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.
Teacher-Student Interactionin a State-led Virtual High SchoolAbigail Hawkins, Brigham Young UniversityMichael K. Barbour, ...
U.S. Virtual Schooling Context   Explosive growth     1997:    2 states in 2009: 46 (Watson, Gemin,   Ryan, & Wicks 2009...
Virtual Schooling Challenge   Attrition in K-12 online learning is aproblem.    (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Berge & Clark, 2...
Purpose of Study   What is the correlation between student    perceptions of the quality and frequency of    teacher-stud...
Study Context>Utah’s Electronic HighSchool               State-led virtual high school                1 of 8 virtual sch...
Study Context>Utah’s Electronic HighSchool   Asynchronous, self-    paced, supplemental, rolling-enrollment model       ...
K-12 Teacher-Student Interactionin DE   Why teacher-student interaction?     Central DE theory     Factor within instit...
Mixed-Method ResearchDesignResearch             Participants       Data Collection     Method ofQuestion                  ...
Results > Reason for Enrolling    Reason for Enrollment      Frequency   Percent            Space in schedule 454         ...
Results >Procedural Q.    Non Completers / Completers   Q2. When I had difficulty understanding the class policies and   ...
Results >Feedback Q.    Non Completers / Completers   Q5. When I had difficulty understanding the class material, I could...
Results >Social Interaction Q.ABCD, Non Completers   Q10. I felt comfortable interacting with my teacher.                ...
Results > ABCD, NonCompleters   Q22. I felt comfortable interacting with my teacher.   Possible Implications:     Lack ...
Results > Similarities on ReportedBehaviors   Majority interactions instructional in nature     Gradeassignments and giv...
Results > Differences on ReportedBehaviorsHigh Completer Teachers                    Low Completer Teachers   Some social...
Results > Similarities in Perception ofRole   View curriculum as teacher     “The   material on there is the teacher ess...
Results > Differences in Perception ofRoleHigh Completer Teachers   Low Completer Teachers   Encourager               Sh...
Implications   Teachers expressed a desire for more    synchronous, higher fidelity interactions.     Provide   supports...
Abigail Hawkinsabbyhawkins7@gmail.com  Michael K. Barbour mkbarbour@gmail.com   Charles R. Grahamcharles_graham@byu.edu
Selected References   Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A    review of the literatu...
Selected References   Smith, R., Clark, T., &Blomeyer, R. (2005). A synthesis of new    research in K-12 online learning....
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

AERA 2010 - Teacher-Student Interaction in a State-Led Virtual High School

561 views

Published on

Hawkins, A., Graham, C., & Barbour, M. K. (2010, April). Teacher-student interaction in a state-led virtual high school. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

This study investigates teacher-student interaction in a large, state-led virtual high school. A sample of 15,000 student are surveyed to examine their perceptions of the quality and frequency of instructional, procedural, and social interactions and how these correlate with student academic achievement and course progress. Interviews of select teachers with high and low completion rates explore attitudinal and behavioral differences exhibited between the two groups in relation to teacher-student interaction. Findings from this study can be used to identify best-practices for use in professional development programs and improve interactivity for K-12 online teachers and students.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AERA 2010 - Teacher-Student Interaction in a State-Led Virtual High School

  1. 1. Teacher-Student Interactionin a State-led Virtual High SchoolAbigail Hawkins, Brigham Young UniversityMichael K. Barbour, Wayne State UniversityCharles R. Graham, Brigham YoungUniversity
  2. 2. U.S. Virtual Schooling Context Explosive growth  1997: 2 states in 2009: 46 (Watson, Gemin, Ryan, & Wicks 2009) Student body increasingly diverse (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Watson, Gemin, & Ryan, 2008) Traditionally taken to supplement brick-and- mortar schooling. Growing as a full-time option. Viable choice in U.S. educational landscape
  3. 3. Virtual Schooling Challenge Attrition in K-12 online learning is aproblem. (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Berge & Clark, 2005; Bigbie&McCarroll, 2000; Cavanaugh, Gillan, Bosnick, Hess, & Scott, 2005; McLeod, Hughes, Brown, Choi, & Maeda, 2005; Rice, 2006; Smith, Clark, &Blomeyer, 2005; Zucker&Kozma, 2003). Teacher – student interaction may be key to student success, as proven in higher education (Rice, 2006; Smith et al., 2005)
  4. 4. Purpose of Study What is the correlation between student perceptions of the quality and frequency of teacher-student interaction and student academic performance and progress in self- paced, asynchronous online secondary courses? How are are teachers’ reported interactions and perceptions of their role similar or different for courses with high and low completion rates?
  5. 5. Study Context>Utah’s Electronic HighSchool State-led virtual high school 1 of 8 virtual schools in Utah (Watson & Ryan, 2008) Oldest (est. 1994) and one of largest (2008 enrollments = 47,932) (CELT2005-2008 2009) Student Enrollments: Evaluation, 60000 50000# of students 47932 40000 Significant growth over 30000 time. 32065 20000 10000 4493 0 802 2005 2006 2007 2008 years
  6. 6. Study Context>Utah’s Electronic HighSchool Asynchronous, self- paced, supplemental, rolling-enrollment model  Virtually no peer-peer interaction 75 part-time teachers, 4 administrators, 92 unique courses, 11 disciplines Policy changes, Oct. 2007  30 days inactivity then automatically dropped  Six-month completion time
  7. 7. K-12 Teacher-Student Interactionin DE Why teacher-student interaction?  Central DE theory  Factor within institutions’ control  Fits EHS context Majority of interaction research in higher education
  8. 8. Mixed-Method ResearchDesignResearch Participants Data Collection Method ofQuestion Technique Analysis1. Correlation 36,791 18-item fixed Descriptivebetween student enrollments from response, cross- statistics, Crossperceived quality Feb. 1, 2008 – sectional survey. Tabulation, Mannand frequency of Jan 31, 2009 Student academic Whitneyinteraction and across all performance data.academic disciplines.performance.2. Teacher 6 teachers total: Semi-structured Thematic analysisreported 3 high telephone Cross-caseinteractions and completions interviews comparisonsperceived roles in 3 low completionshigh and low in English, Math,course completion Social Sciencerates
  9. 9. Results > Reason for Enrolling Reason for Enrollment Frequency Percent Space in schedule 454 40.2% Faster to complete 87 7.7% Class I failed 113 10.0% Graduate Early 95 8.4% Adult HS Diploma 16 1.4% Proceed at own pace 50 4.4% Easier than online 26 2.3% Special needs 63 5.6% Sounded interesting 53 4.7% 3.5% Other 113 10.0%respons Missing from System 29 2.6% e rate Total 1129 100%
  10. 10. Results >Procedural Q. Non Completers / Completers Q2. When I had difficulty understanding the class policies and procedures (e.g., turning in assignment, knowing what my current grade was, which assignments I needed to re-do, etc.), I could get help from my teacher. Cross Tabs Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Non Completer 120 233 257 610 % 19.7% 38.2% 42.1% 100% Completer 49 218 232 499 % 9.8% 43.7% 46.5% 100% Significant: Chi Square p= .000; Mann Whitney p = .004; Eta: .137; ABCD Possible Implications:  Non completers had a harder time getting help understanding policies and procedures than completers  Help seeking strategies likely poorer for non completers than completers  Logistical problems may prevent student progress.
  11. 11. Results >Feedback Q. Non Completers / Completers Q5. When I had difficulty understanding the class material, I could get help from my teacher. Cross Tabs Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total Non 119 261 224 694 Completers 17.1% 37.6% 32.3% 100% % Completers 59 228 210 497 % 11.8% 45.8% 42.3% 100% Significant: Chi Square p= .002; Mann Whitney p = .005; Eta =.107; ABCD Possible Implications:  Twice as many non completers as completers had difficulty getting help.  Help not available? Not know how to access help?
  12. 12. Results >Social Interaction Q.ABCD, Non Completers Q10. I felt comfortable interacting with my teacher. Cross Tabs Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total A 45 195 133 373 % 12.1% 52.3% 35.7% 100% B 23 54 24 101 % 22.8% 53.5% 23.8% 100% C 7 8 4 19 % 26.8% 42.1% 21.1% 100% D 1 1 2 4 % 25% 25% 50% 100% Non Completer 145 266 191 602 % 24.1% 47.7% 32.2% 100% Significance: Chi Square p =.000; Eta: .129; Non Completers/Completers, Non starters/ Starters
  13. 13. Results > ABCD, NonCompleters Q22. I felt comfortable interacting with my teacher. Possible Implications:  Lack of engagement = function of comfort/connection/community not content  EHS Teacher interview findings (n=8)  Virtually all interaction over content only  Communicate ONLY if initiated by student  Students may be more likely to ask for help from teachers if they know who teachers are and have positive relationship with teacher.
  14. 14. Results > Similarities on ReportedBehaviors Majority interactions instructional in nature  Gradeassignments and give feedback  Answer student-initiated questions via email  Exception: High Completion Geometry > via telephone 15% Few procedural interactions Majority of contact initiated by students
  15. 15. Results > Differences on ReportedBehaviorsHigh Completer Teachers Low Completer Teachers Some social interaction  Virtually no social (defined as personalized feedback on “about me” assignment) interactions 2 of 3 email encouragement to near  1 of 3 email inactive students, encouragement to unsystematic and near inactive students, unscheduled systematic, scheduled One adapt assignments  No differences in and one “I treat them all the same” treatment
  16. 16. Results > Similarities in Perception ofRole View curriculum as teacher  “The material on there is the teacher essentially.” View self as TA / Grader View feedback as subordinate role to teaching  Do not perceive feedback as teaching View self as removed from the student and student experience.
  17. 17. Results > Differences in Perception ofRoleHigh Completer Teachers Low Completer Teachers Encourager  Sheppard/Manage 2 of 3 teachers Movement  Herd them through  Student owns it  Self-guided w/o teacher
  18. 18. Implications Teachers expressed a desire for more synchronous, higher fidelity interactions.  Provide supports to accomplish this. Teachers beliefs regarding types of interactions possible act as barriers to interaction Institutional factors act as barriers to interaction  Incentive to disengage
  19. 19. Abigail Hawkinsabbyhawkins7@gmail.com Michael K. Barbour mkbarbour@gmail.com Charles R. Grahamcharles_graham@byu.edu
  20. 20. Selected References Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402-416. Berge, Z. L., && Clark, T. (2005). Virtual schools planning for success. New York: Teachers College Press. Bigbie, C., &McCarroll, W. (2000). The florida virtual high evaluation 1999- 2000 report. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.flvs.net/educators/documents/pdf/archived_evals/FLVS%20Ann ual%20Evaluations/99-2000/99-2000%20Year%20End%20Evaluation.pdf Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Bosnick, J., Hess, M., & Scott, H. (2005). Succeeding at the gateway: Secondary algebra learning in the virtual school. Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40. Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-448.
  21. 21. Selected References Smith, R., Clark, T., &Blomeyer, R. (2005). A synthesis of new research in K-12 online learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Watson, J., Gemin, B., & Ryan, J. (2008). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/downloads/KeepingPace_2008.pdf Watson, J., Gemin, B., Ryan, J., & Wicks, M. (2009). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A review of state- level policy and practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/downloads/KeepingPace09- fullreport.pdf Weiner, C. (2003). Key ingredients to online learning: Adolescent students study in cyberspace - the nature of the study. International Journal of E-Learning, July-September, 44-50.

×