Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Evalua&on	and	Approval	
Constructs	For	K-12	Online	and	
Blended	Courses	and	Providers	
Michael	Barbour	&	Tom	Clark
Barbour,	M.	K.,	Clark,	T.,	DeBruler,	K.,	&	Bruno,	J.	A.	(2014).	
Evalua&on	and	approval	constructs	for	online	and	blended	...
•  Growth	in	K-12	online	&	blended	learning	programs	
&	enrollments,	in	MI	&	U.S.	
•  MI	Legislature	li]s	ban	on	cyber	cha...
•  MVU	tasked	to	develop	MVLRI	(PA	201,	2012)	
•  Provide	leadership	for	MI	online	&	blended	learning	
•  Key	MVLRI	task:	...
•  Purpose:	To	examine	exis&ng	policies	and	prac&ces	
related	to	the	evalua&on	and	approval	of	K-12	
online	learning	in	th...
Six	Dimensions	of	Considera&on	
Evalua&on	&	Approval:	
Level	
Provider	/	Course		
Evalua&on	&	Approval:	
Timeframe	
Front-...
•  RQ1:	How	do	states	evaluate	the	quality	of	online	
learning	courses?		
•  States	typically	focus	either	at	course	or	pr...
•  RQ2:	How	do	states	ini&ally	evaluate	the	quality	of	
online	learning	programs?		
•  24	states	require	iniGal	approval	o...
•  RQ3:	How	do	states	ensure	the	quality	of	online	
learning	programs	on	an	on-going	basis?		
•  All	states	that	permit	F-...
•  Con&nue	input-focused	evalua&on	and	approval	
processes	for	F-T	online	schools	
– Seek	to	ensure	they	meet	basic	qualit...
•  Define	blended	schools	with	a	significant	online	
learning	component,	and	track	their	results	
– For	example,	define	blend...
•  Consider	adop&ng	an	intensive	state	review	
process	for	F-T	online	schools	
– A]er	two	years	of	operaGon	or	on	a	period...
•  Adopt	a	student	growth	model	for	K-12	student	
performance	data	analysis	
– Provide	public	online	access	to	comparaGve	...
•  Collaborate	ac&vely	with	educa&onal	researchers	
to	help	build	the	evidence	base	for	what	works	in	
K-12	online	and	ble...
•  Adopt	processes	across	states	for	evidence-based	
third	party	external	valida&on	of	K-12	online	
courses	and	program	qu...
Thank	you!		
Michael	Barbour 	 	 	 						Tom	Clark	
MVLRI	Fellow 	 	 	 																				MVLRI	Fellow	 							
mkbarbour...
AECT 2016 - Evaluation and Approval Constructs For K-12 Online and Blended Courses and Providers
AECT 2016 - Evaluation and Approval Constructs For K-12 Online and Blended Courses and Providers
AECT 2016 - Evaluation and Approval Constructs For K-12 Online and Blended Courses and Providers
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

AECT 2016 - Evaluation and Approval Constructs For K-12 Online and Blended Courses and Providers

180 views

Published on

Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2016, October). Evaluation and approval constructs for K-12 online and blended courses and providers. A paper presentation at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Las Vegas, NV.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AECT 2016 - Evaluation and Approval Constructs For K-12 Online and Blended Courses and Providers

  1. 1. Evalua&on and Approval Constructs For K-12 Online and Blended Courses and Providers Michael Barbour & Tom Clark
  2. 2. Barbour, M. K., Clark, T., DeBruler, K., & Bruno, J. A. (2014). Evalua&on and approval constructs for online and blended courses and providers. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual Learning Research InsGtute at MVU. Retrieved from hMp:// media.mivu.org/insGtute/pdf/eval_constructs.pdf Barbour, M. K., Clark, T., DeBruler, K., & Bruno, J. A. (2016). EvaluaGon and approval constructs for online and blended courses and providers: A naGonal overview. Journal of Applied EducaGonal and Policy Research, 2(1), 32-47. Retrieved from hMps://journals.uncc.edu/jaepr/arGcle/view/469 MVLRI Fellows
  3. 3. •  Growth in K-12 online & blended learning programs & enrollments, in MI & U.S. •  MI Legislature li]s ban on cyber charters (PA 227, 2010) •  Removes restricGons, creates pro-growth policies (PA 129, 2012) •  Growth is outpacing research on quality in K-12 OLL Overview
  4. 4. •  MVU tasked to develop MVLRI (PA 201, 2012) •  Provide leadership for MI online & blended learning •  Key MVLRI task: research, develop, and recommend annually to the department criteria by which cyber schools and online course providers should be monitored and evaluated to ensure a quality educa&on for their pupils (p.44). Overview
  5. 5. •  Purpose: To examine exis&ng policies and prac&ces related to the evalua&on and approval of K-12 online learning in the U.S. – RQ1: How do states evaluate the quality of online learning courses? – RQ2: How do states iniGally evaluate the quality of online learning programs? – RQ3: How do states ensure the quality of online learning programs on an on-going basis? Methodology
  6. 6. Six Dimensions of Considera&on Evalua&on & Approval: Level Provider / Course Evalua&on & Approval: Timeframe Front-End/Ongoing Approval Requirement OpGonal / Required Geographic Reach MulG-Dist / Single Dist Modes of Instruc&on Fully Online / Blended Instruc&on Full-Gme / Supplemental
  7. 7. •  RQ1: How do states evaluate the quality of online learning courses? •  States typically focus either at course or provider level •  Some do both (GA, for example) •  11 states evaluate course quality •  MD’s MVLO and CA’s CLRN: good prescripGve & opGonal review examples Findings
  8. 8. •  RQ2: How do states ini&ally evaluate the quality of online learning programs? •  24 states require iniGal approval of F-T providers; approval process ranges from simple to complex •  33 states require iniGal approval of F-T programs (usually as charters) •  Example: GA Findings
  9. 9. •  RQ3: How do states ensure the quality of online learning programs on an on-going basis? •  All states that permit F-T online public schools require them to report like other public schools •  At least 5 states require ongoing addiGonal reporGng or audits, beyond standard reporGng •  Examples: AZ, MI •  One state (CO) recently removed ongoing evaluaGon, now only has iniGal approval Findings
  10. 10. •  Con&nue input-focused evalua&on and approval processes for F-T online schools – Seek to ensure they meet basic quality standards during development & startup – Consider eliminaGon of input processes not supported by research or evidence of student impact Recommenda&ons
  11. 11. •  Define blended schools with a significant online learning component, and track their results – For example, define blended as 30%-80% of instrucGonal Gme online – Track results separately from F-T online (over 80%) – Track separately from supplemental use in tradiGonal schools (under 30% online) Recommenda&ons
  12. 12. •  Consider adop&ng an intensive state review process for F-T online schools – A]er two years of operaGon or on a periodic basis as funding permits – BC: good external audit model – WA: good P-T vs F-T differenGal review model Recommenda&ons
  13. 13. •  Adopt a student growth model for K-12 student performance data analysis – Provide public online access to comparaGve analyses of data – Facilitate comparison of F-T online, blended, and tradiGonal school results Recommenda&ons
  14. 14. •  Collaborate ac&vely with educa&onal researchers to help build the evidence base for what works in K-12 online and blended learning Recommenda&ons
  15. 15. •  Adopt processes across states for evidence-based third party external valida&on of K-12 online courses and program quality – Work in collaboraGon with professional associaGons, associaGons of states, online learning providers, and post-secondary insGtuGons Recommenda&ons
  16. 16. Thank you! Michael Barbour Tom Clark MVLRI Fellow MVLRI Fellow mkbarbour@gmail.com tom@taconsulGng.net Kristen DeBruler & MVRLI colleagues kdebruler@mivu.org

×