Ida Hill, Editor

K–12 Online Courses

Design and development of Internet-based or online courses involve many interrelated elements. These elements come together to form a single system of learning that has raised concerns about use of resources, rigorousness of courses, replacement of classroom teachers, charges that technology-based courses are more cost effective than conventional courses, and assertions that such instruction is not “real” learning which requires interaction and active participation. In spite of these charges, online instruction is gaining support and “buy-in” in schools across the nation.

School sites, according to the latest education research, have the most student information and the best ability to meet needs of students. It comes as no surprise to program reviewers to see schools turning to online courses as an alternative. School- by- school, experimentation with Internet-based and online courses is taking place. More that 15 percent of America’s high schools offer online courses. In Virginia, the estimated number of high schools using online distance learning courses and/or web-based courses is estimated to mirror the nation’s percentage. It is anticipated that these percentages will increase as schools try to respond to needs of students who must balance study, work, and family responsibilities; attend school part-time; take courses not offered when needed; require instruction at home or away from a traditional school; relocate to take advantage of short-term opportunities and attend more than one high school in different school districts and states prior to graduation.

Terms such as web-based, Internet-based, and online courses appear throughout the literature. Frequently, these terms are used interchangeably to refer to courses accessed from a computer via the Internet. However, finer distinctions are being made as greater focus emerges in terms of specific and integrated uses of technology. Distinctions include use of a single server and special applications of packages of tools such as chat rooms, e-mail, electronic forums, bulletin boards and databases. Distinctions are also made in training and professional development courses that make use or do not make use of the Internet.

In this brief, use of the terms “Internet-based” and “online courses” for K-12 education will be used synonymously until a few distinctions are made later under the literature review section. The purposes of this brief are to:

• Report briefly on the status of K-12 online or Internet-based courses for students

• Review some of the literature on K-12 Internet-based or online courses to include questions relating to concerns of skeptics and advocates.

• Identify some of the K-12 Internet-based and online courses in Virginia.

• Reveal some of the challenges and benefits of K-12 Internet-based or online courses to include policy issues raised by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) Technology Department and course providers.

Internet-based learning or online distance learning, still considered to be in its infancy, has been enriched and accelerated in development by broadcast and other electronic media learning. Each has roots extending to much earlier broadcast technology known as instructional television that appeared in the 1960’s. The use of technology to deliver courses has been evolving in a natural progression across four decades. And, along with this growth has come a realization of strengths and weaknesses in each preceding technology application which has contributed to the development of newer technology applications.

The search for greater flexibility in course availability, where courses can be received, how pacing is accommodated, and what is offered in what way has steered course designers to the multi-sensory capacity of the computer and the Internet as viable delivery tools. Previous experiences and study results have led course designers and curriculum planners to understand the value of the computer and the Internet for interaction between and among students, teachers and resource persons, dissemination of new knowledge, and fair distribution of knowledge. Use of earlier technology resources in combination with newer innovations employing networks, two-way communication, and motion graphics began to penetrate the high school curriculum in programs such as the Massachusetts-based Virtual High School, a 1997 USDOE-funded project which has grown to offer more than 200 courses used in 30 states and more than 5 foreign countries; and the Virtual High School of Ontario, Canada a privately-funded project started in 1996.

Skeptics of Internet-based courses and advocates alike use the same historical chronology as foundation information to push for quality and long-term support. Shared concerns are raised by both advocates and skeptics in questions such as the following:

1. How can schools and businesses use virtual classrooms to maximum benefit?

2. Are schools and businesses building sound teaching and learning strategies into online or Internet-based courses and training?

3. Are we using best techniques from preceding technology-based instruction in the design of Internet-based or online courses and training?

4. Are educators and trainers caught up in “technology mania” or is there convincing evidence for continued funding of Internet-based and online courses and training?

5. Do we know what students benefit most from online and Internet-based courses?

6. Are course designers seriously considering all key elements when developing online courses and Internet-based courses?

7. Can educators ensure that online courses and Internet-based courses are quality courses?

8. Is funding available to support the design and development of online courses and Internet-based courses to include the necessary technology?

9. Is timely consideration being given to policy factors such as teacher training, certification, security, alignment with standards, scalability and intellectual property rights?

10. In what ways can Internet-based and online distance learning improve student and teacher performance?

Questions posed under the “Differing Perspectives” section of this brief have not been subjected to extensive research primarily because of the age of Internet-based or online instruction. There are, however, some responses to these questions appearing in periodicals and on the Internet. In this section, the questions are re-introduced and some response information provided. Additionally, a brief review is given of a three-year Virtual High School online study.

The nine questions and responses below address both human and technical issues.

1. How can schools and businesses use virtual classrooms to maximum benefit?

   Chris Dede, Timothy E. Wirth Professor in Learning Technologies, Harvard Graduate School of Education cites three ways. They can fill academic gaps, offer an option for students who may struggle in real world classrooms, and link parents and the community with what’s going on in school.

   Richard Siddoway, Principal of Utah’s Electronic High School (EHS), is credited in an interview with Mary Daniels Brown of Education World with four large audiences EHS can reach. They are students who fail a class and need to make up credit, students who want to take a class that is unavailable in their school, students who want to earn extra credit and graduate early, and home schoolers.

   In business online training is paying off with lower training costs, increased employee retention, and the delivery of better goods and services (PC Magazine, 2001).

   There is convincing evidence that distance learning provides efficient use of scarce resources, fairly distributes knowledge, timely disseminates knowledge and serves un-served instructional needs.

2. Are schools and businesses building sound teaching and learning strategies into web-based courses?

   Strategies recognized as sound in practice and research include interactivity and inquiry. Most online designers recognize interactivity, inquiry, and student involvement as essential. Among these are peer-to-peer collaboration, instructor feedback, student-centered learning, authentic learning, critical thinking and project-based learning (T.H.E. Journal, 2001).

   The Cornell Theory Center, a nationally funded high performance center supports an online instructor and a registered group of participants. Students are fully engaged in the learning process through an interactive, dynamic environment involving student, online materials and the instructor. A train-the-trainer model is used to leverage direct education of users of the center (Dwyer, Barbieri, Doerr, 1995)

   Online course providers utilize the computer to provide a student information system that keeps track of students’ grades and progress on individual pace charts. The computer is also used to provide progress reports to parents and regular schools through e-mail. Data driven reports are used for student assessment in online schools just as they are used in regular schools. Administrators of virtual high schools advise new schools to start external evaluation early on and keep to keep evaluating (Brown, 2000).

3. Are we using the best techniques from preceding technology-based instruction in online courses and training?

   Pacing, student engagement, and long-term interest of students are concerns of online course developers. Many broadcast distance learning courses for students and teachers still utilize on-camera live instructors who interact with students in a variety of ways. This synchronous learning engages students in on-the-spot interaction with distant learners in other locations and with the teacher. In these “live” transmissions, pacing, however, is too controlled. Self-pacing and variety continue to be cited as weaknesses in live transmissions.

   Courses that do not utilize “live” instructors and transmission but provide for variety and self-pacing are also presenting challenges. “Cold,” “less that stimulating,” and “not very responsive to an individual’s questions and learning” are a few of the comments given by students and employees who do not attend online instruction sessions or lose interest (Chen, Eduventures, 2001). Students express a need for a live instructor. Thus, some business web-based training is returning to use of a live human instructor. The solution is not necessarily a return to conventional standup instruction but to live presentations interspersed with interactive activities (Vaas, 2001) that make use of e-mail, chat rooms, threaded discussions, teleconferencing and interviews.

4. Are educators and trainers caught up in “technology mania” or is there convincing evidence for continued funding of online courses and training?

   Latest market metrics of the business of web-based instruction/training, according to Gartner in an e-learning Magazine User Survey (2001); and the respondents to an IDC Survey of Web Conference Software Administrators (2001) reveal that:

   Growth is expected as the need to train vast dispersed workforces for rapidly changing technical skills is accelerating.

   Web-based instruction delivers bottom-line benefits. These include self-paced learning, just-in-time learning, ease of use, and anytime, anywhere availability.

   The response has been positive according to software administrators who have turned to live instructor-led classes over the web to add spice to presentations and to decrease attrition.

   Zahrl Schoeny, associate education professor at the University of Virginia, also sees an increase in virtual classrooms. He predicts that about 50 percent of learning will be online in two to five years (Borja, 2001).

   Dede expresses concern about the use of technology in education as a financial add-on. He says that positive models of essential uses may be found in other sectors such as hospitals and grocery stores that use technology to change the nature of work.

5. Do we know what students benefit most from online courses?

   Students considered good candidates for online courses are mature, open-minded, self-motivated, accepting of critical thinking, and willing to work collaboratively. They have good written communication skills, and are able to operate, and use a computer and other course employed technologies. They also commit the necessary time. Thus, attitude, skill and commitment are key qualifications for success (Illinois Online Network, 2001).

   Online course administrators say students who succeed are self-motivated, take an active role in learning, do not have severe disabilities in areas such as reading, and do not perceive online courses to be easy (Brown, 2000).

6. Are course designers considering all key elements when developing online courses?

   The Illinois Online Network identifies students, facilitator, curriculum, and technology as key elements of an online program. These elements must be considered simultaneously and function uniformly to create an effective course or program.

   Dwyer, Barbieri and Doerr caution that technology may be still problematic. They note that the same functionality or at least interoperability must be available across all graphical user interfaces. Bandwidth limitations to the student’s desk make some tools unusable. They support standardization similar to what html provided to allow participation by users with diverse implementations of both low-end and high-end browsers.

7. Can educators ensure that online courses are quality courses?

8. Is funding available to support the design and development of online courses and to include the necessary technology?

9. Is timely consideration being given to policy factors such as teacher training, certification, security, alignment with standards, scalability and intellectual property rights?

Questions 7, 8 and 9 are among concerns raised by The Technology Department of the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), Atlanta, Georgia, over the past several years. In a document for state decision/policy makers — legislators and state board members, SREB presents these and other questions to pinpoint barriers to the use of web-based courses. Appealing to states to develop standards, SREB calls for the development of state criteria for course quality aligned with SREB’s Essential Principles of Quality. In the area of funding, SREB admits that no state has determined precisely how to fund online or web-based courses. Funding of programs in states such as Florida, West Virginia and Kentucky is referenced by SREB to highlight diversity in funding and to encourage states to think differently about how online course will be funded in the future. SREB questions concerning scalability, teacher training, certification, security, alignment with standards, and intellectual property rights are presented as barriers to be addressed in policy and budget decisions by state education agencies.

Research related to the effect of online or Internet-based instruction on teaching practices and a three-year study of the Virtual High School present interesting findings. Baron (T.H.E. Journal, 2001) states that teachers with Internet experience should be able to demonstrate select teaching and learning skills. These include:

• use of the Internet in the classroom in appropriate ways,

• integration of unique and compelling resources into the classroom,

• influence and instruct other teachers on its use,

• management of the implementation of Internet-based lessons, and

• use of Internet-based lessons, resources and research to improve teaching and learning.

A Technology Innovation Challenge Grant to the Hudson Public Schools by the U.S. DOE resulted in a three-year study of implementation of the Virtual High School (VHS). The Center for Technology in Learning at SRI International examined the differences between online and regular courses. Four VHS courses and three face-to-face counterparts were targets. The four courses that were the focus of the study were Advanced Placement Statistics, Modern Classics, Photographic Vision and Pre-engineering. Some of the findings were:

• The student dropout rate was low for both sets of courses.

• VHS courses had the same or similar goals, content structure and assignments to their corresponding face-to-face courses.

• VHS students were online regularly. However, there were no reported differences between groups in the use of computers to do research or write reports.

• There were no significant differences in teacher scores and in external graders’ scores.

• Students in both groups expressed interest in and enjoyment of their courses.

• Technology generally inhibited interaction and had serious liabilities in the two courses for which student products required visual inspection by teachers.

• Compared with face-to-face courses, the interaction among students and between students and their teachers in VHS courses was less in quantity and lower in quality, both in observed and as reported by the teachers.

• VHS students acquired technology-based reasoning and communication skills and courses were usually better designed.

Reviews of online K-12 courses reveal offerings of courses at the school, state and national levels. In addition, directories of online courses are available. Directory providers include AT&T’s New Virtual Academy Directory and the K-12 Online Courses Directory. Each contains a compilation of available courses. National course providers include the Virtual High School, a consortium of high schools that offer network-based courses taught by consortium teachers, and Connected University, a professional development online resource. State providers include the Florida Virtual School, a state-run online tuition-based school serving almost 7,000 students. Other state virtual high schools are located in Kentucky, Maryland and Utah. According to Market Data Retrieval, 15% of American high schools offer online Internet-based courses. Twenty six states offer virtual high schools. The Eugene Cyberschool and the Online Laurel Springs program are school-based programs. Universities and businesses offer a greater number of online courses.

Virginia has a long history in the area of distance learning. Advanced placement, foreign language and other courses have been offered via satellite statewide to high school student since 1988. Live instruction affords numerous opportunities for interaction with the teachers. A different opportunity is the student interaction capability that comes with the advent of the computer. Two-way communication such as the exchange of data, however, has been less successful in general in Virginia and in other states. Two visible Virginia projects are currently experiencing two-way communication success. They are the Commonwealth Governor’s School and New Century Communications Network.

Courses offered via the computer in Virginia are gaining attention and the number of offerings is growing.

• Virginia Beach Schools’s initial online instruction was off-the-shelf projects and productions outside the school system. This approach is a recommendation of the Gartner Group to new users. Web-based instruction in Virginia Beach includes ePals Classroom Exchange which links students and teachers for cross-cultural learning; the Jason interdisciplinary, multi-media science, technology and professional development project; and NASA Quest, a science program via the Internet (www.virginiabeach.k12.va.us).

• Fairfax County has established an Academy for online technology courses. The first online courses were: “Instructional Applications of the Internet, Technology Project Development: Creating Webquests, and Web Publishing beyond the Basics.” Plans are to expand to 16 courses by 2002. Course format and eligibility criteria have been developed to guide ventures (www.fcps.edu).

• Prince William County has announced 10 online courses in English, history, mathematics and science for the Spring, 2002. These courses include astronomy, algebra I, geometry, U.S. and Virginia history, English 9 and 10 (www.pwcs.edu).

• Henrico County has established a Center for Online Learning with a high school focus. The plan is to develop student and teacher training courses using Blackboard, an e-Education infrastructure. Blackboard’s structure provides portals for announcements, course information, documents, assignments, virtual chats, communications and discussion (www.henrico.k12.va.us).

• Goochland, Fluvanna, Green, Louisa, Nelson and Orange counties are Blue Ridge Virtual Governor’s School participants.

Virtual high school program designers in Virginia have gained insight and online experience through participation in external programs with more diverse audiences and courses. One program used in Chesterfield County and other counties is the Massachusetts-based Virtual High School (VHS). VHS offers courses taught by consortium teachers for students in participating schools. With required training through a net-course, Teachers Learning Conference, a teacher uses Learning-Space software to design a course. Virtual High School courses totaled 94 in 1999-2000. In 1999-2000, the program had 2,516 students in 87 schools in 29 states. Another example is the Connected University. Its offerings include online professional development and K-12 curriculum courses. Classroom Connect, the North Carolina Partnership for Excellence and Tech-4Learning courses include technology issues, mathematics, standards, writing, accountability, policy and leadership. Universities offering online graduate credit courses include Pepperdine, California State, and Plymouth State.

All of these Internet-based programs share a single goal — to offer quality courses that are available anytime, at any place, and at any pace.

Three related observations in the online education environment are the need to: (a) respond rapidly to changing conditions, (b) respond rapidly to changes in technology, and (c) respond rapidly to changing needs of students. The need for accelerated response is forcing educators to solve problems in new ways without the benefit of long-term study and research.

Rapid responses to changing conditions — Universities, businesses, industry, newly developed organizations, and other production houses are joining schools in offering online courses. These cross district, cross state, cross service agency and cross region resources are causing new issues to emerge. Among these are issues such as course credit, teacher certification, and course measures and standards in teaching and learning brought on by online and electronic learning. The use of terms such as web-based, Internet-based, online, Net-based, for example, may be an attempt to provide “pictures” that communicate changing conditions and new responses.

Rapid response to accommodate changes in technology — the main focus of online courses must be the academic curriculum. The technology chosen to deliver and enhance curriculum should be the most effective available. This technology oftentimes is new, cutting edge, and costly. The on-going challenge is to manage the constant change in technology and costs while providing sufficient and necessary online course support tools.

Rapid response to meet changing needs of students — more and more students are demanding options in education. Educators must respond to the changing needs of all students. Needs requiring alternative educational programs include part-time, home-bound, special needs, at-risk, travel-hampered, accelerated, employed, second language and “technology-preferred” learners.

Today change is real in both education and technology. Educators and education technologists are working collaboratively to respond to ever-changing student and school needs. Additionally, challenges associated with the use of technology are continually motivating school collaboration with business and information specialists.

Technologies marketed by business and information specialists often have multiple uses and applications suitable for education programs. The goal is not only to make use of what is designed for other purposes but to encourage the design of applications for education. The recent introduction of broadband technologies, for example, offers great promise to online course development. Fixed wireless, satellite, and cable modems, while differing in availability, speed, and price despite implementation frustrations, are continuing to be developed, installed and refined in pilot communities involving schools and other education facilities. In Evanston, Illinois, for example, residents are utilizing digital subscriber lines (DSL) to the Internet to bring video and TV, e-mail and action games online in real time (Crockett, 2001).

When schools are involved, Internet applications issues must involve technology, cost and policy issues in addition to digital divide issues. In Evanston, broadband penetration in the most affluent family homes is 20 percent while penetration is virtually non-existent in low income homes.

Expected increases in funding streams attached to the 2001 U.S. Education bill and Virginia SOL and professional development initiatives will guide technology use in Virginia schools in the years ahead. Technology use payoffs resulting in benefits such as improved attendance, a better prepared workforce, reduced training costs and heightened global communication will get the attention of business funders and legislators. It must be noted, however, that pending state fiscal deficits and economic slowdowns may cause legislators and funders to make significant cuts and changes in select programs including some of those demonstrating success. Appearing among these cuts and changes may be-

• deregulation of state fiscal and programs policies

• redistribution of products and resources

• redirection of federal funds

• provision of incentives to local school districts to allocate and redefine local fund allocations

• encouragement to agencies to engage in intergovernmental cost shift collaboration

• more attention to digital divide concerns, and

• clearer identification of value and more attention to technology as a resource to problem solving and student performance.

The business of online course developers in the years ahead is to become “intricately webbed” in educational reform, well-informed on effective uses of the Internet to meet reform goals, and competitively reliable in demonstrating technology cost benefits.

Online course legislation in Virginia for k12 education is limited. Recent legislation has been focused on the development, implementation, and revision of the States’ Standards of Learning. Online assessment, however, is a major and supported component of the standards program. Findings and implementation of this component of the Standards of Learning is expected to benefit technology programs statewide in terms of acquisition of hardware at the high school level and knowledge about online applications.

A review of past legislation in Virginia reveals some online or distance learning documents. Among these are:

• The Library Automation legislation (1988-1994) that provided an infrastructure in all schools for online sharing of resources.

• The Virginia Public Education Network (Virginia’s Pen) legislation that provided a statewide Internet system to collect and exchange administrative data and to provide instructional and training resources to schools.

• The Electronic Classroom legislation that established three origination sites around the state to beam classes statewide in advanced placement and foreign language. Students were provided courses not available to them in their regular school.

Through use of e-rate funds and special project funds schools in Virginia have been able to initiate a variety of online learning experiences. The regional and school district virtual classrooms mentioned earlier are examples of growth and interest in programs and courses.

In Florida, the legislation enacted to the Florida High School, a state online project. Thus, all funding is currently provided by the state. The state of Utah fully funds its online program. The West Virginia Legislature attached its program to state equity concerns. Other state legislatures such as Kentucky require a local match of some description.

As the trend for online education grows in Virginia and in other states; and initiatives such as the online venture (K12 Inc.) of William Bennett become a reality, Virginia legislators will join their counterparts in other states in study of its merits.

www.pwcs.edu

www.fcps.edu

www.virtual.gmu.edu/muvees

bthomas@sreb.org

www.ivc.illinois.edu

www.dlrn.org

jwhite@mail.vak12ed.edu

www.lone-eagles.com

www.classroom.com

www.pcmag.com

www.vbcps.k12.va.us

www.henrico.k12.va.us

www.flvs.net/learn_more/home-final.htm

Baron, Joshua and McKay, Mercedes. “Designing and Delivering an Online Course for K-12 Educators.” T.H.E. Journal, April, 2001

Borja, Rhea. “Virtual High Schools Gain Following.” Richmond Times Dispatch, August 2001

Brown, Mary Daniels. “The Voices of Experience.” Virtual High Schools: Part 1.Education World. 2000.

Crockett, Roger. “Broadband and Main,” Business Week, October, 2001

Dwyer, Dan, Barbieri, Kathy, and Doerr, Helen. “Creating a Virtual Classroom for Interactive Education on the Web Cornell Theory Center,” 1995.

Levin, Carol. “Banking in the Virtual Classroom.” PC Magazine, December, 2001

Pape, Elizabeth. “The Online Course Experience: Evaluation of the Virtual High School’s Third Year of Implementation, 1999-2000.” Center for Technology in Learning, SRI International

Trotter, Andrew. “Cyber Learning Online High.” Education Week. January 2001.

Russell, Thomas. “No Significant Difference Phenomenon.”

Vaas, Liza. “The E-Training of America.” PC Magazine, December 2001

Vogelstein, Fred. “Sun on the Ropes.” Fortune, January, 2002

Yager, Susan. “Everything’s Coming Up Virtual.” University of North Texas. Business Computer Information Systems Department

Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide comments or additional information. Please indicate in an e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new inclusions.

Back to Top

Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if CEPI is credited.