How Professional Development in Blended Learning Influences Teachers' Self-Efficacy

Framework

The study focused on exploring the self-efficacy component of Albert Bandura’s social learning theory by developing professional development on the topic of the blended learning instructional model to see how this might affect teacher-self efficacy in technology-rich teaching and learning environments. Adult learning theory was selected as another part of the underlying theoretical structure of the study because technology is changing how adults learn and teachers need high-quality training to effectively and confidently thrive in today’s technology-rich teaching and learning environments.

Methods

The Action Research Paradigm Protocol (ARRP) research inquiry cycle was used for this action research study. The AARP includes three phases: plan for research and problem solving, implement actions and measure results, and evaluate and reflect on results of actions and decisions. The first phase of the Action Research Paradigm Protocol (ARPP) was to diagnose the problem. The problem explored was that teachers reported feeling overwhelmed by trying to meet the learning needs of diverse individuals and improve declining math scores, while planning lessons without sufficient time to collaborate with colleagues. Professional development in blended learning was identified as an intervention for this population because the approach encompasses the values for modern, technology-rich teaching and learning environments. The second phase of the ARPP involved implementing the intervention at the school district with volunteer third, fourth, and fifth-grade mathematics teachers. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a t-test, while qualitative data were analyzed using coding. The qualitative interview data were coded and then categorized to identify themes and patterns. The self-efficacy survey data was converted from Likert-type response data to numerical data and was triangulated with quantitative data to ensure validity. The third phase of the action research protocol involved analyzing and evaluating data as described in the action plan. The results of the data analysis were compared to the baseline data to determine whether the intervention implementation did or did not make a significant difference and whether or not any change was positive or negative.

Data regarding teacher self-efficacy was collected using a forty question Likert- type survey modeled after the Teacher Self-Efficacy scale measure principles developed by Ralf and colleagues (1999) using Blended Learning Teacher Competencies standards rephrased for the survey (Powell et al., 2014). The question items were reconstructed following Bandura‘s social cognitive theory ideals. Therefore the items were written to focus on difficult tasks, reasoning that to ask about easy tasks would not be getting at self-efficacy, and in the first- person, using the word “I” and the concept “can” or “be able to” (Bandura, 1997; Schwarzer et al., 1999)

Results

The results from the pre-survey and the post-survey indicate the intervention resulted in an improvement in teacher self-efficacy. There was a significant increase in teacher self-efficacy in each of the blended learning teacher competency domains at the end of the intervention compared to before participants received the intervention. Qualitative data were gathered through mid-intervention interviews. The interviews were conducted via Google Meet. Transcriptions of the interviews were collected during the interviews using a Google Form. The interviews were recorded using the Google Meet record feature and stored in a password-protected Google Drive. The interview transcription was emailed to each participant to review their interview for clarity and accuracy. After member checks were completed, the raw interview data was transferred from Google Forms to Google Sheets for analysis. Cumulatively, the results of the study provide evidence of positive results in terms of teacher self-efficacy growth after participating in the blended learning professional development. Both qualitative and quantitative data point to higher levels of self-efficacy by demonstrating being more persistent to the task, willing to take a risk, and higher likelihood to use innovative elements in their teaching (Gavora, 2010). As a result, the teachers with improved self-efficacy levels may also more actively integrate technology and innovation into their teaching (Koh et al., 2015). The intervention provided a solution to the problem of improving teacher self-efficacy in technology-rich teaching and learning environments.

Importance

Implications from the action research study indicate there is a need for teacher professional development on modern teaching and learning approaches, such as blended learning. As a result, implications support procedural changes in the district to support the further development of all district teachers’ growth in modern teaching and learning techniques. With a blended learning instructional model, the teacher is provided a structure to design modern learning experiences using modern tools to help students meet their individual learning goals (Kallick & Zmuda, 2017). As the findings in the study highlight, when teachers were provided with information and strategies for growth in the four blended teacher domains, their self-efficacy improved. When teachers believe that they are capable of helping their students, demonstrating higher efficacy, they are more likely to develop engaging lessons and see higher levels of student success and achievement (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, student achievement would be expected to improve when teacher self-efficacy is improved. Implications also indicate a greater need for collaboration among district stakeholders regarding teacher development in modern teaching and learning techniques. Teachers in the study experienced improved self-efficacy after engaging in the blended learning professional development, but they also indicated some frustration with the district for not aligning the district values with current practices. For example, one participant shared, “I think the qualities in the first module [Mindsets] made me feel upset because it's everything that I know is true, but our district doesn't embed those [values] or have those qualities of learning in our own curriculum.” Also, “I became frustrated with our district because everything we learned about isn't what the district actually does right now.” Another participant remarked on the value of the blended learning professional development course with, “I wish everyone would take the time to do this!” The results of the study also have implications for other organizations that support modern teacher professional development. The information provided in this study could benefit any district that is currently exploring modern teaching and learning techniques and teacher professional development in those techniques. Also, this study could provide direction to elementary mathematics teachers to explore ways to improve teaching and learning in elementary mathematics in technology-rich environments to improve self-efficacy.

References

Anderson, R., Boaler, J., & Dieckmann, J. (2018). Achieving elusive teacher change through challenging myths about learning: A blended approach. Education Sciences, 8(3), 98. doi:10.3390/educsci8030098
Artino, A. R. (2012). Academic self-efficacy: from educational theory to instructional practice. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1(2), 76–85. doi: 10.1007/s40037-012-0012-5
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman & Company.
Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-7879-7296-7.
Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C.R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning environments: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass/Pfeiffer.
Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2016).
Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM, 48(5), 589–610. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cox, E. (2015). Coaching and adult learning: Theory and practice. Wiley. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional
development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Davies, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45-52.
Fusco, K. (2019). Technology leaders' impact on teachers' self-efficacy and integration of instructional technology in secondary schools (Order No. 13813972). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2268373202).
Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: Theoretical and research, considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 17-30.
Geijsel, F., & Meijers, F. (2005). Identity learning: The core process of educational change. Educational Studies, 31(4), 419–430.
Gu, X., Zhu, Y., & Guo, X. (2013). Meeting the ‘digital natives’: Understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 392.
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Henrie, C. R., Bodily, R., Manwaring, K. C., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Exploring intensive longitudinal measures of student engagement in blended learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(3), 131-155.
Horn, M. B., Staker, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Huang, X., Craig, S. D., Xie, J., Graesser, A., & Hu, X. (2016). Intelligent tutoring systems work as a math gap reducer in 6th grade after-school program. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 258-265. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.01.012
Kallick, B. & Zmuda, A. (2017). Students at the center: Personalized learning with habits of mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Knowles, M. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species. London: Gulf Publishing.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H. (2015). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and design thinking: A framework to support ICT lesson design for 21st century learning. The Asia - Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 535-543.
Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Mahler, D., Großschedl, J., & Harms, U. (2018). Does motivation matter? - the relationship between teachers' self-efficacy and enthusiasm and students' performance. PloS One, 13(11), e0207252. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207252.
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research : A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Department of Education. (2019). Supporting student outcome measures.
Moore, M., Robinson, H., Sheffield, A., & Phillips, A. (2017). Mastering the blend: A professional development program for k-12 teachers. Journal of Online Learning Research, 3(2), 145-173.
Powell, A., Rabbitt, B., & Kennedy, K. (2014). iNACOL blended learning teacher competency framework. International Association for K-12 Online Learning. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561318.pdf