Policy Issues 11: Virtual Schools and E-Learning in K-12 Environments

E-Learning Policy Implications for K-12 Educators and Decision Makers

Start-Up Costs

The history of the development and dissemination of computer-aided learning (CAL) or computer-assisted instruction (CAI) deployed in the K-12 schools during the last 40 years suggests that that the development and production of online learning technologies is an expensive and labor-intensive proposition for both schools and teachers.

For classroom teachers, the amount of time required to develop and implement high-quality online learning environments (including thorough curriculum research and systematic design, implementation, and testing of evaluation prototypes) amounts to a serious opportunity cost for the supporting school that often is overlooked by school administrators.

Consider this classical formula for estimating the amount of time required to develop a single contact hour of computer-assisted instruction:

"Estimates for the development of materials range from 50 to 150 person-hours of development time to one hour of instruction. This range is usually true in the development of computer-assisted instructional materials, filmed materials, and tape materials using a systematic model that includes an assessment of the problem as well as an evaluation and revision of the materials until they reach the specified instructional objectives. It may take, however, as many as 2,000 hours to develop one hour of instruction" (Knirk & Gustafson, 1986, p. 187).

Experience has shown that unless teacher-technologists who pioneer the integration of new learning technologies in curriculum (either via screening and selection or local development of applications) are provided appropriate release time and other support apparently required for high-quality learning outcomes, the resulting materials may be ineffective. Materials developed under such conditions "were tried as alternatives and proved to be time-consuming, expensive, and inefficient" (Blomeyer, 1991, p. 146).

From the teacher-technologist's perspective, whether online learning is developed and implemented by commercial publishers and professional software developers or developed locally by the most innovative and talented K-12 master teachers, it is certain that quality e-learning can become available in the public 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 substitute time (needed to support a teacher-technologist and release him or her from instructional duties), in terms of the per-pupil costs for licensing a commercial e-learning product, or in terms of reimbursement paid to another school or district in exchange for use of online courses developed by teachers in other local districts. A recent survey shows the most reported tuition for virtual high school courses is $300 per semester, but prices seem to vary greatly (Clark, 2001). In short, both the costs and the benefits of online courses can be substantial.

Evidence of Impact

Although a growing body of research, program evaluation, theory, and policy documents the rapid introduction of e-learning in postsecondary institutions in the United States and around the world, research documenting and examining e-learning in K-12 settings has begun to be published just in the last few years. Publications examining the effectiveness of e-learning will be particularly significant for both teachers and school administrators.

Currently, there appears to be only a small body of educational research examining the instructional effectiveness of online learning. A meta-analysis of findings on the effectiveness of K-12 distance learning delivered via both online and two-way voice/video systems by Cavanaugh (2001) provides an overview of educational research conducted between 1993 and 1997. Cavanaugh analyzes the effects sizes of selected quantitative educational research examining student academic achievement as a result of using distance education in K-12 settings. Her findings indicate that distance-learning projects characterized by online telecommunications (or e-learning), distance learning to supplement and support more traditional classroom instruction, smaller sized groups, and shorter-duration learning experiences show consistently bigger effects sizes than projects using two-way videoconferencing, primary instruction via distance, long duration, and larger sized groups.

It is tempting to generalize from Cavanaugh's findings and jump to the conclusion that fully online courses may result in lower academic achievement than hybrid courses (which combine more traditional face-to-face instructional strategies with online learning). However, because student achievement data from fully online, virtual high school courses was not available for consideration in Cavanaugh's meta-analysis, implications for academic achievement in contemporary virtual high schools would be inappropriate at this time.

Applying Cavanaugh's findings to conclusions about contemporary e-learning would require replication of her meta-analysis to include all qualifying research available since 1998. Until then, educators and policy leaders may wish to examine related conclusions from online learning research in corporate training, higher education, and international education.

Policy Context

At the CiTE Virtual High School Symposium, sponsored by the Center for Internet Technology in Education and held in October 2001, there was ample evidence that a vigorous and growing community of practice is building what could be called a virtual high school movement. This enthusiastic and active group of first comers exhibited many of the characteristics attributed to successful virtual communities.

In his keynote address at this symposium, John Bailey, currently director of the Office of Instructional Technology for the U.S. Department of Education, shared his views on education and technology and described the conditions required to achieve positive outcomes from e-learning in K-12 schools. He mentioned the following policy themes for online learning:

"Anywhere, anytime" learning means that "education can now be delivered to students wherever they are located."
Online learning should encourage schools to become "education centers" for their respective communities.
"Every educational program is a technology opportunity, and every technology program is an educational opportunity."
Online assessment in conjunction with online learning has the potential to significantly increase the effective use of instructional time and encourage "a system of education that isn't based on mass production, but is instead based on mass customization."
"We need to be relentless in measuring and assessing the impact that technology has on education and on academic achievement. We need evidence that teaching and learning are improved as the result of technology. Using technology to teach using traditional methods will only lead to traditional results." (Bailey, 2001)

Dialogues and conversations among attendees at the symposium centered around creating a consensus between practitioners and commercial developers of online learning products about the critical issues facing the online learning community. It was not apparent, however, that state-level policymakers or representatives from education agencies in the states developing virtual schools took part in these important discussions.

NASBE (2000) concurs that there is a lack of input from education leaders and policymakers with regard to e-learning development and implementation: "The uncomfortable reality is that education leaders are not currently driving the policy agenda".

It is imperative that state-level education policymakers become active participants in ongoing conversations about K-12 online learning. Without the substantial participation of state-level educational leadership, any possible contribution of online learning technologies or e-learning to school improvement and reform may fall prey to the loose coupling that is apparent between many traditional state educational policies and visionary e-learning practice.

Findings and Recommendations

In the end, student access to online courses will be determined by local decisions that must be made by education administrators and policy leaders everywhere. These decisions will affect whether or not specific virtual courses will be approved (or afforded) for individual students who have particular rationales and reasons for requesting enrollment in online classes. In some cases, this situation may contribute to lower enrollment in regularly offered on-site classes, lower daily attendance, and shrinking instructional loads—with negative impacts for staffing and personnel budgets.

The following findings and recommendations offer some next steps for state and local policymakers and education leaders.

Finding 1:

Innovative technology leaders in the e-learning movement and established state education policy leaders have not established a basis for communication and dialogue on critical policy issues relating to K-12 online learning.

Recommendations:

Leaders in the e-learning movement and state education policymakers should initiate communications and begin working together to help shape e-learning practice. Such dialogue will help education policy leaders understand the unique dimensions of e-learning practice and also will enable e-learning to operate within critical education policy constraints.
Key state education agency representatives should be encouraged to participate in professional forums, such as subsequent CiTE Virtual High School Symposiums. These forums provide common ground for critical dialogues between e-learning consumers, producers, and educational policy leaders concerned with the top-to-bottom articulation of e-learning policy and practice.
State education agencies should be strongly encouraged to begin a thorough analysis of existing state 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 should be given to modifying or adapting existing policies to promote the equitable diffusion and implementation of online learning. The time-consuming development of new policies, in contrast, may delay or slow the adoption and effective implementation of K-12 online learning.

Finding 2:

When provided with quality professional development opportunities and supervised online clinical experience, good traditional teachers also can become effective facilitators of online learning. Similarly, well-qualified and experienced online instructors can learn the more specialized instructional design and implementation skills that are necessary to create quality online learning materials based on their existing teaching experience and curricular expertise.

Recommendations:

Certified, experienced teachers who wish to become online instructors should be required to complete an approved professional development curriculum ensuring their competency as online instructors before being assigned responsibility for leadership in an online course.
Experienced online instructors should be required to complete appropriate specialized professional development concerned with the design and implementation of online learning environments before undertaking the local development of online courses.
Specialized professional development programs that provide teachers with professionally recognized credentialing as online instructors or developers of online learning often are costly and time consuming. Professional development costs for teachers should be shared or fully reimbursed, work release time should be provided to support preparation required before and during initial online instructional assignments, and teaching loads should be appropriately adjusted to compensate for online teaching or participation in online instructional development projects.
School districts should avoid encouraging or requiring teachers to accept assignments as online instructors. They should not require teachers and other district employees to participate in the development of online instructional materials or course materials without appropriate financial compensation for assigned duties and due respect for copyright and ownership of intellectual property (see American Association of University Professors, n.d.).

Finding 3:

Hybrid courses (combining face-to-face and online instruction) with smaller enrollments and clear linkages to approved curriculum practice seem to offer higher completion rates and arguably better quality learning outcomes than online courses alone (Cavanaugh, 2001). This finding suggests that online learning optimally should be used in some combination with face-to-face instruction, primarily from qualified and experienced teachers who are in physical proximity to enrolled online students.

Recommendation:

School districts, state education agencies, and the U.S. Department of Education should collaborate on the development and implementation of a scientific research agenda related to the use of online professional development and e-learning with students in K-12 learning environments. This agenda should determine which resource configurations and instructional design practices optimize student achievement and authentic learning outcomes.

Finding 4:

Optimal resource configurations and instructional design practices that promote effective e-learning outcomes in K-12 learning environments currently are not recognized, generally understood, or agreed upon by e-learning producers, consumers, and education policy leaders. Objective, research-based guidelines and standards supporting the selection and screening of online courses are lacking. When seeking product information on online tools and advice about what works and what doesn't in K-12 e-learning environments, school districts and state education agencies may be dependent solely upon the vested interests that are developing and selling online learning services and technologies.

Recommendation:

All concerned parties and agencies should support the development and diffusion of standards and assessment guidelines for online learning. Such standards and guidelines can assist local school districts and state education agencies with the selection and acquisition of well-designed and effective online learning.

Finding 5:

Existing educational research and program evaluations that examine and analyze the outcomes and impact of online learning in K-12 learning environments presently are very limited. The few research summaries and meta-analyses currently available do not include published data from recent program evaluations and assessments from state and federally supported virtual high school programs.

Recommendations:

Existing research summaries and meta-analyses concerned with e-learning policy and practice should be expanded to include newly published findings on recent state and regional virtual high school projects.
Support for additional professionally designed and executed program evaluations and scientific educational research should be given a high priority in all public and private agencies supporting effective implementation and use of online learning in K-12 learning communities.

Conclusion

In final analysis, e-learning isn't about digital technologies any more than classroom teaching is about chalkboards. E-learning is about people and about using technology systems to support constructive social interactions, including human learning. Although computers and 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 students to have their own notebook computers to support both in-school and at-home learning, as long as they actively pursue other publicly available educational opportunities.

Educational technologies are an increasingly important part of the nation's efforts to broadly and substantially improve the quality, efficiency, and equity of student learning. The Office of Educational Technology (2000) states:

"The leadership imperative is clear. Collectively, these new goals for technology in education represent an updated, high-level strategy for ensuring the future of education in which all students will benefit from the enhanced learning opportunities afforded by new and emerging communications and information technologies".

Books and traditional strategies certainly will continue to be important, along with technologies such as telephones, satellites, computers, interactive TV, CD-ROMs, the Internet, compressed videos, audiotapes, and videotapes. But in all probability, today's newest educational technology approaches—e-learning and virtual schools—are destined to become tomorrow's established instructional delivery systems. New e-learning technologies will become increasingly common for people in all walks of life and increasingly integrated as an invisible and ubiquitous part of U.S. global, cultural, political, and economic systems.

Previous | Next