ncrel policy issues #11
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
1/12
W e l c o m e
O nline learningalso known a s electronically delivered learnin gor e-learningis one of the most importa nt and potent ial lysignifican t n ew instru ct ional appr oaches a vai lable for su pport ing th e
impr ovement of teachin g an d lear nin g in Amer icas K-12 schools today.
According to a recent report of the National Association of State Boards
of Edu cation, E-learning will improve American edu cation in valu able
ways an d should be un iversa lly implemented as soon a s possible
(NASBE, 2001, p. 6).
P OLICY IS S U ESIssue 11 April 2002
A Research-Based Analysis of Education Issues
About This IssueSince 1996, enormous pr ogress h as been
made toward achieving the U.S. Department
of Edu cations goal to build a na tiona l
technology infrastru cture t o support its vision
for effective technology use in t he n at ions
elementar y a nd secondar y schools. Significant
increases in federal, state, local, and pr ivate
investment in the n ational technology infra-structure ha ve helped many teachers and
students in elementary and secondary schools
obtain access to an d begin using a var iety of
powerful new online learning tools. These
tools enable dista nce learning a nd technology-
based inst ructional delivery systems.
Recent growth in n ational att ention directed
toward online courses and virtua l schools
und erscores th e importance of e-learning
policy and online learning practices. In
response to th ese needs, this edition of
Policy I ssues aims to:I Summ arize the critical e-learning issues
related to education policy.
I Provide an overview of what works, based
on recent research and program assessment.
I Offer policy recommendations to support
decision mak ers a nd policy leaders char ged
with th e investigation an d deployment of
online courses and Internet-based learning
environments in K-12 schools and school
districts.
The full complexity and impact of e-learningand online courses on policy and practice in
K-12 schools and school districts is emerging
only now as a subject for considerat ion a nd
discussion by leadership in public education.
It is imperat ive that st ate-level education
policymakers become active par ticipant s in
the ongoing conversat ions about K-12 online
learning. Such par ticipation will help ensur e
the systematic implementation of effective
e-learn ing str ategies in th e na tions
elementar y and secondar y schools.
Virtual Sch ools an d E-Learnin g
in K-12 Env ironm en ts:Emerging Policy and Practice
By Robert Blom eyer, N CRE L Program A ssociate
A Message From Gina Burkhardt,
NCREL Executive Director
to the April 2002 edition ofPolicy Issuesa research-based analysis of
education issues. This edition tak es a look at online learnin g and virtual
schools. It also presents the policy and practice implications that can
enha nce the potential of electronically d elivered learnin g, ore-learning,as a viable and effective educational approach.
E-learnin g is a powerful instructional strategy because it transcend s th e
boundaries of tradit ional classroom instruction. In fact, it creates virtual
schools th at a llow learning to occur at t he stud ents init iativeany tim e,
any p lace. E-learnin g also holds promise for promoting equity by providing
students with access to courses that otherwise might not be available, such
as accelerated courses in rem ote rural areas.
Education leaders and p olicym akers play an im portant role in guid ing the
development of e-learning strategies. Th eir und erstand ing an d involvem ent
is crucial for effective implementation of e-learning and virtual schools for
K-12 stud ents.
For ad ditional informat ion on e-learnin g, visit N CRELs E-Learning
Knowledge Base Web site atwww.ncrel .org/tech/elearn/ .
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
2/12
A growing body of evidence
supports t he conclusion th at
when e-learning is deployed with
identical at t ent ion to the enabling
detai ls that characterize high-
quality face-to-face instruction,it can effectively complem ent ,
enhance, and expand educat ional
options ava ilable for K-12
students. In cases where e-learning
is appropriately deployed, educa-
tors can genera l ly an t icipate
student academic performance that
is at least equivalent t o t ra di t ional
classroom instru ct ion (Cavana ugh,
2001).
Access to online learning systems
in public educat ion ha s showndramatic growth with support
from th e Technology Litera cy
Chal lenge Fund and t he Federa l
Commu nications Comm issions
E-Rate program. According to
the most recent report from the
Nat ional Cent er for E ducat ion
Statistics, 98 percent of U.S. public
schools were connected t o the
Inter net in fal l 2000 (Catt agni &
Far ris , 2001). Investmen ts in
compu ters, Int ernet access,
techn ology pr ofessional develop-ment , techn ical support , and
conten t development ha ve al lowed
elementary and secondary teachers
and students to experience the
benefits of using these powerful
new learning technologies.
The deployment an d diffusion of
online cour ses in K-12 schools an d
postsecondary ins t i tut ions is
becoming an almost i rr esist ible
force. Accordingly, it is now impor-
tan t t o give careful , systematicconsiderat ion t o detai ls tha t wil l
have last ing impacts on the U.S.
educat iona l system. Su ch consider-
at ion mu st be given to al l aspects
of e-learning and online education
tha t m ay affect th e qual i ty,
efficiency, equ ity, a nd edu cational
choices available t o all Amer ican
stud entsregardless of age, race,
religion, or socioeconomic
stan dingany t ime, an y place,
any path , any pace (NASBE, 2001,
p. 6).
Online Courses andVirtual High Schools
Int ernet use in K-12 schools and
postsecondary inst i tut ions is
having a pr ofound impact on th e
evolut ion of compu ter use a nd t he
curricular integra t ion of new
learn ing t echnologies (Valdez et
al., 2000). For exa mple:
I A recent P hi Del ta Kappa/Gal lup
Poll sur vey shows tha t 35
percent of parents appr oved oftheir chi ldren earn ing high
school credits online without
at t ending a regular school (Rose
& Gallup, 2001).
I Dr. William J. Bennett, U.S.
Secreta ry of Edu cat ion du ring
the Reagan adminis t ra t ion,has gone from criticizing the
use of techn ology in schools to
creat ing h is own highly publi-
cized n at ionwide cyberschool,
now open for Grades K-2.
Wi th such broad support a nd
demand, i t i s not surpr i s ing tha t
virtua l schools are spr inging up
across the country. (See Americas
First Public Virtual High School
on page 5.) Commercial potential is
adding momentu m t o thi s growth.
Virtual schools now exist in more
tha n two-dozen stat es. Well-estab-
lished virtual schools in Florida
2 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
P OLICY IS S UE S
Definitions to Know
D iscussions a bout onl ine learn ing an d courses del ivered overdistance may be confusing for r eaders wh o are un accust omed tol i teratu re on distan ce educat ion and t echn ology-based instr uct ional
delivery syst ems. Th e following definitions offer points of reference for
compar ing some of the most import ant concepts of onl ine learn ing.
I D i s t a n c e e d u c a t i o n : Edu cat ional si tu at ion in which th e instru ctor
and stud ents a re separ ated by t ime, locat ion, or both. Edu cat ion or
tra ining cours es ar e del ivered to r emote locat ions via synchronous or
asynchronous m eans of instru ct ion, including wri t ten corr espondence,
text, graphics, audio- and videotape, CD-ROM, online learning,
au dio- an d videoconferencing, inter active TV, and facsimile. Dista nce
learning does not pr eclude th e use of the t r adi t ional classr oom.
The defini t ion of distan ce educat ion is broader tha n a nd en tai ls
th e definition of e-lear nin g. (Kaplan -Leisers on, 2000)
I Dis ta nce l ea rning : The desired outcome of distance education.
(Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000)
I E-learning: Covers a wide set of app licat ions an d pr ocesses su chas Web-based learning, computer-based learning, virtual classrooms,
an d digital collaboration. It in cludes t he delivery of cont ent via
Internet, intranet/extranet (LAN/WAN), audio- and videotape, satellite
broadcast , int eractive TV, an d CD-ROM. (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000)
I Virtual school : An educational organization that offers K-12
cour ses th rough Inter net- or Web-based m ethods. (Clar k, 2001, p. 1)
Definitions from Kap lan-Leiserson (2000) are from t he E-Learning Glossary, available online athtt p://www.learningcircuits.org/oct2000/oct2000_elearn.ht ml. Copyright 2000 by t he American
Society for Training an d Development . Reprinted with p ermission.
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
3/12
and Utah boas t s tudent
enrollments in th e thousands
(Clark, 2001).
The ad vent of e-learning in
Americas secondar y schools m ean stha t s tudents in smal l rura l high
schools, who might not otherwise
have access t o Advanced P lacement
courses, can complete such courses
online a nd gain a cademic credit
at qu al i ty inst i tut ions of higher
educat ion. Availability of online
cour se-equivalent lear ning
environments may mean th a t
an injured a nd homebound high
school senior, una ble to at tend th e
one available section of a required
class, can fulfi ll th e requ irementand gradu a te wi th the r es t of hi s
or her class. In short , e-learn ing
offers a potent ial ly importa nt
resource for providing accelerated
cour ses that otherwise might
not be a vailable, filling gaps
in required course offerings,
increasing graduat ion rates,
and reducing dropout rates.
Publications on E-Learning
Policy and PracticeThe significance of online courses
and virtu al schools has been un der-
scored by the release of important
recent publications describing the
contemporary context for e-learning
and detai l ing th e important policy
issues concerning u se of online
cour ses in t he K-12 schools. The
first of th ese publications on
e-learning is titled Th e Power of the
Internet for Learnin g: Moving from
Promise to Practice (Web-BasedEdu cation Commission, 2000). This
report examines th e promise of the
Intern et for improving th e nat ional
educat ion system, with pa rt icular
attention to equity. It also reports
on th e significant obstacles
blocking fuller ut ilization of
Web-based t eaching and learning.
Concrete recommenda tions are
given for this purpose. The report
is i llustra ted by a series of
case-based examp les looking
at exemplar y uses of Web-based
teaching and learn ing in al l types
of set t ings ra nging from m ili tary
tra ining to migrant educat ion,
including e-learning applications
in K-12 schools.
At about the same t ime tha t theWeb-Based Ed ucation Comm ission
was complet ing i ts report , th e
U.S. Department of Educat ion
was releasing the revised National
Edu cational Technology Plan titled
E-Learnin g: Putt ing a World Class
Education at t he Fingertips of All
Children (Office of Educational
Technology, 2000). This document
uses the te rm e-learning in a
context broader t han recent
references that are m ore l imitedto onl ine courses a nd virtu al
schools. It proposes and elabora tes
the following National Educational
Techn ology Goals :
Goal 1: All studen ts a nd teachers
will have a ccess t o inform at ion
technology in th eir classrooms,
schools, commu nities, an d homes.
Goal 2: All teachers will use
techn ology effectively to help
studen ts a chieve high a cademic
s tandards .
Goal 3: All stu dent s will have
technology and information literacy
skills.
Goal 4: Research and evaluation
will improve the next generation
of technology applications for
teaching and learn ing.
Goal 5: Digital content and
networked app licat ions wil l t ran s-
form teaching and learning.
(Office of Edu cationa l Techn ology,
2000, p. 4)
Although online courses and
virtual high schools are discussed
in some deta il in t he body of
the plan, i t seems clear th at th e
emphasis of the plan is broadlyconcerned with su pport ing high-
qual i ty curriculum content
and impr oved student academic
achievement . In fact , th e motto
of one of the models for technology
integrat ion prominently featu red
in the plan summarizes the
general position of the National
Ed ucat ional Techn ology Plan : It s
not about technology. Its about
learning (Office of Ed ucat ional
Technology, 2000, p. 14).Most recently, the National
Associat ion of State Boards of
Educat ion ha s released a signifi-
cant new report t i t led Any Time,
Any Place, Any Pat h, An y Pace:
Taking the Lead on E -Learning
Policy (NASBE, 2001). The u se of
the te rm e-learning in this report
focuses entir ely on virt ua l courses
and virtual schools. This emphasis
is illustr at ed in the r eports
Executive Sum mar y, which mak esthe case th at the a vai lable evidence
convincingly demonstra tes tha t
electr onically delivered cour ses a nd
virtu al schools can impr ove how
student s learn, can impr ove what
student s learn, an d can del iver
high-qual i ty learn ing opportuni t ies
to a ll childre n (NASBE, 2000, p. 4).
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 3
P OLICY IS S UE S
E-learning can provide both accelerated and required
courses, leading to increased graduation rates and
reduced dropout rates.
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
4/12
The history of the development
and dissemination of computer-
aided lear nin g (CAL) or comput er-
assist ed inst ru ction (CAI) deployed
in the K-12 schools during the
last 40 years suggests that th at
the development and production
of online learn ing t echn ologies
is an expensive and labor-intensive
proposition for both schools an d
teachers.
For classroom t eachers, th e amount
of time r equired t o develop an d
implement high-qual i ty onl ine
learning en vironment s (including
thorough curr iculum r esearch and
systematic design, implementat ion,
and testing of evaluation proto-
types) amounts to a serious oppor-
tun i ty cost for t he su pport ing
school th at often is overlooked by
school administr ators.
Consider th is classical form ulafor estimat ing the a mount of time
requir ed to develop a single cont act
hour of computer-assisted instruction:
Estimates for the development
of materials range from 50 to 150
person-hours of development time
to one h our of inst ru ction. This
ran ge is usua l ly t rue in t he devel-
opment of computer-assisted
instructional materials, filmed
materials , and tape materials using
a systema tic model tha t includesan a ssessment of the pr oblem as
well as a n evaluat ion and revision
of the m aterials un t i l they reach
th e specified inst ru ctiona l objec-
tives. It ma y tak e, however, as
many as 2,000 hours to develop
one hour of inst ru ction (Knirk &
Gust afson, 1986, p. 187).
Experience has shown tha t un less
teacher -techn ologists who pioneer
the int egrat ion of new learning
technologies in cur riculum (either
via screening a nd selection or local
developmen t of applicat ions) ar e
provided appr opriate release t ime
and other support apparent ly
required for high-qual i ty learn ing
outcomes, the resul t ing m aterials
ma y be ineffective. Mater ials devel-
oped und er su ch condit ions weretried as al terna t ives and pr oved to
be time-consum ing, expensive, an d
inefficient (Blomeyer, 1991, p. 146).
Fr om th e tea cher-technologists
perspective, whether online
learning is developed and imple-
mented by commercial publishers
an d professiona l softwar e devel-
opers or developed locally by th e
most innovative and ta lented K-12
mast er teachers, it is certain t hat
qua lity e-learn ing can become
available in t he p ublic schools
only if public education is willing
to invest in the front-end costs.
The specific costs of e-learning
may be expressed in terms of the
replacement value for su bst i tute
t ime (needed to support a teacher-
technologist an d r elease h im or h er
from instru ct ional dut ies), in terms
of the per -pupil costs for licensing
a commercial e-learning product,or in terms of reimbursement paid
to anoth er school or distr ict in
excha nge for u se of online courses
developed by tea chers in oth er local
districts . A recent su rvey shows the
most reported tu i t ion for virtual
high s chool cour ses is $300 per
semester, but pr ices seem to var y
great ly (Clark , 2001). In short , both
th e costs an d th e benefits of online
courses can be substa nt ial .
Evidence of Impact
Alth ough a growing body of
research, program evaluat ion,
th eory, and policy docum ent s th e
rapid introduction of e-learning
in postsecondary inst i tut ions in
the Uni ted Sta tes and a round
the world, research documen tingand examining e-learning in K-12
set t ings has begun to be published
just in t he last few years.
Pu blicat ions exa minin g th e effec-
tiveness of e-lear ning will be
par ticularly significant for both
teachers an d school administra tors.
Curr ent ly, there appear s to be
only a sm all body of educational
research examining the instru c-
tional effectiveness of online
learning. A meta-ana lysis of
findin gs on t he effectiveness of
K-12 distance learning delivered
via both online and two-way
voice/video systems by Cavan au gh
(2001) provides an overview of
educational research conducted
between 1993 an d 1997.
Cavanau gh an alyzes th e effects
sizes of selected quan tita tive
educat ional r esearch examining
student academic achievement a s a
result of using distance educationin K-12 settings. Her findings
indicate that distance-learning
projects characterized by online
telecommunications (or e-learning),
distance learning to supplement and
support more tr aditional classroom
instru ction, smaller sized groups,
and shorter-durat ion learning
4 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
P OLICY IS S UE S
E-Lea rning P ol icy Implicat ions for
K-12 Educators and Dec ision Make rs
Start-Up Costs
continu ed on page 7
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
5/12
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 5
P OLICY IS S UE S
T
he Virtual High S chool is a consortium of high
schools offering online courses t augh t an d designedby cooperat ing t eachers who a re a ccredi ted in
their respect ive sta tes. VHS online courses, called
NetCourses, provide students in participating schools
with online access to a dvan ced, techn ical, an d specialized
courses t hat often a re un avai lable in smaller high
schools with limited course offerings (Kozma et al. , 2000).
The Virtua l High S chool originally was called th e Concord
Virtua l High School. It was sta rted in 1996 with an award
of a five-year, $7.5 million Technology Innovation
Challenge Gran t to th e Hudson (Massachusett s) Public
Schools and the Concord Consortium, a nonprofit educa-
tional research an d development company. Online classeswere first offered during the 1997-98 school year (Kozma
et a l , 2000). At th at t ime, th e Concord Virtu al High
School offered 30 online courses to about 500 students in
27 schools in 10 states (National Association of State
Boards of Educat ion, 2001). Since that t ime, i t ha s
expanded greatly. The school, now called simply the
Virtu al High School, current ly is operat ed by VHS In c.
as a not-for-profit corporation; during the 2000-01 school
year, the school offered 155 courses to 3,000 students in
170 schools (Clar k, 2001).
VHS studen ts conn ect Web servers u sing browsers to
access th e instr uct iona l resources required to completeonline a ssignments. Documen ts a vai lable on th e VHS
Web site include syllabi, course readings, and all supple-
ment ar y course ma terials (such as graph ics, audio files
an d videos); all ar e easily accessible via t he World
Wide Web. The NetCour ses ar e del ivered from extern al
servers th at pr ovide 24-hour su pport seven days a week
to ensure consistent delivery of VHS services.
In the NetCourses, s tudents work independently or
col laborat ively on assignm ents, ther eby providing sched-
ul ing flexibil i ty tha t permits individua ls an d collabora-
t ive groups to schedule group sessions an d complete
assignments in a t imely and del iberate manner.Teachers are a ble to monitor studen t pr ogress via the
Web site; they also provide periodic feedback to students
and issue grade r eports from with in th e course Web si te
on t he Virtu al H igh Schools co-locat ed ser vers.
The Virtu al High School permits pa rt icipating seconda ry
schools to offer th eir extended online courses a nywher e,
an ytime, and at low cost via t he Web. Support ers believe
th at online courses allow student s more one-on-one
conta ct with teachers t ha n t rad itiona l face-to-face instr uc-
tion, because student are not competing for attention withother students in their classes. Supporters also believe
th at VHS cour ses foster ind ependent learn ing, hone
compu ter literacy skills, and provide inter action with
students from diverse cultural backgrounds, as well as
level the playing field for minorities, low-income students,
and those in low-income areas (Hayes, 2001, p. B11).
In October 2001, the five-year U.S. Departm ent of
Edu cat ion gra nt su pport ing the Virtu al High School
expired. VHS n ow cha rges an ann ua l membership fee of
$6,000 per participating high school; this fee allows each
par t icipat in g school to enroll 20 stu dents in VHS courses
dur ing the fal l and spring semesters (Clark, 2001).The tr ansi t ion from finan cing VHS operat ions th rough
U.S. Depart ment of Educat ion sta rt -up fun ding to
becomin g a n ot-for-profit compa ny finan ced almost
ent irely by payment for ser vices may m ean the loss of
some par t icipat ing VHS Consort ium members. Schools
un will ing or u nable to pay h igher an nu al fees for a ccess
to VHS online cour ses will have t o look elsewher e, build
th eir own cour ses, or a band on the u se of onl ine learn ing
as a local cur ricular al tern at ive.
In t ime, the appr oximately 44 other stat e and local ly
organized virt ual h igh schools tha t h ave fol lowed th e
lead of the VHS also may exhaust the ini t ial gran ts orother funding sources tha t ha ve subsidized their devel-
opment a nd in i t ial operat ions. Near ly al l of the m ajor
virtual high school projects eventually may be forced
to enter the more competitive fee-for-services arena.
As this foreseeable transition to market-driven financial
stat us becomes a real i ty for more and more virtual h igh
school projects, those with br oader organ izational
support and geographic participation will have a signifi-
cant mar ket ing a dvanta ge. In fact , offering high-qual i ty
online courses t o lar ge enrollments over a wide
geographic radius may enable competitive marketing of
online courses on economies of scale.
Federa l , s tate , or pr ivate investment s to offset the high
costs of online course d evelopmen t will not la st forever.
When th e start -up support is gone, public and pr ivate
developers of online courses that can offer the highest
qual i ty cont entin the most inter act ive and best
man aged online learn ing environment swill become
th e virtu al schools that sur vive.
Americas First Public Virtual High School
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
6/12
6 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
P OLICY IS S UE S
I Compar ing th e VHS a nd face-to-face groups, VHS
students were more likely to be 11th graders, and face-
to-face students were more likely to be 12th graders.
I VHS stu dent s were m ore likely to be enrolled in
six or m ore cour ses th an were face-to-face stud ents .
Consequently, their VHS courses were often taken ontop of a full course schedule.
I Student s in both groups expressed interest in a nd
enjoymen t of their courses.
I VHS student s were likely to agree th at their VHS
courses were of high quality and required ha rd work,
but face-to-face stu dent s were m ore likely to agree
strongly with these sta tements about th eir courses.
I VHS stu dent s were m ore likely than face-to-face
students to use the World Wide Web, but there were no
significant differences between the groups in their
other computer, e-mail, or general Internet use.
I There were no reported differences between the two
groups in the use of computers to do research projects
or write reports as part of their course work.
I Fa ce-to-face stu dent s were likely to agree st rongly
tha t discussion was a regular part of their courses,
tha t t hey frequently communicated with other
student s, and tha t commu nications with other
student s were an importa nt par t of their learning.
VHS students were likely to disagree with all of these
statements.
I There were n o significant differences between the
two groups in th e reported frequen cy with which
they communicated with their teachers. On the other
ha nd, face-to-face stu dents were more likely tha n VHS
students to agree strongly that communications with
teachers were an importan t par t of their learning and
that they got t heir assignment grades back from t heir
teachers in a timely manner. (Kozma, et al., 2000, iv-v)
In a ddition t o the student surveys, the SRI evaluat ion
considered t eacher assessment of student sperforma nce
on two types of meas ur es: teacher-developed key as sign-
ments a nd In ternet r esearch skills. Key assignments
included an importan t test and a paper or project
selected by the respective teachers. These assignments
were selected from ava ilable choices in th e resp ectiveonline an d face-to-face cour ses in th e cooperatin g schools.
According to the SRI evaluation, the analysis of student
assessments indicates tha t the par ticipants in the VHS
online courses appar ently had learning experiences that
were similar in man y ways to students in par allel face-
to-face courses. In portions of the cour ses th at were
common to both online and face-to-face sections, VHS
sections h ad n early ident ical goals and objectives, stru c-
tur e, content, an d assignment s as the para llel face-to-
face sections of the sa me classes.
Face-to-face and VHS courses were taught by matched
pairs of similarly experienced, high-quality instructors.
There were no appar ent differences in t he grades
awarded t o the student s in two out of thr ee parallel
courses. More students in the VHS course sections
passed a technology use portion of the required Internet
assessment; in a ddition, man y more VHS student s th an
face-to-face students passed all the skill areas of the
Internet assessment (Kozma et al., 2000, p. v). In only
one course and in one skill area (reasoning with informa-
tion), did face-to-face stu dent s s ignifican tly out perform
VHS students.
Conclusions about similarities an d differen ces between
th e par allel VHS a nd face-to-face cour ses sh owed th ere
were few studen t dr opout s from either. Face-to-face
and VHS students r eceived similar gr ades in th e two
types of course. In addition, VHS students acquired
the technology-based reasoning and communication
skills needed for the 21st century information society
(Kozma et al., 2000, v).
The Virtua l High School (see Americas F irst Pu blic Virtu al H igh School on pa ge 5) is th e oldest an d best -document edvirtu al high school in th e Unit ed Sta tes. An evalu at ion of the Virtua l High Schools th ird year, condu cted by SRI
Int ern ational (Kozma et al., 2000), examined VHS studentsparticipation in and satisfaction with online courses. An online
student survey was administered to all students participating in selected online courses and to students in face-to-face
classes ser ving as control groups in identical locations. The following findin gs from the s tu dent sur veys were reported:
E-Learning in the Real World:Findings on Student Participation, Satisfaction, and Learning
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
7/12
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 7
P OLICY IS S UE S
experiences show consistently
bigger effects sizes than projects
usin g two-way videoconferencing,
primar y instru ction via distan ce,
long du rat ion, an d larger sized
groups.
It is t empting t o generalize from
Cavana ughs findings an d jump
to the conclusion that fully online
courses ma y result in lower
academic achievement t han hybrid
courses (which combine more tradi-
tional face-to-face instructional
stra tegies with online learn ing).
However, because student achieve-
ment data from fully online, virtu al
high school courses was not avail-able for consideration in
Cavana ughs meta -analysis, implica-
tions for academic achievement in
contemporar y virtua l high schools
would be inappropriate at th is time.
Applying Cava na ugh s find ings
to conclusions about contemporary
e-learning would require replication
of her meta-an alysis to include all
qualifying research available since
1998. Unt il then, educators an d
policy leaders may wish to examinerelated conclusions from online
learning resear ch in corporat e
tra ining, higher education,
and international education.
Policy Context
At the CiTE Virtual High School
Symposium, sponsored by t he
Center for Internet Technology in
Education an d held in October 2001,
ther e was ample evidence that avigorous and growing community
of pra ctice is building wh at could
be called a virtual high school
movement. This enthusiastic and
active group of first comer s exhib-
ited man y of the characteristics
att ributed t o successful virtu al
communities.
In h is keynote address at t his sympo-
sium, John Bailey, currently director
of th e Office of Instr uctional
Technology for the U.S. Department
of Education, shared his views on
education and technology an d
described the conditions required
to achieve positive outcomes from
e-lear nin g in K-12 schools. He
men tioned t he following policy
them es for online learn ing:
I Anywhere, anytime learning
mean s th at education can now be
delivered to studen ts wher ever
they a re located.
I Online learning sh ould encourage
schools to become educationcenters for their respective
communities.
I Every educational pr ogram is a
technology opportunity, and every
technology program is an educa-
tional opportunity.
I Online assessmen t in conjunction
with online learning has the
potential to significantly increase
the effective use of instructional
time an d encoura ge a system of
education t ha t isnt ba sed onmass p roduction, but is inst ead
based on m ass customization.
I We need to be relen tless in
measuring and assessing the
impact th at technology has on
education a nd on academic
achievement. We need evidence
that teaching and learning are
improved as the r esult of
techn ology. Usin g t echnology t o
teach using traditional methods
will only lead to traditionalresults. (Bailey, 2001)
Dialogues and conversat ions
among attendees at the symposium
centered around creating a
consensu s between pr actitioners
an d commercial developers of online
learning pr oducts about t he critical
issues facing th e online learn ing
commu nity. It was not appar ent,
however, tha t st at e-level policy-
makers or representatives from
education agencies in t he sta tes
developing virtual schools took part
in these importan t discussions.
NASBE (2000) concur s th at ther e
is a lack of input from education
leaders an d policymak ers with
regard to e-learn ing development
and implementat ion: The u ncom-
forta ble reality is tha t edu cation
leaders are not curr ently driving
th e policy agen da (p. 6).
It is imperative that stat e-level
education policymakers become
active par ticipants in ongoingconversations about K-12 online
learning. Without the substantial
participation of state-level educa-
tional leadership, a ny p ossible
contribution of online learning
techn ologies or e-learn ing t o school
improvement and r eform may fall
prey to the loose coupling that is
apparent between man y tradi t ional
stat e educational policies and
visionary e-learning practice.
Findings andRecommendations
In t he end, stu dent a ccess to online
courses will be determined by local
decisions th at m ust be ma de by
education a dministr ators a nd p olicy
leaders everywhere. These decisions
will affect whet her or not s pecific
virtual courses will be approved
(or afforded) for individual students
who have particular rationales andreasons for r equesting enrollment
in online classes. In some cases,
this situation may contribute to
lower enr ollment in regularly
offered on-site classes, lower daily
at tendance, and shr inking instruc-
tional loadswith negative impacts
for st affing and personnel budgets.
continu ed from page 4
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
8/12
P OLICY IS S UE S
8 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
The following findin gs an d r ecom-
menda tions offer some next steps
for state and local policymakers
and edu cation leaders.
Finding 1:
Innovative technology leaders
in the e-learn ing movement a nd
established state education policy
leaders have not established a basis
for communication and dialogue on
critical policy issues relat ing t o K-12
online learning.
Recommendations:
I Leaders in th e e-learningmovement and state education
policymakers should initiate
commu nications and begin
working together t o help sha pe
e-learning practice. Such dialogue
will help educat ion p olicy leader s
understan d the unique dimen-
sions of e-learning practice and
also will enable e-learning to
operate within critical education
policy constraints.
I Key state edu cation a gency repre-senta tives should be encouraged
to par ticipate in professional
foru ms, such as su bsequent CiTE
Virtual High School Symposiums.
These forums provide common
ground for critical dialogues
between e-learn ing consum ers,
producers, and educational policy
leaders concerned with the top-to-
bottom articulation of e-learning
policy an d pr actice.
IStat e education agencies shouldbe strongly encouraged to begin
a t horough a nalysis of existing
stat e education policies that have
clear implications for support and
regulation of online learning or
e-learning in K-12 environments.
In all cases, due consideration
shou ld be given to modifying or
adapting existing policies to
promote the equitable diffusion
and implementat ion of online
learning. The time-consuming
developmen t of new policies, in
contr ast, ma y delay or slow the
adoption and effective implemen-tation of K-12 online learning.
Finding 2:
When provided with quality profes-
sional development opportu nities
and supervised online clinical
experience, good traditional
tea chers also can become effective
facilitators of online learning.
Similar ly, well-qua lified an d exper i-
enced online instru ctors can learnthe more specialized instr uctional
design a nd implement ation skills
that are necessary to create quality
online learn ing mater ials based on
their existing t eaching experience
and curricular expertise.
Recommendations:
I Certified, experienced teachers
who wish t o become online
instru ctors should be requiredto complete an approved profes-
sional development curriculum
ensur ing their competency as
online instructors before being
assigned responsibility for leader-
ship in a n online cour se.
I Experienced online inst ru ctors
should be r equired to complete
appropriate specialized profes-
sional development concerned
with the design and implementa-
tion of online learning environ-
ments before un dertaking the
local d evelopmen t of online
courses.
I Specialized professiona l develop-
ment pr ograms th at provide
teachers with professionally
recognized credentialing as online
instructors or developers of online
learning often are costly an d time
consuming. Professional develop-
ment costs for teachers sh ould be
shar ed or fully reimbur sed, work
release time sh ould be provided to
support preparat ion required
before and dur ing initial onlineinstructional assignments, and
teaching loads sh ould be appro-
priately adjusted to compensa te
for online teaching or participa-
tion in online instructional devel-
opment projects.
I School distr icts s hould a void
encour aging or requiring tea chers
to accept assignmen ts a s online
instru ctors. They should not
require teachers and other
district employees to pa rticipatein the development of online
instru ctional mater ials or cour se
materials without appropriate
financial compensation for
assigned duties and du e respect
for copyright a nd ownersh ip
of intellectual property (see
American Associat ion of
University Professors, n.d.).
Finding 3:
Hybr id courses (combining face-to-
face an d online instr uction) with
smaller enrollments an d clear
linka ges to approved curriculum
practice seem to offer higher
completion r ates an d argu ably
better qu ality learn ing outcomes
tha n online cours es alone
(Cavan augh , 2001). This finding
suggests that online learning
optimally should be u sed in some
combin at ion with face-to-face
instru ction, prima rily from qua lifiedand experienced teachers who are
in physical proximity to enrolled
online students.
Recommendation:
I School districts, stat e edu cation
agencies, and the U.S. Department
of Education should collaborate on
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
9/12
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 9
P OLICY IS S UE S
A
t NCREL, research on virtu al learnin g has been guided by an evolving l ist of issues we bel ieve to be importan t
influences on th e intr oduction of onl ine learn ing to K-12 learn ing environments. The r esearch documen ting
these issues comes from N CRELs work with secondary teachers an d t echn ology coordinators in Minn esota
Inter mediate District 287 and th e Minn esota Departm ent of Children, Fam il ies, and Learn ing (see NCREL, 2001).
Examina t ion of the issues subdivides them in to two categories: issues tha t ar e relevant to curr iculum a nd tea ching
pract ice, an d issues tha t are relevant to considerat ion of statewide e-learning policy or pol icy development .
Note: These th emes from NCRELs e-lear ning a ssessmen t in Minn esota ar e compar able to critical priorities from th e
available literature describing e-learning policy and practice in higher education (see King et al., 2000; Southern
Regiona l Edu cation Board, 2001).
E-Learning Priorities for Teachingand Learning:
I Professional development
I Constru ct ivist teaching p ract ice
I Ph ilosophy guiding online learn ing programs
I Best practices (national, state, local)
I Quali ty assu ran ce (for conten t of onl ine learn ing
mater ia l s )
I Technology equ ity (access, usa ge, availab ility)
E-Learning Priorities for Policy:
I Fu nding, funding formu las, fun ding sources, funding
strategies
I Costs and benefits; retur n on investment
I Quali ty an d equity of onl ine learnin g opportu ni t ies
I Accoun tabi l i ty and assessmen t
I Stat e or district planning, coordinat ion, support , and
evaluat ion
I Teacher certification and licensure
NCRELs Research onVirtual Learning Issues and Priorities
the development and implementa-
tion of a scientific research agenda
related to th e use of online pr ofes-
siona l development an d e-learn ing
with student s in K-12 learning
environments. This agenda shoulddetermine which resource configu-
rat ions an d instru ctional design
pra ctices optimize studen t
achievement an d au thentic
learning outcomes.
Finding 4:
Optimal resource configur ations
and instru ctional design pr actices
that promote effective e-learning
outcomes in K-12 learning environ-ments current ly are not recognized,
generally under stood, or agr eed
upon by e-learn ing producers,
consumers, and education policy
leaders. Objective, research-based
guidelines and standards supporting
the selection and screening of online
cour ses ar e lacking. When seeking
product information on online tools
and advice about what works and
what doesnt in K-12 e-learning
environments, school districts an d
stat e education a gencies may be
dependent solely upon the vested
interests that are developing and
selling online learning services and
technologies.
Recommendation:
I All concerned parties and
agencies should support th edevelopment and diffusion of
standar ds and assessment guide-
lines for online learning. Such
standards and guidelines can
assist local school districts and
stat e education a gencies with the
selection a nd acquisition of well-
designed and effective online
learning.
Finding 5:
Existing educational research an d
program evaluations that examine
and a nalyze the outcomes and
impact of online learning in K-12
learning environments presently
are very limited. The few research
summar ies an d meta-analyses
current ly available do not include
published data from recent programevaluations and assessments from
state and federally supported
virtual h igh school programs.
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
10/12
10 North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
P OLICY IS S UE S
Recommendations:
I Exist ing research summar ies an d
meta -analyses concerned with
e-learning policy and practice
should be expanded to includenewly published findings on
recent state and regional virtual
high school pr ojects.
I Support for additional pr ofession-
ally designed and executed
program evaluat ions an d scien-
tific educational research should
be given a high pr iority in a ll
public and p rivate a gencies
supporting effective implementa-
tion and use of online learning in
K-12 learn ing commu nities.
Conclusion
In final analysis, e-learning isnt
about digital technologies an y more
tha n classroom t eaching is about
cha lkboard s. E-learn ing is about
people and about using t echn ology
systems to supp ort constr uctive
social intera ctions, including hu man
learning. Although comput ers a nd
other digital technologies clearly
will play an increasing role in K-12
schools, e-learning may work best
when it is combined with some
face-to-face classroom experience.
In the best of all possible worlds,
an eventual goal might be for
stud ents t o have their own notebook
compu ters to support both in-school
and a t-home learn ing, as long as
they a ctively pur sue oth er pu blicly
available educational opportu nities.
Edu cational technologies are an
increasingly importa nt p art of the
na tions efforts t o broadly andsubsta ntially improve the qua lity,
efficiency, an d equ ity of stu dent
learning. The Office of Educational
Technology (2000) sta tes:
The leadership imperative is clear.
Collectively, these new goals for
technology in education represent
an upda ted, high-level strategy for
ensur ing the futu re of education in
which all students will benefit from
the enhanced learning opportunities
afforded by new and emerging
commu nications a nd informa tion
tech nologies (p. 7).
Books and tr aditional str ategies
certainly will continue to be impor-
tant, along with technologies such
as telephones, satellites, compu ters,
inter active TV, CD-ROMs, the
Inter net, compressed videos, audio-
tapes, an d videotapes. But in all
probability, todays n ewest educa-
tional technology approaches
e-learning a nd virtua l schools
ar e destin ed to become t omorrowsestablished instr uctional delivery
systems. New e-learning technolo-
gies will become increa singly
comm on for p eople in a ll walks
of life and increasingly integrated
as an invisible and ubiquitous part
of U.S. global, cultu ra l, political,
and economic systems.
North Centra l Regional Educational Laboratory
1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200
Naperville, IL 60563-1486
800-356-2735 www.ncrel.org
Copyright 2002 by the North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory. All rights reserved.
This work was produced in whole or in part with funds
from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement(OERI), U.S. Department of Education, under contract
number ED-01-CO-0011. The content does not necessarily
reflect the policy or position of OERI or the Department of
Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial
products, or organizations imply endorsement by the
federal government.
Executive DirectorGina Burkhardt
Executive EditorSabrina Laine
Editor Jan Gahala
Contributors David Durian
Larry Friedman
Mary OKelly
Graphic DesignJeff Kreml
External ReviewersLarry And erson
National Center for Technology
Planning
Ron Fielder
Grant Wood Area
Education A gency #10, Iowa
Doug Levin
American Institutes
for Research
Suzanne Riley
S outheast Minn esota S ervice
Cooperative
Ray Rose
Th e Concord Consortium
P OLICY IS S U ESFor more information, contact:
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
11/12
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 11
P OLICY IS S UE S
References
American Associat ion of Universi ty
Professors. (n.d.). Intellectualproperty and distance learning
[Online]. Available:
http://www.aaup.org/govrel/distlern/
govrelC1.htm
Bailey, J. (2001, October). Keynote
address presented at the Center for
Inter net Technology in Education
(CiTE) Virtual High School
Symposium, Rosemont, IL.
Selections available online:
http://www.ncrel.org/tech/elearn/
milieu.htm
Blome yer, R. L. (1991). Microcomput ers
in foreign langua ge teaching. In R. L.
Blomeyer & C. D. Martin (Eds.), Case
studies in computer aided learning
(pp. 115-150). London: Falmer Press.
Cattagni, A., & Farris, E. (2001, May).
Internet access in U.S . public schools
and classrooms: 1994-2000 (NCES
Stat istics in Brief). Wash ington, DC:
Nat ional Cent er for E ducation
Statistics. Available online:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001071.pdf
Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The effec-
tiveness of interactive distance
education technologies in K-12
learning: A meta-ana lysis.
International J ournal of Ed ucational
Telecomm unications, 7(1), 73-88.
Available online:
http://www.unf.edu/~ccavanau/
CavanaughIJET01.pdf
Clark, T. (2001). Virtual s chools:
Trends an d issues. A study of virtualschools in the United States
[Online]. Available:
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/
virtualschools.pdf
Hayes , K. (2001, November 4). Paying to
tak e online classes. Th e Boston Globe,p. B11.
Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2000).
E-learning glossary [Online]. Available:
http://www.learningcircuits.org
/oct2000/oct2000_elearn.html
King, J . W., Nu gen t, G. C., Rus se ll, E.
B., Eich , J., & Lacy, D. D. (2000).
Policy frameworks for distance
education: Im plications for d ecision
makers [Online]. Available:
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/
king32.html
Knirk, F. G., & Gusta fson , K. L. (1986).
Instructional technology: A systema tic
approach to education. New York : Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Kozma, R., Zucker, A., Espinoza, C.,
McGhe e, R., Yarn all, L., Zalles , D.,
& Lewis , A. (2000). The online course
experience: Evaluat ion of th e Virtual
High S chools thir d year of imp lemen-
tation, 1999-2000. Menlo Park, CA:
SRI Inter nat ional. Available online:http://www.sri.com/policy/ctl/assets/
images/VHS_Online_Experience.pdf
National Associat ion of State Boards
of Education. (2001). Any time, any
place, any path, any pace: Taking the
lead on e-learning policy. Alexandria,
VA: Author. Available online:
http://nasbe.org/Organization_
Information/e_learning.pdf
North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory. (2001). [Virtual learningpriorities developed in conjunction
with tea chers and t echnology
specialists from Minnesota
Intermediate District 287 an d th e
Minnesota Department of Children,
Families, and Learning]. Unpublished
raw data .
Office of Educational Technology.
(2000). E-learning: Putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all
children (The Na tional Educational
Technology Plan). Washington, DC:
U.S. Departmen t of Education.
Available online:
http://www.ed.gov/technology/
elearning/e-learning.pdf
Ros e, L. C., & Gallup , A. M. (2000). The
32nd annu al Phi Delta Kappa/ Gallup
poll of the pu blics attitu des toward the
public s chools. Bloomington, IN: Phi
Delta Kappa Inter nat ional. Available
online: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kimages/kpollv82.pdf
Southern Regional Education Board.
(1999). Distance Learnin g Policy
Laboratory: Current initiatives and
priority issues [Online]. Available:
http://www.electroniccampus.org/
policylab/docs/initiatives.asp
Valde z, G., McNab b, M., Foe rtsc h, M.,
Anderso n, M., Haw kes , M., &
Raack , L. (2000). Computer-based
technology and learning: Evolving usesand expectations. Oakbrook, IL:
North Central Regional Educational
Labora tory. Available onlin e:
http://www.ncrel.org/tplan/cbtl/toc.htm
Web-Based Education Commission.
(2000). The power of the Internet for
learning: Moving from promise to
practice. Washington, DC: Author.
Available online: http://www.ed.gov/
offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport/
-
8/3/2019 NCREL Policy Issues #11
12/12
Non-ProfitOrg.
U.S.Postage
PAID
PermitNo.6784
Chicago
E-LearningandVirtualSchools
NorthCentralRegionalEducationalLaboratory
1120EastDiehlRoad,Suite200
Naperville,IL60563-1486
As a r esponse to the growing inter est in e-learn ing,North Cent ral Regional Edu cat iona l Laborat ory(NCREL) has developed th e E-Learning Knowledge
Base Web site. This Web site pr ovides a r eview and
synth esis of cur rent l itera tur e on e-learn ing. It isavai lable at www.ncrel .org / tech/e learn/ .
The foun dation of the E-Learning Knowledge Base is a
searchable, annotat ed review of literatu re conta ining
more th an 350 active links to full-text sources. These
online resources vary in scope and complexity from
single, article-length publications published in a growing
number of high-quality online publications to complex
Web sites tha t h ouse content roughly equivalent t o a
published jour nal or book. It appea rs t hat because of the
un ique natu re of work in e-learn ing, the best literat ure
may very well be available in online forms.
Besides the onl ine review of l i teratu re, th e E-Learning
Knowledge Base cont ains na rra t ives connect ing
e-learning with curriculum and standards-based
conten t , teaching and learning, instru ct ional
technology systems, and cul tur al an d organizat ional
context . In form ing K-12 leaders and decision mak ers
on the full range of issues concerning development
and deployment of e-learning is considered a criticalpriori ty. Educators can a pply this k nowledge to
support e-learning st rat egies and online col laborat ive
environments in th e classr oom an d in pr ofessiona l
development activities.
Users can explore th e resources in th e Web si te
us ing any order or s t ra tegy tha t he lps them address
their quest ions about e-learning p olicy an d pr act ice.
Because e-learning is changing rapidly, the site will
be changing with i t . New resources wil l be added
periodically. The p relimin ar y conclusions offered by
NCRELs synth esis may cha nge as importan t new
stu dies and policy docum ents are released for publica-
t ion. Users a re encouraged t o come back often to
check for new resources and modifications.
NCRELs Online Resource for E-Learning