Barbour, M. K. (2012, November). The landscape of K-12 online learning: Examining what is known. A paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Louisville, KY. While the use of online learning at the K-12 level of growing exponentially, the availability of empirical evidence to help guide this growth is severely lacking. The presenter provides an overview of the nature of K-12 online learning today and a critical examination of the literature and – lack of research – supporting its use. The presenter further describes some of the methodological issues surround the limited among of existing research.

1. The Landscape of K-12 Online
Learning: Examining What Is
Known
Michael K. Barbour
Assistant Professor
Wayne State University

2. 2

3. Digital Learning Now
1. All students are digital learners.
2. All students have access to high quality digital content and online
courses.
3. All students can customize their education using digital content
through an approved provider.
4. Students progress based on demonstrated competency.
5. Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blended
learning courses are high quality.
6. Digital instruction and teachers are high quality.
7. All students have access to high quality providers.
8. Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content
and instruction.
9. Funding creates incentives for performance, options and
innovation.
10. Infrastructure supports digital learning.

4. Digital Learning Now
1. All students are digital learners.
2. All students have access to high quality digital content and online
courses.
3. All students can customize their education using digital content
through an approved provider.
4. Students progress based on demonstrated competency.
5. Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blended
learning courses are high quality.
6. Digital instruction and teachers are high quality.
7. All students have access to high quality providers.
8. Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content
and instruction.
9. Funding creates incentives for performance, options and
innovation.
10. Infrastructure supports digital learning.

5. 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)
• 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)

6. Student Performance
• students in the six virtual schools
in three different provinces
performed no worse than the
students from the three
conventional schools (Barker &
Wendel, 2001)
• FLVS students performed better
on a non-mandatory assessment
tool than students from the
traditional classroom
(Cavanaugh et al., 2005)

7. Student Performance
• FLVS students performed
better on an assessment of
algebraic understanding than
their classroom counterpart
(McLeod et al., 2005)
• CDLI students performed as
well as classroom-based
students on final course scores
& exam marks (Barbour &
Mulcahy, 2007; 2008)

8. Digital Learning is High Quality
Cavanaugh et FLVS students performed speculated that the virtual
al., 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
students
McLeod et FLVS students performed results of the student
al., 2005 better on an assessment performance were due to
of algebraic understanding the high dropout rate in
than their classroom virtual school courses
counterparts

9. Barbour & Mulcahy – Ed in Rural Australia (2008)

10. Barbour & Mulcahy – ERS Spectrum (2009)

11. Enrollment - English Language Arts

12. Enrollment - Mathematics

13. 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!

14. 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)

15. The Students
• the 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
(Haughey & Muirhead, 1999)
• “only students with a high need to
control and structure their own
learning may choose distance
formats freely” (Roblyer & Elbaum,
2000)

16. The Students
• IVHS students were
“highly motivated, high
achieving, self-directed
and/or who liked to work
independently” (Clark et
al., 2002)
• the typical online student
was an A or B student
(Mills, 2003)

17. The Students
• 45% of the students
who participated in e-
learning opportunities in
Michigan were “either
advanced placement or
academically advanced”
students (Watkins,
2005)

18. Literature
indicates K-12
online learning
students are...

19. Reality of most or
a large segment
K-12 online
learning
students?

20. Digital Learning is High Quality
• “…it is evident that the poor test results for students in
nonclassroom-based charter schools pull down the average
performance of students in charter schools…” (California,
2003)
• “Online student scores in math, reading, & writing have
been lower than scores for students statewide over the last
3 years.” (Colorado, 2006)
• “The estimates for the virtual charter schools are negative,
substantial, and (in three of four estimates) statistically
significant.” (Ohio, 2009)

21. Digital Learning is High Quality
• “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.” (Wisconsin, 2010)
• “The AYP ratings for virtual schools managed by EMOs were
substantially weaker than the ratings for the brick-and-mortar
schools. While only 27.4% of the virtual schools operated by for-
profit EMOs met AYP, 51.8% of the brick-and-mortar schools met
AYP.” (Nationally, 2011)
• “The largest online schools in K-12 lag the state averages among
all Arizona public schools in most standardized test scores and in
graduation rates.” (Arizona, 2011)

22. Digital Learning is High Quality
• “Online student scores on statewide achievement tests are
consistently 14 to 26 percentage points below state
averages for reading, writing and math over the past four
years.” (Colorado, 2011)
• “Of the 23 E-schools rated by the Ohio Department of
Education for the 2009-2010 school year, only three rated
“effective” or better on the state report card.” (Ohio, 2011)
• “Compared with all students statewide, full-time online
students had significantly lower proficiency rates on the
math.” (Minnesota, 2011)

23. Digital Learning is High Quality
• “During both years [2008-09 & 2009-10], full-time online
students enrolled in grades 4-8 made about half as much
progress in math, on average, as other students in the same
grade. (Minnesota, 2011)
• “While the performance of K12 schools on the AYP measure
is poor, it is important to note that other EMOs that
operate virtual schools have similarly weak performance
levels…”
• “…there are now more AYP ratings available for K12 schools
and we have adjusted the AYP rate for K12 schools
downwards to 27.7% which is almost identical to the
average for all EMO-operated virtual schools (27.4%).”

24. Digital Learning is High Quality
University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the Arkansas
Virtual Academy School (ARVA)
There were methodological limitations in the sample (all of
which favored the online students):
• the online sample had several of its lowest performing
students removed before they had repeated a grade or had
dropped out over the two-year period.
• the online sample was a more affluent group.
• the online sample had significant fewer minority students.

25. Digital Learning is High Quality
University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the Arkansas
Virtual Academy School (ARVA)
When comparing student performance in mathematics, the researchers found:
• students in the face-to-face group increased their performance by 1% more
than the online group from grades 3 to 5 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 5% more than
the face-to-face group from grades 4 to 6 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 2% more than
the face-to-face group from grades 5 to 7 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 16% more than
the face-to-face group from grades 6 to 8 (statistically significant at the
p=0.10 level)

26. Digital Learning is High Quality
University of Arkansas Internal Evaluation of the Arkansas
Virtual Academy School (ARVA)
When comparing student performance in literacy, the researchers found:
• students in the face-to-face group increased their performance by 3% more
than the online group from grades 3 to 5 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 11% more than
the face-to-face group from grades 4 to 6 (statistically significant at the
p=0.10 level)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 2% more than
the face-to-face group from grades 5 to 7 (not statistically significant)
• students in the online group increased their performance by 7% more than
the face-to-face group from grades 6 to 8 (not statistically significant)

27. Customization

28. Analyzing Meta-Analyses
Teacher
Effects Zone of
Desired Effects
Developmental
Effects
Reverse
Effects

29. K-12 Distance Education 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*

30. Results of Interest
• Programmed instruction (d=0.24)
• Individualized instruction (d=0.23)
• Student control over learning (d=0.04)
• Second and third chance programs (d=0.50)
• Computer assisted instruction (d=0.37)
• Decreasing disruptive behavior (d=0.34)
• 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)
30

31. Are students really learning?

32. Does online learning = high quality?

33. What’s This Really About???

34. What Do We Know?
What Do We Know?

35. What Else Do We Know?
1. Teachers aren’t being trained.
2. No validated standards to guide
practice.
3. Local support is critical to student
success.

36. What Else Do We Know?
4. K-12 online learning costs less.
5. Smaller, targeted programs have
shown best results.
6. Managed growth has prevented
academic missteps.

37. Potential Useful Models
1. Requirement to target at-risk or dropped out
students. (Michigan)
2. Tying funding to completion and performance.
(Arizona)
3. Focus on quality assurance. (British
Columbia/Texas)
4. Limiting growth. (Multiple states)
5. Funding full-time K-12 online learning at lower
rates. (Multiple states)

38. Your
Questions
and
Comments

39. Assistant Professor
Wayne State University, USA
mkbarbour@gmail.com
http://www.michaelbarbour.com
http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com