Article Notice – Accessibility That Supports Literacy: Virtual School Course Design Teams’ Instructional Planning For Students With Disabilities

This was the third of the K-12 distance, online, and/or blended learning articles I references in Friday’s New Issue of Online Learning Journal Published entry.

Accessibility that Supports Literacy: Virtual School Course Design Teams’ Instructional Planning for Students with Disabilities

Mary Frances Rice

 

Abstract

As more students with disabilities in K-12 settings enroll in online courses, virtual schools and programs are working make courses accessible through stronger course design. When course designers approach the issue of accessibility, they must comply with legal requirements and mitigate the challenges many students with disabilities face for literacy and learning. These challenges include less well-developed content vocabulary and background knowledge, as well as inefficient skills and strategies for engaging with and comprehending online text. This study describes phenomenological research where course designers worked to meet accessibility standards and promote literacies online for all students, especially students with disabilities. Four strategies for promoting accessibility emerged as findings: (1) composing clear articulations of learning outcomes; (2) promoting personalized and contextualized learning, and; (3) planning for visual and audio representation of concepts. However, course designers may need additional support for addressing the interplay between literacies that promote access and accessibility features that promote literacies.

Keywords

K12 online course design, collaborative online course design, instructional design for students with disabilities, course design literacies, accessibility in online courses

Full Text:

PDF

References

Adelstein, D., & Barbour, M. K. (2016). Redesigning design: Field testing a revised design rubric based of iNACOL quality course standards. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 31(2). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/976/1647

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.

Baker, F. (2016). Media literacy in the classroom (2nd ed.). United States: International Society for Technology in Education.

Barbour, M., Archambault, L., & DiPietro, M. (2013). K–12 online distance education: Issues and frameworks. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 1-3.

boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bullough, R. V. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 239-252.

Cavanaugh, C. S., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning: A review of open access literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1) http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/607/1182

Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1.

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in New Literacies and New Literacies Research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group.

Danforth, S. (2015). Under the mentorship of John Dewey: Democratic lessons for inclusive Education. In Foundations of Inclusive Education Research (pp. 133-148). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Dewey, J. (2013). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL; University of Chicago Press.

Dikkers, A. G. (2015). The intersection of online and face-to-face teaching: Implications for virtual school teacher practice and professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 139-156.

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge. Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4718/ee3c1930820e094552f0933cbc3b86548dbc.pdf

Drexler, W. (2018). Personal learning environments in K-12 setting. In R. Ferdig and K. Kennedy (Eds.) Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 151-162). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.

Finlay, L. (2009). Ambiguous encounters: A relational approach to phenomenological research. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 9(1), 1-17.

Freidhoff, J. (2018). Michigan’s virtual learning effectiveness report: 2016-2017. Retrieved from

https://mvlri.org/research/publications/michigans-k-12-virtual-learning-effectiveness-report-2016-17/

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Garcia, A., Seglem, R., & Share, J. (2013). Transforming teaching and learning through critical media literacy pedagogy. Learning Landscapes, 6(2),109-124.

Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). London; New York, NY: Routledge.

Gemin, B., Pape, L., Vashaw, L., & Watson, J. (2015). Keeping pace with K–12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Foundation.

Hammer, R., & Kellner, D. (Eds.). (2009). Media/cultural studies: Critical approaches. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Hanington, B. (2015). Making methods work: 10 rules of thumb for design research. Archives of Design Research, 28(1), 41-51.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content

analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121-146.

Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Jewitt, C. (2009) Different approaches to multimodality. In C. Jewett (Ed.) Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 28-39). London, England: Routledge.

Keefe, E. B., & Copeland, S. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3-4), 92-99.

Kim, J., & Ryu, H. (2014). A design thinking rationality framework: framing and solving design problems in early concept generation. Human–Computer Interaction, 29(5-6), 516-553.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, England: Routledge.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: the modes and media of contemporary communication. London, England: Hoddor Arnold Publication.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2010). DIY media: Creating, sharing and learning with new technologies (New literacies and digital epistemologies). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau, Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Luke, A. (2004). At last: The trouble with English. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(1), 85–95.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Marteney, T., & Bernadowski, C. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of online instruction for students with special educational needs. British Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 178–194.

Miron, G. (2016). Review of the policy framework for online charter schools. NationalEducation Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/reviews/TTR%20Miron%20Online%20Charters_0.pdf

Molnar, A., Miron, G., Huerta, L., King Rice, J., Cuban, L., Horvitz, B., & Rankin Shafer, S. (2013). Virtual schools in the US 2013: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558723.pdf

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance Education: A systems view of onlinelearning, 3rd ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company. California, USA.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.

Olson, M. R. (1995). Conceptualizing narrative authority: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 11(2), 119-135.

Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Day, S. L. (2015). Online learning in Illinois high schools: The voices of principals. In T. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, & T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the effectiveness of online education in K-12 environments (pp. 1-18). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Quality Matters. (2016). Course design rubric standards, 4th ed. Retrieved from

https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/k-12-secondary-rubric

Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2014). Being in the users’ shoes: Anticipating experience while

designing online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 765-777.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by § 508, 29 U.S.C. § 794(d) (1998).

Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 47-51.

Ruppar, A. L., Gaffney, J. S., & Dymond, S. K. (2015). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 209-226.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of

Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography, and education. London, England: Longman.

Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current issues in comparative education, 5(2), 77-91.

Street, B. (2005). At last: Recent applications of New Literacy Studies in educational contexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(4), 417–423.

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT press.

Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin, & Vashaw (2014). Keeping pace with K 12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Mountain View, CA: Evergreen Education Group.

Williams, D. D. (2013, October). Themes from case studies of evaluators’ lives. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association Education, Washington D.C.

Williams, D. D. (2011). Qualitative inquiry in daily life: Exploring qualitative thought.

Retrieved from https://qualitativeinquirydailylife.wordpress.com/

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1508

Article Notice – Quiet Participation: Investigating Non-Posting Activities In Online Learning

This was the second of the K-12 distance, online, and/or blended learning articles I references in Friday’s New Issue of Online Learning Journal Published entry.

Quiet Participation: Investigating non-posting activities in online learning

Lesley Wilton

 

Abstract

Despite the growth in online learning offerings in K-12 and higher education, limited research has been undertaken to better understand less visible online learning activities. Reading and rereading are not typically valued as important indicators of learning since number or frequency of entries, words or key phrases are usually visible and easily tracked. This paper addresses reading, writing and revisiting behaviours by cluster groups in eight online courses, and looks for patterns related to rereading. Participant perceptions of the value of rereading entries in online learning are discussed. The findings highlight the importance of a more nuanced understanding of the different roles reading and rereading play in online learning discussions. This research informs our understanding of the importance of non-posting behaviors to student learning. Instructionally, these results may encourage valuing of different “paths” to online learning success beyond the criterion of written entries.

Despite the growth in online learning offerings in K-12 and higher education, limited research has been undertaken to better understand less visible online learning activities. Reading and rereading are not typically valued as important indicators of learning since number or frequency of entries, words or key phrases are usually visible and easily tracked. This paper addresses reading, writing and revisiting behaviours by cluster groups in eight online courses, and looks for patterns related to rereading. Participant perceptions of the value of rereading entries in online learning are discussed. The findings highlight the importance of a more nuanced understanding of the different roles reading and rereading play in online learning discussions. This research informs our understanding of the importance of non-posting behaviors to student learning. Instructionally, these results may encourage valuing of different “paths” to online learning success beyond the criterion of written entries.

Keywords

Online learning discussions, rereading, revisiting, non-posting participation

Full Text:

PDF

References

Barbour, M. K. & LaBonte, R. (2017). State of the Nation: K-12 E-Learning in Canada, 2017 Edition. Retrieved from http://k12sotn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/StateNation17.pdf

Bhattacharya, H. (2008). Interpretive research. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 465–468). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Blatter, J. K. (2008). Case study. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 68–71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C.J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse (pp. 25–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Creelman, A. (2017). NVL: Silent learners—a guide. Retrieved from http://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1171709/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dennen, V. P. (2006). Shaping Learners’ Online Dialogues: The Role of Discourse Models. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 3, 249-264.

Dennen, V. P. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 205–219.

Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910701611328

Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A.. (2005). Lurking: an underestimated human-computer phenomenon. IEEE 12(4), 70-75. doi 10.1109/MMUL.2005.74

Goodfellow, R. (2004). Online literacies and learning: Operational, cultural and critical dimensions. Language and Education, 18(4), 379-399.

Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2011). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ho, C.-H., & Swan, K. (2007). Evaluating online conversation in an asynchronous learning environment: An application of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 3-14.

Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51, 1755-1765.

Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52, 78-82.

John-Steiner, V., & Souberman, E. (1978). Afterword. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Available at http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2015, June 3). Researching and understanding new literacies from a social languages perspective. Opening keynote paper presented at the Futuuri! Language Summer School and the Language Centre Conference, Jyvaskyla, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/12829531/Researching_and_Understanding_New_Literacies_from_a_Social_Languages_Perspective

Kvale, S. (2007). Analyzing interviews. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Doing Interviews (pp. 102–120). London, England: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963.n9

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004, December 2). “New” literacies: research and social practice. Plenary address at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from http://everydayliteracies.net/files/nrc.html

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the New in New Literacies.” In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010, September). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Nagel, L., Blignaut, A. S., & Cronjé, J. C. (2009). Read-only participants: A case for student communication in online classes. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 37–51.

Nonnecke, B. & Preece, J. (2003). Chapter 6: Silent Participants: Getting to know lurkers better. In C. Lueg & D. Fisher (Eds.) From Usenet to CoWebs: Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 110-132).

Perkins, J. & Newman, K. (1996). Two archetypes in e-discourse: Lurkers and Virtuosos. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 2, 155-170.

Peters, V. L. & Hewitt, J. (2010). An investigation of student practices in asynchronous computer conferencing courses. Computers & Education, 54(4). 951-961.

Picciano, A. G. (2016). Paradigms, methodologies, methods, and the role of theory in online and blended learning research. In C. D. Dziuban, A. G. Picciano, C. R. Graham, & P. D. Moskal (Eds.), Conducting research in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers (pp. 12–27). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19-48. Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474/815

Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 3, 285−297.

Sipe, L., & Constable, S. (1996). A chart of four contemporary research paradigms: Metaphors for the modes of inquiry. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 153–163.

Sutton, L. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223-242).

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting students’ satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.

Swan, K., Shen, J. & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62.

Vogler, J. S., Schallert, D. L., Park, Y., Song, K., Chiang, Y. V., Jordan, M. E., Lee, S., Cheng, A. J., Lee, J., Park, J., & Sanders, A. J. Z. (2013). A microgenetic analysis of classroom discussion practices: How literacy processes intermingle in the negotiation of meaning in an online discussion. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3), 211–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086296X13499846

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Author, (2017).

Author, (2015).

Wise, A. F., Perera, N., Hsiao, Y., Speer, J., & Marbouti, F. (2012). Microanalytic case studies of individual participation patterns in an asynchronous online discussion in an undergraduate blended course. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 108-117.

Wise, A.F., Hausknecht, S., & Zhao, Y. (2013a). Relationships between listening and speaking in online discussions: An empirical investigation. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan & S. Puntambekar (Eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Vol I (pp. 534-541). Madison, Wisconsin.

Wise. A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. T. (2013b). Broadening the notion of participation in online discussions: Examining patterns in learners’ online listening behaviors. Instructional Science, 41(2), 323-343.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1518

Article Notice – Exploring The Impact Of Small-Group Synchronous Discourse Sessions In Online Math Learning

This was the first of the K-12 distance, online, and/or blended learning articles I references in Friday’s New Issue of Online Learning Journal Published entry.

Exploring the Impact of Small-group Synchronous Discourse Sessions in Online Math Learning

Jinnie Choi, Alyssa Walters

 

Abstract

Students in a fully-online learning environment have limited access to opportunities to talk about math problem solving. While discourse is a promising pedagogical model, less is known about how it translates to online math learning. We analyzed online platform data from two fully-online virtual elementary schools in the United States to address the following research questions: (a) Is participating in math discourse about reasoning and problem-solving related to students’ confidence, self-efficacy toward math, and math mindset in an online learning environment? (b) Is participation in math discourse related to math performance? The results showed that (a) repeated participation in the discourse sessions in a course was not directly related with changes in confidence, self-efficacy toward math, and math mindset, and (b) higher numbers of sessions that students participated in was associated with higher performance in final math course score and state assessment results, after controlling for prior performance and confidence, self-efficacy and mindset scores.

Keywords

math discourse; mathematics instruction; online learning

Full Text:

PDF

References

Ahn, J. (2016). Enrollment and Achievement in Ohio’s Virtual Charter Schools. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current directions in psychological science, 11(5), 181-185.

Boaler, J. (1999). Participation, knowledge and beliefs: A community perspective on mathematics learning. Educational studies in mathematics, 40(3), 259-281.

Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processing of success. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(5), 940.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Incorporated.

__________. (2017). Mindset: changing the way you think to fulfil your potential. Hachette UK.

Fabert, N. S. (2014). Growth Mindset Training to Increase Women’s Self-Efficacy in Science and Engineering: A Randomized-Controlled Trial. Arizona State University.

Gatti, G. (2018). A comparison study of Connections Academy Schools to matched brick and mortar and virtual schools, examining the types of students who attend K–12 virtual school and the effects on performance of a highly mobile student body. Efficacy & Research Report. London: Pearson.

Lackey, C. J. (2014). Relationships between motivation, self-efficacy, mindsets, attributions, and learning strategies: An exploratory study. Illinois State University.

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American educational research journal, 27(1), 29-63.

Lampert, M., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of education and human development (pp. 731–764). Oxford: Blackwell.

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary grades. In T. A.Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (Part II: Learning with understanding). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McWilliams, E. C. (2015). Self-efficacy, implicit theory of intelligence, goal orientation and the ninth grade experience. Northeastern University.

Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education, 20(6), 507-528.

Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in philosophy and education, 27(4), 283-297.

Resnick, L. B., Bill, V., & Lesgold, S. (1992). Developing thinking abilities in arithmetic class. In A. Demetriou, M. Shayer, & A. Efklides (Eds.), Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications for education (pp. 210–230). London: Routledge.

Rumberger, R. W. (2015). Student Mobility: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions. National Education Policy Center.

Woodworth, J. L., Raymond, M. E., Chirbas, K., Gonzalez, M., Negassi, Y., Snow, W., & Van Donge, C. (2015). Online charter school study. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes.

Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1511

New Issue of Online Learning Journal Published

This showed up in my inbox in the past day or so.  Note that there are a couple of K-12 distance, online, and/or blended learning articles below.

Featuring pedagogical strategies, student outcomes, student behavior, and course instructional design principles. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Dear OLC Colleague, We recently published Issue 22:4 of Online Learning Journal (OLJ). Since 2016, OLJ has dedicated a special issue to publish the year’s best research from the American Educational Research Association’s Online Teaching and Learning Special Interest Group (AERA-OTL SIG). This year’s special issue presents a diverse selection of high-quality research on a broad range of topics using an array of research methods. The articles in this issue are arranged according to four major categories related to online learning: pedagogical strategies, student outcomes, student behavior, and course instructional design principles. This issue of Online Learning also contains seven papers from our regular submission process. The studies in this section examine student, faculty, and administrative issues in online learning. The initial set of papers look at preparing and engaging learners in online study. The second group of papers analyze questions related to faculty development. The final paper in this section presents a national study of online learning leaders. We invite you to read and share this issue with colleagues and to consider submitting your original work to Online Learning. Best, Dr. Peter Shea EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Online Learning Journal (OLJ) Associate Provost for Online Learning & Associate Professor, Educational Theory and Practice and Informatics University at Albany, State University of New York

Copyright © 2019, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Online Learning Consortium PO Box 1238 NEWBURYPORT, MA 01950

Enhance Your Online Teaching Skills With OLC Workshops

From yesterday’s inbox…

Enhance your online teaching skills with OLC workshops. OLC workshops are a cost-effective way to collaborate with peers and experts via synchronous and asynchronous methods for effective and engaging learning. We are committed to modeling best practices for online learning in all of our workshops. Toward that end, our workshops will utilize numerous proven instructional strategies and learning activities that will spark creative ideas for your own online or blended course. Upcoming Workshops Strategies to Improve Retention Jan 28 – Feb 3, 2019 Join an expert facilitator from the OLC Institute as you identify the most significant retention challenges and learn how research-based strategies can be employed to increase retention and improve student satisfaction and success. Exploring Learning Analytics Jan 28 – Feb 3, 2019 In this workshop, you will explore formative and summative assessment techniques used in online education and develop assessment strategies suitable for your online course. Creating Infographics for Learning Feb 11 – 17, 2019 In this workshop, you will learn how to locate, evaluate, and integrate infographics into your teaching, as well as explore the possibilities for creating infographics with your data. Creating Rubrics Feb 13 – 15, 2019 Learn what qualities make a rubric successful, while exploring best practices for grading and assessing students in the online environment. SEE FULL SCHEDULE Learn | Attend | Read | Join | Connect | About | Contact | Consult | Support © 2018 The Online Learning Consortium

The Online Learning Consortium | P.O. Box 1238 | Newburyport | MA | 01950