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.
Michael	
  K.	
  Barbour	
  
Sacred	
  Heart	
  University	
  
1991	
  –	
  first	
  K-­‐12	
  online	
  learning	
  program	
  
	
  
1994	
  –	
  first	
  supplemental	
  program	
  
	
 ...
2000-­‐01	
  –	
  between	
  40,000-­‐50,000	
  students	
  
(Clark,	
  2001)	
  
	
  
2010-­‐11	
  –	
  between	
  one	
 ...
•  A	
  number	
  of	
  scholars	
  have	
  documented	
  the	
  
absence	
  of	
  rigorous	
  reviews	
  of	
  virtual	
 ...
•  Cavanaugh,	
  Barbour	
  and	
  Clark	
  (2009)	
  
defended	
  this	
  state	
  of	
  affairs,	
  writing	
  
that	
  “...
1.  Comparisons	
  of	
  student	
  performance	
  based	
  upon	
  
delivery	
  model	
  (i.e.,	
  classroom	
  vs.	
  on...
Literature Finding
Bigbie &
McCarroll (2000)
…over half of students who completed FLVS courses
scored an A in their course...
Ballas & Belyk
(2000)	
  
participation rate in the assessment among
virtual students ranged from 65% to 75%
compared to 9...
Literature Finding
Kozma et al.
(1998)
“…vast majority of VHS students in their courses
were planning to attend a four-yea...
Literature Finding
CO (2006) “Online student scores in math, reading, and writing have been
lower than scores for students...
Literature Finding
AZ (2011) “[N]early nine of every 10 students enrolled in at least one statewide
online course, all had...
Virtual	
  Public	
  Education	
  In	
  
California:	
  A	
  Study	
  of	
  
Student	
  Performance,	
  
Management	
  Pra...
Several	
  findings	
  suggest	
  that	
  the	
  virtual	
  
education	
  model	
  advanced	
  by	
  K12	
  Inc.	
  in	
  
...
•  Understanding	
  that	
  K¹²-­‐managed	
  schools	
  are	
  
serving	
  large	
  numbers	
  of	
  students	
  who	
  en...
•  K12	
  Inc.	
  virtual	
  schools	
  enroll	
  approximately	
  the	
  same	
  
percentages	
  of	
  black	
  students	...
“AYP	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  reliable	
  measure	
  of	
  school	
  
performance….	
  	
  There	
  is	
  an	
  emerging	
  
c...
But	
  What	
  Else	
  Do	
  We	
  Have?	
  
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-­‐schools-­‐annual-­‐2014	
  
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-­‐...
—  Tom	
  Clark	
  &	
  Michael	
  K.	
  Barbour,	
  
Co-­‐Editors,	
  Stylus,	
  2015	
  
—  Stylus	
  Online,	
  Blend...
 
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
...
Case	
  studies	
  for	
  book	
  (2015)	
  
Australia	
  
(Harris,	
  Ch	
  14)	
  
South	
  Korea	
  
(Kim	
  &	
  Seo,	...
Growing	
  use	
  of	
  open	
  education	
  resources	
  &	
  LMS	
  
(Darrow,	
  Ch	
  3)	
  
Source:	
  www.deltainitia...
Growing	
  use	
  of	
  open	
  learning	
  environments	
  
(Revanaugh,	
  Ch	
  10)	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
...
Robust	
  broadband	
  &	
  wifi	
  needed	
  for	
  mobile	
  learning;	
  
connectivity	
  gaps	
  in	
  schools	
  	
  
...
Developing	
  nations	
  catching	
  up	
  in	
  mobile	
  access;	
  may	
  
“leapfrog”	
  educational	
  technologies	
 ...
Emergence	
  of	
  K–12	
  blended	
  learning	
  has	
  brought	
  online	
  
learning	
  into	
  mainstream	
  	
  
(Rev...
Outside	
  the	
  U.S.,	
  many	
  nations	
  have	
  different	
  
paradigms	
  for	
  digital	
  learning	
  
	
  	
  
—...
Important	
  new	
  roles	
  for	
  K-­‐12	
  teachers	
  as	
  facilitators,	
  
guiding	
  and	
  shaping	
  learning	
 ...
Trend	
  toward	
  increasing	
  personalization	
  via	
  
technology	
  
	
  
—  Personalized	
  learning	
  
(Revenaug...
Online	
  learner	
  interactions	
  increasingly	
  used	
  to	
  adapt	
  
teaching	
  and	
  learning	
  
—  Example:	...
—  Ask	
  the	
  right	
  questions	
  to	
  build	
  	
  
evidence-­‐based	
  practice,	
  such	
  as:	
  
? Under	
  w...
Online	
  is	
  complex;	
  blended	
  even	
  more	
  so	
  
(Ferdig,	
  Cavanaugh	
  &	
  Freidhoff,	
  Ch	
  5)	
  
	
  ...
Session Evaluations Contest
•  Open	
  OLC	
  Conferences	
  Mobile	
  App	
  
•  Navigate	
  to	
  session	
  to	
  evalu...
Director	
  of	
  Doctoral	
  Studies	
  
Sacred	
  Heart	
  University	
  
	
  
mkbarbour@gmail.com	
  
hIp://www.michael...
OLC 2015 - Virtual Schooling and K-12 Online Learning: A Bridge Still Too Far?
OLC 2015 - Virtual Schooling and K-12 Online Learning: A Bridge Still Too Far?
OLC 2015 - Virtual Schooling and K-12 Online Learning: A Bridge Still Too Far?
OLC 2015 - Virtual Schooling and K-12 Online Learning: A Bridge Still Too Far?
OLC 2015 - Virtual Schooling and K-12 Online Learning: A Bridge Still Too Far?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

OLC 2015 - Virtual Schooling and K-12 Online Learning: A Bridge Still Too Far?

324 views

Published on

Barbour, M. K. (2015, October). Virtual schooling and K-12 online learning: A bridge still too far? An invited feature presentation at the 21st annual Online Learning Consortium International Conference, Orlando, FL.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

OLC 2015 - Virtual Schooling and K-12 Online Learning: A Bridge Still Too Far?

  1. 1. Michael  K.  Barbour   Sacred  Heart  University  
  2. 2. 1991  –  first  K-­‐12  online  learning  program     1994  –  first  supplemental  program                    –  first  full-­‐time  program     1996-­‐97  –  creation  of  FLVS  &  VHS     2001  –  K12,  Inc.  begins  first  program    
  3. 3. 2000-­‐01  –  between  40,000-­‐50,000  students   (Clark,  2001)     2010-­‐11  –  between  one  and  four  million   (Ambient  Insights,  2011;  Watson  et  al.,  2011)                            –  K-­‐12  online  learning  activity  in  all  50   states  and  DC  (Watson  et  al.,  2011)     Today  –  between  two  and  six  million  (Ambient   Insights,  2014;  Watson  et  al.,  2014)  
  4. 4. •  A  number  of  scholars  have  documented  the   absence  of  rigorous  reviews  of  virtual  schools   (Barbour  &  Reeves,  2009).     •  “based  upon  the  personal  experiences  of  those   involved  in  the  practice  of  virtual   schooling”  (Cavanaugh,  Barbour  &  Clark  ,  2009)   •  “a  paucity  of  research  exists  when  examining   high  school  students  enrolled  in  virtual  schools,   and  the  research  base  is  smaller  still  when  the   population  of  students  is  further  narrowed  to   the  elementary  grades”  (Rice,  2006)  
  5. 5. •  Cavanaugh,  Barbour  and  Clark  (2009)   defended  this  state  of  affairs,  writing   that  “in  many  ways,  this  [was]  indicative   of  the  foundational  descriptive  work   that  often  precedes  experimentation  in   any  scientific  field.”   •  We  can  ask,  however,  how  long  must  we   wait?  (Barbour,  2011).  
  6. 6. 1.  Comparisons  of  student  performance  based  upon   delivery  model  (i.e.,  classroom  vs.  online)   2.  Studies  examining  the  qualities  and   characteristics  of  the  teaching/learning   experience     —  characteristics  of   —  supports  provided  to   —  issues  related  to  isolation  of  online  learners            (Rice,  2006)     1  Effectiveness  of  virtual  schooling   2  Student  readiness  and  retention  issues   (Cavanaugh  et  al.,  2009)  
  7. 7. Literature Finding Bigbie & McCarroll (2000) …over half of students who completed FLVS courses scored an A in their course & only 7% received a failing grade. Cavanaugh (2001) …effect size slightly in favor of K-12 distance education. Cavanaught et al. (2004) …negative effect size for K-12 distance education. Cavanaugh et al. (2005) FLVS students performed better on a non-mandatory assessment tool than students from the traditional classroom. McLeod et al. (2005) FLVS students performed better on an algebraic assessment than their classroom counterparts. Means et al. (2009) …small effect size favoring online cohorts over face-to- face cohorts based on limited K-12 studies. Chingos & Schwerdt (2014) FLVS students perform about the same or somewhat better on state tests once their pre-high-school characteristics are taken into account.
  8. 8. Ballas & Belyk (2000)   participation rate in the assessment among virtual students ranged from 65% to 75% compared to 90% to 96% for the classroom- based students   Bigbie & McCarroll (2000)   between 25% and 50% of students had dropped out of their FLVS courses over the previous two- year period   Cavanaugh et al. (2005)   speculated that the virtual school students who did take the assessment may have been more academically motivated and naturally higher achieving students   McLeod et al. (2005)   results of the student performance were due to the high dropout rate in virtual school courses  
  9. 9. Literature Finding Kozma et al. (1998) “…vast majority of VHS students in their courses were planning to attend a four-year college.” Espinoza et al. (1999) “VHS courses are predominantly designated as ‘honors,’ and students enrolled are mostly college bound.” Roblyer & Elbaum (2000) “…only students with a high need to control and structure their own learning may choose distance formats freely.” Clark et al. (2002) “IVHS students were highly motivated, high achieving, self-directed and/or who liked to work independently.” Mills (2003) “…typical online student was an A or B student.” Watkins (2005) “…45% of the students who participated in e- learning opportunities in Michigan were either advanced placement or academically advanced students.”
  10. 10. Literature Finding CO (2006) “Online student scores in math, reading, and writing have been lower than scores for students statewide over the last three years.” OH (2009) …online charter school students experienced significantly lower achievement gains compared to brick-and-mortar charter schools in the state. OH (2009) Online charter schools “rank higher when looking at their ‘value- added’ progress over one year rather than simply measuring their one-time testing performance.” WI (2010) “Virtual charter school pupils’ median scores on the mathematics section of the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination were almost always lower than statewide medians during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years.” CO (2011) “Half of the online students wind up leaving within a year. When they do, they’re often further behind academically then when they started.” MN (2011) “Compared with all students statewide, full-time online students had significantly lower proficiency rates on the math MCA-II but similar proficiency rates in reading.”
  11. 11. Literature Finding AZ (2011) “[N]early nine of every 10 students enrolled in at least one statewide online course, all had graduation rates and AIMS math passing rates below the state average” OH (2011) “[N]early 97 percent of Ohio's traditional school districts have a higher score than the average score of the seven statewide” online charter schools. Those schools in Ohio also underperformed brick-and-mortar schools in graduation rates. PA (2011) 100% of these online charter schools performed significantly worse than feeder schools in both reading and math. AR (2012) …online students performed at levels comparable to their face-to-face counterparts in six out of eight measures, and on the remaining two measures online students outperformed their face-to-face counterparts at a 0.10 statistically significant level. National (2012) “…students at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual school company, are falling further behind in reading and math scores than students in brick- and-mortar schools.” KS (2015) “Virtual school students perform similarly to traditional school students in reading before and after controlling for student demographics. After controlling for demographic differences, virtual school students’ performance in math was similar to that of traditional school students.”
  12. 12. Virtual  Public  Education  In   California:  A  Study  of   Student  Performance,   Management  Practices  and   Oversight  Mechanisms  at   California  Virtual   Academies,  a  K12  Inc.   Managed  School  System   http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Virtual_Public_Education_In_California.pdf  
  13. 13. Several  findings  suggest  that  the  virtual   education  model  advanced  by  K12  Inc.  in   California  does  not  adequately  serve  many  of  its   students.  In  every  year  since  it  began   graduating  students,  except  2013,  CAVA  has  had   more  dropouts  than  graduates.  Its  academic   growth  was  negative  for  most  of  its  history  and   it  did  not  keep  up  with  other  demographically   similar  schools  after  2005.  Its  Academic   Performance  Index  scores  consistently  ranked   poorly  against  other  demographically  similar   schools  and  the  state  as  a  whole.  
  14. 14. •  Understanding  that  K¹²-­‐managed  schools  are   serving  large  numbers  of  students  who  enter   behind  grade  level  in  math  and  reading     K12  Inc.  Public  Affairs.  (2012).  Response  to  NEPC  report  on  K12  Inc..  Herndon,  VA:  K12,   Inc..  Retrieved  from  hIp://www.k12.com/response-­‐to-­‐nepc#.VPfKu2TF_Kk  
  15. 15. •  K12  Inc.  virtual  schools  enroll  approximately  the  same   percentages  of  black  students  but  substan'ally  more  white   students  and  fewer  Hispanic  students  relaSve  to  public  schools   in  the  states  in  which  the  company  operates   •  39.9%  of  K12  students  qualify  for  free  or  reduced  lunch,   compared  with  47.2%  for  the  same-­‐state  comparison  group.   •  K12  virtual  schools  enroll  a  slightly  smaller  propor'on  of   students  with  disabili'es  than  schools  in  their  states  and  in  the   naSon  as  a  whole  (9.4%  for  K12  schools,  11.5%  for  same-­‐state   comparisons,  and  13.1%  in  the  naSon).   •  “Students  classified  as  English  language  learners  are   significantly  under-­‐represented  in  K12  schools;  on  average  the   K12  schools  enroll  0.3%  ELL  students  compared  with  13.8%  in   the  same-­‐state  comparison  group  and  9.6%  in  the  naSon.”   Miron,  G.  &  Urschel,  J.  (2012).  Understanding  and  improving  full-­‐?me  virtual  schools.  Denver,  CO:  NaSonal   EducaSon  Policy  Center.  
  16. 16. “AYP  is  not  a  reliable  measure  of  school   performance….    There  is  an  emerging   consensus  to  scrap  AYP  and  replace  it  with  a   better  system  that  measures  academic   progress  and  growth.    K12  has  been   measuring  student  academic  growth  on   behalf  of  its  partner  schools,  and  the  results   are  strong  with  academic  gains  above  the   national  average.”       Jeff  Kwitowski  -­‐  K12,  Inc.  Vice  President  of  Public  Affairs  
  17. 17. But  What  Else  Do  We  Have?  
  18. 18. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-­‐schools-­‐annual-­‐2014   http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-­‐schools-­‐annual-­‐2015     Book:  The  Test-­‐Based  Education  Reforms:  Lessons  from  a  Failed  Agenda     http://www.infoagepub.com/series/National-­‐Education-­‐Policy-­‐Center  
  19. 19. —  Tom  Clark  &  Michael  K.  Barbour,   Co-­‐Editors,  Stylus,  2015   —  Stylus  Online,  Blended  &     Distance  Ed  Series     Michael  G.  Moore,  Editor   Book  Wiki  Portal:  bit.do/obdewiki   (onlineblendedschooling.wikispaces.com)  
  20. 20.                                                   50-­‐nation  iNACOL  survey  (2011)   4/23/2015   24  8  Trends  in  K-­‐12  Online  &  Blended  Learning   Every  continent       except  South  America   represented   North  America    (4)   Oceania    (2)   Europe    (21)   Asia  &     Middle  East    (11)   Africa    (7)   45  NATIONS  PROFILED  
  21. 21. Case  studies  for  book  (2015)   Australia   (Harris,  Ch  14)   South  Korea   (Kim  &  Seo,     Ch    16)   Nepal   (Cavanaugh,  Ch   13)    Canada   (Smallwood  ,   Reaburn  &     Baker,  Ch    12)    USA   (Oliver  &  Weeks,     Ch  8;  Yang  &  Rice,   Ch9;  Revenaugh,  Ch   10;  Ebert  &  Powell,  Ch   11)    UK   (Boulton  &     Hasler  Waters,     Ch    15)  
  22. 22. Growing  use  of  open  education  resources  &  LMS   (Darrow,  Ch  3)   Source:  www.deltainitiative.com  
  23. 23. Growing  use  of  open  learning  environments   (Revanaugh,  Ch  10)                           Source:  Connections  Education  
  24. 24. Robust  broadband  &  wifi  needed  for  mobile  learning;   connectivity  gaps  in  schools     (Rose  et  al,  Ch  7;  Cavanaugh,  Ch  13)     —  National  curriculum  and  assessment  initiatives  may  drive   increased  connectivity         —  Smart  Learning     (S.  Korea)  
  25. 25. Developing  nations  catching  up  in  mobile  access;  may   “leapfrog”  educational  technologies   (Cavanaugh,  Ch  13)              Mobile     Subscriptions      by  Economic     Development              Level    
  26. 26. Emergence  of  K–12  blended  learning  has  brought  online   learning  into  mainstream     (Revanaugh,  Ch  13.  Ebert  &  Powell,  Ch    11)                     Adapted  with  permission  from  "Classifying  K–12  blended  learning,"     by  Heather  Stakerand  Michael  B.  Horn,  ©  2012,  Innosight  Institute.    
  27. 27. Outside  the  U.S.,  many  nations  have  different   paradigms  for  digital  learning       —  Little  full-­‐time  K-­‐12  online  learning   —  Online  learning  used  when  F2F  unavailable   —  Any  digital  tech  use  may  be  considered  “e-­‐learning”   (Smallwood,  Reaburn  &  Baker,  Ch  12;  Cavanaugh,  Ch  13;  Harris,  Ch   14;  Boulton  &  Hasler-­‐Waters,  Ch  15;  Kim  &  Seo,  Ch  16)   DIGITAL  WORLDWIDE…   LEARNING   ENVIRON-­‐ MENTS   CURRIC-­‐ ULUM   RESOUR-­‐   CES   REPOSI-­‐   TIORIES   LITERACY  
  28. 28. Important  new  roles  for  K-­‐12  teachers  as  facilitators,   guiding  and  shaping  learning     —  Primarily  provide   scaffolding,  support  and   intervention.   —  Effective  practices   (Kennedy  &  Archambault,   Ch.  2);  Certifications  and   Endorsements  (Yang  &   Rice,  Ch.  9)  
  29. 29. Trend  toward  increasing  personalization  via   technology     —  Personalized  learning   (Revenaugh,  Ch  10)   —  Individualized  learning   (Smallwood,  Reaburn     &  Baker,  Ch  12;  Harris,  Ch14)   —  Authentic  collaborative  activities   (Boulton  &  Hasler  Waters,  Ch  15)  
  30. 30. Online  learner  interactions  increasingly  used  to  adapt   teaching  and  learning   —  Example:  Nexus  Academy   —  dynamic  F2F  grouping  of  students   to  learn  a  specific  objective  based   on  CC-­‐aligned  embedded  testing   —  use  of  adaptive  testing  to   personalize  learning  program,  track   progress   (Revenaugh,  Ch  10)  
  31. 31. —  Ask  the  right  questions  to  build     evidence-­‐based  practice,  such  as:   ? Under  what  conditions  does     K-­‐12  online  and  blended   learning  work  best?   Rather  than  asking:   ? Does  it  work  better     than  face-­‐to-­‐face?   (Ferdig,  Cavanaugh,  &  Freidhoff,  Ch  5)  
  32. 32. Online  is  complex;  blended  even  more  so   (Ferdig,  Cavanaugh  &  Freidhoff,  Ch  5)                
  33. 33. Session Evaluations Contest •  Open  OLC  Conferences  Mobile  App   •  Navigate  to  session  to  evaluate     •  Click  on  "Rate  this  Session“   •  Complete  Session  Evaluation*     (As  part  of  our  "green"  initiatives,  OLC  is  no  longer  using  paper  forms  for  session   evaluations.)   *Contact  information  required  for  contest  entry  but  will  not  be  shared  with  the  presenters.     Winners  will  be  contacted  post-­‐conference.     Each  session  evaluation  completed  (limited  to  one  per  session)  =  one  contest   entry   Five  (5)  $25  gift  cards  will  be  awarded  to  five  (5)  individuals     Must  submit  evals  using  the  OLC  Conferences  mobile  app  
  34. 34. Director  of  Doctoral  Studies   Sacred  Heart  University     mkbarbour@gmail.com   hIp://www.michaelbarbour.com   hIp://virtualschooling.wordpress.com  

×