This came through my inbox a few weeks ago and I’ve left it open in my Firefox tabs until I had a chance to talk a bit about it.
Download Report — Learning Virtually: Expanding Opportunities
Published on Sunday, November 16, 2008 – 06:58 PM
The paper highlights the opportunities offered through virtual learning to provide each student the promise of access to age- and ability appropriate curriculum, rich and extensive resources and accurate and up-to-date assessments regardless of location, economic situation or time. When effectively used, virtual learning allows for student centered, self-directed, self-paced learning that greatly enhances the curriculum offerings schools provide.
Anyway, if you look at the report, it provides a nice overview to the realm of K-12 online learning, but there are a couple of items that I do take issue with. They begin on page 2 of the report, where it reads:
Virtual Learning Research
- The Virtual High School (VHS) Advanced Placement research shows that on average students perform equally well or better in online learning.11
- Researchers found no significant differences between students engaged in online learning versus traditional teaching or students engaged in video-conferencing versus traditional teaching.12
- The Virtual High School (VHS) Advanced Placement exam pass rate exceeds the national AP exam pass rate.13
- FLVS students performed higher than the state average in both reading and math.14
11 Learning Point Associates. (2004). “The Effects of Distance Education on K-12 Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.”
12 Ibid.
13 Virtual High School. “VHS Course Quality Indicators by Year.” www.goVHS.org.
14 Florida Tax Watch Study (2007). “Final Report: A Comprehensive Assessment of Florida Virtual School.”
The problem that I have with this research is that it only tells half the story. For example, when you consider the first two points a couple of quote from that recent Computers & Education article that I mentioned (see New K-12 Online Learning Article Published) are useful.
Cavanuagh, Gillan, Bosnick, Hess and Scott (2005) found that students in the virtual school course performed better on a non-mandatory assessment tool than students from the traditional classroom. The authors also revealed, however, that there were a higher number of virtual school students who completed the assessment and speculated that the virtual school students who did take the assessment may have been more academically motivated and naturally higher achieving students….
McLeod, Hughes, Brown, Choi and Maeda (2005) found that virtual school students performed better on an assessment of algebraic understanding than their classroom counterparts. These authors speculated, probably accurately, that the reason was due to the high dropout rate in virtual school courses. As a result of attrition, many low-achieving virtual school students had already removed themselves from the sample prior to the assessment. They also indicated that the majority of virtual school students in the sample were doing the course for the second or third time, so familiarity with the content and the motivation to take advantage of their “last chance” were also potential factors in the differences that were found.
So it shouldn’t surprise people that online students do as well or better than classroom students, because history tells us that you aren’t comparing the same thing. It really is a case of apples and oranges. Consider some of these bullets from my DEANZ 2008 keynote: Today’s student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges, the promise… (see VHSM October Podcast Introduction, VHSM October Podcast and DEANZ Keynote - Visually).
- 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, Dove, Zucker & Kozma, 1999)
- 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)
- between 25% and 50% of students had dropped out of their FLVS courses over the previous two-year period (Bigbie & McCarroll, 2000)
participation rate in the assessment among virtual students ranged from 65% to 75% compared to 90% to 96% for the classroom-based students (Ballas & Belyk, 2000) - “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, Lewis, Oyer & Schreiber, 2002)
- 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)
Does it surprise you that THESE students do as well or slightly better than classroom students? Do these descriptions generally describe the types of students you see in your classrooms? This does speak to the third and fourth points as well, if we aren’t comparing the same population of students – at least in terms of ability – are the comparisons all that meaningful? And I haven’t even discussed the variability that exists in trial periods yet – which was the topic of a recent paper that I presented with Abigail Gonzales at the recent e-Learn conference.
The other problem that I have is the dichotomy that the report reports. For example, on page 3 it states, “Virtual learning is not a ’silver bullet’ nor a ‘one size fits all’ for our students.” Later in the same paragraph the authors write, “Like any model of learning, virtual learning is not for everyone…” But then in the conclusion section on page 12 is states, “Virtual learning provides great opportunities for all students and is a key component of what our students need to get the 21st Century education they deserve.”
You can’t have it both ways. It either isn’t for everyone or it is… You can’t begin the main body of text by saying that it isn’t for all student and then end the document with a line that indicates online learning provides opportunities to all students! And if it is really “a key component of what our students need to get the 21st Century education they deserve”, does that mean that the students who are not suited to virtual learning are somehow disadvantaged? And let’s ignore the myth that somehow learning online is critical to the whole 21st Century learning skills initiative (and if you want to see my critique of that whole mess, see VSS2007 – Virtual Schools and 21st Century Skills).
Beyond these two major issues, the report isn’t bad. It does a good job of describing a variety of K-12 online learning opportunities that are available, along with describing the perceived benefits and major issues still facing K-12 online learning (note I stated perceived benefits, you can access my article The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature for a discussion of that issue). Quite useful for those new to the field of K-12 online learning, even if it does gloss over some of the major issues (as I discussed above) like one would expect more from a group of cheerleaders than a group of state-level technology directors.
Bibliography:
Ballas, F. A., & Belyk, D. (2000). Student achievement and performance levels in online education research study. Red Deer, AB: Schollie Research & Consulting. Retrieved on July 31, 2005 from http://www.ataoc.ca/files/pdf/AOCresearch_full_report.pdf
Bigbie, C., & McCarroll, W. (2000). The Florida high school evaluation 1999-2000 report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Retrieved on February 25, 2007 from http://www.flvs.net/educators/documents/pdf/archived_evals/FLVS%20Annual%20Evaluations/99-2000/99-2000%20Year%20End%20Evaluation.pdf
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Bosnick, J., Hess, M., & Scott, H. (2005). Succeeding at the gateway: Secondary algebra learning in the virtual school. Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida.
Clark, T., Lewis, E., Oyer, E., & Schreiber, J. (2002). Illinois Virtual High School Evaluation, 2001-2002. Carbondale, IL: TA Consulting and Southern Illinois University. Retrieved on July 4, 2005 from http://www.imsa.edu/programs/ivhs/pdfs/IVHS_FinalRpt.pdf
Espinoza, C., Dove, T., Zucker, A., & Kozma, R. (1999). An evaluation of the Virtual High School after two years in operation. Arlington, VA: SRI International. Retrieved on July 31, 2005 from http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/evalvhs2yrs.pdf
Haughey, M., & Muirhead, W. (1999). On-line learning: Best practices for Alberta school jurisdictions. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Retrieved on July 31, 2005 from http://www.phrd.ab.ca/technology/best_practices/on-line-learning.pdf
Kozma, R., Zucker, A., & Espinoza, C. (1998). An evaluation of the Virtual High School after one year in operation. Arlington, VA: SRI International. Retrieved on July 31, 2005 from http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/evalvhs1yr.pdf
McLeod, S., Hughes, J. E., Brown, R., Choi, J., & Maeda, Y. (2005). Algebra achievement in virtual and traditional schools. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Mills, S. C. (2003, March). Implementing online secondary education: An evaluation of a virtual high school. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Albuquerque, NM.
Roblyer, M. D., & Elbaum, B. (2000). Virtual learning? Research on virtual high schools. Learning & Leading with Technology, 27(4), 58-61.
Watkins, T. (2005). Exploring e-learning reforms for Michigan: The new educational (r)evolution. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from http://www.coe.wayne.edu/e-learningReport.pdf
