NCREL Policy Issues #11

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/ .


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.


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.


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


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


5/12


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


6/12


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


7/12


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


8/12

P OLICY IS S UE S


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


9/12


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.


10/12


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:


11/12


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/


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

Documents

NCREL Policy Issues #11