The effect of teachers' self- innovativeness on accountability, distance learning self-efficacy, and teaching practices

Abstract

During COVID-19 pandemic the teachers were suddenly forced to change their teaching and use distance learning practices, and become innovative in their ways of teaching online. In the current study we sought to understand whether teachers considered themselves innovative and how this affected their distance learning self-efficacy, accountability, and distance learning teaching practices. Two hundred elementary and secondary school teachers from Israel were asked to fill in a questionnaire comprising the four abovementioned components. Findings indicated that it was teachers' self-innovativeness which had significantly influenced their distance learning self-efficacy, accountability, and distance learning teaching practices. Findings indicate that work experience directly affected self-innovativeness, and older, more experienced teachers perceived themselves as more innovative in adopting and using distance learning compared to less experienced ones. The second finding was that professional development affected distance learning teaching practices but had no effect on teachers' self-innovativeness. The study shows that increasing teachers' self-innovativeness may affect their self-efficacy and accountability and lead to better distance learning teaching practices. Therefore, it is suggested to change the focus of professional development programs to promoting teachers' self-innovativeness and encouraging them to create novel and tailored combinations of hybrid learning.

1. Introduction

Responding to the Corona Virus Disease (COVID) pandemic, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report (2020) highlighted challenges relating to Distance Learning (DL) platforms, educational resources and digital learning opportunities provided to teachers. It explained that learning and collaborating in an online environment would not be easy for either teachers or students. These challenges raise important questions regarding teachers' DL teaching practices during this unexpected change and disruption of education.

A review of the literature reveals that research on DL teaching during COVID-19 pandemic is focused more on reducing obstacles (Putri & Sari, 2021) teachers' stress and locus of control and their impact on satisfaction levels (Truzoli et al., 2021), as well as examining feeling, experiences, and perspectives (An et al., 2021; Wagner, 2022) and even teacher fatigue (Yang et al., 2021). DL teaching self-efficacy was addressed related to several factors like teaching experience, professional development (PD) experience, and teaching supports (Dolighan & Owen, 2021), teachers' social emotional competencies and fatigue (Yang, 2021), as well as technology application and teacher burnout (Ma et al., 2021). Teachers' self-innovativeness relating to DL practices during COVID-19 pandemic was not addressed. Therefore, our study aimed to comprehend the effect of teachers' self-innovativeness on their DL self-efficacy, accountability, and DL teaching practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were shut down for long periods of time and teachers were forced to switch to DL. In this period of lockdown schools were required to offer remote emergency education (Bond, 2021) and a gap was exposed in teacher preparation for emergency remote teaching, including teaching with technology (Trust & Whalen, 2020). This unique situation challenged teachers to tap into their self-innovativeness to use the latest technology for teaching. According to studies before COVID-19 pandemic, teachers' self-innovativeness may play a major role in the rapid adoption of novel ways of teaching involving technology (Çoklar & Özbek, 2017; Yilmaz & Bayraktar, 2014). Furthermore, teachers’ self-innovativeness was found to be correlated with self-efficacy and its sub-scales of motivation, instructional skills, and guidance among teachers (Celik, 2013), as well as accountability (Orakci et al., 2020).

The current study focuses on both elementary (ages 6–12) and secondary and (ages 13–18) schoolteachers and investigates their self-innovativeness and its influence on DL teaching practices of delivering synchronous and asynchronous lessons during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel. Its objective is to investigate how might teachers' self-innovativeness and accountability be connected to their perceived DL self-efficacy and DL teaching practices during the COVID-19 crisis. Understanding the effect of self-innovativeness on accountability and self-efficacy and how it affects DL actual teaching practice could lead to teachers' better preparation to apply and adopt DL focusing on enhancing their self-innovativeness.

2. Literature review

2.1. 1. Distance learning

The United States Department of Education explains distance learning as “education that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and instructor synchronously or asynchronously” (McFarland et al., 2017, p. 333). Distance and online learning have been used in schools for more than a decade but “while there has been exponential growth in K-12 online learning, there exists a lack of research into best practices for K-12 online teaching” (Linton, 2016, p. 420).

There are two major forms of online communication - synchronous real-time communication, and asynchronous delayed interaction allowing for feedback and submission of answers when teachers are off-line (Branon & Essex, 2001). Synchronous communication includes video conferencing, web conferencing, audio conferencing, live chat, white boarding and application sharing. Asynchronous communication includes discussion forums, web logs, e-mail messaging, video conference recordings, and social media messaging (Lim, 2017). In K-12 education until the COVID-19 crisis, hybrid learning involved combining face-to-face and online activities using different models of blended learning environments (Christiansen et al., 2013) as well as blended synchronous classrooms bringing together two or more classes to support online real-time interaction (Yang et al., 2019).

Research relating to the effectiveness of K-12 online learning combined with traditional instruction before COVID-19 showed it to be either no different to that of conventional classes or schools (Barbour & Mulcahy, 2009; Chingos & Schwerdt, 2014) or only slightly better (Barbour & Mulcahy, 2008; Cavanaugh et al., 2005).

The teacher's role in distance and online learning has changed to that of facilitator/mentor, educator, instructional designer of online learning and technology coordinator (Ferdig et al., 2009). DL effectiveness depends on the Professional Development (PD) training, planning, design, support system, teacher-student interaction, and assessment of learning outcomes (Simonson et al., 2019). However, it is interesting to note that while DL was increasing in schools before the pandemic, students showed conflicting opinions about it. On the one hand, they preferred studying with a teacher, and on the other hand, they showed interest in having online/DL courses at school.

With the quick transition from face-to-face to teaching and learning via Zoom and other platforms there are some challenges that must be addressed regarding curriculum and lesson planning, students' social life, assessment, and teaching strategies (Stefanile, 2020). Moorhouse and Wong (2022) suggest that a blend of asynchronous and synchronous modes are optimal to support student learning online and proposed a model of how teachers can blend asynchronous and synchronous digital technologies and instructional approaches in learning. One specific challenge is the integration of well-designed, interactive learning materials within the DL classroom that may be difficult for many educators (Stefanile, 2020). Creating a smooth and manageable transition in form of scaffolding and keeping up with DL practices for a substantial length of time may draw on teachers' personal and professional characteristics such as self-innovativeness, DL self-efficacy, and accountability, which will be discussed in the following sections.

2.2. Innovativeness

According to Oxford Dictionary (Stevenson, 2010) innovation is defined as “the introduction of new things, ideas or ways of doing something”, whereas individual or self-innovativeness is defined as developing, adopting, or implementing an innovation (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Rogers (2003) suggested dividing innovativeness into five categories: innovators, early-adopters, early-majority, late-majority, and laggards. Innovators and early adaptors constitute approximately 30% of the population. According to Geoghegan (1994), innovators are defined as specialists who are strong in technology, while early adopters are leaders whose behavior serves as a model for others in the adoption of a new technology. The third ‘early-majority’ group are pragmatists who can handle technology but wait to see how it is applied by others to better assess its advantages.

Measuring innovativeness has long concerned researchers. Goldsmith and Foxall (2003) indicated that measurement of innovativeness depends on the researchers' intentions and perspectives. They explained that there are different conceptions of innovation: (a) behavioral, referring to the adoption of innovation; (b) a type of global personality trait, i.e., a general pattern of behavior; and (c) a domain specific personality trait, i.e., being innovative in a specific area or product category. Each of these conceptions has developed and used different measurement tools of innovation.

Hurt and Cook (1977) developed a self-report scale to measured global innovativeness focusing on the willingness to innovate on a positive and negative scale (willingness/unwillingness to try new things) among public school teachers. De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) suggested an innovative work behavior scale comprising four sub-scales: exploration, generation, championing, and implementation. In this context, exploration means the perception of the ability to think about novel ideas; generation is the perception of the ability to come up with novel ideas; championing is defined as the perception of the ability to communicate novel ideas to management and colleagues; and implementation refers to the person's perception of integrating novel ideas into work. This short scale seemed to best fit teachers focusing on the practical aspects of self-innovativeness relating to teaching and therefore was used in the current study.

Assessing the innovativeness of teachers, Ucus and Acar (2018) found a positive correlation between teachers' self-innovativeness and their teaching approach (constructivist), mediated by creative classroom behaviors, and a negative correlation between their innovativeness and traditional teaching in elementary school. Suharyati (2017) found a positive significant correlation between teachers' work motivation and self-innovativeness. Relating to teachers' self-innovativeness and integration of technology, Yilmaz and Bayraktar (2014) found a positive correlation between teachers' self-innovativeness and attitudes towards technology adoption. Çoklar and Özbek (2017) elaborated on this, stating that the majority of teachers considered themselves ‘early adopters' or ‘early majority’, which means they perceived themselves as leaders or followers in adopting innovative technologies. In addition, they also felt they had a high level of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) skills. Among preservice teachers, self-innovativeness was found to be correlated with self-efficacy and its sub-scales of motivation, instructional skills, and guidance (Celik, 2013), with self-efficacy increasing proportionately with self-innovativeness. Firat and Torun (2022) added the aspect of risk-taking concluding that risk-taking behavior is an important predictor of the pre-service teachers' level of self-innovativeness.

Relating to the latest COVID-19 pandemic current studies focus on adoption of technology and innovativeness. Sahin and Dursun (2022) found that technology adoption in pre-service teachers may be influenced by social norms, motivational-emotional factors, and personality traits like innovativeness. Another study by Frei-Landau eta al. (2022) used Rogers' model to examine mobile learning during the COVID-19 pandemic among per-service and in-service teachers. They found that a PD framework is important to provide autonomy for teachers for the process of technology adoption. Furthermore, they stressed that designing such programs need to address the different needs of teachers.

2.3. DL self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as “people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives” (Bandura, 1994, p. 71). Moreover, self-efficacy not only relates to the multiple skills a person has, but also to their belief in what they can do with them in a specific situation (Bandura, 1997). Previous studies (Miller et al., 2017; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001) showed how teachers' efficacy beliefs relate to their actual teaching, investment in teaching, and the goals they set. They also found that teachers with a strong self-efficacy are more open, responsive, and willing to experiment, and therefore, provide a positive learning environment for their students.

Dolighan and Owen (2020) investigated secondary teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions for teaching in a fully online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic in the domains of student engagement, instructional strategies, classroom management, and computer skills. The results indicate that higher online teaching efficacy scores correlated with having taken online courses and PD sessions. Several scholars (Anderson, 2017; Garrison & Akyol, 2013; Jackson & Jones, 2019) indicate that the skills for teaching in the virtual environment are different than the ones required for face-to-face instruction and include managing the online classroom, creating instruction for the online platform, motivating and engaging online students, instructional design in the online environment, and fostering a social and learner presence in the online setting.

As DL involves the use of technology, Yesilyurt et al. (2016), who investigated computer-supported education, maintained that teachers must have high levels of academic and computer self-efficacy to apply effective computer-supported education. A study by Ma et al. (2021) which examined teaching self-efficacy at the beginning and the end of COVID-19 school lockdown among 351 Chinese school teachers showed surprising results. They found that teaching self-efficacy for online instruction did not significantly increase, whereas self-efficacy for technology application increased significantly. A recent Canadian study by DeCoito and Estaiteyeh (2022) investigated teachers' views of and attitude toward online teaching and successes and challenges encountered with actual online teaching during COVID-19 pandemic and partly supports the previous study. Results indicated that teachers faced a wide array of challenges that negatively affected their attitudes and views toward online teaching, and that they felt they were not supported as expected. Teachers' experiences, self-efficacy, and technological competency slightly enhanced their views of online teaching but were not sufficient to shift their mindset. Researchers recommend effective professional development and support for teachers to facilitate teachers’ transition and enhance their personal views toward online teaching. Teachers' self-efficacy was also found to be connected to accountability (Von Der Embseet al., 2016).

2.4. Accountability

Teacher accountability is often mentioned in relation to student test scores (Alzen et al., 2017) and different reforms in education ( Perez-Alvarez et al., 2020; Straubhaar, 2017) relating to teacher evaluation systems. Accountability can be divided in two sub-dimensions: internal accountability relating to self-regulation followed by professional and ethical rules, and external accountability referring to expectations created by employees, performance evaluation, reports etc. (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001).

Rosenblatt (2017) constructed the personal accountability scale reflecting both external and internal accountability, explaining that while external accountability items covered aspects such as achieving school goals and outcome-related evaluation, internal accountability items focused on acquisition and mastery of professional knowledge as well as of ethical codes. Significant correlation was found when the accountability scale was tested against four real-life scenarios among 256 teachers, thereby providing evidence that the new accountability scale indeed measured teacher accountability. Based on that, this scale was selected as the tool for measuring teacher accountability in the current study.

There are several studies focusing on teacher accountability indicating a connection with factors such as innovativeness and teaching practice. Orakci et al. (2020) studied 472 teachers in Turkey and found that teacher's internal and external accountability were strongly correlated with each other and with innovative thinking and responsible teaching. Another study elaborating on accountability and teaching practice by Jamal and Tilchin (2016) focused on the correlation between accountability and learning results in project-based collaborative learning. In this approach, teachers experience different stages of accountability when organizing an adaptive learning environment. Accountability policy focusing on test results influenced job satisfaction and teaching practice. Moreover, it affected teachers' perceived self-efficacy in creating student engagement and maintaining classroom management (Von Der Embseet al., 2016).

2.5. DL teaching practice

Borup et al. (2014) identified six elements describing teacher engagement regarding teaching practice when teaching remotely: (1) designing and organizing learning activities, (2) facilitating discourse with students and parents, (3) providing students with one-on-one instruction, (4) nurturing a safe and caring learning environment, (5) motivating students to engage in learning activities, and (6) closely monitoring student behavior and learning. Robinia and Anderson (2010) grouped these elements around three key factors, explaining that teachers' actual teaching practice involves student engagement, teaching strategies, and class management. Therefore, this scale was selected as the tool for measuring DL teaching practice in the current study.

In her work, Stone (2016) reviewed several studies showing how schools mainly used technology for administration and classroom management rather than for teaching and learning, indicating that technological aptitude was required to improve teaching strategies for student performance and achievement. She went on to explain that in situated learning environments that support collaboration, the teacher's knowledge of how to successfully integrate technology might depend on extending content knowledge and technical skills. Lacking confidence and skills, some teachers had not broadly incorporated technology into their academic plan to enrich teaching and learning.

While there is considerable literature on Information and Communications Technology -ICT practices, literature on school DL during times of crisis remains sparse. Information on teachers coping with challenges and difficulties is starting to emerge in recent studies from various parts of the world such as the Philippines (De Villa & Manalo, 2020), Estonia (Rannastu-Avalos & Siiman, 2020), Turkey (Hebebci et al., 2020; Orhan & Beyhan, 2020) and Finland (Niemi & Kousa, 2020). Findings reveal the investigation of different aspects of DL, such as preparation, challenges, coping mechanisms, and perceptions of DL, mostly using qualitative methods with secondary school teachers. They further reveal an array of difficulties mentioned by the teachers starting from lack of spontaneity and authentic interaction, to worries regarding student progress, problems with infrastructure and lack of equipment, teacher capacity building, planning, assessment, time management, collaboration, and positive well-being. On the other hand, a recent study (Tandon, 2021) concluded that there is a very strong relationship between intentions and actual use of online teaching which suggests no gap, meaning that using online teaching during the pandemic was not so difficult to perform and did not require excessive commitment or motivation, as most people use e-learning and e-teaching.

A current study by Utami et al. (2022) on technology acceptance of cloud-based learning among teachers during COVID-19 pandemic found significant relationships between intention to use technology and social influence, perceived risk, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. But the two latter did not directly affect cloud-based learning application, which contradicts the study by Tandon (2021) indicating that perceived ease of use will not always result in adopting the technology.

2.6. Focus of study

Based on the above, our question was: How might teachers' self-innovativeness and accountability be connected to their perceived DL self-efficacy and DL teaching practices during the COVID-19 crisis?

The following sub-questions were tested:

• (Q1) What is the connection between Teachers' DL self-efficacy and their DL teaching practices?

• (Q2) What is the connection among Teachers' DL self-innovativeness and their DL self-efficacy, accountability, and DL teaching practices?

• (Q3) What is the connection among Teachers' accountability and their DL self-efficacy and DL teaching practices?

Background variables like grade level, sector, professional development, and tenure will be examined regarding how they may intersect with the examined dimensions. Fig. 1 is a path diagram illustrating the theoretical structure of the proposed framework with two way hypothesis derived from research questions.

Fig. 1.

The theoretical structure of the proposed framework with hypotheses 1–3 indications derived from research questions.

3. Method

A quantitative correlational self-report questionnaire (Roni et al., 2020) was used to determine relationships among variables of teachers' self-innovativeness, accountability, DL self-efficacy and DL teaching practices.

3.1. Participants

Data were gathered by three research assistants from 200 Israeli teachers. Participants were randomly selected by replying to an online Google Forms questionnaire sent to 600 elementary and secondary school teachers (33% reply rate). Both Jewish (60%) and Arab (40%) teachers taught in public schools, in the North and Haifa district, of whom 56% were teachers in elementary school and 44% in secondary school. All schools were of medium to high Socio-Economic Status (SES) serving medium ability students in heterogenous classes.

Study population consisted of 93% of females, and only 7% males. Most participants taught humanities (37%), 22% taught mathematics, 12% science, and 29% other disciplines. The mean level of seniority was 15 years (SD = 9.84). The most frequent age category reported by participants was 41–50 (36%). 54% of the teachers reported having a BA, and 46% a Master's degree. Most teachers (60%) reported a high frequency of personal computer use. While only 13% stated rarely using computers for teaching purposes before the pandemic, 85% taught 1–4 remote lessons a day during this period, and 15% between 5 and 6 lessons. Close to half the teachers (40%) reported participating often in PD on technology and receiving specific training in DL, and 75% stated that they could obtain technical support at school.

3.2. Instrumentation

Data obtained from semi-structured interviews with 36 teachers was used to formulate the questionnaire comprising four main dimensions. The main categories found in the qualitative study were: The teacher, the student, the learning environment, and the subject. Four sub-categories were found in the data analysis relating to the teacher: Teachers' self-innovativeness Teachers' accountability, DL self-efficacy, and DL teaching practices. As we were interested in the teachers' practices relating to DL it was decided to conduct a quantitative study which only addressed the main category of ‘The Teacher’ and look for questionnaires that were already tested for reliability, which had similar statements to the ones that appeared in the qualitative study. Results of the qualitative study will be presented at a later stage.

3.2.1. Teachers' self-innovativeness scale

This 10-item scale (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010) was initially designed to assess innovative work behavior adapted in the current study to teachers' self-innovativeness asking teachers how often they perform certain tasks. A 6-point Likert-style format was used ranging from 1 = never to 6 = always (α = 0.83). The questionnaire was divided into four sub-scales: a. Exploration (items 1–2, α = 0.65), example statement: “wonder how things can be improved in school”; b. Generation (items 3–5, α = 0.76), example: “generate original solutions for problems in teaching”; c. Championing (items 6–7, α = 0.76), example item: “attempt to convince other teachers to support an innovative idea”; and d. Implementation (items 8–10, α = 0.85), example: “contribute to the implementation of new ideas/methods of teaching".

3.2.2. Teachers' personal-accountability scale

This scale was constructed by Rosenblatt (2017) to capture the level of teachers' personal accountability. This 13-item scale was divided into two sub-scales a. External accountability (items 1–6, α = 0.70) in which the teachers were asked to report their feelings regarding their level of duty to: “report to yourself on the extent to which you reached your goals at work”. b. Internal accountability (items 7–13, α = 0.75) example: “act according to professional ethical principles at your work”. A 6-point Likert-style format was used ranging from 1 = never to 6 = always (α = 0.81).

3.2.3. Teachers’ DL efficacy

This 18-item scale was based on Robinia and Anderson's (2010) teacher efficacy scale containing three factors: (a) efficacy in instructional strategies (b) efficacy in student engagement; and (c) efficacy in classroom management. As the focus of the original scale was on nursing educators, the instrument was revised to address schoolteachers' self-efficacy for online teaching.

A 6-point Likert-style format was used ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 6 = completely agree (α = 0.92). This 18-item scale was divided into three sub-scales: (a) efficacy in classroom management (items 1–4, α = 0.79) in which the teachers were asked to report their level of agreement with statements such as: “I am able to control improper behavior in an online environment”. (b) efficacy in instructional strategies (9 items, α = 0.89) example: “I can transfer specific learning content to a DL lesson”. And (c) efficacy in student engagement (5 items, α = 0.73) example: “I can motivate students who are not involved enough in learning."

3.2.4. Teachers’ DL practices

This questionnaire was specifically designed for the purposes of the current study based on the three-factor structure and items of the Teachers’ DL efficacy scale and on a review of literature specifically on online teaching (Borup et al., 2014; Robinia & Anderson, 2010). A 6-point Likert-style format was used ranging from 1 = never to 6 = always (α = 0.87). This 18-item scale was divided into three sub-scales: (a) classroom management (5 items, α = 0.76) in which the teachers were asked to report their level of agreement with statements such as: “I control improper behavior in an online environment”. (b) instructional strategies (7 items, α = 0.77) example: “I transfer specific learning content to a DL lesson”. And (c) efficacy in student engagement (6 items, α = 0.78) example: “I praise students for their good work to motivate them to learn".

Table 1 presents main and sub-dimensions, definitions, item examples, explained variance and reliability.

Table 1.

Definitions and item examples of dimensions and sub-dimensions, and reliability.

Main and Sub Dimensions	Definitions	Item Examples	Alpha
Self-Innovativeness			0.83
Exploring Ideas	Extent of teacher's perception of the ability to think about novel ideas	Wonder how things can be improved	0.5
Generating Ideas	Extent of teacher's perception of the ability to come up with novel ideas	Search out new working methods, techniques, or instruments	0.76
Presenting ideas	Extent of teacher's perception of the ability to communicate novel ideas to management and colleagues	Attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea	0.76
Applying Ideas	Extent of teacher's perception of integrating novel ideas into teaching	Put effort into the development of new things	0.85
Accountability External Accountability	Extent of teacher's perception of operating through contractual obligation and inspection	Be accountable for your students' achievements	0.71
Internal Accountability	Extent of teachers' perception of being responsible to themselves as professionals	Learn from the work of outstanding colleagues	0.79
DL Self-Efficacy			0.92
Class Management	Extent of teacher's perception of the ability to control of the class during DL	I can set clear rules of conduct for students in DL	0.79
Teaching Strategies	Extent of teachers' perception of using tools and methods in teaching via DL platform/s	I can use varied DL platforms for teaching materials	0.89
Student Engagement	Extent of teachers' perception of creating student involvement in the lesson	I can motivate students who are not involved enough in learning	0.73
DL Teaching Practice			0.87
Class Management	Extent of teacher's ability to control the class during DL	I set clear rules for student behavior in the online environment	0.76
Teaching Strategies	Extent of teacher's use of certain tools and methods in teaching via DL platform/s	I modify teaching materials to suit DL (e.g., I used videos, games, links)	0.77
Student Engagement	Extent of teacher encouragement or support to promote students' involvement in the lesson	I praise students for their good work to motivate them to learn	0.78

3.3. Procedure and ethics

Teachers were asked to complete an online questionnaire in their free time. The questionnaire had four parts: Self-innovativeness, accountability, DL self-efficacy, and DL teaching practices, as well as background questions. Questionnaire completion required 15 min.

Participants voluntarily completed the anonymous online questionnaire. In addition, participants were assured that no specific identifying information about their schools would be required or processed. The study was pre-authorized by the college Ethics Committee.

3.4. Data analysis

Data were analyzed by using Partial Least Squares - Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM; Hair et al., 2017), recommended when the primary objective of applying SEM is the prediction of target dimensions. SmartPLS 3 software was used.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive statistics

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for the research dimensions and sub-dimensions. Taking into account guidelines for skewness and kurtosis (i.e., if the number is greater than + 1 or lower than −1, then the distribution is skewed, flat or peaked). These dimension distributions can be generally considered normal.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics of the research main dimensions and sub-dimensions.

Main Dimensions	Sub-Dimensions	Mean	Standard Deviation	Kurtosis	Skewness
Self-Innovativeness		4.398	0.646	−0.294	0.111
	Exploring ideas	4.510	0.974	−0.041	−0.439
	Generating ideas	4.688	0.753	−0.622	0.041
	Presenting ideas	3.922	1.008	−0.172	0.007
	Applying ideas	4.355	0.841	−0.367	0.098
Accountability		4.837	0.536	0.422	−0.505
	External accountability	4.460	0.746	−0.414	−0.019
	Internal accountability	5.074	0.537	0.809	−0.741
DL Self-Efficacy		4.503	0.694	−0.097	−0.265
	Class management	4.371	0.908	0.792	−0.327
	Student engagement	4.470	0.795	−0.032	−0.112
	Teaching strategies	4.568	0.740	−0.183	−0.347
DL Teaching Practices		4.344	0.719	−0.036	−0.228
	Class management	4.744	0.837	0.991	−0.755
	Teaching strategies	4.473	0.827	−0.471	−0.148
	Student engagement	3.862	0.981	−0.568	−0.053

Table 2 shows that Accountability has the highest Mean but also a positive kurtosis which would translate into a more spread distribution of answers. DL Self-Efficacy also scored high, where all sub-dimensions were similarly rated, attributing a small advantage to teaching strategies. Self-innovativeness and DL Teaching Practices were rated similarly. In Self-Innovativeness, teachers scored generating ideas the highest and presenting them to principals as the lowest. In DL Teaching Practices, teachers scored classroom management as the highest and creating student engagement as the lowest.

4.2. Research hypotheses examination

To test the first research hypothesis, Pearson correlations were conducted between the research variables (Table 3 ).

Table 3.

Pearson correlations between the main research dimensions.

	DL Teaching Practices	DL Self-Efficacy	Accountability
DL Self- Efficacy	.576**
Accountability	.411**	.175*
Self-Innovativeness	.407**	.203**	.470**

**p < 0.01*p < 0.05.

Table 3 shows that positive, strong, and significant correlations were found between the research variables, where accountability and DL self-efficacy showed a lower but still significant correlation. This means that the teachers perceived all dimensions relevant to their teaching via DL, with DL Teaching Practices showing a strong connection to DL Self-Efficacy, Accountability, and Self-Innovativeness. A strong significant correlation was also found between Self-Innovativeness and Accountability.

4.3. Testing the model and questionnaire validation

To further investigate the connection between DL Teaching Practices and DL Self-Efficacy (H1), the effect Self-Innovativeness has on Accountability, DL Self-Efficacy and DL Teaching Practices (H2) and the effect Accountability has on DL Self-Efficacy and DL Teaching Practices (H3), PLS-SEM analysis was performed when paths were specified in accordance with the theoretical model presented in Fig. 1.

Results of the path analysis indicated an influence of Teachers' Self-Innovativeness on Teachers' Accountability (0.479), a lower influence on Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy (0.221), and Teachers' DL Teaching Practices (0.196). Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy showed a medium effect on Teachers' DL Teaching Practices (0.466), and Teachers' Accountability showed a lower influence on Teachers' DL Teaching Practices (0.223). Work experience indicated a low effect on Teachers' Self-Innovativeness, and a low negative effect on Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy. DL Course (PD) indicated a low influence on both Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy and Teachers' DL Teaching Practices.

Detection of direct and indirect significant path coefficient results was elicited through a bootstrap routine. Table 4 presents the results of the analysis of the direct and indirect effects for the model (Fig. 2 ).

Table 4.

Significance analysis of the direct and indirect effects.

	Direct Effect	t value	p value	Indirect Effect	t value	p value
Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices	0.202	3.198	.001
Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy	.224	2.954	.003
Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' Accountability	.483	7.751	.000
Work Experience - > Teachers' Self-Innovativeness	.267	4.006	.000
Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices	.463	7.804	.000
Teachers' Accountability - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices	.225	3.83	.000
Teachers' Accountability - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy	.100	1.384	.167
Work Experience - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy	−.206	3.398	.001
DL Course - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices	.113	2.433	.015
DL Course - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy	.154	2.547	.011
Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices				.103	2.888	.004
DL Course - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices				.072	2.393	.017
Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' Accountability - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices				.109	3.177	.002
Work Experience- > Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices				.054	2.266	.024
Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' Accountability - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy				.048	1.307	.192
Teachers' Accountability - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices				.046	1.418	.157
Work Experience - > Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy				.059	2.532	.012
Work Experience - > Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' Accountability				.129	3.387	.001
Work Experience - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices				−.096	2.985	.003

Fig. 2.

Path analysis.

The highest significant direct moderate results were shown between the following dimensions: Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' Accountability, and Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices. Low direct effects were shown between Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices; Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy; Teachers' Accountability - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices, and Work Experience - > Teachers' Self-Innovativeness.

Low indirect effects were indicated between Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices, and Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' Accountability - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices. The lowest positive results were found between Teachers' Self-Innovativeness - > Teachers' Accountability - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy, and Teachers' Accountability - > Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices.

The background variable of DL Course (PD) showed a direct positive low effect on Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy and Teachers' DL Teaching Practices. Work experience showed direct negative effect on Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy, and an indirect effect on Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy - > Teachers' DL Teaching Practices. Concerning the indirect effects, Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy, and Teachers' Accountability had a mediating effect, positively linking Teachers' Self-Innovativeness with Teachers' DL Teaching Practices. All research hypotheses were corroborated.

The model evaluation involved several stages. Initially, collinearity was checked by the VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) values of all sets of predictor constructs/dimensions in the structural model. Since the VIF values of all combinations of endogenous and exogenous constructs/dimensions are below the threshold of 5 (Hair et al., 2017), collinearity among the predictor constructs/dimensions is not critical in this structural model.

The second stage examined the coefficient of determination (R ²) value. According to Hair et al. (2017), R ² values for the endogenous factors ranged from 0.058 to 0.461. These values can be considered low to moderate, while R ² values of 0.75, 0.50, or 0.25 for endogenous latent variables can be respectively described as weak, moderate, or substantial. In addition to measuring the R ² values, when a specified exogenous construct/dimension is omitted from the model, the change in the R ² value should be used to evaluate its impact on the endogenous constructs/dimensions. This measure is known as the f ² effect size when values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 respectively represent small, medium, and large effect (Cohen, 1988). According to the results, the background variables had very low effect sizes of 0.01–0.06 on the endogenous latent variables. Teachers' Self-Innovativeness had a high effect size on Teachers' Accountability (0.483) and a medium effect on Teachers' DL Self-Efficacy (0.224) and Accountability (0.202).

In the final stage, the predictive relevance (Q ²) of the path model was assessed via the blindfolding procedure. Values larger than 0 suggest that the model has predictive relevance for a certain endogenous construct/dimension (Hair et al., 2017). The Q ² value indicted for Teachers' Self-Innovativeness was 0.225, Teachers' Accountability (0.125), Teachers' DL Teaching Practices (0.191), and Teachers’ DL Self-Efficacy (0.195).

4.4. Differences according to background variables

To test differences between groups according to background variables, a one-way MANCOVA analysis was performed. Table 5 shows differences among teachers according to work experience, presenting Mean and SD differences on a scale of 1–5, F test results with significance, and size effect.

Table 5.

Differences according to teachers' shorter and longer work experience.

	Less than 10 years		10 years and more
	M (SD)	CI (95%)	M (SD)	CI (95%)	F	η2
Self-Innovativeness	4.23 (0.61)	4.11–4.36	4.54 (0.62)	4.42–4.66	12.31***	0.06
Exploring ideas	4.55 (0.88)	4.37–4.73	4.48 (1.05)	4.27–4.68	0.20	0.00
Generating ideas	4.48 (0.72)	4.33–4.63	4.87 (0.72)	4.73–5.01	14.37***	0.07
Presenting ideas	3.66 (0.94)	3.46–3.86	4.14 (1.01)	3.94–4.33	12.10***	0.06
Applying ideas	4.16 (0.77)	4–4.32	4.52 (0.86)	4.35–4.68	9.60**	0.05
Accountability	4.73 (0.53)	4.62–4.84	4.94 (0.5)	4.84–5.03	8.68**	0.04
External	4.29 (0.73)	4.14–4.45	4.49 (0.7)	4.36–4.63	4.23*	0.02
Internal	5.1 (0.56)	4.98–5.22	5.32 (0.5)	5.22–5.41	8.61**	0.04
DL Self-Efficacy	4.61 (0.63)	4.48–4.74	4.42 (0.75)	4.27–4.56	3.88	0.02
Class management	4.51 (0.81)	4.34–4.68	4.26 (0.98)	4.07–4.45	3.61	0.02
Student engagement	4.52 (0.73)	4.36–4.67	4.44 (0.86)	4.27–4.6	0.49	0.00
Teaching strategies	4.69 (0.71)	4.54–4.84	4.47 (0.76)	4.32–4.62	4.34*	0.02
DL Teaching Practices	4.42 (0.63)	4.29–4.55	4.28 (0.78)	4.13–4.43	1.74	0.01
Class management	4.85 (0.77)	4.69–5.01	4.67 (0.87)	4.5–4.83	2.42	0.01
Student engagement	4.47 (0.79)	4.31–4.64	4.47 (0.86)	4.31–4.64	0.00	0.00
Teaching strategies	3.99 (0.83)	3.82–4.17	3.75 (1.09)	3.54–3.96	2.94	0.01

*p < 0.05**p < 0.01***p < 0.001.

Work experience was found to affect Teachers' Self-Innovativeness. Differences between shorter and longer work experience were detected in three out of the four sub-dimensions of Self-Innovativeness (generating, presenting, and applying ideas). For Accountability, both internal and external were found higher in teachers with longer work experience. For DL Self-Efficacy, results showed a reverse effect, where teachers with less experience rated significantly higher compared to more experienced counterparts in teaching strategies. DL Teaching Practices were equally high and showed no significant differences between shorter and longer work experience.

Next, the effect of taking a DL Course versus not taking one was examined. Table 6 shows differences among teachers who had taken a DL Course and those who had not, presenting Mean and SD differences on a scale of 1–5, F test results with significance, and size effect.

Table 6.

Differences between groups according to taking a Course on DL teaching.

	Without DL Course		With DL Course
	M (SD)	CI (95%)	M (SD)	CI (95%)	F	η2
Self-Innovativeness	4.35 (0.59)	4.24–4.46	4.46 (0.72)	4.3–4.61	1.36	0.01
Exploring ideas	4.55 (0.94)	4.38–4.73	4.45 (1.02)	4.23–4.67	0.42	0.00
Generating ideas	4.6 (0.7)	4.47–4.73	4.8 (0.81)	4.63–4.98	3.43	0.02
Presenting ideas	3.88 (0.95)	3.7–4.06	3.98 (1.09)	3.74–4.21	0.49	0.00
Applying ideas	4.29 (0.76)	4.15–4.43	4.44 (0.94)	4.24–4.64	1.67	0.01
Accountability	4.79 (0.49)	4.7–4.88	4.89 (0.6)	4.77–5.02	1.92	0.01
External	4.4 (0.62)	4.28–4.51	4.41 (0.85)	4.23–4.59	0.06	0.00
Internal	5.14 (0.55)	5.03–5.24	5.31 (0.54)	5.19–5.43	5.11*	0.03
DL Self-Efficacy	4.39 (0.75)	4.25–4.52	4.66 (0.59)	4.53–4.78	7.59**	0.04
Class management	4.24 (0.97)	4.06–4.43	4.54 (0.8)	4.36–4.71	5.08*	0.03
Student engagement	4.38 (0.84)	4.22–4.54	4.59 (0.72)	4.44–4.74	3.51	0.02
Teaching strategies	4.44 (0.81)	4.29–4.6	4.73 (0.61)	4.6–4.86	7.48**	0.04
DL Teaching Practices	4.19 (0.72)	4.05–4.32	4.55 (0.67)	4.4–4.69	12.94***	0.06
Class management	4.6 (0.9)	4.43–4.77	4.93 (0.71)	4.78–5.08	7.48**	0.04
Student engagement	4.34 (0.84)	4.18–4.49	4.65 (0.78)	4.48–4.82	7.32**	0.04
Teaching strategies	3.66 (0.98)	3.48–3.85	4.12 (0.93)	3.92–4.32	10.93**	0.05

*p < 0.05**p < 0.01***p < 0.001.

The main significant difference was detected in DL Teaching Practices in all its sub-dimensions, showing that teachers who had taken a DL course felt significantly more capable of using teaching strategies, managing their classes, and engaging their students in learning. This was reflected in their DL Self-Efficacy relating to teaching strategies and class management. Internal accountability was also significantly higher in teachers who had taken the course. Teachers' Self-Innovativeness, although higher among teachers who had taken the DL course, was not significantly different from those who had not participated in a DL course.

5. Discussion

5.1. Teachers' self-innovativeness

The main aim of the study was to examine how teachers' self-innovativeness influences their accountability, DL self-efficacy and DL practices. Therefore, we looked at the connections between the main dimensions. The results revealed a strong correlation between how teachers perceived themselves as innovative and all the other dimensions. It showed that when teachers feel that they are innovative, and perceive themselves as more accountable for their teaching, they are more able to cope with DL teaching in general, and in applying DL teaching practices. This is partly supported by previous studies that found a correlation between teachers' self-innovativeness and the constructivist teaching approach in elementary school (Ucus & Acar, 2018), as well as between teachers' work motivation and self-innovativeness (Suharyati, 2017). The connection between self-innovativeness and self-accountability was not supported by studies as it was not investigated.

A positive correlation was also found between teachers' self-innovativeness and accountability. A recent study by Orakci et al. (2020) found that teacher accountability was strongly correlated with innovative thinking and responsible teaching, indicating that greater teacher accountability may increase them both. Relating to technology, Yilmaz and Bayraktar (2014) state there is a strong correlation between the level of self-innovativeness and adoption of technology. The higher the level of self-innovativeness, the higher the readiness to adopt educational technologies. This is also supported by Lopez-Perez et al. (2019), indicating that teachers’ self-innovativeness determines their beliefs about the use of technology.

Our study elaborates on previous studies and shows that it is self-Innovativeness that affects all the other factors. Indirectly, teachers' self-innovativeness had a significant effect on their feeling able and accountable to use and apply DL teaching practices in their classrooms. Self-innovativeness increases teachers' accountability affecting DL self-efficacy, which leads to teachers feeling more competent to apply DL teaching practices.

Investigating the components of self-innovativeness, teachers indicated they felt they were better at exploring and generating ideas, but a little less competent in presenting and applying them. Several studies (Çoklar & Özbek, 2017: Yilmaz & Bayraktar, 2013; Ucus & Acar, 2018) related to the correlation between teachers' self-innovativeness and adoption of technology, examining different components of innovation, but none related to exploration, generation, presentation, and application of ideas. Study findings indicate that teachers feel innovative because of the ideas they develop, but they feel challenged by acting on them, i.e., presenting them to principals and applying them in the classroom. Teachers may have many creative and productive ideas for teaching or different types of projects suitable for their students' needs, but they are not always understood or accepted by principals for many reasons, one of which could be lack of presentation skills. Therefore, the actual creative idea for change in the teaching practice in the classroom will not be applied as it did not receive the principal's approval.

Challenges in DL teaching practices are also indicated by the results showing teachers mostly perceive themselves as able to manage their classroom, then in second place use different DL teaching strategies, and much less able to foster student engagement during synchronous or asynchronous DL teaching. Robinia and Anderson (2010), examining nurses’ DL efficacy in teaching practices similarly found that classroom management and teaching strategies were higher compared to creating student engagement. This was indeed acknowledged by recent studies and reports (Lucas et al., 2020) explaining that creating student engagement is the most difficult challenge in learning, especially in the context of applying DL during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Student engagement is a complicated four-dimensional construct comprised of the learning processes of acting, thinking, feeling, and communicating, involving behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and agentic aspects respectively (Reeve, 2013). Moreover, student engagement depends on many factors not directly related to the teacher, such as access to technology, parental support, study space, and school and student level (Lucas et al., 2020). Therefore, it is rightfully ranked by the teachers as the most difficult component of DL teaching practices.

5.2. Teachers' work experience and DL professional development

The two background factors examined, work experience and PD in technology, yielded results in their effect on self-innovativeness. The literature addresses teachers' age as a factor to be considered when examining the self-innovativeness, which could be similar to work experience, but is not exactly the same. Yilmaz and Bayraktar (2014) pointed out that young teachers (who could also be considered novices) had higher levels of self-innovativeness compared to older more experienced ones. This was expected, as younger teachers are more tech savvy. Celik and Yesilyurt (2013) found that self-innovativeness was connected to self-efficacy with self-efficacy increasing proportionately with the level of self-innovativeness. Our study shows the complete opposite, Teachers’ work experience directly affected their self-innovativeness, which then significantly affected their DL teaching practices and accountability but had a negative effect on their DL self-efficacy. More experienced teachers' perceptions of themselves as innovative and having a greater sense of accountability compensated for their slightly lower DL self-efficacy therefore, the DL teaching practices were similar to those of less experienced teachers. Closer scrutiny of the components of self-innovativeness showed that more experienced teachers perceived themselves as more able to generate, present, and apply ideas which may develop through teaching experience. Younger teachers felt they were able to explore and generate ideas but were weaker at presenting and applying them.

Regarding the second factor, there are numerous studies relating to different forms of PD to help teachers adopt novel pedagogies and technologies having a positive effect on teachers' practices (Desimone, 2009; Kopcha, 2012; Philipsen et al., 2019). For example, Desimone (2009) outlined the aims of teachers' PD, mentioning: knowledge acquisition, affecting attitudes, improving instruction, and eventually increasing student learning. Kopcha (2012) suggested situated PD for teachers to help them adopt or integrate technology, changing teachers' perceptions of barriers through mentoring. Moorhouse and Wong (2022) proposed a model of how teachers can blend asynchronous and synchronous digital technologies and instructional approaches in learning. Another current study by Frei-Landau eta al. (2022) found that a PD framework is important to provide autonomy for teachers for the process of technology adoption and needs to be designed in a way that addresses the different needs of teachers. DeCoito and Estaiteyeh (2022) who investigated teachers' views of and attitude toward online teaching and successes and challenges encountered with actual online teaching during COVID-19 recommend effective professional development and support for teachers to facilitate teachers’ transition and enhance their personal views toward online teaching.

Philipsen et al. (2019) investigated the effect of PD on adopting online blended learning. Many aspects were considered by these researchers, but none related to teachers' self-innovativeness. On the one hand, our study supports previous studies showing that teachers who had attended a course preparing them to apply DL in teaching felt it had a significant effect on their DL teaching practices, and their DL self-efficacy. On the other hand, a finding showed that PD in the form of a course on using DL for teaching that was offered to teachers from different schools by different lecturers had no effect of teachers' self-innovativeness.

Even with PD and perceived ease of use. there is a concern among researchers regarding the adoption of technology in the classroom contradicting Tandon (2021) and indicating that perceived ease of use will not always result in adopting the technology. This is elaborated on by Utami et al. (2022) who investigated technology acceptance of cloud-based learning among teachers during COVID-19 pandemic and found that perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use did not directly affect its application.

Based on the current study, the number of years a teacher has experienced teaching in class has a strong effect on self-innovativeness, whereas a course on using DL for teaching affects their actual teaching and DL self-efficacy but has no effect on their self-innovativeness. This could be explained by the fact that the PD course, following the line of other traditional courses, may have focused more on the technical aspects, showing teachers options for using DL, which leaves less room for innovation and teachers' suggestions for incorporating DL in their own way, suited to their individual classes and students' needs. In other words, the practical course served its purpose, but did not rise to the level of requiring participants to explore, generate, present, and apply their own ideas about teaching using technology. Therefore, self-innovativeness was neither addressed nor developed.

5.3. Conclusions and recommendations

The purpose of the study was to understand the connection between teachers’ self-innovativeness and how it affects their accountability, DL self-efficacy and DL teaching practices. The study showed that when teachers feel that they are innovative they are more accountable for their teaching, more able to cope with DL teaching in general, and in applying DL teaching practices. The study showed that it is the self-innovativeness that affects all the other factors.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic forced teachers to become innovators or early adaptors of technology, as they needed to apply DL instantly. More experienced teachers felt they could better cope with this sudden change as they perceived themselves as more innovative meaning they could generate, present, and apply novel ideas, and had a higher degree of inner accountability compared to new teachers. But in fact, all teachers reported they perceived themselves as being able to apply DL practices in their classrooms. Meaning that new teachers, who had a lower level self-innovativeness, relied on the PD course, and more experienced teachers who possessed a higher level of self-innovativeness and inner accountability relied on them to apply DL practices in their classrooms.

Both elementary and secondary school teachers indicated that their self-innovativeness is developed by their work experience, which affects their accountability, DL self-efficacy and DL teaching practices. This means that developing self-innovativeness related to teaching is a process that involves continuous practice and PD. In the current study teachers stressed that taking part in a PD course on using DL for teaching was not enough to develop their self-innovativeness in terms of teaching differently using technology and incorporating DL in the classroom. This is an important observation that needs to be taken seriously as it was previously thought that PD programs were adequate to develop teachers' self-innovativeness relating to technology and its application in the classroom. As found in the current study, PD courses could enhance the ability to apply technology, but do not necessarily develop teachers' self-innovativeness.

Results could be beneficial for researchers and educational leaders planning PD for teachers on DL and educational computer systems applying various technologies. To enhance teachers' self-innovativeness, PD for teachers in current times needs to be more personalized, offering an ongoing mentoring program for incorporating daily work experience with tips and examples of how to apply DL effectively in class. This should be accompanied by leaving room for teachers’ own innovative suggestions for incorporating DL focusing on their teaching and learning practices. Reflective practice and action research could help teachers understand and improve DL teaching practice. This is more important now, as the world is in transition and a novel hybrid type of teaching-learning is required. Teachers could suggest many types of combinations of face-to-face and online learning allowing students to work partly in class and partly from home, or other preferred premises, focusing on students' learning, as well as on their well-being. Teachers should learn to use multiple means of communication and technologies to personalize learning to assist in real time when students face difficulties, as well as recommend further learning activities for elaboration and enrichment for advanced students.

5.4. Limitations and suggestions for further studies

The current study has several limitations and offers directions for future research. The study investigated four variables and their relationships based on a preliminary study and the literature review. These relationships detected in the current study could be further tested adding direct or indirect variables connected to self-innovativeness. Several variables that were not tested in this research might have impacted teachers' perceptions of using DL in the classroom. For example, teachers' levels of self-innovativeness and motivation to apply DL could add extra indications to their connection with the other examined variables. Examination of teachers' perceived level of self-innovativeness could be gauged by an online questionnaire, understanding how each level impacts DL self-efficacy and DL practices.

Second, self-innovativeness was measured by self-report, which is a subjective metric, which may have affected some of the results. As self-perception changes with age, it could cause a bias in the results indicated in the manuscript showing that the older teachers had a higher level of surveyed self-reported perception of innovativeness. The self-report measures could be enhanced by qualitative techniques elaborating on the patterns between factors. Future studies may benefit from interviews with teachers eliciting their experiences and uncovering the effect of work experience and PD on self-innovativeness. Interviews with teachers and observations of teaching using DL could be beneficial for better understanding of teachers' self-perceptions and innovative practices. Other studies could investigate self-innovativeness among teachers possessing different types of teaching experience to better understand its impact.

Third, our study originally divided the teachers into two groups - elementary and secondary - without paying attention to middle school. Future studies using quantitative and qualitative measures could investigate the effect of self-innovativeness separately in elementary, middle, and high school, to better understand its impact.

Fourth, relating to our findings concerning the DL course, a PD course for teachers to incorporate technology in the classroom aimed at developing the components of self-innovativeness could be designed, applied, and investigated to understand its effect on teachers' personal self-innovativeness.

Author statement

Vidergor Hava: Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing- Original draft preparation Writing- Reviewing and Editing, Data curation, Investigation, Conceptualization.

Biography

Dr. Hava Vidergor is a senior lecturer of curriculum and instruction. Her research interests center on curriculum planning and design, innovative teaching strategies, hybrid learning environments and gifted education.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.