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.

OTC 2011 - K-12 Online Education

519 views

Published on

Barbour, M. K. (2011, June). K-12 online education. A presentation at the 2011 Online Teaching Conference, http://www.nextleveleducator.com/onlineteachingconference.html.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

OTC 2011 - K-12 Online Education

  1. 1. K-12 Online Education:Examining the Research Michael K. Barbour Assistant Professor Wayne State University
  2. 2. Agenda1. What does the literature and research say?2. What does this mean for K-12 online learning?3. What should we do next?
  3. 3. 3
  4. 4. Literature Reviews1. Rice (2006) – Journal of Research on Technology in Education1. Barbour & Reeves (2009) – Computers and Education1. Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark (2009) – International Review of Research in Open
  5. 5. What does the literature say?• “based upon the personal experiences of those involved in the practice of virtual schooling” (Cavanaugh et al., 2009)• described the literature as generally falling into one of two general categories: the potential benefits of and challenges facing K- 12 online learning (Barbour & Reeves, 2009)
  6. 6. What about research?• “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)
  7. 7. Is this a problem?“indicative of the foundational descriptive workthat often precedes experimentation in anyscientific field. In other words, it is important toknow how students in virtual school engage intheir learning in this environment prior toconducting any rigorous examination of virtualschooling.” (Cavanaugh et al., 2009)
  8. 8. What does the research say?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 schooling2 Student readiness and retention issues (Cavanaugh et al., 2009)
  9. 9. So, what does the studentperformance research say?
  10. 10. Student Performance• performance of virtual and classroom students in Alberta were similar in English and Social Studies courses, but that classroom students performed better overall in all other subject areas (Ballas & Belyk, 2000)
  11. 11. Student Performance• over half of the students who completed FLVS courses scored an A in their course and only 7% received a failing grade (Bigbie & McCarroll, 2000)• students in the six virtual schools in three different provinces performed no worse than the students from the three conventional schools (Barker & Wendel, 2001)
  12. 12. Student Performance• FLVS students performed better on a non-mandatory assessment tool than students from the traditional classroom (Cavanaugh et al., 2005)• FLVS students performed better on an assessment of algebraic understanding than their classroom counterparts (McLeod et al., 2005)
  13. 13. Barbour & Mulcahy – Ed in Rural Australia (2008)
  14. 14. Barbour & Mulcahy – ERS Spectrum (2009)
  15. 15. Let’s look a little closer...
  16. 16. Students and Student PerformanceBallas & performance of virtual and participation rate in theBelyk, 2000 classroom students similar assessment among virtual in English & Social Studies students ranged from 65% to courses, but classroom 75% compared to 90% to students performed better 96% for the classroom-based in all other subject areas studentsBigbie & over half of the students between 25% and 50% ofMcCarroll, who completed FLVS students had dropped out2000 courses scored an A in of their FLVS courses over their course and only 7% the previous two-year received a failing grade period
  17. 17. Students and Student PerformanceCavanaugh et FLVS students performed speculated that the virtualal., 2005 better on a non- school students who did mandatory assessment take the assessment may tool than students from have been more the traditional classroom academically motivated and naturally higher achieving studentsMcLeod et FLVS students performed results of the studental., 2005 better on an assessment performance were due to of algebraic understanding the high dropout rate in than their classroom virtual school courses counterparts
  18. 18. Student Performance and StudentsSo are we reallycomparing apples toapples?
  19. 19. The Students• the vast majority of VHS Global Consortium students in their courses were planning to attend a four-year college (Kozma, Zucker & Espinoza, 1998)• “VHS courses are predominantly designated as ‘honors,’ and students enrolled are mostly college bound” (Espinoza et al., 1999)
  20. 20. The StudentsThe preferred characteristicsinclude the highly motivated,self-directed, self-disciplined,independent learner whocould read and write well,and who also had a stronginterest in or ability withtechnology (Haughey &Muirhead, 1999)
  21. 21. The Students• “only students with a high need to control and structure their own learning may choose distance formats freely” (Roblyer & Elbaum, 2000)• IVHS students were “highly motivated, high achieving, self-directed and/or who liked to work independently” (Clark et al., 2002)
  22. 22. The Students• the typical online student was an A or B student (Mills, 2003)• 45% of the students who participated in e-learning opportunities in Michigan were “either advanced placement or academically advanced” students (Watkins, 2005)
  23. 23. But does this represent all of our online students?
  24. 24. Academic tracks in Newfoundland & Labrador• English language arts• mathematics• academic stream - graduation, college, university, etc.• basic stream - graduation, trade school• virtual school program only offers academic streamed courses
  25. 25. Barbour & Mulcahy – ERS Spectrum (2009)
  26. 26. Enrollment - English Language Arts
  27. 27. Enrollment - Mathematics
  28. 28. Mulcahy, Dibbon and Norberg (2008)• study of rural schooling in three schools on the south coast of the Labrador• found two had a higher percentage of students enrolled in basic-level courses• speculated because the only way students could do academic course at their school was online, some students specifically chose the basic stream to avoid taking an online course Students who enroll in the basic stream are not eligible for post-secondary admittance!
  29. 29. Literatureindicates K-12online learningstudents are...
  30. 30. Student Reality???• two courses with the highest enrollment of online students in the US are Algebra I & Algebra II (Patrick, 2007)• largest proportion of growth in K–12 online learning enrollment is with full-time cyber schools (Watson et al., 2008)• many cyber schools have a higher percentage of students classified as “at-risk” (Klein, 2006)• at-risk students are as those who might otherwise drop out of traditional schools (Rapp, Eckes & Plurker, 2006)
  31. 31. Reality of most ora large segmentK-12 onlinelearningstudents?
  32. 32. Problem With Student Performance Studies
  33. 33. Cavanaugh (2001)• Allen & Thompson (1995) • Libler (1991)• Blanton et al. (1997) • Martin & Rainey (1993)• Burkman (1994) • McBride (1990)• Center for Applied Special • Riel (1990) Technology (1996) • Rudolf (1986)• Erickson (1992) • Ryan (1996)• Gray (1996) • Sisung (1992)• Hinnant (1994) • Smith (1990) • Wick (1997)
  34. 34. Problem of Effect SizesReverseEffects
  35. 35. Problem of Effect SizesDevelopmentalEffects
  36. 36. Problem of Effect Sizes Teacher Effects
  37. 37. Problem of Effect Sizes Zone of Desired Effects
  38. 38. Examining Effect Sizes Teacher Effects Zone of Desired EffectsDevelopmentalEffectsReverseEffects
  39. 39. Synthesis of Meta-Analysis• Cavanaugh (2001) - 16 studies – +0.147 in favor of K-12 distance education• Cavanaugh et al. (2004) - 14 studies – -0.028 for K-12 distance education• Means et al. (2009) - 46 studies (5 on K-12) – +0.24 favoring online over face-to-face – +0.35 favoring blended over face-to-face*
  40. 40. Results of Interest• Second and third chance programs (d=0.50)• Matching style of learning (d=0.40)• Computer assisted instruction (d=0.37)• Decreasing disruptive behavior (d=0.34)• Programmed instruction (d=0.24)• Individualized instruction (d=0.23)• Class size (d=0.21)• Charter schools (d=0.20)• Web-based learning (d=0.18)• Home-school programs (d=0.16)• Teacher training (d=0.11)• Teacher subject matter knowledge (d=0.09)• Distance education (d=0.09)• Student control over learning (d=0.04) 40
  41. 41. Results to Consider• Providing formative evaluation (d=0.90)• Micro teaching (d=0.88)• Teacher clarity (d=0.75)• Providing feedback (d=0.73)• Teacher-student relationships (d=0.72)• Teaching strategies (d=0.60)• Cooperative vs. individualistic learning (d=0.59)• Study skills (d=0.59)• Direct instruction (d=0.59)• Mastery learning (d=0.58)• Worked examples (d=0.57)• Concept mapping (d=0.57)• Goals (d=0.56)• Peer tutoring (d=0.55)• Cooperative vs. competitive learning (d=0.54)
  42. 42. What about the other research?
  43. 43. Problematic ResearchOnline 7 principles of Interviews with teachers and courseCourse effective online developers at a single virtual school,Design course content with no verification of whether the for adolescent interviewees’ perceptions were actuallyBarbour learners effective or any student input at all for(2005; 2007) that matter.Online 37 best Interviews with teachers at a singleTeaching practices in virtual school selected by the virtual asynchronous school itself. Their teachers’ beliefsDiPietro et online teaching were not validated through observational. (2008) of the teaching or student performance.
  44. 44. Is there a better way?
  45. 45. Design-Based Research Reeves (2006)
  46. 46. Virtual High School Global Consortium • first annual evaluation – Kozma, Zucker & Espinoza, 1998 • focused specifically on the seven goals set by VHS • identified five areas to focus on for future practice
  47. 47. Virtual High School Global Consortium • second annual evaluation – Espinoza, Dove, Zucker & Kozma, 1999 • again focused specifically on the seven goals set by VHS • identified three areas to focus on for future practice
  48. 48. Virtual High School Global Consortium • third annual evaluation – Kozma, Zucker, Espinoza, McGhee, Yarnall & Zalles, 2000 • re-examined status of last year’s evaluation finding • focused upon only one of the seven goals set by VHS
  49. 49. Virtual High School Global Consortium • content-specific investigations – Yamashiro & Zucker, 1999 • examined quality of netcourses offered by VHS • developed standards for future course development
  50. 50. Virtual High School Global Consortium • content-specific investigations – Elbaum, McIntyre & Smith, 2002 • seventeen essential elements for online teaching • written by VHS staff
  51. 51. Virtual High School Global Consortium • final evaluation – Zucker & Kozma, 2003 • examined students, teachers, administrators perceptions of the program • outlined successes and areas to focus on for future years
  52. 52. The ChallengeWhether online learning can be suitable for all K-12 students? (Mulcahy, 2002)
  53. 53. YourQuestions andComments
  54. 54. Assistant Professor Wayne State University, USA mkbarbour@gmail.com http://www.michaelbarbour.comhttp://virtualschooling.wordpress.com

×