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.
Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation
Me… What Do We Really Know About
Today’s Students and How They Learn?
Michael ...
Generational Differences
The theory that people born
within an approximately 20
year time period share a
common set of cha...
Today’s Student
•  Generation Y
•  Echo
•  Net Generation
•  Neomillennials
•  Generation NeXt
•  Millennials
•  Generatio...
Today’s Student: Which Fit Your Students?
Gamers Digital Natives Socially
Conscious
Disdain Previous
Generations
High Expe...
Generational Boundaries
•  GI Generation “Greatest Generation”
–  Born between 1901 and 1924
•  Silent Generation
–  Born ...
Generational Boundaries
•  Generation X
–  Born between 1965 and 1980/1985
•  Millennials/Gen Y/Digital Natives/Net Genera...
Generational Differences
The theory that people born
within an approximately 20
year time period share a
common set of cha...
GI Generation “Greatest Generation”
Silent Generation
-
Baby Boomers
-
Generation X
-> 2 separate generations
Generation Me Numbers
•  60 million – were largest
group since the Baby
Boomers (72 million)
•  3 times larger than
Genera...
Generation Z Numbers
•  Made up 26% of U.S.
population in 2015
•  Numerically speaking,
larger in numbers than
Baby Boomer...
Generation Z Numbers
•  Self-identify as: loyal,
compassionate, thoughtful,
open-minded, responsible,
and determined
•  Mo...
Today's
youth “are
recasting the
image of
youth from
downbeat
and alienated
to upbeat
and
engaged.”
•  Children of baby
boomers
•  Digital technology has
had a profound impact on
their personalities,
including their attitu...
Millennials
•  Based upon survey
research
•  Sample from Fairfax,
VA
Howe, N., & Strauss, W.
(2000). Millennials rising:
T...
Digital Natives
•  Common in the media and
in education circles
•  No systematic research
•  Makes unfounded
assumptions a...
Generational Differences and Training
•  Thomas Reeves (University of
Georgia) completed a funded
literature review on gen...
“Today's young people
have been raised to aim
for the stars at a time
when it is more difficult
than ever to get into
coll...
•  In 2002, 74% of high school students
admitted to cheating whereas in 1969
only 34% admitted such a failing. (p. 27)
•  ...
Oblinger, D. (2003). Understanding the new student.
EDUCAUSE Review, 38(3), 36-42.
“When asked
about problems
facing their...
“The number one
thing to realize with
the Millennials is
that as a whole they
reflect much more
parental
perfectionism tha...
What Else Do We Know About
Today’s Students?
The Master Multitasker???
Memory encoding
and memory
retrieval weaker
in teens when
attention is
divided
Naveh-Benjamin,	M...
Other Multitasking Studies
•  Herath, P., Klingberg, T., Yong, J., Amunts, K., & Roland, P. (2001). Neural
correlates of d...
Digital Savviness?
Digital Savviness?
•  Today’s students’
technical knowledge is
broad, but shallow
•  Technical fluency
does not equal
matu...
What Do We Know About
Online Learners?
Davis (2007)
Supplemental
Borup (2015)
Full-Time
Supplemental Online Learners
Supplemental Online Learners
Bigbie &
McCarroll (2000)	
over half of students who completed FLVS courses
scored an A in th...
Ballas & Belyk
(2000)	
participation rate in the assessment among
virtual students ranged from 65% to 75%
compared to 90% ...
Haughey &
Muirhead (1999)	
preferred characteristics include the highly motivated,
self-directed, self-disciplined, indepe...
•  Online	student	scores	in	math,	reading,	and	wriXng	
have	been	lower	than	scores	for	students	statewide	
over	the	last	t...
Supplemental	Online	Learners
Supplemental	Online	Learners
•  Online	credit	recovery	students	more	difficult	and	had	
more	negaXve	abtudes	about	the	subject	than	
students	in	the	face...
•  Half	of	the	online	students	wind	up	leaving	within	a	year,	
and	when	they	do	they’re	oeen	further	behind	
academically	...
•  Students	are	falling	further	behind	in	reading	and	
math	scores	than	students	in	brick-and-mortar	schools		
(NaXonal	-	...
Full-Time	Online	Learners	
•  approximately	the	same	percentages	of	black	students	but	
substan'ally	more	white	students	a...
•  have	a	similar	proporXon	of	low-income	students,	but	
a	substanXally	higher	average	of	Hispanic	students	
•  reported	m...
What Else Do We Know?
Two Key Points
•  Introducing
technology alone is
never enough.
•  Big gains in
productivity come
when new
technologies ar...
Two Key Points
•  Introducing
technology alone is
never enough.
•  Big gains in learning
come when new
technologies are
co...
What Can We Recommend?
Best Practices
•  A strategy that shows promise
•  A systematic study is designed to
investigate that strategy
•  Aspects ...
Best Practices
•  A strategy that shows promise
•  A systematic study is designed to
investigate that strategy
•  Aspects ...
•  A number of scholars have documented the absence of rigorous
reviews of virtual schools (Barbour & Reeves, 2009).
•  “b...
Research
•  design-based approach to first
five years of VHS
–  SRI International were external
evaluators
•  identified s...
•  based on University of Florida’s Virtual
School Clearinghouse initiative
–  AT&T Foundation-funded project from
2006-20...
Virtual School Teacher Roles
•  Virtual School Designer: Course Development
–  design instructional materials
–  works in ...
Promising Practices
Lack of professional development
•  less than 40% of online teachers reported to
receiving any profess...
Promising Practices
Online teaching is more work
•  asynchronous instruction in particular
What is becoming known about te...
Promising Practices
Teaching Online Open Learning (GAVS)
•  https://www.openteachertraining.org/
K-12 Blended & Online Lea...
Promising Practices
•  Presence of an active, engaged local level
support person (Roblyer, Freeman,
Stabler, & Schneidmill...
Promising Practices
National Research Center on Rural Education
Support, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
•  train...
Promising Practices
National Research Center on Rural Education Support,
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
•  Those...
Promising Practices
Role of the parent
•  full-time environment
–  parent is responsible for significant instruction
–  pr...
Promising Practices
•  Educational Success Prediction
Instrument
– technology use and technology self-efficacy
(10 items)
...
Promising Practices
•  Student orientation for readiness skills in
online learning
– Jason Siko (sikojp@gmail.com)
•  Onli...
Your
Questions
and
Comments
Associate Professor of Instructional Design
College of Education & Health Services
Touro University, California
mkbarbour@...
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?

440 views

Published on

Barbour, M. K. (2016, October). Digital natives, net generation, generation me… What do we really know about today’s students and how they learn? A presentation at the annual meeting of the Provincial and Territorial Distance Education Association, Edmonton, AB.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

PTDEA 2016 - Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me…What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn?

  1. 1. Digital Natives, Net Generation, Generation Me… What Do We Really Know About Today’s Students and How They Learn? Michael K. Barbour Touro University, California
  2. 2. Generational Differences The theory that people born within an approximately 20 year time period share a common set of characteristics based upon the historical experiences, economic and social conditions, technological advances and other societal changes they have in common
  3. 3. Today’s Student •  Generation Y •  Echo •  Net Generation •  Neomillennials •  Generation NeXt •  Millennials •  Generation Me •  Digital Natives •  Generation txt •  Generation Z •  iGeneration •  Gen Tech •  Gen Wii •  Plurals
  4. 4. Today’s Student: Which Fit Your Students? Gamers Digital Natives Socially Conscious Disdain Previous Generations High Expectations Spoiled Rotten Respect Intelligence Value Diversity Expect Incomes Exceeding Parents Experiential Learners Optimistic and Positive Family Oriented Collaborative Nomadic Inclusive Have More Friends Healthy Lifestyle Clueless Direct More Liberal Achievement Oriented Media Consumer Patriotic More Conservative Value Balanced Lives Multi-tasker Confident Entitled
  5. 5. Generational Boundaries •  GI Generation “Greatest Generation” –  Born between 1901 and 1924 •  Silent Generation –  Born between 1925 and 1945 •  Baby Boomers –  Born between 1946 and 1964 •  Generation X –  Born between 1965 and 1980 •  Millennials/Gen Y/Digital Natives/ Net Generation/Generation Me –  Born between 1981 and 1995/2005 •  Generation Z/iGeneration/Gen Tech/ Gen Wii/Net Gen/Digital Natives/Plurals/Becomers –  Born since 1995/2005
  6. 6. Generational Boundaries •  Generation X –  Born between 1965 and 1980/1985 •  Millennials/Gen Y/Digital Natives/Net Generation/ Generation Me –  Born between 1981/1986 and 1995/2005 •  Generation Z/iGeneration/ Gen Tech/Gen Wii/Net Gen/ Digital Natives/Plurals/ Becomers –  Born between 1995/2005 and 2010/present •  Generation alpha –  Born since 2011/2015
  7. 7. Generational Differences The theory that people born within an approximately 20 year time period share a common set of characteristics based upon the historical experiences, economic and social conditions, technological advances and other societal changes they have in common
  8. 8. GI Generation “Greatest Generation” Silent Generation - Baby Boomers - Generation X -> 2 separate generations
  9. 9. Generation Me Numbers •  60 million – were largest group since the Baby Boomers (72 million) •  3 times larger than Generation X •  Teen population is growing at twice the rate of the rest of America •  Made up 24.5% of U.S. population in 2015
  10. 10. Generation Z Numbers •  Made up 26% of U.S. population in 2015 •  Numerically speaking, larger in numbers than Baby Boomers (72 million) and Millennials (60 million) •  Almost half are non-White
  11. 11. Generation Z Numbers •  Self-identify as: loyal, compassionate, thoughtful, open-minded, responsible, and determined •  More risk-averse •  Double level of church attendance than Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers •  Most connected (across all demographics)
  12. 12. Today's youth “are recasting the image of youth from downbeat and alienated to upbeat and engaged.”
  13. 13. •  Children of baby boomers •  Digital technology has had a profound impact on their personalities, including their attitudes and approach to learning •  Generation gap has become a generation lap Net Generation
  14. 14. Millennials •  Based upon survey research •  Sample from Fairfax, VA Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation New York: Vintage Books.
  15. 15. Digital Natives •  Common in the media and in education circles •  No systematic research •  Makes unfounded assumptions about access to digital technology Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants – Part II: Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9(6).
  16. 16. Generational Differences and Training •  Thomas Reeves (University of Georgia) completed a funded literature review on generational differences •  Most generational differences in the literature were based on no or flawed research Reeves, T. C. (2008). Do genera)onal differences ma1er in instruc)onal design? Paper presented to ITForum. Retrieved from h>p://iAorum.coe.uga.edu/Paper104/ ReevesITForumJan08.pdf
  17. 17. “Today's young people have been raised to aim for the stars at a time when it is more difficult than ever to get into college, find a good job, and afford a house. Their expectations are very high just as the world is becoming more competitive, so there's a huge clash between their expectations and reality.”
  18. 18. •  In 2002, 74% of high school students admitted to cheating whereas in 1969 only 34% admitted such a failing. (p. 27) •  In 1967, 86% of incoming college students said that “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” was an essential life goal whereas in 2004 only 42% of GenMe freshmen agreed. (p. 48) •  In 2004, 48% of American college freshmen reported earning an A average in high school whereas in 1968 only 18% of freshmen reported being an A student in high school. (p. 63) •  In the 1950s, only 12% of young teens agreed with the statement “I am an important person” whereas by the late 1980s, 80% claimed they were important. (p. 69)
  19. 19. Oblinger, D. (2003). Understanding the new student. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(3), 36-42. “When asked about problems facing their generation, many millennials respond that the biggest one is the poor example that adults set for kids.” p. 36
  20. 20. “The number one thing to realize with the Millennials is that as a whole they reflect much more parental perfectionism than any generation in living memory. Colleges and universities should know that they are not just getting a kid, but they are also getting a parent.”
  21. 21. What Else Do We Know About Today’s Students?
  22. 22. The Master Multitasker??? Memory encoding and memory retrieval weaker in teens when attention is divided Naveh-Benjamin, M., Kilb, A., & Fisher, T. (2006). Concurrent task effects on memory encoding and retrieval: Further support for an asymmetry. Memory & Cogni)on, 34(1), 90-101.
  23. 23. Other Multitasking Studies •  Herath, P., Klingberg, T., Yong, J., Amunts, K., & Roland, P. (2001). Neural correlates of dual task interference can be dissociated from those of divided attention: an fMRI study. Cereb. Cortex 11, 796 – 805. – longer time •  Fisch, S. (2000). A capacity model of children’s comprehension of educational content on television. Media Psychology, 2(1), 63-91. •  Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediate message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70. – simultaneous tasks limit memory •  Just, M. A., Kellera, T. A., & Cynkara, J. (2008). A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak . Brain Research, 1205, 70-80. – less likely to remember
  24. 24. Digital Savviness?
  25. 25. Digital Savviness? •  Today’s students’ technical knowledge is broad, but shallow •  Technical fluency does not equal maturity http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0506/rs/ers0506w.pdf
  26. 26. What Do We Know About Online Learners?
  27. 27. Davis (2007) Supplemental
  28. 28. Borup (2015) Full-Time
  29. 29. Supplemental Online Learners
  30. 30. Supplemental Online Learners Bigbie & McCarroll (2000) over half of students who completed FLVS courses scored an A in their course & only 7% received a failing grade Barker & Wendel (2001) students in the six virtual schools in three different provinces performed no worse than the students from the three conventional schools 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 Barbour & Mulcahy (2008, 2009) little difference in the overall performance of students based upon delivery model 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
  31. 31. 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 Supplemental Online Learners
  32. 32. Haughey & Muirhead (1999) preferred characteristics include the highly motivated, self-directed, self-disciplined, independent learner who could read and write well, and who also had a strong interest in or ability with technology 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 Supplemental Online Learners
  33. 33. •  Online student scores in math, reading, and wriXng have been lower than scores for students statewide over the last three years (Colorado - 2006) •  Full-Xme K-12 online students scored lower on state assessments than tradiXonal students, parXcularly in mathemaXcs (Kansas – 2007) •  Student performance in cyber charter schools was quite negaXve compared to their face-to-face counterparts (Ohio - 2009) •  Virtual charter school pupils median scores on the mathemaXcs were almost always lower than statewide medians during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years (Wisconsin - 2010) Full-Time Online Learners
  34. 34. Supplemental Online Learners
  35. 35. Supplemental Online Learners
  36. 36. •  Online credit recovery students more difficult and had more negaXve abtudes about the subject than students in the face-to-face course •  Online credit recovery students had lower assessment scores, grades, and credit recovery rates than face-to- face course students •  Longer-term academic outcomes have been found to be about the same or worse for students in the online and face-to-face credit recovery courses Supplemental Online Learners
  37. 37. •  Half of the online students wind up leaving within a year, and when they do they’re oeen further behind academically then when they started (Colorado, 2011) •  Compared with all students statewide, full-Xme online students had significantly lower proficiency rates on the math, but similar proficiency rates in reading (Minnesota - 2011) •  90% of student a>ended cyber charter schools that were rated as ineffecXve (Ohio - 2011) •  Nearly nine of every 10 students enrolled in at least one statewide online course, all had graduaXon rates and math passing rates below the state average (Arizona – 2011) Full-Time Online Learners
  38. 38. •  Students are falling further behind in reading and math scores than students in brick-and-mortar schools (NaXonal - 2012) •  Online students performed at similar levels in reading, but at lower levels in mathemaXcs (Kansas, 2015) •  For students in online charters, the typical academic gains for math equivalent to 180 fewer days of learning and equivalent to 72 fewer days for reading (NaXonal – 2015) Full-Time Online Learners
  39. 39. Full-Time Online Learners •  approximately the same percentages of black students but substan'ally more white students and fewer Hispanic students relaXve to public schools in the states in which the company operates •  39.9% of [full-'me online learners] qualify for free or reduced lunch, compared with 47.2% for the same-state comparison group •  enroll a slightly smaller propor'on of students with disabili'es than schools in their states and in the naXon as a whole •  students classified as English language learners are significantly under-represented Miron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding and improving full-)me virtual schools. Denver, CO: NaXonal EducaXon Policy Center.
  40. 40. •  have a similar proporXon of low-income students, but a substanXally higher average of Hispanic students •  reported more than twice as many students per teacher •  tended to score even lower on performance measures than virtual schools •  on-Xme (or four-year) graduaXon rate was half the naXonal average at 37.4% Blended Learners
  41. 41. What Else Do We Know?
  42. 42. Two Key Points •  Introducing technology alone is never enough. •  Big gains in productivity come when new technologies are combined with new ways of doing business.
  43. 43. Two Key Points •  Introducing technology alone is never enough. •  Big gains in learning come when new technologies are combined with new ways of teaching.
  44. 44. What Can We Recommend?
  45. 45. Best Practices •  A strategy that shows promise •  A systematic study is designed to investigate that strategy •  Aspects of the strategy are refined •  Large scale studies are designed to test the strategy •  Strategy is found to be highly effective in a variety of contexts over multiple studies
  46. 46. Best Practices •  A strategy that shows promise •  A systematic study is designed to investigate that strategy •  Aspects of the strategy are refined •  Large scale studies are designed to test the strategy •  Strategy is found to be highly effective in a variety of contexts over multiple studies
  47. 47. •  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) •  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” Best Practices
  48. 48. Research •  design-based approach to first five years of VHS –  SRI International were external evaluators •  identified seven goals and focused all of their research and evaluation •  resulted in: –  three annual evaluations –  one five-year evaluation –  two subject specific evaluations
  49. 49. •  based on University of Florida’s Virtual School Clearinghouse initiative –  AT&T Foundation-funded project from 2006-2009 •  designed to provide K-12 online learning programs, particularly statewide supplemental programs, with data analysis tools and metrics for school improvement •  13 of those K-12 online programs were outlined in a publication entitled Lessons Learned for Virtual Schools: Experiences and Recommendations from the Field Black, Ferdig, DiPietro (2008) Research
  50. 50. Virtual School Teacher Roles •  Virtual School Designer: Course Development –  design instructional materials –  works in team with teachers and a virtual school to construct the online course, etc. •  Virtual School Teacher: Pedagogy & Class Management –  presents activities, manages pacing, rigor, etc. –  interacts with students and their facilitators –  undertakes assessment, grading, etc. •  Virtual School Site Facilitator: Mentoring & Advocating –  local mentor and advocate for student(s) –  proctors & records grades, etc. Davis (2007)
  51. 51. Promising Practices Lack of professional development •  less than 40% of online teachers reported to receiving any professional development before they began teaching online (Rice & Dawley, 2007) Lack of teacher preparation programs •  less than 2% of universities in the United States provided any systematic training in their pre-service or in-service teacher education programs (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012) Teaching Online Open Learning •  https://www.openteachertraining.org/
  52. 52. Promising Practices Online teaching is more work •  asynchronous instruction in particular What is becoming known about teacher training •  learn online in order to teach online •  design of online courses works better with team of teachers and online/blended program
  53. 53. Promising Practices Teaching Online Open Learning (GAVS) •  https://www.openteachertraining.org/ K-12 Blended & Online Learning (KSU) •  http://mooc.kennesaw.edu/courses/k12- blended.php Virtual Teacher Specialization (UC-Irvine) •  https://www.coursera.org/specializations/ virtual-teacher
  54. 54. Promising Practices •  Presence of an active, engaged local level support person (Roblyer, Freeman, Stabler, & Schneidmiller, 2007) •  Facilitator that focuses on soft learning skills, not necessarily content (Barbour & Mulcahy, 2004, 2009)
  55. 55. Promising Practices National Research Center on Rural Education Support, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill •  training program that was provided as a part of this research initiative included topics such as issues for the first day of school, how to talk about and support online assignments, potential student fears, helping to develop time management skills, assisting with the problem of too much work, what to do when students become disengaged, and how to ease students who are worried about their grades (Irvin, Hannum, Farmer, de la Varre, & Keane,2009)
  56. 56. Promising Practices National Research Center on Rural Education Support, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill •  Those who undertook the training were retained at a higher rate than students attending schools where the Virtual School Facilitator did not participate in the training (Hannum, Irvin, Lei, & Farmer, 2008) •  Effective facilitators were described as having being individuals who had “a good, working relationship, who were consistently responsive in their interactions with the teacher, and engaged with and interested in their students”(de la Varre, Keane, & Irvin, 2010, pp. 202– 203) •  Facilitator was important in sharing the teacher presence with the Virtual School Teacher in the online learning environment, increasing the students sense of community and decreasing the sense of isolation felt by students (de la Varre, Keane, & Irvin, 2011)
  57. 57. Promising Practices Role of the parent •  full-time environment –  parent is responsible for significant instruction –  programs need to consider how to •  measure parental involvement (Liu, Black, Algina, Cavanaugh, & Dawson, 2010) •  foster their engagement (Borup, Graham, & Davies, 2013; Halser Waters & Leong, 2014; Klein, 2006) •  overall findings –  parental involvement tends to decrease as student performance increases (Borup, Graham, & Davies, 2013)
  58. 58. Promising Practices •  Educational Success Prediction Instrument – technology use and technology self-efficacy (10 items) – achievement beliefs (6 items) – risk-taking (6 items) – organization strategies (3 items) Roblyer, Davis, Mills, Marshall, & Pape (2008)
  59. 59. Promising Practices •  Student orientation for readiness skills in online learning – Jason Siko (sikojp@gmail.com) •  Online Learning Orientation Tool (MVU) –  http://olot.mivu.org.
  60. 60. Your Questions and Comments
  61. 61. Associate Professor of Instructional Design College of Education & Health Services Touro University, California mkbarbour@gmail.com http://www.michaelbarbour.com

×