The Art of Gathering Online: Glam Educators’ Self-Efficacy in the Age of Coronavirus

While we will not know the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM) for years to come, we did witness some of the effects within weeks. Leading up to the March 11, 2020 pandemic declaration by the World Health Organization and shortly afterward, organizations across the world canceled events, shut their doors to the public, and laid-off or furloughed staff. Within the United States in particular, these measures disproportionately impacted education staff at many institutions. For educators who were still employed, it was immediately clear that if programming were to reach audiences who were increasingly sheltering in place, working and schooling remotely, and social-distancing in public, GLAM education would need to change.

To carry out educational missions amid closures and staffing changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, GLAM educators have rapidly adapted to delivering virtual educational content in many forms. This article describes empirical research conducted in August 2020 on the scope of those adaptations on a sample of 43 participating educators employed at GLAM institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as the impact of this period on these educator’s self-efficacy beliefs toward delivering virtual educational experience and content. This research is guided by three research questions.

1. To what extent did GLAM educators adapt to delivering virtual educational content and experiences in the period of March to August 2020?
2. How do educators perceive the impact of these changes on their professional self-efficacy as it relates to delivering virtual educational content and experiences?
3. What factors contribute to GLAM educators professional self-efficacy in that work?

Literature Review

According to the “National Impact of COVID-19 Survey on United States Museums” conducted in June 2020 by the American Alliance of Museums (AAM), “75% of museums stepped into their pivotal role as educators providing virtual educational programs, experiences, and curricula to students, parents, and teachers.”¹ The evidence of a field-wide increase in virtual educational experiences and content can be found on many museum websites, across social media, and in the vast collection housed in the Museum Repository of Distance Learning, a project of AAM’s Ed Comm.² After debuting in April 2020, the repository has grown to over 1,000 resources (as of October 1, 2020) “representing sites across the United States and in Canada and Mexico, including eight languages and American Sign Language.”³ But even just a few months into the pandemic, that pivot in programming did not translate into program funding or job security for educators. The AAM survey notes that “two-thirds (64%) of directors predicted cuts in education, programming or other public services due to significant budget cuts.” An October 2020 update to the AAM survey confirmed these grim predictions with 67% of respondents reporting cutting back on “education, programming, and other public service due to budget shortfalls and/or staff reductions” and 53% of responding museums indicating “they have had to furlough or lay off staff…. Positions most impacted by staffing reductions included frontline (68%), education (40%), security/maintenance (29%), and collections (26%) staff.”⁴

Given that GLAM educators have recently experienced an unprecedented shift toward working with digital tools to design and implement virtual educational programs, it becomes valuable to understand what impact that shift has had on their cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral development as professionals. Socio-cognitive theory presents self-efficacy as a promising measure of this type of complex growth. Self-efficacy was first described by Albert Bandura⁵ and is most easily understood as context-specific self-confidence or an individual’s own beliefs about their ability to accomplish a certain task. While Bandura broadly describes self-efficacy as a type of cognition, a review of the literature shows that both theory and research support the notion that self-efficacy contributes to social, emotional, and behavioral development.

Rather than measuring an individual’s personal psychological or physical qualities, self-efficacy measures focus on an individual’s performance capabilities on given tasks.⁶ Self-efficacy is multidimensional and task specific, and cannot be generalized to the nature of an individual. For example, in a study of athletic self-efficacy, participants may be asked to judge if they are capable of throwing a baseball to a teammate, or if they believe they can successfully run a five kilometer race, but measures of self-efficacy would not ask participants to judge themselves as athletic. Similarly, self-efficacy is domain specific. In our example, this means that self-efficacy beliefs for baseball throwing ability may differ from beliefs about running ability. Bandura theorized that self-efficacy is influenced by four types of experiences: enactive attainment, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states.⁷ To continue with with the baseball player analogy, imagine that one’s self-efficacy beliefs might be influenced by previous experience successfully throwing a baseball, vicarious experiences of peers successfully throwing a baseball, by a coaches’ encouraging words of support during practices, and one’s own judgments of the physical experience of playing.

Across the literature, there exists a standard methodology for quantitative measurement of task-based self-efficacy beliefs. Researchers provide participants items describing domain specific tasks of varying challenge and ask participants to rate their degree of confidence in their own ability to complete each task on a unipolar 0–100 point scale with 10-unit intervals. In these scales, a score of 0 indicates the belief “Cannot do at all,” a score of 50 indicates “Moderately certain can do,” and a score of 100 indicates “Highly certain can do.” Researchers also commonly collect qualitative data in accompanying questionnaires, interviews, observations, etc.

Tsang, Hui and Law⁸ describe self-efficacy as “the most important construct of social cognitive theory” because of the vast body of research that shows people’s self-efficacy beliefs are predictive of affect, motivation, and actual behavior, including academic performance and vocational choices. Self-efficacy is used by researchers as a measure of socio-cognitive development in youth and adults, frequently in educational contexts, including educator professional development and use of technologies.

Understanding how and why GLAM educators’ self-efficacy beliefs around virtual education practices have changed this year may support field-wide understanding about the ongoing needs of these educators in the virtual environment, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also during any time of profound change. Because self-efficacy is both measurable and understood to be influenced by a variety of experiences, self-efficacy measures are compelling assessment tools for GLAM workers and students working toward careers in the field, provided that the tools are appropriately designed to reflect the nuances of desired skills and tasks as well as the factors contributing to those self-efficacy beliefs. For the purposes of this study, understanding change in self-efficacy beliefs related to creating and implementing virtual educational content and experiences from February to August 2020 will give insight into the growth that occurred during this tumultuous period.

Methodology

This study is a descriptive, mixed-methods survey. The sole instrument in this study was an online questionnaire, including both quantitative and qualitative questions. The quantitative questions utilized Bandura’s self-efficacy scale with measurements of “February 2020” and “Today” (August 2020) on tasks associated with accessing, conceptualizing, implementing, and evaluating virtual educational content and experiences. Additionally, the questionnaire asked participants to identify themselves and their employing institutions in various ways to support a description of the sample.

Sample

I distributed the call for participants and the questionnaire through several electronic mailing lists associated with GLAM professions, including talk-museumed and MCN. Additionally, I shared the call for participants through my public LinkedIn and Twitter profiles, including hashtags associated with the field. The sample consisted of 43 professionals who identified as having “worked as educators in the gallery, library, archive, and museum sector at any point to date in the year 2020.” A variety of questions about their role and the institutions they work for reveal the diversity of experiences within the sample, and Appendix A further describes the participants.

Analysis

Quantitative data from the questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For the self-efficacy scale, I compared “February 2020” and “Today” scores using a two-tailed, paired samples T-test. I analyzed the qualitative data using emergent coding to identify trends and patterns within and across participant responses. Because of the relatively small sample size, responses were analyzed holistically, rather than within and between the demographic groups identified within the sample.

Limitations of This Research

A limitation of this study is that the scaled items on the questionnaire required participants to recall their self-efficacy beliefs at a time in the past. In an ideal scenario, the study would circumvent the unreliability of recollection by collecting data from participants in real time (in February and August 2020). However, due to the research timeline, such practices were not feasible, and the study asked participants instead to reflect on and rate how they might have felt prior to this field-wide shift.

As a museum educator in the United States, my participation in professional virtual communities including industry email lists, LinkedIn, and Twitter enabled the distribution of the call for participants. These distribution methods, as well as the survey being offered only in English, may have skewed the sample toward U.S. and Canadian museums, rather than showcasing the full international diversity of educators working in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums.

Results

RQ i: To what extent did GLAM educators adapt to delivering virtual educational content and experiences in the period of March to August 2020?

Across the sample, participants reported experimentation with alternate forms of virtual educational content and experiences (see Figure 1), with the greatest increases in live video experiences, both live video gatherings (which were defined as fully interactive experiences such as Zoom meetings) and live video productions (which were defined as those with limited interaction, such as Zoom webinars, Facebook Live, etc.). Other forms of content and experiences included online exhibits, digital interactive activities, social media presence, and more.

RQ ii: How do educators perceive the impact of these changes on their professional self-efficacy?

In the self-efficacy rating portion of the questionnaire, there were statistically significant increases for all 11 general tasks and activities associated with virtual GLAM education, including conceptualizing, collaborating, budgeting, assessing, and more. The greatest mean changes from “February 2020” to “Today” were in implementation, advocacy, and ability to support direct reports in developing virtual educational content and experiences, with mean increases of over 30 points. This data is further described in Table A.

For the 11 tasks and activities directly associated with virtual GLAM education technology (described in Table B), 10 showed statistically significant increases in the period of “February 2020” to “Today.” These included accessing high-speed Internet from home, selecting appropriate hardware and software, obtaining appropriate hardware and software, obtaining content resources and analog tools, and understanding the capabilities of hardware and software. The task that showed no statistically significant change was “Access high-speed Internet to deliver virtual educational content or experiences from work.” This lack of statistical significance on this questionnaire item alone suggests that participant self-efficacy toward accessing high-speed Internet at work cannot be attributed to changes occurring in the 6-month study period.

RQ iii: What factors contribute to GLAM Educators professional self-efficacy in working virtually?

Overwhelmingly participants in this study identified the shift in institutional priorities that allowed them to delve into virtual educational content and experiences as the primary factor contributing to increases in their self-efficacy. The perception of moving education experiences and content into virtual space as a “necessity” from leadership allowed for novel opportunities for experimentation and engagement. One participant noted, “The change in prioritization related to virtual content delivery (increased my confidence). I have taught virtually in other contexts in the past but it was never an institutional priority to deliver this type of content before February 2020.” The permission from leadership to delve into this area of GLAM education and to learn along the way allowed educators to develop self-efficacy through enactive attainment. This process was concisely described by one participant who said that they increased their confidence:

Just [from] experience doing it! Plenty of trial and error—we’ve been doing virtual programs since March and we’ve learned so much about the technology, format, planning along the way. Another respondent noted, “Having been forced into developing virtual programming due to COVID-19 and the flexibility to try new things has increased my confidence in executing all the aspects described above.

Several participants noted the impact of learning opportunities, both formal and informal on increases in their self-efficacy beliefs. When asked specifically about what educational experiences contributed to generalized confidence (see Figure 2) in offering education content or experiences, participants most commonly selected self-study (through articles, books, video tutorials, etc.), followed by webinars or other training from GLAM professional organizations. Participants also noted the importance of direct instruction and support form colleagues, some within their institution and others accessed through their professional networks. Others gained confidence from previous educational experiences in degree or certificate programs.

Despite the mean changes appearing as increases in the aggregate data, individuals within the study did report decreases in confidence on a variety of tasks. Participants could then further elaborate upon their ratings in an open-ended response section, which when examined holistically revealed several patterns of circumstances participants attributed to the decreases they experienced in their self-efficacy beliefs. Foremost among these were several variations on the theme of institutional uncertainty. From limited budget, to unstable staffing, to lack of verbal support from leadership, the lack of clarity presented a considerable challenge.

Others in the study described access to people and technology as a factor contributing to decreased confidence. While educators were largely using the same tools and infrastructure in February and in August, the increased reliance of these tools for everyday work brought attention to their shortcomings. Social distancing public health protocols, as well as furloughs, presented changes in connecting with collaborators and audiences. As one participant wrote, “Having all the staff be separated from each other and from our offices and equipment … makes planning anything just a little more cumbersome.”

Finally, several participants described a process coming to know how much more there was to learn, around use of specific software, accessibility, image rights, evaluation, and more. As one participant noted, “I do realize now what I don’t know—the more I have learned, the more I have understood that there is a whole world out there of virtual museum programs and also platforms I am not fully familiar with.” “In February,” commented another participant, “I probably thought certain things would be easy to convert to the virtual space, that ended up being difficult or had a lot of ‘red tape’ around it, such as image and video rights.” In some cases, this gap between what participants estimated their self-efficacy level to be in February and their reported level in August, stayed the same. One respondent described this lack of change of score, noting it did not necessarily represent a lack of change in their situation: “While there’s been an increase in support for virtual programming, budgetary constraints still limit what tools I can get access to.” The presence of many concurrent changes in GLAM institutions during the study period may figure into the complexity of interpreting this data.

Discussion and Conclusion

The data from this study suggested that the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic served as a period of significant growth for participants’ self-efficacy beliefs related to virtual educational practices. While tightened institutional spending, furloughs, layoffs, and the need to adapt to an increasingly online audience presented an extremely stressful challenge for these educators, those who remained in their roles and were able to self-study, experiment, and receive support from existing networks increased their professional self-efficacy as it relates to work in the virtual space.

Analysis of the data also suggests that there are several areas where GLAM educators could benefit from support from others in the field, notably: budgeting to adapt to virtual programs; researching/selecting the most appropriate software, hardware, and online communities; and evaluating virtual engagement, all had median scores in the 60s, while all other areas averaged at 70 or above. For educators forced out of the field due to layoffs and hoping to return, expertise and experience in these areas may increase their competitiveness in what will likely be a crowded job market.

This study contributes to a growing body of documentation about changes to the GLAM and education fields during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as pre-existing research on self-efficacy of educators. Further opportunities to expand on these findings could include a longitudinal study of educators relationship with virtual education practices over years-long careers, a study of collective self-efficacy among interdepartmental or cross disciplinary teams of GLAM educators, and investigations into the success of specific interventions to support GLAM educator’s work with virtual experiences and content.

Implications for GLAM Institutions

While summer 2020 reports from AAM indicated that funding and staffing cuts to education was widespread across American museums, this small empirical study suggests that for the educators who were allowed to continue working, the period of March to August 2020 was one of significant growth toward self-efficacy in delivering virtual experiences and content. What is more, the results suggest that institutions can support educators’ self-efficacy during times of change by providing access to appropriate tools, freedom to pursue relevant professional learning opportunities, and clarity around institutional goals in times of change.

Previous studies suggest that self-efficacy beliefs influence not only affect and motivation, but ultimately can play a role in performance. Educators who were given the opportunity to experiment and adapt to changing institutional priorities and community needs this year are now better equipped than they ever have been to create learning experiences that can be accessed virtually. As the pandemic continues to affect both GLAM operations and daily life, it remains to be seen what the lasting impact of this shift toward increased virtual educational engagement will be. However, the educators who were able to adapt their practice and continue their own learning may go on to see this time as one of profound professional growth, potentially impacting their work for years to come.

About the Author

• Emma C. Cantrell

  Emma has worked as an educator and administrator for arts nonprofits since 2010, including the Center for Art and Community Partnerships, Smith College Museum of Art, and the Henry Art Gallery. She is passionate about creating accessible museum experiences that empower the public as learners, makers, stewards, critics, and consumers of culture, as well as developing museum processes that are visitor-centered and research-informed. She holds degrees from the University of Washington (MA, Museology) and Massachusetts College of Art and Design (BFA, Community Education) and is grateful to have had an education guided by brilliant artists, activists, teachers, and researchers. As an MCN 2020 Scholar, she is studying museum educators’ self-efficacy beliefs during a field-wide shift to increased virtual education due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Emma’s research is inspired by her own experiences transitioning to teaching and learning online in her current role as School & Youth Programs Manager at the Bainbridge Island Museum of Art.

Appendix A: Description of the Sample

Notes

1. “A Snapshot of US Museums’ Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.” American Alliance of Museums (blog), July 22, 2020.
2. Jencks, S. “Introducing the Museum Distance Learning Repository,” American Alliance of Museums (blog), April 20, 2020.
3. “A Snapshot of US Museums’ Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic,” American Alliance of Museums (blog), July 22, 2020.
4. “National Snapshot of COVID-19 Impact on United States Museums (October 2020),” American Alliance of Museums (blog), November 17, 2020.
5. Bandura, A. 1977. “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.
6. Zimmerman, B. J. “Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1) (200001): 82–91.
7. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
8. Tsang, S. K. M. Hui, E. K. P., and Law, B. C. M. 2012. “Self-Efficacy as a Positive Youth Development Construct: A Conceptual Review.” The Scientific World Journal.

Bibliography

American Alliance of Museums. 2020. “A Snapshot of US Museums’ Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.” (July 22, 2020). https://www.aam-us.org/2020/07/22/a-snapshot-of-us-museums-response-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/

American Alliance of Museums. 2020. “National Snapshot of COVID-19 Impact on United States Museums (October 2020).” (November 17, 2020). https://www.aam-us.org/2020/11/17/national-snapshot-of-covid-19/

Bandura, A. 1977. “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Jencks, S. 2020. “Introducing the Museum Distance Learning Repository.” American Alliance of Museums (blog). (April 20, 2020). https://www.aam-us.org/2020/04/20/introducing-the-museum-distance-learning-repository/

Tsang, S. K. M., Hui, E. K. P., and Law, B. C. M. 2012. “Self-Efficacy as a Positive Youth Development Construct: A Conceptual Review.” The Scientific World Journal. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/452327

Zimmerman, B. J. “Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1) (2000): 82–91.