When I started teaching as an onsite facilitator for secondary distance education courses, before online was possible (1993-1999) I worked one-to-one with students in a study hall atmosphere, tutoring them through modules provided by the distance education school. Typically, I provided supplementary experiences to enhance learning but was frustrated that I could not alter course materials in any direct way to better suit the needs of individual learners. The “one size fits all” delivery model seemed an inadequate pedagogy. Once I became an online teacher, and coordinated school-based site facilitators, I was eager to work collaboratively to adapt materials, design open-ended online lessons and assignments that would provide a more flexible and scaffolded curriculum than the older paper based materials had.

Site facilitators were given one block in their school day to facilitate learning for students who were taking an online course, Planning 10. Site facilitators worked from office spaces in the school, but did not have regularly scheduled classrooms to meet students in. Students typically worked on their computers at home. The site facilitator marked student work and attempted to meet with students at regular intervals, not always successfully. Additional learning opportunities were offered in the school to enhance learning. Final Grades were recorded by the distance education school from the LMS.

Unfortunately, the site facilitator model was very loosely defined and supported. Less than a day in the year was provided for coordinating the site facilitators, so other than showing teachers how to use the software, all other activities had to be accomplished off the side of my already overflowing desk. The number of students each site facilitator was attempting to support was two to three times the size of a regular classroom. Successful course completion was low, as students floundered, not having the self-regulation and organizational skills to work as independently as required.

Over time, some of the site-facilitators were able to negotiate more time and resources to support students. Site-facilitators began to be more selective choosing students they allowed to register in online courses, talking others into remaining in the regular classroom.

Evidently, providing opportunities for students to register in online courses and assigning a teacher to support students does not magically lead to success. Considerably more thought and dedicated resources of time, space and technology need to be made available.

We've discussed earlier in this MOOC the need for a standardized vocabulary to help make sense of the diverse conditions found in online learning and teaching. In the same way, when we define teaching online and the skill-set development that leads to success in the online environment, stopping to consider the terms "professional development" vs "professional learning" is a useful digression. Dawley, Rice and Hinck (2010) call for "ongoing training, more in-depth training, and trouble-shooting" for online teachers (p. 30). The terms "development" and "training" portend a system wide, top-down authoritarian delivery model. Killion and Hirsh (2009) concluded that such a non-stakeholder developed model does not build sustained capacity in the ranks of the people who are charged with implementing innovative and effective pedagogies. The term "professional learning" focuses on a more stakeholder centric model, where the vision for "learning theories and models selected . . .explain how learning happens, who the learners are, and the context in which students learn. The vision emerges from communitywide conversations among stakeholders who come together to describe the learning experience they want for students to prepare them for the future" (Killion and Hirsh, 2011, p. 3).

The following chart identifies specific attributes of the shift from a professional development and training model to a professional learning model as described by Stephanie Hirsh and Joellen Killion (2007, p.111).

From	To
In-service education and staff/professional development	Professional learning
Individual learning	Team-based and school-wide learning
Increasing the number of staff development days or periods	Restructuring the workday of all educators to ensure daily learning experiences
Credit-based licensure/recertification systems	Performance-based systems
Separate individual teacher, school or district professional development plans	Effective professional learning embedded into team, school and district improvement plans
Professional development as an expenditure	Professional learning as an investment
Improving teacher practice	Improving teaching quality and student learning
Relying on outside experts	Tapping and building internal expertise
A single career path for teachers	Multiple options for teachers to become leaders in schools
Standardization	High standards for teaching, professional learning and student learning

References

Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010). Going virtual! 2010 The status of professional development and unique needs of K-12 online teachers. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual3.pdf

Hirsh, S. & Killion, J. (2007). The learning educator. A new era for professional learning. Oxford, OH: NSDC.

Hirsh, S. & Killion, J. (2009). When educators learn, students learn. Eight principles of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan. 90 (7), 464-469. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from EBSCOHost.

Killion, J., Hirsh, S. (2011). The elements of effective teaching. Journal of Staff Development, 32 (6), 10-16). Retrieved September 30, 2012 from EBSCOHost.

Thank-you Kathryn Kennedy!

This is the section of this MOOC where I became totally absorbed in the extensive range of concepts, ideas, literature, thoughts and visions shared.

This is the section where I experienced what many of my students experience when I provide a rich, diverse, open-ended learning experience. First hand, I understand the parents who phone worrying that their child will lose points, are not focused and on task, what were they supposed to learn anyway?

I started by scanning the overall list of resources provided. Then, I decided that some of the resources from previous sections had introduced these current concepts, and I wanted to revisit them before going further. After delving deeply into the first three MOOC sections again, I then followed the links, watched the videos, and halted after the inspirational visions of the 21 century learners and teachers juxtaposed to the GA Technology Trend analysis. I hope the GA trend never reaches BC. I do not want to teach in that environment. But it is useful to know where technology can go if not constructively challenged.

Ah, I see where my difficulty lies. My own pedagogical beliefs and frame of reference are commiserate with the "What is Happening in this Classroom" (WIHIC) and related learning environment theory and surveys created by Fraser, Ledbetter, Zandvliet and many others. Using the preferred and actual learning environment surveys, validated in numerous learning environments the teacher directed/teacher constricted model consistently falls far below the efficacy of students' critical voice, negotiated learning, group cohesion, relevance of learning, and other measurable learning environment attributes.

The iNACOL standards critique from a very different frame than my experience (and the copious validated results of the WIHIC strand of research) demonstrate are optimum for learners in successful, dynamic learning environments. This dissonance derives, I believe from the digital immigrant struggling to understand the needs of future learners. I can tell you definitively, that my students will not read, nor do they care about the pages that tell them what they will learn, what the privacy policy is, or the rules for plagiarism, and netiquette even if those are important to me as a teacher. Students want to get down to the learning, be dynamically engaged, have a voice in what they are learning, and communicate with me, their teacher when they have a better idea, or want help getting to their learning destination. These are attributes that are measurable and the focus of learning environment surveys.

Ok, fair enough, I have one parent now, who desperately wants me to identify exactly the due dates, what needs to be done each and every moment of their child’s virtual school day. Interestingly, they also are clear that they have no intention of following those guidelines. So I'm confused. I suspect they just want an alternative to what exists no matter what format that is. Which leads me to the next argument.

I agree that we need to bring digital literacy and citizenship into the brick and mortar classroom with blended models of instruction. Classrooms are moving in that direction, as more people become accepting of allowing students to access their smart phones, bring in their ipads, use twitter, and facebook rather than the unfortunately still prevalent locking down of access to internet reception that frightened and controlling adults determine is best for kids. A brave new educational future will be the support for supplemental DL (virtual) programs. I'm optimistic enough to hope for the Shakespearean rather than the Huxley version.

I need to digress further here. I love the distinction of this new-to-me-from-this-MOOC vocabulary: full-time and supplemental programs. There are vast differences in the responsibilities and expectations of both students and teachers associated with these two vastly different concepts in DL. Having the vocabulary to delineate the two is helping me to categorize those differences and understand many frustrations I experience daily. Thank-you!

Returning to the main discussion: The need for the full-time DL environment will remain as well as (I hope) a place for teachers like me who want to practice the full range of digital teaching skills which include course design, development of my own learning materials and lessons using resources I choose (like this exciting, dynamic Pearson e-text I have for my Grade 8 DL classroom). Unless we find a cure for bullying, anxiety, depression, family crisis, traveling parents, alternative lifestyles, and a gamut of other influences that remove students from the conventional school system, virtual schools (cyber in America) are here to stay.

References

Fraser, B.J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1(1), p. 7-33.

Houston, L.S., Fraser, B.J. & Cynthia E. Ledbetter, C.E. (2008). An evaluation of elementary school science kits in terms of classroom environment and student attitudes. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(4), p. 29-47.

Zandvliet, D.B., & Buker, L. (2003). The internet in BC classrooms: Learning environments in new contexts. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 7(15), Retrieved September 22, 2012 from http://people.ucalgary.ca/~huartson/iejll/.

One disappointing construct in K-12 online learning research is the assumption that "different teachers in different settings will have unique responsibilities and roles" (Ferdig, 2010, p. 15). The argument assumes that making every teacher "responsible for content creation, delivery, tech support, and daily management of the school [would] deny the variability of online entities and course environments" (Ferdig). If this argument runs its course, then the teacher as professional becomes teacher as technician, with their responsibilities siloed into roles such as course developer, marker, or course facilitator. Teachers lose their professionalism, pedagogical diversity and complexity that inspires a career lifespan of engagement, growth and development.

How is it personally rewarding as a professional to perform isolated tasks for the online learning environment? How does one respond to and support the whole learner when one is analogously only attaching the wheel to the automobile on the assembly line? Standardized course content created for mass consumption trends back to a 50's model of DE, making the computer little better than the static paper it is replacing. Yes, I have some delightful resources that are particularly open-ended, which provide opportunity for critical thinking and analysis of concepts. These are still not resources that are accessible to the learning of all of the students in my care. I need to be performing the full range of teaching responsibilities if I am to meet the immediacy of students' concerns.

Professional motivation stems from continuous involvement in learning that "engages the intellect, involves all teachers in cycles of action and reflection, and builds relationships, all of which lead to continuous improvements in teaching and learning for all students" (Sparks, 2004, ¶ 4). The teaching experience is a complex system of events and responses that provide deep, rich and engaging opportunities for all of the learners in the school community. Quality professional development is then driven by the ability to apply new and exciting skills and strategies, relevant to the students in front of me (virtually speaking of course).

 

References

Ferdig, R.E. (August, 2010). Continuous quality improvement through professional development for online K-12 instructors. Keynote presentation at Michigan Virtual University’s fifth annual “Collaboration of the Minds conference. East Lansing, MI.

Sparks, D. (2004). The looming danger of a two-tiered professional development system. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 304 – 306.

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.

        In our neck of the woods (Victoria BC, Canada) we think of blended learning as a combination of online and face-to-face student-teacher interaction. We do not stipulate where the learning occurs as defined in Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin and Rapp (2011, p. 8-11). Some students work from their brick and mortar schools and come in for extra help with their online teacher: face to face. Some do the bulk of their learning from home, the film studio, their parents’ office, or grandparents’ home. The possible locations for learning are infinite. The key consideration is that students come to Distributed Learning (DL) because the typical brick and mortar school is somehow not meeting their learning needs. The combination of purely online learning with the support afforded from face-to-face tutoring, or learning community building opportunities appears, subjectively speaking to lead to learner success.

      Although standardized vocabulary may be of some use in professional communications and research while addressing the concerns raised by trends, issues and challenges faced in K-12 DL environments, realistically; there will continue to be key differences internationally in how that vocabulary is used. Striving for standardized vocabulary is a similar enterprise to the focus of conversation about technology skills, processes and equitable access that dominates much rhetoric regarding K-12 DL. Funding models hold the solutions to the latter topics, and may be influenced by standardized vocabulary not the discourse of professionals. At least, teaching professionals’ opinion is not likely to be heard in the current political climate of British Columbia under our ministry directed funding models.

        Of deeper and more practicable interest, is research that identifies successful implementation of online pedagogy. Klein’s (2006) recognition that ‘many cyber schools have a higher percentage of students classified as “at-risk”’ (Barbour, p. 8) brings into question the common position that educators should screen students to determine readiness before allowing enrollment in DL. Often, parents commit out of desperation, to school their children themselves when parental values and children’s needs conflict with the traditional system available in brick and mortar schools. When DL is the “last chance,” and all other school options have been exhausted, surely the flexibility inherent in DL may be offered.

     Roblyer, Freeman, Stabler and Schneidmiller (2007) state that student success is predicated on the availability of teachers to work directly with students in K-12 programs (Barbour, 2011, p. 10). Unfortunately, in British Columbia there is insufficient opportunity to work directly with students in a system that allows for an unlimited number of student enrollments per teacher. The method of counting students used in Watson et al. (p. 11), that supplemental programs are based on course enrollment based counts, while the student count of full time programs is based on full time equivalence may provide a rationale for standard staffing formulas in a successful system.

References
Barbour, M. K. (2011). The promise and the reality: Exploring virtual schooling in rural jurisdictions. Education in Rural Australia, 21(1), 1-20. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7253/is_1_21/ai_n57777315/
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of state-level policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/EEG_KeepingPace2011-lr.pdf