What’s Driving K-12 OnlineLearning?Research and Policy ResponsesMichael K. BarbourAssistant ProfessorWayne State University
History of K-12 Online Learningin the North America
National Overview - Activity
National Overview - Activity
National Overview - Activity
What Do We Know?• “based upon the personal experiences ofthose involved in the practice of virtualschooling” (Cavanaugh et...
What About The Research?• “a paucity of research exists whenexamining high school students enrolledin virtual schools, and...
Analysis of Primary & Secondary Focused Articlesin the Main Distance Education Journals (2005-10)Australia Canada New Zeal...
What Does The Research Say?1. Comparisons of student performance based upondelivery model (i.e., classroom vs. online)2. S...
What About That Performance Research?
Student PerformanceStudy FindingBallas & Belyk (2000) performance of virtual and classroom students inAlberta were similar...
But Look A Little Closer...
Students and Student PerformanceStudy SampleBallas & Belyk(2000)participation rate in the assessment amongvirtual students...
Are We Comparing Apples to Apples?
The StudentsStudy SampleKozma et al. (1998) vast majority of VHS students in their courses wereplanning to attend a four-y...
Is This Representative of All K-12 Online Students?
Student Reality???• two courses with thehighest enrollment ofonline students in the USare Algebra I & Algebra II(Patrick, ...
Student Reality???• many cyber schools havea higher percentage ofstudents classified as“at-risk” (Klein, 2006)• at-risk st...
Literatureindicates K-12online learningstudents are...
Reality of most ora large segmentK-12 onlinelearningstudents?
Including Wider Range of StudentsState of Colorado – 2006 Online EducationPerformance Audit– “Online student scores in mat...
Including Wider Range of StudentsState of Wisconsin – Legislative Audit of VirtualCharter Schools (2010)– “Virtual charter...
Including Wider Range of StudentsState of Colorado – iNews Network Investigation(2011)– “Half of the online students wind ...
Including Wider Range of StudentsState of Minnesota – 2011 K-12 Online LearningLegislative Audit– “Full-time online studen...
Including Wider Range of StudentsMiron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding andimproving full-time virtual schools. Den...
The Other Side of the Story…University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the ArkansasVirtual Academy School (ARVA)When co...
The Other Side of the Story…University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the ArkansasVirtual Academy School (ARVA)When co...
The Other Side of the Story…University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the ArkansasVirtual Academy School (ARVA)Online ...
Are More Students Really At-RiskMiron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding and improving full-timevirtual schools. Denv...
Is Research Really Guiding Us?
33
Digital Learning Now1. All students are digital learners.2. All students have access to high quality digital content and o...
Digital Learning Now1. All students are digital learners.2. All students have access to high quality digital content and o...
Or Is This More Random?
What’s Really Driving this Growth??
The ChallengeWhether onlinelearning canbe suitable forall K-12students?(Mulcahy, 2002)
The ChallengeHow do wecreate anenvironmentwhere all K-12students canbe successfulwhen they learnonline?
My Own Research Agenda• Continuing to examine thepolicy and regulation of K-12 distance educationin Canada– potentially ex...
My Own Research Agenda• Working withindividual K-12online learningprogram to helpthem to effectivelydesign, deliver &suppo...
My Own Research Agenda• Countering thedominant narrativepresented by theneo-liberalsupporters of K-12online learning inthe...
YourQuestionsandComments
Assistant ProfessorWayne State University, USAmkbarbour@gmail.comhttp://www.michaelbarbour.comhttp://virtualschooling.word...
Job Talk: Research (2013): Sacred Heart University
Job Talk: Research (2013): Sacred Heart University
Job Talk: Research (2013): Sacred Heart University
Job Talk: Research (2013): Sacred Heart University
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Job Talk: Research (2013): Sacred Heart University

235

Published on

These are the slides from my research-focused job talk at Sacred Heart University in April 2013.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
235
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Job Talk: Research (2013): Sacred Heart University

  1. 1. What’s Driving K-12 OnlineLearning?Research and Policy ResponsesMichael K. BarbourAssistant ProfessorWayne State University
  2. 2. History of K-12 Online Learningin the North America
  3. 3. National Overview - Activity
  4. 4. National Overview - Activity
  5. 5. National Overview - Activity
  6. 6. What Do We Know?• “based upon the personal experiences ofthose involved in the practice of virtualschooling” (Cavanaugh et al., 2009)• described the literature as generally fallinginto one of two general categories: thepotential benefits of and challenges facing K-12 online learning (Barbour & Reeves, 2009)
  7. 7. What About The Research?• “a paucity of research exists whenexamining high school students enrolledin virtual schools, and the research baseis smaller still when the population ofstudents is further narrowed to theelementary grades”(Rice, 2006)
  8. 8. Analysis of Primary & Secondary Focused Articlesin the Main Distance Education Journals (2005-10)Australia Canada New Zealand United StatesAmerican Journal of DistanceEducation (United States) 8Distance Education(Australia) 2 4Journal of DistanceEducation (Canada)1 4Journal of Distance Learning(New Zealand).5* 1 .5*Total 3 4.5* 1 12.5** One article had a focus on both Canada and the United States
  9. 9. What Does The Research Say?1. Comparisons of student performance based upondelivery model (i.e., classroom vs. online)2. Studies examining the qualities and characteristicsof the teaching/learning experience– characteristics of– supports provided to– issues related to isolation of online learners (Rice, 2006)1 Effectiveness of virtual schooling2 Student readiness and retention issues (Cavanaughet al., 2009)
  10. 10. What About That Performance Research?
  11. 11. Student PerformanceStudy FindingBallas & Belyk (2000) performance of virtual and classroom students inAlberta were similar in English and Social Studiescourses, but that classroom students performedbetter overall in all other subject areasBigbie & McCarroll(2000)over half of the students who completed FLVScourses scored an A in their course and only 7%received a failing gradeBarker & Wendel(2001)students in the six virtual schools in three differentprovinces performed no worse than the studentsfrom the three conventional schoolsCavanaugh et al.(2005)FLVS students performed better on a non-mandatory assessment tool than students from thetraditional classroomMcLeod et al. (2005) FLVS students performed better on an assessmentof algebraic understanding than their classroomcounterpartsBarbour & Mulcahy(2008)little difference in the overall performance ofstudents based upon delivery modelBarbour & Mulcahy(2009a)no difference in student performance based uponmethod of course delivery
  12. 12. But Look A Little Closer...
  13. 13. Students and Student PerformanceStudy SampleBallas & Belyk(2000)participation rate in the assessment amongvirtual students ranged from 65% to 75%compared to 90% to 96% for the classroom-based studentsBigbie & McCarroll(2000)between 25% and 50% of students haddropped out of their FLVS courses over theprevious two-year periodCavanaugh et al.(2005)speculated that the virtual school studentswho did take the assessment may have beenmore academically motivated and naturallyhigher achieving studentsMcLeod et al.(2005)results of the student performance were dueto the high dropout rate in virtual schoolcourses
  14. 14. Are We Comparing Apples to Apples?
  15. 15. The StudentsStudy SampleKozma et al. (1998) vast majority of VHS students in their courses wereplanning to attend a four-year collegeEspinoza et al., 1999 VHS courses are predominantly designated as‘honors,’ and students enrolled are mostly collegeboundHaughey & Muirhead(1999)preferred characteristics include the highlymotivated, self-directed, self-disciplined,independent learner who could read and write well,and who also had a strong interest in or ability withtechnologyRoblyer & Elbaum(2000)only students with a high need to control andstructure their own learning may choose distanceformats freelyClark et al. (2002) IVHS students were highly motivated, highachieving, self-directed and/or who liked to workindependentlyMills (2003) typical online student was an A or B studentWatkins (2005) 45% of the students who participated in e-learningopportunities in Michigan were either advancedplacement or academically advanced students
  16. 16. Is This Representative of All K-12 Online Students?
  17. 17. Student Reality???• two courses with thehighest enrollment ofonline students in the USare Algebra I & Algebra II(Patrick, 2007)• largest proportion ofgrowth in K–12 onlinelearning enrollment is withfull-time cyber schools(Watson et al., 2008)
  18. 18. Student Reality???• many cyber schools havea higher percentage ofstudents classified as“at-risk” (Klein, 2006)• at-risk students are asthose who mightotherwise drop out oftraditional schools(Rapp, Eckes & Plurker,2006)
  19. 19. Literatureindicates K-12online learningstudents are...
  20. 20. Reality of most ora large segmentK-12 onlinelearningstudents?
  21. 21. Including Wider Range of StudentsState of Colorado – 2006 Online EducationPerformance Audit– “Online student scores in math, reading, and writinghave been lower than scores for students statewideover the last three years.”– “The difference in performance between onlinestudents and all students statewide is larger in highergrades.”– “Our analysis of Colorado Student Assessment Programresults and repeater, attrition, and dropout ratesindicate that online schools may not be providingsufficiently for the needs of their students.”
  22. 22. Including Wider Range of StudentsState of Wisconsin – Legislative Audit of VirtualCharter Schools (2010)– “Virtual charter school pupils’ median scores on themathematics section of the Wisconsin Knowledge andConcepts Examination were almost always lower thanstatewide medians during the 2005-06 and 2006-07school years.”– “Because of the relative newness of virtual charterschools and their substantial growth sinceinception, readily available information on theperformance of virtual charter school pupils would beof value to parents, school districts, legislators, andother policymakers.”
  23. 23. Including Wider Range of StudentsState of Colorado – iNews Network Investigation(2011)– “Half of the online students wind up leaving within ayear. When they do, they’re often further behindacademically then when they started.”– “Online schools produce three times as many dropoutsas they do graduates. One of every eight onlinestudents drops out of school permanently – a rate fourtimes the state average.”– “Online student scores on statewide achievement testsare consistently 14 to 26 percentage points below stateaverages for reading, writing and math over the pastfour years.”
  24. 24. Including Wider Range of StudentsState of Minnesota – 2011 K-12 Online LearningLegislative Audit– “Full-time online students dropped out much morefrequently.”– “Compared with all students statewide, full-time onlinestudents had significantly lower proficiency rates onthe math MCA-II but similar proficiency rates inreading.”– “During both years [i.e., 2008-09 and 2009-10], full-time online students enrolled in grades 4 through 8made about half as much progress in math, on average,as other students in the same grade.”
  25. 25. Including Wider Range of StudentsMiron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding andimproving full-time virtual schools. Denver, CO:National Education Policy Center.– “…students at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual schoolcompany, are falling further behind in reading and math scoresthan students in brick-and-mortar schools.”– “These virtual schools students are also less likely to remain attheir schools for the full year, and the schools have lowgraduation rates.”– “Children who enroll in a K12 Inc. cyberschool, who receive full-time instruction in front of a computer instead of in a classroomwith a live teacher and other students, are more likely to fallbehind in reading and math. These children are also more likelyto move between schools or leave school altogether – and thecyberschool is less likely to meet federal education standards.”
  26. 26. The Other Side of the Story…University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the ArkansasVirtual Academy School (ARVA)When comparing student performance in mathematics, the researchersfound:• students in the F2F group increased their performance by 1% more thanthe online group from grades 3 to 5 (not statistically significant)• students in the online group increased their performance by 5% morethan the F2F group from grades 4 to 6 (not statistically significant)• students in the online group increased their performance by 2% morethan the F2F group from grades 5 to 7 (not statistically significant)• students in the online group increased their performance by 16% morethan the F2F group from grades 6 to 8 (statistically significant at thep=0.10 level)
  27. 27. The Other Side of the Story…University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the ArkansasVirtual Academy School (ARVA)When comparing student performance in literacy, the researchers found:• students in the F2F group increased their performance by 3% more thanthe online group from grades 3 to 5 (not statistically significant)• students in the online group increased their performance by 11% morethan the F2F group from grades 4 to 6 (statistically significant at thep=0.10 level)• students in the online group increased their performance by 2% morethan the F2F group from grades 5 to 7 (not statistically significant)• students in the online group increased their performance by 7% morethan the F2F group from grades 6 to 8 (not statistically significant)
  28. 28. The Other Side of the Story…University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the ArkansasVirtual Academy School (ARVA)Online cohorts performed statistically significantly better thanF2F cohorts in 2 of 8 measures!There were methodological limitations in the sample (all ofwhich favored the online students):• the online sample had several of its lowest performingstudents removed before they had repeated a grade or haddropped out over the two-year period.• the online sample was a more affluent group.• the online sample had significant fewer minority students.
  29. 29. Are More Students Really At-RiskMiron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding and improving full-timevirtual schools. Denver, CO: National Education Policy Center.– “K12 Inc. virtual schools enroll approximately the same percentages ofblack students but substantially more white students and fewerHispanic students relative to public schools in the states in which thecompany operates”– “39.9% of K12 students qualify for free or reduced lunch, comparedwith 47.2% for the same-state comparison group.”– “K12 virtual schools enroll a slightly smaller proportion of studentswith disabilities than schools in their states and in the nation as a whole(9.4% for K12 schools, 11.5% for same-state comparisons, and 13.1% inthe nation).”– “Students classified as English language learners are significantlyunder-represented in K12 schools; on average the K12 schools enroll0.3% ELL students compared with 13.8% in the same-state comparisongroup and 9.6% in the nation.”
  30. 30. Is Research Really Guiding Us?
  31. 31. 33
  32. 32. Digital Learning Now1. All students are digital learners.2. All students have access to high quality digital content and onlinecourses.3. All students can customize their education using digital contentthrough an approved provider.4. Students progress based on demonstrated competency.5. Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blendedlearning courses are high quality.6. Digital instruction and teachers are high quality.7. All students have access to high quality providers.8. Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of contentand instruction.9. Funding creates incentives for performance, options andinnovation.10. Infrastructure supports digital learning.
  33. 33. Digital Learning Now1. All students are digital learners.2. All students have access to high quality digital content and onlinecourses.3. All students can customize their education using digital contentthrough an approved provider.4. Students progress based on demonstrated competency.5. Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blendedlearning courses are high quality.6. Digital instruction and teachers are high quality.7. All students have access to high quality providers.8. Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of contentand instruction.9. Funding creates incentives for performance, options andinnovation.10. Infrastructure supports digital learning.
  34. 34. Or Is This More Random?
  35. 35. What’s Really Driving this Growth??
  36. 36. The ChallengeWhether onlinelearning canbe suitable forall K-12students?(Mulcahy, 2002)
  37. 37. The ChallengeHow do wecreate anenvironmentwhere all K-12students canbe successfulwhen they learnonline?
  38. 38. My Own Research Agenda• Continuing to examine thepolicy and regulation of K-12 distance educationin Canada– potentially expandingthat study to NewZealand• Examining the preparationof teachers to design,delivery & support K-12online learning
  39. 39. My Own Research Agenda• Working withindividual K-12online learningprogram to helpthem to effectivelydesign, deliver &support K-12 onlinelearning
  40. 40. My Own Research Agenda• Countering thedominant narrativepresented by theneo-liberalsupporters of K-12online learning inthe United States(and elsewhere)
  41. 41. YourQuestionsandComments
  42. 42. Assistant ProfessorWayne State University, USAmkbarbour@gmail.comhttp://www.michaelbarbour.comhttp://virtualschooling.wordpress.com

×