Hawkins, A., Graham, C., & Barbour, M. K. (2010, April). Teacher-student interaction in a state-led virtual high school. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
This study investigates teacher-student interaction in a large, state-led virtual high school. A sample of 15,000 student are surveyed to examine their perceptions of the quality and frequency of instructional, procedural, and social interactions and how these correlate with student academic achievement and course progress. Interviews of select teachers with high and low completion rates explore attitudinal and behavioral differences exhibited between the two groups in relation to teacher-student interaction. Findings from this study can be used to identify best-practices for use in professional development programs and improve interactivity for K-12 online teachers and students.
AERA 2010 - Teacher-Student Interaction in a State-Led Virtual High School
1. Teacher-Student Interaction
in a State-led Virtual High School
Abigail Hawkins, Brigham Young University
Michael K. Barbour, Wayne State University
Charles R. Graham, Brigham Young
University
2. U.S. Virtual Schooling Context
Explosive growth
1997: 2 states in 2009: 46 (Watson, Gemin, Ryan, & Wicks 2009)
Student body increasingly diverse (Barbour & Reeves,
2009; Watson, Gemin, & Ryan, 2008)
Traditionally taken to supplement brick-and-
mortar schooling. Growing as a full-time
option.
Viable choice in U.S. educational landscape
3. Virtual Schooling Challenge
Attrition in K-12 online learning is aproblem.
(Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Berge & Clark, 2005;
Bigbie&McCarroll, 2000; Cavanaugh, Gillan, Bosnick, Hess, &
Scott, 2005; McLeod, Hughes, Brown, Choi, & Maeda, 2005;
Rice, 2006; Smith, Clark, &Blomeyer, 2005; Zucker&Kozma,
2003).
Teacher – student interaction may be key to
student success, as proven in higher
education (Rice, 2006; Smith et al., 2005)
4. Purpose of Study
What is the correlation between student
perceptions of the quality and frequency of
teacher-student interaction and student
academic performance and progress in self-
paced, asynchronous online secondary
courses?
How are are teachers’ reported interactions
and perceptions of their role similar or different
for courses with high and low completion
rates?
5. Study Context>Utah’s Electronic High
School
State-led virtual high school
1 of 8 virtual schools in Utah (Watson & Ryan,
2008)
Oldest (est. 1994) and one of largest (2008
enrollments = 47,932) (CELT2005-2008 2009)
Student Enrollments:
Evaluation,
60000
50000
# of students
47932
40000
Significant growth over
30000 time. 32065
20000
10000
4493
0 802
2005 2006 2007 2008
years
6. Study Context>Utah’s Electronic High
School
Asynchronous, self-
paced, supplemental, rolling-enrollment model
Virtually no peer-peer interaction
75 part-time teachers, 4 administrators, 92
unique courses, 11 disciplines
Policy changes, Oct. 2007
30 days inactivity then automatically dropped
Six-month completion time
7. K-12 Teacher-Student Interaction
in DE
Why teacher-student interaction?
Central DE theory
Factor within institutions’ control
Fits EHS context
Majority of interaction research in higher
education
8. Mixed-Method Research
Design
Research Participants Data Collection Method of
Question Technique Analysis
1. Correlation 36,791 18-item fixed Descriptive
between student enrollments from response, cross- statistics, Cross
perceived quality Feb. 1, 2008 – sectional survey. Tabulation, Mann
and frequency of Jan 31, 2009 Student academic Whitney
interaction and across all performance data.
academic disciplines.
performance.
2. Teacher 6 teachers total: Semi-structured Thematic analysis
reported 3 high telephone Cross-case
interactions and completions interviews comparisons
perceived roles in 3 low completions
high and low in English, Math,
course completion Social Science
rates
9. Results > Reason for Enrolling
Reason for Enrollment Frequency Percent
Space in schedule 454 40.2%
Faster to complete 87 7.7%
Class I failed 113 10.0%
Graduate Early 95 8.4%
Adult HS Diploma 16 1.4%
Proceed at own pace 50 4.4%
Easier than online 26 2.3%
Special needs 63 5.6%
Sounded interesting 53 4.7%
3.5% Other 113 10.0%
respons
Missing from System 29 2.6%
e rate
Total 1129 100%
10. Results >Procedural Q.
Non Completers / Completers
Q2. When I had difficulty understanding the class policies and
procedures (e.g., turning in assignment, knowing what my current grade
was, which assignments I needed to re-do, etc.), I could get help from
my teacher.
Cross Tabs
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total
Non Completer 120 233 257 610
% 19.7% 38.2% 42.1% 100%
Completer 49 218 232 499
% 9.8% 43.7% 46.5% 100%
Significant: Chi Square p= .000; Mann Whitney p = .004; Eta: .137; ABCD
Possible Implications:
Non completers had a harder time getting help understanding policies and
procedures than completers
Help seeking strategies likely poorer for non completers than completers
Logistical problems may prevent student progress.
11. Results >Feedback Q.
Non Completers / Completers
Q5. When I had difficulty understanding the class material, I could
get help from my teacher.
Cross Tabs
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total
Non 119 261 224 694
Completers 17.1% 37.6% 32.3% 100%
%
Completers 59 228 210 497
% 11.8% 45.8% 42.3% 100%
Significant: Chi Square p= .002; Mann Whitney p = .005; Eta =.107;
ABCD
Possible Implications:
Twice as many non completers as completers had difficulty
getting help.
Help not available? Not know how to access help?
12. Results >Social Interaction Q.
ABCD, Non Completers
Q10. I felt comfortable interacting with my teacher.
Cross Tabs
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total
A 45 195 133 373
% 12.1% 52.3% 35.7% 100%
B 23 54 24 101
% 22.8% 53.5% 23.8% 100%
C 7 8 4 19
% 26.8% 42.1% 21.1% 100%
D 1 1 2 4
% 25% 25% 50% 100%
Non Completer 145 266 191 602
% 24.1% 47.7% 32.2% 100%
Significance: Chi Square p =.000; Eta: .129; Non Completers/Completers,
Non starters/ Starters
13. Results > ABCD, Non
Completers
Q22. I felt comfortable interacting with my teacher.
Possible Implications:
Lack of engagement = function of
comfort/connection/community not content
EHS Teacher interview findings (n=8)
Virtually all interaction over content only
Communicate ONLY if initiated by student
Students may be more likely to ask for help from
teachers if they know who teachers are and have
positive relationship with teacher.
14. Results > Similarities on Reported
Behaviors
Majority interactions instructional in nature
Gradeassignments and give feedback
Answer student-initiated questions via email
Exception: High Completion Geometry > via telephone
15%
Few procedural interactions
Majority of contact initiated by students
15. Results > Differences on Reported
Behaviors
High Completer Teachers Low Completer Teachers
Some social interaction Virtually no social
(defined as personalized feedback on
“about me” assignment) interactions
2 of 3 email
encouragement to near 1 of 3 email
inactive students, encouragement to
unsystematic and near inactive students,
unscheduled systematic, scheduled
One adapt assignments No differences in
and one “I treat them all
the same” treatment
16. Results > Similarities in Perception of
Role
View curriculum as teacher
“The material on there is the teacher essentially.”
View self as TA / Grader
View feedback as subordinate role to teaching
Do not perceive feedback as teaching
View self as removed from the student and
student experience.
17. Results > Differences in Perception of
Role
High Completer Teachers Low Completer Teachers
Encourager Sheppard/Manage
2 of 3 teachers Movement
Herd them through
Student owns it
Self-guided w/o
teacher
18. Implications
Teachers expressed a desire for more
synchronous, higher fidelity interactions.
Provide supports to accomplish this.
Teachers beliefs regarding types of
interactions possible act as barriers to
interaction
Institutional factors act as barriers to
interaction
Incentive to disengage
20. Selected References
Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A
review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402-416.
Berge, Z. L., && Clark, T. (2005). Virtual schools planning for success. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Bigbie, C., &McCarroll, W. (2000). The florida virtual high evaluation 1999-
2000 report. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from
http://www.flvs.net/educators/documents/pdf/archived_evals/FLVS%20Ann
ual%20Evaluations/99-2000/99-2000%20Year%20End%20Evaluation.pdf
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Bosnick, J., Hess, M., & Scott, H. (2005).
Succeeding at the gateway: Secondary algebra learning in the virtual
school. Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction,
presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.
Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12
context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-448.
21. Selected References
Smith, R., Clark, T., &Blomeyer, R. (2005). A synthesis of new
research in K-12 online learning. Naperville, IL: Learning
Point Associates.
Watson, J., Gemin, B., & Ryan, J. (2008). Keeping pace with
K-12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and
practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online
Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.kpk12.com/downloads/KeepingPace_2008.pdf
Watson, J., Gemin, B., Ryan, J., & Wicks, M. (2009).
Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A review of state-
level policy and practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council
for Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.kpk12.com/downloads/KeepingPace09-
fullreport.pdf
Weiner, C. (2003). Key ingredients to online learning:
Adolescent students study in cyberspace - the nature of the
study. International Journal of E-Learning, July-September,
44-50.
Notas del editor
A growing phenomenon in K-12 education is virtual schooling, primary and secondary education offered through Internet or Web-based methods (Clark, 2001). In 1997, only two states had virtual schools. Eleven years later, 44 states offer significant online learning opportunities for students (Watson, Gemin, & Ryan, 2008). Historically virtual schooling had served college-bound, highly motivated students. Today’s estimated 1,030,000 K-12 students are increasingly diverse with many seeking to recover credits as opposed to those wanting to accelerate graduation. More full time programs, as opposed to the traditional supplemental alternatives, are being developed.There is Virtual schooling is gaining ground as a viable choice in an increasingly diverse educational landscape.
A significant and well-documented problem in K12 online education is student attrition, with estimates ranging widely due to differences in how course completions are calculated.While there are multiple factors that contribute to student attrition, one factor that may be central to student success in virtual schools is teacher-student interaction.
Utah’s electronic high school is one of 8 virtual schools in Utah and is the only state-led virtual high school operating out of Utah’s State Office of Education. It is one of the oldest and largest virtual schools in the nation according to their CELT 2009 evaluation.Policy Changes:EHS recently underwent several policy changes that have impacted their attrition rates. These include students being dropped automatically after 30 days of inactivity where inactivity is defined as not submitting a graded assignment. And students have six months to complete the course after which they are dropped (but can re-enroll and be put back into the course where they left off if they make the request).EHS has high enrollment and attrition and this may be caused by several factors including high student to teacher ratios, a policy where no failing grades are awarded so students do not worry about withdrawing or dropping out as it won’t impact their transcript, and there is no registration fee so students can sign up and there is no skin off their back for enrolling and not engaging.
Policy Changes:EHS recently underwent several policy changes that have impacted their attrition rates. These include students being dropped automatically after 30 days of inactivity where inactivity is defined as not submitting a graded assignment. And students have six months to complete the course after which they are dropped (but can re-enroll and be put back into the course where they left off if they make the request).EHS has high enrollment and attrition and this may be caused by several factors including high student to teacher ratios, a policy where no failing grades are awarded so students do not worry about withdrawing or dropping out as it won’t impact their transcript, and there is no registration fee so students can sign up and there is no skin off their back for enrolling and not engaging.
We focused our study on teacher-student interaction for several reasons:It is central to many distance education theories including Moore’s Theory of Transactional Distance (1973), Short, William, and Christy’s (1976) Social Presence Theory, and Holmberg’s (2007)Teaching-Learning Conversations. Unlike student disposition factors, teacher interaction is something within the institutions’ control. They can create policies and professional development practices to support teacher development in interaction and engagement with students.Research in higher education supports the importance of teacher-student interactionAnd it works within the research setting context where EHS has ONLY teacher-student interaction and no student-student interaction.
Their reasons for enrollment were varied. However freeing up space and credit recover were about the most frequently cited reasons.
For the question, when I had difficulty understanding the class policies and procedures, I could get help. There was a about a 10% point difference between completers and non completers in terms of feeling like they could get help.This was significant at the .000 level and had a practical significance, or Eta of .137. This question was also significant for students based on their final grade.Possible implications of this is that non-completers perceived that they had a hard time getting help to be able to understand the policies and procedures of the course in comparison with completers. This may be because struggling students have poorer help seeking strategies than more successful students. It also may be reflective that the logistical problems are acting as barriers to actual student progress and these should be anticipated and assumed as the problem instead of waiting for the student to approach the instructor.
The lack of engagement may actually be a function of a sense of comfort, connectedness, and community as opposed to content difficulty. The interviews which follow indicate that virtually all of the interactions were over the content as opposed to being more social in nature and the majority of these interactions were student initiated.Teaching is a relationship enterprise. Students may be more likely to ask for help from teachers if they know who teachers are and have positive relationship with teacher.
Teachers reported that they wished that there were more ways that they could communicate synchronously and more immediately with their students. However, when pressed as to how they could accomplish this, they were limited in their responses and resorted to chat office hours. One option is for teachers to understand and create asynchronous video, again to create that higher fidelity experience.Teachers demonstrated psychological barriers to the possibility of more rich interactions. All felt hat virtual interactions would never be the same as fact-to-face interactions and that “knowing” your students was impossible. Few, if any, articulated the power of feedback as individualized instruction and the benefits of off loading the lecture time to supplement it with the one-on-one tutorial/feedback time. Nearly all articulated that the burden of interaction rests with the student and that it is their role to initiate the exchange. These mindsets may make it difficult to for teachers to effectively interact their their students. If students have this same mindset, that it is the teacher’s role to initiate contact, then what happens?Finally, there are several institutional barriers to interaction which include the sheer volume of students which prevents teachers from being proactive and reaching out to student and instead puts them in a position of being reactive to students because of management constraints. There is almost an incentive to not engage with students as this would reduce your already exponential load. Also the rolling enrollment model prevents a teacher from having peers help peers and interact. Thus it puts all of the interaction burden on the teacher which can be daunting at best if you have a large class size.