Although the ideal DL program would be equivalent or superior to existing traditional, brick and mortar programs, assessing success in DL is extremely complicated. There are so many aspects of DL that are little understood or adequately defined in current research. Not surprisingly, Roblyer, Davis, Mills, Marshall, and Pape (2008) found that researchers voiced "considerable diversity of opinion about factors hypothesized to contribute to online success. No two studies seem to look at the same set of variables or measure them in quite the same way [while] follow up studies are rare" (p. 94). I would argue that students, parents, teachers and school administrators are guilty of the same flaw while assessing the DL environment. School evaluations based on research absent of subjective criteria is of critical necessity.

Valid instruments that describe and accurately attribute success and failure in both student achievement and program delivery are essential. Black, Ferdig, and DiPietro (2008) found that "assessment tools for the measurement and evaluation of key factors that equate to virtual schooling success have not kept pace" with the rapid growth and change in DL (p. 24). The diversity of DL program offerings challenges the validity of assessment models originally intended for students in a uniform learning environment. Many extraordinary circumstances may prevail in DL. For example: someone other than the student may have done assignments, computer skills may impede or enhance achievement, a learning management system may affect content accessibility, and not all students experience the same quality of study environment. Technologically, Davis & Niederhauser (2007) pointed to the restrictive role of "firewalls and filtering software [restricting] students’ access to the virtual Web-based learning environment," often imposed by well meaning, protective adults (p. 14). One of my student's parents equated a Web Quest in a Blackboard synchronous class with leaving his 12 year on a downtown street corner in Vancouver, British Columbia, a not unusual complication in the day-to day life of a DL teacher.

Preventing student dropout is of critical concern in DL programs. In response, researchers are attempting to clarify the causes of poor student retention by investigating two lines of research: learner characteristics and learning environments. However, to date, no consistently helpful models have been identified that provide solutions to the issue of student retention in K-12 DL (Roblyer et al., p. 90). The funding pressure to serve student populations already academically advantaged in order to prevent dropout issues threatens to leave behind those students most in need of educational alternatives to the brick and mortar system.

 

 

References

Black, E.W., Ferdig, R.E. & DiPietro, M. (2008). An overview of evaluative instrumentation for virtual high schools. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 24-45.

Davis, N. & Niederhauser, D.S. (2007). Virtual schooling. Learning & Leading with Technology, 34(7), 10-15.

Roblyer, M. D., & Marshall, J. C. (2003). Predicting the success of virtual high school students: preliminary results from an educational success prediction instrument. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 241–256.