These are the slides from my research-focused job talk at University of Arkansas at Little Rock in June 2016.

1. Defining
a
Research
Agenda
in
K-­‐12
Online
Learning
Michael
K.
Barbour
Director
of
Doctoral
Studies
Sacred
Heart
University

2. Davis
(2007)
Supplemental

3. Keeping
Pace
with
K-­‐12
Digital
Learning

4. Borup
(2015)
Full-­‐Time

5. Keeping
Pace
with
K-­‐12
Digital
Learning

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

7. Researching
K-­‐12
Online
Learning
• Design
– EffecJve
web-­‐based
design
for
adolescents
– SupporJng
the
course
design
process
• Deliver
– Models
of
interacJon
to
support
online
teaching
– Social
media
tools
for
online
teacher
– Online
teachers
professional
development
needs
– Teacher
preparaJon
for
online
learning
• Support
– DuJes
and
Jme
commitment
of
mentor
teachers

8. What
Do
We
Know?
• a
number
of
scholars
have
documented
the
absence
of
rigorous
reviews
of
virtual
schools
(Barbour
&
Reeves,
2009).
• “based
upon
the
personal
experiences
of
those
involved
in
the
pracJce
of
virtual
schooling”
(Cavanaugh,
Barbour
&
Clark
,
2009)
• “a
paucity
of
research
exists
when
examining
high
school
students
enrolled
in
virtual
schools,
and
the
research
base
is
smaller
sJll
when
the
populaJon
of
students
is
further
narrowed
to
the
elementary
grades”
(Rice,
2006)

9. What
Do
We
Know
About
Student
Performance?

10. Supplemental
Student
Performance
Literature Finding
Bigbie &
McCarroll (2000)
…over half of students scored an A in their course &
only 7% received a failing grade.
Cavanaugh (2001) …effect size slightly in favor of K-12 distance
education.
Cavanaught et al.
(2004)
…negative effect size for K-12 distance education.
Cavanaugh et al.
(2005)
FLVS students performed better on a non-mandatory
assessment tool than students from the traditional
classroom.
McLeod et al.
(2005)
FLVS students performed better on an algebraic
assessment than their classroom counterparts.
Means et al.
(2009)
…small effect size favoring online cohorts over
face-to-face cohorts based on limited K-12 studies.
Chingos &
Schwerdt (2014)
FLVS students perform about the same or somewhat
better on state tests once their pre-high-school
characteristics are taken into account.

11. Literature Finding
Kozma et al.
(1998)
“…vast majority of VHS students in their courses
were planning to attend a four-year college.”
Espinoza et al.
(1999)
“VHS courses are predominantly designated as
‘honors,’ and students enrolled are mostly college
bound.”
Roblyer &
Elbaum (2000)
“…only students with a high need to control and
structure their own learning may choose distance
formats freely.”
Clark et al.
(2002)
“IVHS students were highly motivated, high
achieving, self-directed and/or who liked to work
independently.”
Mills (2003) “…typical online student was an A or B student.”
Watkins (2005) “…45% of the students who participated in e-
learning opportunities in Michigan were either
advanced placement or academically advanced
students.”

12. Literature Finding
CO (2006) “Online student scores in math, reading, and writing have been
lower than scores for students statewide over the last three years.”
OH (2009) …online charter school students experienced significantly lower
achievement gains compared to brick-and-mortar charter schools
in the state.
OH (2009) Online charter schools “rank higher when looking at their ‘value-
added’ progress over one year rather than simply measuring their
one-time testing performance.”
WI (2010) “Virtual charter school pupils’ median scores on the mathematics
section of the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination
were almost always lower than statewide medians during the
2005-06 and 2006-07 school years.”
CO (2011) “Half of the online students wind up leaving within a year. When
they do, they’re often further behind academically then when they
started.”
MN (2011) “Compared with all students statewide, full-time online students
had significantly lower proficiency rates on the math MCA-II but
similar proficiency rates in reading.”

13. Literature Finding
AZ (2011) “[N]early nine of every 10 students enrolled in at least one statewide
online course, all had graduation rates and AIMS math passing rates below
the state average”
OH (2011) “[N]early 97 percent of Ohio's traditional school districts have a higher
score than the average score of the seven statewide” online charter
schools. Those schools in Ohio also underperformed brick-and-mortar
schools in graduation rates.
PA (2011) 100% of these online charter schools performed significantly worse than
feeder schools in both reading and math.
AR (2012) …online students performed at levels comparable to their face-to-face
counterparts in six out of eight measures, and on the remaining two
measures online students outperformed their face-to-face counterparts at a
0.10 statistically significant level.
National
(2012)
“…students at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual school company, are
falling further behind in reading and math scores than students in brick-
and-mortar schools.”
KS (2015) “Virtual school students perform similarly to traditional school students in
reading before and after controlling for student demographics. After
controlling for demographic differences, virtual school students’
performance in math was similar to that of traditional school students.”

16. • K12
Inc.
virtual
schools
enroll
approximately
the
same
percentages
of
black
students
but
substan?ally
more
white
students
and
fewer
Hispanic
students
relaJve
to
public
schools
in
the
states
in
which
the
company
operates
• 39.9%
of
K12
students
qualify
for
free
or
reduced
lunch,
compared
with
47.2%
for
the
same-­‐state
comparison
group.
• K12
virtual
schools
enroll
a
slightly
smaller
propor?on
of
students
with
disabili?es
than
schools
in
their
states
and
in
the
naJon
as
a
whole
(9.4%
for
K12
schools,
11.5%
for
same-­‐state
comparisons,
and
13.1%
in
the
naJon).
• “Students
classified
as
English
language
learners
are
significantly
under-­‐represented
in
K12
schools;
on
average
the
K12
schools
enroll
0.3%
ELL
students
compared
with
13.8%
in
the
same-­‐state
comparison
group
and
9.6%
in
the
naJon.”
Miron,
G.
&
Urschel,
J.
(2012).
Understanding
and
improving
full-­‐=me
virtual
schools.
Denver,
CO:
NaJonal
EducaJon
Policy
Center.
Reality
of
Full-­‐Time
Online
Students

18. Keeping
Pace
with
K-­‐12
Digital
Learning

19. Keeping
Pace
with
K-­‐12
Digital
Learning

20. Is
Research
Really
Guiding
Policy?

21. Portland
Press
Herald

23. hhp://www.slideshare.net/mkb

24. Your
QuesJons
and
Comments

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