The document summarizes research on K-12 online learning and its policy implications. It finds that much of the early literature focused on potential benefits but lacked rigorous studies. Some performance comparisons found similar results to traditional schools, but students in online programs tended to be more motivated and self-directed. More recent studies show lower performance among full-time online students, including those in cyber schools. The research faces challenges in truly comparing student populations and accounting for teacher and program effects. Overall, the research provides limited guidance for policymaking on K-12 online learning.

1. What do we know? Where do we
go?
Examining the Research into K-12
Online Learning and its Policy
Implications
Michael K. Barbour
Assistant Professor
Wayne State University

5. Newfoundland and Labrador
• area of the island is 43,359 square
miles, while Labrador covers 112,826
square miles
• population of 514,536 in 2011 (down
from 551,795 in 1996)
• 67,933 students in 2011 (down from
118,273 in 1996)
• 268 schools in 2006 (down from 432
in 1996)
• average school size 220 pupils

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

7. What does the literature say?
• “based upon the personal experiences of
those involved in the practice of virtual
schooling” (Cavanaugh et al., 2009)
• described the literature as generally falling
into one of two general categories: the
potential benefits of and challenges facing K-
12 online learning (Barbour & Reeves, 2009)

8. What about research?
• “a paucity of research exists when
examining high school students enrolled
in virtual schools, and the research base
is smaller still when the population of
students is further narrowed to the
elementary grades”
(Rice, 2006)

9. Is this a problem?
“indicative of the foundational descriptive work
that often precedes experimentation in any
scientific field. In other words, it is important to
know how students in virtual school engage in
their learning in this environment prior to
conducting any rigorous examination of virtual
schooling.”
(Cavanaugh et al., 2009)

10. Analysis of Primary & Secondary Focused Articles
in the Main Distance Education Journals (2005-
10)
Australia Canada New Zealand United States
American Journal of Distance
Education (United States) 8
Distance Education
(Australia) 2 4
Journal of Distance
Education (Canada) 1 4
Journal of Distance Learning
(New Zealand) .5* 1 .5*
Total
3 4.5* 1 12.5*
* One article had a focus on both Canada and the United States

11. What does the research say?
1. Comparisons of student performance based upon
delivery model (i.e., classroom vs. online)
2. Studies examining the qualities and characteristics
of the teaching/learning experience
– characteristics of
– supports provided to
– issues related to isolation of online learners (Rice, 2006)
1 Effectiveness of virtual schooling
2 Student readiness and retention issues (Cavanaugh
et al., 2009)

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

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

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

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

16. Let’s look a little closer...

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

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

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

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

21. The Students
The preferred characteristics
include the highly motivated,
self-directed, self-disciplined,
independent learner who
could read and write well,
and who also had a strong
interest in or ability with
technology (Haughey &
Muirhead, 1999)

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

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

24. But does this represent all of
our online students?

25. Student Reality???
• two courses with the highest enrollment of online
students in the US are Algebra I & Algebra II
(Patrick, 2007)
• largest proportion of growth in K–12 online
learning enrollment is with full-time cyber schools
(Watson et al., 2008)
• many cyber schools have a higher percentage of
students classified as “at-risk” (Klein, 2006)
• at-risk students are as those who might otherwise
drop out of traditional schools (Rapp, Eckes &
Plurker, 2006)

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

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

28. Including Wider Range of Students
State of Colorado – 2006 Online Education
Performance Audit
– “Online student scores in math, reading, and writing
have been lower than scores for students statewide
over the last three years.”
– “The difference in performance between online
students and all students statewide is larger in higher
grades.”
– “Our analysis of Colorado Student Assessment Program
results and repeater, attrition, and dropout rates
indicate that online schools may not be providing
sufficiently for the needs of their students.”

29. Including Wider Range of Students
State of Wisconsin – Legislative Audit of Virtual
Charter Schools (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.”
– “Because of the relative newness of virtual charter
schools and their substantial growth since inception,
readily available information on the performance of
virtual charter school pupils would be of value to
parents, school districts, legislators, and other
policymakers.”

30. Including Wider Range of Students
State of Colorado – iNews Network Investigation
(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.”
– “Online schools produce three times as many dropouts
as they do graduates. One of every eight online
students drops out of school permanently – a rate four
times the state average.”
– “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.”

31. Including Wider Range of Students
State of Minnesota – 2011 K-12 Online Learning
Legislative Audit
– “Full-time online students dropped out much more
frequently.”
– “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.”
– “During both years [i.e., 2008-09 and 2009-10], full-
time online students enrolled in grades 4 through 8
made about half as much progress in math, on average,
as other students in the same grade.”

32. Including Wider Range of Students
Miron, G. & Urschel, J. (2012). Understanding and
improving full-time virtual schools. Denver, CO:
National Education Policy Center.
– “…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.”
– “These virtual schools students are also less likely to remain at
their schools for the full year, and the schools have low
graduation rates.”
– “Children who enroll in a K12 Inc. cyberschool, who receive full-
time instruction in front of a computer instead of in a classroom
with a live teacher and other students, are more likely to fall
behind in reading and math. These children are also more likely
to move between schools or leave school altogether – and the
cyberschool is less likely to meet federal education standards.”

33. Synthesis of 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*

34. Problem With Student
Performance Studies

35. Problem of Effect Sizes
Reverse
Effects

36. Problem of Effect Sizes
Developmental
Effects

37. Problem of Effect Sizes
Teacher
Effects

38. Problem of Effect Sizes
Zone of
Desired Effects

39. Synthesis of 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*

40. Results of Interest
• Second and third chance programs (d=0.50)
• Matching style of learning (d=0.40)
• Computer assisted instruction (d=0.37)
• Decreasing disruptive behavior (d=0.34)
• Programmed instruction (d=0.24)
• Individualized instruction (d=0.23)
• Class size (d=0.21)
• Charter schools (d=0.20)
• Web-based learning (d=0.18)
• Home-school programs (d=0.16)
• Teacher training (d=0.11)
• Teacher subject matter knowledge (d=0.09)
• Distance education (d=0.09)
• Student control over learning (d=0.04)
40

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

42. What about the other research?

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

44. Can the research really guide us?

45. 45

46. Digital Learning Now
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.

47. Digital Learning Now
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.

48. Can the research really guide us?

49. Students AREN’T digital learners

50. Students AREN’T digital learners

51. Online teaching endorsements
are UNNECESSARY

52. Online learning requirements
are POINTLESS

53. Online learning costs LESS, but
should be adequately funded

54. Conditions for online teachers
should be FAIR, BUT FLEXIBLE.

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

56. The Challenge
How do we
create an
environment
where all K-12
students can
be successful
when they learn
online?

57. My Own Research Agenda
• Continuing to examine the
policy and regulation of K-
12 distance education
in Canada
– potentially expanding
that study to New
Zealand
• Examining the preparation
of teachers to design,
delivery & support K-12
online learning

58. My Own Research Agenda
• Working with
individual K-12
online learning
program to help
them to effectively
design, deliver &
support K-12 online
learning

59. My Own Research Agenda
• Countering the
dominant narrative
presented by the
neo-liberal
supporters of K-12
online learning in
the United States
(and elsewhere)

60. Your
Questions
and
Comments

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