Barbour, M. K. (2013, November). What do we really know? What does the research say about K-12 online learning? A webinar presentation to the south-eastern committee of the International Association for K-12 Online Learning.

1. Michael Barbour
Sacred Heart University

2. • “based upon the personal experiences of
those involved in the practice of virtual
schooling” (Cavanaugh et al., 2009)
• described the literature as generally falling
into one of two general categories: the
potential benefits of and challenges facing
K-12 online learning (Barbour &
Reeves, 2009)

3. • “a paucity of research exists when
examining high school students enrolled in
virtual schools, and the research base is
smaller still when the population of
students is further narrowed to the
elementary grades” (Rice, 2006)

4. • “indicative of the foundational descriptive
work that often precedes experimentation
in any scientific field. In other words, it is
important to know how students in virtual
school engage in their learning in this
environment prior to conducting any
rigorous examination of virtual schooling.”
(Cavanaugh et al., 2009)

5. Comparisons of student performance based upon
delivery model (i.e., classroom vs. online)
2. Studies examining the qualities and
characteristics of the teaching/learning
experience
1.
 characteristics of
 supports provided to
 issues related to isolation of online learners
(Rice, 2006)
1
2
Effectiveness of virtual schooling
Student readiness and retention issues
(Cavanaugh et al., 2009)

6. Bigbie &
over half of students who completed FLVS courses
McCarroll (2000) scored an A in their course & only 7% received a
failing grade
Barker & Wendel students in the six virtual schools in three different
(2001)
provinces performed no worse than the students from
the three conventional schools
Cavanaugh et al. FLVS students performed better on a non-mandatory
(2005)
assessment tool than students from the traditional
classroom
McLeod et al.
FLVS students performed better on an algebraic
(2005)
assessment than their classroom counterparts
Barbour &
little difference in the overall performance of students
Mulcahy (2008, based upon delivery model
2009)

7. Ballas & Belyk
(2000)
Bigbie &
McCarroll (2000)
Cavanaugh et al.
(2005)
McLeod et al.
(2005)
participation rate in the assessment among
virtual students ranged from 65% to 75%
compared to 90% to 96% for the classroombased students
between 25% and 50% of students had dropped
out of their FLVS courses over the previous twoyear period
speculated that the virtual school students who
did take the assessment may have been more
academically motivated and naturally higher
achieving students
results of the student performance were due to
the high dropout rate in virtual school courses

8. Haughey &
Muirhead (1999)
preferred characteristics include the highly motivated,
self-directed, self-disciplined, independent learner who
could read and write well, and who also had a strong
interest in or ability with technology
Roblyer & Elbaum only students with a high need to control and structure
(2000)
their own learning may choose distance formats freely
Clark et al. (2002) IVHS students were highly motivated, high achieving,
self-directed and/or who liked to work independently
Mills (2003)
Watkins (2005)
typical online student was an A or B student
45% of the students who participated in e-learning
opportunities in Michigan were either advanced
placement or academically advanced students

9. • “Online student scores in math, reading, and writing
have been lower than scores for students statewide over
the last three years.” (Colorado, 2006)
• “Virtual charter school pupils’ median scores on the
mathematics section of the Wisconsin Knowledge and
Concepts Examination were almost always lower than
statewide medians during the 2005-06 and 2006-07
school years.” (Wisconsin, 2010)
• “Half of the online students wind up leaving within a
year. When they do, they’re often further behind
academically then when they started.” (Colorado, 2011)

10. • “Compared with all students statewide, full-time
online students had significantly lower proficiency
rates on the math MCA-II but similar proficiency rates
in reading.” (Minnesota, 2011)
• “nearly nine of every 10 students enrolled in at least
one statewide online course, all had graduation rates
and AIMS math passing rates below the state average”
(Arizona, 2011)
• “…students at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual
school company, are falling further behind in reading
and math scores than students in brick-and-mortar
schools.” (Miron & Urschel, 2012)

11. Miron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding and improving full-time
virtual schools. Denver, CO: National Education Policy Center.
• “K12 Inc. virtual schools enroll approximately the same percentages of
black students but substantially more white students and fewer
Hispanic students relative to public schools in the states in which the
company operates”
• “39.9% of K12 students qualify for free or reduced lunch, compared with
47.2% for the same-state comparison group.”
• “K12 virtual schools enroll a slightly smaller proportion of students with
disabilities than schools in their states and in the nation as a whole
(9.4% for K12 schools, 11.5% for same-state comparisons, and 13.1% in
the nation).”
• “Students classified as English language learners are significantly underrepresented in K12 schools; on average the K12 schools enroll 0.3% ELL
students compared with 13.8% in the same-state comparison group and
9.6% in the nation.”

12. Virtual School Designer: Course Development
 design instructional materials
 works in team with teachers and a virtual school to construct
the online course, etc.
Virtual School Teacher: Pedagogy & Class Management
 presents activities, manages pacing, rigor, etc.
 interacts with students and their facilitators
 undertakes assessment, grading, etc.
Virtual School Site Facilitator: Mentoring & Advocating
 local mentor and advocate for student(s)
 proctors & records grades, etc.
Davis (2007)

13. Developed by team on behalf of the
online program
 a team of teachers, multimedia specialists,
instructional designers
 work for hire/contract
Developed by the online teacher
 hired to teach a non-existent course
 course developed throughout semester

14. Copyright
 who owns the content?
 what happens if teacher leaves?
Expertise/Training
 “more than 31% of teachers reported receiving no training in online
lesson design” (Rice & Dawley,2007, p. 26)
 to create one hour of training it took 43 hours for instructor-led, 79
hours for basic e-learning, 184 hours for interactive e-learning, and
490 hours for advanced e-learning (Chapman Alliance, 2010)
Lack of Research to Guide Practice
 studies have focused on unreliable and invalid measures
 primary data has been teacher and developer perceptions
 no open access research-based standards

15. Similar to classroom-based teaching, with
differences
 time management, creation of materials,
understanding current technology and working
with a student one-on-one (Kearsley & Blomeyer,
2004)
 work differently to have positive communication
and assessments, using non-verbal
communication, time is needed for teachers to
become comfortable with technology, shift
occurring from teacher-centered to studentcentered learning (Easton, 2003)

16. Online teaching is more work
 CDLI class size limit (official & unofficial)
 asynchronous instruction in particular
Lack of reliable and valid empirical research
 most research is based on teacher perceptions
What is known about teacher training
 learn online in order to teach online
 works in team with teachers and a virtual school to construct
the online course, etc.

17. Critical to the success of students
 research has shown the presence of active facilitators increase
student performance (Roblyer, Freeman, Stabler, &
Schneidmiller, 2007)
 a trained facilitator also has a positive impact on student
performance (UNC-Chapel Hill)
Facilitator should
 monitor student activities
 support students soft learning skills
Facilitator should not
 provide regular tutoring
 provide significant or substantial technical assistance

18. Support for the facilitator
 the allocation of one teaching per school for
each 175 students to support the delivery of
CDLI courses (Shortall & Greene-Fraize, 2007)
 schools that had students participating in
supplemental distributed learning were
eligible to receive 0.125 of a full-time
equivalent for the local or school-based
support of their students engaged in
distributed learning (Barbour, 2011)

19. Online
Course
Design
7 principles of
effective
online course
content for
adolescent
learners
Barbour
(2005;
2007)
Online
37 best
Teaching practices in
asynchronous
DiPietro online
et al.
teaching
(2008)
Interviews with teachers and course
developers at a single virtual school,
with no verification of whether the
interviewees’ perceptions were
actually effective or any student
input at all for that matter.
Interviews with teachers at a single
virtual school selected by the virtual
school itself. Their teachers’ beliefs
were not validated through
observation of the teaching or
student performance.

20. Lack of professional development
 less than 40% of online teachers reported to
receiving any professional development before they
began teaching online (Rice & Dawley, 2007)
Lack of teacher preparation programs
 less than 2% of universities in the United States
provided any systematic training in their preservice or in-service teacher education programs
(Kennedy & Archambault, 2012)

25. Director of Doctoral Studies
Sacred Heart University, USA
mkbarbour@gmail.com
http://www.michaelbarbour.com
http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com