Overview In their Best Online Instructional Practices Study (BOIPS), the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) identified the most effective online instructional practices. BOIPS began by asking faculty, via a survey, what online instructional practices they engaged in. Those faculty members identified how frequently the practices were used, which practices were easiest to use, and which practices were the most challenging. Based on those data, observations of faculty's instructional practices, and correlations among the practices and student success (i.e., retention and self-ratings of learning) UMUC identified the best online instructional practices. The purpose of the present research is to present an instrument for online instructors to self-evaluate their self-efficacy (i.e. the belief that one is able to successfully complete a given task, Bandura, 1986) for expected online teaching practices, as defined in BOIPS. The instrument's intended use is for online faculty to identify their own professional development needs, by reflecting on where they feel strong (i.e., high efficacy) in the expected practices and where they feel weak (i.e., low efficacy). The goal is for online faculty to develop greater efficacy by engaging in more of the expected practices, engaging in them more frequently, and taking on the practices they believe are challenging. By providing professional development opportunities, online faculty can develop mastery of and efficacy for expected online instructional practices. In the online classroom there are opportunities for peers or superiors to view any given instructor's classroom before, during, or after instruction, as a means to determining the quality of instruction. There are also students' perceptions of instructors, which are a commonly used measure of instructional quality. Typically, students' perceptions and administrator's views are included in teaching evaluation, but instructors' views are less common. It is important to provide online instructors the opportunity to self-evaluate for the purpose of professional development. Although, it is known that self-evaluations of professional performance tend to be inflated as compared to those of managers (e.g., Holzbach, 1978), under the condition that the instructor does not need to reveal their self-evaluation, they do not need to inflate their evaluation, due to a lack of fear of any negative repercussions from identifying their own weaknesses (Jackson, 2003). The instrument to be presented is one that can be used for self-reflection, so that instructors can better identify their professional development needs. Schultz and Schultz (1998) stated that the ability of personnel to identify their own training needs increased their motivation to engage in learning opportunities, thereby advanced their skills. Background on Efficacy Within Bandura's (1986) social cognitive theory, reflecting on one's thoughts and actions is highly important to development. The ability of a person to think about what s/he thinks or does, allows him or her to control his or her future thoughts and actions. Part of this theory is self-efficacy. If someone does not believe that s/he can accomplish a task, then s/he is very unlikely to try. Therefore, self-efficacy is important in one's motivation to accomplish a task, as well as the amount of effort one exerts toward completing the task, and the persistence one exerts when faced with challenges. Empirical research has continually supported the importance of self-efficacy for success as a student (e.g., Pajares, 1996), as a K-12 classroom teacher (e.g., Tschannen-Moran et al, 1998; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), and as a K-12 school leader (McCollum, Kajs, & Minter, 2006a; McCollum, Kajs, & Minter, 2006b; McCollum & Kajs, 2007). For each of the aforementioned groups, measurement instruments have been created by identifying the tasks in which each of the groups are expected to engage for success in their overall role. These instruments have been evaluated for validity and reliability, and linked to indicators of success. Better teaching, more motivated students, and other variables have been identified in the teacher efficacy literature. Anderson et al., (1988) and Midgley et al. (1989) linked teacher efficacy to higher levels of student motivation. Teachers with high self-efficacy tend to better cope with negative criticism, poor student performance, and other problems they may face when teaching (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Smylie (1988) found that teachers higher in efficacy tended to interact more with their students. Additionally, Guskey (1988) identified greater use of teaching innovations by highly efficacious teachers. Overall, efficacious teachers are more dedicated (Coladarchi, 1992) and happier in their jobs (Caprara et al, 2003). Although, all of these variables are associated with high teacher efficacy, this research was conducted in traditional K-12 classrooms and not for online teaching. Pajares (1996) states the very high importance of identifying the specific tasks to be completed when measuring efficacy. Therefore, these previous measures of teaching efficacy are not fitting for online faculty, because the expected teaching tasks differ. Task on Which to Evaluate Efficacy One of the most important considerations when developing a self-efficacy instrument is identifying tasks that are relevant to the role that is being assessed. The following broad categories were identified in BOIPS. Each of these categories breaks down into specific tasks. These tasks will have a 7-point summated rating scale aligned to them on which online instructors will evaluate their efficacy. The broad categories will be based on the "Online Classroom Observation Inventory" from BOIPS (Abdul-Hamid, 2008) and include: "Learning Objectives and Assessment" "Building the Learning Environment" "Faculty Feedback to Students" "Learner Development and Support" "Integrating Technology" "Class Management" "Class Interaction" Prior to faculty self-assessing, they can be given a list professional development opportunities that fit the categories of tasks stated above. These opportunities may reflect those offered through Sloan-C, or within one's university. Dependent upon where the faculty member sees her or himself as efficacious or not, s/he can more accurately select the best professional development opportunities. References All citations within this proposal will be appropriately referenced; space did not allow that here.
