{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036122552876382656, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027699356689961586, 'mean_word_length': 5.289477514190074, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Teaching during a Pandemic: United States Teachers' Self-Efficacy During COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic had significant implications on schools during 2020, with districts moving to all virtual instruction during the spring and facing the debate of how to return safely to school in the fall. With these decisions, teachers, schools, and districts faced many challenges when providing face-to-face, hybrid, and virtual teaching. The purpose of this study was to explore how the new teaching approaches and requirements have impacted teachers' self-efficacy, specifically instructional and engagement efficacy. The current study included 361 participants from across the United States who completed the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) subsections of instruction and engagement. The results found the average teacher self-efficacy scores for both instruction and engagement were lower than TSES scores of instruction and engagement in previous studies. The results also indicated teachers who are teaching virtually had the lowest efficacy scores compared to teachers teaching in a hybrid or all in-person model. However, the results suggested no difference in efficacy score based on years of teaching experience, teacher location, previous accolades, or instruction level.

The COVID-19 pandemic had significant implications on schools during 2020, with districts moving to all virtual instruction during the spring and facing the debate of how to return safely to school in the fall. School districts across the country took different approaches to return to school for the 2020e2021 school year, with some districts returning with face-to-face instruction with students socially distanced, while other districts returned with hybrid teaching (alternating face-to-face and virtual instruction), and 100% virtual instruction. No matter the instructional approach, teachers returned to the classroom facing drastically different environments, routines, and instructional approaches. These requirements included mandates from districts to learn new virtual instruction pedagogy and platforms and provide instruction to all students no matter the instructional approach. With all these changes and challenges teachers faced, teachers were still responsible for providing instruction through engaging lessons just as they have in past years, but teachers now had to alter this instruction due to COVID-19 policies. Up to this point, researchers have begun to study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teachers Hoang et al., 2020;Song, Wu, & Zhi, 2020;Vu et al., 2020), but this article is the first to analyze and explore the potential impact of teachers in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic on teacher self-efficacy.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, schools moved instruction online across the United States for spring 2020 and faced the decision of how to provide instruction to students in the fall. With these decisions, teachers, schools, and districts faced many challenges when providing face-to-face, hybrid, and virtual teaching. These challenges included technology issues for students who may not have internet access or access to proper technology (Marshall et al., 2020;Simmons, 2020), forced teachers to take on new approaches to planning and instruction (Honigsfeld & Nordmeyer, 2020), and required teachers to learn new technology platforms (Wiggins, 2020). Furthermore, teachers faced high levels of stress due to parent communication, administrative support, and anxiety .
With all the new challenges and COVID-19 policies teachers faced, it is crucial to understand their impact on teachers. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore how the new teaching approaches and requirements have impacted teachers' self-efficacy, specifically instructional and engagement efficacy. The researchers asked the following research questions to explore teachers' instructional and engagement efficacy during COVID-19 instruction. 1) What are teachers' instructional and engagement efficacy scores while teaching the COVID 19 pandemic? 2) Are there any differences in teachers' instructional and engagement efficacy scores based on instructional level (elementary or secondary)? 3) Are there any differences in teachers' instructional and engagement efficacy scores based on instruction (all virtual, hybrid, or all faceto-face)? 4) Are there any differences in teachers' instructional and engagement efficacy scores based on teachers who were previously named teacher of the year?

Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (1986) states several capabilities drive a person's motivations. These capabilities include symbolizing, forethought, vicarious, self-regulatory, and selfreflective. Through the environment, behaviors, and personal factors, these capabilities play a role in a person's views on their ability to complete a particular task. Specifically, Bandura refers to a person's views on their ability to achieve a particular outcome as selfefficacy (Bandura, 1997). Information regarding a person's efficacy comes from previous success in the specific domain, observing others through vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion from others, and a person's physiological state (Bandura, 1986(Bandura, , 1997. When it comes to performance, a person's perceived self-efficacy may impact a person's competence and performance in that domain (Bandura, 1986(Bandura, , 1997. Within the context of teaching, teacher self-efficacy focuses on "the teacher's belief in his or her capability to organize and execute a course of action required to accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context" (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, p. 233).

Teacher self-efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy is important for schools to support as previous studies have found teacher self-efficacy negatively associated with teacher burnout and positively associated with commitment to teaching (Pas, Bradshaw, & Hershfeldt, 2012;Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007;Zee & Koomen, 2016). Furthermore, teachers with higher self-efficacy are more open to new teaching methods and more persistent when facing challenges (Pressley, Roehrig, & Turner, 2018;Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Additionally, previous research has found teacher self-efficacy impacts student outcomes (Klassen et al., 2011) andinstructional quality (Kunsting et al., 2016). When it comes to student academic outcomes, teachers with high teacher self-efficacy often have more success because they are more comfortable scaffolding students through mistakes, building relationships with students (Hajovsky et al., 2020), and increasing student engagement within the classroom (Good & Brophy, 2003;Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Additionally, teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to have high expectations of student academic achievement (Tournaki & Podell, 2005;Fackler & Malmberg, 2016) and have more success at raising student academic achievement (Anderson et al., 1988;Midgley et al., 1989).
Along with the four main influences of self-efficacy (mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and affective state; Bandura, 1997;Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), Fackler and Malmberg (2016) found the school environments and individual characteristics of teachers may also influence a teacher's selfefficacy. At the school level, a school's physical location does not impact a teacher's self-efficacy; however, the school environment does play a role (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). School environments that have teachers with high, attainable goals and create a serious learning environment tend to have higher teacher selfefficacy (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993;Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Within the environment, the principal and school community may impact teaching efficacy through resources of vicarious learning and verbal persuasion (Fackler & Malmberg, 2016). The relationships teachers form within the school environment may impact teacher self-efficacy, with teachers who develop stronger relationships with other teachers tend to have higher efficacy than teachers with many weak relationships (Siciliano, 2016).
With all the changes teachers faced during COVID-19, one extensive study found the teaching environment played a critical role in maintaining teachers' sense of success (Kraft et al., 2020). Though the researchers did not specifically focus on teacher selfefficacy, the focus of the study was on teacher sense of success and the variables that impacted their feeling of success. The researchers found through pre/post surveys that teachers struggled with balance between teaching and personal lives, learning new technology, and disengaged students. Kraft et al. (2020) found teachers with school and district leaders who communicated clearly and provided fair expectations had less dip in their sense of success. Additionally, teachers who received professional development that supported virtual instruction and had opportunities to collaborate with other teachers had a stronger sense of success (Kraft et al., 2020).
To develop an environment that promotes teacher self-efficacy, principals should provide teachers with strategies and feedback for their teaching (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993), opportunities to grow through professional development (Fackler & Malmberg, 2016), and opportunities to work with other teachers in the building (Dembo & Gibson, 1985;Siciliano, 2016). Additionally, school environments that provide support to teachers through coaching or mentoring often see an increase in teacher self-efficacy (O'Connor & Korr, 1996;Ross & Bruce, 2007). Beyond the building administrators and teachers, Stipek (2012) found support from parents as an important school environment factor on a teacher's self-efficacy. With many teachers teaching in a hybrid and virtual format, parents have become a larger presence in the learning environment. Recently,  found communicating with parents is a significant predictor of teacher burnout.
At the individual level, previous studies have found several variables that influenced teacher self-efficacy, including teacher perceptions of student engagement (Ross et al. 1996), graduate degrees, the time of year (Anderson et al., 1988), professional development (Yoo, 2016), and previous teaching experiences (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993;Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Specifically, the time of the year can change teacher self-efficacy, with teachers feeling higher efficacy at the end of the school year than the beginning of the year, especially in the elementary years due to mastery experiences gained throughout the year (Anderson et al., 1988). Additionally, Hoy & Wollfok (1993) found teachers with more teaching experience had higher teacher self-efficacy because they had more mastery experiences. Mastery experiences can often be a difference in teacher self-efficacy, especially when analyzing novice teachers' self-efficacy as Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) found differences in instructional efficacy; however, there was no difference in engagement efficacy.
To support teacher self-efficacy, several studies have found professional development that includes mastery experiences and verbal persuasion aspects have led to an increase in teacher selfefficacy (Morris & Usher, 2011;Yoo, 2016). Mastery experience, such as success in the classroom and positive feedback from observations, also can increase teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997;Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). However, even with mastery experiences, when teachers faced new challenges, it led teachers to reassess their teaching and negatively affect their teacher selfefficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Additionally, high levels of stress and anxiety can influence teacher self-efficacy at the individual level, leading to decreased teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). As teachers returned to teaching during fall 2020, teachers faced a large amount of stress and anxiety . Though there are limited studies on the impact of COVID-19 and teachers, stress may be an influential factor on teacher self-efficacy during COVID-19.
The current study utilized Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) to measure teachers' instructional and engagement efficacy. To gain perspective on the impact of COVID-19 on teacher self-efficacy scores, we sought previous studies that also used the TSES. Specifically, Wolters and Daugherty (2007) found teachers instructional efficacy scores averaged 7.36 and engagement averaged 6.86 across 1000 teachers. They also saw slight differences when comparing school levels, with elementary having the highest instruction and engagement efficacy scores than middle and high school teachers. When focusing on years of experience, Wolters and Daugherty (2007) found instruction scores ranged from 6.88 to 7.59, with more experienced teachers reporting higher instruction efficacy. Engagement efficacy ranged from 6.86 to 6.95, with teachers with 6e10 years of experience reporting the highest efficacy score. It is important to note that Wolters and Daugherty (2007) evaluated teacher self-efficacy of teachers in one school district in Texas at a general level rather than a specific context or multiple districts, states, or countries. Additionally, the teachers included in the study had a variety of differences in teaching environments (e.g., number of students, student characteristics', and subject taught), which may influence teacher self-efficacy differently at each level.
Similarly, Yoo (2016) also used the TSES and found instructional efficacy improved from 7.46 to 8.08, while engagement efficacy improved from 7.08 to 7.90 after teachers attended professional development opportunities across 148 teachers. Of the 148 teachers, Yoo's sample included kindergarten through high school teachers, with comparable group sizes. Though Yoo (2016) incorporated a pre/post test design, the professional development program was 100% online rather than in person and a majority of the participants were working on their master's degrees at the same time, which may have also influenced their self-efficacy. Readers should also take caution in making causal claims regarding the use of online professional development because of the small sample size within the study.
Though the previous research has provided impactful insights into teacher self-efficacy and provides insight for previous TSES scores (Wolters & Daugherty, 2007;Yoo, 2016), none of the previous studies studied teachers during a global pandemic. In 2020, teachers faced challenges that no district, school, or teacher preparation program had prepared for previously. Though the current study is one of the first studies to explore teacher self-efficacy, several studies have explored teacher self-efficacy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada and across Europe.

Teacher self-efficacy during COVID-19
There is still limited research on the impact of COVID-19 on teacher's efficacy, however, several recent articles have shed light on the issue. There is still limited research on teacher efficacy during COVID-19 in the United States , however, several articles have focused on teachers in Canada and Europe at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (Dolighan & Owen, 2021;Pellerone, 2021;Rabaglietti et al., 2021). Specifically, Dolighan and Owen (2021) sampled 132 Canadian, secondary, Catholic school teachers during a time that all teachers were teaching remotely. The results found teachers who had completed additional courses for online instruction or had completed district provided learning platform prior to transitioning to all virtual instruction had a higher teacher efficacy (Dolighan & Owen, 2021). Similarly, Rabaglietti et al. (2021) surveyed 366 European teachers about stress, general self-efficacy, and distance learning. The results found selfefficacy decreased when teachers faced more difficulty with distance learning. Additionally, self-efficacy acted as a partial mediator between teacher stress and difficulty with distance learning (Rabaglietti et al., 2021).
One particular study of note also used the TSES subscales of engagement and instruction to measure teacher self-efficacy during the pandemic (Pellerone, 2021). Specifically, Pellerone sampled 374 Italian teachers focusing on teacher self-efficacy and burnout. Pellerone (2021) found the student make up influenced both engagement and instructional efficacy. Class make-up included number of students in the class, the presence of students with disabilities, and grade level (Pellerone, 2021). Additionally, Pellerone found teacher self-efficacy was a mediator between emotional competence and personal accomplishment.
Similar to the current study, the previous studies on teacher efficacy during COVID-19 have used convenance samples and crosssectional measurements which limits the generalizability of each study individually. However, each study provided insight into how teachers felt during the COVID-19 pandemic as they were asked to continue providing instruction to students. Furthermore, schools, states, and countries have responded differently to the pandemic, which may impact teachers' efficacy and the previous studies provided exploratory findings for different countries.

The current study
Based on the previous literature and the reports presented on teaching during COVID-19, we predicted that new teaching demands and approaches would impact teacher self-efficacy scores in instruction and engagement during the 2020e2021 school year. Specifically, we felt there would be differences between the instructional types. Due to the newness and challenges that come with teaching virtual (e.g., building relationships with students, limitations of instructional techniques, and use of manipulatives), we believed teachers who were teaching on an all-virtual approach would have lower efficacy scores compared to hybrid or face-toface teachers (Dolighan & Owen, 2021;Marshall et al., 2020;Honigsfeld & Nordmeyer, 2020). We also predicted that teachers who taught in a suburban setting would have significantly higher efficacy scores than teachers teaching in rural or urban settings due to internet and technology access, which may lead to more difficulties with distance learning (Rabaglietti et al., 2021;Simmons, 2020). Lastly, we predicted that teachers who had received previous accolades teacher of the Year (TOY)) would have higher efficacy due to past teaching success (Bandura, 1986(Bandura, , 1997Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). We decided to use previous TOY to group teachers who have previous success in the classroom to identify potential differences in teacher self-efficacy (Palmer et al., 2005).

Method
This exploratory study focused on teachers' instruction and engagement efficacies during the 2020e2021 school year, which saw many school districts take on alternate approaches to instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we used a survey design to reach a sizeable sample of teachers to gather insight on the K-12 teacher population and describe and compare teachers based on characteristics (e.g., instruction, location, and accolades; Visser et al., 2000).

Procedures and sampling
The researchers used convenience and snowball sampling to recruit teachers to complete an electronic survey during the first two weeks of October 2020. The research team selected this time during the school year as most teachers had returned to teaching in August and had experienced the new teaching requirements for at least four weeks. This would allow teachers time to adjust to new instructional approaches and requirements. The research team posted the survey to several social media groups for teachers and emailed the survey to recent graduates of a teacher preparation program. After completing the survey, the debriefing statement encouraged all teachers to pass the survey along to other teachers.

Participants
The current study included 361 participants from across the United States. To participate, the participants had to currently teach in an elementary, middle, or high school in the United States. Teacher experience ranged from the 1st-38th year of teaching, with an average of 13.85 years of teaching experience. Teachers taught at a range of schools, with 68 identifying their current school as Urban, 219 suburban, and 74 rural. For the teaching approach, the sample included 238 teachers teaching all virtually, 105 teaching in a hybrid model with some face-to-face and others virtual, and 18 teachers teaching all in person. As for the teaching level, the sample included 317 elementary teachers and 44 secondary teachers. Lastly, the participants included 102 teachers who had previously won teacher of the year (TOY) and 259 teachers who had not won TOY.

Survey
The survey collected demographic information on teachers such as school location, years of teaching experience, grade level, subject, and feelings returning to the classroom during COVID-19. To measure teacher self-efficacy, we selected the subscales of efficacy in student engagement (a ¼ 0.81) and efficacy in instructional strategies (a ¼ 0.86) from The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale short form (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Because of the differing nature of teaching during the fall of 2020, we ran a reliability check of the two TSES scales for the current sample finding efficacy in student engagement (a ¼ 0.88) and efficacy in instructional strategies (a ¼ 0.88) respectively.
For using the TSES survey, we tested measurement invariances using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In the unconstrained model, the model fit indices showed all acceptable levels [TLI ¼ 0.932, CFI ¼ 0.959, RMSEA ¼ 0.067]. Moreover, we ran the chi-square different tests; the result of the changed chi-square test with the measurement weights model was not significant (p ¼ .347) among the three different instructional groups. Also, the chi-square test between the structural covariance model and the unconstrained model was not significant (p ¼ .712) in three types of instructions. Therefore, we confirmed that there were no statistical differences in factor loadings in three different instructional groups.
We selected these subscales because we thought these two constructs would be most prevalent for all teachers teaching faceto-face, hybrid, and virtually. Additionally, we believed the construct of classroom management, though important, would differ for each instructional type; thus, the TSES classroom management instrument may not apply to every teacher during fall 2020. The TSES uses a 9-point scale that asks teachers to rate from "nothing" to "a great deal." Example questions include, "How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work?" and "How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?"

Results
The average instructional efficacy score for the sample was 5.58 (SD ¼ 1.72), and the average engagement efficacy score for the sample was 5.15 (SD ¼ 1.44; See Table 1 for descriptive statistics). To determine if instructional and engagement efficacy were associated with years of teaching experience, we ran a Pearson's bivariate correlation. The results suggested no association between instructional efficacy and years of teaching experience (r ¼ 0.055, p ¼ .299) and no association between engagement efficacy and years of teaching experience (r ¼ 0.033, p ¼ .532).

Efficacy and instruction level
To compare teachers' instructional efficacy based on the instructional level (elementary or secondary), we used an independent-sample t-test. Elementary teachers had a slightly lower instructional efficacy (M ¼ 5.56, SD ¼ 1.70, n ¼ 317) than secondary teachers (M ¼ 5.74, SD ¼ 1.84, n ¼ 44). However, the results indicated no difference in instructional efficacy t(359) ¼ -0.66, p ¼ .509, between the two levels (See Table 2).
To compare teachers' engagement efficacy based on the instructional level (elementary or secondary), we used an independent-sample t-test. Elementary teachers had a slightly higher engagement efficacy (M ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 1.44, n ¼ 317) than secondary teachers (M ¼ 4.99, SD ¼ 1.42, n ¼ 44). However, the results indicated no difference in engagement efficacy t(359) ¼ 0.81, p ¼ .417, between the two levels (See Table 2).

Efficacy and type of instruction
To compare teachers' instructional efficacy based on the type of instruction provided at the beginning of the 2020e2021 school year (all virtual, hybrid, or face-to-face), we used a one-way ANOVA. The results suggest a significant difference between the three instructional approaches F(2, 358) ¼ 4.43, p ¼ .034 (See Table 3) with teachers teaching all in-person having the highest instructional efficacy (M ¼ 6.26, SD ¼ 1.63; n ¼ 18), followed by hybrid (M ¼ 5.81, SD ¼ 1.70; n ¼ 105), and all virtual with the lowest average of instructional efficacy (M ¼ 5.42, SD ¼ 1.72; n ¼ 238).
To compare teachers' engagement efficacy based on the type of instruction provided at the beginning of the 2020e2021 school year (all virtual, hybrid, or face-to-face), we used a one-way ANOVA. The results suggest a significant difference between the three instructional approaches F(2, 358) ¼ 3.01, p ¼ .05 (See Table 3) with teachers teaching all in-person having the highest engagement efficacy (M ¼ 5.96, SD ¼ 1.58; n ¼ 18), followed by hybrid (M ¼ 5.11, SD ¼ 1.44; n ¼ 105), and all virtual with the same average of engagement efficacy (M ¼ 5.11, SD ¼ 1.41; n ¼ 238).

Efficacy and teacher accolades
To compare teachers' instructional efficacy based on the previous accolades (TOY or no accolades), we used an independentsample t-test. Former TOY recipients had a slightly lower efficacy (M ¼ 5.47, SD ¼ 1.75, n ¼ 102) than teachers who were not former TOY recipients (M ¼ 5.62, SD ¼ 1.71, n ¼ 259). However, the results indicated no significant difference in instructional efficacy t(359) ¼ 0.731, p ¼ .466, between the two groups (See Table 4).
To compare teachers' engagement efficacy based on the previous accolades (TOY or no accolades), we used an independentsample t-test. Former TOY recipients had a slightly lower efficacy (M ¼ 5.07, SD ¼ 1.56, n ¼ 102) than teachers who were not former TOY recipients (M ¼ 5.19, SD ¼ 1.39, n ¼ 259). However, the results indicated no significant difference in engagement efficacy t(359) ¼ 0.71, p ¼ .481, between the two groups (See Table 4).

Efficacy and school location
To compare teachers' instructional efficacy based on the location of the school year (Rural, Suburban, or Urban), we used a one-way ANOVA. The results suggest no significant difference in the instructional efficacy based on location of the school F(2,359) ¼ 0.58, p ¼ .561 (See Table 5) with teachers who teach at rural schools (M ¼ 5.41, SD ¼ 1.77; n ¼ 74), teachers at suburban schools (M ¼ 5.65, SD ¼ 1.66; n ¼ 219), and teachers at urban schools (M ¼ 5.51, SD ¼ 1.91; n ¼ 68).
To compare teachers' engagement efficacy based on the location of the school year (Rural, Suburban, or Urban), we used a one-way ANOVA. The results suggest no significant difference in the engagement efficacy based on the location of the school F(2, 359) ¼ 0.01, p ¼ .991(See Table 5) with teachers who teach at rural schools (M ¼ 5.14, SD ¼ 1.51; n ¼ 74), teachers at suburban schools (M ¼ 5.16, SD ¼ 1.40; n ¼ 219), and teachers at urban schools (M ¼ 5.16, SD ¼ 1.52; n ¼ 68).

Summary of results
Based on the previous literature and the reports presented on teaching during COVID-19, we predicted that new teaching demands and approaches would impact teacher self-efficacy scores in instruction and engagement during the 2020e2021 school year. Compared to previous studies on teacher self-efficacy, the current results suggest teachers had lower instructional and engagement efficacy during fall 2020. Additionally, there were differences between the instructional types; however, contrary to our predictions, both hybrid and all virtual teachers had lower efficacy than all in-person teachers. We also predicted that teachers with previous accolades (former TOY) would have higher instructional and engagement efficacy scores. To our surprise, there was no difference in instructional or engagement efficacy based on teacher accolades. Lastly, we predicted that teachers who taught in a suburban setting would have significantly higher efficacy scores than teachers teaching in rural or urban settings due to internet and technology access. However, there were no differences based on teacher location.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of returning to teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic on teacher instructional and engagement efficacy. As one of the first empirical studies focused on the impact of COVID-19 on teacher self-efficacy, the current results suggest teachers had a lower efficacy during fall 2020. When it came to the average of instructional and engagement efficacy, both averages indicated teachers felt they had some influence on instruction and engagement (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). In the current study, the average teacher self-efficacy scores for both instructional and engagement efficacy were lower than TSES scores of instruction and engagement in previous studies (Wolters & Daugherty, 2007;). Though we do not know if the difference is significant, we felt it was important to note the current efficacies averaged 1e2 points lower than previous averages. It is also worth noting that previous studies have found teacher selfefficacy scores associated with teaching experience (Hoy & Wollfok, 1993;Wolters & Daugherty, 2007), but in the current study, this was not the case. Thus, leading the researchers to believe that teaching experience does not lead to high teacher self-efficacy during the COVID-19 pandemic. This difference may be due to the COVID-19 teaching requirements and teaching experiences, which are new for all teachers. These new teaching requirements, such as learning to teach virtually, learning new technology, and adapting lesson plans for virtual and hybrid instruction, may impact experienced teachers because they have not had previous mastery experiences teaching virtually or hybrid classes or experiences using the different virtual platforms. Teachers also may have been reassessing their teacher self-efficacy because of the new challenges they faced transitioning instruction to hybrid and virtual formats (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) or had a decrease due to an increase in stress and anxiety from teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic Bandura, 1997). Compared to other studies completed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the current study found similar results concerning teacher self-efficacy Dolighan & Owen, 2021;Rabaglietti et al., 2021). The initial studies on teacher self-efficacy during the pandemic indicate many teachers had a decrease in self efficacy, which was also connected to teacher stress (Rabaglietti et al., 2021) and burnout (Pellerone, 2021). When comparing the current results to previous teacher self-efficacy studies, we believe the current study provides a glimpse of how United States teachers felt during one particular time of the year. We urge others to continue exploring the impact of teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to begin to generalize findings.
When examining the differences in teacher self-efficacy scores between teachers, the only significant difference was instruction type. Teachers providing all virtual instruction had the lowest instruction and engagement efficacy, followed by hybrid teachers, and face-to-face with the highest efficacy scores in both instruction and engagement. Again, these findings suggest hybrid and allvirtual teachers had doubts or uncertainty transitioning their instruction online than in-person teachers. The lower efficacy for allvirtual and hybrid teachers may be due to the lack of previous experiences or feedback regarding virtual instruction (Bandura, 1997;Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Because this data collection occurred at the beginning of the school year, teachers may not have received feedback on lesson plans or had administrators observe virtual instruction yet. If administrators provide supportive feedback, teacher self-efficacy scores may increase due to verbal persuasion (Fackler & Malmberg, 2016;Bandura, 1986).
Though there were no significant differences between groups of teachers when analyzing the data by instructional level, previous success, and location, which may indicate a majority of teachers struggled with efficacy during fall 2020. When comparing teacher instructional and engagement efficacy based on instructional level, there was no difference between elementary and secondary teachers. This may indicate that all teachers faced similar Table 4 Teacher Accolades Independent Samples Test. challenges, which impacted teacher self-efficacy rather than specific grade level challenges. Additionally, there was no significant difference between previous TOY and non-TOY. This result indicates previous success in the classroom did not influence teachers' instructional or engagement efficacy, which indicates that previous TOY did not connect teaching during fall 2020 with previous success in the classroom or previous TOY did not have mastery experiences with instruction provided during COVID-19 (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993;Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Similar to Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007), when comparing teachers based on location, there were no differences in the groups of teachers, suggesting that no group of teachers had a higher instructional or engagement efficacy than others. These results may suggest that student factors such as internet availability, technology access, and attendance (Simmons, 2020) may not significantly influence teacher instructional and engagement self-efficacy. However, rather other factors such as the instructional approaches or new technologies may influence teacher self-efficacy more.
With schools and districts continuing to provide alternative instructional approaches due to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers and school administrators need to understand the potential impact on teacher self-efficacy because of the association to other variables such as teacher burnout (Pas et al., 2012;Skaalvik;Song, Wu, & Zhi, 2020;Zee & Koomen, 2016) and student achievement (Anderson et al., 1988;Midgley et al., 1989).

Implications
As schools and districts look to the future of teaching during COVID-19, teachers need to feel supported with their planning and teaching. Teachers have lower efficacy than previous studies, with teachers teaching in a hybrid or all-virtual model with significantly lower efficacy than all in-person peers. Though the current results do suggest instructional approaches have impacted teachers' selfefficacy, we do not advise sending students back to complete face-to-face instruction until deemed safe according to the medical data and local health officials. Until that time, schools and districts need to develop ways to support teacher self-efficacy, especially for teachers teaching in a hybrid or all virtual setting. The support schools and districts should focus on experiences that will build teacher self-efficacy, such as verbal persuasion, vicarious learning, previous teaching experiences, and monitor teacher physiological state (Bandura, 1986).
District administrators should reexamine the policies put in place for hybrid and all-virtual teachers at the district level. Teachers may feel overwhelmed with new policies requiring teachers to commit more time to develop lessons, administering assessments, and student attendance policies. By providing more flexibility in some of the required policies, districts can provide teachers more autonomy in their lessons and assignments, which may increase teacher self-efficacy as teachers can focus on teaching students rather than balancing multiple district policies. Districts should provide professional development opportunities in areas that teachers are struggling (Yoo, 2016). Districts can survey teachers for specific topics that may be useful to their teaching to support teacher self-efficacy but might focus on specific topics such as engaging students online, developing lesson plans for online instruction, and communicating with parents. To support vicarious learning, a district can have PD run by teachers within the district as an opportunity for teachers to learn from other teachers. Districts can offer PD throughout the school year or over the summer to support teacher's self-efficacy during the year and help teachers prepare for future instruction (Dolighan & Owen, 2021;Kraft et al., 2021;Morris & Usher, 2011;Yoo, 2016). Lastly, districts should explore other variables that may influence teacher's self-efficacy through verbal persuasion and mental state, such as teacher stress, parent communication, and anxiety while teaching during a pandemic Stipek, 2012;Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007).
At the school level, School administrators should provide feedback on lessons and observations. Administrators need to prioritize feedback early in the school year and continue to provide support throughout the year by providing feedback to support teacher growth and environments that all teachers to ask questions about instruction (Fackler & Malmberg, 2016;Siciliano, 2016;Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Feedback may especially be critical for hybrid and all-virtual teachers; as Song (2020) found during the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers wanted support with virtual teaching, technology, and developing successful home-school cooperation. Furthermore, school administrators can work with teachers in their building to allow for teachers to observe other teachers who are having success teaching and engaging students in a hybrid or allvirtual model or work with an instructional coach to support instruction (O'Connor & Korr, 1996;Ross & Bruce, 2007).
Additionally, schools can provide teachers time to share lessons and teaching ideas during collaboration sessions (Kraft et al., 2020;Siciliano, 2016). These sessions may include grade-level collaboration but also across the grade-level collaboration. School administrators can also help teachers transfer their previous success teaching in-person to the hybrid and all-virtual models by having instructional coaches or reading/math specialists help teachers connect skills and activities done in person with virtual alternatives (O'Connor & Korr, 1996;Ross & Bruce, 2007). Lastly, school administrators can recognize teachers' hard work and success in implementing lessons in a hybrid or all-virtual setting to help build teacher self-efficacy (Kraft et al., 2021). Recognition might include providing a specific note on an observation or lesson plan or giving grade level shout-outs at faculty meetings for collaboration or engaging lessons as a way of providing verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1997).
Lastly, districts and schools need to monitor teachers' physiological states during the COVID-19 pandemic (Bandura, 1997;Lee & Crunk, 2020;. If schools or districts begin to see high levels of stress or anxiety, administrators might consider providing a mental health day for teachers on a day that students are not receiving instruction. Though these approaches may be common for schools and districts during a typical school year, the 2020e2021 school year is drastically different, and supporting teacher self-efficacy may not be the first concern at the moment with schools and districts working through growing pains of instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teachers can also focus on specific aspects at the individual level, which may help raise teacher self-efficacy. To support engagement efficacy, teachers can build in time to develop relationships with students. During a regular school year, teachers focus on building relationships with students throughout the year, but especially during the beginning of the year (Author, 2020;Beaty-O'Ferrall et al., 2015). Teachers should continue to focus on relationship building no matter the instructional set-up. Teachers may have to alter the activities previously done to build relationships due to social-distancing guidelines or virtual format but should prioritize these activities throughout the school year. Furthermore, teachers can set daily and weekly goals for themselves. Setting goals may allow teachers to feel accomplished and may help teachers feel the multitude of tasks required for them is more manageable if broken up throughout the week. Lastly, teachers can reflect on their lessons and make necessary changes throughout the year to encourage student engagement and improve instruction (Author, 2020;Feiman-Nemser, 2003).

Limitations and future directions
Moving forward, more research needs to focus on the impact of COVID-19 on teachers and schools. Teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic is new and challenging for all educational stakeholders. The current study is one of the first to explore the potential impact on teacher self-efficacy during fall 2020. However, the current study had some limitations that future studies should look to address. First, data collection occurred at one point in time during the fall 2020 academic school year; given the assumption that teacher self-efficacy changes based on experiences, a longitudinal study should examine the changes in efficacy throughout the school year. Also, a longitudinal study would allow researchers to track teacher self-efficacy changes as many districts look to move from all virtual instruction to a hybrid format. It would also be important to note any changes in efficacy if districts moved back to an all-virtual approach due to the spread of COVID-19 during the 2020e2021 school year and into future years. Second, the current study had a limited sample size of teachers. Future studies should include larger sample sizes and include larger and more diverse samples of teachers based on locations, instructional type, and level. Lastly, future studies should include quantitative and qualitative work investigating possible predictor variables for lower efficacy and other variables that may impact teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In conclusion, the current study found teachers had low instructional and engagement efficacy during fall 2020 when returning to teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results suggest all teachers, regardless of instruction type, level, accolades, and location, had lower instructional and engagement efficacy than previous studies (Wolters & Daugherty, 2007;Yoo, 2016). The results also suggested that teachers who are providing all virtual instruction had the lowest instruction and engagement efficacies of the three different instructional approaches. However, the results did not find significant differences in efficacy based on teacher location, previous accolades, or level. Future research should continue to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on teachers as they are essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Schools and districts need to understand the potential impact on teachers as they navigate the challenges of teaching during a pandemic.