Garbage in

  • 902 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
902
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Inputs matter. How can you tell if an online course is any good, whether it engages students in active learning, or challenges them with authentic, higher-level work? We’ll detail the California Learning Resource Network (CLRN) course review process, from publisher entry to publication, outlining criteria, including iNACOL’s course standards, for receiving our certification as part of our University of California partnership. We’ll also share data from the California eLearning Census.
  • There’s been a lot of talk in the eLearning community about competency based learning, that students should exit courses being proficient in that subject or course. These are known as “outputs.” If a course doesn’t result in student competency, then something went wrong. But what if a course indicates a student is proficient but the state assessment (PARCC or Smarter Balance) indicates they are not?This can easily be the case if a course teaches a low percentage of the content standards, if the course’s focus is on the wrong standards, or if students weren’t activity engaged and challenged with authentic work.This is where CLRN comes in. Our influence on course outcomes begins with the course itself. This session has several goals: 1) share with you how CLRN reviews courses, from soup to nuts. What do we expect of publishers? What is the review process and the criteria and how do we interpret them? 2) Why do reviews matter? What effect do our reviews have on the industry and on teaching and learning? We’ll have a couple stories about industry-wide and publisher-wide changes; 3) How should you read our reviews? 4) How should you buy an online course?
  • As the census drew to a close, we sent a supplemental survey to those districts that were purchasing courses, asking them about their selection process. When asked what factors they considered when selecting courseware, the top four choices were price, comparing courses to content standards, the U.C. A-G approved list, and examined course outlines. Sadly, few districts realize that by selecting from the UC A-G Approved courses, they’re also depending on CLRN’s certified course reviews.None10%Selected only CLRN Certified courses.3 6%Colleague recommendation17 32%Vendor demonstration2242%Data supplied by curriculum provider22 42%Examined course outlines2955%U.C. A-G list3260%Compared the course to the content standards32Price41 77%
  • The California Learning Resource Network (CLRN), a state-funded technology project that reviews online courses, conducts an annual eLearning Census to take the online and blended learning temperature of California’s public school districts and direct-funded charters. After building a database of more than 1000 school districts and 763 direct-funded charter schools, we began contacting them on March 1st, to report both online and blended student populations, courseware selection, and blended models in use. These results are from 516 district and charter schools, representing 29% of the overall population.California eLearning CensusMarch 1, 2013 – May 1, 20131777 K-12 districts & direct-funded charters1014 + 763 (43% charters)Results from 516 districts (29%)
  • While charters make up 43% of all school entities, just 28% of our responses came from direct-funded charters. For those of you unfamiliar with California’s charter schools, locally controlled charters enjoy charter privileges but are governed by a local school district. Census data from locally controlled charters in included in district data and was not separated out. Direct-funded charters, though, are independent entities controlled by their own governing board. In addition, we’ve disaggregated data from both elementary (K-8 or K-5) and unified school districts (K-12 or 9-12).
  • While we do not have a breakdown of the total elementary districts and charters in California, we can state that the 2012 census included 56% K-12/9-12 districts and charters, while in the 2013 census, both elementary and unified districts are split fairly evenly. Because of the inclusion of more elementary districts and charters, this year’s results may be lower than reality.263 K12 districts253 K-8 districts
  • So, how many districts are implementing online learning? We found that 46% of all districts and charters indicated they were using some form of online or blended learning. While last year’s data indicated that we may have passed online learning’s tipping point, this year’s census seems to indicate that online and blended learning is firmly entrenched in California’s schools and that we are in the period between the tipping point and critical mass.
  • Are online and blended learning being adopted at different rates and in different modes at elementary and unified districts? In 2012, 16% of elementary districts reported students were learning online. In 2013, the number of districts and charters involved increased to 19%. However, in unified and high school districts, 68% learned online in 2012, while 73% reported online and blended students in 2013. 253 K-8 districts; 48 areelearning (19%), up from 16% in 2012263 K-12/9-12 districts; 191 are elearning (72%)
  • eLearning adoption even varies between charter schools and school districts. While last year’s adoption was fairly consistent between the two, in 2013, 53% of charters and 44% of districts indicated they were supporting eLearning.77 of 144 Charters elearn162 of 372districts elearn
  • If Districts and charters weren’t involved in eLearning, we asked them if they were currently discussing or planning to implement online learning. 26% shared they were currently in the planning stages72 of 273
  • However, unified and high school districts and charters are more invested in investigating online learning than elementary districts. Just 20% of (40 of the 201) K-8 districts that are not elearning, say they are planning to implement it, while 44% of the unified and high school districts and charters(32 of 72) are planning to implement online and blended learning.
  • Desire to implement eLearning is fairly equal between districts and direct-funded charter schools with slightly more districts in the planning process. 24% of direct-funded charters plan to implement eLearning as compared with 27% of school districts.
  • We have not yet defined districts and charters by the grade levels they teach, so it’s possible that some of the grade levels show here are under represented. 83% of the districts reporting indicated their high school students are learning online. 47% of districts use eLearning in middle school. And 27% of elementary schools are learning online.
  • In 2013, 28% of districts indicated online or blended learning was taking place in grades K-5, 49% in grades 6-8, and 78% in grades 9-12.
  • However, when separating elementary and unified districts, we find that just 19% of elementary districts are implementing eLearning compared to 73% of unified and grade 9-12 districts.
  • Last year’s census indicated that most districts and charters are tiptoeing into online learning and the relative numbers of students involved in each district was low. That has begun to change, though, as districts and charters gain more experience. The 2013 census indicates that more students in each district are taking part in online and blended learning.Last year, 24% of all districts and charters had fewer than 20 students learning online, while this year that percentage has dropped to 13% indicating that districts are involving more students in online and blended learning. When totaling all eLearning students in the bottom 50 districts, we found just 542 students in 2012 while this year’s total is 887. 2012: 24% (41 districts) < 20 students online2013: 13% (26 districts) < 20 students online2012: Bottom 50 districts: 542 students2013: Bottom 50: 887students
  • Virtual: 19,820 (N: 60 (50% district, 50% charters)Blended: 86,675 N:172 (75% districts, 24% charters)2013 Virtual: 24,3832013 Blended: 100,882How many students are learning online?Currently, 19,820 student are learning online full-time in virtual schools. This is a finite number though as we know the names of all California virtual schools. To date, 14 full time schools have yet to report.Virtual: 19,820 (N: 60 (50% district, 50% charters)Blended: 86,675 N:172 (75% districts, 24% charters)2013 Virtual: 24,3832013 Blended: 100,882However, the number of blended learning students, with 30% of districts reporting, is 86 thousand.23 thousand students learned online during summer school last year.
  • Actual population numbers have increased too. In 2012, we counted 19,820 full-time online (virtual) students In 2013, those numbers increased to 24,383 virtual students. and 86,257 blended students.Last year, we counted just more than 86K blended students, but this year’s total is just under 100,882 blended students. This represents a 23% increase in the number of full-time virtual students and a 17% increase in blended learning.Virtual: 19,820 (N: 60 (50% district, 50% charters)Blended: 86,675 N:172 (75% districts, 24% charters)2013 Virtual: 24,3832013 Blended: 100,882
  • Average numbers of online students increased in all categories. Online and blended summer school attendance averaged 132 students, a 6j% increase; Virtual school averages rose from 98 to 139 students, a 42% increase; and the average number of blended students per district or direct-funded charter rose from 453 to 490, a 8% increase.
  • Median populations, though, are often more telling. The median, the point where half the districts have more than the number and half have less also increased in 2013.Last year, half of California’s districts and charters had more than 80 students blending their learning while this year the median rose to 100. Last year, the median number of virtual students was 56 full-time online students, but in 2013, the median blended population rose to 100 students. Both median populations increased 25% 2013. 2013: 69 districts reported full-time virtual students2013 Medians: Blended-100; Virtual -70
  • I
  • I
  • Of the 481 districts and charters learning participating, 216 of them are utilizing blended or virtual learning. One outlier floated to the top: Riverside Unified. While the average number of students per district was 504, the median number of students was 80, meaning that half the districts had more than 80 students participating while the other half had fewer than 80 students participating.
  • In 2012,the most popular blended model was Self Blend, which the Innosight Institute has just renamed the “Al la Carte” model, followed by the Enriched-Virtual, a model used by Independent Study schools in California. This seems to indicate that non-consumers, students who are using eLearning to supplement their transcript or schools that provide online courses not offered in the classroom, are a driving force.We also found that 31% of districts and direct-funded charters are utilizing more than one blended learning model.Self Blend: 60%Enriched-Virtual: 36%Rotation: 29%Flex: 17%
  • Of the four blended learning models, the most popular is the Self Blend, followed by Hybrid Virtual School, a model used by Independent Study schools in california. This seems to indicate that non-consumers, students who are using eLearning to supplement their transcript or schools that provide online courses not offered in the classroom, are a driving force.Census data reflects 31% of districts and direct-funded charters reported they are utilizing more than one blended learning model.Self Blend: 60%Enriched-Virtual: 36%Rotation: 29%Flex: 17%
  • In 2013, though, the Rotation method overtook the Self-Blend (46% to 40%) followed in third by Enriched Virtual.This year, 34% of districts and direct-funded charters reported they are utilizing more than one blended learning model.Self Blend: 60%Enriched-Virtual: 36%Rotation: 29%Flex: 17%
  • When
  • When separatingelementary and unified districts, though, we found that the predominate model in elementary districts was the Rotation method, followed by 80% of districts and charters. Just 15% of elementary districts indicated they were using more than one blended model.6 of 40 had two blended models in place.
  • In unified and high school districts last year, the predominate blended model was the Self-Blend followed by Enriched Virtual.
  • This year, though, the numbers flipped a little with 48% reporting using the Self-Blend, followed by the Rotation and Enriched Virtual models. 38% of these districts report using more than one blended model.
  • While California’s schools purchase online courses from a variety of publishers and providers, the top four players are nearly the same as 2012: Apex Learning, Aventa, Cyber High and Odysseyware. We found it interesting that a substantial number of districts are creating their own courses.However, while 23% of districts purchased courses from more than one vendor in 2012, 46% of districts and charters utilized multiple publishers in 2013. This seems to both confirm virtual and blended learning’s expansion and districts’ willingness to select courses that meet the needs of specific populations.
  • OER resources, digital materials available for free or a very low cost from sources including Khan Academy and the National Repository of Online Courses (NROC), are helping districts add a digital component without investing in developing or acquiring content. Districts and direct-funded charters also indicated they are utilizing supplemental software/Internet resources or open source materials for online and blended learning in addition to or instead of licensed courses; 14% indicated they utilize two or more OER providers.
  • Districts creating their own courses or blending their learning primarily utilized the Kahn Academy, dominating at 87%, unchanged from 2012.
  • What specific actions did districts and charters undertake before purchasing courses? While a few districts indicated they took no action at all, 23% asked for a demo account, 22% had the provider demonstrate the course to them and just 22% had their teachers sample courses?Demo Account 41Provider demonstration 39 Teachers sampled course 38Asked districts about experience 29Had students sample 18None 5
  • How wide did districts survey the landscape when investigating courseware? Nearly a quarter shared they investigated one or two publishers, while another 24% looked at three publishers. 52% of districts and charters investigated four or more publishers.
  • How many courses from each publisher did districts sample before purchasing? Sadly, 16% shared they looked at none or one online course before purchasing. 28% investigated two online courses, 17% looked at three, and 40% indicated they looked at four or more courses.
  • Who teaches online and blended courses at charters schools and districts? Nearly three quarters of all districts and charters (74%) shared that their own teachers conduct online and blended courses, while 14% utilized a provider’s teachers. 11% of districts and charters use a combination of provider and district teachers.
  • Given that teaching online requires a different skill-set than classroom teaching, we wanted to know if online and blended teachers had been provided professional development specific to how to teach online. Just 22% of districts and charters provide no teacher training to online and blended teachers.
  • Finally, we enquired about the learning management systems districts are using to host online or blended courses. While most publishers or providers provide their own LMS, we found a significant number of districts were using Edmodo, followed by Moodle or it’s variations and Haiku. Not far down the list, surprisingly, are district created learning management systems.
  • CLRN created the California eLearning Census to track both the growth and variety of online and blended learning in California. One of our motivations was Clayton Christensen’s and Michael Horn’s book, Disrupting Class, which predicted that online and blended learning would reach a tipping point in 2013 and that by 2019, 50% of all high school courses would be online. Our second annual census indicates a definite increase in both numbers and usage. Whether it’s the 25% increase in median populations or the 17% increase in total population; whether it’s knowing that nearly half the districts are selecting courseware from more than one publisher as compared with just 24% last year; or whether it’s the increase in average population or the distribution of blended models, online and blended learning are firmly entrenched in California’s schools. We’re now in the period between the tipping point and critical mass where eLearning will continue to grow, evolve, and mature. CLRN is here, helping to improve online and blending courses by reporting how they meet the Common Core State Standards, California’s other content standards, AND iNACOL’s national standards for quality online courses. Our partnership with the University of California ensures that no online course will receive approval for their A-G requirements unless CLRN has reviewed and certified it. CLRN”s reviews may be found at CLRN.org.
  • 13 areas
  • Graphic should be clickable.
  • When you buy an online course, do you assume it’s high quality? Do you assume it teaches all the standards? Do you assume your students will be engaged and motivated to complete it?How would you feel if your Algebra I teacher covered 40 of the 50 CCSS standards?How about 30 of 50 or 60% or 25 or 50% of the course standards?So, how do you ensure that the Algebra I course you bought covers more than 50% or 80% of the standards?
  • Choosing a process to select quality courseware.
  • Three levels for each standard.Demonstrate, Practice, and AssessList MET, Partially MET, and NOT MET.If partially met, we list the components missing from each standard.
  • You don’t enter the online revolution with the courses you want. You enter it with the courses you have.
  • Short video clip of a boring teacher?If you walked into a f2f class and saw this type of teaching/learning, would you be impressed? Would you recommend this class to other students? Would you send a struggling student there? The lesson begins with “Writing an introduction” slide show, which would be stronger if narrated, followed by some vocabulary exercises. Students then read:12 textbook pages about verbs13 pages of textbook reading about verb agreement10 pages of textbook reading about verb tensesix textbook pages about “verbs made easy”a one-page textbook page about writing a first draft, andtwo textbook pages about simple narratives.
  • Image a great face to face courseStimulating lectures, just in time reading, active learning, activities that go beyond simple knowledge and comprehension. Individual and group activities that require you to create, evaluate, and analyze.Variety of assessment types that are aligned to what was being taught. Multiple choice tests are not the best choice always.
  • Inputs matter. How can you tell if an online course is any good, whether it engages students in active learning, or challenges them with authentic, higher-level work? We’ll detail the California Learning Resource Network (CLRN) course review process, from publisher entry to publication, outlining criteria, including iNACOL’s course standards, for receiving our certification as part of our University of California partnership. We’ll also share data from the California eLearning Census.

Transcript

  • 1. Garbage In. Garbage Out. Quality Online Learning Begins with Great Courses Inputs Matter http://bit.ly/GarbageIn
  • 2. Outputs tell us what happened Inputs tell us if what going in is any good. Inputs Matter - Garbage in, Garbage out http://bit.ly/GarbageIn
  • 3. What is CLRN? California Learning Resource Network  State-funded Education Technology Service Initial charter: Review supplemental electronic learning resources
  • 4. Open Educational Resources 6000+ free and commercial-free resources Aligned to CCSS and other CA standards
  • 5. What is CLRN? Online Course Reviews  Six subject areas Standards Alignment  Common Core State Standards  California’s other standards  Next Generation Science Standards iNACOL Standards for Quality Online Courses
  • 6. Why do reviews matter? How do Colorado districts vet online courses? Colorado Graduation Pathways Program Survey  149 of 179 districts (83%)
  • 7. What steps does your school/district take to validate that the rigor and quality of online or blended learning courses meets or exceeds that of “traditional” courses taught in a brick and mortar classroom?
  • 8. Answers and Questions We examine the course outlines with teachers and administration. Matching up the state standards with course, requiring minimums for passing scores None required
  • 9. More Answers and Questions Data supplied by curriculum provider. Student input on rigor compared to last course or class taken. Ensure alignment to state standards – we need to be doing more
  • 10. What factors did you consider when selecting courseware? Price 77% Compared to content standards 60% U.C. A-G list 60% Examined course outlines 55% Data supplied by provider 42% Vendor demonstration 42% Colleague recommendation Selected CLRN Certified courses. None 0 10 20 30 40 50
  • 11. California eLearning Census Between the Tipping Point and Critical Mass http://clrn.org/census/
  • 12. 2013 Responses March 1 – May 1 516 Responses  29% of 1777 263 K-12/9-12 Districts/charters 253 K-5/K-8 Districts/charters
  • 13. Who is eLearning? 516 districts & charters 46% Yes No
  • 14. eLearning by Grade Span 80% 70% 73% 60% 50% 40% 2012 30% 2013 20% 10% 19% 0% K-5/K-8 K-12/9-12
  • 15. Who wants to eLearn? 26% Yes No N=273
  • 16. Who wants, by grade span K-5/K-8 K-12/9-12 Yes 20% No 44%
  • 17. Full and Part-time Online Learning Populations 120000 100000 100.9K 80000 60000 40000 20000 86.3K 23% Increase 19.8K 17% Increase 24.4K 0 Virtual Blended 2012 2013
  • 18. Blended and Virtual Medians 120 Medians Increase by 25% 100 100 80 60 80 70 2012 40 56 2013 20 0 Blended Median Virtual Median
  • 19. Blended Model Breakdown 2012 Self-Blend Enriched-Virtual Rotation Flex 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
  • 20. Blended Model Breakdown: 2013 Self-Blend Enriched-Virtual Rotation Flex 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
  • 21. 2013: K-5/K-8 Blended Model Breakdown Flex Rotation 80% N=40 Enriched-Virtual Self-Blend 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
  • 22. 2012: K-12/9-12 Blended Model Breakdown Flex Rotation N=199 Enriched Virtual Self-Blend 0 20 40 60 80 100
  • 23. 2013: K-12/9-12 Blended Model Breakdown Flex 28% Rotation 39% N=163 Enriched Virtual 37% Self-Blend 48% 0 20 40 60 80 100
  • 24. Course Publisher Distribution 2012
  • 25. Course Publisher Distribution 2013 Apex Learning Aventa (K12, Inc) Cyber High Odysseyware ALEKS K12.com Pearson Digital Learning Plato Learning District Created Education 2020 Compass Learning BYU Independent Study Accellus Advanced Academics Florida Virtual School Middlebury Interactive Languages Currium A+ Learning Class.com Accelerate Education Voyager Learning National University Virtual High Connections Learning University of Nebraska, Lincoln 0 10 20 30 40 50
  • 26. Between the Tipping Point and Critical Mass
  • 27. Why CLRN Reviews Online Courses Disrupting Class (2008) Digital Textbook Initiative (2009/10) Full courses of study Authorization (2010)
  • 28. Review Process Literature review & initial criteria  SREB, iNACOL, TxVSN, QM, and WA Digital Learning CLRN Advisory (Stakeholder) meetings  Initially review HS ELA & math courses to CCSS & online course standards Strength of TxVSN version Criteria rewrite: California Criteria rewrite: national
  • 29. Online Course Reviews Walkthrough
  • 30. CLRN HOme
  • 31. List View
  • 32. Not Met standards
  • 33. How CLRN Reviews Utilized existing CLRN review sites  Six physical locations around CA  Subject specific  Established reviewer cohorts (20-30 educators) Three-person review teams  Two-part review. Well, actually 8 parts Edited & normed at CLRN Central
  • 34. CLRN Review Process Database driven Publishers complete submission online Attach standards correlation document Publishers supply 10 teacher and student accounts
  • 35. Publisher Eight Step Entry
  • 36. Step 2: Content Standards
  • 37. Standards Correlation Algebra I CCSS
  • 38. Step 3: Course Standards
  • 39. Step 4: Instruction Type Length Accreditation
  • 40. Step 5: Technology
  • 41. Step 6: Features
  • 42. Step 7: Abstract
  • 43. CLRN Review Sites Six, subject-specific sites County office based Managed by COE content expert 20-25 active teachers Meet monthly during school year
  • 44. CLRN Review Sites English-language arts  San Diego COE History-social science  San Joaquin COE Mathematics  Kings COE Science  Humboldt COE Visual and Performing Arts  Orange DoE World Languages  Orange DoE
  • 45. Reviewer Application Credentialing Info Teaching Experience Content Professional Development Technology Experience Short Response Questions Conflict of Interest Professional References
  • 46. Reviewer Training & Norming CLRN Review Process Social Content Criteria Online Course Standards
  • 47. CLRN OCR Training Videos
  • 48. OCR Retraining & Norming
  • 49. Place video clip of b3 here
  • 50. CLRN Course Review Process Nine-step process 1. Team assignment 2. Content (CCSS) Standards review  Develop, Practice, Assessment 3. Minimum Requirements  Reading levels, spelling/grammar, content accuracy, etc. 4. Social Content Review  13 areas, including male/female roles, ethnic/cultural groups, & advertising.
  • 51. CLRN Review Process 5. Online Standards 6. Features 7. Profile 8. Abstract
  • 52. Step 1: Team & Purpose
  • 53. Step 2: Content Standards
  • 54. Step 4: Social Content Male/Female Roles Ethnic/Cultural Groups Older Persons/Aging Process Disabled Persons Religion Gay, bisexual, & transgender Brand Names/Advertising
  • 55. iNACOL Standards for Quality Online Courses Online courses participate in the teaching/learning process
  • 56. Online Course Standards Southern Regional Education Board iNACOL Texas Virtual School Network California Learning Resource Network
  • 57. Step 5: Course Standards Reviewers vet 24 of the 52 OCR standards
  • 58. iNACOL Course Standards Content Instructional Design Student Assessment Technology Course Evaluation and Support
  • 59. A. Content Content depth and breadth Information literacy skills Learning resources and materials Communication process between teachers, parents, and students Content accuracy and bias
  • 60. B. Instructional Design Course design and organization Meaningful and authentic learning experiences Multiple learning paths for students to master the content Higher-order thinking skills Instructor-student and student-student
  • 61. OCR Standards/Considerations B3. The course instruction includes activities that engage students in active learning. ★ NOTE: Reading and watching are not active The course provides multiple opportunities for students to be actively engaged in the content that includes meaningful and authentic learning experiences such as collaborative learning groups, student‐led review sessions, games, analysis or reactions to videos, discussions, concept mapping, analyzing case studies, etc.
  • 62. C. Student Assessment Alignment between the course goals and activities and its assessment strategies Insure that there are adequate and appropriate methods to assess students Assure that students are constantly
  • 63. D. Technology Course architecture User interface Rich Media Accessibility
  • 64. E. Course Evaluation and Support Evaluating course effectiveness Accreditation Teacher and Student preparation and support
  • 65. CLRN Central Review Validation & Norming  Work the course Review/update all 52 course standards Standardize review comments Notes inform reviewer retraining
  • 66. CLRN Central Review Editing & Proofreading  Review, modify, and standardize content standards rating & comments Publisher Feedback  Seven-day window  New evidence required for Re-Review  One Re-Review permitted per course. Publishing  Reviews valid for three years
  • 67. Texas H.B 4294 eTextbook publishers may submit updated content for review Districts/schools may select a subscription-based electronic textbook
  • 68. Supplemental Update Review For Updated Courses  Updated, not new (New=>30% new content)  New content and/or course standards.  Strengthen alignment to the content standards and/or the course standards.  Publishers provide specific evidence. Once per year
  • 69. CLRN Oversight Stanislaus COE/CLRN Central CDE/Curriculum, Frameworks and Instructional Resources CLRN Management Team Meetings CLRN Advisory Team
  • 70. Individual Course Review
  • 71. Standards Display 2
  • 72. CLRNCertified University of California Partnership A-G Approved Courses CLRN-Certified  80% content standards  80% online course standards  15 power standards
  • 73. Course Criteria
  • 74. CLRN/iNACOL Course Standards
  • 75. OCR Standards & Considerations
  • 76. CLRN Certified Information
  • 77. U.C. Online Learning Home
  • 78. CLRN Certified FAQ
  • 79. The Good News CLRN Reviews inform course improvement
  • 80. Re-Reviews
  • 81. Content Re-reviews Additional content New activities Additional components to meet course standards  Syllabi, policies, resources, etc.
  • 82. Accessibility You’re only a lawsuit away from making your courses accessible
  • 83. DOJ Story D10: Course materials and activities are designed to provide appropriate access to all students…
  • 84. Closed-Captions/Transcripts Edgenuity (e2020) BYU Compass Learning K12, Inc. (Word has gotten out)
  • 85. Why Inputs Matter Resubmit an Assignment Story
  • 86. Ed Code Ed Code 49011 states that school districts and schools shall not establish a two-tier educational system …through payment of a fee or purchase of additional supplies that the school district or school does not provide; and
  • 87. Analysis of the 398 published  53% certified  Up from 46&  27% teach < 80% content standards  Median: 63%  Range from 4% met to 78% met  12% only missing captions or transcripts  Most common problem  Content standards alignment
  • 88. Certification by Subject ELA:39%  (down from 54%) History: 44%  Up from 27% Math: 41%  Down from 47% Science: 45%  Up from 28% World Languages: 69%  Down from100%
  • 89. How do you know if it’s any good? Garbage in…Garbage out
  • 90. Has the course been reviewed/approved by any agencies? CLRN University of California A-G requirements NCAA College Board
  • 91. Common Core State Standards or state content standards Demonstrate, Practice, & Assess Quantity, Depth and Degree
  • 92. Selecting a great course Or How Not to Buy a Car
  • 93. The Need for Multiple Filters • CLRN • Self-review of content and course standards • Customer feedback
  • 94. Have you taken the course for a test drive? Would you buy a car sight unseen? Would you sit in the passenger seat?  Then why rely solely on a provider demonstration?
  • 95. Course Test Drive Fully functioning demo Student and Teacher accounts
  • 96. Play as a student Participate in several units, spread across the course Be a great student Be a struggling student
  • 97. Be a teacher Access the LMS Can you add content / projects? Check for student progress  Formative & summative assessments
  • 98. Course Test Drive Is the course engaging? Does teach beyond Knowledge and Comprehensive Text based vs. multi-media
  • 99. You don’t enter the online revolution with the courses you want. You enter it with the courses you have.
  • 100. What is not a great online course  Class 1: Watch lecture. Complete worksheets. Take a multiple choice test. Repeat  Class 2: Read. Take a multiple choice test. Repeat  Class 3: Read. Print and take quiz. Grade your quiz. Take multiple choice test. Repeat  Class 4: Read a physical book. Take quiz from a physical book. Take part in online discussion. Repeat  Moving a textbook online is not a foundation for a great course.
  • 101. What is not a great online lesson. “Writing an introduction” slide show Vocabulary exercises. Students then: READ 12 textbook pages about verbs READ 13 pages of textbook reading about verb agreement
  • 102. Not a great online lesson, continued READ 10 pages of textbook reading about verb tense READ 6 textbook pages about “verbs made easy” READ a one-page textbook page about writing a first draft, and READ two textbook pages about simple narratives.
  • 103. Your course should be better than the worst teacher at your school
  • 104. What should we expect from great online courses?
  • 105. Expect more A great online course should not look like a textbook.
  • 106. High-quality course Stimulating lectures Writing Just-in-time reading Students create, evaluate, an d analyze. Active learning Engaging activities that go beyond knowledge and comprehension Variety of assessment types
  • 107. Make use of the medium Rich media  Lecture clips, video demonstrations and clips, variety of multi-media, simulations, … Ease of use  LMS helps inform instruction. Students/teachers always know where they are.
  • 108. Make use of the medium Multiple learning paths  Teacher is informed of problems. Students are provided alternative lessons. Engaging  Active learning, online discussions, writing & analyzing, authentic activities
  • 109. Inputs Matter Proficiency can’t occur unless courses are high quality  Teaching a critical mass of the standards  Actively engage students  Challenging students beyond knowledge and comprehension
  • 110. Has CLRN Certified it?
  • 111. eLearning Strategies Symposium December 6-7, 2013 Hilton, Costa Mesa elearns.org @elearns
  • 112. Garbage In. Garbage Out. Quality Online Learning Begins with Great Courses Inputs Matter