In summer 2014, program staff at 2 teacher preparation organizations designed and launched Phase 1 of an 8-week course designed to develop 100 novice teachers' understanding of key issues related to teaching English Learners. The Phase 1 evaluation led to major course revisions, an implementation of the revised course with a new cohort of 50 novices in Summer 2015, and a follow up evaluation completed in January 2016. Evaluation Questions and Design: (1) What is the overall quality of the online modules? (2) What is the impact of the course on teacher preparedness, attitudes, and beliefs about teaching and learning? (3) How does participation in this course affect teacher perceptions of efficacy? (4) How do the overall quality and impact of the EL Phase 1 (2014) course compare to that of the redesigned 2015 EL Phase 2 course? Mixed Methods Design, Instrumentation, and Limitations: The instruments created for this evaluation included an online survey and a set of rubrics for evaluating course videos, discussion boards, and assignments. Survey Components and Constructs: (1) Course Experience: We selected these items from the Student Perceptions of Course Delivery Survey (Babb et al., 2010). (2) Course Components Effectiveness: Items were developed from the research literature and the course syllabus to determine participants' perceptions of the most important course components in relation to course goals. (3) Teaching Preparation: We selected 19 items from the Imbimbo/Silvernail items to capture participants' perceptions of their readiness to teach. (4) Teacher Efficacy: Using Gibson and Dembo (1984)'s 2-factor instrument we measured participants' efficacy beliefs. Assessment of Course Videos, Discussion Boards, and Instructor Assignments and Student Work Artifacts: (1) Videos: Instructional videos were evaluated with a rubric adapted from the Danielson framework and the research on instructional videos. (2) Discussion Boards: Discussion boards were evaluated with a rubric developed from research completed by TeacherStream. (3) Instructor Assignments and Student Work: Instructor assignments and student work were evaluated with a rubric developed from the Danielson Framework. Curricular and Instructional Redesign Outcomes: (1) Course re-design resulted in more participant engagement. (2) 2015 participants felt more prepared to engage with peers, evaluate and reflect on practice, choose teaching strategies to meet different student needs. (3) The more favorably teachers viewed their course experiences in terms of instructor engagement, culture of learning, and course design, the more positive their perceptions of course components effectiveness were. Instructional Choices: (1) Instructor presence and engagement catalyzed student participation and learning in asynchronous online settings. (2) Assessments of course components effectiveness were strongly related to teachers' perceptions of preparedness. The higher the effectiveness assessment, the more prepared the teachers felt. Online Learning and Novice Teacher Efficacy: (1) 2015 novices working directly with P-12 students felt less efficacious than peers NOT in clinical settings. (2) Personal teacher efficacy was meaningfully related to the participants' course experience perceptions and to how prepared teachers felt. (3) Teachers of color had more positive beliefs about their teaching efficacy. [This report was written with the assistance of Angel Zheng.]