Unger, K. & Barbour, M. K. (2010, June). Web 2.0 tools for instructing in-service teachers on virtual schooling in K-12 educational settings. A paper presented at the conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Toronto, ON. This proposal examines a graduate level course designed to help prepare teachers to support students engaged in online learning at the K-12 level. The course objective is to provide K-12 in-service teachers the foundations and knowledge-base of virtual schooling in the K-12 learning environment. To achieve this objective the course explores and utilizes various Web 2.0 tools to deliver and reinforce the virtual schooling component of the course. Using data collected from students enrolled in a graduate level course in Michigan over three semesters through an action research study, the instructor has been equipped to make informed decisions about the course content, readings, activities, and projects used in further offerings of the course. This proposal describes the course in question, along with the data-based modifications that have been made since 2008.

1. Instructional Technology
Web 2.0 Tools for Instructing
In-service Teachers on Virtual
Schooling in K-12 Educational
Settings
Michael K. Barbour - mkbarbour@gmail.com
Kelly Unger - klu728@gmail.com

2. Instructional Technology
Current state of K-12 VS
Students Enrolled in Online Courses
• 2001 = 40,000 – 50,000 (Clark)
• 2009 = >1,000,000 K-12 (Picciano& Seaman)
Students Enrolled in Online Courses
• 45 States (plus DC) reporting significant K-12
online learning activity

3. GAP
Instructional Technology
Less than 40% of all online K-12 teachers in
the United States reported to receiving
professional development before they
began teaching online (Rice &Dawley, 2007)

4. Instructional Technology
Current state of VS
• 2006 – Michigan adds online learning graduation
requirement
• Added 3 new standards for teachers in
Educational Technology
1. Online Technology Experience and Skills
2. Online Course Design
3. Online Course Delivery
• Necessitated changes to all endorsement
programs in the state

5. Instructional Technology
Current state of VS
• At Wayne State University changed reflected
in IT6230 – Internet in the Classroom
– preparing teachers for three new roles (Davis, 2007)
1. Virtual School Designer
2. Virtual School Teacher
3. Virtual School Facilitator
» most middle and high school teachers in Michigan
were more likely to play the role of the facilitator the
majority of course activities focused on this position

6. Instructional Technology
Curriculum
• Generational Differences (2 weeks)
– dispelling digital natives/millennials myths
– exploring “Generation Me”
• Web 2.0 Tools (6 weeks)
– blogs, RSS, wikis, microblogging, social
bookmarking, social networking, collaborative
tools
• K-12 Online Learning (7 weeks)

7. Generational Differences
Instructional Technology
• Digital Natives (Prensky)
• Millennials (Howe &
Strauss)
• Generation Me (Twenge)

8. Web 2.0
Instructional Technology

9. Instructional Technology
K-12 Online Learning
• TEGIVS scenarios & IA case studies
• Readings related to K-12 online learning
• Reflective discussions using blogs and RSS feeds
based upon the instructor’s prompt
• Activities and videos about K-12 online learning
• Individual project and group project from the
TEGIVS curriculum
• MI case studies

10. Instructional Technology
Purpose of Study
Examine the effectiveness of the chosen K-12
online learning curriculum, with the goal of
making continual improvements to the
course (Stringer, 2004).

11. Instructional Technology
Methods
• Three Semesters
– Winter 2008 - 9 of 15 students
– Winter 2009 - 5 of 7 students
– Summer 2009 – 5 of 14 students
• Data
– Blog comments based prompts by the instructor
– Course assignments
– Student evaluations of teaching

12. Cycle 1 – Winter 2008
Instructional Technology
• Practitioner-focused
readings
• Generational
differences were
organized by optimistic
and research-based
• Used blogs and RSS for
discussion
• Focused Wiki Project
Around Horizon Report

13. Cycle 1 – Winter 2008
Instructional Technology
• Demonstrated microblogging,
social bookmarking and
networking, but use was
limited
• Adopted Teacher Education
Goes into Virtual Schooling
(TEGIVS) curricular wholesale
– Multimedia scenarios
– Individual project
– Group project
• Discussion prompts were
largely based on optional
Web 2.0 use or course
support materials

14. Cycle 2 – Winter 2009
Instructional Technology
• Re-organized generational
differences readings by label
• Discussion prompts
more closely tied to
readings
• Used many of the tools to
present content (e.g.,
microblogging, social
networking, etc.)
• Added Web 2.0 project –
which also forced greater
tool use

15. Cycle 2 – Winter 2009
Instructional Technology
• Localized and revised
TEGIVS scenarios
• Modified individual
project
– Added tasks from
TEGIVS scenarios
• More research-based
readings
• Added ILO case studies to
focus on VS teacher role

16. Cycle 3 – Summer 2009
Instructional Technology
• Course moved to online
delivery
• No change in
generational differences
unit
• Limited the number of
Web 2.0 tools
• Revised Web 2.0 project
to make most selected
tools mandatory
• Partnered with Clif Mims
for Wiki Project

17. Cycle 3 – Summer 2009
Instructional Technology
• Modified the individual
project again
– added specific tasks related
to ILO case studies
– added tasks related to
Converge special issue
• Unit 3 discussion prompts
forced students to explore
new resources
– with a continued emphasis
on the readings

18. Cycle 4 – Winter 2010
Instructional Technology
• Course offered online
again
• No substantial
changes to
generational
differences or Web
2.0 units
• Better illustration of
Web 2.0 tools for
online teaching

19. Cycle 4 – Winter 2010
Instructional Technology
• Created Michigan-
specific online teaching
case studies
– used as part of
Individual Project
• Better sequencing of
topics
• Better coverage of topics
related to all three roles
Note Unit 3 (Virtual Schooling) has
increased in length by one week
each semester, while Unit 2 (Web
2.0) has decreased the same
amount.

20. Instructional Technology
Design Lessons
• First you have to confront students’
preconceptions and dispel any myths
• Michigan-specific examples
• Discussions more meaningful when tied to the
readings, but push students to use resources
beyond (particularly with research-based
readings)

21. Instructional Technology
Continuing Design Issues
• Continued and better integration of Web 2.0
tools and examples into Virtual Schooling content
• Continued revision of the Individual Project
• Better mix of practitioner-focused and research-
based readings
• Increase in materials related to “virtual school
designer” role

22. Instructional Technology
Questions???

23. Instructional Technology
Michael K. Barbour - mkbarbour@gmail.com
Kelly Unger - klu728@gmail.com