Examining Research   into Primary andSecondary E-LearningSecondary E-LearningSecondary E-Learning    Michael K. Barbour   ...
Agenda1. What does the literature say?2. What do we know based on the research?3. What should we do next?
3
Literature Reviews1. Rice (2006)  – Journal of Research on Technology in     Education1. Barbour & Reeves (2009)  – Comput...
What does the literature say?• “based upon the personal experiences of  those involved in the practice of virtual  schooli...
What about research?• “a paucity of research exists when  examining high school students enrolled  in virtual schools, and...
Is this a problem?“indicative of the foundational descriptive workthat often precedes experimentation in anyscientific fie...
What does the research say?1. Comparisons of student performance based upon   delivery model (i.e., classroom vs. online)2...
So, what does the studentperformance research say?
Student Performance• performance of virtual  and classroom  students in Alberta  were similar in English  and Social Studi...
Student Performance• over half of the students who  completed FLVS courses  scored an A in their course  and only 7% recei...
Student Performance• FLVS students performed  better on a non-mandatory  assessment tool than students  from the tradition...
Let’s look a little closer...
Students and Student PerformanceBallas &      performance of virtual and    participation rate in theBelyk, 2000   classro...
Students and Student PerformanceCavanaugh et FLVS students performed      speculated that the virtualal., 2005    better o...
Student Performance and StudentsSo are we reallycomparing apples toapples?
The Students• the vast majority of VHS  Global Consortium students  in their courses were  planning to attend a  four-year...
The StudentsThe preferred characteristicsinclude the highlymotivated, self-directed,self-disciplined,independent learner w...
The Students• “only students with a high  need to control and structure  their own learning may choose  distance formats f...
The Students• the typical online student  was an A or B student  (Mills, 2003)• 45% of the students who  participated in e...
Literatureindicates K-12online learningstudents are...
Reality of most ora large segmentof K-12 students?
K-12 Online Learning Meta-              Analysis• Cavanaugh (2001) - 16 studies  – +0.147 in favor of K-12 distance educat...
Examining Effect Sizes                Teacher                Effects      Zone of                             Desired Effe...
Results of Interest• Second and third chance programs (d=0.50)• Matching style of learning (d=0.40)• Computer assisted ins...
Results to Consider•   Providing formative evaluation (d=0.90)•   Micro teaching (d=0.88)•   Teacher clarity (d=0.75)•   P...
What about the other research?
Problematic ResearchOnline         7 principles of    Interviews with teachers and courseCourse         effective online  ...
Is there a better way?
Design-Based Research                   Reeves (2006)
Virtual High School Global Consortium • first annual evaluation   – Kozma, Zucker &     Espinoza, 1998 • focused specifica...
Virtual High School Global Consortium • second annual   evaluation   – Espinoza, Dove, Zucker     & Kozma, 1999 • again fo...
Virtual High School Global Consortium • third annual evaluation   – Kozma, Zucker,     Espinoza, McGhee,     Yarnall & Zal...
Virtual High School Global Consortium • content-specific   investigations   – Yamashiro & Zucker, 1999 • examined quality ...
Virtual High School Global Consortium • content-specific   investigations   – Elbaum, McIntyre &     Smith, 2002 • sevente...
Virtual High School Global Consortium • final evaluation   – Zucker & Kozma, 2003 • examined students,   teachers,   admin...
The ChallengeWhether online learning can be suitable for all K-12 students? (Mulcahy, 2002)
YourQuestions  andComments
Assistant Professor     Wayne State University, USA        mkbarbour@gmail.com   http://www.michaelbarbour.comhttp://virtu...
Sabbatical (Te Kura/The Corrrespondence School) - Examining Research into Primary and Secondary E-Learning
Sabbatical (Te Kura/The Corrrespondence School) - Examining Research into Primary and Secondary E-Learning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Sabbatical (Te Kura/The Corrrespondence School) - Examining Research into Primary and Secondary E-Learning

471 views

Published on

Barbour, M. K. (2011, May). Examining research into primary and secondary e-learning. An invited presentation to Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu – The Correspondence School, Wellington, New Zealand.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
471
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • American Journal of Distance Education (United States) - 8 US Journal of Distance Education (Canada) - 4 Cdn / 1 Aus Distance Education (Australia) - 2 Aus / 4 US Journal of Distance Learning (New Zealand) - 1 NZ / 1 Cdn / 1 US-Cdn Last five years - 24 articles out of a total of 262 related to K-12 distance education
  • Cavanaugh and her colleagues speculated that the online students were simply better students McLeod and his colleagues speculated their results were due to the fact that weaker students had dropped out of the online course
  • Sabbatical (Te Kura/The Corrrespondence School) - Examining Research into Primary and Secondary E-Learning

    1. 1. Examining Research into Primary andSecondary E-LearningSecondary E-LearningSecondary E-Learning Michael K. Barbour Assistant Professor Wayne State University
    2. 2. Agenda1. What does the literature say?2. What do we know based on the research?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. Let’s look a little closer...
    14. 14. 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
    15. 15. 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
    16. 16. Student Performance and StudentsSo are we reallycomparing apples toapples?
    17. 17. 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)
    18. 18. The StudentsThe preferred characteristicsinclude the highlymotivated, self-directed,self-disciplined,independent learner whocould read and write well,and who also had a stronginterest in or ability withtechnology (Haughey &Muirhead, 1999)
    19. 19. 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)
    20. 20. 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)
    21. 21. Literatureindicates K-12online learningstudents are...
    22. 22. Reality of most ora large segmentof K-12 students?
    23. 23. K-12 Online Learning 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*
    24. 24. Examining Effect Sizes Teacher Effects Zone of Desired EffectsDevelopmentalEffectsReverseEffects
    25. 25. 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) 26 26
    26. 26. 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)
    27. 27. What about the other research?
    28. 28. 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.
    29. 29. Is there a better way?
    30. 30. Design-Based Research Reeves (2006)
    31. 31. 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
    32. 32. 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
    33. 33. 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
    34. 34. Virtual High School Global Consortium • content-specific investigations – Yamashiro & Zucker, 1999 • examined quality of netcourses offered by VHS • developed standards for future course development
    35. 35. Virtual High School Global Consortium • content-specific investigations – Elbaum, McIntyre & Smith, 2002 • seventeen essential elements for online teaching • written by VHS staff
    36. 36. 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
    37. 37. The ChallengeWhether online learning can be suitable for all K-12 students? (Mulcahy, 2002)
    38. 38. YourQuestions andComments
    39. 39. Assistant Professor Wayne State University, USA mkbarbour@gmail.com http://www.michaelbarbour.comhttp://virtualschooling.wordpress.com

    ×