AECT 2013 And K-12 Online Learning

So the schedule for the 2013 annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology has been released.  I spent some time searching through the schedule earlier in the week and have identified the following K-12 online learning session.  If you know of others, please let me know.

———————

Virtual School Leadership: Successes and Challenges
Scheduled Time: Wed Oct 30 2013, 1:00 to 2:00pm Building/Room: 1st Level – South, Terrace C
In Full Session: SMT-The K-12 Online Learning Environment

Presenters/Authors: *Dennis Beck (University of Arkansas), *Jason LaFrance (Georgia Southern University), *Jayson Richardson (University of Kentucky)

Short Description: This study will identify and describe the successes and challenges of virtual school leaders (as identified by the International Association for k-12 Online Learning). Researchers will explore what leadership looks like in this context so we can better understand how virtual school leadership plays a role in the American school system. Results should help shed light on the qualities of school leaders that are equipped to handle technology leadership in the 21st century and beyond.

Abstract: The importance of the field of school technology leadership has not gone unnoticed in the recent literature. For example, Collins and Halverson (2010) argue that the digital age has fostered a knowledge revolution. This revolution has transformed our jobs, our home lives, our social lives, and will inevitably change schools. Collins and Halverson noted that “new technologies create learning opportunities that challenge the traditional practices of schools and college…People around the world are taking their education out of school and into homes, libraries, Internet cafes and workplaces where they can decide what they want to learn, when they want to learn and how they want to learn” (p. 18).

In their book Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation will Change the Way the World Learns, Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008) give a call to action for school leader in k-12 and higher education. “Don’t place artificial limits on what students can take online or what teachers can build online either; if they need access to a class or want to create content and lessons, let them do what they need to do, what they want, and what works best for them” (p. 227). Transforming schools that meet the needs of a digital, knowledge economy places unique demands on school and district leaders; this requires a solid research base and ongoing dialogue.

Bonk (2009) and Wagner (2008) noted that the Internet and digital technologies have changed the role of education. Wagner described how three transformations will force leaders of educational systems to rethink goals for the 21st century. First, the global, knowledge economy impacts the type of work students will do and the nature of that work. Second, there has been a dramatic shift in the availability of information. Lastly, media and technology have impacted how young people learn from and relate to the world as well as from each other. Wagner further described how each of these fundamental “transformations represents enormous challenges to our education system” (p. xxvi).

Methods

The purpose of this study is to identify and describe successes and challenges of virtual school leaders. The population for this study is principals of US.virtual schools as noted by the International Association for k-12 Online Learning (iNACOL). The sample was selected by purposeful strata to obtain maximum diversity of participants in terms of location, age, gender, and urbanicity. This study will run from April 1, 2013 to August 31, 2013.The researchers will explore what leadership looks like in this context so we can better understand how virtual school leadership plays a role in the American school system. It will also provide resources for those higher education programs that prepare future educational leaders.

Data will be collected via 1-1 phone interviews. Throughout the interview, participants will be asked questions related to their educational and professional background. In particular, the specific focus will be on what leadership looks like in these schools and the challenges and successes they have experienced. After interviews are concluded, they will be transcribed and then analyzed by the research team. The team will search for common themes to emerge using the constant comparative method.

Conclusions

After analysis is complete, we anticipate answering the following questions:

Why virtual school administrators are selected as the leader for a virtual school / program?

What specific qualities or background are virtual schools looking for in a school leader?

What specific experiences have virtual school administrators had that have helped prepare them to be a virtual school leader?

What are the similarities and differences between a traditional school leader and a virtual school leader?

What particular leadership models, principles, or behaviors are different between a traditional school leader and a virtual school leader?

How virtual school leaders are ensuring that technologies are being used to enhance learning?’

What are the challenges and barriers to being a leader of a virtual school?

What kinds of professional development activities do virtual school leaders participate in?

Are virtual schools as good as traditional schools in providing an equivalent learning experience for students?

Are virtual schools making the digital divide even wider?

What does bad virtual school leadership look like?

Where is virtual schooling heading in the future?

As virtual schooling continues to expand, understanding the background, experiences, skills, successes and challenges of virtual school leaders in relation to their traditional school counterparts will become an increasingly important component of any attempt to provide relevant educational experiences for school leaders. This study provides one of the first of many steps needed to explore this field, and, in so doing, helps to provide quality school leaders that are equipped to handle technology leadership in the 21st century and beyond.

Due to word limit, references are available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tTUlX3pLzOMJ_Kt78c9-drbEQI52CN85YWPgPc–jv4/edit?usp=sharing

Needs Assessment for the Online Learning Environment for K-12

Scheduled Time: Wed Oct 30 2013, 1:00 to 2:00pm Building/Room: 1st Level – South, Terrace C
In Full Session: SMT-The K-12 Online Learning Environment

Presenters/Authors: *Feng-Qi Lai (Indiana State University), *Susan J. Kiger (Indiana State University)

Short Description: This presentation will report the results of a needs assessment on the needs for the online learning environment for K-12 in Indiana. The results provide evidence for the needs of 1) having online learning environments for K-12 schools and 2) providing teachers with professional help in design and development of online learning environments and training in both online teaching pedagogy and online technology use.

Abstract: This presentation will report the results of a formal needs assessment about school teachers’ specific needs for online teaching to improve students’ learning. We use the data to support our proposal for a grant to help schools. This presentation will benefit those who are interested in the same project. We will present the needs assessment we conducted and share the results with the audience, which will be followed by a Q & A discussion with the audience.

Data were collected through e-survey using Qualtrics. An initial e-mail requesting permission to collect information was sent to all superintendents in Indiana and seven school corporations participated. Teachers who participated in this needs assessment survey teach in various subject areas (refer to Table 1) at different grade levels (refer to Table 2). We summarize the data from the needs assessment survey in the following tables (Tables 3-6) to provide evidence of the need.

Table 1 Subject area: Responses to the question of “Which subject area(s) do you teach? Check all that apply.”
(The table is removed from this proposal but will be presented in the conference.)

Table 2 Grade levels: Responses to the question of “Which grade(s) do you teach? Check all that apply.”
(The table is removed from this proposal but will be presented in the conference.)

Of the 249 responses to the question of “Do you have online teaching experience?” 29 responded “Yes” and 220 responded “No.” The majority of the teachers, no matter having or not having had online teaching experience, responded that they needed help with design, development, and training for the online teaching/learning environment. Please refer to Table 3 for data representing the Help needed now category, to Table 4 for data representing the Help to be needed when online learning is used category, to Table 5 for data representing the Training needed now category, and to Table 6 for data representing the Training to be needed when online learning is used category.

Table 3 Help needed now: Responses to the question of “What do you need instructional design professionals to help with for the online teaching/learning environment? Check all that apply.”
(The table is removed from this proposal but will be presented in the conference.)

Table 4 Help will be needed: Responses to the question of “If online learning will be used in your teaching, what do you need instructional design professionals to help with for the online teaching/learning environment? Check all that apply.”
(The table is removed from this proposal but will be presented in the conference.)

Table 5 Training needed now: Responses to the questions of “Do you need training with online teaching pedagogy/technology use?”
(The table is removed from this proposal but will be presented in the conference.)

Table 6 Training will be needed: Responses to the questions of “If online learning will be used in your teaching, do you need training with online teaching pedagogy/technology use?”
(The table is removed from this proposal but will be presented in the conference.)

Teachers believed that an online teaching/learning environment will benefit students’ learning in many ways. Teachers can provide learning materials, advanced learning content, online resources, feedback, and announcements, and will be able to post grades online. Students can conduct discussions, take quizzes, submit assignments, and take remediation online. Through the online environment, learning can continue after school. In addition to the above mentioned, teachers provided more thoughts. We categorize the quotes from the survey responses as follows:

More comfort and engaging

• I think the biggest benefit is that the students are more engaged with technology than with regular in class lessons.
• Students are comfortable in an online environment.
• More interest.
• Kids are tech based. Anything we can put into online format always generates more interest, higher levels of participation, better understanding.
• They love technology.
• Students would be engaged in all activity.
• Students are online all the time. Anytime we can incorporate technology and appeal to their tech driven minds, we can find higher success for student achievement.

Immediate feedback

• Students need “same time” feedback for optimum use of their time on projects/homework.
• Immediate feedback.
• It seems to help students when they have immediate feedback–they want everything at their fingertips here and now.
• Immediate feedback is important for learning.
• Allows for more frequent feedback and differentiation of learning styles and abilities.
• Students respond to computer generated programs, they can benefit from immediate feedback, use of resources that would otherwise not be available, learn the benefits of peer collaboration,
• I think the on-line quiz/test helps because they get immediate feedback after the test.

Learning after class/school

• Many students spend time at home or outside of the class on assignments and having the information readily available is necessary.
• Learning shouldn’t only happen in the classroom. Nor should the feedback that students need.
• Allows communication and learning to take place outside of the allotted time period of a classroom session or school day.
• Extension of classroom.
• It gives students the opportunity to review the information from class to assist them in their assignments.
• This allow the students who need additional time or have to be out of school an access to what happened in the classroom.
• Any and all information that is available online the better for students to review.

Anytime anywhere

• access anywhere anytime
• convenient, 24/7 access, wide variety to reach all types of learners
• I think these are beneficial because they allow students immediate access to resources, as well as opportunities to do extra work when and where it is convenient.
• Students are online and it is a natural fit.
• Offers students to stay up to date with material if they are absent from school.
• It provides a resource that students can get to any time.
• Materials are accessible at any time of day.

Individualized learning

• so many opportunities for so much differentiation and individualized learning
• To better meet the individual needs of students
• Ease of access and students can move along at their own rate or review later.
• I teach in a highly differentiated classroom. Each student has unique learning needs, even within our curriculum.
• Online offers many more options than you can get from a textbook- it is also easier to monitor who is participating in instruction and allows shy kids to participate
• allows for more individualized learning
• The student can work individually and at level.
Expending view and opportunity
• allows another way for students to receive and share information

Beyond objectives

• Prep for post-secondary learning
• Technology is not limited to the brick and mortar of the school–learning can take place where the student is.

Future tendency

• Geography is continually changing. No textbook can be “current”. Students must collaborate for 21st century learning.
Other
• Credit recovery can be quicker.
• Many reasons, but with online subscription programs such as IXL that provide practice at different levels, it makes it easier to meet the needs of students in subjects like math that require more practice.
• All of these things work together to help the student learn, comprehend, and develop their skills.
• The universities are using these.
• I already see the benefits of the above, some of them with my students, and some of them with the students of my colleagues.

A Student’s Perspective: Effective Asynchronous Course Design for Virtual Schools

Scheduled Time: Wed Oct 30 2013, 3:30 to 4:30pm Building/Room: 2nd Level – South, Madrid
In Full Session: DDL-Online Course Design and Assessment

Presenters/Authors: *Michael Barbour (Sacred Heart University), *David Adelstein (Wayne State University)

Short Description: Barbour (2005a; 2005b; 2007) previously conducted a study focusing on effective design for asynchronous course content as viewed by virtual school designers and teachers in Canada. The study resulted in seven key principles for effective design. One year later, a follow up study took student views into account. Results from the research nearly mirrored the seven principles originally put forth, with students asking for less text, more interactive media, a better road map and clarity for online content.

Abstract: The use of K-12 online learning is growing through Canada and the United States (Barbour, 2012; Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2012). While there is a growing literature based focused on the delivery of K-12 online learning (e.g., Davis & Roblyer, 2005; DiPietro, 2010; DiPietro, Ferdig, Black, & Preston, 2008; Ferdig, Cavanaugh, DiPietro, Black, & Dawson, 2009; Lowes, 2005; Murphy & Rodríguez-Manzanares, 2009a, 2009b; Nippard & Murphy, 2007; Smith, 2009); however, there is little research that has been conducted into the design of K-12 online learning (Barbour, 2013). One study that has focused on what constitutes effective design for asynchronous course content is Barbour (2005a; 2005b; 2007). This line of inquiry, which focused on the perceptions of course developers and teachers employed by a province-wide virtual school in Canada, generated seven principles of effective course design. Course developers should:
1. prior to beginning development of any of the web-based material, plan out the course with ideas for the individual lessons and specific items that they would like to include;
2. keep the navigation simple and to a minimum, but don’t present the material the same way in every lesson;
3. provide a summary of the content from the required readings or the synchronous lesson and include examples that are personalized to the students’ own context;
4. ensure students are given clear instructions and model expectations of the style and level that will be required for student work;
5. refrain from using too much text and consider the use of visuals to replace or supplement text when applicable;
6. use multimedia to enhance the content and not simply because it is available; and
7. develop their content for the average or below average student, while including enrichment activities for above average students.
The following year, the researchers re-visited this same setting to explore the perceptions of secondary students on what they felt constituted effective asynchronous course content.

The data collected included interviews, which were designed “to concentrate on concrete details of the participants’ present experience in the topic area of study” (Seidman, 1998, p. 12), and a focus group, which can be included as one part of a multi-method strategy to collect data on a topic (Barbour, 1999). There were six participants from four different schools (i.e., four that participated in the focus group and two that were interviewed). Five of the participants were grade twelve students, while one was a grade ten student. These six individuals had completed a total of fourteen CDLI courses and were six weeks away from completing another thirteen at the time of this study. Both the interviews and the focus group were recorded and transcribed, then independently checked for accuracy, before providing the participants an opportunity to member check their transcript. The data were analyzed using an inductive analysis approach (Ezzy, 2002; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993).

The students indicated that they didn’t use the web-based content much at all. Two of the students stated that they “hardly used” the web-based content, while three other students expressed similar sentiments. The final student didn’t use the asynchronous web-based content at all, instead choosing multimedia learning objects associated with the course. When they did use the asynchronous web-based content, students preferred if it “dealt with the content that we learn” (i.e. the content of the synchronous classes), as the students found the material “really good for studying” or when they “can’t find the answer [or] can’t find an explanation.” Simply put, the students felt their teachers didn’t use or reference the asynchronous web-based content, assigned too much work during their offline classes to allow them to use it and because of this students didn’t trust the content or trusted other sources more. Further, the students indicated that text-based lessons on the web were not useful. Instead, students were more interested in lessons that used various media that the internet was able to offer. This media included links, videos and pictures. As one student summarized it, online media is “really interesting and a lot better than sitting down and reading the book.” Overall, they wanted videos, interactive media and diagrams that provided them with “a different way of understanding the concepts.” Finally, one point all six students agreed upon was a need for their web-based content to provide a good set of notes. A good set of notes were explained as containing “examples” and “a lot of step-by-step things to explain it to you and show you how to do it.” Five of the six students also indicated that “the test yourself is really helpful.” The “test yourself” feature was a java-scripted self-assessment where students were given a series of multiple-choice questions. Once completed, the correct answers would be displayed. The students enjoyed the assessments “because they really give you an idea of what it is going to be like for the test,” as well as “ let you know if you’re on track, if you understand what the lesson’s about.”

The initial research helped lay down the groundwork for asynchronous design. The student study allowed the researchers to see how well the seven principles held up in practice. While no mention was made in regards to online navigation or tiering the lesson for students with different abilities, the remaining five principles lined up with the student results. It was noted that web-based material needed to be planned out ahead of time with the ideas put forth. Students were quick to figure out most online resources were not used in class and in turn ignored the material. This was mainly done due to the overuse of text, a flaw that the designers and teachers wanted to avoid. However, students did use the resources when it helped them summarize and study for the synchronous lesson. Multimedia, when used to enhance the content (such as the “test yourself” feature), was enjoyed by all the students. All the students also agreed that step-by-step notes on the procedures were needed, which was in line with giving clear instructions.

References

Barbour, M. K. (2005a). The design of web-based courses for secondary students. Journal of Distance Learning, 9(1), 27-36.

Barbour, M. K. (2005b). Perceptions of effective web-based design for secondary school students: A narrative analysis of previously collected data. The Morning Watch, 32 (3-4). Retrieved November 04, 2005 from http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/win05/Barbour.htm

Barbour, M. K. (2007). Teacher and developer perceptions of effective web-based design for secondary school students. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 93-114. Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/30

Barbour, M. K. (2012). State of the nation study: K-12 online learning in Canada. Victoria, BC: Open School BC/Vienna, VA: International Council for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.openschool.bc.ca/pdfs/iNACOL_CanadaStudy_2012.pdf

Barbour, M. K. (2013). The landscape of K-12 online learning: Examining what is known. In M. G. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.) (pp. 574-593). New York: Routledge.

Barbour, R.S. (1999) Are focus groups an appropriate tool for studying organizational change? In R.S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory, and practice (pp. 113-126) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, N. E., & Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Preparing teachers for the “schools that technology build”: Evaluation of a program to train teachers for virtual schooling. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 399-409.

DiPietro, M. (2010). Virtual school pedagogy: The instructional practices of K-12 virtual school teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 327 – 354.

DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W. & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching k–12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/getfile.cfm?volID=7&IssueID=22&ArticleID=113

Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge.

Ferdig, R., Cavanaugh, C., DiPietro, M., Black, E., & Dawson, K. (2009). Virtual schooling standards and best practices for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 479-503.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed. ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.

Lowes, S. (2005). Online teaching and classroom change: The impact of virtual high school on its teachers and their schools. New York: Institute for Learning Technologies, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/lowes_final.pdf

Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2009a). Learner-centredness in high-school distance learning: Teachers’ perspectives and research-validated principles. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 597-610. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet25/murphy.html

Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2009b). Teachers’ perspectives on motivation in high-school distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/602

Nippard, N., & Murphy, E. (2007). Social presence in the web-based synchronous secondary classroom. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(1). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol33.1/nippard.html

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith, R. D. (2009). Virtual voices: Online teachers’ perceptions of online teaching standards. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 547-571.

Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2012). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of state-level policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPace2012.pdf

Working With Online Teachers: Strategies for success and lessons from the field

Scheduled Time: Thu Oct 31 2013, 10:30 to 11:30am Building/Room: 2nd Level – South, Valencia
In Full Session: DDL Panel-Working With Online Teachers

Presenters/Authors: *Marshall G. Jones (Winthrop University), *Steve Harmon (Georgia State University), *Daniel Surry (University of South Alabama), *John Farquhar (Western Washington University), *Susan Land

Short Description: This panel discussion will bring together a wide range of opinions and experiences in working with online teachers in a wide range of educational environments such as k-12, higher education and corporate training. Challenges and victories in professional development for novice and seasoned online teachers will be discussed. Significant participation between the audience and the panel will be encouraged through in room and back channel communication.

Abstract: Online learning has moved from a bold and edgy idea to a necessary tool and common place activity in many learning organizations. It is certainly used in higher education at the graduate and undergraduate level, but it is also used in corporate training and in K-12 environments. Even though it is widely used, it is often viewed differently by a wide range of people. Opinions vary, from necessary evil to perfect solution, with a myriad of opinions thrown in the mix along the way. Much of the remaining and pervasive skepticism may be due to both fact and opinion. For example, it is a fact that there are bad online classes taught, and many of these were taught during the infancy of online teaching. It is also a fact that there are bad face to face classes that are taught, but since most people take more face to face classes than online classes, the bad face to face experiences tend to average out to a general idea that face to face to face classes are good. Conversely, most people have far fewer experiences in online classes. A single bad experience can bring the total average down, if you will, for their perceptions of online classes. One thing that can make or break a good class, be it face to face or online, is a teacher who is well prepared in both content and instructional strategies. It is safe to say that many learning organizations know much more about preparing teachers for face to face classes than for online classes. This panel seeks to continue the existing discussion on preparing and supporting online teachers and to help refine the narrative on online teaching for the field of Instructional Design and Technology.

This panel discussion will bring together a group of professionals experienced in online teaching and in working with online teachers at a variety of levels. We will discuss working with novice online teachers, mid career online teachers, and experienced online teachers, and how we might approach each population. The panel has experience in working with a variety of online teachers in areas from K-12 education, higher education and corporate training. Like most panel discussions, this will focus on the broad area of online teaching, but will encourage user participation through both in room and during session discussions, and back channel communication that may happen during the panel and after the panel discussion as well. While the goal is to set the tone for the discussion and then to let the participants help focus the larger discussion, a list of topics to focus the discussion, and to give the reviewers an idea of the intent of the panel , follows.

Course Design

For working with novice online teachers Issues such as translating a weekly schedule to an online format will be discussed. Issues of organization and module management will help attendees conceptualize some unique methods for course organization.

Content Creation

Populating your course with content can be daunting for the novice online teacher, and managing and updating existing material can be difficult for seasoned online teachers. We will discuss the phenomenon of over creating material for online courses, a common occurrence in online classes. The use of various lecture capture tools, screencasting, and other media tools will be discussed and reviewed. Recommendations for chunking content and serving content will be discussed.

Open Educational Resources

Instructional Designers have known for decades that re-purposing existing content can be a time and money saver in the development of instruction. And there is no better place to find course content than on the Internet. Sources for open educational resources, such as http://www.oercommons.org, http://merlot.org, http://ed.ted.com, and http://apple.com/itunesu will be discussed and reviewed.

Instructional Strategies

We will discuss strategies for teaching online that are unique to online environments, paying particular attention to the affordances of asynchronous and synchronous tools. We will discuss methods of helping novice online teachers translate existing teaching skills to an online class and strategies to help mid career and seasoned online teachers advance their skills.

Blended/Hybrid Classes

Strategies for helping online teachers decide when to use a blended/hybrid approach will be discussed. Additionally, we will talk about how we can help others in managing the unique challenges of blended/hybrid classes.

Flipped Classes

Flipped classrooms are popular in K-12 classrooms. While they are, conceptually, much like a blended/hybrid online classroom, they have their unique attributes as well. We will discuss strategies for flipping classrooms for K-12 classrooms, but also how this concept might be applied to higher education and corporate training.

Learner Interaction

Ideas and strategies to help novice and seasoned online teachers develop courses that provide for significant and authentic peer to peer and instructor to student interaction will be discussed. Strategies for evaluating learner interaction will be discussed as well.

Further topics, such as helping online teachers develop strategies for assessment, student practice and to help them in providing feedback to learners could also be discussed.

TED-Preparing Teachers for Virtual School Environments

Sponsor: Teacher Education
Scheduled Time: Thu Oct 31 2013, 1:00 to 2:00pm Building/Room: 2nd Level – Tower, Salon 6
Title Displayed in Event Calendar: TED-Preparing Teachers for Virtual School Environments

Presenters: Michael Barbour (Sacred Heart University), Sharon Smaldino (Northern Illinois University), Julie Moore (Kennesaw State University)

A Competency-based Evaluation Framework for K-12 Online Education

Scheduled Time: Sat Nov 2 2013, 8:00 to 9:00am Building/Room: 2nd Level – Tower, Salon 1
In Full Session: DDL-K12 Online

Presenters/Authors: Dazhi Yang (Boise State University, *Lana Grover (Boise State University)

Short Description: This paper presents a competency-based evaluation framework for evaluating K-12 online instructors’ ability to teach effectively online. Specifically, it describes the major components of a competency-based evaluation framework for K-12 online teacher candidates, why there is a need for such a framework, and the advantages and disadvantage of implementing such an evaluation framework.

Abstract: Online learning is expanding in the K-12 sector. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were more than 1.8 million K-12 students engaged in online or blended learning during the 2009-2010 school year (Queen & Lewis, 2011), and significant growth in K-12 online course enrollment is expected to continue. The National Education Association (NEA) recognized in its policy statement on distance education that “teachers who provide distance education should in addition be skilled in learning theories, technologies, and teaching pedagogies appropriate for the online environment” (NEA, 2012, ¶ 10). The need for licensed teachers to be certified or endorsed in teaching online has also been acknowledged by K-12 online education researchers (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012; Dawley, Rice & Hinck, 2010). However, the reality is that few teacher education programs in the U.S. offer any training in learning theories or teaching pedagogies appropriate for online environments (Patrick & Dawley, 2009; Kennedy & Archambault, 2012).

Several state-level policy initiatives, such as Georgia, Michigan, Louisiana, and Idaho have undertaken major K-12 online learning initiatives and adopted online teaching endorsements. The Idaho Standards for K-12 Online Teachers (Idaho State Board of Education, 2012) along with the associated K-12 Online Teaching Endorsement are just such an example. The essence of these standards and endorsement is to guide online education practice and ensure teachers have the necessary qualifications and skills to be effective in online education environments. It is also recognition that successful online teaching requires a unique set of knowledge and skills, and is similar in nature to the types of specialized skills required in Special Education or Reading instruction. However, current policies/standards that guide the practice of K-12 online education, lag behind in terms of what states are doing or are planning to do to ensure that online teachers have the necessary qualifications and skills to teach online (Fisk, 2011). It is our hope a comprehensive yet flexible competency-based evaluation framework can be used to help virtual K-12 schools, administrator as well as online teacher candidates evaluate the needed knowledge and skills to effectively teach online.

A competency-based evaluation framework refers to the following aspects:
• A framework intended to evaluate the scope of a candidates’ proficiency or ability.
• A framework designed to measure knowledge and skills that can be applied to novel and complex situations.
• A method of evaluating skills that will remain viable even if the content knowledge changes (Sturgis, 2012).

The competency-based evaluation framework presented in this paper was built on current standards and guidelines as well as research on K-12 online learning and teaching. Based on the review of existing policies, standards (NEA, 2006a; 2006b; ISTE, 2007; 2008; 2009; iNACOL, 2011; Idaho State Board of Education, 2010), and relative research on K-12 online education and evaluation (Sturgis, C. 2012; Authors, in press), we proposed a competency-based evaluation framework consisting of three major components: knowledge, skills, and competency. (More details about the framework will be available in proceeding paper if it’s accepted.)

Knowledge

The knowledge component consists of pedagogical knowledge, technology knowledge and content knowledge. These include that online teacher understands the concepts, terminologies, tools, and structures in online learning environments specific to K-12 settings (such as K-12 online classrooms, online communication, online information security and assurance). The content knowledge refers to the subject knowledge in content areas which can be demonstrated through teaching license or certificate.

Skills

The skills component consists of the applications of pedagogical, technology, and content knowledge. These include that online teachers can demonstrate applications of technology skills, such as the use of learning management systems, emails, online discussion forum. The skills also include demonstrations of effective online instructional strategies, such as using synchronous and asynchronous conferences to promote meaningful interaction and online collaboration. Additionally, online teachers need to show evidence of online classroom management and motivation skills, such as journals or logs of students’ participation and interaction activities.

Competency

The competency component refers to the combination of knowledge and skills and is beyond the simple addition of the two. It is the next level of applications of knowledge and skills. Specifically, it refers to online teachers’ aptitudes to apply the necessary knowledge and skills in successful K-12 online teaching in various situations. This component looks for the evidence and demonstrations of online teachers’ multiple applications of knowledge and skills in various K-12 online teaching cases, such as teacher’s online teaching philosophy. It should be aware that knowledge and skills are more content-related and relatively outdated. Competencies are abilities to perform well in K-12 online teaching. While for the knowledge and skills component categories, online teachers may supply one example for each category to satisfy the components requirement, they have to showcase multiple examples for the competency category.

Why competency-based evaluation framework?

As one of the ever-changing nature of online education, online teachers’ competency to teach in a virtual environment best reflects a changing twenty-first century educational landscape. A competency-based framework is more dynamic and flexible than traditional evaluation models. Such framework allows online teachers to demonstrate their proficiency and mastery in the applications of knowledge and skills to a variety of instructional solutions. A competency-based evaluation framework can be updated on an ongoing basis, thus ensuring the ongoing evaluation of teacher candidates’ knowledge and skills in a changing twenty-first century educational landscape. State adoption of competency-based requirements could also facilitate multi-state use of distance education resources, such as mutual recognition of the K-12 online teaching endorsement for teachers who resided and had been licensed in other states. The dynamic framework of competency-based evaluation also promotes customized, self-directed learning and increases online teachers’ marketability for teaching online.

However, there are some disadvantages mainly associated with the design and implementation of such framework. Competencies are complex and intellectually demanding activity that is not easy to define or evaluate accurately (Allen et al., 2011). To ensure success, each of the main component and their associated sub components must be well defined and include explicit, measurable, and transferable learning and performance (Baily, Schneider, Sturgis, & Vander, 2013), which is always a challenge in evaluation.

References

Allen et al., (2011). Defining competency-based evaluation objectives in family medicine. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173441/
Authors. (in press).

Baily, J., Schneider, C., Sturgis, C., & Vander, T. (2013). The shift from cohorts to competency. EDUCASE. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/shift-cohorts-competency

Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010). Going virtual! 2010: The status of professional development and unique needs of k–12 online teachers. White paper prepared for the North American Council for Online Learning. Washington, D.C.

Department of Educational Technology, Idaho State University. (2011). Endorsement Competency Checklist. Retrieved from http://edtech.boisestate.edu/docs/programs/ k12endorsement/K-12OnlineEndorsement_Checklist.docx

Department of Educational Technology, Idaho State University. (2011). Endorsement Competency Checklist. Retrieved from http://edtech.boisestate.edu/docs/programs/ k12endorsement/K-12OnlineEndorsement_Checklist.docx

Fisk, C. (2011). Teaching in the world of virtual k-12 learning: challenges to ensure educator quality. A final report prepared for Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/s/educator_licensure/ets_online_teaching_policy_final_report.pdf

Idaho State Board of Education and Idaho State Department of Education. (2010). Idaho Standards for Online Teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/forms/augDocs/Online_Teaching_Standards_OSBE.pdf.

iNACOL (International Association for K–12 Online Learning). (2012). Fast Facts about Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/press/docs/nacol_fast_facts.pdf

iNACOL (International Association for K–12 Online Learning). (2011). National Standards for Quality Online Teaching, version 2. Retrieved from, http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/iNACOL_TeachingStandardsv2.pdf

ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), (2009). ISTE’s NETS for Administrators (NETS•A). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-a-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2

ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), (2007). ISTE’s NETS for Students (NETS•S). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-s-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2

ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), (2008). ISTE’s NETS for Teachers (NETS•T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-t-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Kennedy, K. & Archambault, L.M. (2012). Offering Pre-service Teachers Field Experiences in K-12 Online Learning: A National Survey of Teacher Education Programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185-200.

NEA (National Education Association). (2012). NEA Policy Statements: Distance education. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/34765.htm

Patrick, S. & Dawley, L. (2009). Redefining teacher education: K-12 online–blended learning and virtual schools. Brief prepared for the Summit on Redefining Teacher Education for Digital Age Learners, Austin, TX: The University of Texas.

Queen, B., & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2009–10. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012008

Sturgis, C. (2012). The Art and Science of Designing Competencies: A Competency Works Issue Brief, International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from

Click to access CompetencyWorks_The_Art_and_Science_of_Designing_Competencies.pdf

The FLVS AP Advantage: Exploring the Characteristics of K-12 Student Performance in Online Learning

Scheduled Time: Sat Nov 2 2013, 8:00 to 9:00am Building/Room: 2nd Level – Tower, Salon 1
In Full Session: DDL-K12 Online

Presenters/Authors: *Sharon Johnston (Independent Contractor), *Michael Barbour (Sacred Heart University)

Short Description: While Advanced Placement (AP) online learning is growing, the availability of empirical evidence demonstrating the efficacy of AP online is sparse. The presenters provide the results from a study into AP exam performance of students at FLVS compared to traditional settings, as well as to explore the characteristics of successful K-12 online learners. While including a comparative component, the examination of successful online learners is critical in a field that continues to experience significant growth. (75 words)

Abstract: A key reason for the creation of many online programs (particularly those that began in the 1990s and early 2000s), including Florida Virtual School (FLVS), was to provide access to Advanced Placement (AP) courses for students that did not have access to them in their brick-and-mortar schools (e.g., rural and inner city students). As Mackey and Horn (2009) stated, “the online school filled a direct need for these [under-resourced rural] schools, where administrators often had difficulty finding teachers that could provide high level and Advanced Placement courses” (p. 6). As online leaning grows, the public, lawmakers, and educators demand evidence of the benefit of the new and innovative method of delivery. For example, Davis (2012) stated that online programs “are coming under increasing scrutiny over student achievement and accountability” (p. 1). Published research on the efficacy of AP online is negligible.

An early AP online research project was a qualitative study of the Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) at Stanford University, Learning Links (Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2004). To enroll through EPGY, students had to meet specific SAT or ACT score. Of the 87 AP students responding to the researchers’ questionnaire, only 64 students had taken the 2002 AP exam. Their self-reported scores showed that EPGY AP students performed at a higher level than the national group. However, the EPGY group may have been a more selective group of students (due to the minimum SAT/ACT requirement), and the use of self-reported grades may have also skewed the data. Further, Barbour and Mulchay (2006) examined data from 82 rural Canadian schools that offered AP courses from 1992 to 2003. The researchers observed that the evidence revealed little differences in course grades based on the delivery model. They also observed that fewer rural students completed their online AP course, and even fewer took the AP exam; raising the issue of the retention of students in online AP offered in rural schools.

A case study by Misset, Reed, Scott, Callahan, and Slade (2010) examined the achievement of 138 primarily rural students enrolled in an online advanced environmental science course over a two-year period. Although not targeted as research of AP online, the study reported that 79 of the 138 students took the AP exam option and 30% of those taking the exam earned qualifying scores. Misset et al. (2010) concluded, “… the Project did provide a viable learning alternative for a traditional AP environmental science course” (p. 40). Finally, Florida Tax Watch Center (2007) examined student performance of FLVS students in comparison to Florida students attending traditional schools. Using the 2006-07 data reported by the College Board, the Florida Tax Watch Center reported that “FLVS students outperformed their statewide counterparts on… Advanced Placement examinations” (p. 2).

To study the efficacy of AP online, the researchers conducted a mixed methods inquiry of the FLVS AP program from 2009- 2011. The quantitative data included AP exam scores as provided by the College Board. The year 2009 was selected as a starting point because that was the year FLVS began mandating that all AP students take the exam, which reduced the potential that academic, social, or economic pressures would affect the sampled data. Data related to the nature of the AP students was taken from the FLVS’ student information system. An open-ended survey administrated to all FLVS students enrolled in AP courses during the 2011-12 school year, followed by interviews with a subset of those students provided additional qualitative data.

The research showed that students enrolled in FLVS AP courses, received a qualifying score and scored a 5 at a rate consistent with the national averages. FLVS students outperformed other students in the State of Florida on AP exams each year; in 2011, FLVS students qualifying rate was 12% higher than Florida students in traditional schools. Across the United States, AP students chose not to take the exam for a variety of reasons; including a lack of preparation or lack of support to perform well on the exam, which may have affected the statewide and national figures. The fact that the FLVS had no gatekeeping mechanism, coupled with the fact that FLVS required all AP students to take the exam, meant that the online sample in this study was likely more representative of a true population of online students and students in general.

In comparing the quality of FLVS courses to their traditional classes, 71% of the students perceived their FLVS course as the same or better quality. When asked what aspects of their FLVS AP course they felt contributed to this quality of experience, students selected resubmission of assignments (67%), followed by teacher feedback (64%). One interviewee felt that FLVS did a better job preparing him for the AP exam “because of the precise organization of the modules.” However another interviewee stated that the traditional environment did a better job preparing her because of the class discussions and other classroom interactions. In the survey students selected the traditional as more engaging (56%) than online. All interviewees felt that traditional AP courses were more engaging because of class discussions, Socratic seminars, role playing, etc..

The data indicated that both the online and classroom delivery models could meet the academic needs of students enrolled in AP courses. However, a key observation from the student perceptions (i.e., that AP in the traditional schools was more engaging) may present a challenge to those involved in the delivery of online learning. Perhaps the emphasis on the importance of thinking out loud with classmates can be a catalyst for online programs to create more avenues for engaging students with open-ended dialogue and the Socratic method, both of which appear to vital to student success on AP exams and is consistent with the perspective of Blomeyer (2002):

Online learning or e-learning isn’t about digital technologies any more than classroom teaching is about blackboards. E-learning should be about creating and deploying technology systems that enable constructive human interaction and support the improvement of all teaching and learning. (p. 19)

References

Barbour, M. K., & Mulcahy, D. (2006). An inquiry into retention and achievement differences in campus based and web based AP courses. Rural Educator, 27(3) 8-12.

Blomeyer, R. L. (2002). Online learning for K–12 students: What do we know now? Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Available online at http://tinyurl.com/29h38v5

College Board. (2009). Summary reports. Princeton, CT: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/exgrd_sum/2009.html

College Board. (2010). Summary reports. Princeton, CT: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/exgrd_sum/2010.html

College Board. (2011). Summary reports. Princeton, CT: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/exgrd_sum/2011.html

Davis, Michelle. (2012, March 15). E-schools put specific measures for success in place. Education Week.

Florida Tax Watch. (2006). Final report: A Comprehensive assessment of Florida Virtual School. Tallahassee, FL: Center for Educational Performance and Accountability.

Mackey, K., & Horn, M. (2009). Florida Virtual School: An educational case study. Boston, MA: Innosight Institute, Inc.

Missett, T., Reed, C. B., Scott, T. P., Callahan, C. M., & Slade, M. (2010). Describing learning in an advanced online case-based course in environmental science, Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 10-50.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Lee, S. (2004). Gifted adolescents’ talent development through distance learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 7–35.