Barbour, M. K. (2011, May). Primary and secondary e-learning - What we know and where we should go. An invited presentation to the College of Education at University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

1. Primary and Secondary E-
Learning: What We Know
and Where We Should Go?
Michael K. Barbour
Assistant Professor
Wayne State University

2. Agenda
1. What does the literature say?
2. What do we know based on the research?
3. What should we do next?

3. 3

4. Literature Reviews
1. Rice (2006)
– Journal of Research on Technology in
Education
1. Barbour & Reeves (2009)
– Computers and Education
1. Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark (2009)
– International Review of Research in Open

5. What does the literature say?
• “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)

6. What about research?
• “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)

7. Is this a problem?
“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)

8. What does the research say?
1. 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
– characteristics of
– supports provided to
– issues related to isolation of online learners (Rice, 2006)
1. Effectiveness of virtual schooling
2. Student readiness and retention issues (Cavanaugh
et al., 2009)

9. So, what does the student
performance research say?

10. Student Performance
• performance of virtual
and classroom
students in Alberta
were similar in English
and Social Studies
courses, but that
classroom students
performed better
overall in all other
subject areas (Ballas &
Belyk, 2000)

11. Student Performance
• over half of the students who
completed FLVS courses
scored an A in their course
and only 7% received a
failing grade (Bigbie &
McCarroll, 2000)
• students in the six virtual
schools in three different
provinces performed no
worse than the students from
the three conventional schools
(Barker & Wendel, 2001)

12. Student Performance
• FLVS students performed
better on a non-mandatory
assessment tool than students
from the traditional classroom
(Cavanaugh et al., 2005)
• FLVS students performed
better on an assessment of
algebraic understanding than
their classroom counterparts
(McLeod et al., 2005)

13. Let’s look a little closer...

14. Students and Student Performance
Ballas & performance of virtual and participation rate in the
Belyk, 2000 classroom students similar assessment among virtual
in English & Social Studies students ranged from 65% to
courses, but classroom 75% compared to 90% to
students performed better 96% for the classroom-based
in all other subject areas students
Bigbie & over half of the students between 25% and 50% of
McCarroll, who completed FLVS students had dropped out
2000 courses scored an A in of their FLVS courses over
their course and only 7% the previous two-year
received a failing grade period

15. Students and Student Performance
Cavanaugh et FLVS students performed speculated that the virtual
al., 2005 better on a non- school students who did
mandatory assessment take the assessment may
tool than students from have been more
the traditional classroom academically motivated and
naturally higher achieving
students
McLeod et FLVS students performed results of the student
al., 2005 better on an assessment performance were due to
of algebraic understanding the high dropout rate in
than their classroom virtual school courses
counterparts

16. Student Performance and Students
So are we really
comparing apples to
apples?

17. The Students
• the vast majority of VHS
Global Consortium students
in their courses were
planning to attend a
four-year college (Kozma,
Zucker & Espinoza, 1998)
• “VHS courses are
predominantly designated
as ‘honors,’ and students
enrolled are mostly college
bound” (Espinoza et al., 1999)

18. The Students
The 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 (Haughey &
Muirhead, 1999)

19. The Students
• “only students with a high
need to control and structure
their own learning may choose
distance formats freely”
(Roblyer & Elbaum, 2000)
• IVHS students were “highly
motivated, high achieving,
self-directed and/or who liked
to work independently” (Clark
et al., 2002)

20. The Students
• the typical online student
was an A or B student
(Mills, 2003)
• 45% of the students who
participated in e-learning
opportunities in Michigan
were “either advanced
placement or
academically advanced”
students (Watkins, 2005)

21. Literature
indicates K-12
online learning
students are...

22. Reality of most or
a large segment
of K-12 students?

23. K-12 Online Learning Meta-
Analysis
• Cavanaugh (2001) - 16 studies
– +0.147 in favor of K-12 distance education
• Cavanaugh et al. (2004) - 14 studies
– -0.028 for K-12 distance education
• Means et al. (2009) - 46 studies (5 on K-12)
– +0.24 favoring online over face-to-face
– +0.35 favoring blended over face-to-face*

25. Examining Effect Sizes
Teacher
Effects Zone of
Desired Effects
Developmental
Effects
Reverse
Effects

26. Results of Interest
• Second and third chance programs (d=0.50)
• Matching style of learning (d=0.40)
• Computer assisted instruction (d=0.37)
• Decreasing disruptive behavior (d=0.34)
• Programmed instruction (d=0.24)
• Individualized instruction (d=0.23)
• Class size (d=0.21)
• Charter schools (d=0.20)
• Web-based learning (d=0.18)
• Home-school programs (d=0.16)
• Teacher training (d=0.11)
• Teacher subject matter knowledge (d=0.09)
• Distance education (d=0.09)
• Student control over learning (d=0.04)
26
26

27. Results to Consider
• Providing formative evaluation (d=0.90)
• Micro teaching (d=0.88)
• Teacher clarity (d=0.75)
• Providing feedback (d=0.73)
• Teacher-student relationships (d=0.72)
• Teaching strategies (d=0.60)
• Cooperative vs. individualistic learning (d=0.59)
• Study skills (d=0.59)
• Direct instruction (d=0.59)
• Mastery learning (d=0.58)
• Worked examples (d=0.57)
• Concept mapping (d=0.57)
• Goals (d=0.56)
• Peer tutoring (d=0.55)
• Cooperative vs. competitive learning (d=0.54)

28. What about the other research?

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

30. Is there a better way?

31. Design-Based Research
Reeves (2006)

33. Virtual High School Global Consortium
• first annual evaluation
– Kozma, Zucker &
Espinoza, 1998
• focused specifically on
the seven goals set by
VHS
• identified five areas to
focus on for future
practice

34. Virtual High School Global Consortium
• second annual
evaluation
– Espinoza, Dove, Zucker
& Kozma, 1999
• again focused
specifically on the
seven goals set by VHS
• identified three areas
to focus on for future
practice

35. Virtual High School Global Consortium
• third annual evaluation
– Kozma, Zucker,
Espinoza, McGhee,
Yarnall & Zalles, 2000
• re-examined status of
last year’s evaluation
finding
• focused upon only one
of the seven goals set
by VHS

36. Virtual High School Global Consortium
• content-specific
investigations
– Yamashiro & Zucker, 1999
• examined quality of
netcourses offered by
VHS
• developed standards for
future course
development

37. Virtual High School Global Consortium
• content-specific
investigations
– Elbaum, McIntyre &
Smith, 2002
• seventeen essential
elements for online
teaching
• written by VHS staff

38. Virtual High School Global Consortium
• final evaluation
– Zucker & Kozma, 2003
• examined students,
teachers,
administrators
perceptions of the
program
• outlined successes and
areas to focus on for
future years

39. The Challenge
Whether online
learning can
be suitable for
all K-12
students?
(Mulcahy, 2002)

40. Your
Questions
and
Comments

41. Assistant Professor
Wayne State University, USA
mkbarbour@gmail.com
http://www.michaelbarbour.com
http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com