Barbour, M. K. (2012, April). Countering a dominant narrative of educational reformers: Examining the research on the effectiveness of virtual schooling. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC. This proposal examines the rhetoric used by proponents of educational reform and the use of online learning as a solution for K-12 education. Using the research into K-12 online learning, I argue that those educational reformers use methodologically flawed research or promote an inaccurate understanding of research results to promote a corporate agenda in K-12 online learning. The proposed session will examine the limited amount of research into virtual schooling in an effort to better understand what this research indicates about the effectiveness of K-12 online learning.

1. Countering a Dominant
Narrative of Educational
Reformers: Examining the
Research on the Effectiveness
of Virtual Schooling
Michael K. Barbour
Assistant Professor
Wayne State University

2. 2

3. Dominant Narrative
1. All students are digital learners.
2. All students have access to high quality digital content and online
courses.
3. All students can customize their education using digital content
through an approved provider.
4. Students progress based on demonstrated competency.
5. Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blended
learning courses are high quality.
6. Digital instruction and teachers are high quality.
7. All students have access to high quality providers.
8. Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content
and instruction.
9. Funding creates incentives for performance, options and
innovation.
10. Infrastructure supports digital learning.

4. Dominant Narrative
1. All students are digital learners.
2. All students have access to high quality digital content and online
courses.
3. All students can customize their education using digital content
through an approved provider.
4. Students progress based on demonstrated competency.
5. Digital content, instructional materials, and online and blended
learning courses are high quality.
6. Digital instruction and teachers are high quality.
7. All students have access to high quality providers.
8. Student learning is the metric for evaluating the quality of content
and instruction.
9. Funding creates incentives for performance, options and
innovation.
10. Infrastructure supports digital learning.

5. Students ARE Digital Learners

6. High Quality Content
2. All students have access to high quality
digital content and online courses.
4. Digital content, instructional materials,
and online and blended learning courses
are high quality.
5. Digital instruction and teachers are high
quality.
6. All students have access to high quality
providers.

7. Customization

8. Analyzing Meta-Analyses
Teacher
Effects Zone of
Desired Effects
Developmental
Effects
Reverse
Effects

9. Results of Interest
• Programmed instruction (d=0.24)
• Individualized instruction (d=0.23)
• Student control over learning (d=0.04)
• Second and third chance programs (d=0.50)
• Computer assisted instruction (d=0.37)
• Decreasing disruptive behavior (d=0.34)
• Class size (d=0.21)
• Charter schools (d=0.20)
• Web-based learning (d=0.18)
• Home-school programs (d=0.16)
• Teacher training (d=0.11)
• Teacher subject matter knowledge (d=0.09)
• Distance education (d=0.09)
9

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

11. Student Learning
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
assessment of algebraic understanding
than their classroom counterparts
Barbour & Mulcahy (2008) little difference in the overall
performance of students based upon
delivery model
Barbour & Mulcahy (2009a) no difference in student performance
based upon method of course delivery

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

13. Student Learning
Kozma et al. (1998) vast majority of online students were planning
to attend a four-year college
Espinoza et al. (1999) students enrolled are mostly college bound
Haughey & Muirhead (1999) preferred characteristics include the highly
motivated, self-directed, self-disciplined,
independent learner who could read and write
well, and who also had a strong interest in or
ability with technology
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) online 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

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

15. Reality of most or
a large segment
K-12 online
learning
students?

16. Student Learning
• “Online student scores in math, reading, & writing have been lower
than scores for students statewide over the last 3 years.” (Colorado,
2006)
• “Online student scores on statewide achievement tests are consistently
14 to 26 percentage points below state averages for reading, writing
and math over the past four years.” (Colorado, 2011)
• “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.” (Wisconsin, 2010)
• “Compared with all students statewide, full-time online students had
significantly lower proficiency rates on the math.” (Minnesota, 2011)
• During both years [2008-09 & 2009-10], full-time online students
enrolled in grades 4-8 made about half as much progress in math, on
average, as other students in the same grade. (Minnesota, 2011)

17. Are students really learning?

18. Does online learning = high quality?

19. Funding & Infrastructure
• An independent study found that the “operating
costs of online programs are about the same as the
costs of operating brick-and-mortar schools.”
(iNACOL)
• “We find that average overall per-pupil costs of both
models are significantly lower than the $10,000
national average for tradition-al brick-and-mortar
schools—and that virtual schools are cheaper on
average than blended schools.” (Fordham
Foundation – 4th report)
• “Fund all learning opportunities equally per pupil.”
(Fordham Foundation – 5th report)

20. What’s This Really About???

21. Your
Questions
and
Comments

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