online of

face-to-face modality. Lock et al. (2017) suggested that the CoI model supports the design and

facilitation of self-regulatory learning in online environments, a key component of effective

 38

online learning according to Cho and Schen (2013). Lock et al. (2017) described the online

learning environment as an opportunity for learners to take responsibility for and control of their

own learning. A study by Shea and Bidjerano (2010) identified that learning presence within the

CoI framework reflects elements such as effort, self-efficacy, and self-regulation, which support

successful online learning. These authors suggested that focusing on the active roles of the

learner may help facilitate knowledge construction in a technology mediated learning

environment. While Garrison (2011) rejected the addition of elements to the model making it too

complex for practical application, Anderson (2017) argued that by including learning presence as

an identified and interdependent element of the CoI model “allows the CoI to evolve beyond a

teaching model to a teaching and learning model” (p. 5). Whether the model needs to include

learner presence or it can be identified within the interaction of SP and CP, recognizing learner

presence in the collaborative learning process in teacher PD connects teachers as learners to

teachers as designers and facilitators of online learning environments.

Online Professional Learning Communities

Being required to use educational technology during a pandemic induced transition to

online learning reinforced the need for and importance of effective and targeted teacher PL.

PLCs are compatible with the CoI framework and can take advantage of the online learning

affordances. Hughes et al. (2021) emphasized the importance of virtual professional learning

networks (VPLN) for sustaining and building connections in a wider community of learners

within the CoI. The authors described how the VPLNs extended the network beyond physical

time and space constraints to foster continued idea sharing. Hughes and colleagues (2021)

studied PL for maker approach as a student-centred, inquiry-based tool used for science,

technology, engineering arts and math (STEAM) teaching and learning. The study’s findings
 39

reflected previous research that characterizes PL as a) active, b) collaborative, and c) sustained

over an extended period. The authors added that in the case of maker PL, the structure is similar

to what students experience in the classroom or online environment. Teachers as active agents in

their own learning encourages motivation and investment in the process (Hughes et al., 2021).

PL is optimized if teachers direct their learning and are agents in their own learning. PL is

ongoing, continually updated, and extends the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers in

the context of their work (Kopcha, 2012 Tondeur et al., 2017). Professional learning

communities (PLCs) focus collaborative learning and problem solving around learning directed

by teachers to meet their self-identified needs (Donohoo, 2017). Moore-Hayes (2011) compared

self-efficacy for technology integration of pre-service and in-service teachers, finding a

significant difference between the two groups for technology integration. In contrast to pre-

service teachers’ responses, Moore-Hayes noted that in-service teachers’ responses to open

ended questions about examples from practice revealed that teachers experienced feelings of low

self-efficacy related to technology integration. This finding reinforces other researchers’

distinction between instructional self-efficacy and technology self-efficacy (Horvitz et al., 2015;

Robinia & Anderson, 2010). Given that attitudes and beliefs about technology for learning are

strong predictors for effective integration and use for learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,

2010; Ertmer et al., 2015), teacher PD must enable internal changes in knowledge, attitude, and

beliefs, as well as an external culture of collaboration and inquiry that foster and sustain change.

These findings confirm that PLCs offer a collaborative setting that promotes cohesion and builds

collective efficacy around improving student learning (Donohoo, 2017)

While collaborating with colleagues to solve problems and support student learning in the

context of the pandemic affected teacher efficacy positively, structured collaboration within
 40

PLCs is important as teachers and schools move beyond the emergency context of the pandemic.

Schein’s (1985) research on organizational culture established the foundation for collaborative

culture that enhances the learning process and balances stakeholders’ interest. Schein’s idea of

collaborative culture increases participants’ sense of self-efficacy to make change as groups are

given time for learning, collaboration, and shared problem solving. Tschannen-Moran et al.

(2000) employed collaboration strategies to learn adapt and change expectations through the

creation of discourse communities with staff. In a midwestern American high school, the

researchers found that the problem-solving capacity of the school improved when staff realized

the PL would be ongoing. The use of PLCs emerged in education as a derivative of business

collaboration training models. Education modified these business-focused practice to fit the

needs of teachers and schools and to use PLCs as framework for teacher professional learning in

online environments because distance and physical space were no longer obstacles to meeting

(Beach, 2012). The PLC framework is also compatible with the CoI framework for online

collaborative learning, providing a structure for collaborative problem-solving and reflective

practice focused on improving student learning within the CoI elements of SP, CP, and TP

(Beach, 2012; Tucker & Quintero-Ares, 2021). Tucker & Quintero-Ares (2021) examined the

use of PLCs during the transition to online teaching amongst postsecondary faculty members

during the pandemic. The use of PLCs allowed academic faculty “to move from simply learning

online teaching tools to engaging in meaningful discussions around online teaching pedagogy

and improving student learning” (p. 1). The authors emphasized the importance of community

during the pandemic and admitted remote PLCs were different from a typical learning

conversation at work. Thus, the pandemic revealed the possibility to create a supportive digital

environment similar to in person interactions (Tucker & Quintero-Ares, 2021).

 41

Implications for Future Research

The experience of the pandemic has challenged school boards to look at online teaching

and learning differently than had been the case prior to early 2020. Being prepared to transition

to online learning involves developing a strategy to build online teaching capacity that values

online teaching as a viable mode of effective education as well as integrating online teaching

pedagogy and the use of technology in a way that builds efficacy for ERT&L. I argue that it

makes sense to move beyond the initial emergency remote perspective and develop remote and

virtual learning capacity as a measure that can be used in both emergency and non-emergency

situations. Dolighan & Owen (2021) found that using the board provided LMS in everyday

teaching practice prior to the pandemic was associated with higher teacher self-efficacy for

online teaching in the emergency context of the pandemic. Hoy et al. (2002) found that building

collective efficacy reinforced common and shared values. Goddard et al. (2004) describe how

collective efficacy beliefs strongly influenced teachers’ choices and the ways they exercised

personal agency. The CoI framework provides a structure for building online and blended

learning capacity that is fundamentally collaborative by nature and could be efficacious at the K-

12 level (Garrison, 2017). More recently, Niess and Gillow-Wiles (2021) identified social

presence as a crucial element for establishing collaborative online learning environments for

middle school students. Integrating technology to the learning framework makes the learning for

and learning of digital affordances part of the building of PCK and TK together as TPACK

(Mishna & Koehler, 2006). In terms of teacher PD, the CoI framework offers an approach that is

disruptive to traditional educational structures and the entrenched view of education as individual

and competitive. CoI is consistent with a 21st century view of a connected and dynamic

knowledge society (Garrison, 2017). The collaborative emphasis of the CoI framework has the
 42

potential to build a collective efficacy that is consistent with and supports professional learning

for teachers that enables internal changes in knowledge, attitude, and beliefs as well as an

external culture of collaboration and inquiry (Tondeur et al., 2017). Moreover, the use of a PLC

framework, which is complementary with CoI frameworks, establishes a focus on student

learning improvements and collaborative problem-solving that builds community and supportive

interactions conducive to positive MHWB (Tucker & Quintero-Ares, 2021).

The use of PLCs within the CoI offers teachers a collaborative learning framework that is

ongoing and meets there immediate and long-term PL needs for OT&L. Future research could

investigate collaborative online PL and PLCs for teachers in various divisions and subject areas
 43

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

The context of the pandemic provided an opportunity and presented a challenge to the

research design. My aim was to better understand how to support teachers transitioning to online

teaching. The real-life context of the pandemic made that transition a unique phenomenon with

boundaries between the context and the transition to online teaching unknown (Yin, 2009). The

research design evolved from the initial exploration of teachers’ sense of efficacy for online

teaching at the start of the pandemic in the spring of 2020 to a mixed methods design to explore

teachers’ experiences teaching in the pandemic as the context of teaching changed one year later.

The convergent parallel design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017) employed both

qualitative measures of teachers’ sense of efficacy for online teaching with details of teachers’

experience based on a qualitative semi-structured questionnaire. The case study methodology

allowed for taking an interpretivist standpoint to better understand individual and shared

meanings of experiences (Stake, 1995). The broader social and political contexts of the pandemic

that affected teachers’ experiences of transitioning and adapting to online teaching also can be

considered within a cast study methodology (Doolin, 1998).

Methodology

The research used an instrumental case study approach (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995).

Stake (1995) described the instrumental case study approach as using a particular case to gain a

broader understanding of a particular phenomenon or issue. In this instance, the broader context

of the pandemic and the response by provincial and local health officials and the Ministry of

Education had unique impacts on a particular school board. The instrumental case study

approach was chosen based on the researcher’s access to the teaching staff population in a

Southern Ontario district school board located in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) during the
 44

initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020. The case study provides a

bounded and detailed perspective on individuals’ experiences in a specific context such as the

pandemic (Merriam, 1998). A mixed-method research design utilizing both qualitative and

quantitative methods within a single study was used (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).

Specifically, a convergent parallel design was used, in which both quantitative and qualitative

data were collected, analyzed and merged as results and then discussed (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2017). I selected this design to synthesize complementary quantitative and qualitative results and

to form a more comprehensive understanding of teachers’ experiences transitioning to and

adapting to online teaching in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Doolin, 1998).

Quantitative Methods

The quantitative component for this study used a digital survey developed using

Microsoft Forms and was based on the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Survey (TSES) developed by

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) and the Michigan Nurse Educators’ Sense of

Efficacy for Online Teaching (MNESEOT) instrument (Robinia & Anderson, 2010). The survey,

administered twice over a 16-month period to two cohorts of teachers, consisted of 32 questions

that asked participants to rate their perceived self-efficacy for online teaching on a Likert scale of

1-9 (1 being nothing and 9 being a great deal). The mean for each subscale (e.g., student

engagement, classroom management, online instruction, and use of computers and technology)

was calculated and added together to produce a total mean score. Minimal changes to the

MNESEOT were made to some of the questions to reflect secondary teachers’ experience with

online teaching based. This revised MNESEOT is referred to as Teacher Sense of Efficacy for

Online Teaching (TSEOT). Online pedagogies and strategies for online teaching were considered

based on the signature pedagogies for e-learning by Eaton et al. (2017). (See appendix A.)
 45

Procedures

After initial ethics clearance (BREB, 19-305) was granted from Brock University and the

school board, emails were sent to secondary teaching staff to invite teachers to participate in the

TSEOT survey (see Appendix D). The survey is a 32 item Microsoft Forms survey that was set

to anonymous and was accessible to teachers through a link on the email. Two follow up emails

were sent to remind teachers of the survey. Participation in the survey was voluntary. Teachers

could choose not to participate or opt out at any point by not completing the survey. The survey

was open for three weeks. (see Appendix A). During the second year of COVID-19 (2020-2021),

it was determined that a second administration of the survey would provide additional data on

and, potentially, insights into teachers’ sense of efficacy of teaching on-line in an emergency

situation. Hence, after a second round of Brock University (BREB, 20-328) and school board

ethics approvals (see Appendix E), the survey was readministered, using the same timeline of

three weeks to collect data, albeit with an expanded population (see below). The two

administrations of the survey are named Phase 1 and Phase 2 to allow for comparison and

distinction.

Population

The population for Phase 1 (June 2021) included all full-time secondary teaching staff of

a Southern Ontario district school board. Of 432 secondary teachers employed at the school

board, 132 responded (28.47%). Sixty-one percent of the respondents were female, the average

age was 48, 73% had a bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA or BSc plus/or BEd), and 70% have been

teaching for 16 or more years in public education. Eighty-one percent of respondents reported

teaching online five or fewer years. Of those who reported less than five years’ experience
 46

teaching online, 88% (or 71.3%) of Phase 1 respondents reported one year or less online teaching

experience.

In Phase 2 (June 2021), it was decided to expand the population to include all full-time,

part-time and long term occasional (LTO) teachers in the school board to obtain a more

comprehensive representation of teachers’ experience teaching online during the pandemic.

Similar procedures were followed in Phase 2 as in Phase 1. Following ethics approvals from the

school district and Brock University (see Appendix E), emails were sent to all full-time, part-

time and LTO teachers inviting them to complete the web-based survey using Microsoft forms

(see Appendix I). Of 1631 teachers employed at the board, 265 responded (16.25%); the average

age was 29. Sixty three percent have been teaching for 16 or more years in public education.

Eighty-eight percent of respondents reported teaching five or fewer years online. Fifty-nine

percent of respondents reported 1 year or less of online teaching experience. Interestingly, 130 of

432 secondary teachers responded (30%) which is very close to the number (n=132) who

responded in Phase 1. Elementary teacher participation was very low, 135 elementary teachers

responded out of 1199 employed at the school board (11%).

Qualitative Methods

The qualitative component was designed initially to delve deeper into teachers’

experience of teaching online during the pandemic. In Phase 2, one year after the initial

transition to online teaching, this aim was adjusted to include a better understanding of

experiences teachers had teaching online and if there was any connection to their sense of

efficacy for teaching online. The initial research design planned to use face-to-face interviews.

That design was abandoned after it was determined, based on discussions with peers and

stakeholders at the school board, that teachers’ time was an important consideration and
 47

interviews would impose on health restrictions in place due to the pandemic. Video interviews

were considered but this approach was determined to be too taxing on teachers’ time and stress

levels given the different level of experience and competence teachers had with video

conferencing at that point. The semi-structured questionnaire was considered less stressful and

allowed participants to complete the survey when, where, and to what degree suited them. This

approach is supported by Cloke et al. (2004), who suggested that the use of an open ended, semi-

structured questionnaire can provide intensive inquiry of experiences in lieu of interviews given

the difficulties and restrictions of person-to-person interview approach due to the pandemic

experiences.

The questionnaire was composed of four semi-structured questions that focused on the

successes or problematic issues and troublesome knowledge associated with learning to teach

online in the context of the pandemic (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The guiding questions

were:

• Describe the strategies for online teaching you feel worked to promote student

engagement and student learning.

• What do you feel you still need to learn to teach online effectively?

• How do you feel the pandemic impacted online teaching and learning?

• Is there anything you would like to add regarding your experience teaching during the

COVID-19 pandemic?

The qualitative questions were semi-structured to allow teachers to express their experience in

detail.
 48

Population

In the Phase 2, 265 teachers responded to the TSEOT survey. Participants in the TSEOT

survey were asked to describe what they feel is the most pressing issue regarding professional

learning and support for teachers designing and implementing online learning environments. 233

of 265 participants responded to this question. Responses were coded and organized by themes

that emerged from the responses. These data were then merged and compared with the

subsequent semi-structured questionnaire.

Participants who were identified as continuing to teach online or hybrid in the new school

year were invited to go into greater detail of their experience of teaching online. Out of 30

teachers identified and invited to participate, 19 responded. Eight were secondary school

teachers, three were virtual secondary school teachers, two were elementary school teachers and

six were virtual elementary teachers. Seventeen of 19 respondents (89.5%) had two or less years

of online teaching experience.

Data Analysis

In both phases the research questions were addressed by calculating means and standard

deviations of the teacher sense of efficacy for online teaching survey (TSEOT) scores (Horvitz et

al., 2015; Robinia & Anderson, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) for the four

measures: student engagement, classroom management, online instruction strategies, and

computer and technology skills. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine

relationships between interval variables that included demographic items and items associated

with resources and support. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess differences of

means of online teaching efficacy scores. An alpha of .05 was used for all tests.
 49

The bounded nature of the case study provided an opportunity to explore the reality

teachers were experiencing learning to teach online in the new context of emergency remote

teaching and learning (ERT&L) and the wider social impact of the pandemic. Using thematic

analysis (de Lucas Ancillo et al., 2021; Lapadat, 2010), the responses to the semi-structured

open-ended questionnaire were coded and thematically grouped to identify themes and patterns

that reflect their experience of teaching in the online context (Lapadat, 2010). The data collected

from the quantitative survey measured the self-efficacy of novice and experienced teaching staff

for designing and implementing online teaching and learning experiences in the context of the

pandemic. The qualitative and quantitative data were then triangulated to locate areas of

convergence (Mathison, 1988) and identify the challenges and barriers that novice and

experienced teaching staff encountered as they engaged online pedagogy and gained experience

teaching in online environments (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Peer debriefing with

stakeholders in the selected board and online teaching experts was conducted. Relevant research

literature for online teaching were consulted to identify effective online teaching strategies that

can be used to understand the online teaching context teachers experienced. The research and

analysis of teachers’ detailed experience were used to propose recommendations for PL for

teachers teaching online (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

 50

CHAPTER FOUR: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This study was a response to the transition to online teaching and learning that happened

at the initial stages of the pandemic in the spring of 2020. It was decided that gathering data

about teachers’ experience in an unprecedented transition to online teaching and learning

(OT&L) would be invaluable and that examining teachers’ sense of efficacy for online teaching

would contribute to better understanding how to support teachers teaching online. Quantitative

data were collected during the initial stage of the pandemic in May 2020, several weeks after the

initial school closures and forced transition to OT&L. As the pandemic persisted into the

following school year, a second phase of data collection was implemented to understand

teachers’ experience of teaching online in the context of the pandemic one year after the initial

transition to online. In year two of the pandemic, the context of teaching had changed

significantly with a return to in person teaching, hybrid teaching and learning, and fully virtual

learning environments. The scope of data collection in Phase 2 was modified to include both

quantitative and qualitative data measures to gain a more detailed understanding of teachers’

experience in the unprecedented teaching context of the coronavirus pandemic. The quantitative

results from both phases will be discussed in this chapter. The qualitative findings from the

second phase of the study will be presented in the following chapter.

Research questions were addressed by calculating means and standard deviations of the

teachers’ self-efficacy for online teaching (TSEOT) survey scores for the four measures: student

engagement, classroom management, online instruction strategies, and use of computers and

technology (Horvitz et al., 2015; Robinia & Anderson, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk

Hoy, 2001). The initial survey results found slightly higher mean efficacy scores in Phase 2,

M=23.54 compared to Phase 1, M=21.89 (see Table 1). Differences in scores do not demonstrate
 51

growth or change from Phase 1 to Phase 2 given the two sample groups were different. However,

Phase 2 participants did have a year of experience with emergency remote teaching and learning

(ERT&L) and higher overall scores may be attributed to the experience and intense learning

curve of transitioning to ERT&L from the spring of 2020 to the spring of 2021 when the second

phase survey was done (see Table 1).

Table 1

Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy for Online Teaching Scores Phase 1 and Phase 2

Scale M M Min Min Max

Phase 1 Phase 2 P1 P2
Student Engagement 4.73 (1.13) 5.23 (1.44) 1.25 9
Online Instructional Strategies 5.76 (0.77) 5.77 (1.51) 1.25 9
Online Classroom management 5.35 (0.83) 5.95 (1.36) 1.50 9
Use of Computers and Technology 6.23 (1.65) 6.58 (1.35) 1.88 9
Overall TSEOT score 22.06 (4.38) 23.54 6.37 36
(5.16)
Note. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.
 52

Table 2

Pearson Correlation Matrix for Phase 1

Student Online Online class Use of Overall

Independent engagement Instructional management Computers TSEOT
Variables strategies and Score
technology
# yrs. teaching online r= .183,
p=.036
Taken online AQ r= .230, r=.180,
p=.008 p=.039
Online PD training r= .218, r=.241, r=.210, p=.016 r=.256, r=.262,
p=.012 p=.005 p=.003 p=.002
# of online PD sessions r=.188, r=.216, r=.194,
p=.033 p=.014 p=.028
Used expert help r=.178, r=.178,
N=132 p=.041 p=.042

Used board LMS r=.173, r=.245, r=.301, r=.248,

p=.048 p=.005 p=.001 p=.004
Used virtual r=.291, r=.270, r=.221, p=.011 r=.246, r=.291,
tech support p=.001 p=.002 p=.005 p=.001

Note. Correlation is significant at the .05 level.

Similarities between Phase 1 and Phase 2 include statistically significant correlations

found with the variables having taken an online additional qualifications (AQ) course and having

completed professional development (PD) sessions for online teaching. Additional correlations

were found with being placed or choosing virtual placement; regularly collaborating with

colleagues; teachers who would continue to teach online; and the overall TSEOT scores.

Differences in Phase 2 from Phase 1 did not reveal statistically significant correlations

with using a board learning management system (LMS) or using virtual technology support and

overall higher levels of self-efficacy. However, significant correlations were found with the use
 53

of LMS and the subscale Use of computers and technology. A confounding result from Phase 1

found no relationship between online teaching experience and overall efficacy scores for online

teaching which was contrary to the literature and online teaching (Horvitz et al., 2015; Northcote

et al., 2015; Robinia & Anderson, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). Experience

teaching online did correlate with higher efficacy instructional strategies, r=.183, p=.036 (see

Table 2). In Phase 2, experience teaching online revealed a significant correlation with all

subscales and overall TSEOT scores (see Table 3).

Teachers who teach in primary and junior divisions reported significantly lower self-

efficacy for the subscale student engagement. Teachers who were placed in or chose virtual

teaching had significantly higher efficacy than those who taught face-to-face. Teachers who

reported experience teaching online, having had online training, having taken an online AQ

course, or having collaborated with colleagues regularly also scored higher on perceived efficacy

in terms of student engagement, instructional strategies, and online classroom management (see

Table 3).
 54

Table 3

Pearson Correlation for Phase 2

Subscale Subscale Subscale Subscale Overall

Independent Variables Student Online Online Use of TSEOT
Engagement Instruction Classroom Computers Score
Management and
Technology
Teaching Assignment r=.144,
p=.019
Placed in or chose virtual r=-.282, r= -.321, r= -.326, r= -.309, r= -.337,
p=.028 p=.012 p=.010 p=.016 p=.008

Years teaching online r= .214, r= .198, r= .148, r=.186, r= .206,

p=.001 p=.002 p=.021 p=.004 p=.001

Taken online AQ r= .208, r= .144, r= .159,

p=.001 p=.019 p=.010

Had online PD training r= .165, r= .145, r= .138, r= .156, r= .166,

p=.008 p=.019 p=.025 p=.011 p=.007

Collaborate with colleagues r= .157, r=.161, r=.186, r= .166,

p=.011 p=.009 p=.002 p=.007
Using LMS r=.183,
p=.003
Willingness to teach online r= .481, r= .497, r= .386, r= .394, r= .484,
p=.001 p=.001 p=.001 p=.001 p=.001

Note. Correlation is significant at the .05 level

The initial study results revealed correlations between teachers’ overall sense of efficacy

for teaching online and using the school board provided LMS for teaching, having online

training, having taken an online AQ course, and accessing virtual technology support (Dolighan

& Owen, 2021).

 55

To discern if each of the independent variables that indicated a significant relationship

with the overall TSEOT scores and the subscales were independently affecting efficacy scores, a

linear regression test was performed for both phases. The independent variables that indicated a

significant correlation in the Pearson correlation test with the overall TSEOT scores and subscale

scores are reported in Table 4 for Phase 1 and Table 5 for Phase 2. A p value of .05 was used in

all tests.

In Phase 1, using a LMS t=2.092, p=.042 and accessing virtual support t=2.727, p=.007

variables were found to independently correlate with the overall TSEOT scores. Using expert

help, having online training, and taking an online AQ did not show significant independent

relationship with the overall TSEOT scores for the larger population (see Table 4). A test to

evaluate the effect of the independent variables on each of the subscale dependent variables was

conducted. The subscale student engagement only showed a significant relationship with using

virtual technology support, t=2.771, p=.006. No significant relationship was found with other

variable that revealed correlations in the Pearson correlation test. used virtual tech support,

t=2.534, p=.013, and number of years of teaching online, t=2.096, p=.038, showed significant

independent relationship with the subscale instructional strategies. Only used board LMS,

t=2.041, p=.043, predicted online classroom management scores for the larger population. Use of

computers and technology shows significant relationships with, used board LMS, t=2.859,

p=.005, and, used virtual tech support, t=2.155, p=.033. The independent variables, had online

PD training, taken online AQ, used expert help, and number of online PD sessions, show no

significant relationship with the overall TSEOT scores or the subscale scores and were removed

from the model. The regression results for Phase 1 suggest that, used board LMS, prior to the

transition to ERT&L and being able to access real-time virtual technology support to solve
 56

immediate problems impacted teachers’ sense of self-efficacy for online teaching in a

measurable way.

Table 4

Regression Analysis Phase 1

Independent Dependent βa t-Value p-Value Sr₂

Variable Variable
TSEOT Score
# of yrs. Teaching online
Had online PD training .136 1.526 .130 .015
Number of PD sessions
Used Expert help
Taken online AQ .097 1.096 .275 .007
Used board LMS .238 2.092 .042* .031
Used Virtual tech Support .228 2.727 .007* .049
Student
Engagement
# of yrs. Teaching online
Had on line training .108 1.005 .317 .007
Taken online AQ .128 1.389 .167 .013
Used Expert Help .128 1.439 .153 .014
Used board LMS .103 1.180 .240 .010
Used Virtual Tech Support .238 2.771 .006* .053
Instructional
Strategies
# of yrs. Teaching online .181 2.096 .038* .031
Had online PD training .126 1.163 .247 .009
Number of PD sessions
Taken online AQ .098 1.064 .157 .008
Used Expert Help
Used board LMS .115 1.324 .188 .012
Used Virtual Tech Support .219 2.534 .013* .045
Online
Classroom
management
# of yrs. Teaching online
Had on line training .090 .816 .416 .005
Number of PD Sessions
Taken online AQ
Used Expert Help
Used board LMS .181 2.041 .043* .030
Used Virtual Tech Support .167 1.909 .059 .026
 57

Use of
computers
and
technology
# of yrs. Teaching online
Had online training .082 .772 .442 .004
Number of PD sessions .091 .887 .214 .005
Taken online AQ
Used Expert Help
Used board LMS .246 2.859 .005* .056
Used Virtual Tech Support .183 2.155 .033* .032

Note: a Standardized coefficient b squared semipartial correlation

In Phase 2, the regression analysis showed there is a non-zero relationship between the overall

TSEOT scores and each of the independent variables, which indicates that the overall model is

significant (see Table 4). A linear regression test was then performed to test the significance of

the correlations of the independent variables on each of the subscales as dependent variables.

Analysis of the subscale student engagement showed significant relationships with number of

years teaching online p=.010, taken online AQ p=.029, had online training p=.022, and

willingness to continue teaching online (p=.007). However, no significant independent

relationship with collaborating with colleagues, and self-efficacy scores were found. No

independent relationship with self-efficacy scores and placed or chose virtual, was found for the

larger population. The dependent variable subscale instructional strategies was significantly

predicted by all the independent variables that showed correlation from the sample. Regression

analysis for the dependent variable subscale use of computers showed significant relationship

with using the board LMS t=3.381, p=.001. The dependent variable online classroom

management showed significant relationship with the variable placed or chose virtual t=-2.303,

p=.025 but none of the other variables showed significant relationship in the sample (see Table
 58

5). Implications of the regression analysis tests will be discussed below for each of the variables

in both phases.

Table 5

Regression analysis Phase 2

Independen Dependent βa t-Value p-Value Sr₂

t Variable
Variable
TSEOT
Score
Placed or -.220 -2.040 .047* .044
chose
Virtual
# of yrs. .252 2.330 .024* .057
Teaching
online
Had on line .398 -3.520 .005* .093
training
Taken -.466 2.967 .001* -.130
online AQ
Collaborated .238 2.092 .042* .046
with
Colleagues
Willingness .210 2.791 .008* .082
to teach
online
Student
Engagement
Teaching .047 .424 .673 .009
Assignment
Placed or -.208 -1.854 .070 -.039
chose
Virtual
# of yrs. .302 2.685 .010* .082
Teaching
online
Had on line .330 2.364 .022* .064
training
 59

Taken -.310 -2.248 .029* -.057

online AQ
Collaborated .198 1.670 .101 .032
with
Colleagues
Willingness .340 2.807 .007* .09
to teach
online
Instructional
Strategies
Placed or -.217 -2.036 .047* -.042
chose
Virtual
# of yrs. .247 2.318 .025* .055
Teaching
online
Had on line .378 2.862 .006* .084
training
Taken -.427 -3.269 .002* -.110
online AQ
Collaborated .280 2.493 .016* .064
with
Colleagues
Willingness .335 2.913 .005* .087
to teach
online
Online
Classroom
management
Placed or -.287 -2.303 .025* -.080
chose
Virtual
# of yrs. .067 .537 .593 .004
Teaching
online
Had on line .100 .803 .426 .009
training
Taken
online AQ
Collaborated
with
Colleagues
Willingness .251 1.965 .055 .058
to teach
online
 60

Use of
computers
and
technology
Placed or -.112 -1.076 .287 -.011
chose
Virtual
# of yrs. .209 1.991 .052 .039
teaching
online
Had on line .323 2.491 .016* .062
training
Taken -.534 -4.162 .001* -.171
online AQ
Used LMS .365 3.381 .001* .113
Collaborated .202 1.833 .073 .033
with
Colleagues
Willing to .308 2.727 .009* .073
continue to
teach online

Note: a Standardized coefficient b squared semipartial correlation

Experience Teaching Online

In contrast to previous research that identified experience as a predictor of higher efficacy

for teaching (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001) and online teaching (Horvtiz et al.,

2015; Northcote et al., 2015; Robinia & Anderson, 2010), Phase 1 of this study showed no

significant relationship between experience teaching online and teachers’ overall sense of

efficacy for teaching online in the context of the initial transition of the pandemic (Dolighan &

Owen, 2021). A significant correlation was found between number of years teaching online,

r=183, p=.036 and the subscale instructional strategies. The independent relationship was

confirmed in the regression analysis test t=2.318, p=.025. Teachers with online teaching

experience may have believed in their ability to provide instruction online even though the
 61

circumstances of the pandemic may have made the other teaching tasks difficult and impacted

overall sense of efficacy for teaching online in the context of the pandemic. Analyzing the

teaching tasks in context of the pandemic, Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) referred to the relative

importance of factors that make the teaching difficult as being weighed against an assessment of

the resources available that facilitate learning. The pandemic may have influenced teachers’

assessment and self-perceptions of teaching competence for teaching online even though they

have experience teaching online. According to Tschannen-Moran et al., “the teacher judges

personal capabilities such as skills, knowledge, strategies, or personality traits balanced against

personal weaknesses or liabilities in this particular teaching context” (p. 228). It should be noted

that of the 132 secondary teacher respondents, only 26 (19.7%) reported having three or more

years’ experience teaching online.

In the context of the initial stage of the pandemic, there was a distinction between the

teaching tasks and responsibilities associated with ERT&L that teachers were asked to do and

online teaching and learning or eLearning as it existed prior to the pandemic (Barbour, 2019).

School districts across the province, in an effort to minimize the impact of the transition on

students, imposed changes to grading procedures and limits to accountability for attending and

participating in synchronous Zoom classes such as not requiring students to turn on cameras.

Teachers felt these changes hindered their ability to hold students accountable, motivate them to

do work and submit assignments, a finding that was reinforced by Marshall et al. (2020). Despite

the differences between ERT&L and regular online teaching regarding teaching tasks and

responsibilities, teachers who reported having experience teaching online had a higher sense of

confidence with online instructional strategies that emphasized delivery of content. Prior to the

pandemic, eLearning (online teaching and learning) in Ontario was entirely asynchronous and
 62

the primary function of the teacher was content delivery (Barbour & LaBonte, 2018). Within the

ERT&L context, teachers who had no training or experience with online teaching relied on

traditional face-to-face content-centred teaching methods to manage a context that was

unfamiliar (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022). In a survey of teachers in the United States, Marshall

et al. (2020) found that some of the teachers reported feeling somewhat prepared to deliver

content in the online context, but were unaware of the distinction between effective online

pedagogy and ERT&L. It is not surprising that teachers would feel that they were capable of

delivering content with which they were familiar, especially if they had extensive experience

teaching and delivering content online. This finding did not hold true for experience teaching

face-to-face as my study found no relationship between years of face-to-face teaching experience

and efficacy for online teaching.

The ERT&L emphasis on content-centred instructional strategies that was used in the

initial transition by both experienced online teachers and novice online teachers was seen as

reflective of teaching online and reinforced the negative assumption that OT&L is inferior to in

person teaching and learning (Hodges et al., 2020). The most consistent problem experienced by

teachers, according to Marshall et al. (2020), was the inability to engage students in any

meaningful learning. The lowest subscale mean found in Phase 1 of this study was Student

engagement which is consistent with results reported by Marshall and colleagues. These authors

found that teachers’ most common response was that they were unable to hold students

accountable or motivate students to do their work given that school districts had changed grading

procedures so that students would not get a mark lower than they had before the pandemic

transition to online. Engaging students may have been affected by teachers’ perceived lack of

ability to hold students accountable or motivate them to participate. Even seasoned online
 63

teachers would have felt a similar lack of control and ability to motivate students with grades. It

is confounding that no significant relationship between online teaching experience and use of

technology and computers was found however, the mean score for use of computers and

technology was the highest for all participants, M = 6.58, SD = 1.35, indicating that teachers

surveyed, on average, felt they were capable between some and quite a bit on the survey scale.

Teachers’ use of computers to complete administrative tasks, research, and report grades may

account for the higher mean perceived sense of efficacy with computers (Liu et al., 2017) and

reinforces the need to distinguish between teacher use of technology and computers for

administrative and professional use and the use of technology for effective learning. While the

questions for use of computers and technology subscale were modified to reflect secondary

teachers’ experience from questions that were designed originally to measure nursing teaching

staff (Robinia & Anderson, 2010), future use of this survey will need to consider self-efficacy for

the use of technology in terms of pedagogical knowledge to measure specific uses of technology

as it relates to online pedagogy, instruction, and student learning to provide a better picture of

how to support teachers in training and PD (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Using a Learning Management System

The significant relationship between the teachers’ use of the LMS across all subscales

and overall efficacy score in Phase 1 of this study indicates teachers’ sense of efficacy for the use

of technology for teaching online was higher if they were already using the LMS provided by the

school board in their everyday teaching prior to the transition to online. The LMS is a valuable

tool for delivering and engaging with students regarding content and daily activities that are

based online. As the transition to online teaching occurred in the spring of 2020, the LMS

provided a teaching and learning bridge that was familiar to both students and teachers in the
 64

midst of a difficult transition. One year later, survey findings revealed no significant correlations

with using an LMS or using virtual tech support and overall higher levels of efficacy. However,

significant correlations were found with use of an LMS and the subscale use of technology and

computers. Elementary teachers were not included in the first survey during the initial transition.

Bandura (1986) discusses how efficacy in one area doesn’t translate to all areas. The

Teachers’ sense of efficacy scale (TSES), developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy

(2001), reveal teaching tasks and responsibilities that are reflective of what teachers do day to

day. The survey used in my study (TSEOT) is based on the TSES and is reflective of the tasks

and responsibilities teachers face, although with the added subscale of use of technology and

computers to reflect the online experience teachers encountered during the pandemic. In the

context of the school district from which respondents were drawn, in the Phase 2 survey,

teachers would have had the added task of transitioning to a new LMS platform to report grades

and keep track of attendance if they had not previously made the transition voluntarily. Those

teachers who had used the Edsby LMS platform for organizing course content and delivering

course content prior to the board-mandated migration would have felt more confident with the

use of computers and technology in the classroom and as they transitioned once again to ERT&L

in January of 2022 in response to the second wave of the coronavirus. Those teachers who were

assigned to the virtual schools would have been using the LMS platform for day-to-day

instruction and collecting student work as well as administrative tasks from the start of the

school year. Thus, experience using board provided technologies such as the LMS for teaching

and administrative tasks may have had a positive impact on teacher self-efficacy.

However, the survey results in Phase 2 revealed no difference in teaching assignment

between elementary and secondary teachers regarding familiarity and prior use of the Edsby
 65

LMS platform. Given the difference in the populations of the two phases, it is difficult to draw

comparisons. There are some important distinctions to be made. In Phase 1 of this study

secondary teachers had access to an LMS provided by the board. Fifty-six percent of respondents

indicated they were using the LMS in their face-to-face classrooms prior to the pandemic.

Teachers who reported using an LMS had higher self-efficacy across all subscales and the

overall score. The relationship between prior use of the board supplied LMS and higher teacher

efficacy may stem from teachers’ experience teaching eLearning courses using the Brightspace

platform. The initial move to ERT&L drastically changed how students were to be assessed and

even seasoned online teachers may have had confidence in delivering content and using the LMS

but felt a loss of control and ability to impact student learning and hold students accountable

(Marshall et al., 2020).

By the fall of 2020, the school board had invested in more professional training and

resources to increase teacher use of the Edsby LMS for recording marks, attendance, and

reporting grades. Significant support and resources were allocated to transition teaching staff to

the Edsby LMS platform for administrative tasks as well as student assessment, collection of

student work, and communicating with parents (a feature of the platform allowed parents to track

their child’s progress). Seeing the advantages of the Edsby platform for teaching online may

have been clouded due to the context of the pandemic and the perception that additional tasks

were being introduced to teachers’ daily routines without appropriate communication,

consultation, and training. The stress of the ongoing pandemic health and safety measures, an

additional transition to ERT&L at the beginning of 2021, and the challenges of learning new

technology may have compounded feeling a loss of control and anxiety from job related stress

that impacts teachers’ sense of efficacy for teaching (Pressley & Ha, 2022).
 66

Support and Training for Teachers Teaching Online

What was evident and consistent with the research on teacher efficacy for online teaching

in both phases of this study was the connection between higher perceived efficacy for teaching

online and access to real-time tech support and having had online teaching training. In Phase 1,

access to virtual tech support showed a significant independent relationship with the overall

TSEOT score and all the subscales except the subscale online classroom management t=1.909,

p=.059 (see Table 3). Higher teacher efficacy for teaching online is related to training and

accessing ongoing support (Northcote et al., 2015). In my study, no significant relationship was

found in the linear regression test for each of the independent variables, had online PD training

and, taken online AQ with the overall TSEOT scores. However, 88% of participants transitioning

to online teaching in the initial stages of the pandemic reported having no online training. This

could explain why higher efficacy was found for those who accessed real time virtual technology

support to solve problems as a main source of support during the initial transition. Chan et al.

(2021) point to the sudden transition to online teaching and lack of training for teaching online as

a source of stress and burnout. Stress and burnout negatively affected teacher retention rates,

diminished teachers’ perceived performance, and, ultimately, negatively affected student

learning. Having had online training PD was an indicator for higher efficacy scores in the second

phase of this study for overall TSEOT scores and all subscale scores except online classroom

management (see Table 5). Phase 2 of this study examined teachers’ experience and efficacy

levels in the context of already working through the initial transition. The context of the

pandemic and challenges faced by teachers transitioning to online with little or no training

highlights the need for specific online training and support in terms of ERT&L preparedness.
 67

Ongoing professional learning (PL) for use of technology and online teaching supports

the challenge of coping with constant and even sudden change (Marshall et al., 2020). The

authors suggest that incorporating digital learning days as a regular part of the school year so that

teachers and students can become familiar with the online learning setting could affect teacher

and student self-efficacy in a positive manner. Teachers who incorporated digital learning either

with the Edsby platform or the Brightspace (D2L) platform were more confident teaching online

in the initial stages of the pandemic and were better equipped to manage the change compared to

teachers who were not using either LMS platform (Dolighan & Owen, 2021).

Additional Qualification Courses Online

The initial Pearson Correlation test showed a relationship correlated with overall efficacy

scores in both phases of this study and the survey subscale student engagement. There was no

linear relationship established with taking an online AQ and any of the overall TSEOT scores or

subscale scores in Phase 1, suggesting the transition to ERT&L may have been more about

surviving than thriving (Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2021). Eighteen percent of secondary teachers

surveyed indicated they had taken an online AQ course. When asked if AQs adequately prepare

for online teaching, on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, teachers responded slightly disagree to neutral M

= 2.78. In Phase 2, significant relationships with overall TSEOT scores and all subscales except

online classroom management were found to apply to the larger population (see Table 6). AQ

courses delivered in an online context provided examples of effective online pedagogy and

opportunities for teachers to engage subject content in a digital context and can be an effective

starting point for ongoing collaborative professional learning. Recent updates in 2019 to online

AQ courses developed by the Ontario College of Teachers included the expectation for

embedding strategies for the use of technology and communication tools that support
 68

pedagogical practices and programs that reflect the ethical use of technology in support of

learners’ safety, privacy, and well-being (Ontario College of Teachers, 2019). Since AQ courses

are integral components of PD for teachers in Ontario, further research could examine the

effectiveness of online AQ courses as an element of teachers online training and PL. The

opportunity for teachers to learn while doing in an online context can support learning about

content knowledge and digital pedagogies. Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed the TPACK

framework that encompasses understanding and communicating representations of concepts

based on using technologies and pedagogical techniques that apply technologies appropriately to

teach content in differentiated ways that reflect students’ learning needs. The framework would

be useful in future studies that explore the effectiveness of online AQ courses on teacher efficacy

for online teaching.

Teaching at the Virtual School

Teachers who taught in virtual school placement scored significantly higher across all

subscales and the overall score for self-efficacy. Efficacy scores across all subscales are

associated with significantly higher scores if those virtual school teachers chose the virtual

placement. Chan et al. (2021) suggest teacher autonomy is an important factor for teacher well-

being. If teaching online is a choice and is selected by teachers, it is likely there is a level of

perceived competence and positive attitude toward online teaching amongst those teachers who

opted into teaching. Teachers who were placed in the virtual schools were online with students

from the start of the school year in 2021. They did receive specific online training and had access

to technical support from onsite and virtual support staff and the support of colleagues who were

located in the same building every day. Administrators in the virtual schools provided ongoing
 69

support that was designed for virtual learning. Do you need a sentence to link those who were

“placed” in virtual schools to perceived self-efficacy?

Collaborating With Colleagues

As the pandemic persisted into the second school year (2020-2021), teachers collaborated

to solve problems, learned how to use online technology, and created learning experiences for

students. Significant correlations were found with teachers who regularly collaborated with

colleagues; teachers who would continue to teach online and the dependent variable measure of

the overall TSEOT scores, t=2.092, p=.042 (See table 5). The only subscale that showed a

significant relationship with collaborating with colleagues was instructional strategies, t=2.493,

p=.016 (see Table 5). Teachers felt more efficacious sharing instructional strategies and solving

technology problems associated with instruction for the online setting. This study’s finding that

higher efficacy for online teaching was associated with teachers who collaborated regularly with

colleagues aligns with the positive influence of supportive culture on teachers’ use of technology

reported by Jung et al. (2019). Based on Schein’s (1985) organizational community and culture

model, the professional learning community (PLC) framework increases participants’ feeling of

self-efficacy for making change. While the PLC is an intentional use of professional

collaboration, my study reported that teachers shared resources and collaborated based on the

immediate need to try to improve student learning in the online context. PLCs offer a framework

for ongoing professional learning for online teaching and learning as teachers, students, and

parents transitioned from the pandemic to the emerging new normal (Hill, 2020). DuFour et al.

(2016) describe PLCs as:

an ongoing process in which educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of

collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve.
 70

PLCs operate under the assumption that the key to improved learning for students is

continuous job-embedded learning for educators. (p. 10)

PLCs are people oriented not system oriented and are driven by teachers’ inquiry and a

framework that focuses the collaborative work on improving learning (Tschannen-Moran et al.,

2000).

Willingness to Teach Online

This study’s findings revealed teachers who are willing to continue teaching virtually, if

given the choice, have significantly higher levels of online teaching efficacy. Teachers’

willingness to teach online showed a significant correlation with all subscales and overall

TSEOT score. The results of the regression test showed that all but the relationship with online

classroom management subscale scores transfer to the larger population.

Teachers who reported experiences of collaborating with colleagues and accessing

technical and pedagogical design support contacts have significantly higher levels of online

teaching efficacy. Chan et al. (2021) found teachers who felt a sense of belonging and

connectedness and were able to collaborate with colleagues to learn and solve problems were

associated with teacher well-being. A major issue that resulted from the challenges and struggles

of suddenly transitioning to online teaching due to the pandemic was the reinforcement of the

view that online teaching and learning is inherently inferior to face-to-face instruction. There are

some who might assume that the remote instruction offered in spring 2020 was typical of OT&L,

validating their perception that online teaching is not as effective as teaching face-to-face

(Hodges et al., 2021). Understanding the difference between ERT&L and OT&L is an important

step toward countering the stigma that online learning is inferior to face-to-face.
 71

Teaching Assignment

Elementary teachers who teach in primary and junior division had an initial correlation

with the subscale student engagement. However, the regression analysis showed this did not

translate to the larger population which included secondary teachers. This finding may suggest

that teachers’ experience of the pandemic and transition to ERT was similar and not related to

teaching assignment. Jung et al. (2019) suggest there are differences between elementary and

secondary teachers’ use and integration of technology due to the differences in curriculums and

teaching practices. While online teaching was not exclusive to secondary teachers, eLearning in

Ontario prior to the pandemic was exclusively for secondary students. Elementary teachers'

initial pre-service training and professional development focused on teaching strategies that

support in-class learning. This approach to initial teacher education and PD amongst elementary

teachers and sudden changes caused by the pandemic, compounded by insufficient training in

online teaching methodologies (Archambault et al., 2016), led to teachers experiencing increased

stress and workload (Allen et al., 2020; Carver-Thomas et al., 2021). The difference between

elementary and secondary teachers’ efficacy for online instruction in terms of student

engagement online could be explained by the different emphasis on task-oriented teaching

amongst elementary teachers versus a more performance-oriented teaching in secondary schools

(Midgley et al., 1995). Performance driven learning, such as quizzes and tests, also aligns with

perceived traditional modes of instruction and assessment associated with online instruction

(Hodges et al., 2021).

An examination of the variables that influenced teachers’ sense of efficacy for teaching

online during the pandemic is helpful when identifying what to focus on to build supports for

teachers to better implement ERT&L and integrate online technology into daily learning post-
 72

pandemic. Positive teacher efficacy creates positive outcomes for students and an enriched

learning environment (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), and, although more research

needs to be done to investigate if the same holds true for online learning environments, recent

research is pointing to a similar relationship between student learning and positive teacher

efficacy for OT&L (Dolighan & Owen, 2021; Northcote et al., 2015; Pressley & Ha, 2022).

Phase 1 of this study revealed a need for immediate and timely support for teachers who

were dealing with the initial sudden change to online teaching and learning in the difficult

context of a global pandemic. The study in Phase 1 in the initial stages of the pandemic

highlighted how challenging the unprecedented shift to ERT&L was and how different ERT&L

is from effective online teaching and learning in normal times. As the pandemic persisted and the

context changed with multiple teaching modalities being employed, further investigation was

needed to better understand how to support teachers and develop strategies for moving forward

post-pandemic in an increasingly digital world.

Phase 2 of this investigation sought to understand teachers’ experience in greater detail in

context of a changing teaching environment that posed challenges for teaching and well-being.

The relationship of each of the variables examined (i.e., choosing virtual placement; experience

teaching online; having online training; taking an online AQ; collaborating regularly with

colleagues and having a willingness to teach online) were positively correlated with teachers’

sense of efficacy for teaching in online contexts during the pandemic. One year into the

pandemic, teachers now had some online teaching experience from the initial transition as well

as a second transition to fully online as COVID-19 and new variants of the disease surged in

Ontario and across the globe.

 73

CHAPTER FIVE: QUALITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The need to further explore the experiences of teachers teaching online emerged due to

the changes imposed by the Ontario Ministries of Health and Education and school boards in

response to the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic into the 2020-2021 school year.

According to Hill (2020), there were four phases of “education’s” response to the pandemic.

Phase 1, the initial transition to emergency remote learning; Phase 2, (re)adding in basics of

teaching and learning; Phase 3, extended transition during continued turmoil; and Phase 4, the

emerging new normal. Labonte et al. (2021) identified the 2020-21 school year as being in Phase

2 and, for the most part, in an emergency remote teaching and learning (ERT&L) mode. The

second phase of my study included the TSEOT survey used in the first phase of my study but

changed some of the variables to reflect the situation. The survey was administered in the spring

of 2021, one year after the initial survey. Participants in the quantitative TSEOT survey were

asked to describe what they feel is the most pressing issue regarding PL and support for teachers

designing and implementing online learning environments. Overwhelmingly, the responses

reflected a need for time and resources. Responses to the question (n = 233) were coded and

organized by themes that emerged from the responses. The data were then merged and compared

with the subsequent semi-structured questionnaire.

The first part of this chapter begins with a description of the analysis and code

development. This section describes the process of code development, the content of those codes,

and decisions that aided in combining or blending codes to identify relevant emerging themes.

Next, analysis was conducted at the question level to identify common experiences of

teachers teaching online such as barriers, successes, and concerns. Responses to the

questionnaire were reviewed and organized by question to identify common themes. From the
 74

first review of experiences in Phase 2 of the study, the literature was reviewed again to help

identify issues and problems faced by novice online teachers that were used in the development

of the initial codes (Dichev et al., 2013; DiPietro et al., 2008; Northcote et al., 2011). For

example, difficulty engaging students online was a common theme reported in the literature

(Northcote et al., 2011; Taimur et al., 2021) As the data from the participants were reviewed,

experiences were identified and labeled. During this process, the code list was reviewed for

redundancy. For example, initially the code list included concepts for “not enough training” and

“lack of technical training” which seemed to describe the same experience of lack of training and

support. The process of constant comparison of responses for each question was done using

NVivo software, version 12, to code responses (organize into nodes in Nvivo). Eventually nine

themes of teachers’ experience emerged (see Table 6). The Nvivo software tracked the frequency

of responses per code and the participants or files associated with each node. Responses were

also reviewed for tone or sentiment to gauge teachers’ experience as either negative, positive, or

neutral. Sentiment nodes were included with responses and organized by theme in Nvivo.

Sentiment attribution was used to further define themes. An example is the theme of difficulty

engaging students was refined to student engagement since some of the experiences teachers

reported were positive and successful accounts and some were negative accounts expressing

difficulty or frustration.

In this chapter, teachers’ voices, in the form of quotations from responses, are used.

Using teachers’ voices is important as the quotations illustrate the themes that emerged in the

analysis and give an authenticity to the findings beyond frequency of responses in a particular

theme.
 75

The participants are teachers in the teachers’ self-efficacy for online teaching (TSEOT)

survey. These teachers (n= 30) were identified as continuing to teach online in the new school

year (2020-2021) and were invited to provide greater detail of their experience of teaching

online. Nineteen responded and agreed to participate (66%). Eight were secondary in person

teaching, three were secondary virtual, two were elementary in school, and six were elementary

virtual. Seventeen of 19 respondents had two or less years of online teaching experience. In the

semi-structured questionnaire, participants were asked to describe strategies that worked to

promote student engagement and learning online. Participants were then asked what they felt

they still needed to learn with regard to effective online pedagogy and how they felt the

pandemic affected teaching and learning online. Data from the questionnaire were collated and

analyzed and then compared with each other to determine focus categories. Using thematic

analysis responses were coded and organized into themes that emerged from the responses (de

Lucas Ancillo et al., 2021; Lapadat, 2010). Table 6 contains the nine themes that emerged from

analyzing the data. Reponses were then assessed as positive or negative sentiment based on how

the statement reflected aspects of their experience.

Table 6

Qualitative Response Themes

Themes Frequency Positive Negative

sentiment sentiment
Assessment for online learning 22 8 14
Home support for families 9 9
Online instruction 12 3 9
Personal growth and learning 3 3
Stress, anxiety, and exhaustion 26 26
Student engagement 71 25 46
 76

Time to learn and prepare for teaching 56 56

Training resources and support 96 1 95
Use of technology 49 11 38
Total 344 50 293

Analysis

This study aimed to identify how best to support teachers in online teaching at the K-12

level. Overwhelmingly, the teachers who were asked to elaborate on their experience teaching

online reported a lack of training for online teaching, lack of resources, and support as the

greatest barriers to effective and engaging online teaching. These themes are consistent with

recent research literature (citation).

A related theme was time to learn and time to prepare for teaching. Teachers indicated

even with resources provided by the board, there was little or no time to learn how to use the

resources, assess their appropriateness to the learning needs of students, and implement and

integrate the resources into their daily teaching routine and curricula. Respondent 13 noted,

Some resources were sent out by the board, but you literally had no time to go through

everything. It all seemed so overwhelming. I tried to be the best online teacher, burnt

myself out at the beginning and then learned that I don't need to recreate everything

myself and learned to use resources that were created by others online.

Stress and exhaustion also emerged as a related theme to the theme time to learn and prepare for

teaching. One teacher reflected the strain of the lack of time saying, “not enough time is given to

learn. I've also noticed that the “help” is offered over lunch, when I really need a break from

screen time” (Respondent # 71). Another teacher indicated that lack of time to adequately

support students was a problem,

 77

Lack of time. The amount of work needed to support students in this learning

environment was astronomical. This meant that most preparation had to be done in the

evening. Weekly workloads (when teaching two courses in the quadmester model) were

in the 60-80 hours per week range. (Respondent # 47)

Time, or lack thereof, for PL, for supporting students, and for personal and family needs was a

constant theme emerging through the teacher responses. Time, or lack thereof, also affected how

teachers collaborated one with another.

Collaborating with colleagues improves self-efficacy. In this study, teachers who reported

collaborating with colleagues often-to-regularly had a higher sense of overall efficacy. Those

who reported collaborating with colleagues had higher efficacy for the subscales student

engagement, online instruction, and use of computers and technology. The reality of the

transition to emergency remote online teaching requires a different approach to how support and

access to resources for online teaching is done. This elementary teacher describes how valuable

collaborating with colleagues was,

I pushed through to the end of the year with the support of 2 fabulous teaching partners,

and there’s another key element ... I collaborated with OUTSTANDING [sic] grade

partners. We split the planning on heavy subjects (Lang, Math & Sci/SS) so we could

share polished lessons and activities. That was also a major support to my teaching.

(Respondent # 11)

This teacher reinforced the sentiment that collaboration and professional support networks

positively affected teacher self-efficacy and making the workload more manageable.

In contrast to findings of the study by Dolighan and Owen (2021) at the initial stage of

the transition to OT&L, this phase found online teaching experience was revealed to have a
 78

correlation with higher overall efficacy. Yet, 85% of respondents reported having two or less

years of experience teaching online, indicating that their only experience teaching online was

during the pandemic. The lack of online teaching experience (i.e., less than two years’

experience) appears not to be a barrier to teaching online effectively. Teaching in the virtual

setting had some positive influence on the teachers who responded to the qualitative semi-

structured questionnaire. This outcome is supported by the results of the Phase 2 survey which

demonstrated that a positive attitude and willingness to continue teaching online is associated

with increased efficacy and capacity to learn to teach online more effectively. One secondary

virtual school teacher with three years’ face-to-face experience and one and a half years’ online

teaching experience described success adapting to the synchronous Zoom sessions in the virtual

school:

Group work in breakout rooms with the use of whiteboard.fi so I can see what they're

working on. "Hands-on" activities, with the use of online simulators (i.e., PHeT) - mall

group conversations. The use of the Zoom chat [meant] students could [send a] private

message to me, alleviating the anxiety of answering questions in front of a class. Creating

a safe space; inclusion of "Fun Fridays" so students could get to know one another.

(Respondent # 3)

Teachers who were new to teaching online but had extensive experience teaching face-to-face

also adapted to the online teaching environment and expressed personal professional growth

around assessment practice. One elementary virtual school teacher, who had 24 years’ face-to-

face teaching experience and 1.5 years online teaching experience, expressed their adaptation to

online teaching as:

 79

Games, humour, and community building activities. Teacher flexibility, especially

regarding assessment. Tests, quizzes, and anything to be evaluated always created

tension, so I've never "triangulated" my assessment more in my career than this year.

Observation of student understanding by listening to them talk, interact with each other,

and find success in game-based activities or group work was very important. (Respondent

# 11)

Thus, online teaching, evening during a pandemic, had a positive impact on some teachers’

capacity to improve their professional practice and to see how online teaching could improve

their teaching and student experience once they returned to face-to-face environments.

This study’s findings identified several concerns or troublesome issues (Perkins, 2006)

that teachers experienced transitioning to and adapting to ERT&L. The study’s findings also

identified teachers who have overcome barriers, adapted, and demonstrated that sound pedagogy

is a critical component of online learning. The higher self-efficacy TSEOT scores of both

secondary and elementary virtual teachers suggest that the daily experience of virtual teaching

was closer to actual non-emergency online teaching than the transition to emergency remote that

reoccurred in the second year of school in the pandemic. The Phase 2 TESOT survey data

showed a positive correlation with online teaching experience and teacher efficacy. All but two

of the qualitative questionnaire respondents who were teaching in virtual schools reported having

two or less years of online teaching experience. Seventy-four percent of respondents referred to

using technology and sound pedagogy to foster student learning. Given the higher sense of

efficacy for online teaching in the teachers who indicated they would continue to teach online

and those who chose the virtual school, having a positive attitude and willingness to learn offers

a potential for peer leadership for online teaching and learning. The TESOT survey data show
 80

positive correlation with online teaching experience and teacher efficacy r=.206, p=.001. In

addition, 53% of qualitative questionnaire respondents who reported having two or less years of

online teaching experience referenced using technology in effective ways to foster student

learning. One participant noted, “the use of breakout rooms was effective for group work (when

synchronous learning was possible) ... I had to use breakout rooms, use video, audio, and

computer technologies/formats for teaching and for student presentations, discussions”

(Respondent #15). This also showed how success with student learning can be integrative and

transformative in an online setting for novice online teachers (Meyer, 2010; Northcote et al.,

2011; Perkins, 2006). Two elementary virtual school teachers described their transformation as

positive and illustrated the similarities between face-to-face teaching and online teaching, with

one noting “I have learned a great deal over the last year and a half, and believe I need to

continue learning in general regarding the similarities and differences of online versus traditional

schooling” (Respondent #18). Responded 17 shared the following:

I really enjoy teaching online. I feel with each new challenge that presents itself online

there is an opportunity for professional development and growth in this area. The more

exposure we as educators have to platforms that are effective, the more we are able to

enhance the online experience for our students… I think it contributed to more

professional growth in learning how to effectively teach online. It enabled teachers to see

what platforms were successful in keeping students engaged and which ones were

effective to use to assess their learning online. I think it also gave students a variety of

ways to show their learning in a format which was suitable for them and enhanced their

exposure to online programs which facilitated this. (Respondent #17)

 81

The context of the pandemic and the necessity to adapt to new modes of teaching may have

accelerated the willingness to use technology that had previously been lacking (Donnelly et al.,

2011; Ertmer et al., 2015). Tondeur et al. (2012), in their systematic review of the literature,

found that learning experiences with technology have the potential to change teachers’ beliefs

towards more student-centered, constructivist beliefs. My evidence suggests that the experience

of teaching online may have changed some teachers’ beliefs about OT&L as a viable learning

environment and demonstrated how sound pedagogy is essential for teacher effectiveness in both

environments.

Student Engagement

Teachers who participated in the qualitative portion of the study referred to student

engagement as the second most frequency factor (n = 71) and an area of both concern due to lack

of success and an area of success with engaging students online. One teacher expressed, “I felt it

was very difficult to engage students. Many checked out early, some didn't want to be seen on

camera, they were bored, or some were anxious. In the older classes there was little to no

conversation with peers” (Respondent # 13). Although student engagement was identified more

frequently as a challenge or barrier, 35% of the references to student engagement reflected

positive experiences and successes. One example of this challenge was included in Respondent

2’s observation, “It definitely took longer for students to feel more comfortable and [for me] to

connect with them than it would have taken in face-to-face schools, but once the rapport was

established, it actually went much smoother than I anticipated” (Respondent # 2).

The link between teacher efficacy and student engagement is well established for face-to-

face classroom learning (Good & Brophy, 2003; Martin et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The connection between individual teacher efficacy and student
 82

engagement in K-12 online contexts is not well studied and individual teacher efficacy and

student engagement in K-12 online learning has not been well established (Chiu, 2021). The

pandemic has sparked a surge in research into K-12 online learning and these connections are

being established. As reported in the quantitative portion of this study, teacher efficacy was

significantly correlated with student engagement in both phases of the TSEOT survey. Also, in

both phases the mean score for student engagement was the lowest among subscales Phase 1 M =

4.73, SD = 1.13; Phase 2 M = 5.23, SD = 1.44. While no statistical comparisons can be made

between the phases due to population differences and anonymity of respondents, it is notable that

teachers’ reported sense of efficacy for student engagement was the lowest in both phases.

Taimur et al. (2021) found that teachers moving to virtual teaching during the pandemic reported

a decrease in student engagement in the virtual setting compared to the face-to-face setting.

Teachers who responded to the qualitative portion of this study attributed lack of student

engagement to student lack of access to required technology, unfamiliarity with the use of

technology by teachers and students, and students feeling uncomfortable using the cameras in

synchronous sessions. One teacher noted, “I think some students weren't as engaged and weren't

able to stay focused online. I think having their cameras on [is an] issue to ensure their

engagement and understanding” (Respondent # 16). The challenges of using cameras in

synchronous sessions also provided opportunity to innovate and meet student needs. Respondent

2 reported, “giving opportunities for student to share their answers in the chat rather than

speaking their answers - so many were uncomfortable turning their cameras on during class, but

this was a way for them to engage they felt comfortable with” (Respondent # 2). Students may

have been reluctant to use cameras for many reasons, including the intrusion into personal and

private spaces that such cameras permitted.

 83

The Use of Technology

Similar to the theme of student engagement, the theme of technology emerged initially as

a barrier only, but was refined to include successes as effective uses of technology to teach were

identified in teachers’ responses. While difficulties and challenges learning new technology

dominated the frequency of responses (n = 38), there were a substantial number (n = 11) of

responses that described using technology to engage students and create collaborative learning

experiences. The pandemic may have created opportunities for teachers’ use of technology in

teaching that would not have occurred otherwise. The effective integration of educational

technology may have depended on the attitude and willingness of teachers to learn and

implement the technology for student learning (Ertmer & Ottenbrite-Leftwhich, 2010; Tondeur

et al., 2012). The results from the TSEOT survey in Phase 2 revealed teachers who were willing

to continue to teach online N = 264; r = .484, p = .001 and those who chose virtual school

placements N = 61; r = .337, p = .008 had higher overall efficacy for teaching online. The

qualitative responses reflected similar attitudes amongst teachers who described being willing to

learn and implement new technology to enhance student engagement and learning. This teacher

reflected, “I still need to learn to master all aspects of every technology I use in online teaching. I

learn more each time I teach an online course but wish to continue to make courses more

engaging and interactive within the limitations of largely asynchronous environments”

(Respondent # 15). If, on reflection, teachers see the value in students learning with technology,

they are more likely to use those technologies in their teaching practices (Ertmer et al., 2015). To

see value, teachers need to be able to see and understand the positive effects that an innovative

technology has on student learning and be open to trying that and related technology as they can

see the potential value for the student, even if they have not mastered the technology and its
 84

applications. Respondent 15 said, “teaching during the pandemic forced me to teach in new

ways, which was a silver lining of sorts: I had to use breakout rooms, use video, audio, and

computer technologies/formats for teaching and for student presentations, discussions”

(Respondent # 15). This teacher’s reflections show a positive sentiment toward PL to improve

professional practice.

Only two specific references were made to hybrid learning and the concerns and

challenges teachers experienced. It is possible that secondary teachers in the school district who

returned to in class teaching at the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year did not associate

hybrid or blended learning with online learning. The challenges may have stemmed from trying

to fit an online context (hybrid) into an in-person modality that was a modification of the normal

semester system to a quadmester system (four terms versus the more common two terms per

year) that divided classes into cohorts that attended the class on an alternate day schedule to

allow for social distancing. A study by Carl (2021) that examined teachers’ efficacy and

technology acceptance found teachers’ perceived ease of use towards instructional technology

was higher in a remote setting than a hybrid setting. The author suggested the difference is the

dual modality and difficulties trying to fit remote strategies into a face-to-face setting. The

difficulties identified by teachers in my study were associated with managing students online

while trying to manage a classroom of students:

In the quadmester system, if we have 2 classes to teach then there's no time to prep (the

partnered-up teacher is not usually of the same discipline so it is of no help - in fact it

would take more prep time to utilize them). Also, for the hybrid [concurrent] model, it is

unsustainable to provide the required support to both students in front of you and those

joining from home. Education of all suffers (Respondent # 39).

 85

This teacher’s experience illustrates some of the limitations to effective planning and design such

as collaboration between students in a concurrent teaching model. This teacher’s experience also

shows the need for time – time for professional learning and time for preparation to adapt to new

teaching environments.

Blended or hybrid learning can be effective if it is designed and implemented in a way

that leverages the advantages of asynchronous learning and synchronous learning (Beatty, 2019).

The need for training and support for the effective use of online technology extends to the hybrid

model which can be a viable way to accommodate students who cannot attend classes in person

due to illness, quarantine as illustrated by the pandemic or other health issues.

Online Instruction and Assessment

This study identified troublesome knowledge (Perkins, 2006) or barriers to online

teaching. Two themes emerged from teachers’ experience of online instruction and assessment of

student learning in the context of OT&L (i) assessments for online learning and (ii) online

instruction strategies. I will first address assessment of learning in the ERT&L context.

Assessments for online learning: Many of the teachers’ reflections cited difficulty

transferring what was done in assessment practices in a face-to-face classroom to the online

context. Not being near to or in proximity with students to deter potential cheating was

uncomfortable for many teachers. One teacher described the challenge of online assessments as

not being able to prevent cheating and effectively assess student learning, “given the technology

available, the reality of tests and quizzes is they were all open book and students could freely

cheat. Whether that was the case or not, I know teachers gave multiple versions of tests to try to

alleviate it, but I don't think it could be fully avoided” (Respondent # 3). Another teacher

described developing assessments that prevented cheating as challenging in the online context
 86

and questioned the validity of assessments. The challenge was described as, “developing

assessments that are as valid as those used in a classroom setting (with respect to assessing what

a student knows and preventing academic dishonesty)” (Respondent # 44).

According to Galenti et al. (2021), effective online assessment reflects student-centred

assessment design that integrates formative and summative assessment to provide evidence of

learning that includes the process of learning. This can be achieved by designing assessments

that support student learning through student interaction, peer-assessment, and self-assessment.

Student engagement and deeper learning are related to the clear communication of learning

expectations, use of multiple sources of evidence, support for learners as members of a

community, and timely and ongoing feedback (Gikandi et al., 2011). The use of technology and

digital tools in the virtual classroom can “provide a unique opportunity to reimagine the siloed

roles of formative and summative assessment” (Galanti et al., 2021). The data presented in this

study revealed that of the 22 teacher references to online assessment, academic dishonesty or

cheating were mentioned explicitly in four of the 22 references. Tests were mentioned seven

times. DeCoito and Estaiteyeh (2022) found teachers used what was familiar to them due to the

initial sudden transition to online teaching and little or no training to effectively engage in online

teaching. The experience of OT&L during the pandemic moved some teachers to re-evaluate

their own assessment practice:

The pandemic created an almost instant acceptance of the viability of online teaching and

learning. The pandemic caused many teachers (myself included) to “dive in” and learn to

use technologies and platforms like Zoom, D2L[LMS] and Edsby [LMS]. Teachers had to

learn to assess and evaluate students in ways other than pen and paper tests (Respondent

# 15).
 87

Thus, a positive outcome occurred despite the absence of formal training or PD for online

assessment: several teachers described using technology to expand how students could

demonstrate learning. One teacher noted, “the use of video and audio submissions for student

work was an effective addition to typed assignments, and could be done through Edsby, email

or D2L” (Respondent # 15).

The theme online instructional strategies was deemed a separate theme from assessments

for online learning even though many of the descriptions of teachers’ experiences referred to

related challenges such as difficulty engaging students in the synchronous teaching sessions and

not being able to see and monitor students during summative assessments. As the pandemic

persisted through the 2020-2021 school year, teachers had experience teaching online and

experience using the board provided LMS. The return to the face-to-face classroom in September

2020 required that some teachers teach in blended learning environments. Pulham and Graham

(2018) indicated that learning to use a LMS was the top technology skill for teaching in blended

learning environments. Dolighan and Owen (2021) found that teacher efficacy was higher during

the initial transition if the teacher was using the LMS prior to switching to online modes of

delivery in the initial stages of the pandemic. Similarly, Phase 2 data analysis revealed

correlations with the using the LMS and higher perceived efficacy for the subscale use of

computers and technology. Most references to using the LMS platform (either Edsby,

Brightspace/D2L, or Microsoft Teams) related to instructional and administrative problems

which may explain the increased use of an LMS in Phase 2 by all teachers but no indication of

increased efficacy except in the subscale use of computers and technology.

Some teachers described using the LMS in creative and innovative ways to integrate

assessment of student learning. This teacher described their experience this way, “the use of
 88

video and audio submissions for student work was an effective addition to typed assignments,

and could be done through Edsby, email or D2L” (Respondent # 15). Many LMSs have data

tracking systems that help teachers adjust individual student instruction and use formative

assessment and feedback in a timely manner to improve individual student learning (Pulham &

Graham, 2018). As teachers gained more experience with online teaching contexts, their

confidence and efficacy for providing effective learning experiences increased. Even though the

experience of many participants was two years or less with online teaching and only in the

context of the pandemic, this observation is consistent with some teachers’ description of their

experience using the LMS as well as instructing and assessing online.

Mental and Physical Well-Being

Stress, anxiety, and exhaustion were dominant themes that emerged from teachers’

descriptions of their experience teaching online in the pandemic even though no specific survey

question addressed teacher sense of well-being. Pressley and Ha (2022) link teacher efficacy to

stress and anxiety levels. Under normal (i.e., non-pandemic) circumstances, teaching online can

be stressful and exhausting when teachers first transition to online instruction (Horvitz et al.,

2015: Northcote et al., 2011, 2015). The added stress of pandemic restrictions and personal and

family health concerns compounded the stress teachers experienced when transitioning to online

teaching (Pressley & Ha, 2022). Acknowledging that they were unprepared to teach in an online

setting due to a lack of training, resources, and support was the most common experience

teachers referred to in this study. A lack of awareness of available resources or feeling there was

insufficient time to prep lessons and learn online teaching/pedagogical best practices contributed

to stress, anxiety and exhaustion that negatively affected teachers’ sense of efficacy. Respondent

#144 shared, “not enough time to learn the variety of apps, techniques, tools, and skills as well as
 89

plan and prepare for content delivery, assessment & evaluation, IEP [individual education plan]

planning etc... OVERWHELMING![sic]” (Respondent # 144). Moreover, the stress and anxiety

of trying to manage teaching online from home extended to teachers’ families and students’

families and compounded the job-related stress teachers reported. One participant highlighted

these tensions,

teaching during the pandemic was extremely difficult on our family unit. We had three

boys ages 5, 7 and 9 and … my husband worked full time. We were fortunate to have

jobs during the pandemic, but mentally, we struggled to keep our family happy and

engaged in school. As a teacher, I had parents email me that this was all just too much for

them. I had many parents log on and their kids (kindergarten) would just be playing in the

background and no one would be interacting with the class. They just didn't want to be

marked as absent. (Respondent # 13)

This respondent’s remarks revealed an ongoing theme in much of the pandemic related literature

– the negative impact that the pandemic had on students’ and teachers’ mental health and well-

being (MHWB) (pandemic (Kraft et al., 2021; Pressley, 2021; Sokal et al., 2020a).

The mental well-being of teachers is integral for establishing a healthy and positive

learning environment. Adding to the stress of learning to teach in a new (online) environment,

teachers experienced challenges working from home and providing for children who were

learning virtually at home as well (Marshall et al., 2020; Sokal et al., 2020a). Schaufeli (2017)

found the absence of job resources and the presence of excessive job demands drained

employees’ energy, which led to adverse outcomes such as burnout and anxiety. In the COVID-

19 context, teachers’ experience of lack of resources and sufficient job resources contributed to

lower efficacy and increased stress and anxiety (Sokal et al., 2020a). My study revealed the lack
 90

of job resources, namely training for online teaching, online resources, and support, along with

the lack of time to learn and prepare to teach as the foremost concerns of teachers who taught

online during the pandemic. It is understandable that the lack of job resources perceived by

teachers contributed to feelings of exhaustion, stress, and burnout as reflected in their responses

to the questionnaire.

Home Support for Families

There was no specific question in the quantitative? portion that asked teachers about

student access to technology and teachers. However, in the qualitative component of this study,

teachers’ responses highlighted support for students and families at home as a concern N = 9.

Several responses referred to the need to support teachers who also had children at home

learning. The connection to the theme of stress, anxiety and exhaustion is well established in the

literature that has emerged on teachers’ experience during the pandemic (Kraft et al., 2021;

Pressley, 2021; Sokal et al., 2020a). The central concern that emerged from these nine references

was student accountability. That is, teachers were concerned that they were not able to hold

students accountable for their own work. Respondent 44 stated, “checking if students are

completing work without parents doing it for them” as a concern. Marshall et al. (2020) found

primary teachers expressed having difficulty with younger students who required parents to help

them online. One primary teacher in this study articulated a unique challenge working with

parents and students online, “online does not work when parents give the answers and do the

work for their child. Nothing can prepare you for that! [There] are no resources to help

kindergarten students manage online learning and you cannot differentiate instruction”

(Respondent # 55). This expression of concern reflected teachers’ lack of control over the

learning environment, which they would exercise in a face-to-face classroom.

 91

Teachers’ concerns about learning environments also extended to issues of equity of

access by students to educational technologies (computers, broadband capacity) from

marginalized and/or rural regions of the school district. Some teachers indicated that students

who did not have reliable access to the internet or a reliable device were at a disadvantage, but

the number of concerns expressed were limited N = 2. In this case (as well as others), the school

board made laptops available for students who did not otherwise have access to a viable learning

device.

Conclusion

The findings of this study highlight areas of teacher concern with online teaching. The

findings of this study demonstrate instances in which training, support, and personal experience

can improve the capacity and confidence of teachers teaching online. The experience of teaching

online in an emergency remote context as well as a remote context that includes several

modalities such as blended learning and virtual learning provides an opportunity to reassess

current practices that might involve more integrated technology that can enhance instruction,

collaboration, and assessment, and ultimately, student learning. The findings in this study

support and extend prior and current published research on K-12 online teaching and ERT&L.
 92

CHAPTER SIX: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This study reinforces the need to develop a sound, evidence-based, collaborative

professional development strategy for building capacity for online and remote learning. The

recommendations emerge from the analysis of data gathered from the two phases of quantitative

inquiry and the qualitative inquiry of teachers’ experience of teaching in the context of the

pandemic from Phase 2 as well as comparisons with the current literature on developing online

teaching skills for K-12 teachers. The recommendations identified herein are aimed at teachers

and for school and school board administrators. For teachers, the primary recommendations are

to consider how they can develop skills, efficacy, and pedagogy for online teaching contexts. For

administrators at the board level, recommendations are made to consider how to develop

professional learning and training for teachers new to online teaching and how and resources that

support online teaching and learning are allocated. Recommendations are made for operational

or school level administrators who allocate resources at the school level and implement the

professional development for online teaching and learning (OT&L) for staff. Finally, the

recommendations are designed to help inform Ontario Ministry of Education officials involved

in creating policy that provides consistency provincially.

Emerging from this study are nine recommendations for teachers, administrators and

policy makers.

1. Recognize emergency remote teaching and learning (ERT&L) is distinct from online

learning.

2. Leverage collaborative inquiry for ongoing professional learning (PL).

3. Foster and support teacher collaboration in the online context.

4. View assessment as an integral part of the learning process.

 93

5. Value pedagogy and technology as interconnected.

6. Administrative support for collaborative teacher online professional learning.

7. Recognize the impact on mental health and well-being.

8. Cultivate positive attitude and willingness to teach online

9. Make connections with novice teachers and teacher preparation programs.

From each of these recommendations are actions that would have significant impacts on the

quality of teaching and learning in Ontario schools in pandemic as well as post-pandemic

teaching environments. These recommendations are evidence based and useful for both face-to-

face classroom environments as well as blended and online teaching environments. These

recommendations are discussed sequentially below. It is important to note that while these are

individual recommendations, one may have an impact or consequence for others.

Recognize Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning is Distinct from Online Learning

Amongst the events that affected the educational experience of students and the work of

teachers from the start of the pandemic in March 2020 was an emergency measure requiring a

transition to online learning that was quite different from non-emergency online learning. This

emergency measure, researchers have argued, prevented teachers and students from transitioning

to effective online learning (Marshall et al., 2020). Attitudes that see online learning as inferior

to face-to-face were reinforced by restrictive academic and administrative measures that

hindered teachers from doing their jobs, thereby influencing teachers’ perceptions of lower

efficacy for teaching and students’ ability to learn and be held accountable (Dolighan & Owen,

2021; Marshall et al., 2020). Compounding the frustration of increased job demands were the

added stress and exhaustion produced by living with the pandemic (Merrill, 2020). A

confounding result from Phase 1 of this study revealed no correlation between overall efficacy
 94

scores and experience teaching online. The assessment of the teaching task by experienced

teachers may have seen ERT&L as substantially different than the eLearning they had

experience doing. This study captured teachers’ frustrations as they attempted to adapt to

teaching online, reinforcing the need to more effectively train teaching staff for emergency

transitions to remote learning. Building capacity for using technology as a regular part of

teaching in face-to-face classrooms could make future transitions to online teaching in an

emergency smoother without the loss of integrity and effectiveness in the teaching and learning

processes. Regular integration of online components in the school year would be an effective

strategy for teachers to learn and integrate online technologies and pedagogies into their practice.

This study revealed shortcomings with online instructional strategy and online assessment

strategy that did not consider the context of the online learning environment and student needs.

Marshall et al. (2020) recommended that digital learning days should be incorporated into the

school year so that the transition to emergency remote learning is not as prone to teacher and

student misunderstanding, resistance, and frustration. Using synchronous learning platforms such

as Zoom and Microsoft Teams helped teachers and students connect in real time during ERT&L.

Asynchronous delivery also offers benefits and advantages that need to be explored further

(Barbour et al., 2020). Face-to-face learning can be enhanced by integrating technology and the

flexibility that is an affordance of educational technologies. Familiarity with digital learning

would support emergency remote transition preparedness (Marshall et al., 2020). Digital learning

can be fostered by:

• Using existing technology such as a Learning Management System (LMS) as a platform

for digital learning experiences as well as remote learning experiences that can be used in

an ERT&L situation (Dolighan & Owen, 2021)

 95

• Learning how asynchronous tools embedded in the LMS can be used for alternative ways

for students to engage learning and present learning such as video responses and

discussion forums.

• Using LMS platforms that offer ways to organize daily learning goals, tasks, and

assignments that students can access anywhere, anytime (remote flexible) that would be

the same face-to-face or remote.

• Incorporating aspects of blended and flipped classroom learning to develop self-

regulatory learning skills for students and help teachers become more familiar with how

online technology can help students develop self-regulatory skills (Barbour et al., 2013;

Lock et al., 2017: Stevens, 2020).

Leverage Collaborative Inquiry for Ongoing Professional Learning

Seeing online learning as both public and collaborative is an important shift in thinking

about online learning. Garrison (2017) describes the process of learning as, “cultivated in the

complex dynamics of collaborative inquiry that support thinking and learning in critical and

creative ways. Thinking and learning collaboratively is a necessity in the increasingly connected

and complex knowledge society in which educators are tasked to develop the thinking and

learning of students (p. 170).” Teacher professional learning, as part of the collaborative

processes important for education, needs to support learning in critical and creative ways rather

than be focuses on content transmission.

In response to the pandemic, educators utilized online tools to avoid a complete shutdown

of the education system in Ontario, Canada and elsewhere. The results of this study support

international research findings that have emerged from the pandemic experience that show

teachers felt they lacked the training and support needed to effectively teach online and to mirror
 96

best instructional practices in online environments (DeCoito & Estaiteyeh, 2022; Dolighan &

Owen, 2021; Marshall et al., 2020; Pressley, 2021). For example, DeCoito and Estaiteyeh (2022)

found that STEM teachers reported they prioritized content delivery over student-centred

creative teaching strategies in the ERT&L context. The authors also found that teachers opted for

more traditional forms of assessment online with quizzes and tests being the most used. DeCoito

and Estaiteyeh (2022) concluded that in the stress and context of the pandemic, teachers “lacked

the time and skills necessary to implement more authentic and student-centred assessments (p.

10).” The results of my study are consistent with DeCoito and Estaiteyeh (2022) and reveal the

challenges faced by teachers due to lack of time, training, and resources to teach effectively

online.

Overwhelmingly, the highest theme response by frequency was the need for training,

resources, and support followed by time to learn and prepare. This study brought into focus the

beliefs some teachers have about teaching and learning. Some teachers focused on specific issues

of online assessment that reflected a competitive and siloed approach, which was reinforced by

Respondent #3’s statement that “tests and quizzes were all open-book and students could freely

cheat”. Garrison (2017) argues for the need to replace competition in education with

collaboration, and that knowledge is created collaboratively and should be treated as a publicly

shared good accessible to all. The pandemic exposed inequities and shortcomings of educational

practice in Ontario and around the world. Online education can leverage connective

opportunities to think and learn collaboratively (Garrison, 2017). The community of inquiry

(CoI) framework developed by Garrison and colleagues (2000) provides a platform that is

disruptive to the entrenched vertical educational structures and is open to learners regardless of

time and distance. Not only is it useful for teacher PL the impact on student learning and
 97

experience could be invaluable. Using the CoI framework as a foundation for designing and

engaging in online teaching and learning would provide a basis for a process that has the

potential to shift teachers' thinking and beliefs about teaching and learning (Garrison, 2017).

Garrison (2017) described the three constructs (teaching presence, cognitive presence,

and social presence) (see Figure 1) as overlapping as they are applied to the learning experience.

The learning experience happens at the intersection of these three constructs and in integrated

digital space (Blayone et al., 2017). Garrison (2017) described the ability of eLearning to

eliminate boundaries of time and distance and bring learners together as a CoI in a

transformational way that reflects a connected and evolving knowledge society. The K-12

application of the CoI framework has shown students exposed to this approach “are more

reasonable and more thoughtful, and that their teachers are not merely better at teaching specific

subjects, but also are more effective in developing general thinking skills” (Lipman, 2003, p.

106). As education moves beyond the emergency measures imposed by the Ontario Ministry of

Education and school boards in 2020 to deal with the pandemic, training for teachers needs to

reflect additional job requirements and expectations of designing and implementing online

learning for K-12 students.

My study examined the impact of transitioning to online teaching on teacher efficacy for

teaching online and revealed a positive correlation with teachers’ sense of efficacy and

collaborating with colleagues, having online training, and a positive attitude toward OT&L to

meet that challenge. Teacher efficacy is linked to positive student outcomes and teachers who

collaborate with each other build a sense of personal efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Goddard et al.,

2004) as well as collective efficacy that sustains and reinforces the learning community

(Donohoo & Katz, 2017). The collaborative teacher inquiry model for teacher PL proposed by
 98

Donohoo and Katz (2017) complimented and supported the online CoI framework described by

Garrison (2017), with the focus on teacher directed learning. Collaborative teacher inquiry

begins with an inquiry question developed by the team of teachers that reflects their learning

needs (Donohoo & Katz, 2017). Engaging in cycles of collaborative teacher inquiry and seeing

an impact on student learning, the sense of collective efficacy increases. Measuring teacher

efficacy and school collective efficacy for OT&L could provide an initial assessment for

designing teacher support and learning as well as measuring progress for system-wide learning

and capacity. Garrison (2017) pointed to evidence that the CoI framework supports the position

that collaborative inquiry can be supported in eLearning and blended learning contexts

(Garrison, 2017; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Arbaugh et al. (2008) developed a CoI survey

instrument that has a practical application for guiding the development of program design as well

as assessing the effectiveness of a community of inquiry (Richardson et al., 2012) that would be

useful for assessing teacher PL and building OT&L capacity for the school community.
 99

Figure 1

Community of Inquiry Framework

Note. (Garrison et al., 2000) © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

Foster and Support Teacher Collaboration in the Online Context

This study found that teachers collaborated with colleagues and directed their own

learning on how to teach online one year into the pandemic experience. Teachers’ sense of their

own efficacy for teaching online was higher with those teachers who reported regular

collaborations with colleagues to solve problems and to learn how to use technology for teaching

r = .166, p = .007 versus those who did not collaborate. My study also included teachers who

described collaborating with colleagues as helpful for tackling a heavy work load. Taimur et al.

(2021) found teachers identified collaborating with colleagues as helpful for learning and sharing

the load of creating online content. Teacher collaborations can build personal efficacy for

teaching online and a school's collective efficacy to implement effective online teaching and

learning (Goddard et al., 2004). Using the CoI framework for online teacher PL would give
 100

teachers the framework to engage in collaborative ongoing professional learning with learning

outcomes they establish based on their experience of online teaching and their specific learning

needs. Donohoo and Katz (2017) describe how building teacher efficacy and collective efficacy

affect student achievement. Belief in the collective capacity to make a difference impacts the

diligence and resolve that teams will try to achieve their goals (Goddard et al., 2004).

Collaborative Inquiry offers a structure for meaningful collaboration that can increase teachers’

knowledge about their collective work, and it reinforces team cohesion that ultimately builds

collective teacher efficacy (Donohoo, 2017).

An important contribution to building a culture of collaboration is leveraging expertise

and experience. Staff with more experience and advanced online teaching skills should be

encouraged to engage collaboratively and share ideas, problem solve, and explore the use of

technology and education technology software in the context of sound pedagogy (Northcote et

al., 2011). It is important to accommodate diverse levels of skills and development. The findings

from my study revealed a wide variation in the confidence levels of individual teachers to use

technology for teaching. Developing a PL program that provides opportunity for teachers to

collaborate with colleagues on shared concerns and interests to develop their technical skills and,

subsequently, their technical confidence. Experienced staff sharing their expertise reflects the

teaching presence described by Garrison (2011, 2017). PL should take place in the context of a

strong pedagogical framework and allow for teachers to learn at their level and direct their own

learning (Tondeur et al., 2017). Effective online learning involves social and cognitive presence

(Garrison, 2017) in a negotiated digital space (Blayone et al., 2017). Online PL for teachers can

happen using the digital space and tools teachers are learning to use in the context of effective

online pedagogy. An example of this is the use of breakout rooms for small group discussion and
 101

collaborative inquiry in live video conferencing. Managing the tools and setting guidelines for

engaging the learning task and sharing with others can be modeled and discussed in terms of how

it might look with K-12 students. Teachers as learners also bring a third element of teaching

presence to the collaborative setting that comes from the experience or expertise they have. The

CoI model offers a structure of learning through collaboration that is conducive to ongoing

construction of knowledge and skills that would model effective pedagogy in the eLearning and

virtual classroom. The framework, inclusive of integrated digital space, offers a model for

teachers to use as they design online learning opportunities for their students.

Drawing from both the CoI model and the fully online learning community (FOLC)

model needs to be investigated further. Garrison (2011) contended that including technology and

the competencies required to use that technology in the model would make it too complex. The

digital space is an important part of the learning process that involves learning how to use the

digital technologies for learning process as well as learning how pedagogy integrates with that

technology to enhance student learning. The digital space is then a negotiated space where

educators would choose the platforms and technologies that would support their learning. Based

on the General Technology Competency and Use framework (Desjardins, 2005), the FOLC

model uses the four dimensions of human-computer-human interaction (technical, informational,

social, and epistemological/ computational) and the associated competencies that support SP, CP,

and the collaborative learning process (Blayone et al., 2017) (see Figure 2). Blayone and

colleagues explain that supporting the acquisition of competencies is done through open access

online tutorial videos so that the subsequent collaborative online learning experience “is affected

and modified by the tools used for learning, and at the same time, learning tools are modified by

the ways in which they are used for learning” (Blayone et al., 2017, p. 6). The inclusion of the
 102

digital space and the competencies required to use the technologies in the collaborative learning

framework for teachers learning online pedagogy and design makes sense and should be studied

further.

The role of the teacher supporting and facilitating collaborative learning with adolescents

is important (Borup, 2016; Borup et al., 2020). It also makes sense that a framework that models

a K-12 online learning experience should include the TP element that leverages the expertise of

experienced online educators in professional learning experiences. Modeling effective online

facilitation of learning in the context of TP would also support collaborative learning in the

classroom and online settings. My study found teachers reported a lack of time to learn about

new technologies and plan to implement them online. Compounding the lack of time to learn and

plan, school boards across the province of Ontario experienced supply exhaustion or a shortage

of supply teachers that have traditionally been used to cover teachers who are doing PL while

classes are running.

Teachers also reported the demands of teaching and planning in new online modalities

also caused stress, anxiety, and exhaustion. Engaging in PD sessions after school and having to

travel to another location to do so only would add to the fatigue teachers were feeling. Part of the

health and safety response to the pandemic was for school boards to create online PL sessions to

support teachers (Burton, 2023). Online PL offers affordances that can help address challenges to

time that meeting face to face pose. Leveraging the experience of PL sessions online and using

video conferencing could offer a way to facilitate frequent teacher collaboration and learning

through communities of inquiry (Campbell et al., 2016; Kennedy, 2014). Campbell et al. (2016)

and Stewart (2014) argued that collaborative and ongoing learning are elements of high-quality

PL that supports high quality teaching. The maker approach to learning is a student-centred,
 103

inquiry-based approach that integrates skills and competencies from science, technology,

engineering, and the arts (STEAM). According to Hughes et al. (2021), teacher PL of new

initiatives needs to be ongoing, embedded in context and collaborative. Hughes et al. (2021)

argued that in the case of maker education, it is necessary for the PL to mirror the type of

teaching and learning that students will experience in the classroom. Morrison and Hughes

(2022) found teachers collaborating on the same coding challenge in the online maker learning

process was effective for learning the Scratch coding program as more knowledgeable colleagues

were able “to share innovative ideas others may not have thought of or been able to execute on

their own” (p. 112). Further research needs to investigate how mirroring the online pedagogies in

online PL sessions can help teachers better understand how the technologies and accompanying

new pedagogies that are inherent to online learning contexts are part of the learning process

across various divisions and subject areas.

View Assessment as an Integral Component of the Learning Process

Assessment practice can be a good place to start teacher inquiry and professional learning

within online contexts. The experience by some teachers in this study indicates that challenges to

engaging students and assessing students arise from trying to impose traditional assessment

parameters of time and proximity for quizzes and tests that do not translate to the online

environment. Concerns about cheating or the validity of open book assessments reflect a need to

reassess assessment practice in a way that is more student-centred and oriented to supporting the

learning process. Integrating formative and summative assessment provides evidence of learning

through the process of learning. Designing assessments that support student learning through

student interaction, peer-assessment, and self-assessment involves students in their own learning
 104

and leverages collaboration (Galanti et al., 2021). Student engagement and deeper learning are

related to the clear communication of learning expectations, use of multiple sources of evidence,

support for learners as members of a community, and timely and ongoing feedback (Gikandi et

al., 2011). The use of technology and digital tools in the virtual classroom provides an

opportunity to reimagine the role of assessment as formative and part of the learning process

(Galanti et al., 2021). The LMS provided by most district school boards have data tracking

abilities that are under used or ignored based on how assessment is viewed. Tracking data

provided by formative assessments can assist teachers with earlier interventions of student

struggles and provide feedback in a timelier manner to improve student learning (Pulham &

Graham, 2018).

Value Pedagogy and Technology as Interconnected

Participants in this study reported and described success teaching online when they

integrated sound pedagogy with technology. Conversely, many of the concerns and frustrations

with the use of technology focused on teachers not being able to engage students. Northcote et al.

(2011) suggest prioritizing pedagogy over technology to help skeptical teachers learn that sound

pedagogy is possible in online environments. Blayone et al. (2017) argue for the need to see the

online learning environment and technology or digital space as part of the learning process and

not as external factors (see Figure 2). While collaborative inquiry is an effective pedagogy in

online settings, successful interaction and social connections are dependent on being able to

access and use technology as much as it is dependent on interaction and collaboration. In the

context of this study, the unprecedented mass transition to online learning made technology

imperative. The task of learning how to use technology and build online teaching skills was most

effective when integrated with effective pedagogy and design strategies that can make use of the
 105

multitude of technology tools. Teachers who described success engaging students and fostering

learning discussed using technology as a tool for students to work in groups, collaborate, and

develop self-regulatory learning skills (Lock et al., 2017). The digital tools that enable

pedagogically-sound online learning can be learned in the context of that pedagogy and

interaction (Blayone et al., 2017). The FLOC offers an integrated model that includes the digital

space as part of the learning experience. Blayone et al. (2017) include as a sub-model the

dimensions of human computer interaction and their competencies required to use digital

technologies (see Figure 2). Acquisition of these competencies is provided by virtual tutorials

that participants can access to support the use of shared digital technologies in the learning

experience (Blayone et al., 2017). Practical strategies for professional learning should

incorporate pedagogical references and digital resources together. Reasons for using specific

technologies need to be an integral component of workshops, professional learning, and teacher

dialogue. The need for real-time virtual support to develop digital competencies is supported by

the observations of higher self-efficacy amongst teachers who accessed real-time virtual tech

support. Integrating technology meaningfully involves understanding how it works (see

informational competency in the FLOC, Figure 2), and it requires continuous learning to update

and deepen one’s knowledge and a significant investment of time to experiment in a learning

context. New technology, by its very nature, is untested and unknown. Mishra & Koehler (2006)

offer a useful framework to understand knowledge required by teachers for effective technology

integration for teacher PL for OT&L. The online context poses different pedagogical challenges

than the in-person classroom. The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)

framework emphasizes the “connections between technologies, curriculum content, and specific

pedagogical approaches, demonstrating how teachers’ understandings of technology, pedagogy,

 106

and content can interact with one another to produce effective discipline-based teaching with

educational technologies.” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 p. 397). The TPACK framework could help

understand how teachers’ integration of technology in online contexts enhances student learning

and considers the digital context and needs of the student. TPACK encompasses understanding

and communicating representations of concepts based on using technologies; pedagogical

techniques that apply technologies appropriately to teach content in differentiated ways that

reflect students’ learning needs. The online context has different pedagogical challenges but

shares the same goal of improved student learning. Harrington (2008) proposed the use of

TPACK in teacher PL. Considering the combination of the social perspective with the cognitive

perspective, TPACK can be an effective tool for framing and characterizing the teacher’s

developing knowledge for integrating technology in the context of the classroom. Beyond

considering perspectives, considering CoI presences, social presence (SP) and cognitive presence

(CP) within the context of the online digital space is important for building capacity around

effective online TPK as schools emerge out of the pandemic. Focusing on TK and TPK could

benefit in-service teachers by building self-efficacy for using technology that supports online

learning by personalizing learning whether it is in a blended learning context or a fully online

context (Neiss & Gillow Wiles, 2021). Furthermore, the adolescent community of engagement

(ACE) framework provides a means for exploring teacher presence (TP) in facilitating

collaborative learning and learner-to-learner interactions online (Borup et al., 2020).

Teachers need to acquire knowledge about and implementing online pedagogical

strategies. According to Archambault et al. (2022), the strategies and activities relevant for

teaching online “coalesce around student-centered activities, the format of how content is

delivered, communication strategies among students and teachers, and the inclusivity and
 107

sociality of the learning environment” (p.184). The authors also argue that mastery learning and

ongoing feedback can enhance student-centred activities and are conducive to online

environments that are more flexible in time, pace and path. Moving from traditional face-to-face

settings to online environments can benefit from what teachers know about effective face-to-face

pedagogy. Rice (2012) advocates re-examining familiar pedagogical concepts such as

community building and a learner-centred approach as a starting point for designing effective

online delivery.

Figure 2

Digital Competencies Supporting FOLC.

© (Blayone et al., 2017) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

 108

Administrative Support for Collaborative Teacher Online Professional Learning

Training, resources, and support was the most frequently referenced theme among

participants in this study. Of the 96 references to training, resources and support, only one was

considered positive or not a barrier while all other occurrences referred to the lack of and need

for access to online training, resources, and support. The lack of time to learn and prepare was a

common concern frequently referenced by respondents. This study focused on how best to

support teachers for online teaching and learning as they emerge from the emergency measures

imposed by the pandemic. Providing meaningful and engaging training and timely support

involves knowing what teachers need and building a professional learning community that

supports continued building of individual and collective efficacy. For teachers to find time to

build professional learning communities is challenging. Prior to the pandemic, traditional PD

was set aside for professional activity days or required release time for teachers to attend while

classes are running. Any meaningful change to how PD is delivered depends on effective

leadership that can implement strategy and “provides teachers with adequate time to learn,

practice, implement, and reflect upon new strategies that facilitate changes in their practice”

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2017, p. vi). School level leaders need to support teacher engagement

in the collaborative inquiry process and accommodate diverse levels of experience and TPACK.

Facilitating a collaborative inquiry process with teachers who have identified a similar inquiry

could provide needed leadership for building online teaching capacity. Support for administrators

who may not have had any experience with online teaching but who were also thrust into the

ERT&L due to the pandemic will be a critical piece for successful implementation of

professional learning support (Donohoo & Katz, 2017). Goddard et al. (2004) showed that

instructional leadership from a principal is a positive predictor of collective efficacy and enables
 109

collaboration between the principal and teachers. Building on what is already being done in

schools is a good place to start. Increasing awareness and access to resources and support that

already exist for teachers such as using current learning management systems as a learning

platform for both face-to-face and online learning contexts (Dolighan & Owen, 2021). School

level administrators can promote a positive attitude toward OT&L by positioning teachers at the

centre of their own PL based on teachers’ concerns and observations (King, 2016). Creating

teacher agency can foster sustained and effective PL that enables teachers to collaborate and

overcome challenges with OT&L contexts (Hughes et al., 2021)

Ensuring access to reliable technology and free virtual tools is a key consideration for

successful equitable professional learning (Morrison & Hughes, 2022). Board level

administrators can procure and direct resources in a way that leverages the advantages of online

PL. Educators’ lack of experience, comfort, and skill can be a barrier to online teacher

professional learning (Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education, 2017).

Flexibility and adaptability are important for administrators developing online PL for diverse

teacher learners from varied subjects and divisions (Morrison & Hughes, 2022).

Recognize the Impact on Mental Health and Well-being

The findings from this study revealed the impact of stress, anxiety, and exhaustion

demonstrated the need for adequate time to learn and prepare to teach online. Specific references

to stress, anxiety, or exhaustion n=26 were reported by respondents in my study. Northcote et al.

(2011) noted that there is an emotional element of the paradigm shift experienced by teachers

moving from face-to-face to online teaching. The emotional element evident in teachers’

descriptions of their experiences in this study reveals a sense of being overwhelmed and

overworked due to the health restrictions and changing teaching environment due to the
 110

pandemic. Although the references to stress, anxiety, and exhaustion with specific mention to

changing modes of teaching were sparce, using semantic network connections in Nvivo with the

related themes of time to learn and prep; lack of training, resources, and support identified

stress, anxiety and exhaustion as an area for further research, as online teaching and learning is

integrated into the secondary graduation requirements in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Education,

2019). Anecdotal descriptions of exhaustion and stress amongst teachers as negatively affecting

their ability to work effectively, as reported in this study, are supported by Pressley and Ha

(2022). Pressley and Ha (2022) found teacher exhaustion and stress levels directly affected

teachers’ sense of efficacy. There is an opportunity to learn from the experience of the pandemic.

Research on teacher mental health and well-being (MHWB) identified that feeling anxious,

stressed, and overwhelmed were common emotions experienced by teachers during the pandemic

(Pressley, 2021; Pressley & Ha, 2022; Sokal et al., 2020a). These emotions have negative

impacts on teachers’ health and their relationships on a personal level. This sense of poor

MHWB negatively impact teachers’ attention levels, performance, and decision-making on a

professional level (Barbour et al., 2021). Beyond training and resource needs, supporting

teachers as learners and valued members of a community is vital. Poor MHWB amongst teachers

can negatively affect student outcomes (Madigan & Kim, 2021). Kim et al. (2022) used Bakker

and Demerouti’s (2007) job demands and resources model (JD-R model) to examine the range of

job demands and job resources that teachers faced during the pandemic. The authors discuss how

job demands such as workload and time spent preparing to teach and teaching increased during

the pandemic putting added pressure on teachers’ MHWB. Job resources, according to the JD-R

model, including social support and work autonomy, can serve to buffer the effects of job

demands. Kim et al. (2022) suggest there needs to be ongoing efforts to balance job demands and
 111

resources that affect teachers’ MHWB. My study illustrated how teachers reported that increased

workload and pressures to learn new technology for teaching online contributed to exhaustion

and stress. It is also important to note that teachers reported working and collaborating with

colleagues was a source of support and contributed to a higher sense of efficacy for OT&L. Any

model for effective professional development should consider the balance of job demands and

resources and how it impacts MHWB. Future research could examine the impact of collaborative

teacher learning communities on perceived job demands and stress.

Cultivate a Positive Attitude and Willingness to Teach in an Online Context.

Developing a positive attitude towards online learning happens when teachers see

students learning and being successful in an online learning environment (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-

Leftwich, 2010). Research supports the connection between teacher agency and the motivation

and confidence teachers feel when they take ownership of their own professional learning

(Calvert, 2016; Liao et al., 2017). The findings from my study show that teachers who were

successful at teaching online and engaging students had a positive attitude towards online

learning. It is also important to note that emergency remote learning is different from learning

that is planned and designed to be online from the outset. By differentiating emergency remote

from online learning, attention can be focused on developing teachers’ online teaching capacity

both technologically and pedagogically as a viable learning mode as well as an emergency

teaching and learning mode (Barbour et al., 2020). A better understanding of how efficacy for

online learning can impact student success can also impact attitudes and beliefs about effectively

integrating technology into face-to-face learning environments (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,

2010). My study found that positive attitudes toward online learning and willingness to teach in

online contexts correlates with higher efficacy for teaching in online contexts. Teachers who
 112

described successfully engaging students and facilitating learning online reflected positive

sentiment toward the experience teaching online. Thirty-five percent of the references to student

engagement reflected positive sentiment and perceived success engaging students online.

Teacher efficacy is cyclical and as teachers experience success, they become more efficacious

about the particular task (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). My study details teachers’ experiences

of implementing strategies that were workable and needed for engaging students in online

contexts. Hughes et al. (2021) described the importance of voluntary engagement for teacher

agency building. PL that includes opportunity for teachers to direct their own learning based on

their students’ needs, values teachers as active agents, and facilitates positive attitudes toward

learning about and implementing change in their learning environments (Blackley et al., 2017;

Buxton et al., 2015; Insulander et al., 2019).

Make Connections with Novice Teachers and Teacher Preparation Programs

The focus of this study was on in-service teachers’ experience of teaching online during

the pandemic with the intention of better understanding how to support teacher learning for

online teaching. While initial teacher education is beyond the scope of this study, it is important

to recognize the foundation that teacher education programs provide for ongoing professional

learning for teachers. In this study, 12% of the in-service teachers reported having five or less

years of teaching experience with the school board. However, no significant difference was

found in an independent t-test for overall efficacy scores between teachers with 5 or less years of

teaching in this study. According to Tondeur et al. (2017), new teachers require ongoing support

and mentoring as they build teaching experience and expertise whether it is face-to-face or online

contexts. Novice teachers are often overwhelmed with the job demands in their first years of

teaching (Whitcomb et al., 2009). Mecham et al. (2021) reported new teachers felt even more
 113

overwhelmed when the pandemic hit from the drastic changes in teaching mode, just as they

were starting to feel comfortable in the classroom. Supporting new teachers for online teaching

contexts should begin before they start their new career and continue through the New Teacher

Induction Program. The New Teacher Induction Program (NTIP) in Ontario is offered through

all school boards to new teachers and provides orientation to the job, mentoring, and training in

specific areas (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2022). NTIP already provides the framework for

both mentoring online teaching and professional learning about designing and implementing

effective OT&L. Danyluk et al. (2022) examined teacher preparation programs’ response to the

pandemic. The authors found that teacher candidates felt they lost in-person connections with

both instructors and peers. Carpendale et al. (2020) described the shift to OT&L as an

opportunity to model effective online teaching practices at the “intersection of technology,

content, and pedagogy” (as cited in Danyluk et al., 2022, p. 2534) as a benefit to preservice

teachers who will be required to teach in online and blended learning contexts. Bourgoin and

Mitchell (2022) explored the impact of their experience building a sense of community in

synchronous sessions with teacher candidates. The findings from the study reveal the emergence

of key socio-emotional aspects of designing live online learning experiences for future teachers:

a) fostering appositive learning atmosphere in the online environment b) establishing a safe and

welcoming community c) building professional learning communities d) appreciating

synchronous virtual interaction e) appreciating learning from each other (Bourgoin & Mitchell,

2022). Bourgoin and Mitchell concluded that building professional learning communities was

highly appreciated by teacher candidates and that teacher candidates valued the social and

communal learning aspects of their courses. The authors felt they were able to effectively build a
 114

community of professional learners in the online context that would serve the teacher candidates

as future educators.

Teacher education programs in Canada have begun to examine their experience of the

transition to OT&L and how that might impact Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) programs in terms

of integrating technology and online learning contexts for teacher candidates who, as future

educators. will be increasingly called on to teach in fully online or blended learning contexts.

Teacher education programs should offer a solid foundation of online learning theory and

practicum experience that reflects the online teaching demands in schools.

Practicum, or a professional clinical placement, is a vital component of teacher education

programs that sets the foundation for future professional learning. Archambault et al. (2016)

identify a need for practical experience in online settings in initial teacher education programs to

address the growing requirements for K-12 online learning. Teacher education programs also had

to transition from face-to-face learning environments to online contexts in response to the

pandemic, including adapting practicum experiences to online settings in the host schools.

Carillo and Flores (2020), in their systematic review of the literature on initial teacher education

programs, examined studies of online teaching and learning practices of teacher education

programs and found the ability of learners and teachers to interact, collaborate, and build

relationships with others in the program positively influenced the cohesion of learning

communities, knowledge construction, and the development online teaching and learning

practices. Using the CoI framework to systematically analyze the literature (Garrison et al.,

2000), Carillo & Flores (2020) found collaboration was a key feature of online learning and

contributed to developing social presence. The authors identified consistent participation, prompt

communication, regular group discussion, timely and relevant contributions, and commitment to
 115

the task as an effective approach to developing collaborative competences for social presence in

online teacher learning settings. Modeling and mentoring aspects of effective online learning

based on the CoI framework for teacher candidates would provide a foundation for ongoing

professional learning (Woo et al., 2023). As teacher candidates start their careers as new

teachers, experience learning in the CoI framework would provide them the necessary skills and

dispositions for effective OT&L. Setting a foundation that is evidence-based and recognizes the

value of ongoing collaborative professional learning may help bridge the gap between teacher

education and in-service teaching. Further research examining new teachers’ experience of

learning online pedagogy and design and how they are supported in their new teaching positions

may be useful for school and board administrators in developing support for novice online

teachers.

Limitations

This case study investigates teachers’ experience of emergency remote teaching during

the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings presented here suggest that teachers experienced the

challenges of ERT&L in diverse ways. Moorhouse and Kohnke (2021) refer to some teachers

thriving from the challenge, some teachers surviving, and some teachers struggling with teaching

online. These differences, reflected in my study, illustrated how some teachers thrived and

reported successes in engaging students while most reported concerns with lack of time,

resources and training that were consistent with just trying to survive as discussed by Moorhouse

and Kohnke (2021). While the response rate in the initial phase of my study was 31% (N = 132),

the second phase had a much smaller overall response rate of 16%, even though the population

was expanded to include elementary and secondary panels. The response rate of secondary

teachers in the second phase was similar to Phase 1 (N = 130). An explanation for the lower
 116

return rate among elementary teachers is the difference in online challenges with younger

students. Teachers in this study expressed difficulty engaging and keep the attention of younger

students who may not have been as familiar with employing the home computer as a learning

device. Younger pupils may have been more familiar with active and participatory learning

practices that were more difficult for teachers to replicate in an online environment, especially

given elementary teachers’ unfamiliarity with online teaching. In addition, as Jung et al. (2019)

suggest, differences in elementary teachers’ and secondary teachers’ use of technology may have

been due to differences in curriculum. Moreover, given these and other factors, elementary

teachers may have experienced more job-related stress and may have been less likely to respond

to a survey.

The need for ERT&L preparedness is clear. As district school boards and leaders

reflected on the experience of teaching during the pandemic, an important distinction was made

between ERT&L and online or virtual learning, as well as eLearning. The Ministry of Education

in Ontario, had mandated that all students must earn at least two online learning credits as part of

the requirements for an Ontario Secondary School Diploma. School boards will be required to

build capacity for eLearning and online teaching which the Ministry distinguishes from remote

learning. This study has important implications for how to support teachers and build capacity

for online teaching and learning. The focus of this thesis investigates how to support teachers

designing and implementing online learning experiences, both fully online and blended, but the

research on online teaching and learning for K-12 is nowhere near the research on effective

pedagogy and training for in person classroom contexts. Further research on effective online

teaching and learning for K-12 contexts needs to continue and grow with the pace of

technological advancements.
 117

The transition to teaching fully online was an initial response of the Ontario government

and school boards to ensure the continuation of schools during the pandemic. Some teachers

remained fully online at a virtual school in the fall of 2020. However, many teachers returned to

the classroom in a modified cohort system that included hybrid and online teaching and

presented yet another new teaching experience. The case study approach used in this study is

limited in that it may or may not reflect similar experiences in other school districts across

Ontario that had different demographic and geographical challenges. While the case study

approach used in this study offered a bounded and contextual perspective, the response to the

pandemic continued to change and the context and teaching environment was different from the

experience of the initial transition to online teaching to the following school year.

Comparing the self-efficacy scores from the first phase of the study (2020) to the second

phase (2020-2021 and 2021-22), it is important to recognize that the experience of teaching

online was different and new challenges continued to affect teachers’ sense of efficacy for

teaching in each phase. A further limitation exists with comparing the quantitative data from one

phase to the next and the different groups of participants in the two samples. Growth and change

cannot be measured between the groups, even though some of the participants participated in

both phases. Even though efficacy scores are higher in Phase 2 than in Phase 1, the growth or

learning of the participants cannot be measured. A longitudinal study would have been preferable

to be able to measure change. However, with the restrictions of the pandemic and mounting

stress on teachers, it was decided to make the survey anonymous with the hope of a higher

response rate and not adding any undue stress on teachers. While a statistical comparison of

efficacy scores is not possible, it is important to note that teachers did have some experience

teaching in online settings in Phase 2 and learning how to use technology by the second year of
 118

the pandemic may have reflected slightly higher mean efficacy scores from the initial transition.

It is also worth noting that a willingness to continue to teach online and the positive sentiment

that was referred to by teachers who reported success engaging students online correlated with

higher senses of efficacy across all subscales.

The teacher self-efficacy for online teaching (TSEOT) instrument was useful in the quick

turnaround needed to capture teachers’ sense of efficacy as they transitioned online in response

to the pandemic, but there needs to be further research that tests the usefulness of the scale in

online settings (Corry & Stella, 2018) The decision to close schools and provide online classes

that included synchronous Zoom classes impacted the research decision to proceed with an

instrument that considered online teaching efficacy as different from face-to-face teaching

(Corry & Stella, 2018). As such, a slightly altered version of the Michigan nurse educators’ sense

of efficacy for online teaching (MNESEOT) survey was used that had previously been validated

and tested, albeit with an entirely different population of Nursing faculty. The MNESEOT is

based on the teacher’s sense of efficacy scale (TSES) (Tschannen-Moran et al., 2000) that was

developed and validated for K-12 teachers and includes important teaching tasks that teachers

must master such as instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement.

The MNESEOT adapted the survey to reflect nursing faculty members’ experiences teaching

online and included a subsequent subscale that addressed self-efficacy for using computers in an

online teaching context (Robinia & Anderson, 2010). There were also no questions in the version

adapted by Robina and Anderson that reflected teachers’ sense of efficacy for selecting or

implementing relevant software or technology that enhanced student learning. Teacher efficacy

is a useful construct for understanding where teachers are in their beliefs about their own ability

to effectively teach online but an updated scale that reflects online teaching pedagogy and design
 119

may benefit future research. The use of video platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams for

synchronous learning have changed how online interaction happens in a digital space and should

be reflected in the efficacy scale as an integral component of learning as opposed to being a

distinct and separate component of the learning process (Blayone et al., 2017). It would be worth

investigating the need for an updated version of the TSEOT scale that could support further

exploration of the need to expand the online CoI teaching and learning model (Garrison et al.,

1999) to include digital space as an element of teachers’ learning that is reflected in teachers’

sense of efficacy for online teaching based in the principles of socio-constructivism. The

collaborative online learning environments described by Garrison (2017) and vanOostveen and

colleagues (2019) have the potential to disrupt conventional conceptions of online learning as

content delivery, and leverage the potential of learning in a shared digital space. As teacher

preparation programs consider the implications of the transition to online teaching and learning

through a lens of innovation among teacher educators (Ellis et al., 2020, as cited in Danyluk et

al., 2022). Research on how K-12 OT&L should parallel efforts to better understand how to

support new teachers and teachers new to OT&L contexts.

The recommendations in this study are based on teachers’ experiences during the

pandemic and can help pivot from ERT&L and build capacity for effective online teaching and

learning. While the recommendations are based on teachers’ experience and sense of efficacy for

online teaching, the voices and experience of administrators and support staff could also help

better understand how to support teachers. Future research needs to include the perspectives and

input of administrators and support staff in determining an effective strategy for ERT&L

preparedness at the school level. While gender and age showed no significant relationship to

efficacy scores in this study, it would be worth looking at more diverse voices from diverse
 120

cultural backgrounds and the impact the transition to online had on teachers from diverse

cultures. This study also focuses solely on teachers’ experience and any effective ERT&L

strategy should also include student perspectives.

Future Research

The need to develop training for emergency remote online learning has emerged as an

important lesson from the pandemic. Distinguishing between ERT&L and OT&L is important

for building capacity for and leveraging the benefits of actual online learning based in sound

pedagogy and practice. The eventual return to the classroom and “normalcy” should not be a

move backward but rather a leveraging of opportunity to integrate technology and online

learning for the benefit of students. Online skills for instruction and design of online learning

environments should become an important aspect of teacher training and ongoing teacher

professional learning that can enhance the face-to-face learning experience and better prepare for

emergency remote transition, if needed. Understanding that teachers need the resources and

training to make the transition to online teaching can start with developing existing access to tech

and pedagogical support as well as ongoing support for using technology such as the LMS as

part of their daily teaching.

PD also needs to look long term, providing teachers with the means to design and provide

meaningful engaging learning experiences for students in online learning environments. In this

study, teachers who engaged in online training, online PD, and who collaborated with colleagues

reported higher self-efficacy and described success engaging students in online settings. Those

teachers who reported successful experiences teaching online also used technology and online

tools to engage students. Future research could investigate what successful teachers found useful
 121

in the online context and how time and learning could be better managed for teachers to allow

for meaningful learning in collaborative settings. Research could also focus on the experience of

new teachers and the support their schools and boards are providing for teaching in online

contexts.

Using new technologies such as online and blended learning contexts for teacher PD has

inherent challenges. Morrison and Hughes (2022) pointed out considerations associated with

online and blended maker PL that include a lack of infrastructure available in schools. Another

consideration is being able to troubleshoot technical issues. Finally, some teachers may lack the

skills to participate in the online learning process. Consideration for diversity of competencies

teachers have and collaborative planning can help create relevant learning experiences in the

online context (Li et al., 2019). Future research could explore collaborative online PL for

teachers in various divisions and subject areas.

One of the key differences between ERT&L and online teaching and learning is the

careful design process needed for effective online teaching and learning. Numerous research

studies, theories, models, standards, and evaluation criteria focus on quality online learning,

online teaching, and online course design. Research shows that effective online learning results

from careful instructional design and planning, and using a systematic model for design and

development (Branch & Dousay, 2015). The design process and the careful consideration of

distinctive design decisions impact the quality of online teaching and learning (Hodges et al.,

2021). Future research should focus on other stakeholders such as administrators and support

staff that also had to deal with the challenges of supporting teaching and learning imposed by the

unprecedented transition to ERT&L during the pandemic. Much of the research that has emerged

on education during the pandemic has focused on teachers’ experiences and how best to support
 122

teachers. Little research has focused on the challenges and experience of administrators.

Donohoo and Katz (2017) argue that building collective efficacy and providing effective teacher

PD requires training administrators to lead the way. The data gathered on teachers’ experience

teaching online during the pandemic can help inform professional development and training that

will build capacity for online teaching and learning as a viable mode of education. Although

there are studies that show teachers’ sense of efficacy correlates with elevated levels of student

engagement (Good & Brophy, 2003; Martin et al, 2012) there is little research that links that

same sense of efficacy for online teaching with higher student engagement online.

These research deficits provide significant opportunities for future researchers to extend

our understanding of how teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in on-line and related teaching

modalities can be measured and improved. As I have suggested, the nine action-oriented

recommendations for teachers, school and school district administrators, and provincial

educational authorities provide future researchers opportunities to test and assess whether such

actions improve teacher self-efficacy for designing and implementing blended and online

learning experiences for K-12 students. These action-oriented recommendations also could

provide fruitful ways to examine how teachers’ self-efficacy and collaborative PL, affect student

learning in online modalities.

 123

References

Alarcon, G. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 549–562.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.007

Allen, R., Jerrim, J., & Sims, S. (2020). How did the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic

affect teacher wellbeing. Centre for Education Policy and Equalizing Opportunities

(CEPEO) Working Paper, 1, 20-15. https://repec-cepeo.ucl.ac.uk/cepeow/old-

style/cepeowp20-15.pdf

Aloni, M., & Harrington, C. (2018). Research based practices for improving the effectiveness of

asynchronous online discussion boards. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in

Psychology, 4(4), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000121

Anderson, T. (2017). How communities of inquiry drive teaching and learning in the digital age.

Contact North. https://teachonline.ca/tools-trends/how-communities-inquiry-drive-

teaching-and-learning-digital-age

Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J., Shea, P.,

& Swan, K. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of

the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and

Higher Education, 11(3), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003

Archambault, L., Kennedy, K., Shelton, C., Dalal, M., McAllister, L., & Huyett, S. (2016).

Incremental progress: Re-examining field experiences in K-12 online learning contexts in

the United States. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2(3), 303-326.

https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/174116/.
 124

Armor, D. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles

minority schools (ED130243). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED130243.pdf

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands‐Resources model: State of the art.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice

Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.

Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.729

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman & Company.

Barbour, M. K. (2019). The landscape of K-12 online learning: Examining the state of the field.

In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed.) (pp.

521-542). New York: Routledge.

Barbour, M. K. (2022). Introducing a special collection of papers on k-12 online learning and

continuity of instruction after emergency remote teaching. TechTrends, 66, 298–300.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00712-1

Barbour, M., Archambault, L., & DiPietro, M. (2013). K–12 online distance education: Issues

and frameworks. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(1), 1–3.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.759452
 125

Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2020). Stories from the field: Voices of K-12 stakeholders

during pandemic. A special report of the Canadian eLearning Network.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Barbour-

5/publication/347522716_Stories_from_the_Field_Voices_of_K-

12_Stakeholders_During_Pandemic_A_special_report_of_the_Canadian_eLearning_Net

work/links/5fe0bb47a6fdccdcb8ef51da/Stories-from-the-Field-Voices-of-K-12-

Stakeholders-During-Pandemic-A-special-report-of-the-Canadian-eLearning-

Network.pdf

Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2015). State of the nation: K-12 e-learning in Canada (2015

Abbreviated Edition). Canadian eLearning Network. https://k12sotn.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2016/09/StateOfTheNation2015.pdf

Barbour, M. K., LaBonte, R., Kelly, K., Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, A.,

& Hill, P. (2020). Understanding pandemic pedagogy: Differences between emergency

remote, remote, and online teaching. Canadian eLearning Network.

https://k12sotn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/understanding-pandemic-pedagogy.pdf

Barbour, M. K., LaBonte, R., & Nagle, J. (2021). State of the nation study: K-12 e-Learning in

Canada. Canadian eLearning Network. https://k12sotn.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2022/04/StateNation21.pdf

Beach, R. (2012). Can online learning communities foster professional development? Language

Arts, 89(4), 256–262. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/65374/

Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-flexible course design. EdTech Books.

https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex
 126

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs

supporting education change. Vol. VII: Factors affecting implementation and

continuation (ED140132). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED140432.pdf

Blackley, S., Bennett, D., & Sheffield, R. (2017). Purpose-built, web-based professional

portfolios: Reflective, developmental and showcase. Australian Journal of Teacher

Education, 42(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n5.1

Blayone, T. J. B., vanOostveen, R., Barber, W., DiGiuseppe, M., & Childs, E. (2017).

Democratizing digital learning: Theorizing the fully online learning community model.

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, Article 13.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0051-4

Borup, J. (2016). Teacher Perceptions of Learner-Learner Engagement at a Cyber High School.

The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3).

https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2361

Borup, J., Graham, C. R., West, R. E., Archambault, L., & Spring, K. J. (2020). Academic

Communities of Engagement: an expansive lens for examining support structures in

blended and online learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2),

807–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09744-x

Bourgoin, R., & Mitchell, L. A. (2022). From Brick and Mortar to Remote Learning: Building a

Community of Learners and Recreating a Sense of Belonging in the Online Environment.

Crisis and Opportunity, 42-57.

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/80b2d0ea-f8e7-4fa1-8aa6-

52c929922a71/content#page=51
 127

Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due

to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi.

https://asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/447

Branch, R. M., & Dousay, T. A. (2015). Survey of instructional design models. Association for

Educational Communications and Technology.

https://aect.org/survey_of_instructional_design.php

Bruce, C. D., Esmonde, I., Ross, J., Dookie, L., & Beatty, R. (2010). The effects of sustained

classroom-embedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and related student

achievement. Teaching and teacher education, 26(8), 1598-1608.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.011

Burton, A., (2023, January 27). How the substitute teacher shortage is impacting teacher

professional development. Edsurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2023-01-27-how-

the-substitute-teacher-shortage-is-impacting-teacher-professional-development

Buxton, C. A., Allexsaht‐Snider, M., Kayumova, S., Aghasaleh, R., Choi, Y.-J., & Cohen, A.

(2015). Teacher agency and professional learning: Rethinking fidelity of implementation

as multiplicities of enactment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 489–502.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21223

Calvert, L. (2016). The power of teacher agency: Why we must transform professional learning

so that it really supports educator learning. Journal of Staff Development, 37(2), 51–56.

https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-power-of-teacher-agency-

april16.pdf
 128

Campbell, C., Lieberman, A., & Yashkina, A. (2016). Developing professional capital in policy

and practice: Ontario’s Teacher Learning and Leadership Program. Journal of

Professional Capital and Community, 1(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-03-

2016-0004

Cardullo, V., Wang, C. H., Burton, M., & Dong, J. (2021). K-12 teachers’ remote teaching self-

efficacy during the pandemic. Journal of research in innovative teaching & learning,

14(1), 32-45. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JRIT-10-2020-

0055/full/pdf?title=k-12-teachers-remote-teaching-self-efficacy-during-the-pandemic

Carl, K. (2021). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and technology acceptance during the COVID-19

pandemic. Issues in Information Systems, 22(4), 59–68.

https://doi.org/10.48009/4_iis_2021_63-73

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00718

Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of

online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4),

466–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184

Carver-Thomas, D., Leung, M., & Burns, D. (2021). California Teachers and COVID-19: How

the Pandemic is Impacting the Teacher Workforce. Learning Policy Institute.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED614374.pdf

Cavanaugh, C., & DeWeese, A. (2020). Understanding the professional learning and support

needs of educators during the initial weeks of pandemic school closures through search

terms and content use. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 233–238.

https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216073/
 129

Chan, M.-K., Sharkey, J. D., Lawrie, S. I., Arch, D. A. N., & Nylund-Gibson, K. (2021).

Elementary school teacher well-being and supportive measures amid COVID-19: An

exploratory study. School Psychology, 36(6), 533–545.

https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000441

Cho, M. H., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance education, 34(3),

290-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835770

Chiu, T. K. F. (2021). Student engagement in K-12 online learning amid COVID-19: A

qualitative approach from a self-determination theory perspective. Interactive Learning

Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1926289

Clark, T., & Barbour, M. K. (2015). Online, blended, and distance education in schools. An

introduction. In T. Clark & M. K. Barbour (Eds.), Online, blended, and distance

education in schools (pp. 3–10). Stylus Publishing

Cloke, P., Cook, I., Crang, P., Goodwin, M., Painter, J., & Philo, C. (2004). Practising human

geography. Sage.

Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of

Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39(5), 250–256.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26767796

Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education. (2017). Emerging design

principles for online and blended teacher professional development in K-12 STEM

education. Education Development Center. https://cadrek12.org/resources/emerging-

design-principles-online-and-blended-teacher-professional-development-k-12-stem

Corry, M., & Stella, J. (2018). Teacher self-efficacy in online education: A review of the

literature. Research in Learning Technology, 26. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2047

 130

Corry, M., Dardick, W. R., & Reichenberg, R. E. (2021). An exploratory study of self-efficacy

for K-12 online teachers. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 22(2), 1–13.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into

Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Sage.

Croslin, M. (2018). Creating Online Learning Experiences: A Brief Guide to Online Courses,

from Small and Private to Massive and Open. Open Educational Resources.

https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta-ir/handle/10106/27844

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i1.1885

Danyluk, P., Burns, A., Hill, S. L., & Crawford, K. (Eds.). (2022). Crisis and opportunity: How

Canadian Bachelor of Education programs responded to the pandemic (Vol. 11).

Canadian Association for Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/39534

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional

development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311

DeCoito, I., & Estaiteyeh, M. (2022). Online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic:

Exploring science/STEM teachers’ curriculum and assessment practices in Canada.

Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 4, Article 8.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-022-00048-z

de Lucas Ancillo, A., del Val Núñez, M. T., & Gavrila, S. G. (2021). Workplace change within

the COVID-19 context: A grounded theory approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska

Istraživanja, 34(1), 2297–2316. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1862689

 131

Desjardins, F. J. (2005). Les représentations des enseignants quant à leurs profils de compétences

relatives à l’ordinateur: Vers une théorie des TIC en éducation [Teachers’ representations

of their computer related competencies profile: Toward a theory of ICT in education].

Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage

et de la technologie, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2F603

Dichev, C., Dicheva, D., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2013). Current practices, trends and

challenges in K-12 online learning. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 13(3),

91–110. https://doi.org/10.2478/cait-2013-0028

DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching K-12

online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of Interactive

Online Learning, 7(1), 10–35. https://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v7/n1/best-practices-in-

teaching-k-12-online-lessons-learned-from-michigan-virtual-school-teachers.html

Dolighan, T., & Owen, M. (2021). Teacher efficacy for online teaching during the COVID-19

pandemic. Brock Education Journal, 30(1), 95–116.

https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v30i1.851

Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT

into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469–1483.

https://www.learntechlib.org/p/50758/

Donohoo, J. (2017). Collective teacher efficacy research: Implications for professional learning.

Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 2(2), 101–116.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-10-2016-0027
 132

Donohoo, J., & Katz, S. (2017). When teachers believe, students achieve. The Learning

Professional, 38(6), 20–27. https://learningforward.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/12/when-teachers-believe-students-achieve.pdf

Doolin, B. (1998). Information technology as disciplinary technology: Being critical in

interpretative research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 13.

301–311. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.1998.8

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. W., Mattos, M., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by

doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (Third edition.).

Solution Tree Press.

Eaton, S. E., Brown, B., Schroeder, M., Lock, J., & Jacobsen, M. (2017). Signature Pedagogies

for E-Learning in Higher Education and Beyond. Online Submission.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572968.pdf

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How

knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs and uses of

technology to support 21st-century teaching and learning. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill

(Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 403–419).

Routledge.

Ferrell, G., Smith, R., & Knight, S. (2018). Designing learning and assessment in a digital age.

JISC. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/designing-learning-and-assessment-in-a-digital-

age
 133

Galanti, T. M., Baker, C. K., Kraft, T., & Morrow-Leong, K. (2021). Using mathematics digital

interactive notebooks as authentic integrated online assessments. In M. Niess & H.

Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of research on transforming teachers’ online

pedagogical reasoning for engaging K-12 students in virtual learning (pp. 470–493). IGI

Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7222-1.ch023

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(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

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(1-2), 5-9.

https://doi.org:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003

Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for

research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for

research and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Garrison, D. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher

education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
 134

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs:

Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational

Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Gosselin, K. P. (2009). Development and psychometric exploration of the online teaching self-

efficacy scale [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University]. Texas Tech Electronic

Theses and Dissertations Digital Archive. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/8971

Government of Ontario. (2019, November 21). Ontario brings learning into the digital age.

[News release]. https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/54695/ontario-brings-learning-into-the-

digital-age

Graziano, K. J., Collier, S., & Barber, D. (2023). Teachers taking it online: Measuring teachers’

self-efficacy to teach online after completing a training program on distance education.

Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(3), 164–178.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2023.2210319

Harrington, R. A. (2008). The development of pre-service teachers' technology specific

pedagogy. Oregon State University. file:///C:/Users/dolig/Downloads/Harrington_All.pdf

Hill, P. (2020, March 31). Revised outlook for higher ed’s online response to COVID-19.

PhilOnEdTech. https://philonedtech.com/revised-outlook-for-higher-eds-online-

responseto-covid-19/

Hodges, C. B., Moore, S. L., Lockee, B. B., Bond, M. A., & Jewett, A. (2021). An instructional

design process for emergency remote teaching. In D. Burgos, A. Tlili, & A. Tabacco

(Eds.), Radical solutions for education in a crisis context (pp. 37–51). Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7869-4_3
 135

Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020, March 27). The

difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review.

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-

teaching-and-online-learning

Horvitz, B. S., Beach, A. L., Anderson, M. L., & Xia, J. (2015). Examination of faculty self-

efficacy related to online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 305–316.

https://www.learntechlib.org/p/161657/

Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the organizational

climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. The High

School Journal, 86(2), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2002.0023

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4),

51–55. https://er.educause.edu/-/media/files/article-downloads/eqm0848.pdf

Hughes, G. (2014). Ipsative assessment: Motivation through marking progress. Springer.

Hughes, J., Morrison, L., & Robb, J. (2021). Making STEAM-based professional learning: A

four-year design-based research study. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La

revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 47(3).

https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27915

Insulander, E., Brehmer, D., & Ryve, A. (2019). Teacher agency in professional development

programmes–A case study of professional development material and collegial

discussion. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 23, Article 100330.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100330
 136

Jung, Y. J., Cho, K., & Shin, W. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1620683

Kennedy, A. (2014). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis.

Professional Development in Education, 40(3), 336–351.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.929293

Kilgour, P., Reynaud, D., Northcote, M., McLoughlin, C., & Gosselin, K. P. (2019). Threshold

concepts about online pedagogy for novice online teachers in higher education. Higher

Education Research & Development, 38(7), 1417–1431.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1450360

Kim, L. E., Oxley, L., & Asbury, K. (2022). “My brain feels like a browser with 100 tabs open”:

A longitudinal study of teachers’ mental health and well‐being during the COVID‐19

pandemic. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 299–318.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12450

King, F. (2016). Teacher professional development to support teacher professional learning:

Systemic factors from Irish case studies. Teacher Development, 20(4), 574–594.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2016.1161661

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction:

Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. https:/doi.org/10.1037/a0019237

Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and

practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &

Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014

 137

Kopcha, T. J., & Alger, C. (2011). The impact of technology-enhanced student teacher

supervision on student teacher knowledge, performance, and self-efficacy during the field

experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(1), 49–73.

https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.1.c

Kraft, M. A., Simon, N. S., & Lyon, M. A. (2021). Sustaining a sense of success: The protective

role of teacher working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research

on Educational Effectiveness, 14(4), 727–769.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2021.1938314

LaBonte, R., Barbour, M. K., & Nagle, J. (2021). Pandemic pedagogy in Canada: Lessons from

the first 18 months. Canadian E-Learning Network. https://secureservercdn.net/198,

71(233), 30. https://canelearn.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CANeLearn-Pandemic-

Pedagogy-in-Canada.pdf

Lapadat, J. C. (2010). Thematic analysis. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 925–927). SAGE Publications.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397

Li, Q., Richman, L., Haines, S., & McNary, S. (2019). Computational thinking in classrooms: A

study of professional development for STEM teachers in high needs schools. Canadian

Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la

technologie, 45(3). https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27857

 138

Liao, Y.-C., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Karlin, M., Glazewski, K., & Brush, T. (2017). Supporting

change in teacher practice: Examining shifts of teachers’ professional development

preferences and needs for technology integration. Contemporary Issues in Technology

and Teacher Education, 17(4), 522–548. https://citejournal.org/volume-17/issue-4-

17/general/supporting-change-in-teacher-practice-examining-shifts-of-teachers-

professional-development-preferences-and-needs-for-technology-integration/

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840272

Liu, W., Dai, B., Humayun, A., Tay, C., Yu, C., Smith, L. B., Rehg, J. M., & Song, L. (2017).

Iterative machine teaching. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on

Machine Learning, 70, 2149–2158. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/liu17b/liu17b.pdf

Lock, J., Eaton, S. E., & Kessy, E. (2017). Fostering self-regulation in online learning in K-12

education. Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, 12(2), Article 2.

https://doi.org/10.15760/nwjte.2017.12.2.2

Madigan, D. J., & Kim, L. E. (2021). Does teacher burnout affect students? A systematic review

of its association with academic achievement and student-reported outcomes.

International Journal of Educational Research, 105, Article 101714.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101714

Marshall, D. T., Shannon, D. M., & Love, S. (2020). How teachers experienced the COVID-19

transition to remote instruction. Phi Delta Kappan 102(3), 46–50

https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720970702
 139

Martin, F., Bacak, J., Polly, D., & Dymes, L. (2021). A systematic review of research on K12

online teaching and learning: Comparison of research from two decades 2000 to 2019.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(2),190–209

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1940396

Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement,

instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-

class variables to predict teachers' intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education,

28(4), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.003

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017002013

Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: What research tells us about

whether, when and how. Routledge.

Mecham, E., Newell, E. J., Reina, L. J., & Stewart, C. (2021). Navigating pandemic schooling

for novice teachers. Educational Research: Theory and Practice, 32(1), 90–96.

http://www.nrmera.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/14-Mecham-et-al-Navigating-

Pandemic-Schooling.pdf

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised

and expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350

Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Merrill, S. (2020, March 19). Teaching through a pandemic: A mindset for this moment.

Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/teaching-through-pandemic-mindset-moment/
 140

Meyer, J. H. F. (2010). Helping our students: Learning, metalearning, and threshold concepts. In

J. Christensen Hughes & J. Mighty (Eds.), Taking stock: Research on teaching and

learning in higher education (pp. 191–213). McGill-Queen's University Press.

Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to

ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving

student learning theory and practice – 10 years on: Proceedings from the 2002 10th

International Symposium Improving Student Learning (Vol. 10) (pp. 412–424). The

Oxford Center for Staff & Learning Development.

Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle

school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. The Journal of Early Adolescence,

15(1), 90-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431695015001006

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers’ College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Moore, S., Veletsianos, G., & Barbour, M. (2022). A Synthesis of Research on Mental Health

and Remote Learning: How Pandemic Grief Haunts Claims of Causality. The

Open/Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship Association Journal, 2(1), 1-19.

https;//doi.org/10.1837/otessaj.2022.1.1.36/

Moore-Hayes, C. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher-

efficacy. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de

l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 37(3). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2B597

 141

Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2021). Thriving or surviving emergency remote teaching

necessitated by COVID-19: University teachers’ perspectives. The Asia-Pacific

Education Researcher, 30(3), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00567-9

Morrison, L., & Hughes, J. (2022). Making the shift to virtual professional learning. Technology,

Pedagogy and Education, 32(1), 105–116.

https://doi.org./10.1080/1475939X.2022.2156918

Mlynaryk, J., & Makovac, D. (2020). Looking back: The 1918 flu pandemic and its impact on

education in Ontario. OISE News: University of Toronto. Retrieved on September, 6,

2022. https://www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise/News/2020/The-1918-flu-pandemic-and-

education-in-Ontario.html

Nagle, J., Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2021). Toggling between lockdowns: Canadian

responses for continuity of learning in the 2020-21 school year. Canadian eLearning

Network.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210924222530/https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.30/

sgf.292.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/canelearn-2020-21-school-

year.pdf

Niess, M. L. & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2021). Developing teachers' knowledge for teaching in virtual

contexts: Lessons from the pandemic of 2020-2021. In M. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles

(Eds.), Handbook of research on transforming teachers’ online pedagogical reasoning

for engaging K-12 students in virtual learning (pp. 643–664). IGI Global.

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7222-1.ch031
 142

Northcote, M., Gosselin, K. P., Reynaud, D., Kilgour, P. & Anderson, M. (2015). Navigating the

learning journeys of online teachers: Threshold concepts and self-efficacy. Issues in

Educational Research, 25(3), 319–344. http://www.iier.org.au/iier25/northcote.pdf

Northcote, M. T., Reynaud, D., Beamish, P., Martin, T., & Gosselin, K. P. (2011). Bumpy

moments and joyful breakthroughs: The place of threshold concepts in academic staff

development programs about online learning and teaching. ACCESS: Critical

Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies, 30(2), 75–89.

ResearchOnline@Avondale Institutional Repository.

https://research.avondale.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=arts_papers

Ofgang, E. (2022, August 16). How to launch a flipped classroom. Tech & Learning: Tools &

Ideas to Transform Education. https://www.techlearning.com/news/how-to-launch-a-

flipped-classroom

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2020, August 13). Policy/program memorandum 164:

Requirements for remote learning. https://www.ontario.ca/document/education-ontario-

policy-and-program-direction/policyprogram-memorandum-164

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2022), Curriculum and Resources, Transferable Skills.

https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/transferable-skills

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2022), Online learning for secondary students.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/online-learning-secondary-students
 143

Panisoara, I. O., 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), Article 8002.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218002

Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology‐enhanced problem‐based

learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 39(4), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00858.x

Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher- and school-level predictors of

teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School

Psychology, 50(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.003

Pellerone, M. (2021). Self-perceived instructional competence, self-efficacy and burnout during

the Covid-19 pandemic: A study of a group of Italian school teachers. European Journal

of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(2), 496–512.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11020035

Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon

(Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–

110). Cambridge University Press.

Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In J. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.).

Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome

knowledge (pp. 33–47). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203966273

 144

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of

motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual

change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1170472

Pressley, T. (2021). Returning to teaching during COVID‐19: An empirical study on elementary

teachers' self‐efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 58(8), 1611–1623.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22528

Pressley, T., & Ha, C. (2022) Teacher exhaustion during COVID-19: Exploring the role of

administrators, self-efficacy, and anxiety. The Teacher Educator, 57(1), 61–78,

https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2021.1995094

Pressley, T., Roehrig, A. D., & Turner, J. E. (2018). Elementary teachers' perceptions of a

reformed teacher-evaluation system. The Teacher Educator, 53(1), 21–43.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2017.1391362

Pulham, E., & Graham, C. R. (2018). Comparing K-12 online and blended teaching

competencies: A literature review. Distance Education, 39(3), 411–432.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476840

Rabaglietti, E., Lattke, L. S., Tesauri, B., Settanni, M., & De Lorenzo, A. (2021). A balancing act

during Covid-19: Teachers' self-efficacy, perception of stress in the distance learning

experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 644108.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644108

Rice, K. (2012). Making the Move to K-12 Online Teaching: Research-Based Strategies and

Practices. Pearson Education, Inc.

 145

Richardson, J. C, Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Ice, P., Swan, K. P, & Garrison, D. R.

(2012). Using the Community of Inquiry framework to inform effective instructional

design. In L. Moller & J. B. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of distance education:

Unconstrained learning (pp. 97–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-

1785-9_7

Robinia, K. A., & Anderson, M. L. (2010). Online teaching efficacy of nurse faculty. Journal of

Professional Nursing, 26(3), 168–175.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.02.006

Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Bruce, C. (2006). The impact of a professional development

program on student achievement in grade 6 mathematics. Journal of mathematics teacher

education, 9, 1-27.

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/30004/1/Ross%2C%20Bruce%2C%20H

-G%202006.pdf

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Chapter 1: Individual and social aspects of learning.

Review of Research in Education, 23(1), 1–24.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X023001001

Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Applying the Job Demands-Resources model. Organizational

Dynamics, 2(46), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.

 146

Scherff, L. (2018). Distinguishing professional learning from professional development.

Regional Educational Laboratory.

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/blogs/blog2_DistinguishingProfLearning.as

p#:~:text=Professional%20development%2C%20which%20%E2%80%9Chappens%20to

,and%20customized%20to%20teachers'%20needs.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-

regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended

learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–731.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017

Shepherd, C., Alpert, M., & Koeller, M. (2007). Increasing the efficacy of educators teaching

online. International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences, 1(11), 426–432.

https://publications.waset.org/302/pdf

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with

strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-

0663.99.3.611

Sokal, L. J., Eblie Trudel, L., & Babb, J. C. (2020a). Supporting teachers in times of change: The

Job Demands-Resources model and teacher burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic.

International Journal of Contemporary Education, 3(2), 67–74.

https://doi.org/10.11114/ijce.v3i2.4931
 147

Sokal, L., Eblie Trudel, L., & Babb, J. (2020b). Canadian teachers’ attitudes toward change,

efficacy, and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of

Educational Research Open, 1, Article 100016.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100016

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications.

Stevens, M. (2020). Expertise, complexity, and self-regulated engagement: Lessons from teacher

reflection in a blended learning environment. Journal of Online Learning Research, 6(3),

177–200. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216912/

Stewart, B. (2021, August 16). ‘Hybrid learning’ in Ontario schools will rob children of quality

education. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/hybrid-learning-in-ontario-

schools-willrob-children-of-quality-education-165135

Stewart, C. (2014). Transforming professional development to professional learning. Journal of

Adult Education, 43(1), 28–33. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1047338.pdf

Taimur, S., Sattar, H., & Dowd, E. (2021). Exploring teachers’ perception on successes and

challenges associated with digital teaching practice during COVID-19 pandemic school

closures. Pedagogical Research, 6(4), Article em0105. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/11253

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the

relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A

systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 65(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

 148

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012).

Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of

qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009

Tschannen‐Moran, M., Uline, C., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Mackley, T. (2000). Creating smarter

schools through collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(3), 247–271.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010342312

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive

construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.

https://doi.org10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

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/10.3102/00346543068002202

Tucker, L., & Quintero-Ares, A. (2021). Professional learning communities as a faculty support

during the COVID-19 transition to online learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning

Administration, 24(1). https://ojdla.com/assets/pdf/tucker241.pdf

Tzavara, D. (2021). From emergency remote teaching to strategically embracing online learning.

In H. van't Land, A. Corcoran, & D.-C. Iancu (Eds.), The promise of higher education

(pp. 249–254). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67245-4_39

 149

vanOostveen, R., Desjardins, F., & Bullock, S. (2019). Professional development learning

environments (PDLEs) embedded in a collaborative online learning environment

(COLE): Moving towards a new conception of online professional learning. Education

and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1863–1900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-

9686-6

Vinagre, M. (2017). Developing teachers' telecollaborative competences in online experiential

learning. System, 64, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.002

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Whitcomb, J., Borko, H., & Liston, D. (2009). Growing talent: Promising professional

development models and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 207–212.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109337280

Wong, J. (2021, August 29). Students pay the price for hybrid model of schooling, say parents,

experts. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hybrid-learning-2021-2022-

1.6146818

Woo, L, J., Archambault, L & Borup, J. (2023) Exploring the evolution of field experiences in P-

12 online settings: a systematic review of studies from 2007-2022, Journal of Research

on Technology in Education, https;//doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2237612

Wyatt, B. M., Aburto, F., Howe, J. A., & Smith, A. P. (2023). Benefits and challenges of online

teaching: Lessons and perspectives gained during the COVID-19 pandemic. Natural

Sciences Education, 52, e20114. https://doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20114

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
 150

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes,

student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research.

Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801
 151

Appendix A

TSEOT Survey Phase 1

Teachers Sense of Efficacy for Online

Teaching Scale Instrument
Section 1

Questions 2-33 are concerned with understanding how educators judge their current
capabilities for teaching online courses. Even if you have little or no experience with online
teaching, please try to answer each question. A helpful prefix to each answer is, “I can do….”

2. How much can you do to help your students think critically in an online class?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. How much can you do to get through to disengaged students in an online class? (e.g.,
passive learners who might lurk online but fail to actively contribute to their own learning.)
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior (e.g., disrespectful posting or failure to
adhere to outline policies for posting) in an online environment?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in online work?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior in an online class?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. How much can you do to get students to believe that they can do well in an online class?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 152

8. How well can you respond to difficult questions from online students?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. How well can you establish routines (e.g., facilitate or moderate student participation) in
coursework to keep online activities running smoothly?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. How much can you do to help online students value learning?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11. How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have
taught in an online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great
Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. How well can you craft questions or assignments that require students
to think by relating ideas to previous knowledge and experience?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great
Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. How much can you do to foster individual student creativity in an online
course? Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit
A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. How much can you do to get students to follow the established rules
for assignments and deadlines during an online class?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great
Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 153

15. How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is falling behind
in an online class?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

16. How much can you do to control students dominating online discussions? Nothing
Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

17. How well can you establish an online course (e.g., convey expectations; standards; course
rules) with each group of students?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

18. How much can you do to adjust your online lessons for different learning styles? Nothing
Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

19. How much can you do to use a variety of assessment strategies for an online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

20. How well can you develop an online course environment that facilitates student self-
regulation for online learning?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
154
 155

26. To what extent can you use knowledge of your content area to provide
resources for online students?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

27. How well can you navigate the technical infrastructure provided by your
school board to successfully set up an online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

28. How well can you navigate the technical infrastructure provided by your
school board to successfully teach an established online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

29. To what extent can you use asynchronous discussions to maximize interactions between
students in an online course? (Asynchronous means not online at the same time)
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

30. To what extent can you use synchronous discussions (e.g., same time chat rooms, video
conference) to maximize interaction between students in an online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 156

31. How well can you use computers for word processing, internet searching,
and e-mail communication?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

32. To what extent does your comfort level with computers facilitate participation
in online teaching?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great
Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

33. How well can you navigate the internet to provide links and resources to
students in an online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Background
The next section will ask for background information from participants. All
information collected is confidential. You will be given an opportunity to
provide a contact email if you wish for a copy of the summarized results from
this survey.

34. Please indicate your gender

female

male

prefer not to answer

 157

35. What is your birth year?

36. Please indicate present assignment.

full-time

part-time

37. Please indicate the highest degree you hold.

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctorate

38. About how many years do you have teaching online?

5 or less

6-10

11-15

16-20

more than 20

39. Please indicate the actual number of years you have teaching online.
 158

40. About how many years do you have teaching traditional face to face in public education?

5 or less

6-10

11-15

16-20

more than 20

41. Have you ever taken an additional qualification (AQ) professional development course or
seminar that focused on skills, techniques, problems, and/or preparation for online teaching?

Yes

No

46. Have you ever met formally on a regular basis with an instructional support expert
during an online teaching experience to discuss the skills, techniques, problems, and/or
preparation for online teaching?

Yes

No
 159

47. To what extent do you agree that formal meetings with an instructional
support expert adequately prepare you in the skills needed for online
teaching?

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Slightly Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5.

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

48. Which of the following academic areas do you teach?

Math and Business

English and Languages

Fine Arts, Music, Drama

Humanities and Social Sciences

Science

Computers and Technology

Religious Education

Health and Physical Education

Program Support

Guidance and Student Success

49. Were you using a board provided learning management system (LMS) with
your face-to- face classes?

Yes

No
 160

50. Have you used virtual technical support (ie. Videos, digital resources) to learn the skills, techniques,
digital tools, and/or preparation for online teaching?

Yes

No

51. To what extent do you agree that virtual technical support (ie. Videos, digital resources)
adequately prepare you in the skills needed for online teaching?

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Slightly Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5
 161

Appendix B

TSEOT Survey Phase 2

Teachers Experience of Online Teaching

During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Section 1

Questions 2-33 are concerned with understanding how educators judge their current capabilities for teaching
online courses. Even if you have little or no experience with online teaching, please try to answer each question.
A helpful prefix to each answer is, “I can do….”

2. How much can you do to help your students think critically in an online class? Nothing Very
Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. How much can you do to get through to disengaged students in an online class? (e.g., passive learners who
might lurk online but fail to actively contribute to their own learning.)
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior (e.g., disrespectful posting or failure to adhere to
outline policies for posting) in an online environment? Nothing Very Little Some
Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in online work? Nothing Very Little
Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 162

6. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior in an online
class?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. How much can you do to get students to believe that they can do well in an online class?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8. How well can you respond to difficult questions from online students? Nothing Very Little
Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. How well can you establish routines (e.g., facilitate or moderate student participation) in coursework to keep
online activities running smoothly?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. How much can you do to help online students value learning?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 163

11. How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught in an online
course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. How well can you craft questions or assignments that require students to think by relating
ideas to previous knowledge and experience?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. How much can you do to foster individual student creativity in an online course? Nothing
Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. How much can you do to get students to follow the established rules for assignments and
deadlines during an online class?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 164

15. How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is falling behind in an online
class?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

16. How much can you do to control students dominating online discussions? Nothing Very
Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

17. How well can you establish an online course (e.g., convey expectations; standards; course rules) with each
group of students?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

18. How much can you do to adjust your online lessons for different learning styles? Nothing Very Little
Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

19. How much can you do to use a variety of assessment strategies for an online course? Nothing Very Little
Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

20. How well can you develop an online course environment that facilitates student self- regulation for online
learning?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

21. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students in an
online class seem to be confused?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 165

22. How well can you respond to defiant students in an online setting?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

23. How well can you structure an online course that facilitates collaborative learning? Nothing Very Little
Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

24. How well can you structure an online course that provides good learning experiences for students?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

25. How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students in an online environment?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

26. To what extent can you use knowledge of your content area to provide resources for online
students?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

27. How well can you navigate the technical infrastructure provided by your school board to
successfully set up an online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 166

28. How well can you navigate the technical infrastructure provided by your school board to successfully
teach an established online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

29. To what extent can you use asynchronous discussions to maximize interactions between students in an online
course? (Asynchronous means not online at the same time)
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

30. To what extent can you use synchronous discussions (e.g., same time chat rooms, video conference) to
maximize interaction between students in an online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

31. How well can you use computers for word processing, internet searching, and e-mail
communication?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

32. To what extent does your comfort level with computers facilitate participation in online
teaching?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

33. How well can you navigate the internet to provide links and resources to students in an
online course?
Nothing Very Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 167

Background

The next section will ask for background information from participants. All information collected is
confidential. You will be given an opportunity to provide a contact email if you wish for a copy of the
summarized results from this survey.

34. Please indicate your gender

female

male

prefer not to answer

35. What is your birth year?

36. Did you participate in the initial survey during the initial transition to remote online learning in
2020?

Yes

No

37. Please indicate present assignment.

full-time

part-time

LTO
 168

38. What is your present teaching assignment?

Secondary face-to-face

Secondary Virtual School

Elementary

39. About how many years do you have teaching online?

5 or less

6-10

11-15

16-20

more than 20

40. Please indicate the actual number of years experience you have teaching online. (You may indicate
partial years with decimals. ie. 0.5 or 1.5)

41. About how many years do you have teaching traditional face to face in public education?

5 or less

6-10

11-15

16-20

more than 20
 169

42. Have you ever taken an additional qualification (AQ) professional development course or seminar
that focused on skills, techniques, problems, and/or preparation for online teaching?

Yes

No

43. Have you ever taken an online course or seminar that focused on skills, techniques, problems, and/or
preparation for online teaching?

Yes

No

44. To what extent do you agree that AQ professional development courses adequately prepare you for
the skills needed for online teaching?

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Slightly Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

45. Which of the following academic areas do you teach?

Primary /Junior

Junior/Intermediate

Intermediate/Senior

46. Were you using a board provided learning management system (LMS) with your face-to- face
classes?

Yes

No

47. Have you used virtual technical support (ie. Videos, digital resources) to learn the skills, techniques,
digital tools, and/or preparation for online teaching?

Yes No
 170

48. To what extent do you agree that virtual technical support (ie. Videos, digital resources) adequately
prepare you in the skills needed for online teaching?

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Slightly Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5.

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

49. To what extent do you collaborate with colleagues to solve problems, try new techniques and learn
skills needed for online teaching?

1. Never 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Often 5. Regularly

1 2 3 4 5

50. What do you feel is the most pressing issue regarding professional learning and support for
teachers designing and implementing online learning environments?

51. To what extent do you agree the quality of support systems around remote learning have
improved since the start of the pandemic?
1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Neutral 4.Agree 5.Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

52. Would you consider continuing to teach online if it were an option rather than a requirement?

Yes No
 171

Appendix C

Qualitative Questionnaire

Teachers Experience of Online Teaching During

the COVID-19 Pandemic

1. Discuss what strategies for online teaching you feel worked well and promote student
engagement and student learning.

2. Discuss what barriers you encountered to teaching online.

3. How do you feel the pandemic impacted online teaching and learning?

4. Is there anything you would like to add regarding your experience teaching during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
 172

Appendix D

Ethical Approval Phase 1

 173

Appendix E

Ethical Approval Phase 2

 174

Appendix F

Informed Consent Phase 1

 175

Appendix G

Informed Survey Consent Phase 2

 176

Appendix H

Informed Consent Questionnaire

 177

Appendix I

Recruitment E-mail Scripts

View publication stats