Virtual School Meanderings

April 17, 2015

AERA 2015 – Hispanic and Latino Students in Online Education

The second session that I am blogging from the 2015 annual meeting of the American Education Research Association is a part of the following session:

31.074 – Online Teaching and Learning SIG Paper Session 3
Fri, April 17, 12:25 to 1:55pm, Marriott, Fourth Level, Addison
Session Type: Paper Session

Abstract
This session addresses culturally responsive research.

Sub Unit
SIG-Online Teaching and Learning

Chair
Naiyi Xie Fincham, Michigan State University

Papers
Best Practices for Online Global Cross-Cultural Collaborations – Dawn M. Armfield, Frostburg State University; Shadow William Jon Armfield, Northern Arizona University; Laura Esthela Sujo-Montes, Northern Arizona University; J.Michael Blocher, Northern Arizona University

Hispanic and Latino Students in Online Education – Michael Corry, The George Washington University; William R. Dardick, The George Washington University; Julie Ann Stella, The George Washington University

Interactions and Learning Outcomes in Online Language Courses – Chin-Hsi Lin, Michigan State University; Binbin Zheng, Michigan State University; Yining Zhang, Michigan State University

Overcoming Language Barriers Online: Fostering Community With Nonnative Speakers in a Massive Open Online Course – Bryan Arthur Mann, Pennsylvania State University; Armend Tahirsylaj, The Pennsylvania State University; Huihui Zhang, The Pennsylvania State University – University Park

Marginalization of Under-Represented Populations in Online Courses – Matthew A. Williams, Kent State University; N.J. Akbar, Kent State University; Scot B Tribuzi, Kent State University; Jesse Wray, Kent State University

The specific session description is:

Hispanic and Latino Students in Online Education

Abstract
Several recent data analyses of the demographics of K-12 online students suggested that Hispanic/Latino students may be underrepresented in full-time online schools, Reasons describing this inequity could be many, and a true description of this difference may be exceedingly complex. Nevertheless, closer examination of Latino student demographic data from online schools and other publicly available data may offer insights into equal access to online education, cultural and language barriers in online education, and the identification of online Latino students for special education and gifted/talented programs. These analyses may offer insight into the productive engagement of Latino students in online education.

This was a follow-up from the study that these presenters did last year at AERA (see my notes from that session here).  This year’s study focused on enrollments in Arizona (and they picked this state purposely), and was divided between online charter and online non-charter.

The presenters began with some information from their literature review, and it was interesting as I would have argued with most of the points that they made about K-12 online learning (although they did do a good job summarizing  the literature on charter schooling and high school graduation issues).

The data set was eventually widdled down to 46 schools, and they were looking at drop-out rate and graduation rate, based on charter vs. non-charter and fully online vs. blended (note at no point did they define blended).  Basically, the multivariate analysis found that there was a significant effect for drop-out rate and graduation rate for both type of school and type of delivery.  At the univariate level, there was no significant difference between charter vs. non-charter in either drop-out or graduations rates.  The model of delivery was significant when it came to drop-out rate (19.6% for fully online vs. 26.9% for blended) based on the univariate analysis, but the graduation rate was not significant.

It is interesting that the significant univariate analysis actually was counter to what has been found in the research to date, and what has also been accepted as conventional wisdom.  Although one of the main problems with the study was that the analysis was not nested – even though the way the results were presented it was very much in this kind of model.

It was also interesting that the presenters in their discussion and implications conversation basically believe that based on their research, most of what we believe about K-12 online learning was incorrect.  For example, two that I did record:

  • full-time online learning is probably best for at-risk students
  • blended learning environments are not as suitable for at-risk learners because of the requirement to be at the school

I suspect that these observations are skewed based on the methodological limitations (particularly when it comes to the data) and the researchers prior assumptions.

AERA 2015 – Advocacy Networks and Intermediaries in Educational Policy: Local, National, and Global Perspectives

This is the first session that I am blogging from the 2015 annual meeting of the American Education Research Association.  I am actually not able to attend this session, as it is scheduled back to back with one that is more closely aligned with K-12 online learning. But I did want to put out the information about this session to my readers.

31.052 – Advocacy Networks and Intermediaries in Educational Policy: Local, National, and Global Perspectives
Fri, April 17, 12:25 to 1:55pm, Swissotel, Event Centre First Level, Zurich AB
Session Type: Symposium

Abstract
Education policymaking has seen the rise of advocacy networks of loosely affiliated organizations that work to shape policies around their shared agendas. Such networks can include funders, researchers, media, lobbyists, think tanks, and the intermediary actors that connect them all. Yet little is known about how these emerging networks operate, what makes some more effective, or their impacts on research use and democratic access in the policymaking process. This session includes scholars focusing on this issue from local, national, and global perspectives, often employing innovative network analysis approaches in order to illuminate the role of advocacy networks in shaping policy. The discussion will consider how these networks operate across levels and contexts, and their potential for democratizing education policymaking.

Sub Unit
Division L – Educational Policies and Politics / Division L – Section 1: Governance, Finance, and Intergovernmental Relations

Chair
Patricia Burch, University of Southern California

Papers
Mobilizing Reform: Global and Local Nodal Actors in Education Policy Entrepreneurship – Stephen J. Ball, Institute of Education – London

Abstract
This paper draws on research from two funded projects — one funded by the Leverhulme Foundation and focused on parts of Africa, the other funded by the British Academy and focused on India. In both projects the aim is to identify and relate together local and global networks of influence and practice around processes of educational reform, as part of what Pasi Salhberg calls GERM — the global education reform movement. The paper employs a method I call ‘network ethnography’ — a combination of internet searches, social media following, network mapping and interviews with participants — that is deployed to understand and analyse the relations, processes and culture of policy communities.

The paper will attend to the ‘work’ of reform being done by both local entrepreneurs – like Ashish Dhwan in India, Chief Executive of the Central Square Foundation, a venture philanthropy investment organisation, and international organisations like McKinsey, the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation (which operates in the US, India and South Africa), the Omidyar Network, and ARK (a UK-based international social enterprise, which also operates in India and Africa).

The paper sets out first to ‘map’ the networks of which these actors and organisations are a part; second, to identify the ‘work’ of reform undertaken in specific locations; and, third, to plot the ‘movement’ and translation of some particular aspects of reform — public-private partnership, charter schools, blended learning, and assessment-based practice.

While research on education advocacy networks is starting to accelerate, much remains to be determined about what they are, how they operate, and how groups within these networks interact. By outlining a cartography of these advocacy networks at both national and transnational levels, the paper will offer insights into the shape of advocacy coalitions, as well as into the activities and relationships defining these networks.

Co-Creating Impact Measures of Research Mobilization With Intermediary Organizations – Amanda Cooper, Queen’s University

Abstract
There is growing recognition of the importance of the roles of intermediary organizations (IOs) in bridging research-practice-policy gaps in education (efforts I call knowledge mobilization, KMb); however, IOs remain underexplored (Davies & Nutley, 2008; Nutley et al., 2007; Tseng, 2007). This study develops impact measures, through multi-stakeholder panels comprised of IOs and the educational stakeholders they work with, that can be used to assess the efforts of IOs in KMb processes.

METHODS AND DATA
This paper builds on [AUTHOR’S] (2014) study which mapped the efforts of 44 IOs across Canada using a matrix tool to measure KMb efforts in relation to evidence-based strategies (products, events and networks) and indicators (types, ease of use, target audience). The top 15 IOs (according to the matrix scores) were chosen to collaborate in this study, which aims to co-create impact measures of IOs with various stakeholders that they work with, including educational leaders, teachers, parents, policymakers and other community stakeholders. These 15 IOs include different types of intermediaries such as: a ministry of education (equivalent to State Education Agency in the US), advocacy organizations, research centres from universities, as well as think tanks. Multi-stakeholder panels were convened to propose an impact framework to measure their work.

RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE
[Author’s] (2014) analysis revealed 8 major brokering functions of Canadian IOs in education: 1) linkage and partnerships of diverse stakeholders around priority issues; 2) raising awareness about research; 3) increasing accessibility to research-based resources; 4) increasing user engagement with research; 5) capacity-building among practitioners to increase research use; 6) implementation support for initiatives in school districts; 7) organizational development; and 8) policy influence. Multi-stakeholder panels met to co-create impact measures for these 8 brokering functions. Initial indicators proposed by these panels include eight categories which mirror brokering functions: 1) collaboration indicators: #products/ services developed or disseminated with partners, social network growth (assessed by social network analysis); 2) reach indicators: # distributed, # requested, # downloads/hits, media exposure; 3) usefulness indicators: read/browsed, satisfied with, usefulness of, gained knowledge, changed views; 4) use indicators: # intend to use, # adapting the research; 5) practice change indicators: # or type of capacity building efforts, # training and education sessions, commitment to change, observed change, reported change; 6) program and service indicators: fidelity and uptake, documentation and feedback, process measures; 7) system indicators: infrastructure, strategic planning across provinces or states, annual reporting structures; 8) multi-level indicators: # used to inform policy/advocacy/enhance programs, citations in policy, invitations of researchers to meetings, involvement in policy process, media presence.

This research will extend our knowledge about: what strategies intermediaries utilize to accomplish their mandate to better connect research, policy and practice; any available evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies; what impact indicators can be used to measure the efforts of IOs; the relative merits of different strategies in relation to diverse target audiences; and, why some intermediaries (and the stakeholders they serve) are more effective at KMb than others.

E-Advocacy Among Intermediary Organizations: Brokering Knowledge Through Blogs – Elise Castillo, University of California – Berkeley; Priya Goel La Londe, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Stephen Owens, University of Georgia – Athens; Elizabeth H. DeBray, University of Georgia; Janelle T. Scott, University of California – Berkeley; Christopher A. Lubienski, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Abstract
The call for reputable evidence on which to build educational policy in the United States has created a veritable marketplace of ideas. In this landscape, intermediary organizations (IOs) have assumed the role of knowledge brokers to policy actors and the public at large ([IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REMOVED], 2011). Operating in myriad forms, such as foundations, advocacy groups, think tanks, academic research networks, policy groups, and journalists, IOs are gaining traction as key players in advocacy and policymaking in the U.S. public education sector. To maintain such a presence, IOs are increasingly using blogs to broker evidence concerning key “incentivist” policies ([IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REMOVED], 2009) such as vouchers, charter schools, teacher pay-for-performance, and Parent Trigger ([IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REMOVED], 2014). Advocacy groups, such as Parent Revolution; higher profile outfits, such as EdWeek and Huffington Post; as well as individuals with branded blogs, such as Mark Weber’s Jersey Jazzman, Jennifer Berkshire’s Edushyster, and Jason France’s Crazy Crawfish, are engaging almost entirely in “E-Advocacy,” promoting and disseminating evidence via their online blog platforms.

This analysis will broaden our understanding of knowledge brokering in the blogosphere. Focusing specifically on charter schools, we report on forthcoming findings regarding the following questions:

1. Who is blogging, and for what intended purposes?
2. What, and how, do bloggers treat evidence?
3. How are blogs being treated as evidence among policy actors?

Echo chambers ([IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REMOVED], 2009) and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) (Sabatier, 1993) frame our analysis. The ACF suggests that a policy “subsystem” consists of a range of actors and organizations, concerned with a particular public issue, who play pivotal roles in knowledge brokering and policymaking (Sabatier, 1993). The ACF offers an opportunity to understand the placement and penetration of the blogosphere in the charter school “echo chamber” of evidence, in which a “a small but defined set of studies is repeatedly cited” ([IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REMOVED], 2014, p. 285).

METHODOLOGY
As part of a larger study focusing on research use among policymakers, this mixed methods analysis draws upon data gathered from blogs, interviews, and research reports. Data collection takes place from August 2011 to December 2014. We use a protocol to document the issues, regions, citations, evidence, and links in around 300 blog entries across 41 blogs. We also conduct open-ended interviews with ten bloggers and policymakers to understand bloggers’ approach to knowledge brokering and the role of blogs in policymakers’ work. Further, we track research reports cited by policymakers and bloggers. Using an open coding system, we selectively sample the entire set of blog, interview and document data to uncover themes pertaining specifically to charter schools in order to understand knowledge brokering in the blogosphere.

SIGNIFICANCE
The blogosphere’s role in the proliferation and diversification of advocacy networks is understudied and important. This pilot analysis expands our understanding of relationships between policymakers and bloggers, new approaches to “effective advocacy,” and features of E-advocacy networks within U.S. educational policymaking.

Urban Regimes, Intermediary Organization Networks, and Research Use: Patterns Across Three School Districts – Janelle T. Scott, University of California – Berkeley; Elizabeth H. DeBray, University of Georgia; Christopher A. Lubienski, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Priya Goel La Londe, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Elise Castillo, University of California – Berkeley; Stephen Owens, University of Georgia – Athens

Abstract
This paper is part of a larger study focused on the role of networks in disseminating research evidence on “incentivist” policies — namely charter schools and teacher pay-for-performance — to policymakers [IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REMOVED, 2001]. Researchers have known for some time that evidence is not always the primary consideration in policy discussions, particularly in education policymaking. But at the same time, some prominent funders have gone through extraordinary lengths to produce evidence — while also aligning media, advocacy organizations and other elements of the policy discussion apparatus — in order to increase the chances that their desired policy agendas will advance. Two prominent examples of this are the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study (Kane, McCaffrey, Miller, & Staiger, 2013); and the 2009 and 2013 CREDO/Stanford studies on charter school outcomes, both funded by philanthropic organizations trying to promote particular reforms in American education (although, interestingly, the initial CREDO findings were seen by many as undercutting the funders’ pro-charter school agenda).

In view of the importance placed on these studies, and their consequent usefulness for illustrating how advocacy networks can advance evidence in education policymaking, the following research questions will be addressed: 1.) What have been the responses in both the academic literature and a sub-sample of policy-related blogs to two studies, the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study, and the 2009 and 2013 CREDO/Stanford studies on charter school outcomes? 2.) Are there identifiable networks in the blogosphere and/or academic community that are interpreting and disseminating the studies in different ways? 3.) What can interview data drawn from three cities where the two reforms were implemented reveal about perceptions of the usefulness and validity of the studies?

The paper’s conceptual framework builds on that of Goldie et al. (2014)’s bibliometric analysis of vouchers, but broadens it by incorporating systematically collected blog data as well as selected interview data. For the 2009 CREDO study, there is approximately three and a half years of blog data, for MET, two and a half years, and for the 2013 CREDO study, one and a half years. Blog data were coded for their mention of the studies, links to reports, and nature of the commentary on the blog. In addition, coded mentions of the studies in over 250 interviews conducted with organization leaders and policymakers provide a third source of information of how and whether reform leaders in three cities (New Orleans, New York, and Denver) perceive the treatment of the studies’ usefulness and relevance to policy decisions, including sub-studies from CREDO that focus on specific states. Our analyses of the uptake of these influential studies sheds some light on the potential of advocacy networks to advance evidence in undergirding specific agendas, while also showing how other research reports typically do not enjoy the same degree of support.

The Movement Rising From Progressive Resistance to American Legislative Exchange Council–Inspired Legislation: The Case of North Carolina – Catherine Marshall, University of North Carolina

Abstract
North Carolina’s usual education interest groups are increasingly losing influence in the face of privatization-focused policy initiatives that gained momentum, money, and model bills from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and similar new actors in the policy community. The neoliberal underpinnings of the model bills promote market-driven mechanisms and move toward privatized and deregulated systems as their way to increase productivity, competition, and efficiency. Their education policy proposals encourage entrepreneurs to invest in education and thus profit. North Carolina is significant as an extreme case of a national phenomenon whereby conservative and well-funded national networks like ALEC have become a force by offering benefits and assistance to state legislators who will use their model bills and strategies.

This paper documents the rise of networks that share goals and strategies of resistance. Coalitions comprised of actors whose interest has been pro public education and protecting and supporting those in the traditional public school structures, like school boards and administrators and teachers associations, now find they increasingly share marginal status with the advocacy groups whose “causes” are civil rights, voting rights, pro-labor, pro, health care and social services for the unemployed and poor, pro-peace, pro-environment, women’s reproductive rights, pro Hispanic, pro LGBTQ, and more.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODS
Conceptualizing from social movement theory and literatures on politics of education and on education professionalism, data were collected through participant observation, document analysis, and interviews over the course of a year.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The policy for vouchers, called “Opportunity Scholarships,” was the policy that brought together the most commonality of interest and the widest coalition for collaborative strategizing, litigation, and protest. It, along with the policy retracting teacher tenure, are the focus of lawsuits mounted by coalitions. Teachers who are often uninvolved in politics are now creating their own protests, petitions, and blogs, and they are increasingly joining forces with the wide range of progressive advocacy groups who, led by NAACP, are protesting on the legislative lawn weekly.

Analysis, with coding guided by the conceptual framing, reveals six key findings: 1) shared values among progressive advocacy groups and educators created a sense of solidarity, helping to mobilize collective activism; 2) traditional education interest groups capitalized on that momentum, and 3) within a year the neoliberal agendas were successfully challenged to 4) include teacher raises in the budget, 5) answer legal challenges to their policies, and 6) realize their policies had inadvertently catalyzed formation of a new, solidified coalition that was mobilizing with new strategies and were unconstrained by traditional patterns of professional or deferential political behavior. This research also found the emergence of new alliances and new strategies, such as “Moral Mondays” demonstrations on the legislative lawn, and coordination and cooperation in litigation when, as one informant said, “we can no longer be effective with just providing resources and testimony: we’re not heard at all.”

Discussant
Kalervo N. Gulson, University of New South Wales

If anyone has any notes from this session, I would welcome them…

If You’re Available At 4pm On Sunday…

As the the 2015 annual meeting of the American Education Research Association begins today, I wanted to share this AERA event from Sunday…

… in Chicago, please come to the special, interactive session that launches the 2016 Annual Meeting theme emphasizing “public scholarship” (see attached). Jeannie Oakes, Michelle Renee and I invited NEPC Fellow David Garcia, should-be-an-NEPC-Fellow Linda Darling-Hammond, and he-really-wishes-he-were-an-NEPC-Fellow Rick Hess to help us get started thinking about the world of public scholarship. Please spread the word!

I’m looking forward to seeing a bunch of you there, and in Chicago more generally.

Cheers, k

Kevin G. Welner
Professor and Director
National Education Policy Center
http://nepc.colorado.edu
School of Education
University of Colorado Boulder
(303) 492-8370
‘Like’ the NEPC on Facebook | Follow @NEPCtweet on Twitter

Attachment: 2015 Session Flyer

April 13, 2015

AERA 2015 And K-12 Online Learning

The American Education Research Association is hosting is annual meeting at the end of this week.  After looking through the program, I think I have identified all of the sessions that are related to K-12 online learning based on subject and author searching.  I should note that it seems that this is a VERY light AERA in terms of K-12 online learning sessions – at least in comparison to previous years.

 

31.052 – Advocacy Networks and Intermediaries in Educational Policy: Local, National, and Global Perspectives

Fri, April 17, 12:25 to 1:55pm, Swissotel, Event Centre First Level, Zurich AB

Session Type: Symposium

Abstract

Education policymaking has seen the rise of advocacy networks of loosely affiliated organizations that work to shape policies around their shared agendas. Such networks can include funders, researchers, media, lobbyists, think tanks, and the intermediary actors that connect them all. Yet little is known about how these emerging networks operate, what makes some more effective, or their impacts on research use and democratic access in the policymaking process. This session includes scholars focusing on this issue from local, national, and global perspectives, often employing innovative network analysis approaches in order to illuminate the role of advocacy networks in shaping policy. The discussion will consider how these networks operate across levels and contexts, and their potential for democratizing education policymaking.

Sub Unit

  • Division L – Educational Policies and Politics / Division L – Section 1: Governance, Finance, and Intergovernmental Relations

Chair

  • Patricia Burch, University of Southern California

Papers

  • Mobilizing Reform: Global and Local Nodal Actors in Education Policy EntrepreneurshipStephenJ.Ball, Institute of Education – London
  • Co-Creating Impact Measures of Research Mobilization With Intermediary OrganizationsAmandaCooper, Queen’s University
  • E-Advocacy Among Intermediary Organizations: Brokering Knowledge Through BlogsEliseCastillo, University of California – Berkeley; PriyaGoelLa Londe, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; StephenOwens, University of Georgia – Athens; ElizabethH.DeBray, University of Georgia; JanelleT.Scott, University of California – Berkeley; ChristopherA.Lubienski, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Urban Regimes, Intermediary Organization Networks, and Research Use: Patterns Across Three School DistrictsJanelleT.Scott, University of California – Berkeley; ElizabethH.DeBray, University of Georgia;ChristopherA.Lubienski, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; PriyaGoelLa Londe, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; EliseCastillo, University of California – Berkeley; StephenOwens, University of Georgia – Athens
  • The Movement Rising From Progressive Resistance to American Legislative Exchange Council–Inspired Legislation: The Case of North CarolinaCatherineMarshall, University of North Carolina

Discussant

  • KalervoN.Gulson, University of New South Wales

31.074 – Online Teaching and Learning SIG Paper Session 3

Fri, April 17, 12:25 to 1:55pm, Marriott, Fourth Level, AddisonSession Type: Paper Session

Abstract

This session addresses culturally responsive research.

Sub Unit

  • SIG-Online Teaching and Learning

Chair

  • NaiyiXieFincham, Michigan State University

Papers

  • Best Practices for Online Global Cross-Cultural CollaborationsDawnM.Armfield, Frostburg State University; ShadowWilliam JonArmfield, Northern Arizona University; LauraEsthelaSujo-Montes, Northern Arizona University; J.MichaelBlocher, Northern Arizona University
  • Hispanic and Latino Students in Online EducationMichaelCorry, The George Washington University; WilliamR.Dardick, The George Washington University; JulieAnnStella, The George Washington University
  • Interactions and Learning Outcomes in Online Language CoursesChin-HsiLin, Michigan State University; BinbinZheng, Michigan State University; YiningZhang, Michigan State University
  • Overcoming Language Barriers Online: Fostering Community With Nonnative Speakers in a Massive Open Online CourseBryanArthurMann, Pennsylvania State University; ArmendTahirsylaj, The Pennsylvania State University; HuihuiZhang, The Pennsylvania State University – University Park
  • Marginalization of Under-Represented Populations in Online CoursesMatthewA.Williams, Kent State University; N.J.Akbar, Kent State University; ScotBTribuzi, Kent State University; JesseWray, Kent State University

46.086-18 – Technology as an Agent of Change in Teaching and Learning SIG Roundtable 3: Exploring the Intersection of Technology and Leadership

  • In Event: 46.086 – Roundtable Session 16

Sat, April 18, 8:15 to 9:45am, Hyatt, East Tower – Purple Level, Riverside WestSession Type: Roundtable Session

Sub Unit

  • SIG-Technology as an Agent of Change in Teaching and Learning

Chair

  • VanessaHammlerKenon, The University of Texas – San Antonio

Papers

  • Leadership Strategies for a Future-Focused Intermediate School: A Case StudyJulieKarenMackey, University of Canterbury; NikiDavis, University of Canterbury
  • Learning to Teach With Digital Technologies and Learning to Lead: A Tale of Two CountriesPingGao, University of Northern Iowa
  • Use of Personal Learning Environment Management to Support Lifelong LearningCherng-JyhYen, Old Dominion University; Chih-HsiungTu, Northern Arizona University; BodiAnderson, Indian RIver State College;LauraEsthelaSujo-Montes, Northern Arizona University; GayleA.Roberts

65.076 – Research on the Impact of Virtual Learning

Sun, April 19, 2:15 to 3:45pm, Marriott, Fourth Level, ArmitageSession Type: Paper Session

Sub Unit

  • SIG-Technology as an Agent of Change in Teaching and Learning

Chair

  • CathyC.Leogrande, Le Moyne College

Papers

  • Digital Dilemmas in Dilemmatic Space(s): Analysis of a Digitalized SocietyGöranFransson, University of Gävle
  • Technology and Increased Self-Efficacy: Online Learning as a Solution for At-Risk StudentsSomerLewis, University of North Carolina – Wilmington; AmyE.Garrett Dikkers, University of North Carolina – Wilmington;AimeeWhiteside, University of Tampa
  • The Impact of Interactive, Video-Based Professional Development on the Use of Chat in Online CoursesCorinneHyde, University of Southern California; KimberlyA.Ferrario, University of Southern California
  • To Teach Is to Learn Twice: Embedded Online Peer Mentoring Support in a First-Year Education CourseNormanDavisVaughan, Mount Royal University
  • Virtual Learning in New Zealand: Examples of Networked SchoolsMichaelKristopherBarbour, Sacred Heart University; DerekWenmoth, Core Education Ltd; NikiDavis, University of Canterbury

Discussant

  • NatalieB.Milman, The George Washington University

72.062 – Understanding the Digital Evolution in K–12 Education: Policy and Practice Perspectives

Mon, April 20, 10:35am to 12:05pm, Marriott, Fourth Level, ArmitageSession Type: Symposium

Abstract

Researchers will present diverse perspectives and research projects that examine how computing and digital tools are impacting education across states, districts, schools, and classrooms. Computer devices, digital content, video games, online learning, and models such as blended learning, are becoming an accepted part of the toolset in educational practice. There is a great need to understand how technology impacts all aspects of the K-12 education system including how for-profit and public institutions structure education options, district leaders make decisions regarding technology spending and implementation, and school leaders and teachers adopt local practices. The panelists will present research projects that illuminate key issues surrounding new technological developments in education, and frame agendas to inform research that can address these challenges.

Sub Unit

  • SIG-Technology as an Agent of Change in Teaching and Learning

Chair

  • RichardR.Halverson, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Papers

  • Equal Scrutiny: Data Use, Access, and Assessment in Digital Education ContractingAnnaleeG.Good, University of Wisconsin – Madison; PatriciaBurch, University of Southern California
  • K–12 Online Education: Tracing Developments in Policy and Adoption in OhioJuneAhn, University of Maryland – College Park; AndrewMcEachin, North Carolina State University
  • Drowning Digitally: How Disequilibrium Shapes Practice in a Blended Learning Charter SchoolAndreaJ.Bingham, University of Southern California
  • Blended Learning in K–12 Education: What Do We Really Have, and Where Do We Go?PeterSamuelsonWardrip, University of Pittsburgh; JuneAhn, University of Maryland – College Park

Discussant

  • PatriciaBurch, University of Southern California

75.054 – Understanding Educational Opportunity in Rural School Districts: An Examination of Community, Demography, and Policy

Mon, April 20, 2:15 to 3:45pm, Swissotel, Lucerne Level, Alpine ISession Type: Symposium

Abstract

The purpose of this session is to examine how community, demography, and policy impact educational opportunity in rural contexts. Given that Brown v. Board of Education was a compilation of cases, including some rural, it is important to analyze progress concerning educational opportunity for students currently attending school in rural districts. Papers included in this session range in scope from broad topics such as school funding and school choice to case studies of rural districts seeking to provide equal educational opportunity to students in their respective districts. Additionally, papers presented in this symposium vary in methodology. They range from theoretical to complimentary mixed methods.

Sub Unit

  • SIG-Rural Education

Chair

  • Sheneka M. Williams, University of Georgia

Papers

  • School Funding and Rural DistrictsJerry Johnson, University of West Florida; Brian P. Zoellner, University of North Florida
  • Location, Location, Location: School Choice in the Rural ContextAin A. Grooms, University of Georgia – Athens
  • A New Narrative on Rural Education: How One High School Takes on 21st-Century ChallengesErica Lopatofsky Kryst, The Pennsylvania State University – University Park; Stephen Kotok, The Pennsylvania State University; Annelise Hagedorn
  • It Takes a Community: Preparing Teachers for Rural African American Early Childhood StudentsJaneula M. Burt, Bowie State University; Daniel Boyd, Lowndes County Public Schools

If I have missed any, do let me know…

November 7, 2014

iNACOL 2014 – On-Site And Online Facilitators: Current And Future Direction For Research (Jered Borup)

I saw this last night on Google+ – it was a back-up video that I don’t believe that was needed. But for folks that couldn’t be at iNACOL, I figured that I would share it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWAy6X-CCc8

« Previous PageNext Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,808 other followers