Barbour, M. K. (2011, September). Shifting the goal posts: The changing landscape of primary and secondary education and how that affects e-learning in higher education. A keynote presentation at the 2o congreso mundial de e-learning (Second World Congress on e-Learning) in Cartagena, Columbia.

1. Shifting the Goal Posts
or
The Changing Landscape of
Primary & Secondary Education
& How that Affects E-Learning in
Higher Education
Michael Barbour
Assistant Professor
Wayne State University

4. Generational differences: the
theory that people born within
an approximately 20 year time
period share a common set of
characteristics based upon the
historical experiences, economic
and social conditions,
technological advances and
other societal changes they have
in common

5. Generational Boundaries
• GI Generation “Greatest Generation”
– Born between 1901 and 1924
• Silent Generation
– Born between 1925 and 1945
• Baby Boomers
– Born between 1946 and 1964
• Generation X
– Born between 1965 and 1980
• Today’s Student
– Born between 1981 and 2000

6. This Generation’s Numbers in the
United States
• 60 million - largest group
since the Baby Boomers (72
million)
• 3 times larger than
Generation X
• Teen population is growing
at twice the rate of the rest
of America
• Made up 37% of U.S.
population in 2005

7. Today’s Student
• Generation Y
• Echo
• Net Generation
• Neomillennials
• Generation NeXt
• Millennials
• Generation Me
• Digital Natives
• Generation txt

8. Millennials
• “more numerous, more
affluent, better educated,
and more ethnically
diverse…. they are
beginning to manifest a
wide array of positive social
habits…. [such as]
teamwork, achievement,
modesty, and good
conduct”
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000).
Millennials rising: The next great
generation New York: Vintage
Books.

9. Net Generation
• Children of baby boomers
• Digital technology has had a
profound impact on their
personalities, including their
attitudes and approach to
learning
• Generation gap has become a
generation lap
http://www.growingupdigital.com

10. Digital Natives
• “are all ‘native speakers’ of the digital
language of computers, video games
and the internet”
• “If educators really want to reach Digital
Natives—i.e., all their students—they
will have to change”
• Those educators who do not are “just dumb
(and lazy)”
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants – Part
II: Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9(6).

11. Dangerous Dichotomy
Digital Native Digital Immigrant
• Student • Teacher
• Fast • Slow
• Young • Old
• Future • Past or legacy
• Multi-tasking • Logical, serial thinking
• Image • Text
• Playful • Serious
• Looking forward • Looking backward
• Digital • Analogue
• Action • Knowledge
• Constant connection • Isolation
Bayne S. & Ross, J. (2007, December). The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: A dangerous opposition. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education, Brighton, UK. Retrieved from
http://www.malts.ed.ac.uk/staff/sian/natives_final.pdf

12. Digital Immigrants Better
Online Learners
• most socially-reliant learners
• better at knowledge application
(i.e., answering questions that go
‘beyond the information given’)
• more active in the websites
associated with the online
courses
Ransdell, S., Kent, B., Gaillard-Kenney, S. and Long, J. (2011), Digital immigrants fare better than digital natives due
to social reliance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42: 931–938.

13. Master Multitaskers
• Memory
encoding and
memory
retrieval
weaker in
teens when
attention is
divided
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Kilb, A., & Fisher, T. (2006). Concurrent task effects on memory encoding and retrieval: Further
support for an asymmetry. Memory & Cognition, 34(1), 90-101.

15. “Today's young people have
been raised to aim for the
stars at a time when it is
more difficult than ever to
get into college, find a good
job, and afford a house.
Their expectations are very
high just as the world is
becoming more competitive,
so there's a huge clash
between their expectations
and reality.”

16. • In 2002, 74% of high school students
admitted to cheating whereas in 1969 only
34% admitted such a failing. (p. 27)
• In 1967, 86% of incoming college students
said that “developing a meaningful
philosophy of life” was an essential life goal
whereas in 2004 only 42% of GenMe
freshmen agreed. (p. 48)
• In 2004, 48% of American college freshmen
reported earning an A average in high
school whereas in 1968 only 18% of
freshmen reported being an A student in
high school. (p. 63)
• In the 1950s, only 12% of young teens
agreed with the statement “I am an
important person” whereas by the late
1980s, 80% claimed they were important.
(p. 69) Jean M. Twenge

18. Elementary & Secondary
Online Learning

20. In the United States…
Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning, 2010

21. In Canada…
Single provincial
program
Primarily district-
based programs
Combination of
provincial and
district-based
programs
Use online
learning
programs from
other provinces
State of the Nation: K-12 Online Learning in Canada,
2011

22. Elsewhere in the World…
• China • Singapore
– less than 1% – online and blended
learning is pervasive
• Iran
– many private companies • Turkey
offering MOE approved – pilot began in 2005-06 with
courses 300,000 and hope to have
12,000,000 taking online
• Japan
courses by 2010
– one correspondence
school offering online • New Zealand
course – The Correspondence
School
– Virtual Learning Network
Powell & Patrick (2006)

23. Elsewhere in the World…
• United Kingdom • Australia
– A School Without Walls offers A – Tasmanian eSchool
level & GCSC courses primarily – Grampians Virtual School
to adults – Northern Beaches Christian
– National Academy for Gifted and School
Talented Youth offers some – Virtual School for the Gifted
online courses
– Virtual Schooling Service
• South Korea
– Cyber Home Learning System • Finland
– Small national virtual school

24. http://www.inacol.org

25. What Does The Literature Say?
• “based upon the personal experiences of
those involved in the practice of virtual
schooling” (Cavanaugh et al., 2009)
• “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)

26. 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)

27. So, What Do We Know?

28. 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)
• 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)

29. Student Performance
• there was “a small positive
effect in favor of distance
education” at the K-12
level (Cavanaugh, 2001)
• students in the six virtual
schools in three different
provinces performed no
worse than the students
from the three conventional
schools (Barker & Wendel,
2001)

30. Student Performance
• IVHS had a completion
rate of 53% its first year of
operation and 80% the
following (Clark et al.,
2002)
• a small negative effect
size in their meta-analysis
of K-12 distance education
(Cavanaugh et al., 2004)

31. 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 counterpart
(McLeod et al., 2005)

32. Student Performance
• the completion rate for the
ALDC was 47% for their
asynchronous courses and
89% for their combination
asynchronous & synchronous
courses (Elluminate, 2006)
• CDLI students performed as
well as classroom-based
students on final course scores &
exam marks (Barbour &
Mulcahy, 2007; 2008)

33. Let’s look a little closer...

34. 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

35. 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

36. Let’s look even closer...

37. 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)

38. 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)

39. 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)

40. 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)

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

42. But does this
really represent
all or even most
elementary and
high school
students?

43. There Must Be A Better Way!!!

44. What We Do Know!!!
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis
of over 800 meta-analysis related to
achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The
relationship between research and teaching: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 507–542.
Hattie, M., & Marsh, J. (2002). The relationship
between productivity and teaching
effectiveness. Journal of Higher Education,
73(5), 603-641.

45. Examining Effect Sizes
Reverse
Effects

46. Examining Effect Sizes
Developmental
Effects

47. Examining Effect Sizes
Teacher
Effects

48. Examining Effect Sizes
Zone of
Desired Effects

49. Results to Consider
1. Self-reported grades (d=1.44)
2. Piagetian programs (d=1.28)
3. Providing formative evaluation (d=0.90)
4. Micro teaching (d=0.88)
5. Acceleration (d=0.88)
6. Classroom behavioral (d=0.80)
7. Comprehensive interventions for
learning disabled students (d=0.78)
8. Teacher clarity (d=0.75)
9. Reciprocal teaching (d=0.74)
10. Providing feedback (d=0.73)
12. Teacher-student relationships (d=0.72)

50. Results to Consider
12. Spaced vs. mass practice (d=0.71)
13. Meta-cognitive strategies (d=0.69)
14. Prior achievement (d=0.67)
15. Vocabulary programs (d=0.67)
16. Repeated Reading programs (d=0.67)
17. Creativity Programs (d=0.65)
18. Self-verbalization & self-questioning
(d=0.64)
19. Professional development (d=0.62)
20. Problem solving teaching (d=0.61)
21. Not labeling students (d=0.61)
22. Teaching strategies (d=0.60)

51. Results to Consider
23. Cooperative vs. individualistic learning
(d=0.59)
24. Study skills (d=0.59)
25. Direct instruction (d=0.59)
26. Tactile stimulation programs (d=0.58)
27. Phonics instruction (d=0.58)
28. Comprehension programs (d=0.58)
29. Mastery learning (d=0.58)
30. Worked examples (d=0.57)
31. Home environment (d=0.57)
32. Socioeconomic status (d=0.57)
33. Concept mapping (d=0.57)

52. The Challenge
Whether online
learning can
be suitable for
students?
(Mulcahy, 2002)

53. Wenmoth, D. (2010). The future – Trends, challenges and opportunities. In V. Ham & D. Wenmoth (eds.). e-Learnings:
Implementing a national strategy project for ICT in education, 1998-2010 (pp. 196-203). Christchurch, New Zealand:
CORE Education.

54. Your
Questions
and
Comments

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