Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online (International Pedagogical Practices of Teachers Part 2) 9781784416720, 9781784416713

Citation preview

EXPLORING PEDAGOGIES FOR DIVERSE LEARNERS ONLINE

ADVANCES IN RESEARCH ON TEACHING Series Editor: Volumes 1 11: Jere Brophy Volumes 12 24: Stefinee Pinnegar Recent Volumes: Volume 15: Adolescent Boys’ Literate Identity Volume 16: Narrative Inquirers in the Midst of Meaning-Making: Interpretive Acts of Teacher Educators Volume 17: Warrior Women: Remaking Post-Secondary Places through Relational Narrative Inquiry Volume 18: Emotion and School: Understanding How the Hidden Curriculum Influences Relationships, Leadership, Teaching, and Learning Volume 19: From Teacher Thinking to Teachers and Teaching: The Evolution of a Research Community Volume 20: Innovations in Science Teacher Education in the Asia Pacific Volume 21: Research on Preparing Preservice Teachers to Work Effectively with Emergent Bilinguals Volume 22: International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part A) Volume 22: International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part B) Volume 22: International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part C) Volume 23: Narrative Conceptions of Knowledge: Towards Understanding Teacher Attrition Volume 24: Research on Preparing Inservice Teachers to Work Effectively with Emergent Bilinguals

ADVANCES IN RESEARCH ON TEACHING VOLUME 25

EXPLORING PEDAGOGIES FOR DIVERSE LEARNERS ONLINE EDITED BY

MARY FRANCES RICE University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

United Kingdom North America India Malaysia China

Japan

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2015 Copyright r 2015 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permissions service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78441-672-0 ISSN: 1479-3687 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

ix

EDITORIAL TEAM

xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xiii

EDITOR’S NOTES

xv

FOREWORD Karen Vignare

xvii

SECTION I PROMISES OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING SECTION INTRODUCTION: PROMISES OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING Alan Ovens and Dawn Garbett

3

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND DIVERSE LEARNING IN TEACHER EDUCATION: REASSEMBLING THE SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE Shawn Michael Bullock

5

RESOURCE STUDENTS’ USE OF INTERNET INQUIRY STRATEGIES IN AN ONLINE INQUIRY PROJECT Jennifer Thomas

25

v

vi

CONTENTS

BLENDED LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: THE NORTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL PUBLIC SCHOOL’S CO-TEACHING MODEL Amy Garrett Dikkers, Somer Lewis and Aimee L. Whiteside

67

SECTION II REIMAGINING SUPPORT FOR ONLINE LEARNERS SECTION INTRODUCTION: REIMAGINING SUPPORT FOR ONLINE LEARNERS Ramona Maile Cutri and Erin Feinauer Whiting

97

PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Mark Stevens and Jered Borup

99

RHETORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF PARENTS BY ONLINE LEARNING COMPANIES: A STUDY OF PARENT TESTIMONIALS Mary Frances Rice PROVIDING CHANCES FOR STUDENTS TO RECOVER CREDIT: IS ONLINE LEARNING A SOLUTION? Somer Lewis, Aimee L. Whiteside and Amy Garrett Dikkers

121

143

SECTION III THINKING ABOUT ONLINE PRACTICE SECTION INTRODUCTION: THINKING ABOUT ONLINE PRACTICE Helen Freidus

161

Contents

vii

ECOSOPHIC TEACHING USING A PEDAGOGY OF THE GLOCAL Heather Greenhalgh-Spencer

165

MAPPING RELATIONAL MODELS FOR ONLINE TEACHER PREPARATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Brian Joe Rice

187

WITH NEW EYES: ONLINE TEACHERS’ SACRED STORIES OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Mary Frances Rice and Richard Allen Carter Jr.

209

AFTERWORD Leanna Archambault

231

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

237

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Leanna Archambault

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Jered Borup

George Mason University, Fairfax County, VA, USA

Shawn Michael Bullock Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada Richard Allen Carter Jr.

University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

Ramona Maile Cutri

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Amy Garrett Dikkers

University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA

Helen Freidus

Bank Street College of Education, New York, NY, USA

Dawn Garbett

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Heather Greenhalgh-Spencer

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Somer Lewis

University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA

Alan Ovens

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Brian Joe Rice

University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

Mary Frances Rice

University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

Mark Stevens

George Mason University, Fairfax County, VA, USA ix

x

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Jennifer Thomas

Willowcreek Middle School, American Fork, UT, USA

Karen Vignare

University of Maryland University College, Adelphi, MD, USA

Aimee L. Whiteside

University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA

Erin Feinauer Whiting

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS EDITORIAL TEAM Angela Murphy English Department

Misae Nishimura Daldorph Curriculum and Teaching Department/TESOL

Amanda Sladek English Department/Center for Teaching Excellence

Harold Davis Curriculum and Teaching Department

Louise Rayshaun Strickland Curriculum and Teaching Department

Junfu Gao Curriculum and Teaching Department/TESOL

Mary Beth Woodson English Department/Center for Teaching Excellence

Jacob Michael Montgomery Curriculum and Teaching Department

xi

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Editing this volume has been a tremendous undertaking. I am grateful to all of the chapter authors for their wonderful contributions. I was honored to receive the fine manuscripts they gave me. I am also grateful to the editorial team at the University of Kansas for their perspectives and feedback on the various chapters. Their efforts have enriched this work. In addition, many mentors at KU have also made direct or indirect contributions to my thinking around this book. These mentors include Dr. Robert Rowland in the Communications department, Drs. Amy Devitt and Mary Jo Reiff in the English department, and Drs. Hyesun Cho, Heidi Hallman, and Mary Lynn Hamilton in the Curriculum and Teaching department. The authors of the section introductions added additional layers of complexity to the project. Many of these section authors are colleagues from the Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) and the Narrative and Research special interest groups of the American Educational Research Association. My participation in those communities continues to challenge what it means to know, to learn, and to teach. Much thanks is necessary for the incredible insights and inquiries from Drs. Karen Vignare and Leanna Archambault in the foreword and the afterword. I cannot say enough about how honored I am for their participation in this project and for the time they put into reading and responding to this manuscript. Drs. Melissa Newberry and Stefinee Pinnegar at Brigham Young University also deserve much acknowledgement and thanks for their support of this project and for their help in polishing several of the chapters. For almost a decade now, Stefinee has continually encouraged me to trust myself as a person and a scholar. Drs. Don Deshler and Daryl Mellard at the Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities at the University of Kansas have also provided much mentorship and support for my development as a scholar in general as well as in regards to this project. In addition, I have much appreciation for my colleague Jesse Pace at the center who had nothing but encouragement and good advice for me during this long process. In xiii

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

acknowledging these layers of support, it should also be noted that a portion of the work done on this manuscript occurred as part of my work at the center, which is funded by the Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. Finally, I offer my thanks to my co-author Richard Allen Carter Jr. who worked with me on various aspects of this book in the library at the center where we work, his office space in a back corner of the Special Education department, at disjoined tables next to a campus snack bar, via barely serviceable cell phone and Internet connections from locations in the hills of North Carolina, and as he drove through the mountains of West Virginia. At one point, I recommended that he disappear around the time when the next deadline was approaching to save himself some trouble. “Where would I hide?” he responded. Where indeed.

EDITOR’S NOTES It is a familiar story. A group of scholars go to a conference. They present. They meet. They talk. Someone says, “Hey, we should do a book.” And then, as if by magic, a book is born. So it was with this project. Amy, Jered, and I presented in the same session in the Online Teaching and Learning special interest group at the American Educational Research Association. We were interested in each other’s work and decided to do a project together. We were also interested in thinking about online learning as more than technological innovation, although technology is such an important part of learning in any context these days. It was educators, learners, and families engagement together online as the winds of policy blew in constantly changing directions that struck us particularly. I already had done a book once, as a sole author Adolescent Boys’ Literate Identities and I was wondering if I had it in me to try another, as an editor this time. When I got home from AERA, I took out the outline for a book proposal and looked at it with trepidation. Then I put it away. I decided to wait and see if I thought about it again. Within several days, I had conversations with potential co-authors and I felt then that I had the power to act. I wrote up the proposal and sent it off for review and waited. The acceptance letter sealed the deal. The project would go forward. And we are now, close to a completed text. Dr. Jill Rudy, of my undergraduate professors, liked to talk about the realness of published books as the ability to “hold it in one’s hands.” Surely in this digital world of ours, what it means to hold a book physically takes on new meaning. And as I sit at my computer typing these notes, I look forward to the feeling of completion. This book is fundamentally about pedagogy the art of teaching and learning but pedagogy can never stay just in the abstract. It has to enter a setting, but not just a setting, a full-fledged socio-politically rich milieu, as Schwab (1977) would call it. Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online takes into account a holistic notion of pedagogy from Schwab’s (1977) work. A more recent definition of pedagogy that nods to the complexity of curriculum comes from Tintiangco-Cubales, Kiang, and Museus (2010).

xv

xvi

EDITOR’S NOTES [Pedagogy] takes into account the critical relationships between the PURPOSE of education, the CONTEXT of education, the CONTENT of what is being taught, and the METHODS of how it is taught. It also includes who is being taught, who is teaching, their relationship to each other, and their relationship to structure and power. (pp. viii-viv)

These scholars were concerned that teachers sometimes do not see themselves as intellectual contributors to the theoretical frameworks associated with pedagogy. They also feared that pedagogy was becoming mistakenly reduced to teaching method and critical pedagogy was in danger of being seen as just theory. My co-author, Richard Allen Carter Jr., has remarked during our work together that inquiry into online education is very often grounded in excitement about the what and how of learning in regards to technological tools undergirded by a fascination with the equally endless possibilities of where and when. By contrast, this book is a serious attempt to offer insight into the who as they navigate those whats, hows, wheres, and whens. In sum, the mission of this book is to explore pedagogy to enliven it and give it possibility. The book also aims to acknowledge teachers as contributors to the intellectual work of teaching online, as well as learners, their families, and even the curriculum vendors in all their diversity in relationship to each other and to power structures inherent in institutions and indemnified by policy. We hope readers will see the implications of these chapters for research and practice about instruction, assessment, policy, teacher preparation, and the promise of technology to offer opportunity to learners who need it most.

REFERENCES Schwab, J. J. (1977). Translating scholarship into curriculum. In S. Fox & G. Rosenfeld (Eds.), From scholarship to the classroom: Translating Jewish tradition into the curriculum (pp. 1 30). New York, NY: Melton Center for Jewish Studies. Tintiangco-Cubales, A., Kiang, P. N. C., & Museus, S. D. (2010). Praxis and power in the intersections of education. AAPI Nexus: Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders Policy, Practice and Community, 8(1), v xviii.

FOREWORD Karen Vignare Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online: Advances in Research on Teaching edited by Mary Frances Rice represents a collection of research chapters designed to enable more conversation on the teaching of diverse learners in the field of online learning. The growth of online learning for multiple segments including corporate training to higher education and now in K12 settings requires educators to make accommodations for diverse students. Corporate and higher education must serve online students who need accommodations and are diverse, but most of these populations are adults. However, there may be even more at risk when K12 online students are not served well to both the students and society. The collection of chapters in the book provides unique lenses into the issues, challenges, and potential paths forward to serve a growing segment of K12 students. Currently, much of the effort and energy focus on inclusiveness is on the design of and compliance of educational tools to meet accessibility/accommodations regulations. The authors collectively provide evidence that adherence to regulations does not provide insight for teachers on the best pedagogical practices that may be necessary for diverse online learners. This proposition is supported by scholars like Treviranus (2014), who contends that through personalization, educators will serve students better than if they merely focus on meeting the technology needs of most students. The book chapters highlight pedagogies that focus on the individual to better serve the needs of these diverse online learners. There are many parallels to the traditional classroom as many of the chapters reflect on the successes that occur when students are served as through individual education plans. Those types of educational customizations serve as a challenge for online to personalize learning. The authors and researchers are cautiously optimistic that the many affordances of online learning opportunities will actually

xvii

xviii

KAREN VIGNARE

allow for pedagogical customization that will result in learning for these diverse learners. Collectively, this book highlights the tensions embedded in online learning’s obsession with personalization. Pedagogical personalization is often still thought of adaptive learning software where tools containing very granular instruction customize a student path based on the responses of the learner (Jarrett, 2012). However, the underlying themes in the book highlight the need for teachers to be responsible and thoughtful enough to be able to customize pedagogy for students of diverse needs. The teacher driven approach to customization has been widely acknowledged in the classroom, but a major emphasis in online learning has been about providing standardized classrooms where students have access to all the same content, assessments and customization occurs in the discussion and email transactions. The other major emphasis in online courses has been to leverage personalized learning tools that emphasize individual pathways through technology. As a result of this heavy use of tools, teacher interaction becomes more limited. Personalization revisited from the practice of being an educator speaks to how humans create personalized connections to and relationships for students. There are multiple opportunities for these two themes of personalization through technology and pedagogy to coexist and enhance student learning. The case study research shared throughout the book offer thought provoking practices of the necessity of teacher driven pedagogy in online learning.

SECTION I: PROMISES OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING The first three chapters engage different methodologies to show how the promise of digital technology is only in an exploratory stage. The online learning environment is in many ways an opportunity to visualize student participation and pathways (Duval, 2011). These environments are much more complex and the teacher role has expanded. The roles include instructional design, technologist, teacher, and analyst. In some places, multiple people fill these roles but in others schools only one person does all the work. An often-used quote is from Simon (1991) who said, “Improvement in post-secondary education will require converting teaching from a solo sport to a community-based research activity.” This must also hold true for

Foreword

xix

our K12 teachers as well. For the community to collaborate there is a need to build understanding. Bullock (2015) explores conceptual models that help frame the transition from the classroom to technology-enabled environments and online learning. Even well-known models leave researchers and educators with questions. His work demonstrates that this exploration must move beyond the practical use of technology. The social relationship of learners to teacher and collaboration with other learners is often forgotten in many conceptual models. The chapter reminds us that a teacher is not interacting with technology alone. As in a traditional classroom, there are relationships. The early higher education framework, Community of Inquiry, is quite clear in its argument that social presence is necessary for online learning to be efficacious (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). The validation of the framework through thousands of surveys makes it clear how important this factor is in success, completion, and re-enrollment (Boston et al., 2010). The sharing and contrasting of models is particularly relevant when considering the needs of diverse students. As the Treviranus (2014) work shows, many technological foundations are result from attempts to design learning based on the predictive analytics for the majority of students. These models, which focus on the larger population of students, neglect the outliers or more diverse students. Instead models that are more focused on relationships and networking would enhance design for all, but particularly for individuals that need technological and pedagogical accommodations. Jennifer Thomas’ work as a classroom teacher and researcher makes the case in point while working with marginalized adolescents. This teacher provided instructional guidance based on her relationship to the children and her understanding of the marginalization (Thomas, 2015). The case study points to the student outliers who achieve more when the reasons for difficulties are interpreted by an educator with specialized skills. Thomas (2015) makes one other comment on personalization. Technologies of personalization and adaptive learning are just evolving (Akbulut & Cardak, 2012). A meta-analysis of studies shows that many of the tools attempt to adjust to learner styles informed by multiple educational theorists. Some tools also provide learner control. The juxtaposition of the caring teacher for marginalized students versus the adaptive and intelligent tutoring systems illustrates the chasm that needs to be crossed to bridge tools and educator skills. There are a few similarities: both the technologies and teacher note that students seem to respond with more satisfaction when they gain learner control. Envisioning how the system adjusts beyond gaps in instructional content presents multiple challenges for these

xx

KAREN VIGNARE

systems. Teaching must move beyond coaching and tutoring and toward adjusting for known skills and using those strengths to propel marginalized students ahead. Thomas seems to do this with ease. The cautions her work gives us are enormous. As the digital systems evolve, they begin to serve more than one teacher alone. The chapter provides the insight into the classroom issues and how far technologies must develop to incorporate these educators’ social, content, and relationships skills if we want to serve more students effectively. The blended learning model for student with disabilities occurring in the North Carolina Virtual Public School’s begins to evolve the collaboration necessary for effective teaching (Dikkers, Lewis, & Whiteside, 2015). This co-teaching method builds on the framework of local support and well-designed instruction by experienced virtual content area teachers. The master content model approach gives the local teacher more time to focus on support needed for students with exceptionalities. In North Carolina, those students could be very diverse but the focus in the chapter is the blend with a face-to-face certified special education teacher. By including the local teacher with the knowledge and skills to coach, mentor, and motivate the student with individualized needs, this practice seems to provide guidance and reassurance for students. Niemiec and Otte, (2009) helped define blended as a pedagogically planned use of online and face-to-face classroom time. There is much research on blended learning, but most of it involves the same teacher or faculty. Multiple studies have shown the effectiveness of blended learning seems better than either face-to-face or online separately (Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013). The combination of technological learning and teaching expertise gets some flesh on it in this research of Dikkers et al. (2015). The changing dimensions of collaboration between two teachers of which one better understands the student needs provides insight on how other K12 institutions might adopt blended learning. In removing the content creation obligations from the local teacher, the focus shifts to the needs of the individual student.

SECTION II: REIMAGINING SUPPORT FOR ONLINE LEARNERS Diverse students like all students exist within networks of other relationships. The vulnerability of these students is more apparent, but there is

Foreword

xxi

already research about online learning students that reviews factors like personal motivation and support systems provided by family, friends, and colleagues (Holder, 2007). The research points to a need for institutions to understand that often without support networks, student motivation plays a more critical role in persistence. The research within this section of the book commences further study on the need to understand these relationships for online K12 and how together, they form fundamental student support systems. Without support mechanisms, these students with very individualized needs might not succeed. Parental engagement is often considered both a positive and a negative in educational institutions. Ideally, parents provide motivational assistance, coaching, monitoring progress, and a reasonable learning environment. Many factors play a role in whether parents can provide those kinds of support. The lack of this extended student support in traditional education can result in negative impacts on the student’s success. Borup and Stevens (2015) make it clear in the literature review that “relatively little is known regarding parental engagement in online learning settings.” In sharing the research on traditional settings, parallels can be made as to how parental engagement is at least, if not more, important for all online K12 students and especially more so for those who have diverse needs. Using five frameworks, the researchers show consistencies supportive parental roles (Borup & Stevens, 2015). The frameworks also make clear there is a larger need to identify common terminology and definitions in discussing parental support. The task falls to researchers to compare and contrast existing terms, but also to then push for common understanding. The ultimate goal is to provide guidance to the student support systems for the diverse learners and this necessitates clear definitions. Similar parallels exist in both technology and analytics. In educational technology, IMS Global leads collaboration of both educational institutions and technology vendors. These collaborations lead to standards that provide guidance to both parties. In educational analytics, the Predictive Analytics Research (PAR) Framework brought together a group of institutions to discuss how to define a common set of data definitions. These have led to an open and common set of data definitions that allow multiple institutions to now agree, share, compare, and learn from each other. Thus, defining parental engagement for all students could lead to better-informed conversations and more support for diverse students. As further support to speaking a common language, Rice, M. F. (2015) analyzes parental testimonials from online learning vendors to reveal both the motivation of purchasers (parents) and how these decisions help frame

xxii

KAREN VIGNARE

discussions for teachers in leveraging parental support. There is often friction between educational vendors, buyers, and educators. While many educational products are informed and even designed by educators, the vendor often deals directly with the purchaser either student or parent. Instead continuing with a system that produces friction, this work encourages educators to use similar language in advocating for parental engagement. These narratives can be understood by educators in ways that allow them to create stronger connections in the support systems needed for diverse learners. The recognition that narrative could inform teacher education challenges the traditional researcher hypothesis process often used in educational research. The growth of online learning in all segments is quite compelling. Rice, M. F. (2015) shares that online learning’s pervasiveness should be understood and while agreeing problems exist, the discussion should focus more on how to improve current online learning instead of whether it should be used at all for these learners. Enlisting parental engagement through narrative and a common language will support the use of online to achieve better outcomes for students. The next chapter extends the momentum of building opportunities in K12 online learning for credit recovery students (Lewis, Whiteside, & Dikkers, 2015). At the high-school level, students who have fallen behind for multiple reasons are at-risk of not completing their courses and earning their diploma. Leveraging online learning may be the last opportunity for these students to achieve this goal. Educators face very high stakes in leveraging the technology well to serve these students. The requirements include building stronger support networks for these students and working toward more individualized teacher coaching. As in early chapters, building student teacher relationships online are critical and not always easy. These at-risk students more often seem academically capable but need adequate support to overcome the current circumstance of falling behind in needed credits. Overall the second section of the book supports the earlier chapters by emphasizing the relationships and networks needed by online K12 students.

SECTION III: THINKING ABOUT ONLINE PRACTICE The third section begins to explore the affordances of online learning to highlight the advantages of many diverse learners. Greenhalgh-Spencer

Foreword

xxiii

(2015), Rice, B. (2015), and Rice and Carter (2015) explore in very different approaches how online provides opportunities to employ multiple pedagogies and reach students. Online learning allows students to be directed in powerful ways. When using digital technologies, the world can often seem like it is more connected. Those connections are mapped through stories. Much like mind-mapping exercises show connections to related activities, directing students to think through how local actions impact others is difficult in the classroom. Through design thinking and technology tools, however, students can see how these activities in their local have global reverberations. These examples from Greenhalgh-Spencer provide opportunities to rethink and redesign once that negative impact is understood. Online classrooms like this, with people from different regional areas, backgrounds and thinking, exceed the hard to do in a face-to-face classroom. Another online challenge remains in building learning relationships that can be transferred from preservice teachers when they are learners to when they are the teacher (Rice, B., 2015). The paradigm shift from learner to teacher has been a challenge for decades. Who has not heard at some point, that faculty members are never taught to teach; that the student only teaches the way they were taught by previous faculty? Online creates a technological distance that presents challenges to the notion that building relationships are necessary to recognize individual needs. Going back to earlier chapters, this notion of what happens well in the face-to-face classroom continues to be a struggle in preparing teachers for the online classroom. How does one build stronger relationships with online students? Leveraging constructs from Dewey and Vygotsky, the author sets up the need to understand learning as social and as happening within a network. For online learning, it becomes more critical to engage social interaction to build relationships. Without these powerful networks, learning is only solitary and only works for the most motivated. The opportunity to leverage a community of learners and teachers is a benefit of online learning. Pre-service teachers can easily connect to others to ask for strategies and tactics, but building the community of learners requires creating assessments and activities that build those student-tostudent relationships that go beyond trading tricks. The digital technologies will continue to evolve and adapt to personalize the experience for each learner, but without webs of relationships all the way through the K12 system, those will not be enough to promote persistence. The final chapter shares stories that focus on motivational narratives that are shared with other teachers of students with disabilities (Rice & Carter, 2015). These narratives and personal stories motivate teachers and

xxiv

KAREN VIGNARE

those that prepare them to consider the ethical implications of instructional methods that will help these vulnerable students be successful. Building connections through this community of online teachers serving diverse students captures best practices within the community. As throughout the book, teachers are encouraged to draw on personal connections to students’ circumstances or disabilities. The online learner community connections seem more ephemeral, and so it becomes a higher responsibility for teachers to build those one to one relationships. The book is a collection of diverse research but the flow clarifies the risk of digital technologies for diverse students. It does not argue against online technologies. Collectively, the chapters offer gaps in online learning and teaching and make suggestions for overcoming those gaps. The acknowledgment that online learning already expands the instructional activities typically available in face-to-face learning, but the research is critical of what is missing in online learning. The criticism is not meant to deter online learning use with diverse students but to request that more researchers tackle the questions of how best to build better pedagogies for online learning.

REFERENCES Akbulut, Y., & Cardak, C. S. (2012). Adaptive educational hypermedia accommodating learning styles: A content analysis of publications from 2000 to 2011. Computers & Education, 58(2), 835 842. Borup, J., & Stevens, M. (2015). Parental engagement in online learning environments: A review of the literature. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (Vol. 25). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Boston, W., Diaz, S., Gibson, A., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2010). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 67 83. Bullock, S. M. (2015). Digital technologies and diverse learning in teacher education: Reassembling the social perspective. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (Vol. 25). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Dikkers, A. G., Lewis, S., & Whiteside, A. (2015). Blended learning for students with disabilities: The North Carolina Virtual Public School’s co-teaching model. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (Vol. 25). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Foreword

xxv

Duval, E. (2011). Attention please! Learning analytics for visualization and recommendation. In Proceedings of LAK11: 1st international conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 9 17). Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2 3), 87 105. Greenhalgh-Spencer, H. (2015). Ecosophic teaching using a pedagogy of the glocal. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (Vol. 25). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Holder, B. (2007). An investigations of hope, academic, environment and motivation as predictors of persistence in higher education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 245 260. Jarrett, J. (2012, April). Bigfoot, goldilocks, and moonshots: A report from the frontiers of personalized learning. Educause Review Online, pp. 31 40. Lewis, S., Whiteside, A., & Dikkers, A. G. (2015). Providing chances for students to recover credit: Is online learning a solution? In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (Vol. 25). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. F., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1 47. Niemiec, M., & Otte, G. (2009). An administrator’s guide to the whys and hows of blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13, 19 30. Rice, B. (2015). Mapping relational models for online teacher preparation and professional development. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (Vol. 25). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Rice, M. F. (2015). Rhetorical constructions of parents by online learning companies: A study of parent testimonials. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (Vol. 25). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Rice, M. F., & Carter, R. A., Jr. (2015). With new eyes: Online teachers’ sacred stories of students with disabilities. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (Vol. 25). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Simon, H. (1991). Lecture Series. Carnegie Mellon University, 1998. Thomas, J. (2015). Resource students’ use of internet reading strategies in an online inquiry project. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (Vol. 25). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Treviranus, J. (2014). The value of the statistically insignificant. Educause Review, 49(1), 46 47.

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION I PROMISES OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION INTRODUCTION: PROMISES OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING Alan Ovens and Dawn Garbett The allure of digital technology; emergence of ubiquitous connectivity; increasing mobile technologies; and the immense power of the Internet promise opportunities never before imagined for education. The digital environment is already enabling learners and teachers to come together virtually or face-to-face to make sense of, and deepen their understanding about, their world. The ultimate goal is to encourage students to be proactive and deliberate learners who can teach themselves or seek out teaching from others when and where they need it. This is not to suggest that learners can teach themselves and that a teacher is replaceable by technology. Creating learning opportunities that allow students to develop future-oriented capabilities in and beyond school is the teacher’s domain of expertise. Technology works well when harnessed as part of a larger learning system that also integrates other tools, forms of participation and a variety of activities and experiences. In such a learning system, teachers are vital not only as instructors, managers, and assessors but also as system engineers and architects capable of customising the context, tools, and connections in ways that are effective for the diversity of cultures and individual differences of contemporary students. Such capabilities as problem solving and innovation; self-regulation and evaluation; collaboration; communication; and knowledge construction are fundamental skills for teachers and learners alike. Being born into a digitally rich world affords today’s young people wonderful learning opportunities that teachers can use to their advantage. Enabling this advantage requires more than simply integrating technology

4

ALAN OVENS AND DAWN GARBETT

into teaching or focusing on the suitability of tools for specific tasks. It is also more than assuming that all young people are digital natives or part of the Net Generation. Instead this advantage is enabled when teachers are sensitive to how technology contributes to an inclusive, participatory, and personalised learning culture for students. As the authors in the following chapters recognise, digital technologies can afford opportunities for students with diverse needs, capabilities, and attributes to engage in dynamic learning cultures if a modern learning environment is appropriately fostered and supported. Such an environment provides an architecture of participation that makes it not only easy to connect and access information, but is enhanced as more people become involved (Elliott, 2008). One-to-one becomes many-to-many as technology facilitates learners interacting with others in multiple ways. Cultivating these connections and developing a social network supports each individual’s learning journey regardless of their learning needs. The capacity to share and create content openly through social networking sites adds to the richness of the learning environment and being connected provides access to a diverse range of resources and expertise that constitutes forms of both individual and collective intelligence when needed. From early childhood education through to finishing compulsory schooling, future-focused teaching must address the needs of all students, regardless of their circumstances and aspirations. Whether our students live in remote areas or urban centres; whether they aspire to be software architects, personal trainers, avionics technicians, or healthcare professionals; educating in, through, and about the digital world is now a universal requirement. In the following chapters, the promise that digital technologies hold in a variety of settings is explored in depth.

REFERENCE Elliott, B. (2008). Assessment 2.0: Modernising assessment in the age of Web 2.0. Glasgow: Scottish Qualifications Authority. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/461041/ Assessment-20. Accessed on October 22, 2013.

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND DIVERSE LEARNING IN TEACHER EDUCATION: REASSEMBLING THE SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE Shawn Michael Bullock ABSTRACT Purpose This chapter is the result of an interest in the professional and research literature exploring the intersection between education and digital technology. Decades of research and press have largely focused on the ways in which particular devices might be productively used in the K-12 classroom. Educational radio, educational television, the computer, and more recently the tablet have all been framed as being valuable for supporting student learning. Critics such as Neil Selwyn have argued that research in educational technology needs to focus less on supporting particular devices and more on the nature of social interactions that are mediated, constrained, and enabled by various technological affordances. Methodology/approach This chapter reviews four theoretical frameworks in terms of their approach the social nature of the use of technology in education.

Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 25, 5 23 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000027003

5

6

SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK

Findings The chapter introduces a number of conceptual frameworks that are helpful for considering the social implications of using digital technologies to support the needs of diverse learners in a teacher education classroom. Research implications Scholars, especially who are also teacher educators can consider using and developing frameworks that are more robust for thinking about digital learning in education. Originality/value The value in this chapter lies in the critical conceptions explored and interrogated. The author demonstrates the complexity of teacher knowledge overlaid with technology. Keywords: Technological pedagogical content knowledge; TPACK; competency framework; networked publics

INTRODUCTION It is not difficult to find urgent claims about the importance of digital technologies in education in either the academic or the popular press. Often, the urgency is framed using the rhetoric of a revolution a revolution in society that education systems (and, often, most educators themselves) are slow to participate in. Teacher education programs are often positioned the furthest away from the cutting edge of technology, perhaps in part due to the pervasive, long-standing belief that teacher education programs offer little beyond an extended practicum experience. One version of the argument seems to be that digital technologies are a pervasive part of life and that school systems, and particularly teacher education programs, are hopelessly outdated. Class notes written on the chalk board need to be replaced with PowerPoint slides, at the minimum. Classrooms require interactive whiteboards (e.g., Smart Boards) that will “motivate” students; schools need to both purchase these devices and to employ a “train-thetrainer” model to ensure teachers can use the new tools. Truly “technologyenabled classrooms,” we are often told, require class sets of tablets or at least a set of low-cost notebook computers. Such labels explicitly judges technologies such as books, chalkboards, lab equipment, and manipulatives as somehow un-technological. Of course, there are plenty of studies that offer warranted assertions for the meaningful reasons for using particular technologies to enhance

Digital Technologies and Diverse Learning in Teacher Education

7

students’ learning experiences. Such studies often seem to be a signal against a large background noise of lists and hand-waving claims made in popular and online press and arguments for innovation grounded in selling products. Much of the research in education and technology, however, continues to be too focused on devices. Recently, I have come to believe that a good part of the reason for the confusion in the professional and popular discourse in educational technology is that, by and large, many in the field seem not to attend to the importance of theoretical frameworks for thinking about the intersections between education and technology. As Selwyn (2012) bluntly stated, research in the field needs to make “good use of theory” (p. 214). This chapter is premised on the assumption that one way of attending to whether or not research in education and technology makes good use of theory is to reassembling the social (Latour, 2005). Much of Latour’s work encourages social scientists to consider moving the concept of “the social” away a distinct yet amorphous entity and toward a “type of connection between things that are not themselves social” (p. 5). That is, rather than label, we need to attend to the associations between various actors and networks, between diverse learners and the technological objects and artifacts with which they interact. In so doing, we might be in a better position to evaluate our use of particular theoretical frameworks in teacher education, particularly as we think about how technologies might be used productively to provide diverse learning experiences. I begin by reviewing what are, in my estimation, two of the most popular ideas about digital technology and its use in teacher education: Prensky’s digital natives/digital immigrants dichotomy and Mishra and Koehler’s technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). I will illustrate how both sets of ideas leave us without a clear direction on how to move forward in productive ways in any consideration of digital technologies and diverse learning in teacher education. Part of the problem with each framework, in my view, is that they do not do enough to consider explicitly the role that social interactions play in how digital technologies are used. I then present a competency framework development by Desjardins, Lacasse, and Be´lair that provides a more productive way of understanding how technologies are used by teachers. I also offer recent scholarship by danah boyd that offers a valuable way of considering the ways in which people interact with each other in what she refers to as networked publics.

8

SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK

TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION: TWO POPULAR IDEAS Lortie’s (1975) seminal sociology of schoolteachers reminds us that every teacher candidate comes to their teacher education programs with a wellestablished set of prior assumptions about teaching and learning gained through the hundreds of hours watching teachers teach as a result of being students. In this section, I explore two other sets of prior assumptions that I believe shape teacher candidates’ and many teacher educators views about the potential of digital technologies to provide diverse learning experiences in teacher education. The first idea names the widespread belief that K-12 students are automatically ready to use technology for learning purposes. The second idea names the belief that teachers require a special kind of “teaching knowledge” to be able to meaningfully integrate technology into their pedagogy. Digital Natives/Digital Immigrants One of the most popular sets of literature regarding the use of digital technologies in education was spurred by Prensky’s (2001) characterization of digital natives and digital immigrants. Despite both appearing nearly well over a decade ago and not being grounded in any form of empirical support, Prensky’s ideas continue to be referenced in popular and research literature. Perhaps part of the reason for widespread enthusiasm for Prensky’s claims is that he highlighted the idea that any use of digital technologies in education has a social element to it; in particular, his claim that growing up using particular technologies results in a particular way of looking at learning experiences. In his original article, Prensky (2001) began by asserting: “Today’s students K-12 through college represent the first generations to grown up with this new technology.” One could, of course, make similar claims about many groups of students throughout history. Warwick (2003) tells us the early 19th-century Cambridge physicists were the first to take the high-stakes Tripos exit exams with the use of black boards, which allowed mathematics students to solve more complicated problems because they could work out the problems using chalk rather than having to think aloud. Rather than theorize, though, about the ways in which technologies might provide new opportunities for learning, Prensky employs the problematic (yet often-quoted) metaphor of digital natives and digital

Digital Technologies and Diverse Learning in Teacher Education

9

immigrants. His idea is that those students who have grown up with access to technologies are “native speakers of the digital language of computers, video games, and the Internet” (p. 1); those who have not grown up with access to these kinds of technologies “are, and always will be, compared with them [natives], digital immigrants” (p. 3). According to Prensky, students from a particular generation will always be a step ahead of older generations when it comes to learning with digital technologies. He seems to negate any possibility that understanding how an individual learns how to learn with technology requires more effort than determining the individual’s age. Even more problematically, in my view, Prensky (2001) makes appalling language choices to frame digital immigrants as slow in any number of ways: slow to adopt new technologies, slow to learn new technologies, and slow to change relevant policies and practices. For Prensky, the immigrant metaphor describes a problematic population, an impediment to progress: Our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the predigital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language. This is obvious to the Digital Natives school often feels pretty much as if we’ve brought in a population of heavily accented, unintelligible foreigners to lecture them. They often can’t understand what the Immigrants are saying. (p. 3)

Prensky recommends that digital immigrant teachers (and presumably, he would include teacher educators) “need to be thinking about how to teach both Legacy and Future content in the language of the Digital Natives” (p. 5). Here, he invokes a metaphor from computer science to underscore his native-immigrant dichotomy. Legacy computer systems are, by definition, obsolete or, at the very least, not used widely. In summary, Prensky’s widely cited recommendations for the use of technologies in learning environments can be articulated in the following way: 1. Teachers (and by extension teacher educators) are hopelessly out-ofdate by virtue of their date of birth. Considerable effort must be made to overcome an approach to learning with technology that is grounded in their prior assumptions, developed in an age in which technology apparently did not exist in education. 2. The content that is traditionally taught in schools is out-of-date when compared to the fast-paced, future-oriented needs of the 21st-century student. When older content must be taught, it needs to be taught in ways that align with the kinds of experiences that can be provided by technologies that the current generation of students has grown up with.

10

SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK

The natives-vs.-immigrants metaphor for thinking about the social implications of using technology was a continuing theme in Prensky’s work. In Prensky (2005), he advised educators to “listen to the natives” (p. 8) when considering how to use technology in the classroom. Again, he invokes the idea of school content and pedagogy being a “legacy system” and cautions that educationists risk total irrelevance unless they embrace game-based learning (it is worth noting that Prensky identifies as a game designer). Finally, Prensky reveals his corporate orientation toward learning with the statement: “In the 21st century, this lack of any voice on the part of the customer will soon be unacceptable” (p. 13). Bennett, Maton, and Kervin (2008) provide a useful review of the paucity of evidence supporting Prensky’s (2001, 2005) ideas. In particular, they examined two major claims put forward by Prensky and others: (1) A particular generation of students exists that are fluent with certain kinds of digital technologies because they have grown up with said technologies and (2) this same generation of students prefers learning via skills developed as a result of using the technologies they grew up with. The literature review revealed that while many young people might fit the mold of the digital native, there is a “significant proportion” of young people who would not be considered digital natives (p. 779). Bennett et al. (2008) make the important point that the rhetoric of the digital native might only fit those young people who grew up with the privilege of having access to digital devices, “With this comes the danger that those less interested and less able will be neglected, and that the potential impact of socio-economic and cultural factors will be overlooked” (p. 779). The second major claim of the digital native rhetoric has considerable intuitive appeal for many educationists and members of the general public. The idea that so-called digital natives learn differently because of, say, the increasingly complex features of modern video games appeals to our sense of rapid progress in technology. This ability to attend to multiple cognitive demands simultaneously is seen as a good thing, a crucial skill that educationists need attend to if they hope to make school relevant to the current generation. Bennett et al. (2008) point to multiple results from research in psychology that demonstrates the problems with multitasking. Perhaps most significantly, however, the review takes to task the idea that digital natives have a uniform set of learning styles and preferences. Finally, Bennett et al. (2008) conclude their critique by arguing that students are not, by and large, frustrated with their school experiences because they are unable to use technologies in school environments: “Technology plays a different role in students’ home and school lives” (p. 781).

Digital Technologies and Diverse Learning in Teacher Education

11

Empirical research calls to question the popular assumptions made about how digital natives approach technology and education. At the very least, the research reminds us that it is extremely problematic to characterize a “generation” of learners as having a particular orientation toward learning with technology. Some of Prensky’s later work seems somewhat more cautious and linked to general issues in school reform. Prensky (2012) argues, for example, that technology can help teachers provide places for students to find their passion presumably by allowing for some sort of curricular flexibility that mixes students’ afterschool interests with the “legacy” systems of school. He advocates for finding ways to both listen to students and to provide spaces for teachers to think about how to pursue personal goals for teaching. Although Prensky backs away from the digital natives digital immigrants dichotomy, he brings the rhetoric of “21stcentury” skills to the foreground. Comments such as “today’s teachers need to find ways to create 21st century citizens (and workers) who parrot less and think more” (p. 3) reveal a commitment to the same kind of business-oriented, false dichotomy model he proposed in 2001. These kinds of statements seem to serve little value other than to generate a shallow consensus.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK/TPACK) The popular idea of technological pedagogical content knowledge TPCK or TPACK had its genesis nearly 30 years ago in work by Shulman (1986, 1987). Shulman proposed the idea that teachers have several unique forms of knowledge for teaching, including: knowledge of subject matter, knowledge of pedagogy, and pedagogical content knowledge (often abbreviated as PCK). His ideas stemmed from a concern that, relatively recently, a division between knowledge and pedagogy had occurred that, in part, resulted in the denigration of the work of teachers. In Shulman (1987), he lists the “minimum” components of the knowledge base for teachers: content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational contents, and knowledge of the historical and philosophical foundations of education. He defines pedagogical content knowledge as “that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers” (p. 8). Pedagogical content knowledge has proven to be an appealing research concept, particularly in the field of science education. Like Prensky’s (2001)

12

SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK

ideas, PCK meshes well with our intuitive sense that there is something unique about teachers’ knowledge beyond either general knowledge of teaching or content knowledge. One must know how to teach particular content to particular students; such is the domain of pedagogical content knowledge. Several authors have noted, however, that finding empirical evidence of PCK has proven elusive (Settlage, 2013). Part of this difficulty may be due to the fact that teachers tend not to think of what they know about teaching in the discrete bundle of PCK. It may be that PCK is a more useful heuristic for researchers than for teachers. In my view, PCK has been adopted somewhat problematically outside of the initial scope and context of Shulman’s original work, which was partly about situating teachers’ professional knowledge as complex in ways that were not recognized by policy makers in the late 1980s. Shulman (1987) stated: “We must be careful that the knowledge-base approach does not produce an overly technical image of teaching” (p. 20). I would argue that many research programs devoted to uncovering and describing pedagogical content knowledge, and subsequently technological pedagogical content knowledge, have gone down the very road that Shulman advised against. Mishra and Koehler (2006) introduced the concept as both an addition to Shulman’s original ideas and a response to the claim that the field of educational technology lacks a strong grounding in theory. They further claim: Developing theory for educational technology is difficult because it requires a detailed understanding of complex relationships that are contextually bound. Moreover, it is difficult to study cause and effect when teachers, classrooms, politics, and curriculum goals vary from case to case. (p. 1018)

It is unclear to me how these difficulties are unique to educational technology in comparison to any other field within education, or the social sciences for that matter. To their credit, though, Mishra and Koehler (2006) recognize the importance of developing a coherent framework for thinking about the relationship between how technology is used and issues of teaching, learning, and teacher education. They also recognize that PCK was one of many forms of knowledge that Shulman discussed, in many different ways, during his work in the late 1980s. Mishra and Koehler acknowledge some of the criticisms of PCK as a construct and Shulman’s more holistic interpretation of teachers’ professional knowledge before moving on to describe their model: technological pedagogical content knowledge. Mishra and Koehler (2006) represent content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge as two circles; the intersection of this Venn diagram is

Digital Technologies and Diverse Learning in Teacher Education

13

pedagogical content knowledge. They argue that Shulman’s idea of PCK needs to be modified in light of “technologies [that] have come to the forefront of educational discourse primarily because of the availability of a range of new, primarily digital, technologies and requirements for learning how to apply them to teaching” (p. 1023). Mishra and Koehler correctly surmise that it is problematic to treat knowledge of technology as an “addon” to teachers’ professional knowledge; they further acknowledge that embedding technological knowledge within other kinds of teachers’ knowledge is not new. Their approach, however, frames technological knowledge as a third circle that is laid on top of the existing content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge circles: What sets our approach apart is the specificity of our articulation of these relationships between content, pedagogy, and technology. In practical terms, this means that apart from looking at each of these components in isolation, we also need to look at them in pairs: pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and all three taken together as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). This is similar to the move made by Shulman, in which he considered the relationship between content and pedagogy and labeled it pedagogical content knowledge. In our case, a similar consideration leads us to three pairs of knowledge intersection and one triad. One of the pairs, pedagogical content knowledge, was introduced and articulated by Shulman, but we introduce two new pairs and one new triad. (p. 1026)

The remainder of the original article is devoted to articulating the differences between the seven kinds of knowledge in the model and to provide examples of some of the consequences of TPCK for thinking about teacher education and professional development. For example, the failure of skillbased short workshops to produce meaningful long-term growth can be explained because “they overemphasize technology skills (the ‘T’ in the model)” (p. 1033). Several examples of how TPCK ideas can drive the design of educational experiences were provided. Mishra and Koehler (2006) deserve credit for providing a model that can serve as a heuristic for thinking about the use of technology in teacher education. In a 2007 editorial, Thompson and Mishra argued that TPCK grew out of the research finding that simply teaching teachers how to use technology does not translate into the meaningful use of technologies for pedagogical purposes. At the same time, they announced the addition of the letter “A” to the acronym, with some fanfare: The new name does much more than just buy a vowel for TPCK. We see TPACK as capturing two key aspects of our work with technology integration. First, it emphasizes, through the letters, the three kinds of knowledge (Technology, Pedagogy, And

14

SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK Content) that we believe are essential building blocks for intelligent technology integration. Second and as important, it captures the fact that these three knowledge domains should not be taken in isolation, but rather that they form an integrated whole, a “Total PACKage” as it were, for helping teachers take advantage of technology to improve student learning. (Thompson & Mishra, 2007, p. 38)

The addition of the “A” might be taken as a nod to Shulman’s more holistic view of the nature of teachers’ professional knowledge, but it is important to remember that the original construct of pedagogical content knowledge was only one type of knowledge discussed by Shulman. TPACK has been around long enough to both generate considerable enthusiasm in some lines of educational research and to be subject to reviews of published papers using the TPACK framework. One such review is provided by Voogt, Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur, and van Braak (2013), who used Gough’s (2007) criteria for judging research quality to identify 55 (44 empirical, 11 theoretical) articles on TPAK published between 2005 and 2011. Voogt et al. (2013) found three several competing understandings of TPACK in the literature: TPACK is a distinct kind of knowledge, TPACK is a “dynamic” or extended form of PCK, which might get subsumed by PCK as certain technologies become more ubiquitous, and TPACK is an “interplay between three domains of knowledge and their intersections” (p. 113). The final definition is most clearly represented in Koehler and Mishra’s later writings. Voogt et al. (2013) concluded that “TPACK is an intuitive and easy-tocommunicate concept … [but] from a theoretical perspective, TPACK is a very complex concept and causes scholarly debate” (pp. 118 119). At least one problem is caused by the fluid definition of the word technology, and the tendency of some authors to equate technology with purely digital technologies, or even with particular devices. The authors noted that much of the research in TPACK relied on self-assessment surveys. Although these methods can be of value in certain ways, they can also be quite problematic given the different ways people tend to define terms such as technology and pedagogy. Loughran, Milroy, Berry, Gunstone, and Mulhall (2001) noted that the concept of pedagogical content knowledge, on which TPACK is based, is a concept that might be a more useful tool for researchers than for teachers; as the latter group does not tend to characterize its professional knowledge in the language of PCK. It seems that TPACK has added a complication to PCK, a concept that in my view was of limited value in the first place. As Loughran, Mulhall, and Berry (2008) showed in their interview with Shulman decades after his original articles, the original idea behind PCK was a political one. PCK

Digital Technologies and Diverse Learning in Teacher Education

15

was, in part, an argument that teachers had specialized knowledge of how to teach within particular disciplines, in addition to general knowledge of pedagogy. Ironically, most of the research on TPACK (66.7%, according to a literature review by Wu, 2013) focuses on a general construct of TPACK, rather than TPACK within a particular content area, which seemed to be the focus on Shulman’s original work. The construct of PCK has at least two problems: There is no agreement on a definition for PCK nor and it is difficult to document teachers’ PCK. TPACK seems to have at least the same two problems. I am not convinced that Shulman was ever advocating for a description of a specific kind of teachers’ professional knowledge called PCK, nor am I convinced that TPACK is, at this point, a productive way of understanding the development of teachers’ professional knowledge about using digital technologies in their teaching practice. At a minimum, Graham’s (2011) argument that TPACK needs considerable development as a theory both in terms of defining its seven constructs and in terms of defining the relationships between these constructs requires significant attention.

TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION: TWO PRODUCTIVE IDEAS With the seemingly overwhelming popularity of theories of education and technology such as “digital natives” and “TPACK” largely to their intuitive appeal, I would argue it can sometimes be difficult to find alternative theoretical tools for thinking about the roles digital technologies might play in the education of future teachers. The paucity of evidence for the digital natives framework and the theoretical confusion around what constitutes TPACK pose significant problems for using either to think about teacher education, as is the fact that both frameworks seem to lack a serious consideration of the social factors affecting how technology is used in teaching. I now turn to two theoretical frameworks that I continue to find useful for thinking about digital technologies and teacher education.

The Competency Model The first theoretical model originated in Desjardins, Lacasse, and Be´lair (2001) and was broadly concerned with defining competencies for what

16

SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK

teachers need to be able to know and do with computers. Unlike many who write in education and technology, Desjardins et al. (2001) begin their discussion with an acknowledgment that the idea of integrating technology into education has a longer history than the most recent widespread adoptions of computers and, more recently, smartphones and tablets. They contrasted the current (at the time) concern with developing competencies for using computers with the often-forgotten forerunner in educational technology: “Unlike educational television, this technology [computers] required constant interaction from the user and there for one needed to learn how to use it to take full advantage of the potential” (p. 213). Desjardins et al. argued that these interactions became particularly important with the dawn of widespread use of the World Wide Web and synchronous two-way video. Significantly, the authors recognized explicitly that these new technologies shaped how people interacted with each other in all sorts of learning contexts: “Possibilities of using the computer technology to interact with other people created an actual cyber culture and brought on the need to develop competencies specific to this world. … [such as] competencies dealing with social, ethical, and personal security problems and tasks” (p. 214). Desjardins et al. (2001) posited four orders of competencies for the use of technology in the classroom. Technical Competencies: “The array of conceptual and procedural knowledge usually constructed when experimenting with computers then applied as useful methods to operate ICT tools efficiently.” (p. 214) Informational Competencies: “The array of conceptual and procedural knowledge usually constructed while searching for specific information using a variety of databases or search engines, in order to extract useful procedures for identifying, selecting, classifying and coherent grouping of data.” (p. 214) Social Competencies: “The array of mostly procedural knowledge usually constructed while reflecting on communication experiences, where a concern for the needs of others emerges, thus establishing a viable way of thinking and acting with other individuals or groups.” (p. 214) Epistemological Competencies: “The array of conceptual usually constructed by reflecting on and anticipating what the technology can do, to draw analogies, connections, operational schemes and methods to be used in problem solving tasks.” (p. 214)

To summarize, technical competencies enable us to use the technology, informational competencies allow us to obtain information via technology, social competencies enable to make decisions about how to interact synchronously and asynchronously with others online, and epistemological

Digital Technologies and Diverse Learning in Teacher Education

17

competencies enable us to envision and program technologies to perform complex tasks. Desjardins et al. (2001) developed and validated a questionnaire designed to match responses to prompts with one of their orders of competency: technical, informational, social, and epistemological. They argued that their orders of competency represented a particular articulation of the published literature and that their first study made a case for the validity of considering knowledge of teaching using technology according to four orders. Desjardins (2005) developed and extended his original work in a significant way by presenting the results of using the original questionnaire with 600 francophone teachers in the province of Ontario, Canada. He further expanded on this concept of competencies as representing interactions with a technological object being an intermediary during the informational, social, and epistemological competencies. For example, a person requires both a technical competency and a social competency to use a software tool to interact with another person. This study was particularly significant because it demonstrated the potential value of using the Desjardins et al. (2001) model for developing competency profiles for groups of teachers. In the article, for example, Desjardins (2005) reported that the group of francophone teachers that were studied had an overall ITSE profile that is, that the population seemed most comfortable with information competencies, then technical competencies, followed by social competencies, and then epistemological competencies. It is not difficult to see how a competency model might be of particular value to those planning experiences in teacher education for diverse learning populations. Instead of assuming that teacher candidates come into our programs as “digital natives,” for example, we might find way to assess their comfort across the four areas of competencies identified in Desjardins’ work. It may be, for example, that teacher candidates are largely quite comfortable operating their devices (technical competencies) and at searching out particular kinds of information for use in their classrooms (informational competencies). Given Desjardins’ work, however, they may be unsure of how to assign tasks to digital devices to process information, or to create new representations of understanding. For example, many candidates do not have experiences working with video, and so the task of creating short video vignettes for use in a science class, for example, might initially prove daunting. Another strength of the Desjardins’ model is its explicit recognition of the importance of considering how technologies mediate and affect our social interactions with one another in ways ranging from our choice of communication (email, instant message, or text) to the

18

SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK

norms for communicating in particular online environments (e.g., class discussion boards vs. class wikis).

Networked Publics One of the most important theorists of how people, particularly young people, interact online is danah boyd (who spells her name in lowercase letters). In my view, she has done quite a bit to cut through the assumptions about how people interact socially in digital spaces by conducting extensive interviews with young people all over the United States. For example, she has articulated a nuanced conception of the ways in which online bullying often unfolds through calling attention to the performative implications of social interactions in online spaces. Many participants in her research used the term the drama to refer to their perceptions of how they were expected to respond in response to particular provocations in online social networks. Marwick and boyd (2011) stated: “Understanding how ‘drama’ operates is necessary to recognize teens’ own defenses against the realities of aggression, gossip, and bullying in networked publics” particularly because “most teens do not recognize themselves in the ‘bullying’ rhetoric used by parents, teen advocates, and mental health professionals” (p. 24). boyd and Marwick (2011) similarly challenge popular assumptions about the attitudes of young people toward online privacy. For example, although adults assume that young people prefer to live in the open online and do not care about privacy, boyd and Marwick (2011) provide compelling evidence to the contrary from 163 semi-structured interviews. The argue, in part, that “privacy, as it plays out in everyday life, is related more to agency and the ability to control a social situation than particular properties of information” and that young people view privacy “as a social norm that is achieved through a wide array of social practices configured by structural conditions” (p. 2). boyd’s work is characterized by rich descriptions of the nature of social interaction as a result of extensive fieldwork and qualitative analysis. Perhaps the most salient construct from her work that is relevant to teacher education is the concept of networked publics (boyd, 2007, 2014). She argues that technology had fundamentally changed the nature of public spaces since the late 19th century. For most of human history, one had to be physically present at a public space in order to witness a public event. With the advent of recording technologies (first audio, then video), however, it became straightforward to create a permanent record of the public

Digital Technologies and Diverse Learning in Teacher Education

19

event. Then, as technologies shifted, the ability for anyone to reproduce a permanent recording meant that others could experience a public event days, months, or years after it originally occurred. This replicability meant that the public presentation was available to unknown future audiences. Finally, with the advent of a video recording device in every smartphone and the ability to ‘tag’ online photo and video in sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr means that recordings are also searchable. boyd (2007, 2014) defines these new public spaces, known to most people as social networks, as networked publics to emphasize the implications of digital technologies for shifting public spaces. Originally, she used persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences (boyd, 2007, p. 9) to describe the properties of networked publics; more recently she characterizes them in terms of persistence, searchability, spreadability, and visibility (boyd, 2014, p. 11). The last two characteristics of networked publics, spreadability and visibility, are particularly relevant in the digital age. In addition to recordings being persistent and searchable, they have the potential of being shared in ways not originally intended by the creator of the recordings. Thus one can never be sure of the audience that will view a recording, particularly if that recording remains online and searchable for years to come. Its visibility cannot be predicted; boyd (2014) notes “In networked publics, interactions are often public by default, private through effort” (p. 12). Spreadability is a closely related concept; networked publics are usually designed to make it simple for people to spread information (text/images/ video) they like quickly and easily and boyd (2014) points out that content be easily spread through third party tools even if a particular networked public is not designed to promote certain kinds of sharing. The result: “Spreadability can be leveraged to rally people for a political cause or to spread rumours” (p. 12). Jenkins, Ford, and Green (2013) build on earlier work in participatory culture (Jenkins, 1992) to argue persuasively that networked publics have resulted in a new metaphor of spreadability for talking about digital culture. Jenkins et al. (2013) define spreadability as “the potential both technical and cultural for audiences to share content for their own purposes, sometimes with the permission of rights holders, sometimes against their wishes” (p. 3). One particularly valuable component of their analysis of spreadability is their rejection of the more common metaphor of a virus to describe the widespread circulation of particular content. Instead, they look at the social motives for sharing particular content: “The exchange of media helps to anchor ongoing relationships and thus occurs most often

20

SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK

when the content being exchanged says something significant about the parties involved” (p. 295). Many recent phenomenon, such as networks where teachers can share lesson plans (sometimes for a fee) and the movement to create open source textbooks, would benefit from the kinds of conceptual tools provided by boyd and Jenkins et al. The implications of boyd’s work for preparing future teachers are enormous. Teacher candidates need to consider the ways in which requiring their students to use particular technological tools will affect the nature of social actions both within the classroom environment and within the online digital space. The framework of networked publics is highly generative for the kinds of experiences that we might provide in teacher education classrooms. Is it reasonable, for example, to ask young people to create digital artifacts of their learning using freely available cloud-based tools? Will such artifacts be subject to the requirements of particular networked publics, and hence persistent, searchable, spreadable, and visible? Does a grade 8 student want a digital story he created to be accessible to future invisible audiences? Should a grade 10 student be required to post her review of a piece of young adult fiction to one of the many social networking sites devoted to literature and reading? What are the advantages and disadvantages to requiring students to use tools available on the open web versus tools that are only available in a closed server space maintained by a school? To what extent are teacher candidates provided with opportunities to consider the implications of networked publics for their work as teachers and their personal and professional lives? The responses to these and many other questions require a nuanced consideration of the social implications of digital technologies and teacher education.

CONCLUSIONS: REASSEMBLING THE SOCIAL IN TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION In this chapter, I have reviewed four theoretical frameworks for thinking about the role of digital technologies in providing opportunities for diverse learning experiences in teacher education. The idea of digital natives has little research evidence to support its conceptual underpinnings, despite enormous public enthusiasm. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) seems to suffer from many of the shortcomings of its parent concept, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). I concur with Settlage’s (2013) concerns that PCK (and TPACK, by extension) is a “strangely

Digital Technologies and Diverse Learning in Teacher Education

21

persistent yet unfulfilling notion,” that “it sparkles but offers little substance” beyond providing a vocabulary for arguing that teachers have unique forms of knowledge (p. 1). Settlage also notes “PCK literature is all but silent about diversity, multiculturalism, and equity” (p. 2); the same could be said about TPACK literature. Perhaps one reason that both of these frameworks are so problematic is that they fail to, in Latour’s (2005) terms, treat the “social” as a set of associations between individuals and technological objects. The social element of Prensky’s ideas seems limited to sweeping generalizations about a generation of students, who are seen not as diverse but as uniform in their desire to apply the experiences that they have, apparently, all had with technologies to their school experiences. TPACK refers to the social in a somewhat vague way, arguing that the seven component pieces fit together in some sort of larger context. On the other hand, both the Desjardins competency model and boyd’s (2007, 2014) concept of networked publics encourage us to trace the associations between teacher candidates, their students, teacher educators, and the technological objects used by each. In the competency model, we recognize the importance of understanding that a technological object is an intermediary between the user and the user’s goals be it obtaining information, interacting with another user, or assigning work to technological object for processing. Networked publics name the reality that our interactions with technological objects and with others via technological objects have a degree of permanence. They can be copied. They can be indexed and searched. They encourage us to consider far-ranging consequences of what we ask our learners to do in our classrooms. The question of how to approach diverse learning in teacher education with digital technologies requires a consideration of the multiple associations that exist in what might be casually called “the social.” Diverse learning experiences in teacher education could mean anything from preparing teacher candidates to work with K-12 students in a wide array of contexts, to thinking about the ways in which teacher educators work with teacher candidates with different learning needs and a variety of assumptions about their roles as teachers. Providing diverse learning experiences often means using ideas from frameworks offered by feminist theory, critical theory, and/or indigenous perspectives to interrupt and challenge the normative discourses of schooling and education within teacher education classrooms. Digital technologies may well be a helpful way of accomplishing any number of goals for how teacher educators want to work with teacher candidates in their classrooms and during field experiences. But to do so requires

22

SHAWN MICHAEL BULLOCK

a more nuanced theorizing of digital technologies than is often seen in popular, professional, and academic literature. Digital technologies are not a monolithic enterprise with a single defining set of characteristics. The ways in which learners interact with various technologies require us to trace the associations between learners, technologies, and other learners. We need to move beyond generational arguments about levels of technological savvy and assertions that there is another kind of teachers’ professional knowledge that teacher candidates need to be filled with in their coursework before embarking on careers. Ideas such as the competency model and networked publics provide teacher educators with the tools to, in Latour’s (2005) terms, reassemble the social. Technology has always been a part of teacher education, and indeed one might argue that education itself is a particular application of a technology. As the technological affordances of the digital realm continue to change and challenge how we in teacher education think about their work with diverse learners, we must be mindful of the need to focus on the nature of interactions with technologies, rather than appealing to abstractions and ill-defined concepts.

REFERENCES Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775 786. boyd, d. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Bucking (Ed.), MacArthur foundation series on digital learningyouth, identity, and digital media (pp. 1 26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. boyd, d., & Marwick, A. E. (2011). Social privacy in networked publics: Teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies. Presented at the A Decade in Internet Time symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society. Oxford, UK: Social Science Research Network. Desjardins, F. (2005). La repre´sentation par les enseignants, quant a` leurs profils de compe´tences relatives a` l’ordinateur: Vers une the´orie des TIC en e´ducation. La Revue Canadienne de L’apprentissage et de La Technologie, 31(1), 27 49. Desjardins, F., Lacasse, R., & Be´lair, L. (2001). Toward a definition of four orders of competency for the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in education. In Proceedings of the IASTED international conference on computers and advanced technology in education (pp. 213 217). Banff, Canada: ACTA Press. Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22, 213 228. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953 1960.

Digital Technologies and Diverse Learning in Teacher Education

23

Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture. New York, NY: Routledge. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, NY: New York University Press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Loughran, J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through PaP-eRs. Research in Science Education, 31, 289 307. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1301 1320. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). The drama! Teen conflict, gossip, and bullying in networked publics. Presented at the A Decade in Internet Time symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, Oxford, UK: Social Science Research Network. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017 1054. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1 6. Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8 13. Prensky, M. (2012). What technology ISN’T good at, Part II: Passion. Educational Technology, 6, 64. Selwyn, N. (2012). Ten suggestions for improving academic research in education and technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 213 219. Settlage, J. (2013). On acknowledging PCK’s shortcomings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 1 12. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1 23. Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Editors’ remarks: Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38 64. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109 121. Warwick, A. (2003). Masters of theory: Cambridge and the rise of mathematical physics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Wu, Y.-T. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) research: A review of empirical studies published in selected journals from 2002 to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), E73 E76.

This page intentionally left blank

RESOURCE STUDENTS’ USE OF INTERNET INQUIRY STRATEGIES IN AN ONLINE INQUIRY PROJECT Jennifer Thomas ABSTRACT Purpose This chapter presents findings from a qualitative study focused on the strategies that two marginalized seventh graders used as they completed an Internet inquiry project about survival. Methodology/approach The participants spent time over a four-week period in three phases selecting a topic, locating information, and presenting information. Participants completed journals and participated in interviews. The participants’ online searches and how they organized their presentations were recorded. The researcher took field notes. These four data sources were used to determine subcategories in each phase to document the strategies they employed as they completed the project. Findings Participants used phrases and questions as they decided on key words to locate information. The majority of the sites they visited ended in the .com domain. They used different web browsers and spent varied amounts of time reading websites once they decided on key words and selected sites. Each participant approached the project uniquely and met the requirements to complete it.

Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 25, 25 65 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000027021

25

26

JENNIFER THOMAS

Research implications This study suggests that students in self-contained resource classes engage with online content in sophisticated ways but that they still need support from teachers to optimize their learning. Originality/value Studies like this add to a body of research offering thick descriptions of teachers and students work together. In addition, this chapter derives value from the fact that it was conducted by a classroom teacher and therefore offers a unique perspective on the classroom as a learning environment as well as a site of inquiry. Keywords: Internet; inquiry; new literacies; students with disabilities; collaboration; teacher research

INTRODUCTION Adolescents know that computers and the Internet are essential for communication and research (Eagleton, Guinee, & Langlais, 2003). Yet the Internet is constantly changing in its capabilities, capacities, and functions (Sutherland-Smith, 2002). Therefore, adolescents must develop strategies for navigating the Internet effectively and adaptively for learning. These strategies may include choosing search terms, checking the reliability of information, browsing, deciding if the information is relevant, and reading information on the site (Dalton & Proctor, 2008). In a broad sense, being literate today becomes rather complex as new technologies that have not appeared yet will determine social practices and unanticipated needs (Leu et al., 2011) in the job market as well as society. Adolescents, regardless of their reading ability, have to practice using the technologies that are available now to prepare them for the ones that are yet to come. A specific method for assisting adolescents who are marginalized in an increasingly literate world is to make Internet inquiry part of the curriculum. Leu and Kinzer (2003) define Internet inquiry as individuals or groups posing an important question, then finding answers to their queries. Coupled with the change in classroom environment that may be more student-directed and collaborative is the idea that teachers who provide productive conditions for learning and allow their students’ interests to be part of the classroom ultimately help students grow (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999). Further, Internet inquiry allows teachers to integrate traditional subject areas and language arts in powerful ways.

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

27

According to Farwick Owens, Hester, and Teale (2002), inquiry projects are especially beneficial for underachieving students when teachers get to know students through their inquiry projects. These researchers indicate that underachieving adolescents’ academic skills improve because teachers see what the student can do in the project rather than focus on the academic skills a student lacks. Internet inquiry may appeal to some adolescents because the teacher is not directing every step of the learning, the topic for research may be more individual, and collaboration may take place more readily than if more traditional teaching methods were used to instruct students. Internet inquiry projects may make the curriculum more individual, but more research is needed about specific elements of inquiry topic selection, locating information, and presenting the information. Conley (2008) argued that substantial research has inquired into adolescents’ literacies, but little is known about adolescents’ strategy development. One way to study how students access and use the Web is to analyze the strategies they use to complete meaningful inquiry-based curriculum projects, which require students to take a more active role in their own learning (Moore et al., 1999). A specific area of focus in terms of strategy development is analyzing the strategies that adolescents who are marginalized use as they locate, organize, and present information from online searches. Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack (2004) suggest that scientific data is needed to discover the skills students use as they prepare to read on the Internet. These researchers also state that educators need to focus on how to support “students with special needs with the powerful new technologies that are available to us” (p. 25). Studying how adolescents use strategies such as selecting a topic, locating information, and presenting it while using the Internet may assist teachers in designing curricula that will help adolescents become more intelligent consumers of the messages presented in popular media (Dalton & Proctor, 2008; Moore et al., 1999). All adolescents, especially those in the margins of our classrooms, have a lot to teach us (Dalton & Proctor, 2008), and deserve more than a centralized, one-size-fitsall approach to literacy (Moore et al., 1999). Being literate no longer means simply learning to read and write. Adolescents have to learn how to use technology for social and other reasons to be successful in a digital world (Moje, Young, Readence, & Moore, 2000). While research about the use of new technologies in educational settings is increasing, more specific information is needed regarding the processes used by particular groups of students as they access information online. The research question guiding this study was how did two seventh grade marginalized readers use new literacy strategies

28

JENNIFER THOMAS

to locate, organize, and present information as they completed an openended Internet inquiry project? This chapter is a report on this project.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE The Internet is part of adolescents’ present and future literacy, so using it as a text in classrooms may assist students who have a hard time with print-based texts in becoming more motivated and interested in academics (Dalton & Proctor, 2008; McNabb, Thurber, Dibuz, McDermott, & Lee, 2006). Based on traditional definitions of literacy, adolescents who face challenges with literacy are positioned as learning disabled, minimally literate, [or] aliterate (O’Brien, 2001). Yet this does not have to be the case because incorporating multiple literacies in classrooms may change or eliminate marginalizing labels (Moje et al., 2000; O’Brien, 2001). It may be that when teachers only use a few texts in their classrooms, they are overlooking adolescents’ real life literary practices (Moje, 2008). Moje explains that adolescents need opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge of a concept in a variety of representational forms and that connecting subjects and adolescents’ lives outside school to the content in classrooms is beneficial. The Internet is a representational form available to students at school. Sutherland-Smith (2002) states that the impact the Internet is having on society and education cannot be ignored; therefore it should be in classrooms. While it may not be as prevalent in classrooms, the Internet is part of adolescent literacy outside of school. Additionally, the Internet will be an integral part of students’ futures in terms of employment students who can synthesize, locate, evaluate, and communicate information effectively and clearly will be successful (Leu et al., 2011). Therefore, students must learn how to use the Internet for these purposes not only for their education, but as they prepare to work in a digitally fastpaced, literate world.

Benefits of the Internet for Adolescents Adolescents continue to need assistance with creating meaning in texts including what they read online. They have to acquire the skills to handle the flood of information presented to them while learning to survive and thrive (Alexander, 2005; Moore et al., 1999) in the world. The need for secondary teachers to continue teaching reading is essential when one

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

29

considers that fewer than 5% of the adolescents in the 1998 NAEP study could expand the meaning of a text and fewer than 6% of the students who participated in the study could read at an advanced level (Alvermann, 2002; Moore et al., 1999). These statistics indicate that adolescents still need assistance analyzing, synthesizing, and comprehending texts. The Internet is a text that can be used to assist adolescents in improving their comprehension or literacy skills in general. The Internet may ease the burden of comprehension for adolescents who are marginalized. In secondary grades, many adolescents do not comprehend grade level texts. Reading requires more effort as the texts they read are frequently expository (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Saenz & Fuchs, 2002). Comprehension may improve through Internet use because the content on a website can be accessed with less frustration compared to using a textbook to find the same information (Kuiper & Volman, 2008). Furthermore, Windschitl (1998) asserts that the Internet has richer imagery for piquing adolescent interest than what is available in most classrooms (p. 29). The Internet is interactive compared to a textbook and brings a different definition of text with it. The definition of text expands when the Internet is used. It has the ability to “read the reader” (Dalton & Proctor, 2008, p. 297). This is especially apparent when search terms are used because these terms determine which sites appear on a search results page. An example of the Internet reading the reader is when a search for a topic brings up sites connected to the original search terms. The searcher has to determine if the site is relevant to his or her initial question. On the search results page, a site that is completely unrelated to the searcher’s query may appear because the search terms are connected to that particular site. Adolescents may have difficulty distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant sites from a search because they do not have the skills to search for “high quality information” (Eagleton & Guinee, 2002, p. 39). These researchers indicate that this could happen for a variety of reasons students may not have a lot of formal research experience. Also, students may not know how to choose effective search terms because they may be pressed for time or are inclined to find information quickly.

Challenges of Internet Use In addition to these difficulties, another problematic aspect of using the Internet in schools to complete assignments may cause adolescents to be

30

JENNIFER THOMAS

passive researchers and think that answers to queries come ready-made (Kuiper & Volman, 2008). A list of search results appears instantaneously after search terms are entered. Potential answers to a question are there, but adolescents have to strategize about which sites to view to decide if the information presented there really does answer their initial question. Along with deciding which sites to view, the amount of information about a particular topic can be limitless (Dalton & Proctor, 2008; McNabb et al., 2006). Because of this, adolescents may not know when to stop searching. Furthermore, adolescents may find an answer to a question on one site and assume they are done searching. Students may be reluctant or not know how to corroborate the information they found with another source (Damico & Baildon, 2007; Metzger, 2007). It is imperative, then, that adolescents learn the strategies for checking the information they find. Answers may appear quickly, but that does not make them correct. As students strategize about which sites to view, a website’s domain may impact which sites they select. Liu and Johnson (2004) assigned 130 preservice college students to evaluate 1,025 sites ending in the web domains .edu, .gov, .org, and .com. Students evaluated the sites based on accuracy, authority, currency, coverage, and verifiability. Metzger (2007) identified objectivity the purpose of the site as an additional factor people should consider as they examine the credibility of websites. Liu and Johnson (2004) found that participants felt that domains ending in .edu were the most accurate. Domains ending in .gov were considered the most authoritative and verifiable. Sites ending in .com were judged to contain the most current information and content on websites ending in .org were viewed as lower in quality compared to the other four domains.

Marginalized Adolescents’ Use of Technology Despite the potential challenges of online research, one subpopulation in schools that may benefit from the integration of technology is adolescents who are marginalized. These adolescents may be marginalized for social or academic reasons; they do not fit in with the population of the school (Moje et al., 2000). In this study, participants were considered to be marginalized because they spent time in a resource setting. At the time of the study, participants were unable to access the general education reading curriculum the way their same-age peers could access it. In terms of academics, students who are marginalized are often placed in classes that intend to assist them in acquiring the skills they need to

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

31

access the general education curriculum (O’Brien, 2003). However, O’Brien suggests that adolescents who spend a prolonged amount of time in corrective programs may develop negative perceptions of their abilities. Many adolescents who are marginalized and have been unsuccessful with printed texts throughout elementary school no longer care to try reading more (Alvermann, 2002). To address this concern, teachers may decide to design curricula that are engaging and use a variety of texts to help students discover their reading preferences (Frey, Fisher, & Moore, 2005; Moje et al., 2000). Teachers can capitalize on adolescents’ individual literacy interests to help developing readers learn the skills they need to be successful. Adolescents should not have to experience a motivational slump as the literacy demands in secondary schools become more difficult (Alexander, 2005). Also, traditional methods teachers use to present texts may be disabling for some adolescents (Alvermann, 2002). Adolescent literacy needs may be more accurately addressed when the Internet is incorporated into classroom instruction. The Internet is not always user-friendly, yet traditional print texts are not easy for some students to access either (Alvermann, 2002; Moje et al., 2000). Interdisciplinary projects, either open-ended or Internet workshops, are a vehicle for getting marginalized adolescents to improve their literacy skills. Moje et al. (2000) define interdisciplinary projects as opportunities for students to formulate questions, collaborate, and use technology. Marginalized readers can demonstrate their critical thinking skills when a variety of mediums are used to assess their knowledge. Despite the challenges of using the Internet in schools, it levels the playing field (Dalton & Proctor, 2008; O’Brien & Scharber, 2008) because each student has access to the same text. No one is excluded because he or she could not afford to buy the book, uniform, or rent the instrument. To show how technology can be integrated into instructional settings, Farwick Owens et al. (2002) orchestrated two projects with 100 students between the ages of 7 and 15. For eight weeks, participants worked with university students and other members of the community to create inquiry projects that they presented to their families and other adult visitors. One outcome of this section of the study was that students were eager to design and present their projects. Another outcome was that students were motivated to learn from each other. Initially in this project, only four computers were available for students to use so they relied on print sources to find information. Even though their reading and writing skills improved as they participated in this project, students’ presentations resembled traditional reports.

32

JENNIFER THOMAS

In a similar study about marginalized adolescents being successful with technology, O’Brien (2001) conducted a study related to the Literacy Lab. O’Brien gathered data from field notes, videotaped sessions of students collaborating, transcribed segments of videotapes, and collected “digital versions of students’ productions” (p. 1). Results of this study showed that students who were labeled at-risk mastered “the ability to work with diverse symbol systems in an active way where meanings are received and produced” (Semali & Pailliotet, 1999, as cited in O’Brien, 2001, p. 2). Students who were labeled “at-risk” were successful as they used multiliteracies (new media) to express their ideas. Studies such as this one demonstrate that technology is beneficial for underachieving students. However, more research is need to analyze how seventh graders use the Internet as part of their classroom experience to answer a question as they locate, organize, and present information.

Uses of Technology in Classroom Settings Several studies show how using technology in educational settings is beneficial for adolescents. However, using the Internet in schools is open for debate because adolescents do not have adequate research skills, the expertise to find pertinent information, or the experience to check the reliability of the sites they search (Baildon & Baildon, 2008). However, despite these challenges, using the Internet as a text in secondary schools is motivating and can enhance students’ learning (O’Brien & Scharber, 2008). While interdisciplinary projects may provide structure that meets adolescents’ needs, teachers should not use the Internet in their classrooms just because it is technology (Sutherland-Smith, 2002). This researcher suggests that teachers need to critically evaluate how they are using technology in their classrooms to make it effective and applicable for adolescents. Internet inquiry projects, either open-ended or an Internet workshop, are additional effective methods for integrating the Internet in classrooms.

Internet Workshop for Promoting Adolescent Literacy One way to assist adolescents with Internet inquiry is to have adolescents participate in an Internet workshop. Leu and Kinzer (2003) state that an Internet workshop is teacher-directed and based on a particular unit or

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

33

concept of study. Components of an Internet workshop include the teacher locating sites related to a unit, developing an activity related to the goals of the unit, assigning the activity, and giving students time to share what they found studies that align with the components of an Internet workshop. Agosto (2002) conducted a study to offer a theoretical model of the criteria adolescents use to evaluate websites. This study is an example of an Internet workshop because she selected the websites participants used to research. Her qualitative study looked at how personal preferences, object enhancement characteristics, human processing constraints, and contextual constraints contribute to how eleven 14 16 year old girls in ninth and tenth grades evaluated websites. To gather data for her question, Agosto used questionnaires, transcriptions of two group interviews, and website evaluation and surfing session logs (participants’ notes). Results of this study show that the participants evaluated websites in nine areas. First, participants assumed that sites with a lot of information were more accurate than ones with less. Second, they avoided sites that were created by students because they doubted the depth of the information. Third, they visited a site based on front page of site. Fourth, they agreed that more graphics and multimedia content made a better website. Fifth, they liked being able to interact with the website and game. In a study that capitalizes on how students evaluate websites using interviews, Damico and Baildon (2007) conducted a study to examine effective ways to guide four (three above average and one average) eighth graders as they looked at websites in an inquiry-based social studies curriculum. Before this study began, participants completed a project about Mexico and migration. Researchers preselected sites for participants to view that they had not used previously as they completed the project, thus making it an example of an Internet workshop. Results of this study indicate that students may not have sufficient background knowledge to determine if a source is credible or not. For example, if students have never heard of an historical figure, they may not know if the information the author wrote on the site is correct. Next, participants identified the author, publication date, and key information. They knew if new information was being offered. Lastly, participants recognized that the site had information on it that was unfamiliar. Studies showing how participants evaluate preselected sites is becoming evident, but more studies that analyze what students do as they access websites on their own to complete a project may assist educators in analyzing the literacies students use online.

34

JENNIFER THOMAS

Open-Ended Internet Projects Finally, several studies have been done where the parameters of the project were more open. Open-ended projects are another way to help students become critical consumers of text and read on the Internet. Land (2000) defines open-ended learning environments (OELEs) as using technology to provide students with opportunities to engage in authentic problem solving; generate, test, and revise hypotheses; explore and manipulate concepts; and reflect on what they know (p. 61). Secondly, Baildon and Baildon (2008) investigated what happened when 21 nine- and ten-year olds (10 boys and 11 girls) in fourth grade were taught strategies to research independently and use a resource guide while looking for information about rain forests. They used other sources besides the Internet to find information. Participants in this study were at an international school in Singapore. They spoke English fluently and comprehended texts on a third to sixth grade level. In another example, Eagleton et al. (2003) designed a project for eighth graders about heroes to guide them through the beginning stages of inquiry selecting a topic, asking questions, and selecting key words. Their target population was students in mainstream classes who have learning disabilities. This project is an example of an open-ended project because participants selected a hero to research. During this six-week study, researchers gave students pretests, taught lessons about selecting key words, narrowing the topic, searching, and presenting information. This study gives a detailed outline of an Internet inquiry project rather than analyzing specific data. However, researchers used student conferences and pretests to determine the next lesson of instruction in the unit. Summaries of open-ended studies indicate that it is beneficial to guide students as they generate questions and evaluate websites. More information is needed about which strategies marginalized adolescents use as they complete an Internet inquiry project with less guidance from a researcher. Analyzing this may give educators insight into how students naturally search for information online.

METHODS AND STRATEGIES Participants in the current study were involved in a four-week Internet inquiry project during their reading class taught by their special education

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

35

teacher, who was also the researcher. The project included three major phases: selecting a topic, locating information, and organizing the presentation. This following section describe the context for the study, the participants, the project design, the data sources, and the Internet inquiry procedures. It also includes information about data collection and analysis, and data coding.

Context for the Study This study took place in a middle school in a suburban middle class community in a western state. The middle school serves seventh through ninth graders. This school has a diverse population with English Language Learners, students from many countries (e.g., Mexico, Burma, China, Israel), those who are in resource classes, students enrolled in gifted and talented classes, those who are in an emotionally disturbed (ED) unit, or in an intellectually disabled (ID) unit, as well as the students in regular education classes. Approximately 10% of this school’s population is served in a special education setting. The total enrollment in this school is about 1,800 students. Within this school’s population, 28% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. The major ethnicity of the students in this school is Caucasian.

Teacher/Researcher Description I was also a participant in the study because I took field notes as the participants searched the Internet and conducted interviews with them. My experience with field notes comes from the fact that I have been observing adolescents with disabilities for seven years. During each year of my teaching career, I have taught at least one special education class. I am also certified to teach regular education English classes, and I have been able to compare the students in special education with those who are in regular education classes. I have observed the characteristics good and poor readers have because I have worked with hundreds of students. From informal observations over the years, I know good readers relished the silent reading time they were given in class. These good readers generally kept one book for an extended period and occasionally asked to go to the library. Conversely, poor

36

JENNIFER THOMAS

readers seldom read during silent reading time. They asked to go to the library frequently. I took field notes on each participant for approximately 15 20 minutes during seven days as they used the Internet and organized their PowerPoint presentations. To accommodate the rest of the class while I took field notes, a paraeducator came into the class to assist other students.

Class Description By law, individual student needs must be met in the least restrictive environment in the setting that is the least confining for him or her. This research was conducted in a resource class. A resource class is the most restrictive environment for students with mild or moderate learning disabilities. An example of a class in this setting is a reading class for students in special education. Students in this class are three to five years behind their same-age peers in basic reading or reading comprehension skills. The average class size is between 12 and 16 students. The number of students in a resource class in this school varies each year depending on the needs of the incoming population. During a regular 83-minute period in the resource reading class, where the study took place, students had time to read on their own, they listened to the teacher read aloud, and completed part of a commercial program that provided practice breaking long words into syllables. Students also spent time during the class period working with a fluency program.

Participants There were two participants in this study. They read on different levels and were enrolled in two different sections of a seventh grade special education reading class in a resource setting. Students selected a topic, located information online, organized a presentation, participated in interviews, wrote in a journal, completed assignments, and participated in unplanned collaboration with other students as they researched an aspect of survival. Bobby The first participant in this study was Bobby (participant-selected pseudonym), a 12-year old male in seventh grade whose fluency, decoding, and

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

37

comprehension skills were below a fourth grade level. I selected Bobby to be a participant in this study because his reading skills were lower than those of other students in the class. Despite this, he came to class every day, willing to work, and improve his skills. Bobby had a lot of questions throughout the year when he was unsure about how to complete work in the resource reading and English classes. Lily The second participant in this study was Lily (participant-selected pseudonym), a 12-year old female in seventh grade who read close to a seventh grade level. I chose Lily to be a participant in this study because her reading skills were higher than those of most students in the resource reading class. She had become a voracious reader the summer before her seventh grade year. Lily was in the special education reading class to gain the skills necessary to improve her reading, but because she started loving reading on her own, the resource reading class was a review for her. At the end of her seventh grade year, Lily no longer qualified for special education services, and she was declassified. This means she could register for a full schedule of regular education classes as an eighth grader. Lily was also in two of my classes one was a co-taught section of English (where one is a regular education teacher and the other is a special education teacher) where I was the special education teacher in the classroom. Student Journals Students recorded in a journal what they were thinking, frustrations they experienced, or other insights they had as they searched the Internet to find answers to their questions. In this study, the participant journals were free and candid, rather than being guided using a form or following specific requirements. Students responded on a blank piece of paper to my verbal prompts by writing their likes, dislikes, frustrations, or interests from that day’s search. Students were told to record their frustrations, insights, challenges, and questions. I showed the students an example of a journal response before they started working on the project so they had some guidance as they completed their responses. In terms of collecting data, most journal entries were brief. They completed journals in all three phases and were given time at the end of most days to respond to their searches. Monitoring Program Camtasia Studio (2009) software was used to capture and record Bobby’s and Lily’s search actions each time they searched for information on the

38

JENNIFER THOMAS

Internet and as they organized their presentations. I also used segments of the recordings during interviews to probe participant responses about what they were thinking and doing while online. Camtasia Studio (2009) recorded exactly what the participants viewed on the computer screen, including the search terms they used, websites they visited, mouse clicks they made, words they typed, the length of time they took on each page, and ways they organized their presentations. Additionally, the software could record the participant voices. Bobby and Lily had an opportunity to experiment with Camtasia Studio (2009) software individually before their search sessions were recorded. They knew the software would be running each day as they strategized about locating and presenting their information. I told them about the software because I did not want them to be surprised as I showed them clips from their search sessions. They may have wanted to stop being part of the study if they knew I was recording them without their knowledge. During the interviews, I showed the participants segments from their searches and asked them questions about strategies they used based on that segment. The entire class saw how Camtasia Studio (2009) worked before the participant search sessions were recorded. When the project was complete, I viewed each recording and transcribed what each participant did during the sessions. These transcriptions were essential in determining the strategies each participant used as they completed the Internet inquiry project.

Researcher Field Notes Since both participants were enrolled in different sections, I observed them during different class periods. I sat or stood behind the participant computer screens while I hand-recorded field notes. At a later date, I typed the notes to prepare for data analysis. Observations about each participant’s search included questions they asked, complaints they made about their work, frustrations they voiced, general observations they made about their work, and other items that appeared noteworthy (e.g., participants collaborating with other students, students becoming frustrated, or asking questions). I took field notes daily for a period of seven days for at least 15 minutes at the beginning of each search session. A paraeducator assisted the other students in the classroom with their projects while I took field notes on each participant. My goal in collecting data with field notes was to record as much information as possible about the strategies each participant used.

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

39

Interviews I interviewed the each participant individually four times about what they thought as they searched the Internet after days 4, 8, 15, and after they presented their project to their peers and parents. I selected this pattern to study what the participants were thinking as they developed their research question, how they located information, how they organized their presentation, and what they thought about the inquiry project overall. I included two days of searching in each interview to avoid taking too much time away from their research. Interviewing participants more frequently may have caused their responses to be less detailed. I established this pattern because students who are in resource classes like a classroom routine, but they do not like doing the same task repeatedly. The eight interviews were conducted with segments from their searches using the Camtasia Studio (2009) software. The student journals and field notes did not yield information that was as rich as the online recordings. Student journals and field notes were not used consistently in the interviews. Each participant viewed clips from his or her previous two days of searching. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. In preparation for the interviews, I viewed each Camtasia recording to find segments where I wanted Bobby and Lily to explain their thinking in more detail. During the interviews, I showed Bobby and Lily the segments from their individual search sessions and asked them questions to analyze the strategies they used. The segments ranged in length from a few seconds to a couple of minutes. As I selected clips for the interviews, I recorded questions to be used as an interview guide. Sometimes the questions pertained to both participants; other questions were unique to Bobby’s or Lily’s search. The specific questions related to recorded events each one demonstrated as he or she selected a topic, located information, or created a PowerPoint presentation.

DESIGN The design of this study is a case study because I analyzed the experiences of two students. Merriam (as cited in Barone, 2004) states that a case study has four components: a singular focus, a rich description, an enrichment of the reader’s understanding, and a data-driven nature. First, the focus is on a particular situation, program, event, phenomenon, or person. For this study, the focus was two participants using computers to research and

40

JENNIFER THOMAS

present information about a topic related to survival. The second characteristic is the rich description of the object being studied. The rich description came from field notes, interviews, screen capture recordings, and journals that were analyzed to show strategies that participants used as they researched and organized information. Next, the study enriches a reader’s understanding. A reader’s understanding of how marginalized readers use computers as a tool increases from this study. Lastly, the data that drove this study are based on the information from the four data sources.

Data Sources and Collection Students selected a topic, located information online, organized a presentation, participated in interviews, wrote in a journal, completed assignments, and participated in unplanned collaboration with other students as they researched an aspect of survival. Once students gave assent and parents consented to let their student participate in the study, data collection began. To analyze the strategies Bobby and Lily employed, four data sources were used. First, participants wrote general information about each day’s searches on notebook paper. Second, a monitoring program (Camtasia Studio, 2009) was used to record participant computer activities. Third, I recorded field notes while each participant used the computer to locate information or organize a PowerPoint presentation. Fourth, I conducted interviews with Bobby and Lily to learn what they were thinking while they were using the Internet to complete the project.

Internet Inquiry Procedures The procedures for using the data from the four sources in this Internet inquiry study were divided into the phases of topic selection, locating information, and organizing the presentation. A brief description of each phase follows. Topic Selection The project began by engaging students over a period of eight days in brainstorming topics, reading children’s books, viewing a documentary, analyzing websites, and giving students time to explore websites related to the general topic of survival. Students were responsible for choosing a topic about survival by the end of the eighth day. Other activities related to the

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

41

reading curriculum were completed during this time as well. The participants spent approximately 25 40 minutes of each 83-minute period focused on topic selection. Locating Information During the 10 days of the locating information phase, the participants spent 26 50 minutes each class period searching for information about their topic. Participant questions were answered if they were unsure where to search online. Occasionally I redirected them to different sites. All of the students in both classes were monitored to make sure they were making progress on the project. I took field notes about each participant in this phase. The students were expected to be online searching appropriate websites for information related to their topic. Presenting Information During this phase that lasted approximately five days, students were free to create their own presentations. At the beginning of the project, I mentioned several mediums for presenting information. Bobby and Lily chose to do PowerPoint presentations. I explained that their PowerPoint presentations had to have at least five slides with both pictures and explanations/text on each slide. I did not give specific guidelines about how to present their information so individual creativity was not stifled. Bobby and Lily knew that they would be presenting their projects to the members of the class and possibly their parents, so appearance was a consideration/expectation for this assignment. Some students were engaged in locating information and working on their presentations simultaneously the last two or three days of this phase. My role in this phase was that of an observer, although answering occasional questions about the PowerPoint software became part of this phase. Most of the time, students relied on each other for assistance in answering their queries about PowerPoint. My role as the teacher changed (Leu et al., 2004; Sutherland-Smith, 2002; Windschitl, 1998) dramatically during this phase. I was not able to answer some of the questions students had about PowerPoint, but the students were able to help each other.

Collected Artifacts The unit of analysis for coding in this study was an intact event as judged by the researcher. An intact event was defined as a complete strategy.

42

JENNIFER THOMAS

When the participant moved to the next step in locating information or presenting his or her information, a new unit of analysis was evident. Student Journals The unit of analysis for journal entries was a complete entry for a single day because the responses were always brief and usually included only one strategy. If two strategies were mentioned, the daily entry was coded into more than one category. No journal entry included more than two strategies. Monitoring Program The unit of analysis was each strategy the participants used. For example, each of the following examples would be considered a unit of analysis: clicking back, clicking on a link, going to a website, immediately getting off a website, reading on a website, asking me or a peer for help, or selecting a font for the PowerPoint presentation. These recordings were used as a separate data source to analyze the participant strategy use. Researcher Field Notes The unit of analysis was each observed strategy participants used. Examples include asking a question, opening a program, collaborating with a peer, selecting a search engine, or choosing search terms was a unit of analysis. Interviews I conducted interviews using segments of the recordings from Camtasia Studio (2009) to generate questions about the strategies students used. The unit of analysis for the interviews consisted of my question and a participant’s response to that question. Sometimes the initial question required me to ask a follow-up question. The entire sequence of the initial question, the initial response, follow-up question, and follow-up response constituted a unit of analysis. For example, during the first interview, I asked Bobby why he used Firefox. He responded, “It’s like the most trusting site that my parents like.” The follow-up question to this was, “Why do your parents prefer that you use Firefox instead of Explorer?” His response was, “My mom didn’t have it on her new computer, so my brother had a friend who downloaded it.” This entire segment of the interview was the unit of analysis because all the questions and answers related to the same topic of discussion, even though Bobby’s responses did not directly relate to my questions.

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

43

Coding the Data I coded responses from student journals, my field notes, Camtasia Studio (2009) recordings, and interviews. The first review of the data resulted in an unmanageable number of categories. In a second review of the data, the categories were reduced to a smaller number using defined categories from the Teaching Internet Comprehension to Adolescent (TICA) project (Coiro, Malloy, & Rogers, 2006). A data reduction chart was made showing the number of events that occurred in each of the established categories (Coiro et al., 2006) for each participant. To assess inter-rater reliability, a colleague and I coded a random 10% sample of data. These results were compared and agreement was achieved in 88% of the cases. Once the data were coded, the total number of recorded events in each subcategory was calculated. The percentage of the whole project that participants spent in each subcategory was calculated. The percent the participants spent in each phase of the project based on the whole was also determined. These percentages were used to write two cases based on the recorded strategies in each subcategory and to compare and contrast the strategies participants used as they completed this Internet inquiry project about a self-selected topic related to survival. The study involved only one researcher, the classroom teacher of the two selected student participants. Another researcher’s observations might differ from mine in this study, but my perspective is valuable due to the teacher student relationship I established with these students. Because of these relationships, my insights may be more valuable than an outside observer’s. Data and conclusions were examined by another individual to check that procedures were followed appropriately.

FINDINGS This section presents findings from the two cases about participant strategy use as they selected a topic, located information, and presented information using Internet and computer literacies. An explanation about what they did within each subcategory of the phases is also given. Following the cases is a section comparing the participant strategy use during each phase of the project.

44

JENNIFER THOMAS

Bobby’s Case The strategies Bobby used when selecting a topic related to survival include choosing a question or problem, and shifting his question, problem, or topic. Bobby thought about doing his project on cancer momentarily. In the end, he decided to research bear attacks. Bobby spent 1% of the allotted time for the project in the selecting a topic phase. Question or Problem Initially, Bobby selected his topic about bear attacks. On a brainstorm page, Bobby listed forest, survival instincts, camping, hiking, fireplace, and ghost stories as subtopics of bear attacks. Bobby’s reason for selecting bear attacks as his topic was, “I don’t think they are cool. It’s just that they’re not funny to joke around until you get attacked by one.” Shift in Question, Problem, or Topic During the first interview, Bobby explained that he was going to search “something entirely different now that I know … it’s hard to survive cancer because my aunt had cancer.” As he drifted from one search question to another, he may have been unsure about how to begin searching any topic online (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). I directed him to continue searching about bear attacks because cancer was too broad for the scope of this project.

Locating Information Bobby employed several strategies as he searched for information, including using a search engine, determining key words for searching, reading results, reading a webpage, evaluating information, checking the reliability of sites, reading print texts, and taking notes. Bobby spent 57% of the total time allotted for the project in the locating information phase. Bobby used Mozilla Firefox during each session to locate information. Planning the Search At the beginning of this phase, the only recorded plan Bobby made for searching was choosing a topic. He completed a student subject knowledge bubble map (Eagleton et al., 2003) to assist him in thinking about a possible topic.

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

45

Using a Search Engine Once Bobby decided that he was going to search for information about bear attacks, he used a search engine to locate information. He went to Google.com each day to begin his searches.

Determining Key Words As Bobby used Google.com to initiate his searches for information about bear attacks, he had to decide which key words he would use to locate information. In his first search recorded using the Camtasia Studio (2009) software, Bobby used bear attacks as his key words. Bobby clicked on the fourth site survive a bear attack from the search results page these key words yielded. While he was on this site, he clicked on a link at the bottom labeled Back to Hunting Rifles then he clicked back to return to the how to survive a bear attack site. On both the bear attack or hunting rifles site, he found the name Jack L. McSherry. Bobby used Jack L. McSherry as his key words to begin another search. He selected the first site titled Jack L. McSherry, III, Arctic Explorer on his search results page. After selecting this site, he clicked on several links at the bottom of the site and looked at a link’s page briefly. During his second recorded session, Bobby decided that how to cancer would be his key words. He scrolled through about half of search results page. Bobby clicked on site three titled about cancer, site two titled how to find resources in your own community national cancer, then clicked on site one titled questions and answers about cigarette smoking and cancer. He continued to look through the results page. He clicked on the 7th, 8th, and 10th sites listed on the search results page to get information about how to survive cancer. After this, I directed Bobby back to searching for information on how to survive a bear attack. Bobby decided to use how to survive and used the pull-down menu to select how to survive a bear attack as his key words for this search. When the results came up, Bobby clicked on site 5 titled how to survive a bear attack. He returned to the search results page and clicked on site 4 titled how to survive an encounter with a bear. Following this, Bobby clicked on site 7 titled bear attack survival guide the art of manliness. After clicking on site 7, Bobby continued clicking on sites 8, 9, 10, and 1, in that order, to find information about how to survive a bear attack. Bobby changed his key words to what is bear spray after using suggestions from the pull-down menu. He scrolled through his results and clicked on sites 5, 3, and 8, in that order.

46

JENNIFER THOMAS

During his third recorded session, Bobby needed some direction because he did not know what to do next. He knew his original question was how to survive a bear attack. I asked him what other information he needed to answer that question. Bobby decided that finding out where bears are located would help him begin to answer his question. Bobby went to Google.com and typed where bears are then selected where bears are located from the pull-down menu. He clicked on sites 4 and 5. While he was on site 5, he read the information out loud to himself. He changed his search terms to how to survive a polar bear attack and selected this phrase from the pulldown menu. He clicked on sites 7, 10, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 13, 18, 20, 29 and 33; he viewed site 13 twice. Using the same key words, how to survive a bear attack, but clicking on a link at the bottom of the Google.com page, Bobby continued his search. He clicked on site 2, then site 1, which contained graphic pictures of a man who had been attacked by a bear. Bobby clicked on sites 3, 4, 15, 20, 22, 7, 3, 31, 38, 47, 52, 56, 61, and 70 on the search results page. As he visited these sites, he looked at them briefly and almost immediately clicked back. Bobby continued looking at the search results page as a result of clicking on the link. He went to page 8 and further in his results as he clicked on sites 77, 86, 102, and 115. The next day’s search began with Bobby deciding to use how to survive a brown bear attack as his search terms. Scrolling through the results, Bobby clicked on sites 5, 1, 3, 7, 10, 9, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30, and 8 more past site 30. Again, Bobby clicked on each site, and immediately clicked back. He did not read much, if anything, on the sites he visited. For the last two searches, Bobby decided which pictures to use in his PowerPoint. Bobby went to Google images and typed grizzly then selected grizzly bear from the pull-down menu. Bobby was unable to come up with a title for a slide, so he asked me what to do. I told Bobby to look at sites that had facts about bears on them ones he had viewed in a previous day’s search. Bobby used the key words Alaska bear view, then selected Alaska bear viewing from the pull-down menu in an attempt to find the site he had visited in a previous day’s search. From this search results page, he clicked sites 2, 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 15, 18, 19, and 4 sites higher than 19. I redirected Bobby’s search because he was on the second page of his search results. He went back to Google and decided to use grizzly bear as his key words. The last day’s search began with Bobby going to Google.com and deciding to use grizzly bear from the pull-down menu as his key words to find images for his PowerPoint. He clicked on sites 6, 7, 9, 10, 18, 22, 35, 40, and 50 to find pictures. Bobby

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

47

decided to select at least one picture from these results to place in his PowerPoint. Reading the Results of a Search Reading results involves deciding which sites to view from a search results page. As Bobby decided which sites to read from his search results page, he employed various strategies. He selected key words, clicked on several sites, and decided whether or not to stay on the site, and clicked back. Bobby visited several sites to locate information for his project. Bobby visited 147 sites to locate information for his project, and 119 or 81% of them ended in the .com domain. The next closest were the sites that ended in the .org domain at 7%. Bobby’s pattern for locating information entailed going to Google.com, typing his key words, clicking on sites on the search results page, going to the site, then clicking back to return to a previous page or a search results page. During his first Camtasia Studio (2009) recorded search, Bobby clicked on several links from one particular site. Why he clicked on most of these links is unclear. In the interview, when he was asked why he clicked on so many different things he responded that he did not know. Reading a Webpage Throughout the project, Bobby spent little time reading a webpage once he opened it. For example, during his first recorded session, he stayed on each site for six minutes or longer. He spent from six minutes and nineteen seconds to eight minutes and twenty-one seconds (6:19 8:21) on the four sites during this session (i.e., 7:12, 7:28, 8:21, and 6:19). This was rare because he often opened a webpage then immediately clicked back once he opened it. Similarly, during his second recorded session, Bobby spent approximately 9:02 on a site reading about bear spray. After this, he spent approximately 2:02 on the bottom of this same page, then clicked on a link titled be bear aware month on the bottom of the website. He clicked the play button on a little movie screen, but nothing appeared in that screen. Bobby scrolled all the way to the bottom of the webpage. On the bottom of the screen, his mouse moved over a few links Awards, Photo Gallery, In the News, Center for Wildlife, but he did not click on any of them. He went to the upper left of the webpage, but he did not click on anything. He went back to the bottom of the webpage and continued moving his mouse over additional links Reading Room, Publications, Viewing/Photographing, but he did not click on any of them.

48

JENNIFER THOMAS

Evaluating Information Bobby had to utilize strategies to decide if the information on the sites he visited would answer his question. On at least one occasion he said, “I’m not trusting this site.” Another strategy Bobby used as he evaluated information was finding valuable information on a site. Bobby went to a site that listed details about a variety of bears weight, where they live, and general characteristics about each one. Bobby was fascinated with the differences in bears. He made a comment about the weight of one species and stated he did not know that there was a sloth bear. Checking Reliability Checking for reliability on sites is closely aligned with evaluating information. Bobby checked the reliability of a site as he attempted to find the author on the sites he visited. I instructed Bobby to get information from sites that were written by authors who were knowledgeable or experienced rather than getting information from sites written by someone less informed. On several occasions, Bobby scrolled to the bottom or near the bottom of the site to see if the site had an author. Bobby had to decide if he could trust the information on the site if an author’s name appeared somewhere on the site. Before he started researching, I instructed Bobby to look at the bottom of the websites he visited for an author. Next, he had to strategize about if he thought the information on the site would or would not help him with his project using the critically evaluating information page. Reading Print Texts During one day of searching, the participants were able to look at informational books on their topics. Bobby chose to look at an informational book about bears. It is not clear whether he used the information from the book as he organized his presentation. Taking Notes Bobby took notes on at least two occasions. Bobby wrote information on the critically evaluating information pages to assist him with future searches. Bobby also printed information from at least one site.

Presenting Information Bobby also used multiple strategies as he decided how to present his information. He considered his audience, addressed formatting, and applied

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

49

technical skill. Bobby spent 20% of the time allotted for the project in the presenting information phase. Considering Audience As the project was introduced, all students knew they would be presenting their final information to their peers and possibly their parents at the conclusion of the project. No field notes, Camtasia Studio (2009) recordings, interviews, or journals note that audience was a focus for Bobby as he completed the project. Formatting the Presentation Bobby carefully attended to the formatting of his PowerPoint presentation. He spent time changing the size of the font, choosing a background, deciding on the layout of the slide, editing his slides for spelling, and deciding on sounds or other effects to add to slides. Bobby was particularly interested in listening to possible sound effects he could add to his presentation. He was excited to hear the thunder sound effect. As he was listening to the sounds he remarked that he was angry he could not hear more. Applying Technical Skill Bobby continued to demonstrate his computer literacy as he formatted his PowerPoint presentation. Bobby knew how to minimize or maximize a program so that he could work with two screens. He knew how to copy and paste pictures from websites onto his PowerPoint slides. Bobby needed help changing the layout of one slide because the picture was taking up more space than he wanted. I helped him change the format of the slide so he would not have to continue cutting his pictures.

Strategies Used throughout the Project The strategies that Bobby used in each phase of the project were unique to that phase. Other strategies Bobby employed collaborating with peers, collaborating with the teacher, and expressing frustration were evident in more than one phase. Bobby spent 17% of the time allotted for the project collaborating and 3% of the time being frustrated. Collaborating with Peers Bobby’s ability to collaborate with his peers was a major strength for him. Bobby collaborated with his peers on numerous occasions. At the

50

JENNIFER THOMAS

beginning of the project, another student in the class was also searching for information on bear attacks. I placed this student next to Bobby so they could help each other. Bobby told this student to type “how to survive a polar bear or black bear attack and it will tell you different search terms.” During one day’s search, Bobby was talking out loud to himself as he searched for information about bear attacks. While Bobby looked at a picture of an injured bear, he explained to a peer that this bear had been attacked. Then together they looked at graphic pictures of a man who had been attacked by a bear. These pictures showed a lot of blood, some exposed bones, and torn flesh. In addition to Bobby’s ability to locate information online, his knowledge of PowerPoint was evident. Bobby felt confident with his knowledge of PowerPoint and assisted other students in the class as they organized their presentations. Because my knowledge of PowerPoint is limited, I occasionally asked the class for help. Bobby assisted at least two students in adding sounds to their PowerPoint presentations. Also, Bobby volunteered to help a student copy and paste slides into that student’s PowerPoint presentation. Another example of collaboration is that Bobby received help from or was distracted by other students in the class. On one occasion, Bobby’s neighbor told him he could scroll on the site with the lines on the track pad of his computer. Bobby was distracted by his peers at least six times during the project, as they were looking at a book, finding papers, noticing a low battery, or in other ways taking Bobby’s attention away from completing his project.

Collaborating with the Teacher When Bobby was unsure about what to do next, he frequently asked me to help him with the next step. Bobby often asked for clarification or reassurance as he tried to answer his question about surviving a bear attack. For example, he asked me how to find information about the author. Next, he asked if he should write down a site so he could potentially refer to it later. An example of reassurance came as he decided to narrow his topic. He asked me if he could focus his presentation on a grizzly bear attack. Also, he asked if he could add information from the pages he had printed into his PowerPoint. Lastly, he asked if he could start organizing a PowerPoint presentation after he searched for three days. Occasionally, Bobby asked me to spell words for him. For example, he asked me if grizzly was spelled correctly as he typed it on one of his slides.

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

51

In addition to Bobby asking for clarification or reassurance, he sometimes needed redirection. He was unsure about what information to put on his slides, so I told him to write about something interesting he learned about bears. Continuing with this strategy, he decided that he could type in a site he had visited previously and find information there. Perhaps he thought that doing this would help him find information for his slides. Expressing Frustration Frustration for Bobby, at times, was being unsure about what to do next, not knowing how to answer his question, or simply needing redirection. Additionally, indirect frustration may be inferred because Bobby did not locate information, answer his question, or know what to do on his own. He did know that asking questions or collaborating with a peer would help him complete his project. Oftentimes, frustration was a result of other strategies Bobby used. The frustration he experienced was not documented in detail. However, one aspect of frustration, not knowing what to do next, was evident several times throughout the project. An example of frustration that was documented is when Bobby completed a “critically evaluating information” page. He was not sure how some information on a website would help him with his project. He thought about it and realized it could help him because he learned that there are different kinds of bears. After he completed the page, he asked me what he should do next. I asked how he thought this site would to help him answer his question about how to survive a bear attack. I asked a follow-up question about different types of bears to help him think about what to do next. He decided that researching different types of bears would be beneficial.

Summary Bobby’s overall academic skills were low, which made school in general difficult for him. In addition to his low academic skills, Bobby was bullied at school. I was confident that Bobby would be able to complete the project with a lot of assistance. During the duration of this project, Bobby decided to search for information about bear attacks, although at one point he did think about researching how to survive cancer. As Bobby began to locate information, he employed an interesting strategy. He selected search terms without much assistance, but once he opened a website, he clicked back. He spent about nine minutes on one of the

52

JENNIFER THOMAS

many sites he visited. It was rare for him to spend a significant amount of time on most of the sites. Once Bobby did open a site, he did not read most of the information on the sites he visited, but he was able to locate enough information for a simple PowerPoint presentation. Even as Bobby selected sites from a search results page, he was not methodical in his choices. At one point, as he located information, he clicked on site 10, a few others, then site 1 from a search results page. On one occasion, he opened site 115 from a search results page. It is possible that he did this for any number of reasons. Some possibilities may be that the information was too difficult for him to read, he may not have known how the information on the site would help him answer his question, or he may not have known how to use the information if he could read it. Bobby did not ask me to read information on websites to him. For whatever reason, Bobby clicked and looked (Leu, personal communication, 2011) as he opened and closed websites without asking for assistance. Additionally, Bobby did not consistently check the reliability of the sites he visited. The information he used may not have been written by someone with expertise related to bears. When he was looking at a site that had information about different types of bears, I did correct some words as he read it out loud. On this site, he was interested in how much the bears weighed and the fact that there is a sloth bear. In analyzing how Bobby selected a topic, located information, and presented it, the most unexpected finding was that he collaborated with his peers. This was unexpected because his academic skills were low I never would have thought he would assist his peers with their projects. Bobby was especially helpful as his peers tried to add sound effects to their presentations. His peers most likely would not have asked him for help with other academic tasks, but because he felt comfortable using PowerPoint, Bobby was able to assist his peers. In addition to assisting his peers with their PowerPoint presentations, Bobby also shared information about his searches with peers next to him. When graphic pictures of a bear appeared after he opened a website, a peer and Bobby looked at the pictures and commented about how sad and disgusting they were. Bobby was frustrated at times because he often did not figure out what to do next on his own. He asked me questions about what to do next frequently. Although he successfully completed the project, he needed a lot of help from me and his peers to finish. In the end, Bobby’s low academic skills did not prevent him from successfully completing this Internet inquiry project. If I had told him to read a textbook to find answers about how to survive a bear attack, he probably

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

53

would not have had as much success. Based on my professional experience working with him, I knew that reading and comprehending printed texts was challenging for Bobby. With the Internet, however, Bobby was able to access more information; he did not have to rely upon words that were difficult for him to access. Bobby completed this literacy task because he knew how to access the mediums that were available.

Lily’s Case In contrast to Bobby, in the class project, Lily’s searches were more focused. She knew what she was doing from the beginning of the project. Lily did not jump around to various websites. Lily had a plan and stuck with it throughout the project. Because of this, information about what she did in each phase is not as detailed as Bobby’s.

Selecting a Topic Lily used several strategies as she selected a topic, including deciding on a question or problem, and shifting her question, problem, or topic. Lily spent 1% of the allotted time for the project in this phase. Lily decided to do her Internet inquiry project about the Titanic because she read a book that had facts at the end that got her interested. “And I’ve always liked the idea of it and like try to figure out what made it sink other than it hit an iceberg. And like why exactly they weren’t prepared. … It was just kind of like one of those mysteries no one could ever figure out, and I like them.” From the beginning of the project, Lily knew she wanted to research the Titanic. Question or Problem During this brief period of the project, Lily chose to research the question how long did it take for the Titanic to sink? Lily spent her search sessions looking for information related to the Titanic sinking. Shift in Question, Problem, or Topic Initially, Lily decided to research how the survivors of the Titanic got rescued. Her PowerPoint presentation, however, was titled How Long Did it Take the Titanic to Sink? While her question shifted slightly, her searches

54

JENNIFER THOMAS

related to the Titanic. She never replaced her question with a completely different topic.

Locating Information Lily employed strategies similar to Bobby’s as she located information online. She used a search engine, determined key words for searching, read results, read a webpage, evaluated information, checked the reliability of sites, read print texts, and took notes. Lily spent 63% of the total time allotted for the project in the locating information phase. Lily made plans for searching to find out how long it took the Titanic to sink. Related to the Titanic sinking, she looked for information about hypothermia because she read that more people died of that than drowning. At the end of her second search session, her plan for searching further was to find out more about how the Titanic was build. During her second interview, Lily indicated she was looking for maps of the inside of the Titanic, but she could only locate models and little pictures. Lily explained that she was going to look up other things that she had looked up previously because she felt she had exhausted her search possibilities for learning new information. Later in the interview, Lily talked about how she was trying to find a map of the inside of the Titanic; she analyzed the pictures on the site she visited. She knew from pictures of the actors on this particular site that they did not suffer from hypothermia. She commented that the people in the pictures were “chalky white with bags under their eyes. … Hypothermia is not supposed to do that. You are just supposed to start shaking really bad then you shut down. You’re not supposed to look like you came back from the grave.” This finding gave Lily some renewed curiosity. Next, Lily tried to find a map of Carpathia, the ship that rescued those who survived after the Titanic sank. She also wanted to find out when the Carpathia sank “because it sank a little while after the Titanic, on another voyage.” After this interview, she decided she had answered her project question. She started working on her PowerPoint presentation. Using a Search Engine Lily began each search session using Google.com as her search engine. Lily explained that she liked to use Google.com because “it is the easiest, I think. I trust it more because it’s a worldwide thing. It’s over in China

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

55

now. And it gives me more of the questions like at the bottom and they’re not really weird.”

Determining Key Words Lily’s strategy for determining key words was hindered by her inability to spell words accurately. Lily is intelligent, but spelling words correctly was challenging for her. First, Lily used how long did it take the Titanic to sink as her key words. Lily decided to find information about hypothermia in her next search. She used the key words how long does it take to die from hypothermia after using a choice in the pull-down menu to help her select the correct spelling of her key words. During her second recorded session, Lily decided to use titanic iceberg as her key words. Lily used a suggestion from the pull-down menu to help her select the correct spelling of her key words. Her success with this strategy appeared to motivate her to try it again because the next day’s search began with Lily selecting map of the Titanic as her search terms. Again, she used the pull-down menu to help her select the correct spelling of those key words. Continuing with this day’s search, she typed how did the Carpathia get to the Titanic befor the Californian as her key words. She noticed the phrase did you mean followed by how did the Carpathia get to the Titanic before the Californian, with before spelled correctly. Lily decided to click on that suggestion, thus using the whole question as her key words for the search. Lily changed her search terms again during this day’s search. Lily typed Californian the shipe that typed upthe deid as her key words. She noticed the suggestion at the top of her screen with the correctly spelled key words. She decided to click on was the Californian the ship that picked up the dead as her search terms. Later in her search, she typed map of the interyer inside of the titan as her key words. She used a suggestion from the pull-down menu with the correct spelling of Titanic in it. Lily used the phrase inside of the Titanic as her key words. Lily used Dr. Ballard and Dr. Elazar Uchupi’s map of the titanic for her search terms at the end of this session. She noticed the did you mean prompt again and selected one that did not have Dr. in front of Ballard. The next day’s Camtasia Studio (2009) capture shows that Lily used map of the inside of the titanic as her key words. She used the pull-down menu to select the correct spelling. Later in this day’s search, she tried to spell Carpathia, but she could not do it accurately. After a couple of attempts, I helped her spell it. Lily selected Carpathians map as her key words.

56

JENNIFER THOMAS

During Lily’s last search, she went to Google images and typed Titanic as her key words. From the pull-down menu she highlighted Titanic sinking as her key words to find images for her PowerPoint presentation. Reading the Results of a Search Reading results involved Lily deciding which sites to view after a list of sites appeared on a search results page. As Lily decided which sites to visit from the search results page, she employed various strategies. She selected her key words, clicked on several sites, then decided what she was going to read. Lily went to several sites to locate information for her project. Lily went to 33 sites to locate information for her project and 27 or 79% of them ended in the .com domain. The next closest web domain for the sites she visited was .org at 9%. She occasionally selected sites that were not helpful and quickly went to a different site. Reading a Webpage Lily’s pattern for reading a webpage was, first, deciding on search terms, second, scrolling through the results, and third, choosing sites that would answer her question. While she was on a site, she used strategies to determine if the information would answer her question. For example, she clicked off the site when she realized the information would not help answer her question. During an interview, Lily indicated that she got off cha-cha.com quickly because “it’s a texting site that you can ask questions to, so I thought maybe it could help, but it didn’t turn out very useful.” Recorded events show that Lily read information about how the survivors of the Titanic were rescued, the Carpathia, maps of the inside of the Titanic, hypothermia, the Californian, and expeditions to look at the sunken Titanic. Lily scrolled through the webpages, pausing to read the ones she thought would answer her question. Evaluating Information Students were required to complete the critically evaluating information page during the first few search sessions. I instructed Lily to write down the site she visited and decide if she could trust the information on the site. After this, she had to strategize about whether she thought the information on the site would answer her question. On the sheet where she wrote the most information, Lily decided she could trust the information on the site because “it’s mostly maps, and you can’t really fake those.” She thought the information on the site would help her answer her question because “it shows me where the Titanic went

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

57

and where it was supposed to go.” As Lily searched for information about how long it took the Titanic to sink, she went to Yahoo answers, but got off quickly. When I asked why she did not spend more time on the site she said, “I realized it was one of those things that anyone could add if they wanted and I got off.” During the second interview, as she watched a segment from Camtasia Studio (2009), she again indicated a site she visited was not useful, so she did not spend more time on it. I asked her why she went to wikianswers. com, or answers.com. She said she thought doing so would help her understand the text. Checking Reliability Lily checked the reliability of the information on sites as she scrolled to the bottom of at least three. She did this to find authors of the sites she visited. I wanted Lily to get information from sites that had credible information, rather than sites written by someone less informed. Checking sites for an author was an attempt to determine the reliability of the information on sites she visited. Reading Print Texts I provided informational books one day for students to use as they sought answers to their questions. Lily decided not to read any of the books that were available that day. Taking Notes I did not give Lily specific instructions about taking notes as she located information to answer her question. She did, however, take notes electronically and with a pencil and paper. She spent time writing down facts about the Titanic. When I noticed Lily was copying a chart from a website, I told Lily to print it. Lily did put some of the information from the chart on one slide in her presentation.

Presenting Information After Lily located information, she organized her presentation. Lily spent 26% of the allotted time for the project organizing her presentation. The rest of this section outlines what Lily did in terms of audience, formatting, and technical skill.

58

JENNIFER THOMAS

Considering Audience Lily knew she would present her final project to her peers and possibly to her parents at the conclusion of the project. As with Bobby, none of the data sources indicated Lily strategized about her potential audience as she completed the project. Formatting the Presentation Lily wanted to make her PowerPoint presentation look professional. She changed the font size, decided on the layout of the slide, and edited her slides for spelling. Lily did spend some time choosing a background by selecting a picture of the Titanic from the Internet. Applying Technical Skill Lily’s technical skills related to computers were evident as she worked on the project. Lily knew how to select a background, change the font size, use Spell Check, and copy and paste pictures from the Internet. She knew how to make the picture from the Internet fill the slide as the background. However, a peer assisted her as she adjusted the size of her picture and inserted a text box.

Strategies Used throughout the Project Strategies used in previous sections were only employed in individual phases of the project. Collaborating with her peers, collaborating with the teacher, and frustration were evident throughout the project. Lily spent 8% of the time allotted for the project collaborating with her peers and 1% being frustrated. Collaborating with Peers Lily spent a limited amount of time collaborating with her peers during the project. At the beginning, Lily shared some information about icebergs with her peers. She was interested in a peer’s search about candy and another peer’s search about sharks. Toward the end of the project, a peer helped her format a couple of slides in her PowerPoint presentation. Lily did not need much assistance from her peers to help her complete the project.

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

59

Collaborating with the Teacher Lily collaborated with me when she needed to know how to spell words. She used Spell Check on the computer, but when that did not yield the correct spelling or what she thought was close to the correct spelling, she asked for help. Expressing Frustration Lily was frustrated at the end of the project when the computers were not working. However, none of the data sources show that Lily was frustrated as she located, organized, or presented information. In terms of computers, one day was particularly frustrating as the Internet would not work and several students were unable to log in. Lily planned to finish her PowerPoint presentation that day, but was unable to because the computers did not work.

Summary Lily’s average academic skills were evident as she completed this Internet inquiry project. Lily had developed a love for reading and at the end of the year she no longer needed special education services to be successful academically. As Lily worked on this Internet inquiry project, she knew that she was going to research information about the Titanic. Each of her searches related to an aspect of the Titanic. Lily was especially fascinated with how icebergs have more under the water than above the surface. She also read information about hypothermia knowing some of the symptoms related to it. Maps of the inside of the Titanic and the Carpathia were part of her research as well. While Lily located information about the Titanic, it became clear that her inability to spell accurately was making her ability to search for information less efficient. Lily relied heavily on the pull-down menu and the Did you mean? prompt on Google.com to assist her in selecting search terms with the correct spelling. Without these tools, she would not have been able to search for information online because the correct spelling of search terms directly relates to the sites that appear on the search results page. Lily knew her spelling was poor, but strategized using the online tools to help her locate information. Even though spelling was difficult for Lily, she was able to evaluate websites quickly. She got off a site when she knew the information would not

60

JENNIFER THOMAS

answer her question. Lily spent time reading information on most of the sites she visited because she knew the information there was helpful. While Lily quickly determined that the information helped her answer her question, she did not check the reliability of most of the sites she visited. Once she located information about the Titanic, Lily organized her PowerPoint presentation. She made sure it was professional and neat. To complete this final portion of the project, Lily needed assistance from one of her peers as she formatted a picture. Overall, Lily completed the project without much assistance from her peers. She asked me how to spell words occasionally, but for the most part, Lily worked independently to complete the project. Spelling proved difficult for Lily, but she successfully completed this project. Lily knew which strategies to employ when spelling a word was difficult. Lily became frustrated when the computers did not work, but the project itself was not frustrating for her. She knew which sites would answer her question. Lily’s higher academic skills and general search strategies helped her be successful as she completed this project.

DISCUSSION Bobby and Lily approached the assignment differently, but each was able to demonstrate strategic thinking. Bobby did not have the research skills necessary to complete the project on his own, but he knew that collaborating and asking questions would assist him as he searched sites to complete the project. Even though he struggled to complete the project, his desire to complete it was strong enough to employ strategies to be successful. I gained greater admiration for Bobby because I was able to focus on the skills he had, rather than the ones he did not have (Farwick Owens et al., 2002). I began to view Bobby in a more hopeful light as I studied him throughout this project. Bobby did have skills, but they were often masked with the print-heavy tasks teachers assigned him. If Bobby had been able to use more technology in his science and history classes, he would have displayed an entirely different skill set to his teachers and peers, especially if those teachers had been able to watch him and talk to him as I was able to. By contrast, Lily did have the academic and research skills necessary to complete the project on her own, except for spelling. Lily’s entire project centered on the Titanic; she was focused from the beginning. Lily knew

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

61

how to locate information on a website (Baildon & Baildon, 2008; Kuiper & Volman, 2008). Not only was Lily able to locate information on a website, she successfully organized it in a PowerPoint presentation. Bobby and Lily’s skills were different, but they employed the strategies they needed to complete the project. Educators have to be comfortable with students approaching assignments in different ways. This study offers additional evidence that teaching students basic skill sets is not enough; that classrooms should be set up to allow students to approach assignments uniquely. This does not mean the environment becomes chaotic. Allowing varying approaches to assignments may be uncomfortable for some teachers, but students benefit because they learn to strategize and solve problems independently.

Using Internet Tasks with Marginalized Adolescents Adolescents have grown up in a digital world and have developed strategies for accessing information online. Whether or not these strategies are effective may depend on the task. Adolescents who are marginalized may not be able to consistently read a textbook in a science or history class, but they may know the strategies for locating information to complete a similar assignment online (Kuiper & Volman, 2008). On the other hand, “the reading ability required to locate information on the Internet may very well serve as a gatekeeper skill because you will be unable to solve the problem if you cannot locate information” (Leu et al., 2011, p. 7). Therefore, adolescents who do not have the skills to locate information may have a more difficult time completing assignments, finding information to solve a problem, or answering a question. Bobby might have needed constant assistance if I had assigned him a print text to read about bear attacks. However, Bobby successfully completed the project because he knew how to use the Internet and had some intuitive capabilities that enabled Bobby to feel like he could find the answer to his question. While Bobby might have struggled to an even greater degree if this assignment involved print texts only, Lily likely would have been able to complete this project using a print text because her reading skills were much higher than Bobby’s. New literacies can help those readers who have spent most of their academic lives struggling with print texts. However, adolescents who are marginalized may find online searching challenging because they may not know which information to focus on when they open a website (Coiro, 2005). Bobby’s searches are an example of this. He often opened a website, but

62

JENNIFER THOMAS

did not read information on it. No data, including the information from Bobby himself offer a definitive answer for why Bobby did not read the text, but it is likely that he did not realize that doing so would help him or that he did not expect to understand it. For marginalized readers, it may be wise or effective to limit the number of sites they can visit (Sutherland-Smith, 2002). On the other hand, Dalton and Proctor (2008) explain that limiting the number of sites in school for students may detrimental. I chose not to limit the sites Bobby and Lily could view because I wanted to analyze how they located information online using the entire Internet. Also, when I implemented this project informally with another group of students, I gave them a limited list of sites they could visit. I learned that this limited the answers they could find. I decided then that when I formally conducted this Internet inquiry project, I did not want to limit where they could search and locate answers. If I had limited them, I would not have been able to observe their struggles to use key words and implement strategies for dealing with the high volume of information available on the Internet. Also noteworthy is the role of collaboration for student success. Bobby and Lily each spent time sharing information about their searches with their peers and their peers seemed interested in their searches. On a couple of occasions, Lily shared aspects of her PowerPoint presentation. Although there might be opportunities for students to collaborate using web-based tools, the students were not aware of them and did not seek them out. They wanted to collaborate with peers that were in their class.

RECOMMENDATIONS While Internet inquiry presents benefits, especially for adolescents who are in marginalizing spaces like resource classrooms, challenges are evident. Incorporating new ideas into classrooms is difficult because it requires change, which is hard and uncomfortable initially. However, digital texts do not have to replace print ones (O’Brien, 2003). Incorporating digital and print literacies into curriculums will impact student learning for the better because the needs of students who struggle with digital or print texts will be met. In terms of online research, teachers need to provide assistance to specific students. For example, Lily had difficulty with spelling. Teachers can show students how to use the pull-down menu as they are typing terms into

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

63

Google.com. If a page of search results appears after incorrectly spelled search terms have been used, teachers need to show students the did you mean prompt at the top of the screen. These are spelling strategies students should know so they can search successfully when they are searching independently. They may not know if the spelling they are using is close to accurate or not, so typing the word into dictionary.com and listening to the pronunciation of the word may be a strategy they can use occasionally. Additionally, students similar to Bobby also need support as they complete online research. Bobby often did not know how to complete the next step of the project independently. Teachers have to mediate between assisting an entire classroom of students while providing time to work more intensively with students similar to Bobby. Finding a balance between these two aspects of teaching is challenging. Another aspect of online research that is challenging is developing a question that is searchable. Students should be guided to research topics that are interesting to them, but it cannot be assumed that their interest in a topic will sustain them. Regardless of the topic student research, they have to know how to gather information from reliable sources. Instructing students to locate the author on a site is a good place to start, but teaching them how to corroborate the information with other sources may ensure that the information is more accurate. Teaching students how to do this would require time and patience because students who are probably used to looking at one source would be guided to search another site to check for the same information. Offering true support requires efficient monitoring. In terms of teacher preparation, it would seem profitable to include discussions about how to monitor and support students in online learning situations. This monitoring needs to go beyond keeping the students away from distracting or inappropriate sites and encompass helping students articulate their thinking as they move forward with their work.

REFERENCES Agosto, D. E. (2002). A model of young people’s decision-making in using the web. Library & Information Science Research, 24, 311 341. Alexander, P. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 413 436. Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 189 202.

64

JENNIFER THOMAS

Baildon, R., & Baildon, M. (2008). Guiding independence: Developing a research tool to support student decision making in selecting online information. The Reading Teacher, 61, 636 647. Barone, D. M. (2004). Case-study research. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 7 27). New York, NY: Guilford. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Camtasia Studio. (2009). TechSmith (Version 6) [Computer software]. Okemos, MI: TechSmith. Retrieved from http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30 35. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214 257. Coiro, J., Malloy, J., & Rogers, A. (2006). Studying the new literacies of online reading comprehension among adolescents at risk to become dropouts. Paper 3 patterns of effective strategy use among adolescent online readers. Retrieved from http://www.newliteracies. uconn.edu/event_files/IES_NRC2006_symposium.pdf Conley, M. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the promise, what we don’t know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 84 106. Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and comprehension in the age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 297 324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Damico, J., & Baildon, M. (2007). Examining ways readers engage with websites during think-aloud sessions. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51, 254 263. Eagleton, M., & Guinee, K. (2002). Strategies for supporting student Internet inquiry. The New England Reading Association Journal, 38(2), 39 47. Eagleton, M., Guinee, K., & Langlais, K. (2003). Teaching Internet literacy strategies: The hero inquiry project. Voices From the Middle, 10(3), 28 35. Farwick Owens, R., Hester, J. L., & Teale, W. H. (2002). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-based learning and technology integration. The Reading Teacher, 55, 616 625. Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Moore, K. (2005). Designing responsive curriculum planning lessons that work (pp. 39 53). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Kuiper, E., & Volman, M. (2008). The web as a source of information for students in K-12 education. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 241 266). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61 78. Leu, D. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (2003). Developing insights: Using material and method frameworks for literacy instruction. In Effective literacy instruction K-8 implementing best practice (5th ed., pp. 24 59). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Rudell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570 1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Resource Students’ Use of Internet Inquiry

65

Leu, D. J., McVerry, G. J., O’Byrne, I. W., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett-Cacopardo, H., & Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5 14. Liu, L., & Johnson, D. L. (2004). Web-based resources and applications. Computers in the Schools, 21(3), 131 147. McNabb, M. L., Thurber, B. B., Dibuz, B., McDermott, P. A., & Lee, C. A. (2006). Conducting information research online. Literacy learning in networked classrooms: Using the Internet with middle-level students (pp. 57 77). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078 2091. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 96 107. Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 400 410. Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement for the commission on adolescent literacy of the International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/Position_Statements_ and_Resolutions/ps1036_adolescent.sflb.ashx O’Brien, D. (2001). At-risk adolescents: Redefining competence through the multiliteracies of intermediality, visual arts, and representation. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline. org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/obrien/index.html O’Brien, D. (2003). Juxtaposing traditional and intermedial literacies to redefine the competence of struggling adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/ lit_index.asp?HREF=obrien2/ O’Brien, D., & Scharber, C. (2008). Digital literacies go to school: Potholes and possibilities. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 66 68. Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31 41. Semali, L. M., & Pailliotet, A. W. (1999). Intermediality: The teacher’s handbook of critical media literacy. Oxford: Westview Press. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 55, 662 669. Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW classroom research: What path should we take? Educational Researcher, 45(7), 28 33.

This page intentionally left blank

BLENDED LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: THE NORTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL PUBLIC SCHOOL’S CO-TEACHING MODEL Amy Garrett Dikkers, Somer Lewis and Aimee L. Whiteside ABSTRACT Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to explore the Occupational Course of Study (OCS) program through blended learning courses offered through the North Carolina Virtual Public School. In this program, students take classes online with a virtual content area teacher and meet in a face-to-face setting with a certified special education teacher. Methodology/approach This chapter offers a practical exploration of the OCS program. Its intention is to offer insight into the perspectives of virtual teachers and face-to-face teachers and provide an understanding of how this type of blended learning has the potential to deliver high quality academic coursework targeted to meet individual learning needs.

Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 25, 67 93 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000027013

67

68

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

Findings This blended environment format is a viable method for helping highly qualified content area teachers and teachers with disabilities work together to meet the individual learning needs of students with disabilities. Research implications The OCS program is able to support large numbers of students who need transition services. Evaluation on this program reveals that collaboration between various educational professionals supports learning outcomes for students. Originality/value Many K12 districts offer alternative diplomas for students with exceptionalities, with a goal of preparing students for their transition to postsecondary employment and independent living. This chapter offers a practical description of this program for the benefit of other systems that may want to consider this model. Keywords: Co-teaching; occupational course of study; transition; students with disabilities; North Carolina Virtual Public School

INTRODUCTION Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001, which was the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, there has been a focus on who will teach students with disabilities, what they will be taught, and where that teaching will occur. A few years after NCLB became law the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 was realigned to fit with NCLB, particularly around the requirement of highly qualified teachers, performance indicators and goals, and appropriately rigorous assessments (United States Department of Education, 2007). Among other things, these acts required that all teachers of students with disabilities needed to be taught by highly qualified content area teachers. This requirement presented serious staffing issues in schools, since many special education teachers did not have licensure in the specific content areas they taught. As a response, more partnerships between content area teachers and special education teachers were necessary to meet the needs of the population and adhere to federal laws. Co-teaching was born. Another area of great federal interest beginning in the latter part of the 20th century was transition services for students with disabilities (Bassett & Kochhar-Bryant, 2006). Other political movements, especially

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

69

the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, aligned with the NCLB Act resulting in the growth of vocational programs or school-to-work based diplomas. A national focus on continuing to meet the needs of underemployed and unemployed youth led to the development of many work-training programs to provide them opportunities to become employed through school-business-community partnerships. Since the expiration of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act in 2001 and the expiration of the Workforce Investment Act in 2003, many programs have continued to receive federal funding to build connections between youth, especially those at risk of dropping out, with career and college opportunities after secondary school (Fernandes-Alcantara, 2012). As schools were still scrambling to meet the demands of the NCLB Act, the IDEA reauthorization, and the School-to-Work Act, national standards gained political traction. In 2009, a group of governors from states across the country met to discuss and establish consortia to create common curriculum standards. This was an effort to enhance rigor of education for all students, and allow students to “graduate high school prepared to succeed in entry-level careers, introductory academic college courses, and workforce training programs” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2015, n. p.). Current discussions at the federal level, including a January 2015 speech by United States Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, have centered on ensuring all students graduate from high school ready for both college and career. This renewed focus on helping all students be college and career ready is for the most recent impetus for schools and districts to re-engage with school-to-work transition programs for special education students. College and career ready efforts come at a time of a significant growth in K12 virtual schooling. Currently, 16% of K12 students are learning online across the country. As of 2014, 30 states offer online schools; 26 have statewide virtual schools; and five states require students to take an online class before they can graduate from high school (Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin, & Vashaw, 2014). Blended learning schools also are increasing, available in at least 24 states and the District of Columbia. “Many of these schools are charters, allowing them flexibility in how they serve their students. However, an increasing number of these schools are traditional public schools that are changing their teaching and learning models to better meet student needs and sometimes to cut costs” (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013, p. 5). The combination of these movements has impacted North Carolina specifically and ultimately led to the development of the Occupational Course

70

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

of Study (OCS) program at the North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS). The OCS program at the NCVPS meets at the intersection of (a) co-teaching to provide special education students with access to highly qualified content area teachers, (b) school-to-work transition programs, and (c) virtual schooling. The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and the NCVPS created a blended model specifically targeted to serve some students with disabilities where the special education teacher is in the brickand-mortar school with the students and the content area teacher is online.

OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTER This chapter discusses the NCVPS OCS program, providing insight into the model from the perspectives of virtual content area teachers and faceto-face (f2f) special education teachers in the program. With certain supports in place for all stakeholders, we contend that this blended learning model has great potential to serve the needs of a specific population of students. Supports provided for f2f special education teachers, virtual content area teachers, and students are needed to capitalize on the power of the blended learning environment to bolster student success, help them obtain graduation from high school, and prepare them to transition to a career outside of school. This chapter provides a brief discussion of the need for more research about online learning and students with disabilities. It then makes three elaborations: blended learning, co-teaching as a model for special education and content area teacher collaboration, and school-to-work transition programs for students with disabilities in order to provide context for the specific program used in North Carolina. After reviewing this literature, we present aspects of our research with the teachers in the North Carolina Virtual School’s OCS program to provide their perspectives on benefits and challenges of this blended model and support structures that can be utilized in blended settings to enable success and graduation for students with disabilities.

The Need for More Research in Online Settings about Students with Disabilities As virtual opportunities for K12 students continue to expand across the country, so do online learning opportunities for students with disabilities.

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

71

However, research is still needed to confirm or deny the benefits for these students and the structures needed to help them be successful. Early reviews of online learning literature for students with disabilities, such as Kinash, Crichton, and Kim-Rupnow (2004), found only how-to information, or descriptions of products and programs, with the only research represented through conference papers or editorial pieces. Technological innovation and technical specifics were at the forefront of information provided to educators, and discussions of online pedagogy for students with disability were nonexistent. Information such as this was clearly not helpful as educators worked in the early 2000s to respond to the bevy of mandates around the education and transition of students with disabilities. Several years later Vasquez and Serianni (2012) provided another review of online learning literature as perspective for K12 students with disabilities. They began with a brief historical review of the distance education effectiveness research, and moved on to discuss the limited research on K12 online instruction, focusing on student learning outcomes. Further they reviewed research around factors contributing to student success and online learning for students with disabilities specifically. They found meaningful implications for the growth of online learning for rural schools and districts, which often have to serve diverse populations of students with limited resources. Vasquez and Serianni contend that online learning can expand options for rural students, especially students with disabilities. The purpose of Vasquez and Straub (2012) was to identify more recent empirical literature related to K12 online learning for students with disabilities and to determine if the information available was adequate to provide educators with enough to develop programs to serve those students’ needs. Ultimately, 43 articles were reviewed, and only 6 were identified as empirical studies, all using quasi-experimental designs. Vasquez and Straub (2012) discussed each of those six articles in depth, concluding there is not enough information to predict the effectiveness of online instruction for students with disabilities. “Further research must be established to bolster the level of evidence-based online instruction methods and to demonstrate the impact of instruction for the new generation of students with disabilities learning in online environments” (p. 38). Vasquez and Straub (2012) concluded that there was need for further empirical research in many areas: best practices for teaching online; need for standards and requirements for online teaching; greater understanding of the characteristics that lead to student success and provide remediation to students who need it; inclusion of more interaction opportunities

72

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

between f2f students and virtual ones; and specifically how to strengthen the learning experiences for low-achieving students. The project at NCVPS responds to this call by encouraging online and f2f teachers to make decisions based on what is best for special needs students one teacher understands the learning disability, the other specializes in content both are working together to individualize learning for that particular student, using a cadre of best practices in both the online and f2f world. Our research with the OCS program seeks to unpack the model, understand the unique roles of f2f and virtual teachers in the partnership, and provide perspective for schools, districts, and states that may consider developing similar programs in their own contexts.

Rationale for the NCVPS Blended Learning Model A major reason that blended learning was the chosen mode of instruction in the NCVPS for the OCS school-to-work transition program because it was deemed the best way to meet the demands of accessibility and content focused teaching. These twin demands also lent themselves to co-teaching models. This section focuses on virtual learning, co-teaching within blended learning, and the content demands of school to work. Making Online Learning Accessible for All Students There are multiple federal laws in place that require students with disabilities have the same opportunities as students without disabilities, including access to equal education, receiving the same information and having the same opportunities to engage with the educational content, their instructors, and their peers. This accessibility should also carry over into virtual learning. However, accessibility to online education for students with disabilities remains limited. The Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (2012) reported what it called significant concerns about the current state of participation in online learning for students with disabilities. Their concerns include an awareness of inconsistent policies across states and within states regarding the roles and responsibilities for serving needs of students with disabilities in online and blended learning environments (n. p.). The latest annual report of the status of online education across the United States by the Evergreen Education Group echoes this concern. Accessibility of digital learning for students with disabilities is not a new issue, but it is gaining attention from observers who are concerned that a substantial portion of the

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

73

digital content and tools available to K-12 students and schools today does not meet legal requirements to provide equal access for all students. (Watson et al., 2014, p. 70)

A lack of consistent policies has also contributed to a continued conflict between accessibility and Universal Design for Learning (UDL), with “major gaps in basic accessibility” (n. p.) and a specific lack of focus on UDL (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2012, n. p.). The principles of UDL are considered by many to be the gold standard for online instructional design and curriculum development. The principles are providing multiple means of 1. Representation (ways for students to access materials); 2. Action and expression (opportunities to demonstrate knowledge and skills); and 3. Engagement (methods of connecting with the content, instructors, and peers in the course) (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2015). However, there is no universal agreement on what utilizing the principles means for teaching practice. Additionally, in a co-teaching situation where one partner is teaching virtually, UDL offers little guidance on how to direct the daily interactions between special educators, virtual content educators, students, and their families. Smith and Basham (2014) provide an overview for practitioners of how to determine accessibility of online content for students with disabilities, in order for them to identify which blended or online learning opportunities may be effective for their students. These researchers provide a clear explanation of asynchronous versus synchronous learning, classifications of blended learning based on Staker and Horn’s (2012) definitions, and an overview of the growth in K12 online and blended learning in the United States. In addition, they detail content provided by some vendors for online learning, especially for credit recovery for struggling students. Smith and Basham’s primary purpose, however, was to “highlight limitations of current standards and discuss alignment with the principles of universal design for learning (UDL)” (p. 128). They do so through a provision of details regarding accessibility guidelines, cautioning the reader to not equate accessibility with usability, concluding, “If students with disabilities are to succeed in the blended and fully online K12 instruction, accessibility from a physical, sensory, and most important, cognitive or learning perspective is imperative” (p. 136).

74

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

Although K12 online learning opportunities are expanding for all students, including students with disabilities, teacher-training programs rarely provide preparation for teaching online courses for regular education students (Archambault, 2011; Kennedy & Archambault, 2011, 2012). Often “the special preparation in the unique competencies required to provide online instruction to students with disabilities is often totally absent” (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2012, n. p.). As a response to this dearth of understanding about pedagogy for students with disabilities online, Greer, Rowland, and Smith (2014) provided teachers and parents of students with disabilities with an understanding of the implications and possibilities of online and blended learning. Starting with an overview of traditional online and blended learning, then detailing the growth in online and blended opportunities for all students, the authors discuss development and delivery of K12 online curriculum by various vendors, the role of competency-based learning online, and common misunderstandings about online learning. Even so, these understandings are incomplete without attempts to more comprehensively describe who is in an online or blended learning program, what happens there, and how educators, students, and families are affected. For example, parents often operate as learning coaches and even de facto teachers. Parents and teachers alike must be aware of the content offered to their students and modify that content, “provid[ing] innovative ways of learning material, and suggest[ing] alternate ways to show what their child knows” (Greer et al., 2014, p. 83). In schools and districts where online and blended learning materials come prepackaged from vendors or through software programs, this level of personalization may not be possible. One major benefit of the NCVPS OCS program is the partnership between the virtual content teacher and the f2f special education teacher as they work together to identify how to best adjust the teacher-created content to meet the needs of individual students. Additionally, NCVPS virtual content area teachers are required to make regular synchronous contact with their virtual students and weekly phone or email contact with parents of their students (North Carolina Virtual Public School [NCVPS], 2013, p. 6). This continued parental involvement in the partnership between virtual and content area teachers allows further extension of student learning to the home environment. Innovative methods of teaching and learning can lead to more personalized instruction to meet the needs of students. Greer et al. (2014) provide teachers in online and blended classrooms with information regarding supplemental resources that allow them to further personalize learning for

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

75

their students with disabilities. In conclusion, the authors contend that teachers of students with disabilities need to “connect the old to the new” and remember their effective practices of explicit instruction and accommodating text as they shift to online instruction for the same population of students. These recommendations underscore the need to see what happens in an actual blended program as educators work to follow principles of effective instruction that are grounded in accessible personalized explicit teaching of content. It is within this intersection of virtual schooling, co-teaching between a special education and general education teacher, and school-to-work transition programs where we situated our research in the NCVPS OCS program. We endeavored to uncover whether and how virtual schools can partner with brick-and-mortar schools to provide opportunities for growth and experiences for certain groups of students with disabilities. Co-Teaching Co-teaching, defined as collaboration between a special education teacher and a general education classroom teacher in one classroom, is a common practice to meet the requirements of IDEA and NCLB that students are taught in the least restrictive environment, as listed above. Co-teaching as a model is perhaps more widespread in elementary classrooms than secondary ones. Several studies of co-teaching at the elementary level have identified benefits of co-teaching (Austin, 2001; Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2004; Walther-Thomas, 1997). Challenges to co-teaching include confusion regarding roles of the partner teachers. The special education teacher often identifies as being knowledgeable in teaching strategies; the content area teacher identifies as the content expert (Bulgren et al., 2006). The challenge is discovering a balance where both teachers are seen as experts and feel equally important to the education of the students (Austin, 2001; Bulgren et al., 2006; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002). Another important challenge for co-teaching is that teachers, especially at the secondary level, often have a lack of shared planning opportunities (Keefe & Moore, 2004). Ideally, the partner teachers should be meeting regularly, jointly developing curriculum, planning instruction, and identifying alternative appropriate assessment measures. There is little research regarding co-teaching at the secondary level. However, there is a small amount of research that identifies secondary teachers struggle with co-teaching more than elementary school teachers do (Keefe & Moore, 2004; Rice & Zigmond, 2000).

76

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

The research on co-teaching as a model for special education establishes benefits, demonstrates success at the elementary level, and provides guidance for schools and districts regarding procedures to put in place to support teacher collaboration. A clear extension of co-teaching is from the f2f mainstream or special education classroom, where content area and special education teachers work together, to a blended learning environment where the modality shifts, but members of the partnership remain the same. School-to-Work Transition Programs Blended learning also opens space for meeting school-to-work requirements. North Carolina’s OCS program is designed to provide students with the skills and experiences to help them transition to a career after graduation from high school. We provide a brief overview of the focus on schoolto-work transition programs in United States schools, standard program models, and the limited research on whether the programs actually contribute to career success for students with disabilities. With the passage of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, many schools and districts worked to develop models to provide school-to-work activities in their organizations. Many different models emerged, with school-based learning components, work-based learning components, and connecting activities. The degree of the school or work focus often is the center of the models, which Unger and Luecking (1998) categorize into five approaches: career academies, cooperative education, tech prep programs, youth apprenticeships, and school-based enterprises. Local schools and districts select transition models for variety of reasons and are able to utilize many methods to meet needs of specific groups of students. Unger and Luecking (1998) contend that students with disabilities have been historically underrepresented in these early school-to-work programs and need advocacy specifically geared toward increasing their participation in such opportunities. Their article provides recommendations for special educators, students with disabilities, and their parents for increasing participation in school-to-work activities, including seeking representation on planning and governance teams, working to get employer participation, sharing what works with others in order to advocate for all students with disabilities, and creating formal linkages to postsecondary options (p. 99). Examining outcomes of various school-to-work models as a whole, Shandra and Hogan (2008) provide a longitudinal view of participants in different programs and how that participation impacted their long-term employment. They utilize data from the National Longitudinal Survey of

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

77

Youth in 1997 (NLSY97) and determine that school-based programs set the foundation for more stable employment and full-time work while work-based programs “increase the likelihood that youth with disabilities will be employed in jobs that provide fringe benefits” (p. 117). Shandra and Hogan identify seven types of school-to-work programs, slightly different from those introduced by Unger and Luecking (1998), including job shadowing, mentoring, cooperative education, school-sponsored enterprise, technical preparation, internships, and career majors. Fifty-two percent of students with disabilities surveyed through the NLSY97 (n = 2,254) participated in some sort of school-to-work transition program. All programs resulted in positive employment outcomes for students with disabilities. For example, participation in a cooperative education program combining academic and vocation training with a job in a related field was “positively and significantly associated with annual income, full-time work, holding a job with employer-offered health insurance, and the receipt of paid sick days” (p. 124). School-to-work programs seem to smooth the transition for students with disabilities, although Shandra and Hogan note different rates of employment for students depending on the severity of their disability and encourage researchers to consider demographics of the student population in the reporting of future research on the effectiveness of school-towork transition programs. It seems from the limited research in the area that school-to-work transition programs have the potential to provide opportunities to help students with disabilities become career ready. Encouraging participation widely across schools, districts, and states and meeting the needs of students with different levels of disability continues to be a challenge. However, while limitations exist, there are promising possibilities created by this blended learning model combining a school-to-work transition focus with co-teaching by a virtual content area teacher and f2f special education teacher. Learning online gives students access to a wide array of resources that otherwise may not be available in their brick-and-mortar schools. Also, online learning provides students with a broader range of experiences which could improve their future employment by helping them develop technology skills deemed beneficial by employers.

Exploring the NCVPS OCS Model The remainder of this chapter discusses the NCVPS OCS program, providing insight into the model from the perspectives of virtual content area

78

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

teachers and f2f special education teachers in the program. With certain supports in place for all stakeholders, we contend that this blended learning model has great potential to serve the needs of a specific population of students in North Carolina and potentially in other places. However, supports provided for f2f teachers and virtual teachers are needed to capitalize on the power of the blended learning environment to bolster student success, help students obtain graduation from high school, and prepare them to transition to a career outside of school. Situating the NCVPS OCS Program Historically The North Carolina General Assembly established the NCVPS in 2005 and the first online courses were offered in the summer of 2007. Teachers for the NCVPS are required by the State Board of Education to hold a current state teaching license, and to complete 18 weeks of nonpaid training and professional learning, which consists of a nine-week online course and a nine-week practicum with an NCVPS mentor or coach, prior to being offered a part-time position (North Carolina Virtual Public School [NCVPS], 2014). “During the coursework, potential teachers learn NCVPS policies, procedures, expectations, how to work within an LMS, NCVPS Instructional Design Principles (e.g., Universal Design for Learning, Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, High Five Process), and best practices for teaching through communication, grading and feedback, announcements, and personalized instruction” (North Carolina Virtual Public School, 2014, n. p.). The experience is designed to introduce teachers to all aspects of online learning, as well as experience an online course as a student themselves. The practicum works similar to a student-teaching experience, where the prospective teachers collaborate with their mentor teachers and gradually take on more responsibilities in the online class. Prospective teachers are also required to achieve a level of mastery on a postassessment, which also models the experience of NCVPS students. Since 2007, NCVPS has experienced tremendous growth with 104,799 course enrollments during the 2013 2014 school year. This represented an annual increase of 11%, making it the second largest state virtual school in the country (Watson et al., 2014, p. 27). Depending on the semester, there are anywhere from 500 to 700 teachers working in the NCVPS, the majority of whom live in North Carolina, with approximately two-thirds of those teachers holding other positions in education, as f2f teachers, administrators, or district office personnel (T. Weeks, personal communication, March 25, 2015).

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

79

On top of the requirements from NCLB that all special education students be taught by teachers highly qualified in content areas, in November 2009, the federal government informed the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction that it was out of compliance with serving the needs of exceptional children by offering a life skills curriculum, which was taught to certain students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities (M. Lourcey, personal communication, March 25, 2013). Instead of providing students with a life skills curriculum, the federal government required all students with exceptionalities to be enrolled in content courses that were aligned with the standard course of study or typical graduation requirements of the state. Programs that addressed these needs were to be in place by fall 2010. As a response to these mandates, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction worked with the NCVPS to create the blended learning OCS program. This program included workforce training and internship hours, focused on transition after graduation, and offered content area classes in a blended learning environment. The blended learning co-teaching environment addressed the NCLB Act mandate that all students with disabilities be taught by a highly qualified content area teacher, while allowing that maintenance of close contact and instruction with the special education teachers who best knew the specific learning needs of the students. Originally, the NCVPS only offered traditional semester-long courses; the blended learning OCS program began with a pilot in fall 2010. Enrollment in the OCS program grew from about 500 seats in 2010 to over 5,000 seats in Fall 2013 and 7,500 seats in Spring 2015. Since there are only 2,500 documented OCS students in North Carolina as a whole, these enrollment figures show the majority of OCS students in North Carolina are served in some way by the NCVPS blended learning program and many students are taking all of their OCS coursework through NCVPS and continued growth is projected making this program the fastest growing program at the NCVPS (M. Lourcey, personal communication, March 20, 2015). Evaluations of the OCS program have deemed the program successful at meeting the needs of students with disabilities, so much so that within two to three years, the NCVPS expects to develop similar blended learning options to support special needs students who are mainstreamed into traditional classes (M. Lourcey, personal communication, March 20, 2015). The hallmark feature of the NCVPS OCS program is that it blends online content provided by a virtual content area teacher with f2f instruction by the OCS special education teacher. The program “allows students

80

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

to work at their own pace and receive a high level of individualized instruction from two NC certified teachers” (North Carolina Virtual Public School, 2013, n. p.). The f2f special education teacher works closely with the virtual content area teacher to determine instructional needs for the OCS students. In fact, Michelle Lourcey, Chief Academic Officer of NCVPS, reiterates that the NCVPS OCS model puts the f2f special education teacher in the “driver’s seat” and situates the virtual area content area teacher as support (personal communication, March 20, 2015). Another much touted feature of the program is its flexibility. In some cases, OCS students have little direct interaction with the virtual teacher; instead their f2f teacher utilizes the virtual content provided in multiple modalities to instruct his/her students. In others, the virtual content teacher and the f2f Special Education teacher collaborate, plan together, and both maintain high levels of contact with the students. In essence, the schools and districts have total control over how and what they implement from the OCS blended learning program through NCVPS. Who Are the OCS Students? OCS students all have documented disabilities and Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). Some students have Autism Spectrum disorders, others have moderate cognitive disabilities, and others have specific learning disabilities. Perhaps, the best way to understand the specific students served in the program is by hearing the descriptions of their teachers many of which also describe the value of the OCS program for the students. The following quotes are from our October 2014 anonymous online survey of special education and virtual teachers in the OCS blended learning program. We present them in their entirety because they provide a view of the vast differences amongst the population of students served by the OCS program: • My OCS students are being served in the Exceptional Children’s Program. They have a post-school outcome goal for employment (not college) after graduation. They have post-school needs that are different from the NC Standard Course of Study. They are students who wish to pursue a course of study that provides functional academics and hands-on vocational training. • My students are within the mild to moderate cognitively disabled range and some with [special education] issues. They learn best with a curriculum that is highly visual, engaging and allows them to modify the pace and content. • My students are identified as exceptional children in multi-handicapped, [severe learning disabled], [other health impaired] and [mild development disabled]. They are significantly below grade level.

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

81

• My students are OCS that is they are working towards completing their high school education by a curriculum that has been adjusted for them they have core academics, and they are to complete work hours all readying them to graduate high school and find employment.

Teachers described their students as having a range of learning disabilities from being severe learning disabled or other health impaired to reading significantly below grade level. It is important to note this wide range of disabilities because these students differ greatly in their abilities to engage with content. This shows the massive amount of individualization that must take place for students to grow, as well as the range of disabilities that could be present in one classroom for one teacher, suggesting the potential benefit of having a content expert online. In the same survey, NCVPS virtual content area and f2f special education teachers also provided us with explanations as to why their students in the OCS program needed something different from the traditional public school. Representative answers are listed below. • Some of these reasons may include aptitude, behavior, or both. These students are students that may or may not go on to secondary education but will be functioning adults that hold a job. • OCS students are students who have learning disabilities that require individualized instruction. They have a wide range of capabilities from low to non-readers, to [Learning Disabled] in written expression. • My students have difficulty understanding concepts and need more individualized instruction to meet their goals and objectives.

Teachers talk about students having difficulty understanding concepts, needing more individualized instruction, and needing help meeting their goals and objectives to be functioning adults who can hold down a job after high school graduation. Transition programs at each school or district may utilize different models as discussed above; however, the commonality in North Carolina is that students in the OCS study all work toward a special diploma that maintains the integrity of the course requirements for all students in the state, but also recognizes their workforce training. Chief Academic Officer of NCVPS, Michelle Lourcey, discusses the value of the OCS model, stating, “I have seen that the power of teaching in face to face [environments] can be replicated in the online environment and we have great success with students with disabilities. Most state virtual schools run from students with disabilities because they don’t want to deal with that population, whereas we really embrace that population” (personal communication, March 25, 2013). Our research and this chapter

82

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

provide a glimpse into the NCVPS OCS model specifically and the potential of blended learning for students with certain disabilities.

Summarizing Our Research of OCS Since the spring of 2011, our research team has conducted multiple studies with the general population of students and teachers in the NCVPS. OCS virtual content area and f2f special education teachers, as well as OCS students, have participated in several anonymous online surveys throughout the five years of our research. Table 1 provides a brief summary of all our team’s research with the NCVPS to date. We summarize the key findings from this body of work, using the topics of blended learning benefits and challenges for students with disabilities, roles of f2f and virtual teachers in the blended model, and the potential for co-teaching in the following sections. We conclude with a discussion of ways to extend the model, as well as recommendations for NCVPS and other schools and districts looking to blended learning as a solution for serving the needs of specific groups of students.

Table 1. Population

Date

Teachers

March 2011

Students Administrators, teachers, students

April 2012 May 2013

Administrator, virtual academy coordinators, students Students Teachers

July 2013

March 2014 October 2014

Summary of NCVPS Research. Context of Study and Response Large-scale survey of all virtual NCVPS teachers (n = 214), follow-up focus groups (n = 7), and phone interviews (n = 5) Large-scale survey of all NCVPS students (n = 220) Case study of North Carolina’s Performance Learning Centers, including interviews with administrators (n = 3), focus group with teachers (n = 9), and a survey of students (n = 63) Case study of one district’s use of NCVPS courses for summer school, including interview with a district administrator (n = 1), interviews with virtual academy coordinators (n = 5), and a survey of students (n = 41) Large-scale survey of all NCVPS students (n = 1,588) Large-scale survey of all OCS virtual and f2f NCVPS teachers (n = 225; virtual: n = 65; f2f OCS: n = 144; did not answer: n = 16)

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

83

FINDINGS Throughout this chapter, we use data and quotes from OCS virtual and f2f teachers to provide perspectives of these important stakeholders. Their responses help develop an understanding of how blended learning has the potential to provide high quality academic coursework targeted to meet the individual learning needs of some students with disabilities. In an education environment that is increasingly using technology-enhanced, blended, and online learning, teachers need to be prepared to work across modalities to best serve the needs of their students. We start with the voice of these students as it provides context for the greater discussion of necessary support structures and recommendations for the model in the future.

Benefits and Challenges of Online Learning for At-Risk Youth and OCS Students Multiple surveys of K12 at-risk students at the NCVPS, which include OCS students as part of the population, yielded the same results. Students consistently identified Working at Their Own Pace and the Ability to Work Ahead as significant benefits, and Responsibility and Time Management as significant challenges of online learning (Lewis, Whiteside, & Garrett Dikkers, 2014). See also Providing Chances for Students to Recover Credit: Is Online Learning a Solution? in this volume for more information about the research team’s at-risk student research, overall. While students appreciated the opportunity to work ahead and at their own pace, they saw it as a challenge to be responsible for their own learning and manage their time. One student noted the following: “You always have your work with you, and can do it at any time.” Another student pointed out that “staying on task and turning in work on time” was a challenge. These results align with Hurley (2002) who found that students had problems completing assignments in an online environment because of the flexibility they had in their online courses (Lewis et al., 2014). Similarly, Archambault et al. (2010) identified lack of self-motivation and engagement and the need to develop students’ time management skills as major challenges for at-risk populations. OCS f2f special education and virtual content area teachers also identified Time Management (56.48%) and being Responsible for their Own Learning (47.69%) as significant challenges for their students. Even with these challenges, OCS students surveyed in March 2014 also overwhelmingly identified the Opportunity to Graduate as a significant

84

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

benefit of their participation in the OCS blended learning program through NCVPS (56.87%). This is a significant finding since one primary purpose for the development of school-to-work transition programs was to help students identify a purpose in school leading to career, and therefore keeping them engaged and enrolled in school. The third most identified challenge for OCS students was Technology Issues (39.51%). OCS f2f and virtual teachers were even more aware of this challenge, with 70.83% of teachers in the October 2014 survey stating this was a challenge for their students. Students report most of the ways they deal with their challenges as getting help from both virtual and f2f teachers, having in-school technicians who are able to assist with technological difficulties, getting assistance from their fellow students, and taking more responsibility for themselves, with one student summarizing, “[I] just have to regroup and take time to learn.” The f2f special education teachers and virtual content area teachers need to be aware of the constraints of online learning for their students and work with them to build their self-efficacy. This allows students to get to the point where they feel confident in their abilities to take on a challenge and figure out how best to address it, rather than disengaging, giving up, or continuing to struggle. OCS f2f and virtual teachers agree that Working at their Own Pace is a benefit for OCS students (75.1%); however, they also overwhelmingly agreed that direct interaction with the f2f teacher (80%) and the online teacher (65.58%) was also beneficial to students. Virtual content and f2f special education teachers saw their involvement in their students’ learning to be vital to their success, although it is interesting to note that direct interaction with the f2f special education teacher was seen by more teachers in both categories to be key to student learning. Two representative quotes are presented below that show views teachers have of their own roles in the co-teaching, blended learning model. • The success of our OCS students depends a great deal on the face-to-face teacher. We do much of the organizing of materials and time management for them. We also walk many of them through the material. (Face-to-face special education teacher) • [I use a] variety of [interactive] teaching tools, direct feedback on assignments, reviews for those that did not master an assignment, email contact to encourage and support, [and] collaboration with [the] face-to-face teacher on motivational and academic strategies. (Virtual content area teacher)

Through these two quotes alone, one can see that the success of the blended learning model depends to a large extent on the teachers’ perceptions, role definition, and collaboration. One challenge teachers face is

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

85

identifying roles within the co-teaching partnership; this is a challenge we discuss below as it connects with the supports teachers detail they have had and would like to have for co-teaching.

Roles of F2F and Virtual Teachers in OCS Coursework Virtual content teachers and f2f special education teachers take on multiple roles in the OCS program. Each individual school and district can choose to use the NCVPS or not, although the majority of the OCS students in the state are served in some way by the NCVPS program (M. Lourcey, personal communication, March 25, 2013). Likewise, schools and classroom teachers can choose to use any part of an OCS blended class or all of an OCS blended class. Additionally, support mechanisms in school buildings may differ; for example, some f2f students are supported by a special education teacher and others may complete coursework in a lab monitored by a lab teacher who may not hold special education credentials. There are many different ways that schools and districts can use the program. What educators in this school say is helpful for students served by the OCS program, regardless of how their school utilizes the courses, is that NCVPS content area teachers design OCS courses with UDL in mind, aligning with the literature focusing on the value of the principles of UDL (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2015). All courses focus on a balance of rigor and relevance (Lourcey & Fetzer, 2013), and include opportunities to engage learners in multiple modalities. NCVPS virtual content area teachers in the OCS program are expected to continually enhance their own teaching through understanding IEP guidelines, participating in bimonthly meetings, and completing professional development and training, especially regarding differentiation (Lourcey & Fetzer, 2013). Teachers in both modalities do see themselves playing a significant role in coaching, advising, providing direct instruction, and facilitating learning for the students in the OCS program. Direct interaction between the virtual teachers and their OCS students can be limited, although it depends on the teacher partnership. Some schools and districts utilize the OCS program as a true collaborative, coteaching endeavor, with a f2f special education teacher paired with the NCVPS virtual content teacher. Within any individual classroom, teachers may have different views on the partnership and collaboration. Sometimes the virtual content teacher may take the lead with instructional and curriculum decisions. Additionally, “when lessons are too overwhelming, [the

86

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

face-to-face special education teacher] may modify or change things to best serve [their students’] needs” (Face-to-face special education teacher, survey response). Other schools may have OCS students accessing virtual coursework through a lab setting, with a lab coordinator or teacher liaison supporting the students in the brick-and-mortar school. One NCVPS virtual content area teacher discussed having limited direct contact with students, instead working with the teacher liaison. However, depending on the partnership and negotiation of the roles of the virtual and f2f teachers, some virtual content area teachers do have more direct contact with the students, albeit after the traditional school day since most virtual teachers are also f2f teachers by contract and not allowed to contact their virtual students during the school day when they are at their brick-and-mortar schools. One f2f special education teacher described her experience with the virtual teacher as a great partnership where the virtual teacher messaged students throughout the semester and was even able to come to the school building to meet the students and make that personal connection with them (L. Pridgen, personal communication, February 17, 2015). Another f2f special education teacher stated in a survey response, “OCS teachers online have been awesome to work with and are very understanding. They offer lots of support to the students as well as myself.”

Co-Teaching in the NCVPS OCS Program NCVPS (2013) explains the co-teaching aspect of the OCS blended learning program as “the most critical piece for schools to understand. The NCVPS [virtual] teacher [is not] providing daily direct instruction; this responsibility rests with the classroom OCS [special education] teacher. The online content provides archived teaching sessions that can be used, but the daily instructional decisions are driven by the [special education] classroom teacher who plans daily, through an asynchronous document, with her partner NCVPS [content] teacher” (n. p.). Therefore, f2f special education teachers are able to adapt the course content to meet the needs of their specific students. The f2f special education teacher is able to individualize content for his/her students “using the online content, her own resources, and … determining the best way to teach the content to the students” (NCVPS, 2013). One virtual content teacher explains: “[The teachers] are really able to pick and choose. We don’t necessarily have to go in order, you know, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. We can go one, to unit four, whatever the

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

87

teacher really wants to do. Most of the time, [we] go in order. … The reality is this though there’s not enough time in one semester for an OCS student to get through everything” (NCVPS virtual content area teacher, focus group response). F2F special education teachers utilize the NCVPS blended learning courses in different ways. Some “just facilitate the instruction … some strictly go by what NCVPS offers. We have some teachers that don’t use any of it, and we have some teachers that it’s somewhat of a hybrid. They do some of their own things. They’ll request things, you know, information or materials from me to help support instruction in the classroom” (NCVPS virtual content area teacher, focus group response). One OCS f2f special education teacher described her ideal co-teaching experience: My blended NCVPS English 2 class was the best of both worlds for my kids had my EC expertise paired with the English 2 content expertise of [our partnership teacher]. [She] allowed me lots of choice concerning our daily activities/tasks and to set our pace. She was always available to answer questions/concerns I had that dealt with our content. She messaged individual kids weekly and daily announcements were always celebrating kids and their personal accomplishments. My kids felt totally supported by [her] and we truly had an open, collaborative, respectful relationship. L. Pridgen, personal communication, March 2, 2015

Responses such as these show the necessity for close communication between the special education teachers who have the expertise of knowing how to best reach the student population with the virtual content area teachers who have the content expertise. These findings will be discussed in detail below with recommendations for extension of the model and a view to the future of blended learning to provide students with disabilities the opportunity to be college and career ready through an extended network of academic support.

DISCUSSION Through our research, it is clear that students, f2f special education teachers, and virtual content area teachers see great benefits to blended learning. Those benefits include skill development for students with disabilities that may enhance their employment opportunities after graduation from high school, the ability to graduate from high school, and a balance of continued rigor and relevancy among state learning standards and workforce

88

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

training. However, what is also clear is the continued need for teacher training and support structures for all teachers involved in the partnership. Teachers also suggest support structures they would like to see to continue to enable them to be successful in co-teaching the OCS students.

Necessary Support Structures for All Teachers Teachers discuss how “NCVPS does an excellent job with sharing [technological] supports” (NCVPS f2f special education teacher, survey response). The co-teaching professional development and the online learning training modules also were seen to be highly effective. However, responses from virtual content teachers and f2f special education teachers to the October 2014 survey identified several areas where additional professional learning and support are needed: individualized instruction; differentiation of learning; connecting with students; and understanding the needs of the specific population of students. Some needs are common to virtual content area teachers and f2f special education teachers. Individual teachers have different levels of training and experience with co-teaching, although the f2f special education teachers often have more due to a historical focus on inclusion which meant they worked “in the classrooms of” many content area teachers. The value of the NCVPS model is it situates the special education teacher as the student expert and brings the virtual content area teacher into the special education classroom.

Implications for NCVPS, Schools and Districts, and Teacher Preparation Although some virtual content teachers have the opportunity to visit a f2f OCS class, and some actually can see the OCS teacher working with the NCVPS content, many do not have this opportunity and request “more insight in to what other online OCS teachers are doing on a daily basis in their class” (NCVPS content area teacher, survey response). Teachers throughout the October 2014 survey identified the most significant learning came from actually preparing and teaching in NCVPS OCS classes. One suggestion for NCVPS and other schools and districts is to provide virtual content teachers and f2f special education teachers with access to a variety of course shells to see how teachers utilize the blended learning model. Another suggestion would be to identify ways for virtual teachers to visit

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

89

OCS f2f classrooms, allowing them greater insight into the population of students served by the program. NCVPS provides support specific for helping the virtual and f2f teachers communicate and work together for the success of the students. Virtual and f2f teachers communicate daily via shared GoogleDocs or Spreadsheets. Virtual teachers track individual communications with students; f2f teachers provide information to the virtual content teachers to aid in the creation of personalized announcements and celebration of student successes. The f2f special education teachers complete an online module before joining a NCVPS OCS partnership, working through a tutorial of the learning management system, practicing each day’s activities (logging in, checking the announcements, reading the guided notes for instruction provided by the virtual content area teacher). OCS f2f special education teachers in the October 2014 survey discuss the value of the technical training, but express the desire to have more conversations and connections with “teachers who have done this before” (L. Pridgen, personal communication, March 19, 2015), and professional development in their f2f buildings or at the district level as well, to build their self-efficacy and bolster the blended learning model. One strength of the NCVPS OCS model that we see is it provides the edge to the special education teachers who see the students f2f regularly, if not daily. The co-teaching experience is quite complex, however, and the challenge is how to make the experience a true collaboration where one teacher is not seen to be “in charge” of student learning, while the other is more of an aide or assistant in the learning process, struggles special educators in a co-teaching report throughout the literature (Bulgren et al., 2006; Keefe & Moore, 2004; Rice & Zigmond, 2000). To date, NCVPS provides little structured professional development on co-teaching for either the f2f or virtual teacher. One specific suggestion for NCVPS and other schools implementing a co-teaching model, regardless of whether it is within an online learning environment, is to offer specific professional development for teachers designed to address the power and potential of co-teaching. For example, they may wish to have teachers complete the “Are we really co-teachers scale” (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004), or a similar survey to enable them to see the depth of possibilities within a strong co-teaching relationship. Special education teacher preparations programs commonly include classes introducing co-teaching between special education teachers and general education teachers. Many elementary education teacher-training programs may incorporate discussions of co-teaching and inclusion models in

90

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

their coursework, since inclusion is commonly used in elementary schools. However, few (if any) secondary education teacher-training programs address co-teaching and few secondary teachers have had experiences collaborating with special education teachers. Additionally, results from our survey of virtual content area teachers in the OCS program demonstrate the need for all content area teachers to have greater self-efficacy for understanding students’ individual learning needs and how to modify content for students in general education classrooms. F2f teachers in the October 2014 online survey mention the need to modify the online content for their students, take out assignments, pare down on requirements, etc., based on the needs of students in their classrooms. One unique aspect of the NCVPS is that virtual content teachers work together as an instructional team to develop curriculum, plan instructional strategies, and create assessments for their virtual students. The f2f special education teachers are not necessarily involved in this instructional planning at the NCVPS level and one suggestion for strengthening the program is including them in the curriculum development process since they are those with expertise about the specific student population. This inclusion will continue to support NCVPS’ vision for the OCS program as a true instructional partnership, centered in the expertise of the special education teacher’s knowledge of instructional practices to meet the needs of students.

CONCLUSIONS The personalized nature of blended learning, the possibilities inherent when co-teachers collaborate in learning environments capitalizing on the strengths of each teacher, and the opportunity to learn and succeed afforded to special education students is demonstrated through the North Carolina Virtual School’s OCS program. The growth of online learning alone has great implications for schools, districts, and teacher education programs. Few teacher-training programs include preparation to teach online courses (Archambault, 2011; Kennedy & Archambault, 2011, 2012). Many f2f special education teachers have limited familiarity with online learning pedagogy and course design. Although the NCVPS offers extensive training for their prospective virtual content area teachers before they teach in any NCVPS program, other than an online module that covers the basics of the course shells and navigation

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

91

through collaborative documents, there is not currently extensive training in how pedagogy and design may differ in an online modality for the f2f partner teachers. Until teacher preparation programs incorporate more online teacher training and schools and districts offer widespread professional development to introduce teachers to online learning, NCVPS and other virtual schools working with f2f teachers in a blended learning environment should consider offering some sort of professional development for f2f teachers about online learning, in general. For example, discussions of the principles of UDL can also empower the special education teachers to ensure that the accommodations and modifications for their students are being met in the online learning environment. Special education teachers are strong advocates for their students and strengthening their self-efficacy around online learning allows them to continue to advocate for their students in a perhaps otherwise unfamiliar environment. Our research demonstrates the great potential of the North Carolina Virtual School’s OCS program to meet the requirements of federal law and the desire for all students to be college and career ready upon high school graduation through their innovative blended learning model.

REFERENCES Archambault, L. M. (2011). The practitioner’s perspective on teacher education: Preparing for the K-12 online classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 73 91. Archambault, L., Diamond, D., Coffey, M., Foures-Aalbu, D., Richardson, J., Zygouris-Coe, V., … Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Research committee issues brief: An exploration of at-risk learners and online education. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509620.pdf Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 245 258. Bassett, D. S., & Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2006). Strategies for aligning standards-based education and transition. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(2), 1 19. Bulgren, J. A., Marquis, J. G., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., Davis, B., & Grossen, B. (2006). The instructional context of inclusive secondary general education classes: Teachers instructional roles and practices, curricular demands, and researchbased practices and standards. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 39 65. Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities. (2012, October 3). Concerning participation. Retrieved from http://centerononlinelearning.org/openletter/ Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). About the standards. Retrieved from http:// www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

92

AMY GARRETT DIKKERS ET AL.

Fernandes-Alcantara, A. L. (2012). Vulnerable youth: Employment and job training programs. Congressional Research Service. R40929. Greer, D., Rowland, A. L., & Smith, S. J. (2014). Critical considerations for teaching students with disabilities in online environments. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(5), 79 91. Hurley, R. (2002). Fine-tuning an online high school to benefit at-risk students. Technological Horizons in Education, 30(4), 33 42. Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What the teacher told us. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 77 88. Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. M. (2011). The current state of field experiences in K-12 online learning programs in the U.S. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceeding of society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 3454 3461). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. M. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in K-12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185 200. doi:10.1177/0022487111433651 Kinash, S., Crichton, S., & Kim-Rupnow, W. S. (2004). A review of 2000 2003 literature at the intersection of online learning and disability. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 5 19. Lewis, S., Whiteside, A., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2014). Autonomy and responsibility: Online learning as a solution for at-risk high school students. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 29(2), 1 11. Retrieved from http://ijede.ca/index. php/jde/article/view/883/15431 Lourcey, M., & Fetzer, L. (2013, November 20 22). Success in action: The NCVPS-DPI OCS blended learning program. Presentation at the 63rd conference on Exceptional Children, Greensboro, NC. Retrieved from http://ec.ncpublicschools.gov/conferencesprofdev/annual-conference/2013/conference-handouts/95-institute.pdf Morocco, C. C., & Aguilar, C. M. (2002). Coteaching for content understanding: A schoolwide model. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 315 347. National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2015). What is universal design of learning? Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl North Carolina Virtual Public School. (2013, December 22). NCVPS teacher practices and expectations. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N8Si13dw3Ij8PQy FxWGLtp06g-nfizKSukqw_3adSAg/edit North Carolina Virtual Public School. (2014). Teach and coach for NCVPS. Retrieved from http://ncvps.portcitywebdesign.com/teach-and-coach-for-ncvps/ Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports of developments in Australian and American schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 190 197. Shandra, C. L., & Hogan, D. P. (2008). School-to-work program participation and the post-high school employment of young adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 29, 117 130. Smith, S. J., & Basham, J. D. (2014). Designing online learning opportunities for students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(5), 127 137. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ Classifying-K-12-blended-learning.pdf

Blended Learning for Students with Disabilities

93

Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2004). The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory into Practice, 45(3), 239 248. Unger, D. D., & Luecking, R. (1998). Work in progress: Including students with disabilities in school-to-work initiatives. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13(2), 94 100. United States Department of Education. (2007). Topic: Alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act. United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic% 2CTopicalBrief%2C3%2C Vasquez III, E., & Serianni, B. A. (2012). Research and practice in distance education for K-12 students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(4), 33 42. Vasquez III, E., & Straub, C. (2012). Online instruction for K-12 special education: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(3), 31 40. Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2004). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 395 407. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping pace with K-12 online and blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Watson, J., Pape L., Murin, A. L., Gemin, B., & Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K-12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group.

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION II REIMAGINING SUPPORT FOR ONLINE LEARNERS

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION INTRODUCTION: REIMAGINING SUPPORT FOR ONLINE LEARNERS Ramona Maile Cutri and Erin Feinauer Whiting Technology increasingly permeates all aspects of life, including educational contexts. In this technologically rich environment, learning often occurs in online settings. Therefore, we must better understand the nature of learners’ interactions online with curriculum, teachers, other students, and parents. In order to effectively take advantage of learning opportunities online, this new research must be informed by what is already known about support that all learners need regardless of setting. Sociocultural learning theory asserts that all learning occurs through interactions with others. In other words, learning then can be seen as being mediated through the individual’s social interaction in the external world. Embracing this conceptual framework that learning is interactive, demands that we design and inquire into such online learning in a manner that honors the relational aspects of learning and attends to the complexities of such relational aspects in a digital environment. The physical environment of learning can be very different for students who are participating in online learning activities. For example, online learners often participate in these learning experiences in the context of their own homes. A home environment presents interactive, relational support opportunities that differ from a traditional classroom setting. Additionally, aspects of online learning can be more flexible in terms of how and when students can and do participate in the activities. This can also make a difference in how students access and participate with others in their learning. Sociocultural learning theory is a powerful conceptual framework from which to examine support for online learners in and across these diverse settings and draws our attention to what relational interactions might look like online. Specific design and research attention must be given to:

98

RAMONA MAILE CUTRI AND ERIN FEINAUER WHITING

(1) identifying who online learners interact with parents, teachers, other students; (2) the continuity of these interactions how past interactions influence future ones and how those help the learner to progress; and (3) and the form in which these interactions take place online, face-toface, sporadic, sustained, etc. Another component of online learning are no possessive ‘on learners or parents’ to experience increased sense of efficacy regarding learning in this new setting. Research informed by a sociocultural conceptual framework concentrates attention on the characteristics of the social and material environment in which efficacy is experienced with online learning. What online relational interaction patterns contribute to self-efficacy perceptions? What types of online learning experiences contribute to self-efficacy perceptions and how do these experiences build off of each other? Understanding what components of an online learning environment engender perceived increases in self-efficacy is crucial work when the learners struggle to succeed in school due to a variety of external factors. As research inquires into online learning design and the lived experiences of online learners and their support systems, opportunities arise to open new learning relationships and support systems that can help more learners access education and have good educative experiences.

PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Mark Stevens and Jered Borup ABSTRACT Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to overview what extant research says about parental involvement in online learning environments. Methodology/approach The approach in this chapter is a systematic review of literature focusing on engagement frameworks. Findings Parents have the potential to be the key to overcoming key concerns about attrition and achievement in online settings. However, research has been silent as to how to engage parents more fully as learning coaches for their children. Research implications Research about parental involvement in online learning should consider the roles of both teacher and parent as they coordinate their efforts to improve student engagement. Research also needs to look at what parents need to know about helping their students

Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 25, 99 119 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000027005

99

100

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

be successful and how to provide the training and expertise to parents that will help them learn critical support skills. Originality/value This chapter is particularly timely in light of the dramatic growth in online learning and the resulting concerns about achievement and attrition that are particularly acute among at-risk populations. Keywords: Parental engagement; parental involvement; online learning; supporting students online

INTRODUCTION K-12 online course enrollments have grown dramatically in the past 15 years (Queen & Lewis, 2011; Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013). However, this growth has not come without some concern. The concern that has garnered the most attention has been online learning’s attrition rates that tend to be higher than those found in face-to-face environments (de la Varre, Irvin, Jordan, Hannum, & Farmer, 2014). For instance, Freidhoff (2015) reported that during the 2013 2014 academic years over 76,000 K-12 students in Michigan took at least one online course an increase of 38% from the previous year. These students completed or passed 57% of their online courses, and 71% of their face-to-face courses. This attrition phenomenon is currently under-researched, but some researchers have pointed to adolescent students’ lack of selfregulation and metacognitive skills, making it difficult for them to fully and consistently engage in online learning environments (Barbour & Mulcahy, 2004; Cavanaugh, 2007; Freidhoff, 2015; Rice, 2006). Unlike face-to-face courses that provide students with a highly structured environment where they learn in the presence of a classroom teacher, online courses rely predominantly on asynchronous communication that provides students with a high level of flexibility in when and where they complete assignments. Teachers’ physical separation from students also makes it more difficult for them to monitor and motivate students who become disengaged. As a result, adolescent online learners require different support systems than are found in face-to-face environments. Although online learning support systems are still emerging, the U.S. Department of Education (2010) argued that family engagement should be an important part of any attempt to improve learning outcomes. This claim

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

101

is supported by extensive research in traditional educational settings that has shown a strong relationship between student achievement and parental engagement (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Faraleigh, 1987; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996; Zellman & Waterman, 1998). However, parental engagement can also prove difficult for teachers to secure. As a result, Harris and Goodall (2009) stated that parental engagement is simultaneously “the worst problem and the best solution” (p. 286). Unfortunately, researchers examining parental engagement have focused almost exclusively on face-to-face environments, and relatively little is known regarding parental engagement in online settings. In this chapter, we will review the current research on parental engagement in online learning settings in an attempt to add some clarity to how parents can positively impact their online students’ learning.

PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT DEFINITIONS AND FRAMEWORKS It should be noted that the term parent has varying definitions. For instance, the United States Code defines a parent as a natural, adoptive, or foster parent of a child (Title 20, 2014). However, for the purposes of this chapter we have adopted the broader definition commonly used by public schools that extends beyond legal guardians and caregivers to include any adult who has developed close long-lasting relationships with the student (NCLB Act of 2001, 2002; Title 20, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Defining who parents are has proved easier than developing a framework to describe what parents of an online student do to support their children’s learning. Graham, Henrie, and Gibbons (2014) explained that more established fields have widely accepted frameworks, but less mature fields such as parental engagement in online settings struggle to establish meaningful frameworks. Currently established frameworks exist for examining parental engagement in face-to-face settings, but frameworks are less developed in the field of K-12 online learning (Borup, West, Graham, & Davies, 2014). As a result, some researchers have sought guidance from face-to-face frameworks when examining online learning environments (Black, 2009; Hasler-Waters, 2012). However, Whetten (1989) explained “meaning is derived from context” and warned against applying frameworks outside their limits of generalizability. In the following sections, we will first discuss two frameworks that identify how and why parents

102

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

become involved in their students’ learning in face-to-face learning environments, followed by the emerging frameworks in K-12 online learning (see Table 1).

Face-to-Face Frameworks Epstein (1987) developed a parental engagement framework based on the analysis of data collected from 1,200 parents and 3,700 elementary teachers and principals in traditional face-to-face settings. Her work described four overlapping types of parental engagement. First, parents had basic parenting responsibilities, such as attending to their child’s basic physiological needs (e.g., food, safety, clothing, health, and shelter) and educational needs (e.g., providing required school supplies and a quiet place to work). Second, parents were responsible for attending to communications from the school and teacher, and then acting on the information received. Third, parents should support their students in homework activities. Parents’ support of students’ homework activities has perhaps the most direct impact on student learning, and can occur with or without direct guidance from the instructor. Lastly, parents provided support by volunteering at school and community organizations and by attending school events (Epstein, 1987). Similar to Epstein (1987), Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 2005) identified several types of parental support or “mechanisms of influence” in face-to-face elementary and middle school settings. They added that these mechanisms can be provided at home or at school. First, they explained that parents’ encouragement and positive feedback could positively impact student engagement. Second, they highlighted that parents could model how to appropriately engage in instructional activities with a positive Table 1. Parental Engagement Frameworks. Face-to-Face Frameworks Epstein (1987)

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (2005) • Parenting • Encouraging • Communicating • Reinforcing • Volunteering • Modeling • Learning at • Instructing home

Online Learning Frameworks Hasler-Waters (2012) • Organizing • Motivating • Managing • Instructing

Curtis (2013) Borup et al. (2014) • Mentoring • Nurturing • Motivating • Motivating • Monitoring • Monitoring • Instructing • Organizing • Volunteering

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

103

attitude towards learning. Third, they stated parents should recognize and reinforce students’ positive learning actions. The final aspect of their framework focused on the need for parents to be involved in instructional activities that range from basic memorization to critical analysis (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 2005). Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 2005) not only identified how parents engage in their students’ learning, but also why parents become engaged. They maintained parental engagement was influenced by parents’: (1) belief that they should be involved, (2) conviction that their engagement would promote the success of their children, (3) recognition, born from observation of their children and the schools, that their engagement is necessary, (4) perception of specific invitations from the school, their children, or the teacher to be engaged, and (5) perception of their knowledge, skills, and available time and energy (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 2005).

Online Frameworks Epstein (1987) and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 2005) presented parental engagement frameworks developed to describe parental engagement at face-to-face elementary and middle schools. Although insightful, contextual differences make it difficult to generalize to online settings especially to online settings with adolescent learners. As a result, some work has been done to develop frameworks in K-12 online settings. For instance, when examining parental engagement in online elementary and middle schools, Hasler-Waters (2012) identified four roles that parents can fulfill to improve student engagement. First, parents can act as organizers who plan student work schedules and gather necessary resources. Second, Hasler-Waters explained that parents can act as instructors by assisting students in the construction of knowledge. Third, parents can serve as motivators when they encourage students to persevere through learning challenges and reinforce their appropriate engagement in learning activities. Finally, parents fulfill the role of manager by adapting learning approaches to meet individual student needs while they leverage available resources to accomplish that goal (Hasler-Waters, 2012). As stated previously, Hasler-Waters (2012) focused on parental support in online elementary and middle school settings. However, the majority of online enrollments are at the high school level, which highlights the need to consider online learning frameworks that have been developed for use in secondary education. One such framework was developed by Curtis (2013)

104

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

following her analysis of interviews and survey responses with parents at a full-time online high school. Curtis explained that parents had three primary responsibilities: motivate, monitor, and mentor. Motivating was defined similarly to Hasler-Waters (2012) and included parents’ efforts to encourage and reinforce engagement in learning activities. Curtis broadly defined monitoring as setting students’ learning schedule, preparing learning materials, communicating with the teacher, asking students about their performance, and checking their students’ learning management system (LMS). Parents fulfilled their mentoring responsibilities by showing the student they cared about them and guiding students through online learning activities. Lastly, the Adolescent Community of Engagement (ACE) framework was developed by Borup et al. (2014) using existing research describing how parents, teachers, and peers can work to positively impact adolescent student engagement. Their concept of parental engagement included the following elements: (1) facilitating interactions, (2) organizing, and (3) instructing. First, parents can facilitate interactions by nurturing students and providing for their basic needs, monitoring and motivating students to fully engage in learning activities, and volunteering for school activities to model to students the importance of education (Borup et al., 2014). Second, parents can organize each student’s physical learning space and schedule. Lastly, parents can improve student engagement by instructing their students. Although parents are typically not content experts, Borup et al. (2014) argued that parents can instruct students on learning skills, work with students on assignments, and share their previously obtained knowledge with students. In summary, most of the frameworks stated that parents have instructional responsibilities. Four of the five frameworks, including all three online learning frameworks, explained that parents can be important motivational figures for their students (see Table 1). The frameworks developed within the context of online learning also placed a greater emphasis on monitoring and organizing students’ learning.

RESEARCH ON PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE LEARNING In this section, we will discuss the empirical research that has examined parental engagement in K-12 online settings. Our review of the literature confirmed Hasler-Waters, Menchaca, and Borup (2014) previous finding

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

105

that while the number is growing, there are few empirical studies related to parent engagement in K-12 online settings. We will first review the existing literature related to levels of parental engagement. Following, we will discuss research that has identified the different types of parental engagement. Lastly we will discuss the impact parental actions can have on the learning of their online students.

Levels of Engagement Research has found that parents can vary greatly in their levels of parental engagement. Litke (1998) first highlighted this issue in his qualitative research at an online learning program for junior high school students. More specifically he grouped parents as (1) absentee, (2) supportive, or (3) participatory. First, he identified and defined absentee parents as those who worked outside the home and had little time to engage in their students’ learning. About a third of parents were grouped in this category. Second, he defined supporters as parents who would ask students about their progress, but would only occasionally speak with teachers or provide students with assistance. However, these parents would become more engaged when they perceived poor student performance. Nearly half of all parents were categorized as supporters. The remaining parents were categorized as participatory parents who consistently engaged in their students’ learning. Litke’s (1998) categorization was supported by quantitative research conducted 15 years later at an online high school (Borup, Graham, & Davies, 2013). Borup and his colleagues surveyed 79 parents in an online freshman English course regarding the amount of time parents spent interacting with their students and instructor regarding the course. Parents reported spending an average of 86 minutes interacting with their students per week about the course, and nine minutes interacting with the online teacher per week. However, the levels of interaction parents reported varied greatly. For instance, 40% of parents reported they had no interaction with the online teacher. In contrast, only five parents reported not communicating with their students regarding the course, but the average amount of reported interaction had a high standard deviation (SD = 74.3). Hasler-Waters et al. (2014) summarized that parental engagement should be viewed as a continuum with little to no engagement on the left and full engagement on the right. They also contended that schools and teachers can increase parental engagement by instituting policies that help

106

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

parents understand the import roles that they play in their students’ learning. Other researchers suggest that parents increase this instructional activity following low student performance (Black, 2009; Borup, Graham, & Davies, 2013; Litke, 1998). As a result, teachers who keep parents informed of student performance and request parents’ support when needed may increase parental engagement.

Types of Engagement Researchers have also explored ways that parents can engage in their students’ learning. We organized this research according to elements previously identified in the frameworks discussed above. Nurturing and Mentoring When parents nurture and mentor students, they provide for their needs that extend beyond the boundaries of the course. The nature of parenting forms close and enduring relationships that enable parents to best recognize their child’s needs. However, Noddings (1984) explained that recognizing their child’s needs is not enough, and the caregiver needs the skills and competencies to respond. As a result, parents typically partner with schools to provide their child with educational opportunities that parents cannot provide alone. Epstein (1995) also contended that schools should support students by assisting parents in accessing health, nutrition, and other basic services necessary to successfully nurture learners. Staker (2011) added that online schools likewise cannot fulfill their responsibilities unless parents also fulfill their basic parental responsibilities, such as “providing [students] a place to sleep, dental visits, love and nurture” (p. 28). Staker added that this results in a highly interdependent support system and emphasized that when one part is not working well, “the rest of the parts of the system fail also” (p. 28). In addition to responding to students’ immediate needs, parents can help mentor students in their efforts to achieve long-term goals. For instance, research indicates that parents can mentor their students by assisting them in their decision to enroll in online courses (Curtis, 2013). Researchers have also found that this decision can be active, purposeful, and made for a variety of reasons (Beck, Maranto, & Lo, 2013; Erb, 2004). Those reasons can include negative occurrences, such as bullying and academic failure at schools attended previously (Beck et al., 2013; Ferdig, 2010). Researchers confirmed that parents enroll their students in online

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

107

courses for positive reasons, such as the opportunity to recover credits missed and to take advanced classes not offered at their base brick-andmortar school (Erb, 2004; Hasler-Waters et al., 2014; Mills, 2003). Similarly, parents living in more isolated locations enroll their students in online courses to compensate for the limited portfolio of courses offered by their local school (Ahn, 2011; Erb, 2004). Erb (2004) provided a deeper understanding of parental mentoring through her study involving 14 parents who moved their students from their local public school district into the Central Pennsylvania Digital Learning Foundation (CPDLF) virtual school. None of the parents based their decision to enroll their students in CPDLF on the positive benefits of online learning (Erb, 2004). Instead, parents of CPDLF students “felt pushed from the traditional school setting by an environment that was not acceptable to them, and administrators who would not or could not help” (Erb, 2004, p. 119). These push factors included: • • • • •

a lack of school discipline bullying by peers or teachers large class sizes low teacher quality administrators who were unwilling or unable to meet students’ academic and emotional needs • tobacco, alcohol, and drug use by other students • health concerns such as eating disorders, depression, and migraine headaches (Erb, 2004). Not only do parents encourage students to take online courses, they can also encourage students to drop online courses if they perceive the courses inhibit the student from reaching academic and extracurricular goals. For instance, de la Varre et al. (2014) examined why rural online students dropped out of online courses and found that at times parents advised them to do so when they worried that the course was lowering students’ grade point average, detracted from students’ extracurricular activities, or believed that the course content “went against their family’s values” (p. 10). Communicating Epstein (1987) explained that parents are responsible for attending to school-related interactions that support the learning of their students. This is especially true in online learning environments, because teachers are physically separated from students and rely on parent communication when

108

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

students have become unresponsive (Borup et al., 2014; Litke, 1998). Borup, Graham, and Drysdale (2013) found that while most parents attend to communications from teachers, some were unresponsive especially parents of low performing students. It is possible that parents’ ability to respond to teacher communications was dependent on parents’ time constraints and self-efficacy in their ability to impact student learning (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2005). Low parent teacher communication may also be a product of programs that require teachers to have student loads that exceed those found in traditional face-to-face settings (Black, 2009; Hawkins, Barbour, & Graham, 2011). It is also possible that low parent teacher communication is a result of programs’ failure to institute and enforce parent teacher communication policies. The failure of teachers to communicate with parents in a timely manner can create the impression that parental communication is not valued. As a result, online programs should work to ensure teachers spend an acceptable amount of time communicating with teachers (Black, 2009). Unfortunately, Cavanaugh et al. (2009) found that a third of the 81 surveyed online programs reported they did not have a written policy regarding parent teacher communication. Establishing regular teacher-parent communication is especially important because it can help facilitate the types of parental engagement discussed below.

Organizing Sorensen (2012) contended parents of online learners should assist students by providing them with an organized learning space that is free from distractions. Researchers have also found that parents can aid students by organizing students’ learning schedules (Hasler-Waters, 2012; Hasler-Waters & Leong, 2011; Tunison & Noonan, 2001). Teachers commonly help students organize their learning schedule by setting regular assignment due dates. Parents can then help students organize their time into smaller learning chunks based on individual needs and preferences (Borup et al., 2014; Hasler-Waters, 2012). Parents may also experience problems when organizing student work space and time at home. Sorensen’s (2012) research involving 92 online learning parents found they sometimes struggled to keep their students on pace to complete work by the teacherset deadlines. The challenges that led to these struggles included parents not knowing what assignments were expected, students failing to follow a work schedule, and students failing to complete assignments (Sorensen, 2012).

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

109

Monitoring and Motivating Online classes provide students with added flexibility in their approach to learning, increasing the need for parents to monitor their work (Clark, 2007). For instance, parents can monitor student performance and online behavior using analytic data provided by the LMS. Parents’ physical proximity to students also allows them to observe and monitor students’ offline behavior. Parental monitoring is especially important in online learning environments because the same Internet that is used to provide students with the course content also provides students with countless distractions (Harms, Niederhauser, Davis, Roblyer, & Gilbert, 2006). As a result, students are more likely to stay on task if someone is physically present to monitor their learning (Borup et al., 2014; Murphy & Rodrı´ guez-Manzanares, 2009). Parental monitoring is also important because many students lack the self-regulatory skills that are required to be successful in online courses (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Russell (2004) stated that parent monitoring activities should also focus on issues of student academic honesty, because teachers’ and students’ physical separation creates an academic trustworthiness monitoring void that parents must fill. Researchers also recognized that parents of online learners can monitor for technical problems and work schedule issues (Russell, 2004; Sorensen, 2012). Although parental monitoring serves as an essential aspect of online education, researchers have found that parental monitoring activities can be short lived, indicating some parents do not fully understand the impact their support can provide in this area (Boulton, 2008; Litke, 1998). As a result, Boulton (2008) explained that teachers should help parents better understand their monitoring responsibilities. Parents may also have misconceptions regarding students’ online behavior. Therefore schools can provide parents with student assessment scores and other analytic data to increase parent’s awareness of how students are spending time online (Bailey, Carter, Schneider, & Vander Ark, 2013; Borup et al., 2014; Eyal, 2012). Bailey, Schneider, and Ark (2013) also advocated for learning systems that would automatically notify parents when students exhibited a decline in effort and/or performance. Challenges to effective monitoring by parents can also grow out of interpersonal relationships. Curtis (2013) determined parents of less successful students could experience conflict with them when engaged in supportive monitoring. Although the exact cause of the conflict is unknown, participants in Curtis’ research explained that the benefits of monitoring outweighed the costs. Too much monitoring can also make it difficult for

110

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

students to develop independent learning skills that would benefit them later in life (McNeal, 2012). As a result, one online provider recommended that as online students mature, parents should “step back, but not away” (K12 Inc., 2014, para. 12). As parents monitor student behavior and performance, it is important they also reinforce student successes and motivate reluctant students to more fully engage in learning activities. It is difficult to overstate the importance of motivation in online learning. Weiner (2003) found that motivational issues were the “key ingredient” to online learners’ success “because it plays such an integral part in every aspect of online learning” (p. 46). As a result, Murphy and Rodrı´ guez-Manzanares (2009) argued that for online students to succeed, it is important they have “someone at home who is actively encouraging or pushing them” (p. 11). More specifically, Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) found that parents can motivate students by helping them understand that their performance is linked to their behavior and instilling the belief that they have the ability to succeed. These actions position students to have confidence they can exercise a level of control over their learning and attain success (Lowes & Lin, 2015). Parents can be especially effective at motivating students because they can use a more extensive set of rewards and punishments than teachers can offer alone. Bailey, Schneider, et al. (2013) added that parents’ knowledge of their students’ interests allows them to effectively motivate students. Similarly, Curtis (2013) found parents were able to use intimate knowledge of student needs to motivate them to improve achievement and move toward increased levels of self-sufficiency. Bempechat and Shernoff (2012) determined that students were more likely to develop persistent and diligent work habits when they perceived parents were interested in their learning. Borup et al. (2014) argued that one way for parents to show their online students that they are interested in their learning and value education is to volunteer at school activities. Student observation of parents’ own cognitive development, combined with active parental interest in school, can also increase student motivation (Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Holbein, 2005) especially when children love and respect their parents (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). While it is true that some students prove unresponsive to their parents’ motivational efforts (Boulton, 2008; Cavanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004; Moore, 1989), Curtis (2013) argued that parents are the best equipped to motivate students. She summarized, “If students are unwilling to be involved in their own education, and parents are unable to

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

111

motivate them, it is rare that an outside force such as the school, would be able to either” (p. 109). Unfortunately parents tend to underestimate the motivational effect they can have on students to engage in learning activities (Borup, Graham, & Davies., 2013; Boulton, 2008; Litke, 1998). For instance, Borup, Graham, and Drysdale (2013) asked parents and students to rate the motivational effect parents have on student learning and found that parents rated their ability to motivate their students significantly lower than did their students. Borup et al. (2014) also argued that both teacher and parents could be more effective if they coordinated their efforts, and Hasler-Waters (2012) found that teachers and parents can improve their efforts when they share effective motivational strategies with one another. Instructing Lowes and Lin (2015) explained that “students not only need to learn a subject online but need to learn how to learn online” (p. 18). Parents are typically not content experts but can provide important auxiliary instructional support. Researchers have explained that parents can help their students learn the content by instructing them on specific online learning skills (Lee & Figueroa, 2012; Russell, 2004; Sorensen, 2012). For instance, Black (2009) found parents provided instructional support to their online students in the following ways: • basic support that teaches students to follow directions, to pursue information especially fascinating to them, and to work hard when frustrated; • homework support that leads students to approach the work with a positive attitude, and view it as fun; • differentiation support that enables students to work at their own pace, take breaks when frustration sets in, and focus on strategies that help them learn best; • critical thinking support that teaches students to ask questions clarifying that which was not understood (Black, 2009). Hasler-Waters (2012) also described parents who read assignment instructions with their students and helped them search for needed information. In addition, parents can assist students with technological issues when able (Lee & Figueroa, 2012; Liu, Black, Algina, Cavanaugh, & Dawson, 2010). Although parents can provide important auxiliary instructional support, they typically lack the content expertise to directly instruct students on specific course material, especially in older grades with more difficult and

112

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

complex learning activities and content. Cooper (1989) found that in faceto-face environments parental engagement can become “parental interference” (p. 87) especially when parents’ efforts go beyond supporting students to actually doing the work for them. Online programs should be especially aware of the benefits and drawbacks to parental instructional support and work with parents, so they understand and fulfill their roles in ways that facilitate not inhibit student learning.

Impact of Parental Engagement Although the educational community largely believes parental engagement is important, little research has actually quantitatively examined its effect in online learning environments and the existing results have been mixed. For instance, Borup, Graham, and Davies (2013) used parent and student surveys to measure the quantity of time 82 parents spent interacting with their students and the instructor regarding an online freshman English course. The quantity of parental interactions was then correlated with several course outcomes, including final grades, perceived learning, and course satisfaction. In general, the quantity of parental interactions was negatively correlated with course outcomes despite students’ claims that their interactions with their parents and their parents’ interactions with the instructor motivated them to learn the course content. The authors concluded that more meaningful correlations could be identified if researchers looked beyond the overall quantity of interactions and examined the quality of parental interactions. To this end, Black (2009) used Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (2005) framework to measure parents’ encouragement, modeling, reinforcement, and instruction. His initial analysis of 452 parent survey responses found no significant relationships between these parental behaviors and students’ end-of-course grades. However, when Black analyzed a subgroup of the 164 parent survey respondents whose students also completed an accompanying survey he found two significant relationships: a positive correlation between parental reinforcement and course grade and a negative correlation between parental instructing and course grade. Unlike Black (2009) and Borup et al. (2014), Beck et al. (2013) studied the satisfaction levels of 232 parents and 269 special education students in a grade 7 12 cyber school and found a positive relationship between levels of parent engagement and student satisfaction and performance. This may indicate that special education students react differently to parental

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

113

engagement and additional research is needed exploring varying subpopulations of students. Borup, Graham, and Drysdale (2013) and Black (2009) cautioned against a too simplistic interpretation of these nonsignificant and negative correlations. Instead, they hypothesized that a large percentage of parental interactions with students came as a result of students’ low academic performance. Borup, Graham, and Drysdale (2013) explained, “If a large proportion of parental interaction occurred in reaction to poor student performance, the correlation that results from examining a large group of students could mask the true benefit of parental involvement on individual student learning” (p. 52). This is supported by Curtis’ dissertation research that found parents of successful students spent little time monitoring their students’ learning once their students had demonstrated the ability to follow an established working schedule.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH Research has found that levels of parental engagement can vary greatly and parents tend not to fully understand the importance of their roles. Hasler-Waters et al. (2014) identified four factors that can positively impact levels of parental engagement: school policies, parent demographics, student perceptions, and student needs. Although schools have little control over parent demographics and student perception, researchers have stressed the importance of schools creating policies that help parents to better understand and respond to student needs (Black, 2009; Borup et al., 2014; Boulton, 2008; Hasler-Waters & Leong, 2014). Litke (1998) described one program that required parents to sign a contract promising they would maintain a high level of engagement in their students learning. However, this strategy appeared ineffective and some parents “passed [their] responsibility back to the students who, to the teacher’s further dismay, did not meet the deadlines” (para. 30). As a result, online programs should use more varied and continuous strategies to ensure parental engagement. Borup et al. (2014) explained that “parents and instructors are more likely to effectively and efficiently collaborate once a sense of closeness has been formed and parents and instructors have established a degree of social presence” (p. 21). As a result, personalized conversations and improved parent teacher relationships are likely to have a greater effect than oneway mass or automated communications that push information from

114

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

teachers to parents. Cavanaugh et al. (2009) found that two-thirds of the 81 schools they surveyed had policies regarding parent teacher communication, with communication frequency requirements ranging from weekly to quarterly. All of the policies required teachers to communicate more frequently with low performing students. Although these policies help to understand the quantity of parent teacher communication, more research is needed to determine the quality and impact of those interactions. Similar to de la Varre, Keane, and Irvin (2011) recommendation that at-school facilitators have an in-depth conversation with the online teacher at the start of each semester, we believe that similar conversations between teachers and parents could have a positive effect on parental engagement. For instance, Mountain Heights Academy, a cyber-charter school, requires parents and students to physically attend a registration and orientation meeting where teachers can meet with parents and students in person in an attempt to lay a foundation for future mediated communications. Archambault, Kennedy, and Bender (2013) described another program that held several webinars with parents at the start of the semester that afforded parents the opportunity to ask questions and helped them better understand their responsibilities. Additional support was then targeted for parents of unengaged students to help them better understand “the structure and mechanics of the online platform” (p. 13). Administrators may also look to leverage parent organizations to facilitate parent parent communication in ways that can foster a strong community of practice among parents (Wenger-Trayner, 2014). The development of parent liaison programs that mediate between the school and parents could also be helpful for parents with special needs. For example, outreach programs have proved helpful for immigrant populations in traditional school settings and could have similar effects in online programs (Yeonjai, Choi, & Nguye∼n, 2009). As stated previously, currently there is little research examining parental engagement and the need for additional research is high. First, additional research is needed that seeks to understand the different types of parental engagement. This type of research has the potential to expand or refine the frameworks that currently exist. A variety of methodologies and types of data would prove helpful. Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) explained that “all methods have inherent biases and limitations, so use of only one method to assess a given phenomenon will inevitably yield biased and limited results” (p. 265). It is recommended that researchers use a variety of methods to examine a phenomenon and then use the obtained data to

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

115

identify and triangulate findings. For instance, researchers can use surveys, interviews, participant reflections, and observations, as well as actual communications between parents and teachers to better understand the nature of parent engagement. Work should also move beyond defining types of parental engagement to identifying relationships between types of engagement and learning outcomes. Graham, Henrie, and Gibbons (2014) distinguished frameworks that “explore” phenomenon from frameworks that seek to “explain” relationships that exist between variables. Currently most of the work has developed “explore” frameworks (Hasler-Waters, 2012; Curtis, 2013) and only the ACE framework has attempted to “explain” relationships between parental and student engagement. Although researchers can identify and examine these relationships qualitatively, the authors of the ACE framework (Borup et al., 2014) recommended that researchers seek to develop and validate instruments to quantitatively measure the varying types of parental engagement and course outcomes. The use of those types of instruments could be used to understand and compare the strength of hypothesized relationships and provide helpful information to practitioners as they work to develop and evaluate parental engagement programs. Different learning models likely require varying levels of parental engagement. Researchers should also work to better understand parental engagement in a variety of contexts with varying types of learners.

REFERENCES Ahn, J. (2011). Policy, technology, and practice in cyber charter schools: Framing the issues. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 1 26. Archambault, L., Kennedy, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Cyber-truancy: Addressing issues of attendance in the digital age. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(1), 1 28. Bailey, J., Carter, S. C., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2013). Data backpacks: Portable records & learner profiles. In J. Bailey, C. Schneider, & T. Vander Ark (Eds.), Navigating the digital shift: Implementation strategies for blended and online learning (pp. 101 123). Retrieved from http://digitallearningnow.com/site/uploads/2013/10/ DLN-ebook-PDF.pdf Bailey, J., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2013). Navigating the digital shift: Implementation strategies for blended and online learning. Digital Learning Now! Retrieved from http://digitallearningnow.com/site/uploads/2013/10/DLN-ebook-PDF.pdf Barbour, M., & Mulcahy, D. (2004). The role of mediating teachers in Newfoundland’s new model of distance education. The Morning Watch, 32(1). Retrieved from http://www. mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/fall4/barbourmulcahy.htm

116

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

Barbour, M., & Reeves, T. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402 416. Beck, D., Maranto, R., & Lo, W. J. (2013). Parent involvement and student/parent satisfaction in cyber schools. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Paper presented at the society for information technology & teacher international conference 2013 (pp. 229 236). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/48099 Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Parental influences on achievement motivation and student engagement. In S. L. Christensen, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 315 342). New York, NY: Springer. Black, E. W. (2009). An evaluation of familial involvements’ influence on student achievement in K-12 virtual schooling. Doctoral dissertation. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. UMI No. 3367406. Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. S. (2013). The nature of parental interactions in an online charter school. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 40 55. Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2013). The nature of teacher engagement at an online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793 806. doi:10.1111/bjet.12089 Borup, J., West, R. E., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. S. (2014). The adolescent community of engagement: A framework for research on adolescent online learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 107 129. Boulton, H. (2008). Managing e-learning: What are the real implications for schools? The Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 6(1), 11 18. Cavanaugh, C. (2007). Student achievement in elementary and high school. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 157 168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., Brown, R., Diamond, D., Lowes, S., Powell, A., … Van der Molen, J. (2009). Research committee issues brief: Examining communication and interaction in online teaching. Vienna, VA: iNACOL. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/ wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iNACOL-ExamingCommunicationAndInteraction-2009. pdf Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Clark, T. (2007). Virtual and distance education in North American schools. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 473 490). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 85 91. Curtis, H. (2013). A mixed methods study investigating parental involvement and student success in high school online education. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Publication number 3599425. de la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2011). Dual perspectives on the contribution of on-site facilitators to teaching presence in a blended learning environment. Journal of Distance Education, 25(3). de la Varre, C., Irvin, M. J., Jordan, A. W., Hannum, W. H., & Farmer, T. W. (2014). Reasons for student dropout in an online course in a rural K-12 setting. Distance Education, 35(3), 324 344.

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

117

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, H., Roberts, D. F., & Faraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58(5), 1244 1257. Epstein, J. L. (1987). Parent involvement: What research says to administrators. Education and Urban Society, 19(2), 119 136. doi:10.1177/0013124587019002002 Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappen, 76(9), 701 712. doi:10.2307/2967352 Erb, R. E. (2004). From traditional public school to cyber charter: How parents decide. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia, PA. Eyal, L. (2012). Digital assessment literacy—The core role of the teacher in a digital environment. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 37 49. Ferdig, R. E. (2010). Understanding the role and applicability of K-12 online learning to support student dropout recovery efforts. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual University. Retrieved from http://www.mivu.org/Portals/0/RPT_RetentionFinal.pdf Freidhoff, J. R. (2015). Michigan’s K-12 virtual learning effectiveness report 2013 2014. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute. Retrieved from http:// media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/er_2014.pdf Gonzalez-DeHass, A., Willems, P., & Holbein, M. (2005). Examining the relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99 123. Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 13 33). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255 274. doi:10.3102/01623737011003255 Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parent’s involvement in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237 252. Harms, C. M., Niederhauser, D. S., Davis, N. E., Roblyer, M. D., & Gilbert, S. B. (2006). Educating educators for virtual schooling: Communicating roles and responsibilities. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 16(1 2). Retrieved from http://www.cios. org/EJCPUBLIC/016/1/01611.HTML Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2009). Do parents know they matter? Raising achievement through parental engagement. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. Hasler-Waters, L. (2012). Exploring the experiences of learning coaches in a cyber-charter school: A qualitative case study. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest. Publication No. 3569079. Hasler-Waters, L., & Leong, P. (2011). New roles for the teacher and learning coach in blended learning for K-12. In T. Bastiaens & M. Edner (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2011 (pp. 2716 2725). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Hasler-Waters, L., & Leong, P. (2014). Who is teaching? New roles for teachers and parents in cyber charter schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 105 128.

118

MARK STEVENS AND JERED BORUP

Hasler-Waters, L., Menchaca, M. P., & Borup, J. (2014). Parental involvement in K-12 online and blended learning. In R. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 303 323). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Retrieved from http://press.etc.cmu.edu/content/handbook-research-k-12-online-and-blendedlearning-0 Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K., & Graham, C. R. (2011). Strictly business: Teacher perceptions of interaction in virtual schooling. The Journal of Distance Education, 25(2). Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 311 331. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2005, March). The social context of parental involvement: A path to enhanced achievement. Final performance report for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Grant No. R305T010673). Presented to Project Monitor, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/pea-body/family-school/Reports.html K12 Inc. (2014). How a K12 education works. Retrieved from http://www.k12.com/what-is-k12/ how-k12-education-works#.U-UHvIBdXkI Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race, class and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37 53. Lee, M., & Figueroa, R. (2012). Internal and external indicators of virtual learning success. Distance Learning, 9(1), 21 28. Litke, D. (1998). Virtual schooling at the middle grades: A case study. The Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 33 50. Liu, F., Black, E., Algina, J., Cavanaugh, C., & Dawson, K. (2010). The validation of one parental involvement measurement in virtual schooling. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 105 132. Lowes, S., & Lin, P. (2015). Learning to learn online: Using locus of control to help students become successful online learners. Journal of Online Learning Research, 1(1), 17 48. McNeal, R. B. (2012). Checking in or checking out? Investigating the parent involvement reactive hypothesis. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 79 89. doi:10.1080/ 00220671.2010.519410 Mills, S. C. (2003). Implementing online secondary education: An evaluation of a virtual high. In C. Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference (pp. 444 451). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1 6. Murphy, E., & Rodrı´ guez-Manzanares, M. A. (2009). Teachers’ perspectives on motivation in high school distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 1 24. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Queen, B., & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009 10. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425 449.

Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments

119

Russell, G. (2004). Virtual schools: A critical view. In C. Cavanaugh (Ed.), Development and management of virtual schools: Issues and trends. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Sorensen, C. (2012). Learning online at the K-12 level: A parent/guardian perspective, International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(4), 297 308. Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/ uploads/2011/05/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126 141. Title 20 Education Act of 2004. Chapter 33, Subchapter 1, U.S.C. § 1401, No. 23, Definitions (2014). Tunison, S., & Noonan, B. (2001). On-line learning: Secondary students’ first experience. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(4), 495 511. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Title IX General provisions Elementary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg107.html U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Supporting families and communities: Reauthorizing the elementary and secondary education act. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www2. ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/supporting-family.pdf Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping pace with K-12 online & blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/EEG_KP2013-lr.pdf Weiner, C. (2003). Key ingredients to online learning: Adolescent students study in cyberspace The nature of the study. International Journal on E-Learning, 2(3), 44 50. Wenger-Trayner, E. (2014). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/07-Brief-introduction-to-com munities-of-practice.pdf Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490 495. doi:10.2307/258554 ∼ Yeonjai, R., Choi, S., & Nguye n, T. S. T. (2009). Building bridges between refugee parents and schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 347 365, doi:10.1080/13603120802609867 Zellman, G. L., & Waterman, J. M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent school involvement on children’s educational outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(6), 370 380.

This page intentionally left blank

RHETORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF PARENTS BY ONLINE LEARNING COMPANIES: A STUDY OF PARENT TESTIMONIALS Mary Frances Rice ABSTRACT Purpose This chapter attends to the fact that research has revealed much about the importance of parents in this process, especially their increased instructional roles when their children undertake online courses. However, little is known about how online curriculum vendors construct the parents of their potential enrollees in order to make online learning an appealing option. Approach This research examined what these testimonials revealed about how such companies conceptualize the beliefs parents of potential students. Inductive narrative theme analysis was used to analyze the testimonials. Findings The findings of this research revealed a characterization of parents as providers of access to online learning, organizers of schedules around online learning, and leveraging time working online as space to

Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 25, 121 141 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000027006

121

122

MARY FRANCES RICE

nurture and support their children’s academic development. The major plotline of these testimonials is one where parents solve problems for their children, who are not being successful in school, which resolves anxiety about a child’s previous school performance and their future as students. For the parents, the benefit to this enrollment is increased feelings of efficacy. Research implications This research comments on the role of narrative in educational decision-making in general and has additional potential to inform online teacher work with parents. Value The value in this chapter lies in the author’s unique approach to inquiry. Very little research on online learning has looked critically at what vendors promise in online learning. Keywords: Online learning; virtual schooling; parental roles in education; online curriculum vendors; inductive narrative theme analysis

INTRODUCTION Online learning and virtual schooling products are experiencing both a proliferation in kind and a surge in public interest, especially by parents of school-aged children (Barbour, Archambault, & DiPietro, 2013). The rapid rise in online education is interesting in light of persistent problems with teacher preparation for online settings (Barbour, Siko, Gross, & Waddell, 2013), learner support and access issues (Dichev, Dicheva, Agre, Angelova, 2013), attrition (Lee & Choi, 2013), and the dearth of empirical evidence of the success of online learning (Barbour & Plough, 2009; Torre, 2013), especially for students who struggle in traditional school environments (Spitler, Repetto, & Cavanaugh, 2013). Since the online learning vendors and the schools they work through have been able to successfully convince families to try their courses, it is important to consider how those educational products are promoted. These promotional strategies have implications for teacher education because online teachers are part of the “product” and teacher educators need to be concerned with providing appropriate preparation for such teachers. Much like schoolteachers in traditional settings is the face of the school (Doyle, 1977; Waller, 1970), online teachers are the major contact points for families participating in the courses. Thus, they are the face of the online of the online program.

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

123

The major strategy for advertising these online course products is personal testimonials by supposed actual clients. These testimonials can be found on the main page of the vendor’s website, often as banners or bust outs in large interest-catching fonts. Additional testimonials can be accessed through tabs or links from the main page. The typical format of the testimonial contains the text of the endorsement, followed by first names (surnames are rarely used) and titles (such as student, parent, grandparent, or even teacher) and then place names from cities in the United States and sometimes the world over. These testimonials as a strategy for advertising have either been crafted by the companies or selected from feedback given by actual parents. Currently, the online curriculum vendors would have no inducement to declare which method they are using. The use of testimonials, particularly the parental endorsement, is an interesting choice in light of parent engagement in educational research. The general maxims that have evolved from studies of parent involvement in brick and mortar schooling are that parental involvement/engagement increases achievement, motivation, and prosocial behavior in educational contexts (Epstein, 2013). Even so, the onus of responsibility for learning in traditional settings belongs to teachers as collaborators with students (Davin & Donato, 2013), ostensibly since teachers are trained to provide instruction and direct the curriculum in the presence of the children but not the parents. In virtual schools, teachers still exist, but they are no longer in the physical presence of the children while they are doing the learning tasks the parents are, and they are more likely to be curriculum implementers of scripted lessons rather than planners of a comprehensive curriculum of lives (Clandinin, 2013). Coupling the need for parents to be involved in education generally, with the shift in teachers’ duties in online school raises questions about how companies that want to promote virtual schooling through educational markets anticipate the desires of parents in the online education process. The chapter “Parental Engagement in Online Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature” has a highly comprehensive review of parental roles in online schooling. Seeking to understand the phenomena of the theory that these vendors have about parents that caused them to generate or select endorsements to include as advertising materials, I examined the testimonials that virtual schooling vendors present for parental perusal. The rest of this chapter will develop a theory of testimony, particularly testimonials as advertising, and then connect that theory of testimony to theories of identity and role construction for parents in schools. Next, the methods of the study will be articulated and then findings will be revealed and discussed.

124

MARY FRANCES RICE

Developing a Theory of Testimony The testimonials on vendor websites are part of a long tradition of testimony as a rhetorical genre of which there are several types. In deliberative rhetoric, testimony functions in making a call that can lead to action and expresses the agency of both the rhetor and the hearer or reader (Cooper, 2011). Theories of testimony from multiple disciplines assert testimony as a mode that pleases others and that is liberating in its assertion of infallibility. In reference to these assertions of unconditional rightness, Attwood (2008) noted: People who have experienced an event and bear witness to it have come to be regarded as the most authentic bearers of truth about the past, indeed as the embodiment of history, and their accounts are increasingly received by many as a substitute for the history of the professional historian who seeks to record and explain a past event. (p. 75)

Testimony has been analyzed and advocated in a variety of fields for multiple reasons relating to its narrative qualities. These qualities are particularly useful in advertising. Testimonies as Narratives across Multiple Fields A sampling of praise for testimony includes Parse (2008) from the medical field, who refers to personal testimony as “truth for the moment” (p. 45) while advocating for its use in health decisions. Braverman (2008) noted tension in her work with the use of testimonials to encourage healthy lifestyles. Testimonials worked better for convincing people to take up health information than empirical data validating health practice especially with individuals who exhibited a desire to think deeply about an issue before making a decision. Understandings about the use of testimony as a means of encouraging an audience to take up the experiences of the witness as their own sheds light on Braverman’s findings. Testimonials in this case helped audiences who wanted to see themselves as part of a group (healthy people) to which they wanted to belong and to which they could belong if they would engage in the symbolic behaviors presented to them. Frank (1995) has also noted that health is an important normative standard to which people aspire. He proposed three plotlines for dealing with illness, the most common of which is the restitution narrative. In this narrative, the ill person is portrayed as having a problem that can or will be solved by a clinician or a product by the wonders of modern medicine. In this story, the clinicians and medical marvels become the heroes the foci of the story. Frank warned of the dangers of this narrative in that not all

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

125

people have illnesses that can be recovered from with quick fixes and that such a narrative deprives people of their natural role as the heroes in their own bodies. People who take up these natural roles are in a quest narrative, according to Frank. In this alternative plotline, people can learn, not always to solve their problems or eradicate their own illness, but to engage in relationships that enable them live happily despite challenges. Whereas the quest narrative encourages healing through the notion of a public body and faith in relationships with other bodies, the restitution narrative drives consumerism and promotes an isolated body that puts faith in things that can be bought to restore health. Similarly, consumers seeing or reading online learning testimonials are people who are trying to make a significant educational decision for themselves or someone for whom they are a decision maker, such as a child who may or may not be experiencing difficulties in school. Another perspective comes from Gibson and Zillmann (1998), scholars of journalism, who report that personal testimony makes news items believable, understandable, natural sounding, interesting, and more visually pleasing. An example of these characteristics comes from intelligence tests from the early part of the 20th century. In one study, adults were given a cognitive reasoning test where they were told that all bears at high latitudes were white and then they were asked what color bears were at the North Pole. Many respondents indicated that they could not say for certain because they have never known anyone who had been to the North Pole. If they knew someone, they would ask him what color the bears were. But from their experience, bears were brown, so there was no way to know with certainty (Flynn, 2013). Today, adults recognize this not as an experiential problem, but as an abstract inferential one based on symbol recognition and application. This difference in perception that has evolved over the years is articulated as the Flynn Effect and privileges abstract reasoning over experience. If a narrative requires too much understanding of abstraction, then the listener is lost and grapples for personal experience to make up the difference. Remember that witnesses operate from an exigency where hearers take up that experience as if it were their own. Symbolic and abstract elements in a narrative help establish sufficient causality between the events to persuade the audience that the narrative is reasonable and rational (Fisher, 1984). Therefore, an online testimonial might garner credibility from its attention to mostly concrete facts while leaving a small narrative space for abstraction. Finally, Atkinson and Delamont (2006) suggest that personal testimony gives a sense of voice or identity to the teller, which makes testimony an

126

MARY FRANCES RICE

interesting subject for research in the social sciences. However, they were also concerned that narratives and testimonies were often left to stand on their own in social science research instead of being subject to rigorous analysis. They were particularly interested in promoting studies that considered the broader contexts and purposes in which the testimonies were shared or revealed to audiences. In this study, that context is one of advertising online learnings to parents of school-aged children. The reason why one would not subject testimonial to “rigorous analysis” is because of the structure of the testimony either as bare fact which positions the teller as the self-evident purveyor of truth (Frank, 2010) or as a story. In a story, testimony is a genre particularly prone to what Althusser (1971) called interpellation. In narrative, interpellation occurs as a person is called on, or hailed to acknowledge and act on a particular identity. The story calls on characters to be particular sorts of selves and it calls on listeners to recognize themselves in the stories. In every story at least one person is interpellated into an identity. The message of interpellation is: you are your essence. In addition to interpellation in Althusser’s framework, there is also subject position, where a character is more or less reflective about who the type of narrative requires him or her to be or what it requires him or her to do. The teller and hearer are left with Bourdieu (1977) “unchosen choices.” A story in a testimony, using this framework, is an account of who one is and what one has to do in relationship to some other experience or phenomenon. In this study that phenomena is online learning. Testimonies as Narratives in Advertising Since testimonials found in online course vendor sites have the goal of product promotion, the testimonials naturally contain claims of satisfaction. This satisfaction has two facets. The first facet is satisfaction with the online learning experience of their children and the second is satisfaction with a particular vendor’s course products. In general, personal testimony is a mode where the speaker assumes the role of a witness and describes personal experiences to others (Felman & Laub, 1992). In other words, the use of a testimonial in order to communicate the achievement of personal satisfaction is a pragmatic decision because it does not require empirical evidence, but rather conveys a way of knowing born of and maintained by the authority of personal experience. Wills (2011) argued that a testimonial’s role in persuading audiences to action was particularly important in the advertising genre. Additional support for personal testimony as a mode for advertising comes from

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

127

De Maeyer and Estelami (2011) whose research demonstrated that testimony was a particularly good way to advertise a service as opposed to a tangible product. A product, they reasoned, could be subject to consumer testing for straightforward, quantifiable characteristics. A service on the other hand, lacked those objective qualities. Therefore, a service was often better advertised through testimonials. In this paradigm, online courses, and by extension, educational opportunities in general, are not tangible products, but services that cannot be tested except through personal experience.

Identity and Role Construction in Schooling Since much of this advertising for online K12 coursework is aimed at parents and other decision makers who choose to enroll children, the role of such decision makers is important in establishing that online learning is a viable possibility for families. Establishing the viability of learning at home requires a coherent story about how the school day would work under such circumstances. Carr’s (1986) notion of coherence requires “telling and retelling the story of ourselves to ourselves and others, the story of what we are about and who we are (p. 91).” The stories of ourselves what we are about are contained in an emblematic narrative of identity (Mishler, 1990). For online learning and participation in virtual school, this narrative takes a form where parents construct a coherent narrative of what their participation should look like. The genre of a testimonial has potential as an ideal text for helping parents generate such a narrative of their role. The specific elements of this narrative are reflected in the work of Hoover-Dempsey and Sander (1995). These researchers articulated the specifics of parental role construction’s influence on parental involvement in education in general. They identified four sources of parental identity as being critical for parental participation in schools: (a) direct experience with involvement in school activities, (b) vicarious experience with involvement in school activities, (c) verbal persuasion by others that involvement was worthwhile and can be accomplished by the parent, and (d) emotional arousal induced by the sense that a child’s well-being is at stake. The online testimonials have the potential to perform all four of these functions in order to transform vicarious experience into imagined experience vı´ s a vı´ s psychological and emotional processes, as well as through testimonial’s ability to inculcate a sense of purpose and to elicit emotional responses.

128

MARY FRANCES RICE

Hoover-Dempsey and Sander (1995) went on to argue that parental role construction as mediated through a sense of efficacy was particularly important when children fell on difficult times at school. Those difficult times might be the impetus for seeking virtual school options in the first place. Therefore, helping parents believe that online courses will be less difficult than traditional school settings would seem paramount to convincing them to buy into courses from a vendor. A final element of parental role construction relevant to this work comes from a study by Rauh (2011). In this case study, data from a South Carolina school district’s online course enrollment was used to demonstrate that online education is an opportunity available only to those who can pay for it, rather than a merit good, which is available to all who qualify for it by virtue of meeting certain criteria. Rauh argues that education is often conceived of as a public good that is available to everyone, and that those who gain access to more educational resources are able to do so because they are somehow more qualified through ability or work. The study of the district in South Carolina, however, suggests that online learning is not available to everyone, even though computers are ubiquitous among all socioeconomic groups. Students who are genuinely “at risk” do not opt in to online courses and when they do, they are more likely to drop out. Given these findings, the role of parents might be constructed as important for helping students opt for the courses and helping them to finish. Further, the fact that an online course was chosen by parents would also signal that students, even students who struggle in school, were not in fact “at risk” but were experiencing temporary problems due to no fault of their own.

Locating and Analyzing the Online Testimonials In reporting the methods for this study, I begin this section by discussing inductive narrative theme analysis. Then, I discuss the data sources and the interpretive processes. Analytic Technique This study employed inductive narrative theme analysis techniques from Rowland (2005). Inductive narrative theme analysis is a strategy for looking at narratives that are particularly psychological or identity-laden. These techniques are often used in psychological research where individuals narrate crisis or change (Caperello & Kurani, 2012) rely on media messages

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

129

(Bohensky & Leitch, 2013) and capitalize on family narratives about salient and memorable events (Kauffman, Orbe, Johnson, & Cooke-Jackson, 2013). These techniques were used to uncover a theory of used by online curriculum vendors concerning the parental role construction made visible in the testimonials of online learning courses. In conducting an inducting narrative theme analysis, Rowland recommends a structural/functional approach where the individual elements of narrative are identified first, the function of the narratives are identified second, and the connections between the narrative elements and their functions are brought together third. Rowland explained the interrelation between those elements as they apply to an analytical method, saying: In summary, the four components of narrative form are character, setting, plot, and theme. The first three components define what narrative form is and together they create the theme, which is what the narrative means. (p. 136)

In this analytic approach, the relationship between a protagonist and an antagonist is particularly critical for bringing together all the elements of character, setting, plot, and ultimately theme. Effective stories revolve around the conflict between protagonist and antagonist … this relationship must be based on near parity also illustrates the difference between effective and true stories. In the real world, people often fight against insurmountable odds and have essentially no change to succeed. Or a person may face an antagonist so weak that there is no question about his or her ultimate success. The point is that what makes the story true and what makes it compelling are related, but different concepts. (p. 133)

Rowland’s (2005) explanation of the power that lies in the relationship between the protagonist and the antagonist is highly relevant to this discussion of role construction in online learning. In the testimonials, some antagonist must appear in order for a story to be constituted; the perception of the strength of the protagonist provides insight into the fears or anxieties of the characters in the stories. Both the antagonists and the fears they generate may be implied, but more often they are very explicit. The meaning of the fears, however, is what is interpreted in the course of the analysis.

Data Sources Testimonials of online learning were found on the main page from a number of vendors’ websites, often as a banner or bust out. Additional

130

MARY FRANCES RICE

testimonials were accessed through tabs or links from the main page. These testimonials were often set up in a list format with first names or titles, such as student, parent, or teacher and place names from cities in the United States and other countries. From the 10 vendors’ sites accessed for this research, there was only one where testimonials had to be requested. The rest of the vendors had already put clients’ testimonies of their products within easy reach. Not all testimonials were in the form of printed words. Many testimonials were given through short video clips, where the witness to the vendor’s product was seated against a neutral backdrop. One vendor presented testimonials as a dialog occurring in a studio between a set of four adults calling themselves parents of online learners who used online course products. These oral testimonies were transcribed and included in the corpus of all of the online testimonials gathered. The total number of online testimonials considered was 402, which came from 10 different vendors. The total number of words (not including numbers as words) in the corpus was 13,656. That is an average of 34 words per testimonial. The longest written testimonials were around 80 words. The shortest ones were around 15 words. By contrast, the oral testimonials were longer, usually around 120 words. In the oral testimonials that were in dialog, each speaker was regarded as giving one testimonial and all his/ her words were included in that singular endorsement. In order to support conclusions about the elements of narrative present in the testimonials, natural language processing techniques were used to determine word frequencies. They were also analyzed for frequently occurring phrases at the three, four, and five word string levels. However, the function of natural language processing tools in this study was to determine general patterns in the text rather than precise counts. The most common word in the online testimonials was love with over 120 instances on all three of the word count tools. The second most often occurring word was “site” with over 100 instances and third was student with over 100 instances. These three words together suggest that the most important message of the testimonials is that the students enrolled in the courses love these particular online sites. The most common phrases were “I am a …” and “I love the ….” The first phrase establishes a fixed role or position. It was usually followed by words like mother, father, parent, grandparent, and other roles establishing decision-making and care giving positions for children. The second phrase is not narrative in nature, but opens up space to tell a story about why the online courses are beloved

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

131

and establishes a favorable plotline for the products. A parent who is anxious about how their children are doing in school will be comforted by reading the word love in conjunction with the stories of success touted in the testimonials. The purpose of education is the public sphere is never love, even though scholars such as Noddings (2013) have suggested that an ethic of caring and love should dominate work with children in schools.

Findings from the Analysis The testimonials were analyzed using narrative theme analysis (Rowland, 2005). Themes are identified using inductive processes that emerged through multiple readings of the testimonial data set. A unique quality of this type of coding process requires researchers to see something important in the research data and notice its importance before interpreting it (Boyatzis, 1998). Useful codes are such because they capture the richness of a phenomenon rather than merely the essence. Focusing on richness rather than essence leads researchers away from merely organizing the data and toward interpreting it in ways that are insightful but resonate as common sense to those who read the report of a coded research project. The themes that emerged are illustrated as emblematic narratives (Mishler, 1990) that were selected because they demonstrated the richness that emerged from the coding process. The testimonials on the vendor sites use the notion of educational products as services to perform astonishing work as they promote online learning as being integrative when research says that it is isolating (Barbour & Plough, 2009); easier for parents when research says that it requires more time, especially for mothers (Blau & Hameiri, 2012); and increases chances of success when research says that attrition is pervasive (Lee & Choi, 2013). It is because of these findings that testimonials are such an idea genre. They cannot be refuted, and if they have some resonance with readers in their hopes for the future, then they are practically ironclad in their authority. It is likely that few people who went looking for online coursework for their children who were struggling in school would even stop to ask whether these testimonials are by actual parents or if they were carefully crafted and composed. The practical work of that genre is to force the audience, parents in this case, to get caught up in the antagonist/protagonist conflict and resolution in the narratives.

132

MARY FRANCES RICE

Narrative Themes The first narrative that will be shared as findings focuses on imagined and vicarious positive parental experiences with online learning. The second focuses on virtual schools potential for worthwhile experiences and feelings of accomplishment. The third narrative focuses on feelings of emotional arousal for the sake of a child’s well-being. Imagined and Vicarious Experience My son used to have a block with math. I told him it was in there. It used to be so hard to get him to do homework, but now we can do it at home. Now he knows Pocahontas. The British are Coming! He will ask his father if he can go on the computer. They are actually watching Custer’s Last Stand. It used to just be on a page. Now he knows what it was really like to experience that. He comes and says, “I want to learn. I want to do more schoolwork. Can I do it again?”

In this narrative, the character of the anxious parent is relieved of that anxiety by providing access to broader education experience. Initially, the child is presented as completely immobilized by math anxiety. In fact, before the child did not know about ostensibly important figures like Pocahontas and but after participating in the online course child does. The blurring of vicarious experience and actual experience is magnified in the discussion of Custer’s Last Stand. Learning about the Last Stand online is tantamount to being there, and a parent provided this opportunity. The child is now represented as this thriving, well-rounded, curious learner. In this testimonial, the child’s engagement with learning as a result of online courses is an important plotline, as now the child will go and ask his father to get on the computer. This emplotment is amplified with the child’s final statements: “I want to learn. I want to do more schoolwork. Can I do it again?” The tensions in the home around school achievement and practices like evening homework have disappeared. In its place is familial harmony. The function of this narrative is to convince the parent that their own experience with their child’s learning can be satisfying to them and they will have more control over the learning because they can watch the lesson with the child. Notice how the father is not teaching anything to the child. He is providing permission and access to the computer and they are watching a video together. The vendor is not asking the parent to take on the role of teaching the child only to let the child get onto the lessons and

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

133

then sit back and watch while they learn. Interestingly enough, the testimonial does imply that while the father does not have to teach, he does have to be there and so does the mother because she is the teller of the story and therefore, a holder of the experience. Worthwhile Effort Leading to Accomplishment Our daughter was bored in school. Unfortunately, the school was not able to accommodate her. Now that she is doing online learning, we are not on a set schedule. We can run through all of our classes. In the morning, we make sure that we do what we need to for the day. If she wants to do more, she can. It is lovely being that flexible. She was also able to start music lessons. It is so nice that I don’t have to rush. I don’t want her to rush. There is [sic] not the distractions that there are in a brick and mortar school.

In this narrative, the parent is an organizational consultant the keeper of the activity calendar. This is manifest through the parent’s references to the lack of set schedule, as well as a description of a typical routine. In addition to completing schoolwork, the child is able to take up music lessons something that attending a school with a set schedule would not allow. The tension between the mother not wanting her daughter to feel rushed, while also emphasizing all the other things that can be once the lessons are over is barely noticeable, subsumed instead by the dominant message that virtual schooling frees this parent up to plan the day with the child at whatever pace is deemed appropriate. If the parent is characterized as the social secretary, a natural plotline is that online learning has freed up time. The school was the cause of the fact that this student’s time was being wasted, but now online learning is the cause of the flexibility. What parent would not be nervous about how time is being spent away from them, especially when they have a sense that the child is experiencing a negative emotion like boredom? Time is very valuable to this parent because this child has a lot that they can be doing besides learning school lessons. In this case, the online school is providing more flexibility, opportunity, and time. What is the parent to do now that they have so much time because online learning is so flexible? The answer is to fill it. In this case, the time is being filled with music lessons that could not be taken in a traditional school. The job of a parent with a student in virtual school is to manage and even control the child’s study time and also to fill the newly found time with worthwhile activities.

134

MARY FRANCES RICE

Emotional Arousal for a Child’s Well-being My son has learning difficulties dispraxia, dyslexia and ADD are the main concerns. I supplement what he is learning at school in order to keep him abreast with the class, and it can be a challenge for our relationship. Using these lessons has improved our relationship as he likes these lessons so much more than any of the other programs (flash cards, worksheets) that we were using before. I am extremely grateful. I can sit beside him and instead of being the mean mummy who is throwing tough questions at him; I can be encouraging him on towards 100.

This narrative characterizes the parent as an expert about her particular child, but also as an expert on several significant disabilities that are articulated as concerns. This parent has also asserted a role as a provider of supplemental material for this child because she can see that her child is struggling in school. However, this role has caused considerable strain on the parent/child relationship. That strain has likely caused even more anxiety about the child’s educational experience and about the child’s future in general. The emotional arousal in this narrative takes on the form of concern and worry about the child’s disabilities, but in the form of antipathy between mother and son because she is making him do something he does not want to do in order to keep up in his studies. Both her concern and her anger come from the same place worry. She is worried about how her son will construct a relevant life for himself in the face of so many legitimate learning problems. As his mother, she is trying to help her boy acquire the extra practice and skills he needs in order to look as successful as his peers in school. This strain is grounded in the plotline that parents should not have to provide intense supplemental learning experiences for their children because that gets in the way of their nurturing role. Notice how the end of the testimonial emphasizes that with the online learning the son is doing, the mother is now free to be encouraging instead of mean. Mother can reclaim her role of kind caregiver because in this plotline, the intense work of helping this boy has been given over to the online learning site that the mother has discovered. Her role shifts then, from enforcer to supporter. The function of the narrative comes through as a reification of the difficulties involved in the responsibility of parenting, but doing right by the child does not have to mean that parents have to bear the burden of being tough on their kids. If they find the right online learning tools, parents can be liberated from some of the less fun aspects of parenting, in this case, making your son do something he does not want to do and with which he has not experienced success. Instead of the parent as a taskmaster, the

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

135

parent is the finder of resources and the resources that are the most fun for children and the most liberating to parents are found online.

Discussing the Testimonials The testimonials in this study reveal that online curriculum vendors select or generate testimonials where parents are minimally involved in the nitty gritty of online learning. The involvement that is expected will be mostly fun and leisurely. More importantly, the parents in these testimonials are people who used to feel anxiety about their children’s performance, but thanks to online learning, no longer do so. Parents providing access to, organizing a schedule around, and surrendering to or sharing expertise with online learning tools. What is not constructed as a role for parents is that of a teacher. This is interesting in light of recent research suggesting that is exactly what many parents end up doing when they enroll their students in online courses (Borup, Graham, & Davies, 2011). In fact, increasingly technology implementation advocates are promoting training to parents to help them become effective “learning coaches” to their children who are engaging in both fully online and blended (partially online) learning, yet this labeled becoming effecting learning coaches rather than naming them as teachers. These narratives propose that online learning is restitution (Frank, 1995) for the problems that were experienced in the regular school. In the testimonials, the problem or “illness” is that the children are not being successful in school. The role of the parent is to find the right resource to solve that problem. The resource remains outside the household, however, which is why the parents may be relegated as peripheral coaches rather than teachers. These problems do not have causality rooted in parent or student behavior or characteristics. Sickness, Frank notes, is never one’s fault, but the result of bad luck or unfortunate circumstances. Likewise, the parents in the testimonials have children with problems that are rooted in the child’s true exceptionality being stifled, an unspecific “block,” or a genuine disability that goes unaccounted for. No matter the circumstances working against the parent, if he or she can discover the right online learning tools the problem will go away. One function of these testimonials is to act as a strong injunction to buy a featured product. The benefits to these products are described as feelings of efficacy as a parent within the role that has been constructed for them. What is not articulated as a benefit is increased achievement for

136

MARY FRANCES RICE

students. In place of claims to achievement, there are promises that learning will be fun, easy, and more tailored to students. In fact, one study of reading support in an online environment described student participants’ perception that reading was tailored to them individually even though this was not entirely true (Bennett & Gilbert, 2012). What actually happened was that students were given a text to read based on reader profiles, but many students were given the exact same material. What made the difference was that the students felt like it was personalized because they were told that it was. These promises boil down to typical tactics of advertising dogma: If a person who looks or sounds like me succeeds or solves a problem similar to one I have, I can succeed; if my child is happy, I am a good parent.

Implications for Teacher Education The findings of this narrative theme analysis raise several important issues for online teacher education. One issue is that of managing the perception of online learning for parents. If the corpus of testimonials that I looked at are representative of how online learning is being represented to parents, then it makes sense that parents would come into online courses with their children not expecting online learning to be challenging at all. Are online teacher education programs addressing parental preconceptions, conceptions, and misconceptions of online learning as they certify teachers? Perhaps the problem is the true role of parent and online teacher has been mis-storied. This mis-storying might be clarified by discussing two words: pedagogue and xenagogue. Both are Greek words that connote walking alongside. A pedagogue is actually the old word for a slave in Greek society that accompanied a child to school and generally managed his learning. While pedagogue in current parlance can simply mean an expert teacher with strong content knowledge (e.g., Berliner, 1986), the stronger sentiment that teaching is more than expert knowledge is still present in current connotations of the word. In this view, a pedagogue is something different than just a teacher: it is a person who walks alongside a learner. For example, Elias (1994), speaking of Paulo Freire as an exemplary pedagogue, explained that pedagogues are involved in the exercise of moral philosophy and those children they are working with must look to them for moral guidance. In turn, pedagogues need to have a clear idea in their head about what might make for flourishing and happiness how to manage time, relationships, and experience.

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

137

A xenagogue also walks alongside, but as a tour guide. The prefix xen denotes a stranger. The tour guide shows strangers the highlights of a place or site as a fully engaged and knowledgeable helper, but then the strangers go their way and the guide takes up a new group. In these testimonials of online learning parents are depicted as being able to accomplish pedagogical ends while acting like xenagogues. These insights beg the question of whether parents can be mobilized and empowered as pedagogues and online teachers would be more effective if they were empowered instead as xenagogues. In Frank’s (1995) work, walking with a guide who supports a person with a problem rather than solving the problem is the quest narrative. According to Frank, narrating problems as quests gives people the power to be designers of their own destiny the heroes in their own story. This scenario seems plausible for parents who are able and willing to take up these roles of helping children learn to navigate the many difficulties they will encounter both on and offline, but for parents who cannot or will not, it would seem that teachers are left as the ones to narrative quests rather than restitution for students in their charge.

Final Thoughts The testimonials offered in online learning vendor sites serve to resolve parent guilt and anxiety about the fact that their children are not achieving and replace those feelings with hope. The parent is not a teacher, but a spectator; not a taskmaster, but an activity planner; not a disciplinarian, but a gentle nurturer and guide. Along with the suggested role of time organizer, parents should consider how much time they want their child to spend on lessons and what is being done to promote education at home or other places in addition to the online courses. If courses can truly be completed independently in a short amount of time, what are the odds that the learning in such courses is deep and cognitively challenging? Is there any child that is so smart that they only need to spend a little time in the morning doing lessons? Finally, the assigned role of nurturer is one that has implications for all kinds of learning. Thinking about what types of support, praise, and encouragement for learning is worthy of consideration, no matter what the learning mode is. Parents, for the most part, do know their children well, they are familiar with their needs, and they are willing to invest every resource they think they have in the name obtaining a good education and life circumstances for their children regardless of their socioeconomic

138

MARY FRANCES RICE

circumstances (Kornrich & Furstenberg, 2013; Lam, Ho, & Wong, 2002). As parents take up the roles that are intuitive to them, rather than the ones that are suggested to them by companies, they will experience that emotional arousal that Hoover-Dempsey and Sander (1995) argue will lead to true efficacy. What is interesting is the ways in which these roles are ever so slightly nuanced. The key to interpreting the testimonials is to look carefully not just at what is being said, but also at what is not being said. It seems likely that online learning as a manifestation of continued proliferation of technology will continue to rise in popularity. The question probably is not whether online learning courses should exist or even whether they are more or less effective than traditional learning modes, but how to ensure that online learning reaches its potential. Braverman’s (2008) study suggested that testimonials are a medium of advertisement used for deep thinking about decisions. Deciding to enroll a child in online courses qualifies as a deep decision that likely impacts every aspect of family life. Parents who are considering online learning options for their children, then, might do better to go beyond what online learning testimonials say they should be doing and consider the outcome data for particular programs. They might consider obtaining trial versions of online educational products and working through these as if they were students themselves. Whatever product they choose to offer their child access to, they should understand how it operates, what the content is like, how difficult the text is, the topics covered and other similar information. Teachers employed in online contexts should think about how to attend to perceptions of online learning with students, but they also need to have chances to think carefully and reflectively about how the roles of teaching are shared with parents. Teachers need to be aware that working with children in virtual spaces causes role disruptions and tensions and, like many intractable problems in education, there are no easy answers. There is also a final and important scholarly application to this work. The power of online testimonials demonstrates the difficulties of relying on narrative as the sole support for any decision, whether it be a narrative located online or the narrative of a neighbor or friend who tried online coursework with their child and did or did not experience success. Future inquiry into narrative might look more closely at the critical function of narrative in decision-making processes in education specifically, or in other realms of human activity more generally.

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

139

REFERENCES Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). Lenin and philosophy and other essays, B. Brewster (trans.) Monthly Review Press. Retrieved from http://ghostprof.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Althusser-onISA-and-RSA.pdf. Accessed on December 16, 2014. Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (2006). Rescuing narrative from qualitative research. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 164 172. Attwood, B. (2008). In the age of testimony: The stolen generations narrative, “Distance,” and public history. Public Culture, 20(1), 75 95. Barbour, M. K., Archambault, L., & DiPietro, M. (2013). K 12 online distance education: Issues and frameworks. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(1), 1 3. Barbour, M. K., Gross, E., Waddell, K., & Siko, J. (2014). Virtually unprepared: Examining the preparation of. K-12 Education. In Information Management Resources (Ed.), K-12 education: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 187 209). Hershey, PA: IGI Press. Barbour, M. K., & Plough, C. (2009). Helping to make online learning less isolating. TechTrends, 53(4), 57. Bennett, K., & Gilbert, H. M. (2012, December). I liked the way it appeared to be tailored toward me. Exploring the perceptions of computer-tailored feedback matched to reading level: Data from the ESCAPE trial. Presented to the UK Society for Behavioural Medicine 8th Annual Scientific Meeting, Manchester, United Kingdom. Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5 13. Blau, I., & Hameiri, M. (2012). Teacher families online interactions and gender differences in parental involvement through school data system: Do mothers want to know more than fathers about their children? Computers & Education, 59(2), 701 709. Bohensky, E. L., & Leitch, A. M. (2013). Framing the flood: A media analysis of themes of resilience in the 2011 Brisbane flood. Regional Environmental Change, 14(2), 475 488. Borup, J., Graham, C., & Davies, R. (2011, October). The impact of parental interaction on student outcomes in a virtual high school. In. World conference on e-learning in corporate government, healthcare, and higher education (Vol. 2011, No. 1, pp. 2316 2323). Bourdieu, P. (1977). Symbolic power. In D. Gleeson (Ed.), Identity and structure: Issues in the sociology of education (pp. 112 117). Driffield: Nafferton Books. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Braverman, J. (2008). Testimonials versus informational persuasive messages: The moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement. Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Caperello, N. D., & Kurani, K. S. (2012). Households’ stories of their encounters with a plugin hybrid electric vehicle. Environment and Behavior, 44(4), 493 508. Carr, D. (1986). Time, narrative, and history. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Cooper, M. M. (2011). Rhetorical agency as emergent and enacted. College Composition and Communication, 62(3), 420 449. Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 5 22.

140

MARY FRANCES RICE

De Maeyer, P., & Estelami, H. (2011). Consumer perceptions of third party product quality ratings. Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1067 1073. Dichev, C., Dicheva, D., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2013). Current practices, trends and challenges in K-12 online learning. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 13(3), 91 110. Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, 5, 163 198. Elias, J. L. (1994). Paulo Freire: Pedagogue of liberation. Melbourne, FL: Krieger Publishing Co. Epstein, J. L. (2013). Ready or not? Preparing future educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Teaching Education, 24(2), 115 118. Felman, S., & Laub, D. (1992). Testimony: Crises of witnessing in literature, psychoanalysis, and history. London: Taylor & Frances/Routledge. Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communications Monographs, 51(1), 1 22. Flynn, J. (2013). Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents’. Presentation at TED2013. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_ are_higher_than_our_grandparents.html. Accessed on October 2, 2013. Frank, A. (1995). The wounded storyteller: Body, illness, and ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press. Frank, A. (2010). Letting stories breathe: A socio-narratology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gibson, R., & Zillmann, D. (1998). Effects of citation in exemplifying testimony on issue perception. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(1), 167 176. Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sander, H. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference. The Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310 331. Kauffman, L., Orbe, M. P., Johnson, A. L., & Cooke-Jackson, A. (2013). Memorable familial messages about sex: A qualitative content analysis of college student narratives. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 16. Retrieved from http://mail.ejhs.org/ volume16/messages.html. Accessed on February 27, 2014. Kornrich, S., & Furstenberg, F. (2013). Investing in children: Changes in parental spending on children, 1972 2007. Demography, 50(1), 1 23. Lam, C. C., Ho, E. S. C., & Wong, N. Y. (2002). Parents’ beliefs and practices in education in Confucian heritage cultures: The Hong Kong case. Southeast Asian Journal of Education, 3(1), 95 114. Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2013). A structural equation model of predictors of online learning retention. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 36 42. Mishler, E. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), 415 443. Noddings, N. (2013). An ethic of caring. In R. Shafer Landau (Ed.), Ethical theory: An anthology (pp. 699 710). New York, NY: Wiley. Parse, R. R. (2008). Truth for the moment: Personal testimony as evidence. Nursing Science Quarterly, 21(1), 45 48. Rauh, J. (2011). Online education as a toll good: An examination of the South Carolina virtual school program. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1583 1594. Rowland, R. (2005). The narrative perspective. In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), The art of rhetorical criticism (pp. 131 161). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Rhetorical Constructions of Parents by Online Learning Companies

141

Spitler, C., Repetto, J., & Cavanaugh, C. (2013). Investigation of a special education program in a public cyber charter school. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(1), 4 15. Torre, D. (2013). Virtual charter schools: Realities and unknowns. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l’E´ducation a` Distance, 27(1). Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/ index.php/jde/article/view/838/1498. Accessed on February 27, 2014. Waller, W. (1970). The sociology of teaching. Originally published 1932. Mahwah, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Wills, J. (2011). Rhetorical motives in advertising: A theory of advertising genre as religious discourse. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Retrieved from http://ecommons.usask.ca/handle/10388/ETD2011-09-146. Accessed on April 28, 2015.

This page intentionally left blank

PROVIDING CHANCES FOR STUDENTS TO RECOVER CREDIT: IS ONLINE LEARNING A SOLUTION? Somer Lewis, Aimee L. Whiteside and Amy Garrett Dikkers ABSTRACT Purpose This chapter presents data from research studies specifically aimed at gathering the perspectives of K-12 students who are taking online courses for credit recovery, their virtual school teachers, and faceto-face school support professionals. Approach This research employed ethnographic techniques to explore the benefits and challenges of online learning as a strategy for credit recovery. Findings Our research explores several key findings. The data suggest that the benefits and challenges of online learning for students are one in the same. With proper orientation, individualized support, and purposeful structuring of online programs, online and blended learning as a potential

Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 25, 143 157 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000027007

143

144

SOMER LEWIS ET AL.

solution for credit recovery students, potentially decreasing the number of future high school dropouts. Implications This chapter suggests a need to look more carefully at orientation, support, and structuring procedures for online credit recovery. Value This chapter is very valuable as a tool for thinking about credit recovery online. It also provides valuable insight into credit recovery from the perspectives of students who are doing the online courses. Keywords: At-risk youth; credit recovery; dropout rate; online learning

INTRODUCTION The high school dropout rate in the United States of America has been referred to as a national “epidemic” (Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison, 2006, p. i). Every nine seconds a student drops out (Hupfeld, 2010, p. 1). Archambault et al. (2010) reported that 9% or 1.2 million high school students drop out before graduation each year (p. 2). While the most recent Census data report a slight decrease in our nation’s dropout rate, disparity still exists among various subgroups, including by race and gender (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a; September 24). According to the research of Hammond, Linton, Smink, and Drew (2007), while there is no single factor that can accurately predict who is at risk of dropping out of school, students who have experienced low achievement fall into the at-risk population. Furthermore, researchers agree that dropout predictions increase when multiple variables are combined (Archambault et al., 2010; Hammond et al., 2007; Lewis, Whiteside, & Garrett Dikkers, 2014; Rapp, Eckes, & Plurker, 2006; Tompkins & Deloney, 1994; U.S. Department of Education, 2009; Watson & Gemin, 2008). Students who experience low achievement, for example, coupled with a learning disability, a diagnosed emotional disturbance, or lack of support in the home, are more likely to dropout. Despite these circumstances, researchers have found that most dropouts are students who believe that, with adequate support, they could have succeeded in school. According to the research of Bridgeland et al. (2006), students themselves cite a variety of reasons for dropping out: lack of

Providing Chances for Students to Recover Credit

145

engagement, lack of motivation, academic challenges, and lack of parental support, to name a few. In addition, students describe the road to dropping out as a gradual process that included attendance and time management difficulties. Because there is no simple solution to preventing students from dropping out of school, scaffolded delivery of online learning may offer an alternative to those who are not successful in the traditional face-to-face environment.

Literature Review According to Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin, and Vashaw (2014), “Good data exist on the volume of various products and services being delivered to the K 12 school market, but sufficient and meaningful data on what students are doing and how they are doing it does not yet exist” (p. 5). For students who have struggled in a traditional high school setting, the affordances of online and blended learning offer educators another avenue to best reach this population of students and help them graduate. While the literature regarding online and blended learning has evolved over the last decade, research surrounding the benefits and challenges of online and blended learning specifically for at-risk populations of students continues to be scarce. Not only are more studies needed to explore the experiences of virtual students, but more work is also needed to explore the experiences of those who qualify as being at-risk. Credit recovery students, those who have previously failed an academic course, possess at least one risk factor that would qualify them as being at-risk of dropping out. Many researchers believe the online environment is well-positioned to meet the needs of these students (Barbour, 2009; Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark, 2009; Lewis et al., 2014; Rose & Blomeyer, 2007). Fueled by budget cuts, accountability measures, and a legislative push to increase the graduation rate, interest in online credit recovery continues to grow (Zehr, 2010). In 2009 2010, 62% of the estimated 1,816,400 enrollments in K-12 distance education courses nationwide belonged to students in courses taken for credit recovery (International Association for K-12 Online Learning, 2013). As online learning options continue to expand, virtual options for credit recovery students have also increased. With the establishment of state virtual schools, virtual charter schools, and the implementation of various online supplemental programs utilized by schools and districts, the availability of online coursework for students

146

SOMER LEWIS ET AL.

seeking to recover credit has certainly evolved. In examining these online programs, researchers have found key areas that were useful in working with at-risk populations of students. Archambault et al. (2010) identified key factors, such as the use of supportive faculty and staff, individualizing instruction, and instructional strategies to support achievement. Davis (2013) cites the ability to receive rapid feedback, mastery learning, and differentiation as key factors to student success. Due to implementation of these strategies in online schools working with at-risk populations, schools reported several positive outcomes, such as higher graduation rates, positive affective outcomes, and flexibility (Archambault et al., 2010). Our research, however, has found that this rapid growth of online opportunities has created a paradox for both teachers and students. Not only do virtual schools grapple with providing teachers the professional development needed to tackle the pedagogy required in an online environment, but also they fight to help credit recovery students who struggle with the freedom to work at their own pace and the responsibility of time management (Lewis et al., 2014). These interrelated, yet competing goals have implications not only for in-service teachers and the students in their online classrooms, but also for teacher education programs preparing those who may ultimately be responsible for both the face-to-face and virtual environment.

Methods In order to examine the potential of online learning for at-risk populations and the implications for educators, the contexts of two embedded case studies are outlined. The resulting teacher and student perceptions of the benefits and challenges of online teaching and learning are shared, along with three significant overall findings. Each case study provides an in-depth examination of a specific online learning model utilized at the district level: credit recovery summer school offered through the North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS) and online learning opportunities in the North Carolina Performance Learning Centers (PLCs). Since 2011, our research has explored the experiences and perceptions of teachers (online and faceto-face), administrators, and students in each context regarding online teaching and learning. Through multiple surveys, focus groups, and interviews, we have established key findings and structures that may provide the support needed for credit recovery students to be successful in the online learning environment (Lewis et al., 2014).

Providing Chances for Students to Recover Credit

147

Case Study #1: Summer School Credit Recovery New Hanover County Schools (NHCS), a North Carolina public school district, serve about 12,000 middle and high school students in a county with a population of approximately 200,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b; December 4). Currently, district middle and high schools are using blended and online learning for a variety of purposes: remediation, acceleration, enrichment, credit recovery, intervention with exceptional needs children, and early intervention for at-risk students. The district offers students the opportunity to take courses for traditional credit and credit recovery through NCVPS. Over the last seven years, the NCVPS has served 175,000 middle and high school students across the state (North Carolina Virtual Public School, 2013a), utilizing the Moodle and Blackboard learning management systems to deliver course content which includes an assortment of learning experiences for students. Through NCVPS, “the majority of studentteacher interaction is asynchronous, allowing students flexible, continuous access to their courses and the ability to work at their own pace” (Lewis et al., 2014). In 2013 2014, NCVPS saw an increase of 11% in their annual course enrollments, making it the second largest state virtual school in the country (Watson et al., 2014). In summer 2011, NHCS began utilizing NCVPS as the only means of summer high school coursework. In 2011, during an eight-week summer session, NCVPS served 197 New Hanover County students accessing 54 different courses, which included credit recovery opportunities. After implementing key changes to the design of the program in the summers that followed, which included adding additional labs, providing transportation for students, employing Virtual Academy Coordinators, and changing expectations for student attendance, the district served more students and saw an increase of 9% in their credit recovery pass rate by the summer of 2014 (Garrett Dikkers, Lewis, & Kraft, 2015). This case study examines findings from interviews with key district personnel, a survey of state virtual school teachers in the Credit Recovery program (n = 48 with a 54% overall response rate), and a survey of district students taking online Credit Recovery courses for summer school (n = 41, 45% response rate). Benefits of Online Summer School Credit Recovery. Both students and teachers identified several benefits afforded by online summer school credit recovery. Virtual Academy Coordinators (VACs), the face-to-face teachers responsible for scaffolding additional supports for credit recovery students, mentioned several factors including the quick pace, lack of social

148

SOMER LEWIS ET AL.

distractions, student independence, and student ownership of the course. One coordinator commented on student ownership of learning in the online credit recovery environment noting, “When [students] hide behind their keyboard, they don’t think they’re disappointing anyone if they don’t master something, so it doesn’t give them that feeling of letting someone down.” For some students, this is a benefit of online learning, a prime example of a student’s need for independence and personal ownership so as not to “disappoint” a face-to-face teacher. In actuality, however, the mastery model of NCVPS credit recovery online does not allow students the ability to hide behind their keyboard. Instead, their learning is individualized, and they are offered the opportunity to try again when they do not succeed the first time, building on skills learned previously through the mastery of pre-assessments and other online activities. Other benefits shared include the availability of the online teacher and the online environment providing “another avenue” to deliver material to the students. One VAC laughed as he shared an experience with a student he caught texting: “Every time I look over he’s texting. [I say,] Adam, what are you working on? ‘It’s my teacher,’ [Adam replies].” As online teachers make themselves accessible to students in multiple ways, whether it is via text, instant messaging, or video conferencing software, not only are they able to address individual questions and check for understanding, but also they enhance content in a way that is meaningful and relevant for individual students. VACs specifically commented on seeing success when students take advantage of “the whole spectrum of resources.” In addition, the NCVPS requires its teachers to deliver curricula in multiple ways to meet the needs of all learners. For example, students may be asked to read a text, view a video, listen to an audio version, and participate in a discussion board to master content. Students’ expectations of their online summer school experiences were to gain credits needed to graduate, class promotion, and grade promotion to the next level. The top three affordances of online learning for them included the ability to work at their own pace (89.5%, n = 34), the ability to work ahead (76.3%, n = 29), and the ability to retake a class that they had previously failed (65.8%, n = 24). These affordances prompted NHCS to alter the design of their program, making it mandatory for credit recovery students to complete their online course in the lab under the guidance of a VAC, rather than working from home. This case study revealed that “students excel when instructors work one-to-one with them to confirm their mastery of content, address questions, and motivate them” (Lewis et al., 2014).

Providing Chances for Students to Recover Credit

149

Challenges of Online Summer School Credit Recovery. When asked about the challenges of the online environment, VACs and online credit recovery teachers shared that credit recovery students wrestle with several challenges, including lack of motivation and lack of experience, and that these challenges can often be overcome with the additional support of a face-toface teacher and the individualized nature of the online environment. Online credit recovery teachers perceived students as thinking the online environment afforded them a fast and easy way to recover their credit. One teacher said, “I think students expect it to be easy. They think they will look around the web, fill in a few blanks, fix anything that is wrong and move on.” Several credit recovery teachers suggested that students equate online to play and feel betrayed when CR online courses require work. One teacher commented, “Screens, for them, have mostly meant play. When the play stops and the requirements for attentive synthesis begin, they feel betrayed.” VACs also mentioned students having navigation issues or being unfamiliar with the format of the online class. They noted that students struggle with reading directions, internet downtime, and not having taken an online class in the past. Seventy-eight percent of summer school students surveyed reported not having any prior preparation or training before taking a class in the online environment. Summer school VACs also mentioned not having access to textbooks that align with the course and expressed student frustration and a lack of understanding when their online teacher’s availability did not align with their own work time. One VAC explained: I think the biggest challenge is for some of them not having that face-to-face teacher all the time […] which is where we come in and we shine the most because we support them and we show them how to research, and I think that is a huge part of growing up really is learning how to be independent and figure things out and problem solve.

This finding aligns with the main challenges identified by students, which include personal responsibility for learning (64.5%, n = 20) and time management (61.3%, n = 19), and further complicates a growing dichotomy for credit recovery students. Students indicate that they want to be in control of their learning, yet they demand the help and guidance of a teacher. They enjoy the ability to control their own schedules, yet they note time management as a challenge. Case Study #2: North Carolina PLCs The PLC model was developed by Communities in Schools, an organization that works in partnership with public schools to identify and connect

150

SOMER LEWIS ET AL.

students, many of whom are at risk of dropping out, with the community resources they need to stay in school (Communities in Schools, 2014). PLCs provide options to students seeking non-traditional learning opportunities, including the availability of coursework both online and face to face. There are five PLCs in North Carolina, each with the mission of serving students “who have not been successful in the traditional high school setting for a variety of reasons, including low achievement, academic disabilities, and family variables” (Lewis et al., 2014). This case study includes interviews with three PLC principals, one VAC, a teacher focus group (n = 8, 89% response rate), and student survey (n = 50, 66% response rate) to examine the perceptions of students who attend PLCs and engage in online and blended learning for course credit. Benefits of Online Learning in the PLC Setting. PLC students identified clear benefits for online and blended learning with 95.9% (n = 47) selecting ability to work ahead and ability to work at their own pace as major benefits. Aligning with other K-12 online learning research, 75.5% of students (n = 37) credited online and blended learning with providing them the ability to graduate. One PLC principal shared the following example: [Students say] I don’t want a teacher telling me what to do. I need to be on a computer so I don’t have to deal with nobody.’ So when they come in, they hit the computer; a lot of them zip right through it. It’s not that they can’t do it; they just don’t want to deal with people. So then that works for that kid who solely want to be by themselves. But then you have the one who wants to be by himself but needs help too; so that’s when the blended works.

When asked to identify the benefits of online learning for their students, one teacher commented, “One of the benefits that I see, if they choose to take advantage of it, is that they get the one-on-one […]. Now, that’s a choice that they have to make.” Another teacher also commented on absenteeism, a challenge, but saw as a benefit his use of one online vendor providing supplemental digital materials, an alternative way for students to learn the information they have missed when they are not coming to class. Students who attend class regularly then have the benefit of both the online modules and the face-to-face teacher. Challenges of Online Learning in the PLC Setting Teachers in the PLC focus group identified challenges, such as students having a lack of foundational skills in reading and math, which, in turn, leads to difficulties in online learning. Teachers also identified motivation

Providing Chances for Students to Recover Credit

151

as a significant challenge. In addition, teachers addressed the challenges of online learning for students with identified exceptionalities, such as Attention Deficit Disorder: “They have to sit there and they don’t have the changing activities that one would have in a teacher taught classroom where we’re going to chunk and do this for 15 minutes and then 20 and then 45.” Challenges of blended and online learning identified by PLC students included having to be responsible for their own learning (68%, n = 34), needing time management skills (62%, n = 31), and lacking an immediate response to questions (50%, n = 25). When asked how they manage these challenges, the majority stated some variation of “tough[ing] it out,” “deal[ing] with it,” or asking for help from others (teachers, peers, and family members). Notably, 81% (n = 39) reported no one taught them strategies or skills to help them learn online. One student summarized her experience with online and blended learning at the PLC this way, “I like the fact that we have online classes, but also, have teachers in are class room [sic] that can teach us face to face and help us with anything we need help with.” Consistent with findings from Case Study #1, PLC students struggle with the benefits and challenges of online learning being one and the same. They appreciate the flexibility and autonomy afforded by the online environment, but they struggle with time management and the independence of credit recovery coursework.

Key Findings Through each case study context, the alignment of key benefits and challenges of online teaching and learning has led to an understanding of three significant findings overall. We believe that these findings ultimately become suggestions for schools and districts in their efforts to support online learning for at-risk students. Prepare Students for Online Learning More than half of the students in each case study shared their feelings of being ill-prepared to take classes in the online environment and that they received little or no support prior to beginning an online course. Several noted the need to lean on a parent, relative, or friend for help in this new learning environment. The need for online orientations both for students and parents may provide the foundational skills needed to increase online readiness and familiarity with the online learning environment. In addition,

152

SOMER LEWIS ET AL.

students need short online tutorials on web tools and other functions of the online course for additional support, particularly for students unfamiliar with the online environment. Provide Individualized Support When asked how they support students who are working in the lab, several of the VACs in the summer school program and teachers in the PLC mentioned the importance of establishing a relationship with their students. One coordinator stated, “I talk with them. I get them going. I let them know that I’m on their side, and I know what they are going through. I establish a relationship. Without establishing that relationship they’re not going to listen to anything I have to say.” While VACs also help with navigation issues, saving documents, and attaching files, several have also taken it upon themselves to meet with students twice a week, or even daily, to discuss progress and set goals. Providing this individualized face-to-face and/or online support and guidance is key to helping students balance their need for autonomy and concern with pacing. In open-ended questions about what would help students become more successful in online summer coursework, students identified time management skills and face-to-face assistance, the exact types of support afforded by individualized, scaffolded instruction. One student commented on how helpful it was that the lab facilitator was a math teacher, since she was taking a math class. Develop Strategies and Structures for Student Success Schools and districts face major challenges in designing strategies and structures that support online learning for students. Beyond the individualized technology and content-driven support suggested, schools and districts must also consider overall program structures that will lead to student success. For one district, this meant reconsidering the location of computer labs for summer school credit recovery, committing to the hiring of VACs, addressing transportation issues, and mandating an attendance policy. In addition, research strongly suggests “the development of a careful strategy for intervention for students who are low-performing, under-performing, or at-risk of dropping out of school” (Lewis et al., 2014). NCVPS offers sample interventions such as the bi-weekly reporting of student progress, weekly parent and student communication, and the availability of tutoring for students who are struggling in a particular academic area (A. Renfro, personal communication, April 9, 2014).

Providing Chances for Students to Recover Credit

153

Implications of Online Teaching and Learning for Credit Recovery To be successful in the online environment, students must be readily prepared for the experience at hand and, more specifically, prepared for the challenges they may face using a nontraditional method to regain course credit. Research finds that the benefits afforded to at-risk students in the online learning environment are often their personal challenges (Lewis, Garrett Dikkers, & Whiteside, 2014). For example, while students may enjoy the flexibility of online learning, they still identify time management as a struggle. In addition, the most successful online learner must be committed, flexible, and independent (Al-Bataineh, Brooks, & BassoppoMoyo, 2005; Lewis et al., 2014). As a result, credit recovery students need time for proper orientation to the online environment prior to tackling course content, so that the lack of technical experience does not negatively impact learning. Implications for Program Development As we consider the implications of online learning for students, we must also consider the systemic issues impacting accessibility and opportunity in virtual schooling. Specifically, one must address the digital divide that exists among students, especially at-risk youth with or without access to online learning for credit recovery, and among those with access, whether they receive the benefits of scaffolded, individualized support both online and face to face. In addition, credit recovery students may face barriers, such as lack of internet access at home, transportation to school, or perhaps access to a library computer lab to complete their online coursework. These environmental challenges not only question the timing of this online learning opportunity, when in the academic year the opportunity may be most beneficial for students, but also, how many online courses a student should take and whether credit recovery should be available in addition to the face-to-face classes a student completes in any given semester. In Case Study #1 examining summer school credit recovery, the district’s programmatic decision to restructure summer course offerings provides one such example impacting accessibility and opportunity for students. The district has provided additional summer school computer labs, improved of transportation, and the added support structures such as school-based VACs to mitigate some of the issues that arise during program development (Garrett Dikkers et al., 2015). In addition, this special population of students not only requires these additional support structures at the school and district level, but also needs

154

SOMER LEWIS ET AL.

support structures that address matters of self-efficacy. Do students feel prepared and supported in the online environment? Can they be successful online for the purpose of credit recovery? Teachers play a large role in understanding and addressing matters of self-efficacy and providing credit recovery students the supports needed to be successful. For example, NCVPS teachers provide course pacing guides that allow students to work independently. Teachers post daily announcements which include daily goals, additional supports for course content, and celebrations of student success. Credit recovery teachers also contact students synchronously once per week, if not more often, with the purpose of connecting with students, making coursework relevant and personalizing learning.

Implications for Teachers Unlike the traditional environment, online teachers must facilitate learning for their students through the often challenging technical glitches that plague the online world, in addition to the day-to-day challenges of any brick and mortar teacher. Some teachers may thrive in this new environment and possess skills, similar to those of the most successful online students, which allow them to be flexible and committed to making this environment work for such a special population of learners. For some teachers, however, the success they find in the traditional classroom may not translate to the online one, as every traditional classroom teacher may not be qualified to teach online (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013). Some teachers will thrive, while others will ultimately struggle. In this case, the need for professional support and training for online teachers is paramount to their success and the success of their students in the online environment. In many ways, teachers must contemplate matters of their own selfefficacy. Do teachers feel prepared and supported to teach online? Whether teachers enter the profession through a traditional education program or via an alternative method, coursework includes valuable pedagogy for working with diverse learners, differentiating instructional strategies, and so on, in the traditional, face-to-face learning environment. In both case studies, online learning and the needs of learners who take advantage of online credit recovery coursework are described as anything but traditional. To better prepare their teachers, NCVPS requires educators to engage in nine weeks of online coursework and an additional nine weeks of an online practicum where teachers serve as a “Teacher in Training” in the online course of a mentor teacher. The required, unpaid, 18 week program, completed prior to hiring, illustrates the NCVPS’s awareness of the training

Providing Chances for Students to Recover Credit

155

needs of its teachers and commitment to hiring teachers who understand the unique needs of their online learners. Can teachers be successful in their teaching for the purpose of supporting at-risk students in the online environment? This includes not only the ongoing education needed to implement various instructional strategies, but also strategies for working with at-risk credit recovery students who are not necessarily communicating day in and day out or are not in attendance at a teacher’s face-to-face school. In addition to their initial training and practicum, once hired, NCVPS teachers participate in ongoing professional development based on their three pillars, which include teaching through announcements, teaching through feedback, and teaching through synchronous contact (North Carolina Virtual Public School, 2013b). Similar to students’ consideration of the number of classes they should complete and whether online coursework should be attempted during the academic year, teachers must make these same considerations in whether they are using online teaching to enhance the work they are already doing in the classroom, or in addition to their face-to-face teaching (Garrett Dikkers, 2015).

CONCLUSION As of 2013 2014, 30 states have fully online schools, 26 states have state virtual schools, and 11 states offer course choice policies to students, allowing them to choose online programs from more than one provider (Watson et al., 2014). As of September 2013, four states require students to complete an online course to graduate from high school (Alabama, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia), and two others (North Carolina and Arkansas) are in the process of implementing such a requirement (Watson et al., 2013). This changing digital landscape brings with it not only an abundance of opportunity for students who are at risk of dropping out, but also implications for teachers, both online and face-to-face, who must support the needs of the online student and adapt to the diverse pedagogy of the online environment. According to a recent Keeping Pace report (Watson et al., 2014): The most digitally advanced [school] districts have a wide range of digital options in place with powerful infrastructure capabilities to serve most, if not all, students. These districts usually have a range of self-provided and/or externally provided online courses for original credit, and a virtual school for students who wish to take all of their courses

156

SOMER LEWIS ET AL.

online. They offer digital content to students at most grade levels, a way to provide and/or accommodate a range of computer and mobile devices for all students, extensive professional development for teachers, and support mechanisms to assist teachers and instructional leaders with the shift to integrating digital content and tools into their classrooms. (p. 6).

The reality, however, is that the majority of districts, students, and teachers are not prepared for the changing digital landscape and that gaps exist among students and schools within districts that offer online learning as an option (Watson et al., 2014). The challenge is to review the research and act according in a planned, solution-oriented approach for excellence in supporting credit recovery students and teachers in virtual learning environments.

REFERENCES Al-Bataineh, A., Brooks, L., & Bassoppo-Moyo, T. C. (2005). Implications of online teaching and learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 285 295. Archambault, L., Diamond, D., Coffey, M., Foures-Aalbu, D., Richardson, J., Zygouris-Coe, V., …, Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Research committee issues brief: An exploration of at-risk learners and online education. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Barbour, M. K. (2009). Today’s student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges, the promise. Journal of Distance Learning, 13(1), 5 25. Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises, LLC. Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning: A review of open access literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1 22. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/ irrodl/article/view/607/1182 Communities in Schools. (2014). About us. Retrieved from http://www.ciscapefear.org/ about-us/ Davis, M. R. (2013). Credit-recovery classes take a personal approach. Education Week: Spotlight on Credit Recovery and Online Learning, 30(15), 12 13. Garrett Dikkers, A. (2015). The intersection of online and face-to-face teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 139 156. Garrett Dikkers, A., Lewis, S., & Kraft, W. (2015). A district’s move to virtual summer coursework. School Administrator, 72(4), 13 15. Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007). Dropout risk factors and exemplary programs. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Communities in Schools, Inc. Hupfeld, K. (2010). A review of the literature: Resiliency skills and dropout prevention. Denver, CO: Scholar Centric. Retrieved from http://www.scholarcentric.com/images/pdf/resiliency_skills/SC_Resiliency_WP_FNL.pdf

Providing Chances for Students to Recover Credit

157

International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2013, October). Fast facts about online learning. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Lewis, S., Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2014). Autonomy and responsibility: Online learning as a solution for at-risk high school students. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 29(2), 1 11. Retrieved from http://ijede.ca/index. php/jde/article/view/883/1543 North Carolina Virtual Public School. (2013a). About us. Retrieved from http://www.ncvps. org/index.php/about-us/ North Carolina Virtual Public School. (2013b). Ten cool facts about NCVPS teachers. Retrieved from http://www.ncvps.org/index.php/ten-cool-facts-about-ncvps-teachers/ Rapp, K. E., Eckes, S. E., & Plurker, J. A. (2006). Cyber charter schools in Indiana: Policy implications of the current statutory language. Education Policy Brief, 4(3). Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V4N3_Winter_2006_CyberCharter.pdf Rose, R., & Blomeyer, R. (2007). Access and equity in online classes and virtual schools. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL). Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/NACOL_EquityAccess.pdf Tompkins, R., & Deloney, P. (1994). Rural students at risk in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/rural/atrisk/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2014a, September 24). CPS historical time series tables on school enrollment. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/cps/historical/index. html U.S. Census Bureau. (2014b, December 4). State & county quickfacts: New Hanover. County, NC: Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37129.html U.S. Department of Education. (2009). The condition of education 2009. NCES 2009 081. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Watson, J., & Gemin, B. (2008). Promising practices in online learning: Using online learning for at-risk students and credit recovery. Vienna, VA: International Association of K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/promisingpractices/ NACOL_CreditRecovery_PromisingPractices.pdf Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping pace with K-12 online & blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A. L., Gemin, B., & Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K 12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Zehr, M. (2010). Demand still growing for online credit-recovery classes. Education Week, 29(36), 10.

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION III THINKING ABOUT ONLINE PRACTICE

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION INTRODUCTION: THINKING ABOUT ONLINE PRACTICE Helen Freidus The real voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. Marcel Proust

As we move into the world of online education, it is important to consider not only the choices we make, but also how these choices relate to our vision of teaching and learning. Is there consistency between what we do and what we hope to do? Does our vision work in the service of all learners; if not, how can we reframe it to do so? Much of online education appears to emerge from a transmissional paradigm. In this paradigm, bits of information are transferred from course instructor to the participating students (Freire, 1984). This is most clearly embodied in the prevalence of MOOC’s. Courses are constructed in linear, easily accessible ways. Knowledge is viewed as objective, and learning is defined as the acquisition of skills. There is little room for questioning or dialogue, for it is the content rather than the learner that is at the center. However, online education can also emerge from a transformational paradigm, one in which knowledge is socially constructed. In these learning environments, dialogue is central; instructor and students are jointly responsible for creating a process through which all grow (Freire, 1984). Courses, so designed, acknowledge the importance of context, prior knowledge, learning style, and relationship. Enacting social constructivist perspectives, teacher and learners come to “see” and “know” more and differently; their worlds and their sense of possibility are extended (Lave &Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978).

162

HELEN FREIDUS

Transformational perspectives are widely supported in the literature of online research and theory (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995; Swan, 2005; Swan, Garrison, & Richardson, 2009). These theorists contend that student engagement is more effective when students have opportunities to interact with and learn from each other in varied forms of social interaction. Online students learn best from authentic tasks, meaningful problem-based thinking, and experiences in which they are able to negotiate meaning in relation-based contexts and then reflect on what they have learned (Jonassen et al., 1995). The implementation of transformational learning environments is not always easy to accomplish. These environments go against the dominant discourse of current policy and practice and require new roles for both instructors and students. Describing her first experiences, Hummel (in Kelly, 2014) describes how when she first began to alter her expectations and encourage more generative discourse in online forums, some of her students pushed back and said, “I’ve taken an online course before, and this isn’t what we’re supposed to do. I just want to post and be done with it.” Goss and Hummel (in Kelly, 2014) articulate their own pathway toward discovering how to create transparent expectations and support participants as they learn to engage in transformative learning. What is significant about their findings is that it becomes very clear that the process of developing and implementing transformative learning environments is complex for all involved. This is the challenge that the authors in this section have chosen to pursue in order to meet the needs of diverse learners. Their work offers new visions for our work in online settings.

REFERENCES Freire, P. (1984). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7 26. Kelly, R. (2014). Going deeper: Roles and structures for more engaging online discussion, online classroom. Retrieved from http://www.magnapubs.com/newsletter/online-classroom/ 132/Going-Deeper-Roles-and-Structures-for-More-Engaging-Online-Discussion-133731.html Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Section III: Thinking about Online Practice

163

Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43 57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

This page intentionally left blank

ECOSOPHIC TEACHING USING A PEDAGOGY OF THE GLOCAL Heather Greenhalgh-Spencer ABSTRACT Purpose Ecosophy focuses on the broad and deep connections we all share; the relationships within, among, and between social processes, economies, ideologies, materialities, and living systems. Methodology/approach In order to bring ecosophical issues to the fore, I draw on a pedagogy of the glocal: a pedagogy informed by an awareness of, and aiming to create an awareness of, the ways that global trajectories intersect with local practices. Findings I analyze my own experiences using glocality as a pedagogy in several online courses for graduate students. As part of these courses, we worked toward an awareness and activism informed by both glocal understandings and ecosophic commitments. Research implications This research offers new ways to think about the commitments that are necessary for online learning in teacher education to move forward. Specifically that ecosophy can be applied to a variety of new problems in teacher education.

Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 25, 165 185 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000027009

165

166

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

Originality/value This chapter’s unique approach models thinking with theory in online education. It also offers a valuable underused way to integrate technology and pedagogy through shared commitments. Keywords: Ecosophy; glocal; post-modern approaches to online learning; philosophic commitments to online learning

INTRODUCTION My own research into the effects of globalization on schooling and education has lead me to consider both the ways that global forces affect all nations and people in an interconnected and interdependent way, and yet also to consider the specific: the specific inflection of local economies, geographies, and cultures and the ways these come together to create particular instantiations of action and reaction to globalization. This work has not only changed the ways I understand globalization, but also changed my pedagogy. I now try to do more in my own classroom to foreground our connections to our earth, to local communities, and to processes of globalization. In my search for a framework that allows me to understand my own desire to reimagine pedagogy in ways that pinpoint these interconnectivities, I have turned to work on ecosophy and on global-local connections. An ecosophic lens focused on a thick understanding of broad connectivity and relationships with things and spaces and glocal pedagogy focused on mapping our connections to the local, to the global, and the networks of relationship and power that connect us has become something that I now advocate as part of a practice that spotlights our interdependencies on each other, on the earth, and on both local and global instantiations of power. In this chapter, I argue that we need a pedagogy that allows us to map the glocal in order to become aware of our own ecosophic connections and potential commitments. I argue that we need to focus on the minutia and embodied communities of localness; we also need to articulate and act with an understanding of how locality is always inflected with global forces. We then need to create a praxis an activism informed by the glocal. In my view, it is particularly important to focus on our ecosophic connections, as part of a mapping of that glocality. In this chapter, I spotlight my experiences trying to use a pedagogy of mapping glocality in two online courses for graduate students studying globalization and education. As part of

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

167

these courses, I assigned students to go out in their community, take pictures of, videos of, and create reflections on, the minutia and processes of local community life. I then challenged students to make connections between what was being articulated in their locality, with global forces and the global imaginary. We also, as a matter of praxis, worked toward activism informed by the glocal. We mapped connections between our use of digital devices, and the ecologically destructive paths that these devices took in order to come into use. As a class, we worked toward mapping out ways that digital devices, and our connections to both local and global ecologies and economies, can be mapped in ways that creates critical awareness of ecological issues as a form of praxis. A praxis around mapping the glocal creates more opportunities for informed activism and critical engagement by students and teachers. This pedagogy is particularly important as more universities, community colleges, and even high schools are turning toward an international focus. U.S. universities are courting international students, sending more students on international/study abroad trips, and creating more international campuses (Institute of International Education, 2015). Community colleges are now offering multiple programs in international and comparative education (American Association of Community Colleges, 2015). The International Baccalaureate Program is also seeing an increase in schools registered as IB Schools (International Baccalaureate Program, 2015). As educational institutions increasingly engage with global populations, it becomes more important to have a deeper sense of the ways that local spaces interact with global trajectories. As Kennedy (2010), and Rizvi and Lingard (2009) argue, if educational institutions are to wrestle with the implications of globalized educational policies, international students, and the increased mobility of people and knowledge, then these need to do more study, research, and reflect on the glocal a neologism that unites the global and the local. In this chapter, I wish to explore a few main themes in order to both argue for and trace out how ecosophic commitments and glocal mapping as pedagogical strategies might be both necessary and used in online courses. I first focus on explaining Ecosophy: What is ecosophy and how might it shape our educational commitments? I then focus on glocal mapping as a pedagogical technique: What is glocality; glocal mapping; and how might this be used in the classroom? I then use examples from my own teaching, as well as from the relevant literature, to argue that we need to do more to map out our connections: connections to communities, to economies, to ecologies, to the world.

168

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

ECOSOPHY AND EDUCATION There are many different versions of ecosophy: variably defined as a philosophy of ecology, a turning toward ecology as a metaphor, and a turning toward a deeper commitment to ecological and environmental concerns. Ecosophy emerges within the matrix of other philosophical traditions dedicated to exploring our relationships with things, the natural world, and our overall enculturated environment. The deep ecology of Naess and Rothenberg (1989) draws on an ecosophy that directs our attention to how individual and institutional actions can degrade our natural environment. Scholarship by Benjamin (1968) and Heidegger (1962) also shape this tradition with a focus on our relationships with technologies, tools, machines, and cultural artifacts. Ecosophy has resonance with the work of LeFebvre (1992) who focuses on the ways that places physical spaces are produced through an interaction of the physical, discursive, and social practices. In many ways, ecosophy can be situated within a posthuman trajectory that advocates for an analysis of the blurred lines between humans and machines; people and their environments. Scholars like Haraway (1990), Hales (1999), and Roseanne Alcuquere (Sandy) Stone (2001) each make explicit that we as humans are not so separate from our machines, and that the relationships of human and machine also have bearing on the wider natural and institutional environments in which we live. Ecosophy can be seen as part of the new scholarly turn toward materiality (Materialist Feminism, presence studies, material phenomenology). Ecosophy is many things. In order to develop a thick and nuanced understanding of our relationships to people, processes, things, and living systems an understanding that changes the way we see our educational spaces I spotlight the later works of Guattari (2008), and his development of ecosophy and an ecosophic lens. I focus on Guattari’s version of ecosophy because his work has broader connections to global forces and local practices, as well as a more nuanced understanding of an eco-system as being more than about interactions on an organic level. His work allows me to better theorize why a pedagogy of the glocal can be so meaningful. Ecosophy, as theorized by Felix Guattari, focuses on the broad and deep connections we all share, the relationships within, among, and between social processes, economies, ideologies, materialities, and living systems. It provokes an awareness of the dynamic assemblages of these systems; these systems can be connected and reimagined in transformative ways. In his works The Three Ecologies and Remaking Social Practices, Guattari (2008) disassociated the notion of ecosophy with merely a love of

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

169

nature or a desire to associate one’s own identity or feelings of empathy with other biological creatures and natural spheres. Instead, Guattari (2008) specifically argues for a transversalizing approach to ecology where the singularity of personal identity becomes reframed in reference to relationships with broader processes, machines, people, nature the biological, the sociological, and the ideological. Rather than centering the human or human institutions, Guattari highlights the dynamic assemblages of connections we share with fields of desire, practice, and material objects. Our world is shaped through these variable assemblages and by coming to a vision of these dynamic and forceful connections, we can seek to change the world in different ways. Guattari’s work is unique in its explicit vision of ecology as the intersection of the natural/physical/tangible world, with both social institutions and ideologies/discourses. Guattari is unique in his insistence on the equal importance of both anthropocentric and ecocentric interventions and assemblages of meaning. He parses out how these different spheres overlap and shape each other; it is a call toward a new vision or understanding of our relationships and connectivity among, in-between, and within all of these different spheres. Guattari (2008) argues that an ecosophic lens changes our understanding of our relationship to things and people, and this, in turn, has the power to change actions and policies. For Guattari, seeing the full ecology of our relationships outward creates a new sense of both wonder and care for the world around us; we more fully see the ways that society intersects with the world of things. Guattari (1995) highlights the connections between people, economics, social processes, ideological desire, things, and the natural world, that have emerged at this moment of economic and environmental hardship. He argues that any crisis in the natural world (environmental degradation) is intimately connected to other crises in our economic, ideological, and social spheres. In order to create some sort of transformation, it is imperative to understand the connections with all parts of the ecology. “The ecological crisis can be traced to a more general crisis of the social, political and existential,” which “involve[s] changes in production, ways of living and axes of value” (p. 119). Guattari continues: Ecological disasters, famine, unemployment, the escalation of racism and xenophobia, hunt, like so many threats, the end of this millennium. At the same time, science and technology have evolved with extreme rapidity, supplying man with virtually all the necessary means to solve his material problems. But humanity has not seized upon these; it remains stupefied, powerless before the challenges that confront it. It passively contributes to the pollution of water and the air, to the destruction of forests, to the

170

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

disturbance of climates, to the disappearance of a multitude of living species, to the impoverishment of the genetic capital of the biosphere, to the destruction of natural landscapes, to the suffocation of its cities, and to the progressive abandonment of cultural values and moral references in the areas of human solidarity and fraternity … How can it find a compass by which to reorient itself within a modernity whose complexity overwhelms it? (p. 134)

Guattari (1995) spotlights the connections between environmental exploitation and the broader sociological, ideological, and economic trajectories. There is a sense of both possibility and crises as Guattari compels us to see the integration and relationality of environmental concerns and tragedies with broader social and ideological trajectories. Thus, Guattari argues for an ecosophy that contends with and acts upon the interaction of all of these elements. Guattari’s ecosophy is not environmentalism, nor is it a philosophy of ecology as it is traditionally understood. Rather, Guattari’s ecosophy rethinks relationships and a broader notion of environment or the ecological as mobile, active, and dynamic assemblages. Ecosophy requires interventions that anticipate the convergence of nature, culture, globalization, technology, machines, new ideologies, new forms and practices of medicine and health, and new media. Intervention must be made at the civic, political, environmental, institutional, and even semiotic levels. An ecosophic lens creates an awareness of relationships between these various fields of play, and also promotes a new vision of our embeddedness within the world of things, geographies of materiality. Guattari (2008) argues that an ecosophic lens creates a change in vision or a haunting that makes us uncomfortable with living in a disposable world and further provokes awareness of the tangible objects and living systems around us. An ecosophic lens initiates a change in ontology, where humans no longer exist in a subject object relationship with the nonhuman. Rather, human, nonhuman, and whatever exists in-between become equally agentic and forceful, prompting a different kind of relationship with materialities and living systems. We are haunted by our rhizomatic connections to systems, geographies, and things, and this, in turn, can change how we move and interact in the world. So where does this ecosophic lens leave us; how does it change the way we do education? I now turn to further exploration of what an ecosophic lens has meant in my own teaching, as a way of thinking through some of the benefits of an ecosophic lens as part of the educative process. I spotlight the use of the pedagogical strategy of glocal mapping as a way of both tracing out our ecosophic connections, as well as creating a form of praxis that is embedded within an ecosophic understanding, and committed to engaging students and making a difference.

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

171

MAPPING THE GLOCAL AS A PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGY How does one map the glocal as a pedagogical strategy? One way to explicitly take up an exploration of the glocal is to map out the intersections, influences, and shaping power of the glocal. The practice of mapping out physical spaces, and then analyzing how these spaces show the shaping power of both local and global influences, is championed in the works of LeFevre (1992) and Guattari (1989). In my own research, I draw on these ideas to think about ways that teachers can map out material spaces in order to foreground the shaping power of both the local and the global. My desire for and practice of “mapping” as a pedagogical tactic emerges from, or has been nurtured by, my own reading of other scholars’ work focused on the connections between spaces, things, people, ideologies, and power. Ratiba Hadj-Moussa (2009) reminds us that “acting out” is framed by what counts as conformity and nonconformity in various places; what counts as dangerous or unremarkable is always framed by geography, custom, and specific spaces. Fenster (2009) reminds us of a similar fact when she tells the story of Bedouin women who were socially constrained from using a park because city planners had created the park in a place and in a way that “unpermitted” encounters between men and women would become more likely. The intersection of cultural norms and city planners who did not take into consideration the needs of women resulted in a park that was virtually unused. The men didn’t use it because it was a “children’s” park; and the women didn’t use it because it was deemed to be a forbidden space by cultural norms. I borrow from Guattari’s (2008) insistence on the importance of mapping out reference points in order to understand the assemblages the part/wholes that shape power, people, ideas, and environments. Guattari has an insightful way of focusing on an object or phenomenon and then mapping out the connections between that thing to power, ideas, emotions, expectations, and the possibility for “the new.” LeFevre (1992), too, reminds us that not only are spaces and objects shaped by human and societal actions, but that our perceptions of spaces and objects are also shaped by discourses often hegemonic discourses and expectations, and that this perception also shapes our practices around and understanding of objects and spaces. Tangible spaces are both real and exist apart from human intervention, understanding, and even consciousness, but are also shaped and constructed through human processes, both physical and discursive. And so, I take from these works the idea that we can create critical, subversive, visionary moments by

172

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

drawing attention to spaces, objects, and things, and the ways that discourse, policy, expectation, human practice, cultural specificity, and global mobility link into, are shaped by, and shape those spaces, objects, etc. To that end, the pedagogy that I desire, and experiment with, focuses on ways to notice the connection of the specific and the global, by paying attention to things, spaces, and specific phenomena. In my classes, I ask students to take every-day objects, or what they see in their own neighborhoods, and mark out the ways these spaces are both local and global; they are glocal spaces. This pedagogy may best be described as rumination in order to get at power, policy, practice, and connectivity. While mapping pedagogies can be used in brick-and-mortar classrooms, I argue that they are particularly fruitful in online educational spaces. Online classrooms are shaped by the fact that students connect to the classroom from places all over the world. The online classroom in particular benefits from an pedagogies of glocal mapping because students are living in varied locations; there is more fodder for the mapping of the local and the localness of things that are shaped by ideologies and social systems which, increasingly, transverse the globe. I try to promote this enmeshment in the glocal when I teach online courses in Global Studies in Education, in Diversity and Equity Issues in Education, and in other courses as well. Because my students live in multiple different countries and multiple different time zones, there is a wealth of different places and views that are displayed and discussed in order to develop our glocal understandings. I have tried to draw on the diversity of experience and location and use this diversity to our advantage as we, as a class, try to map out privilege, inequity, silencing, diversity, and difference, in unique ways. We work to mark out and critique the connections of the local and global, the specific and the hegemonic, by focusing on objects and spaces in our own homes and neighborhoods. Let me provide a few examples of how this has worked in my online courses.

MAPPING OUT OUR HOME SPACES In many of the courses that I teach, there is a focus on global education and connections to transnationality and globalization. We read and have discussions and activities that aim to promote a complex understanding of the ways that global forces, global connections, and global imaginaries are articulated in the site of the school. We explore globalized policies,

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

173

mobilities, organizations, and the ways these fields shape local schooling places and practices. Drawing on an affinity for ecosophy, I ask my students to map out their home spaces as a way of deepening our understandings of the interactions of the global and the local, the glocal. This means that we take time during our synchronous sessions to walk through our schools, offices, homes, or whatever place we are in, and map out how the materialities around us mark these glocal connections. I have students take videos and pictures of their neighborhood streets, their school rooms, their refrigerators, and their cityscapes, to document these connections, and to share experiences with the rest of the online class. The following are examples from specific classes and are also a representation of some of the pedagogical strategies I use across my various courses. Example 1. In these classes, I often ask students to show us the connections they see in their own neighborhoods that are glocal; I ask them to document objects that show transnational connections in local spaces. I ask them to take a picture of an object close to them, in their own homes or on their own neighborhood streets, and then analyze how that object connects to global policies, the global imaginary, and globalization mobilities. Many provocative images are shared with the class; these images are visceral examples of glocal forces, and yet are also intimate in that they show us, as a class, a piece of the places that we each call home. For this exercise, I have had students take and share pictures of an Iranian school in Mexico; a Japanese car made using parts built in the United States, and parked on a street in China; German beer in a refrigerator in Puerto Rico, and a textbook published by a British press, for a course taught through a U.S. University, used by a student living in Nicaragua. Mapping out our glocal transnationalisms through everyday objects is a fascinating exercise in seeing the ways that discourses, policies, and practices are manifest through tangible objects that we tend to take for granted. Students talk about the ways that these objects of globalization are also shaped by or understood within local communities. For example, only certain stores sell German Beer in Puerto Rico, and these stores are embedded within local communities and geographic spaces; these spaces produce practices that cater to a wealthy clientele, which inhabits not only specific locations, but specific ideologies as well, within Puerto Rico. The Iranian school in Mexico is not only an example of global mobilities but also points to specific geographies and cultural practices within a defined location. There is a small Iranian population, living as a

174

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

somewhat sequestered community, in a specific area in Mexico. The global mobility of people interacts with the specificity of a group of Iranians who were given asylum in Mexico, to produce an ever growing community of Iranians living in this particular town; this interaction shapes the production of an Iranian school in Mexico. It is the combination of the needs of a local community that are part of larger global trajectories toward mobility. By exploring the interconnectedness of global forces and local instantiations of those forces, we are better able to see the connections, the particulars, and also get a deeper sense of the neighborhoods that we all, as classmates, and as people, inhabit. Example 2. I ask students to document the ways that physical spaces their own neighborhoods are shaped through both global and local norms. I see this as a sort of experimentation with material phenomenology, where we come to understand how our identity and ideology are shaped by the physical spaces around us. In this exercise, I have students take pictures of and talk about seeing their neighborhoods differently, now that they are looking at their home spaces through the lens of the glocal. During this exercise, I had one student talk about her neighborhood, where a meth lab was right down the street. She talked about the global production and trade of meth between the United States and Mexico. She also talked about the discourses that create teacher salaries so low that the only place she can afford to live anywhere close to work is in a neighborhood where she is afraid to go out after dark; where you can occasionally hear sirens in the background when she turns on her mic to speak during class. I had one student talk about the tensions of being a Western woman living in the U.A.E., where expectations around what was permissible for a woman to do and where a woman was allowed to go and be seen fluctuated with both cosmopolitan understandings of gender norms and local understandings of gender norms. She was able to show us on a map the places where she was allowed to be, the places where she was not allowed to be, and the places where her Western-ness protected her, as well as the places where that Westernness made her vulnerable. Using this pedagogical strategy, we are able to have students map out their neighborhoods, and the expectations of their neighborhoods, and then analyze the ways that these spaces are shaped by global practices, as well as the times and spaces when local practices push against global practices. By focusing on what is happening all around us through the lens of the glocal, we are able to spotlight, and even map, the places,

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

175

practices, and objects that are shaped through globalization, as well as the moments of resistance to globalization. In this way, we strive to interrogate the connections between social interactions, ideologies, and material tangible places and objects. Mapping these connections and the practice of glocal mapping as a pedagogical strategy has not only promoted an attention to global forces and local instantiations of culture and power but also drawn our attention to the ways we are connected to our earth and the environment. Drawing attention to the everyday objects around us allows us to wrestle with our own part in a global economy of things. As a way of exploring these everyday objects, I often ask my class to focus on the technologies we use to connect to each other: digital artifacts. Attention to digital artifacts, and mapping the routes of digital artifacts, help my students and I to become more aware of our connections to the earth and each other, and inspired us to develop an activism around ecological issues. Thus, as part of my pedagogy of the glocal, I ask students to track the routes of digital artifacts.

TRACKING THE ROUTES OF DIGITAL ARTIFACTS Not long ago, while in the process of watching some of the links, pictures, and videos created by students to spotlight their home spaces, a number of my students and assistants had their computers crash. Whenever we started to watch the videos or view the pictures as a class, these same people lost access to the course. This had not happened before, and it generated a long email chain as to the nature of the problem. As it turned out, the software we use to run our online synchronous classes had “upgraded” its capabilities for viewing high bit-rate video. This was supposed to be a good thing. However, this “upgrade” requires a large amount of RAM something only newer and more expensive machines have. All the students including the assistants to the course who were using machines at a university computer lab who did not have upgraded machines, were unable to view the videos and pics. The new software upgrade gave new machine users a higher quality of video, but it crashed the machines of anyone who had an older computer. This experience generated a productive discussion in our class. I talked about the assumption inherent in the requirements of the upgraded software that everyone would have access to a newer computer, as a sign of our disposable culture and one of the digital divides. When institutions,

176

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

discourses, and practices guide us into purchasing a new computer every three or four years, we are interpolated into a global dumping route where e-waste moves from the Global North to the landfills, water, soil, and community home spaces of people in the Global South. When we are finished with our digital devices, they do not disappear into the light and ether that is so much a part of discourses around virtual and technology-enhanced spaces. Old computers go somewhere and come from somewhere: they often start out in a manufacturing plant, and then end up in a landfill in India, China, and Bangladesh. This e-waste dumping route privileges people in the Global North, who often don’t think about where their computers come from or where they go when they die. On the other hand, e-waste landfills and manufacturing plants tend to have deleterious effects on people living near them. The experience in this class prompted the students and I to map out the route of digital artifacts, and this is now a strategy I use in many of my classes that focus on globalization and our interconnectedness as a transnational society. As a class, digging into research about how digital objects are made, and how they are disposed, we unearthed a large body of research about the ways that our uses of computers and other digital devices were both part of a global economy of things, but with locally differing consequences. As a class, we discovered that the dumping of e-waste (digital artifacts that get dumped into landfills and rivers) has horrible consequences for the environment and the people who live off of the land. Living near an e-waste landfill, according to a United Nations University (2004) report, correlates to an increased exposure to brominated flame retardants, as well as lead, mercury, cadmium, and chromium, which leach into both soil and water supplies. Furthermore, research sponsored by the Ghanian government and the NGO Safe World for Women points out that women and children are at heightened risk for health complications from exposure to these toxins. Dr. McGrath (2015), one of the researchers who worked on the report, shows that living in proximity to e-waste dumping sites is associated with toxic exposure to lead, arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and mercury, zinc, and nickel. As McGrath points out, “Mercury and lead are particularly dangerous neurotoxins that bioaccumulate in children’s bodies over time … they may suffer from brain and kidney damage, respiratory illness, developmental and behavioral disorders, and eventually cancer. Acute or chronic exposure to toxic e-waste can be fatal.” This report points out that pregnant women, and their in utero babies, are at the height of risk for toxic exposure.

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

177

Another researcher for the report, Dr. Quartey (2015), marks out some of the consequences of exposure to e-waste. Says Quartey: The components of the WEEE [waste electronic and electrical emissions] make it dangerous. For example, computers contain toxins including but not limited to: • Dioxins thyroid problems, damage to the immune and central nervous (CNS) systems. • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, used in coolant fluids) endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity. • Cadmium metal fume fever, lung inflammation and excess fluid in the lungs, death. • Mercury (in batteries) chest pain, shortness of breath, coughing up blood, CNS dysfunction. • Lead (in the cathode ray tube) blood disorders, damage to the nervous system, kidneys, and brain.

Research from Frazzoli, Orisakwe, Dragone, and Mantovani (2010) echoes this point. Frazzoli and her team marked out one of the hazards of the e-waste phenomenon as the “carry-over” effects whereby women exposed to toxins from e-waste dumps will pass on the negative effects of that exposure to their children. Therefore, e-waste affects multiple generations, even if families move away from toxic environments. Frazzoli et al. argue: Scientific evidence available so far (mainly from China) [focuses on]. … the poor health burden heritage perpetuated through the mother-to-child dyad. Endocrine disruption and neurotoxicity are specifically considered as examples of main health burden issues relevant to perpetuation through life cycle and across generations; toxicological information are considered along with available data on environmental and food contamination and human internal exposure. The risk from exposure to e-waste related mixtures of toxicants of vulnerable subpopulation like breast-fed infants is given special attention. The diagnostic risk assessment demonstrates how e-waste exposure poses an actual public health emergency, as it may entrain significant health risks also for generations to come. (p. 388.)

Women and children are affected by the toxic dumping of e-waste. Women and children are more vulnerable to the exposure because of their societal positioning as workers of the land, collectors of water, and collectors of e-waste byproducts (left over copper and other metals) for resale. Women and children are also at greater risk of exposure because statistically speaking women and children have endocrine systems that work at a rate that makes toxic exposure particularly problematic. Furthermore, this risk increases in women who are pregnant and their in utero

178

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

offspring. In these ways, women in the rural global South are positioned to bear more of the brunt of toxic exposure. This exposure to toxins also has consequences for and shapes physical embodiment. Women become more likely to suffer loss of endocrine functionality, birth defects in their babies, and other health problems from this exposure. Women living near e-waste dumps women in less-developed rural areas are significantly negatively affected by the disposal of digital artifacts. In many less-developed rural areas, women are positioned within their societies to be the ones to get water, dig in the soil, and do menial labor chores (like search through old computers for bits of copper that can be sold). Thus, women are more significantly exposed to the environmental damage and toxic consequences of living near an e-waste dump. The disposal of digital artifacts disproportionately affects women with negative consequences. Disposal destroys the environment. It destroys the living homes and communities. Many of us in the class were not completely aware of the consequences of our use-habits. And, as I have done this mapping of digital artifacts in other courses, many students have expressed their shock at the consequences of the global digital trade. These are things we need to keep in mind as we aim for more socially just and engaging online educational spaces. These are the connections that we need to become aware of and teach with an understanding of if we intend to use a glocal pedagogy and a commitment to ecosophy. We need to take these material relations of labor into consideration, and then create opportunities for social intervention and political organization as part of online educational efforts. So, given the negative effects of the very creation, use of, and disposal of digital artifacts, what can be done? What can we do, as educators and designers, to do online education differently; to engage in social action to change or at least create awareness around these unequal power relationships? First, we can design a moment of critical reflection into our online educational spaces and practices. We can do this by creating online spaces that function to bring up critical questions, and we can also do this as a pedagogical technique devoted to eco-egalitarian issues. This pedagogical tactic is one I have been experimenting with, and continue to experiment with and learn about, in my own courses. The project of mapping out the trade of digital artifacts has not only prompted me to use this activity in other courses but has guided me toward exploring more eco-issues in the classroom.

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

179

ECO-ISSUES IN THE CLASSROOM Increasingly, there is research that suggests we can embed activist values into online worlds, online games, and online “communication” spaces. I want to highlight some of the interventions of the online game world simply because they have had more time and money to devote to thinking about these issues and, thus, are ahead of online educational spaces in this matter and what they have done to design criticality into a space. Within the online game world, significant resources have been put to use to develop activist mentalities that are designed into games. Work by Flanagan and Nissenbaum (2014) shows how one can design positive activist values into “tacit” understandings of the world, and that the activism of online worlds can transfer into activist values in the real world. Using a framework that they call Values at Play, Flanagan and Nissenbaum set up a design strategy for creating activist values in digital spaces. They encourage designers to actively set up scenarios in-game where participants are called on to consider value-laden questions, and then are rewarded for making positive and complex choices. Flanagan and Nissenbaum show that this kind of work can have positive effects in the real world, where users of value-directed games come to be more positively activist within the real world. This example from the game world can be used for fodder as we create online educational spaces. We need to think about designing ethical questions and activist moments into our spaces and into our pedagogical strategies. This move toward reflecting on the eco-egalitarian issues of online education (or other online spaces) can also be done at the level of pedagogy. Research by Antonio Lopez illustrates this point. Antonio Lopez (2015) decided to re-create his media culture course in a way that would highlight eco-egalitarian issues. Rather than just teaching about the definitions of media, or how to be media savvy, or how media changes the nature of knowledge and communication, he decided that he would expressly highlight ecological and environmental impacts of media, and use this lens as a way to talk about how media works, the culture of media, and the effects of media on our lives. As Lopez sees it, the problem is that environmental issues have not been explicitly linked to social justice issues. He tries to intervene in that practice by foregrounding the ways that media, technology, the environment, and social justice problems interact with each other. Lopez attempts to design a class around provoking students to consider the interconnectedness of media culture and

180

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

environmental problems. He has four objectives for his course. He wants learners to be able to: • Reconnect an awareness of media with their physiological impact on living systems; • Recognize media’s phenomenological influence on the perception of time, space, place, and cognition; • Understand media’s interdependence with the global economy, and how the current model of globalization impacts livings systems; and • Become conscious of how media impact our ability to engage in sustainable cultural practices by encouraging new uses of media that promote sustainability. Lopez (2015) tries to map out our connections to the world around us and the artifacts we use. We can do similar things in our own courses. We can do more to promote a consideration of our digital footprint and do more to promote a critical awareness, and ecosophic commitment, among our students. An ecosophic lens and a commitment to glocal mapping necessitates an active understanding of the environmental, labor, and gender issues at play, and provokes changes in behavior. Karen Barad corroborates this desire to keep the materiality and connectedness of labor and power relationships at the fore. Barad (2003) argues that we need to rethink relationships of labor and institutional practices as the “re-materialization” of geography and labor, that we need to note our connections to world economies, cultures, and even quantum-level interactions by focusing on materiality. Only as we think about where our artifacts come from and where they go when we are done with them, we can create more sustainable and equitable practices. Perhaps we need to consider whether the current practice of designing online spaces that necessitate a computer that is less than three years old should be considered “best practices” or egalitarian. More than that, as Stuart and Lu argue, we need to do our due diligence in following up on the practices of those to whom we turn for disposal of our digital artifacts. Stuart and Lu argue that many e-waste recycling businesses “corporatize” the disposal of e-waste in ways that both allow for the opacity of recycling practices and take away attention from the lives of the rural women (and others) that are most negatively affected by e-waste dumping. Tracking the global routes of digital artifacts allows us as a class to reflect on the connections between a culture of disposability, the power dynamics within the global community, use practices in privileged spaces, and the destructive effects on living systems and local communities. It also

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

181

prompts us to brainstorm the ways that digital artifacts might be reused or recycled. This push toward reuse of digital artifacts has prompted many of my students to create different maps maps that track the reuse of digital devices. Tracking the reuse of artifacts has allowed us to see the ways power circulates, through the circulation of reused digital devices in our own communities. The focus on reuse has also developed into an activistoriented praxis around e-waste recycling.

REUSE AND RECYCLING: DEVELOPING MAPS An attention to recycling and reuse of digital artifacts has yielded many discussions and activist projects devoted to thinking about where digital objects might go when we don’t just throw them in the dump. In one of my classes, a group of students developed a map of the reuse or recycling of computers that was happening in their local school district, and this practice yielded a map of power in the community. The movement of digital artifacts within our own cities often denotes and helps us to map out privilege, oppression, and our connections to each other. One of my students took on a project where she mapped power within the community through the mapping of the route of computers from one place in the community to another. She found that in her school district there was already a practice of donating computers from parents and schools to different schools and parents who were in need. So, schools where parents had donated new machines for students to use while in school would then donate the older machines to “less fortunate” schools. This routing of old machines into new hands and spaces was made easy to track because the machines would often have the name of the more affluent school marked on the computer and the name would stay there even as the computer took up residence in the new “less fortunate” school. Thus, my student was able to track the movement of machines from the more affluent parts of town to the less affluent parts of town. She made the case that tracking digital artifacts throughout her town gave her new insights into the flow of goods and the flow of power. As a class, we were able to see how, even though it was a good thing to recycle digital artifacts, that these practices often had consequences and meanings that were specific to the local. The tracking of recycling practices revealed the privilege that one part of the community had in comparison to another part.

182

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

I have had other students create maps devoted to recycling that, instead of tracking power, were meant to track opportunity: the opportunity to recycle digital artifacts safely. Several students developed projects designed to help us keep track of our eco-footprint and respond in a way that worked toward making the world a healthier place for all. I had a student who designed an app that would locate the nearest certified e-recycler; and students or anyone who used the app would be able to know where to go to take their e-waste in order to make sure that it was disposed of in a way that would not add to the continuation of oppression and destruction in the Global South. An ecosophic lens with a focus on our relationship to things and spaces, and a glocal mapping of our relationship to things and spaces allowed us to concretely track the movement, dynamism, and shaping influence of power. As we focused on the interplay and overlap of discursive norms, institutional practices, living systems, and the movement of objects, we came to a new awareness of and care for the intersections of technology and socioeconomic status. Our discourse and sense-of-self changed as attention to connections provoked a conversation about our differences; our attention to inter-connectivity more fully highlighted inequality.

MAPPING OUR DIGITAL CONNECTIONS THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE One final example of this kind of mapping that connects spaces to culture, ideology, practice, power, and materiality comes from multiple conversations with students about having access to online education. As mentioned, I teach many online classes to graduate students in multiple locations, and while each of these students is enrolled in the same institution and has access to the same link to our online space, the actual classroom experience of each of these students is shaped by both local and global forces. The experience student have with online education often depends on how they access the internet. This is especially true with synchronous education, but it is also a factor in asynchronous education. What you see when you go online, how you are able to interact online, and whether or not you feel connected and often whether or not you are literally connected or perhaps continually get kicked off or dropped from a site depends on which device you use to go online, and what type of infrastructure you have access to. These access points are local in the way they shape students

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

183

individual experiences of online spaces. They are local in the sense that one location can offer a very different experience than another location. But, they are also global in the ways they link into power and economic factors that shape access to online spaces. For example, mobile phones and tablets hand-held devices are cheaper than desktop or laptop machines, and often, students have greater access to and use of hand-held devices rather than more tethered devices. However, the web, and specifically many online educational sites, games, and classroom spaces, are optimized for tethered devices rather than handheld ones. In my own classroom, this has meant that students using their mobile phone to connect to class had some options, like using a mic to talk to the rest of the class, or seeing some of the messages sent by the professor, disabled. These students had a qualitatively different experience of the class than the students who could use all of the options to interact with both the professor and other classmates. Furthermore, your experience online is shaped by how fast or slow your connection to the Internet is. If you continually get kicked off an online meeting site, or if you find you cannot see or download certain games, speeches, videos, or online meeting spaces, because your connection is too slow, then you will have a very different experience when compared to others in the class who can download, upload, and participate with others without giving it a second thought. Your access to the internet is shaped both by the decisions of local municipalities to support the creation of their own local internet infrastructure or not as well as global forces, geographies, economies, and policies that create realities where one state in the United States has high speed internet, and a neighboring state has internet so slow that this affects the kind of experience you get when you go online. The act of mapping out students’ varying levels of access to the internet has also spawned productive conversations about what it mean to be an online student, and how this is shaped by the glocal. The mapping of the glocal allowed us to share each other’s spaces, to create a new awareness around the connections that exist, and imagine how practices and spaces might be different through activism. We were able to map power in our own locations and see it in the location of others. A pedagogy of mapping glocality creates the opportunity for more intimate and critical discussions, and for more engagement in the classroom and in our communities. The ability to map our access to the internet revealed that there are local differences that shape how we see the world, how we understand what it means to be online, and the ways we communicate with each other. This experience also re-enforced for us the ways that ecosophy,

184

HEATHER GREENHALGH-SPENCER

and an ecosophic lens, not only foregrounds our connections to the environment, but the ways that economics, geography, and policy shape the ways we access the world and our experiences in that world.

CONCLUSION An ecosophic lens, and glocal mapping as a pedagogical strategy, prompt an exploration of histories, dependencies, connections, and possibilities of new relationships of things, institutions, and people. Rather than taking for granted or looking beyond, we come to ask key questions about common sense notions; we queer the habitus in which we are enmeshed and shaped. In the site of the school, we continue and expand the educative process as we come to ask questions pointed to relationships of being: How do objects and materialities come to be, and come to be regarded in certain ways? Why do certain relationships exist among people, and between people, places, and things? Ecosophy and the use of glocal pedagogy with its insistence on mapping the connections between the social, the ideological, and the material can prompt awareness and questions specific to the site of education: What relationships must be in place in order to make possible the material objects that exist within the school? How might schooling be assembled differently connected and shaped in different ways by new assemblages of people, places, things, and ideas? Ecosophy and glocal pedagogy enable a different kind of broader and deeper awareness, and this awareness is both educative as a new form of consciousness, as well as a force toward change. More needs to be done to re-envision the educative process, as well as create change in our communities and world. An ecosophic lens focused on a thick understanding of broad connectivity and relationships with things and spaces and glocal pedagogy focused on mapping our connections to the local, to the global, and the networks of relationship and power that connect us should be part of that process.

REFERENCES American Association of Community Colleges. (2015). Brief on international programs at community colleges. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Briefs/ Documents/01012001internationalcc.pdf. Accessed on March 23. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801 831.

Ecosophic Teaching Using a Pedagogy of the Glocal

185

Benjamin, W. (1968). Illuminations: Essays and reflections. New York, NY: Random House. Fenster, T. (2009). Space and cultural meanings. In A companion to gender studies. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Flanagan, M., & Nissenbaum, H. (2014). Values at play in digital games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frazzoli, C., Orisakwe, O., Dragone, R., & Mantovani, A. (2010). Diagnostic health risk assessment of electronic waste on the general population in developing countries’ scenarios. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(6), 388 399. Guattari, F. (1989). Schizoanalytic cartographies. London: Wiley Blackwell. Guattari, F. (1995). Chaosmosis (P. Bains & J. Pefanis, trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Guattari, F. (2008). The three ecologies (I. Pindar & P. Sutton, Trans.). London: Continuum. Hadj-Moussa, R. (2009). Arab women: Beyond politics. In A companion to gender studies. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Hales, K. (1999). How we became posthuman. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Haraway, D. (1990). Simian, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge. Heidegger, M. (1962). Poetry, langue and thought (A. Hofstader, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper and Row. Institute of International Education. (2015). Who we are: News and events. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2013/ 2013-11-11-Open-Doors-Data. Accessed on March 23. International Baccalaureate Program. (2015). School statistics: Program combinations by region. Retrieved from http://ibo.org/facts/schoolstats/progcombinationsbyregion.cfm Kennedy, P. (2010). Local lives and global transformations. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Lefebvre, H. (1992). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Lopez, A. (2015). Greening a digital media course. Retrieved from http://mediacology.com/ 2012/02/09/greening-a-digital-media-course/. Accessed on March 23, 2015. McGrath, D. (2015). A safe world for women: E-waste epidemic in Africa: Retrieved from http://www.asafeworldforwomen.org/global-news/africa/ghana/1238-children-on-thefrontlines-the-e-waste-epidemic-in-africa.html Naess, A., & Rothenberg, D. (1989). Ecology, community, and lifestyle: An outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Stone, A. R. (2001). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Stuart, J., & Lu, Q. (2000). A refine-or-sell decision model for a station with continuous reprocessing options in an electronics recycling center. IEEE Transaction on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, 23(4). doi:10.1109/TEPM.2000.895062 United Nations University. (2004). Report. Retrieved from http://i.unu.edu/media/unu.edu/ publication/72/ar2004-report.pdf. Accessed on March 23, 2015.

This page intentionally left blank

MAPPING RELATIONAL MODELS FOR ONLINE TEACHER PREPARATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Brian Joe Rice ABSTRACT Purpose As teacher education moves online, there is an increasing need for teacher educators who subscribe to relational stances that attend to and enact liberating pedagogies with preservice teachers preparing to teach and inservice teachers who come to online courses for professional development. Approach This chapter explores common frameworks for interactive relational models of teaching from John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, and Paulo Friere and then proposes, using examples from the author’s practice, how these models translate into online contexts. Findings Diversity in education calls for increased awareness of individuals using a relational stance. This stance should apply both to schoolchildren as well as the teacher candidates and teachers in development that are coming to teacher education to build and improve their practice.

Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 25, 187 207 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000027010

187

188

BRIAN JOE RICE

Research implications More research on relationality in online learning is necessary. This research should take shape through using theories that are complex enough to provide insights that marry the pedagogical with the relational aspects of teaching as part of a comprehensive teacher education experience. Value This chapter makes a valuable contribution to research in teaching online through its thorough inquiry into theories of learning and teaching and they apply or do not online. Keywords: Online learning; John Dewey; Lev Vygotsky; Paolo Freire; self-study of teacher education practice

INTRODUCTION This chapter examines my efforts to unpack and understand technological resources in order to learn about relational processes in online education courses. It draws conceptually on the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, and Paolo Freire. This chapter begins with an overview of my original study that focused on my simultaneous taking and teaching of two curriculum and teaching courses. Then the chapter turns to a new question about the ways in which my study was mediated by technological supports and constraints. The review of literature discusses how teachers in online settings make use of technology as an instructional tool. The methods section describes the process I underwent to reexamine my data in order to learn more about technology’s role in building, strengthening, or even salvaging relationships with students in one course and with my teachers in another course. Findings are reported as a series of narratives that interrogate my experiences navigating the technology of online coursework as both a student and a teacher educator. These narratives are about the challenges students and teachers face while trying to implement technologies when neither are experts in using these tools, the importance of constructing relationships through heavy use of technologically supported interactions that do not take place in person or even in “real” time, and privacy issues that arise in collecting artifacts posted to the Internet but not necessarily intended by students to be public.

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

189

These findings are significant because they contribute to the literature about integrating technology into classroom spaces, but also because they present self-study researchers with new ways to think about teacher preparation, relationships in teaching, and online learning as a viable way to prepare educators at all levels for their work. In this chapter, I examine the significance of creating and maintaining relational spaces in an online educational setting. Online education, where all instruction is received, delivered, and submitted electronically, has grown in popularity as an alternative to traditional classroom instruction, where the teacher delivers a planned lesson to students within a classroom setting. According to Beattie (2009), learning and comprehension are a relation process. The traditional classroom relationship between teacher and students and students and peers invites intimacy and immediacy. Online education incorporates the elements of both online instruction and online student learning. The process whereby online instruction leads to students’ positive online learning experience is not identical to a traditional classroom instruction, but many instructional components can transition to an online setting. A successful online educational program is more than the conversion of hardcopies of syllabi, handouts, or readings into digital form. Online education is a process where planned instruction and student learning occur and are supported outside the traditional classroom setting where educators and students are separated by space and/or time. While online education includes the use of technology, it is not the same as technology use in the classroom or blended instruction where classroom instruction and/or physical laboratories utilize an online component to support teaching and instruction (Bourne, Harris, & Mayadas, 2005; Lim, Morris, & Kupritz, 2014). Online education occurs in the absence of physical, face-to-face, interaction between the educator and student. The absence of the physical and personal interactions in an online setting can affect the manner through which relationships are formed and developed between the educator and students. Uncovering ways to create and maintain positive, relationally educative experiences within an online setting aligns with the sociocultural approach to education. In such an educative environment both instruction and learning are relational processes. As Frelin and Granna¨s (2010) suggest, quality relationships between educator and student can facilitate student learning. Additionally, according to Cammarota, Moll, Gonzalez, and Cannella (2013), for many students of marginalized racial and ethnic backgrounds, success within educational environments is supported through strong social relationships. It would seem prudent then to create an online

190

BRIAN JOE RICE

learning environment where relationships with students generate something akin to what Mary Rice experienced with her student who arrived uncharacteristically early so he could be the first person she saw after her eye surgery (Rice & Carter, 2015). It is often through such educative relationships that students are motivated to engage in educative processes and experiences that lead to positive learning outcomes. Educative experiences do not occur magically, regardless of environment. Online education is not guaranteed to be easier or a more effective educational option in meeting students’ needs compared to what a traditional classroom education may offer. Nor is it a panacea for educational difficulties faced by institutions or students. Educators must uncover the kinds of materials, teaching strategies, and relationships that are appropriate for online education as they would for a traditional classroom setting. The challenge comes in creating an online educational system that emerges from living experience (Dewey, 1985) allowing for growth in both personal and academic ways. If, as Dewey suggests, “all human experience is ultimately social” (p. 38), then educators must not fear the educative social possibilities that exist online and should instead seek to identify and develop relationally educative spaces. In a comparative study conducted by Steinweg, Davis, and Thomson (2005), no statistically significant differences were found between students enrolled in traditional classroom versus online sections. Both courses were closely aligned including the text used, assignments given, schedule of topics, and the instructor assigned to teach. Both course formats relied on student interactions in discussions and presentations. The online course utilized a discussion board as a means to facilitate student interactions through blog postings and responses. While this can facilitate an exchange between students, it falls short of creating a relational space where participants, the educator included, can share relevant insights and experiences, both professional and personal, in response to prompts and participants’ input. This may be a result of the online construct of the assignment. Due dates for submitting posts based on the week’s assigned readings and the replies to peer posts were identical. This led to students submitting their discussion posts minutes before it was due, which resulted in rushed peer responses before the assignment deadline closed. Students appeared to behave based upon minimal compliance rather than as engaged learners. Engagement is the interest and motivation students experience through instructional activities, course content, and learning (Young & Bruce, 2011). Such engagement is supported when relationally educative spaces are established.

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

191

Dewey and Positive Experiences Supporting Relational Spaces Relational space is defined as the space where the influence of participants, educator, and students can interact to produce cultural understanding as well as opportunities for instructional learning. By understanding ways relationships form within an online instructional space, educators can better develop curriculum and prepare online lessons and assignments that create positive communication while engaging students in ways that are conducive and meaningful to learners leading to cultural understandings and greater academic success (Moll, 1992). Amanti (2005) asserts that regardless of the background of the student, there exists knowledge within their home. Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992) identify this knowledge within the home as funds of knowledge. This knowledge, “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133), when accessed, can help support student learning in useful and meaningful ways. Relational space is the developed and negotiated relationships, both social and academic, between educator and student, student and classmate as a peer, and the curriculum. The creation of meaningful relational spaces leads to positive learning experiences that occur in an educational setting be it a physical classroom or online. According to Wubbels, den Brok, van Tartwijk, and Levy (2012), positive teacher student and student peer relationships contribute to student learning, supporting both positive student outcomes and development. The relational experiences that emerge from such spaces are co-constructed by the educator and student and by the student and their classmates as peers. Creating and maintaining positive experiences (Dewey, 1981) allows the educator to rely on his knowledge of the students’ ability levels and their identities both individual and collective. And as Rice (1996) states, educator knowledge of students’ values, beliefs, and culture can also lead to meaningful and educative experiences. It is imperative that educators recognize that any relational space is in constant flux. Although such space is part of a dynamic learning experience educators should focus on knowing their students as learners, individually and collectively, as they make instructional decisions. Educators then, in reflecting upon ways to establish relational spaces where educative experiences can emerge, are working toward moving instruction forward from best practices toward even better practices (Bullough, 2012) that are both useful and meaningful to current students with the intent of supporting and driving learning. It is through reflection of experience, both professional and personal, which teachers have the opportunity to improve as

192

BRIAN JOE RICE

instructors. Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) opine that improved practice lies in creating spaces between educators and others that are recognized and then understood by both parties. As educators actively seek for ways to improve instruction, the experiences of the classroom are enriched, relationships are strengthened, and learning becomes enduring through the negotiation of the tensions created by practice and interpretation of classroom instruction and relationships. Zeichner (2006) posits that to better serve the needs of students the experiences of learning must invite all the stakeholders (e.g., educators, students, administrators, parents, peers) to participate in order for sociocultural competence to be developed and ultimately to be educative. Sociocultural theory reinforces the interaction and experiences of participants to understand and form both cultural and worldviews. Online educational environments can be places of knowing and being. Through understanding how these interactions mediate student learning, educators may be better positioned to create more useful and meaningful relationships between peers and teachers resulting in positive classroom experiences. A community’s culture consists of its practices, which may shift over time in response to changing conditions (Purcell-Gates, Melzi, Najafi, & Orellana, 2011). While the production and maintenance of practices are part of a group’s culture, actions and relationships also act as identity markers to a group’s membership as well as participation within social networks (Cammarota et al., 2013). As students navigate the online curriculum they must be able to negotiate their cultural identity against the existing online culture. Students grow and adapt their cultural identity as they interpret their educational experiences toward competency. For a child to become a competent learner, all stakeholders must work to develop an understanding of who a student is, what the student’s needs are, and what resources exist that can support both academic and cultural growth. Cummins (1994) suggests that the educator’s relationships with students can contribute to both identity and identity formation. Therefore, through relationally educative spaces students can come to know themselves better. Dewey (1985) suggests the need to break up the numerous and interwoven relationships of our social lives in a gradual and graded manner so the student shares in the experiences building toward their identity, thus avoiding not seeing the trees because of the forest. With online education, I would caution that similar care be taken when developing and

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

193

implementing lessons, activities, and assignments. Educators must do so in such a way that the students experience an educative relationship that is interwoven between themselves, the educator, the family members, and the curriculum rather than experiencing the effects of the slash-and-burn tactics of an over-zealous administrator who creates online programs to meet the demands of parental groups and the pressures from charter schools, private online options, or overtaxed educators who lack the time, resources, or ability to create a meaningful online learning experience. Roberts (2006) adds that through self-reflection of these relationally educative spaces an increase in trust, as well as improved problem-solving skills, communication ability, and leadership potential, may develop. Palmer (1998) asserts that educators “project the condition of [their] soul onto [their] students, subject, and [their] way of being together” (p. 2) in relation to the experiences of education. The projection of one’s soul is an intimate act with the purpose of developing a relationship of trust between the educator and student. According to Dewey (1985), trust is secured through the process of inquiry. Relationally educative experiences then become a means of uncovering, exchanging, and repackaging. Both educator and student find space to know the other. In my own teaching, the first detail I share about myself, when attempting to create a relationship of trust, is that I am from California. I also share that I am bilingual, a second language learner, a spouse, a father, and a former public school educator. As personal details are uncovered, a platform for query and exchange emerge for both educator and students. These common threads can allow for connections to be made between educators and students as well as between students with other online peers. In sharing such personal details about one’s self there is the hope that it will encourage students to also share. As these connections are formed, relational space is created where background knowledge and experiences can be repackaged for current, educative moments developing into relationally educative experiences that are shared. These educator contributions allow for relational experiences to support educative experiences (Dewey, 2007). Thus, the student is able to proceed in ways that they would not normally experience alone within the same timeframe. The existence of relational spaces positions educators to make informed curricular decisions based on their professional experience and knowledge of students. These decisions, when made through the lens of teacher experience, are meaningful as they have the potential to strengthen future relationally educative moments.

194

BRIAN JOE RICE

Vygotsky and Relational Spaces within the Zone of Proximal Development Building from Vygotsky’s (1980) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the ability to move a student from where their ability and knowledge levels currently exist toward where their potential ability and knowledge levels can become is facilitated by the relationship and support of a more capable other. The question then becomes: how do the more capable other, the educator, and the student develop a relationship that allows for positive navigation and learning within the ZPD in an online educational setting? When students are unable to invest both time and effort into learning activities, they can become dissatisfied with the topic, the method of instruction, the lesson, and the experience of learning (Wilson, Chavez, & Anders, 2012). The challenge for educators then is to create and maintain an engaging lesson that allows students to become immersed in the learning process. Quality educators who possess the skill to create positive classroom learning experiences are critical to meeting the needs of today’s diverse student population. The interaction between educator and student is more than the transfer of knowledge from one individual to another, what Freire (1998) describes as the banking model. Such interactions are co-produced where educator and students navigate the relational space arriving at, rather than receiving, knowledge. Educators attempting to apply a sociocultural theory with the goal of generating relational spaces rely heavily on the work of Vygotsky who proposes that through meaningful social interactions students can be positioned to develop higher-order cognitive functions (Moll, 1992). A sociocultural approach to education goes beyond what is being taught and places a focus on who is being taught. Students in United States’ educational system are increasingly diverse (Zeichner, 2006). Because of this diversity, educators must know their students as complex individuals with unique backgrounds and interests, influenced by a world of social interactions. As the educator espouses sociocultural values in and outside of the learning environment, stronger and more meaningful relationships can be created and culture, what Cammarota et al. (2013) describe as the “meaningful practices [students] engage in every day” (p. 13), can be better understood by all stakeholders. Cultural beliefs and practices then become valued and viewed as a resource to instruction and learning in addition to ways of being and knowing. According to Vygotsky, a relationship exists between instruction and development (Culligan, 2013; Wertsch, 1985) within the ZPD. What the

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

195

student is capable of learning is therefore limited by the student’s actual potential to learn at that moment and the relationship with the educator as a more capable other. With online education, there is an assumption that the student is capable of learning the content; that is why they enrolled in the online course. However, the ability for the educator to function as a more capable other is dependent upon the development of cyber relationships. Wertsch (1985), interpreting Vygotsky, argues that it is through the mediations enacted by the educator that relational interactions can emerge leading to a student’s higher mental processes and learning. Dewey (2007) encourages a brief reflection in the analysis of what I term relationally educative spaces, where the relationship drives the learning forward within the ZPD to levels the student would not be able to attain on his own within the same time period. As educators create and maintain relational spaces, where students experience “warmth and support” (Wubbels, den Brok, Van Tartwijk, & Levy, 2012, p. 30), a stronger sense of community emerges. In such spaces, students can demonstrate academic growth and educators as well as family and community members can act as the more capable other (Vygotsky, 1980). Yet, educators must now look to develop such a community within a purely digital setting. Online educators must now learn how to elicit and interpret student’s cues without the benefit of observations, conversations, or social exchanges that would normally occur in a traditional classroom setting. This is more than using emoticons or the sharing of avatars. In order to develop and maintain relational experiences with online students, that are conducive to learning, educators should create space for social interactions that contribute to educative experiences As individuals, we are defined by our experiences. As educators, this translates into the ways we teach and to some extent the things we choose to teach. It, therefore, would seem difficult to separate the educator from the instruction, even in an online forum. Palmer (1998) suggests that quality educators interweave self, subject, and students into the fabric of experiential learning creating a relationship of trust. Educational and social practices can be embedded in the curriculum. In this way, relationally educative space is dynamic, constantly being redefined by both the educator and students. By developing relational space that values another’s culture, beliefs, and interests, the educator, acting as the more capable other, presents opportunities to discover and recognize shared understandings as well as analyze any points of difference for both themselves and students.

196

BRIAN JOE RICE

Freire and Engaged Spaces Becoming Relational Spaces The educator’s role in online education is not to present information for student consumption. In such a scenario, students are limited, not by what the educator knows, but by what they choose to share. Without an active application of common sense and judgment by the educator, the student’s ability to grow and learn from positive relational experiences is limited if not stunted altogether (Dewey, 2007). Freire (1985, 1998) argues against a model where the teacher deposits knowledge for the student to absorb. Online courses are modeled after the banking system of education. When readings, videos, links, and assignments are concrete, predetermined prior to students enrolling in the course, the dynamic nature of learning experiences is replaced by a funneled approach that impacts the ability to form relational bonds. When there is little to no interaction between the instructor and student, other than assignment submission and its grading, neither party is engaged within a relationally educative space nor is there support for positive experiences of learning. In such instances, what exists are educational exercises with specific roles which can act as inhibitors to the creation and fostering of relationally educative spaces and by extension student engagement Steinweg et al. (2005) agree that student engagement is an important element for online education courses. Improved online education is affected by the educator’s continued attempts to improve instruction through refining course delivery, evaluating media options, providing multiple means of communication, and enhancing student interactions. Freire (1998) recommends critical reflection upon the multiple conditions in which education occurs. Dewey (2007) adds that an analysis of the conditions is not enough to understand the significance of what occurs within an educative setting. Current observations and understandings must be compared to past knowledge and experiences before judgments can be made of whether relational experiences are supportive of an educative environment and conducive to learning. A relational approach to online education should be grounded in the belief that learning takes place in an environment where participants have a knowledge and understanding of both individual and group identity and therefore active efforts must be made in supporting and fostering such relationships (Comstock et al., 2008) with the goal of realizing student engagement. Educators should also be active in the formation of relationships between the curriculum developed and student academic progress and growth (Whitehead, 2009) in ways that create interest and invite

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

197

engagement. This is more than the acquisition of knowledge. Online interactions between educator and students should be more than the transfer of knowledge from one individual to another. In a traditional classroom setting, there is an educator who designs and teaches a lesson to students. When the educator endeavors to create a social cultural space, he invites all participants to negotiate meaning, form relationships, frame and reframe their identities, and of course learn. These students have the opportunity to engage in the lesson involving educator and peer interactions. In an engaging environment, regardless of whether it is a physical classroom or a digital one, there exists space for relational development as participants live alongside (Dewey, 1981) one another and experience academic, social, and linguistic success even when cultural responsiveness is lacking (Kitchen & Hodson, 2013). Socio-relational spaces allow for educative moments to become a salient aspect of educative spaces. The effectiveness in creating space for students to demonstrate their knowledge in ways that are meaningful to them became apparent to me one October when the English class I taught was studying Edgar Allan Poe. We were reading a selection of works that included “The Black Cat.” Dallin, a pseudonym, one of my special education students, was struggling with the written portion of assessments because of his learning disability, a literacy skill the district was focusing on that academic year. As his teacher, I had observed his talent for drawing and invited him to instead illustrate his responses to prompts. His drawings and subsequent interpretations created a superior learning experience than the traditional question and answer or prompt and response I had originally planned ever could. Dallin’s peers were amazed at his drawing skills and within this engaged space they posed questions, offered suggestions for future illustrations, and genuinely pushed the learning forward. This could not have occurred had I been unaware of Dallin’s talent and had I been unwilling to diverge from my original teaching plans in order to accommodate a student’s ability to learning. This I fear is the basic failure of a majority of online instruction, where readings, videos, links, and assignments are decided upon well before the class even begins, before stakeholders have an opportunity to meet, know, and understand one another. In such a fixed environment, there is little space to implement accommodations or changes because the relationships do not exist that would afford the instructor with the knowledge of which students would benefit and what exactly it is they would benefit from. Within this space, the instructor is removed, awaiting student submissions,

198

BRIAN JOE RICE

hoping that students capitalize on the learning resources provided, ultimately awarding a grade. After which, for the student, it is on to the next set of readings, videos, links, and assignments. When participants are engaged within an educative space, they are better able to negotiate their experiences. This in turn supports the development of relational space and ultimately learning. Freire (1998) asserts that, “teaching is a human act” (p. 99). In a relationally educative space, this does not presuppose that only the teacher teaches and the student learns but that all stakeholders hold responsibility over advancing the learning process. There exists a collaborative element within engaged spaces that binds both educator and students to relationally educative moments. Zeichner (2006) suggests that to better serve the needs of students, the experiences of teaching must invite participation in order for sociorelational experiences to be developed and ultimately educative. The positive interactions and experiences of participants can support their relational and academic growth as well as their self-image. According to Freire (1985, 1998), self-affirmation can occur through the formation of identity that emerges from educational practice. The relationship between experience and identity is tied to teacher practice and student learning. A quality educator can create and support the conditions for learning by knowing themselves, the curriculum, and their students (Palmer, 1998). Knowledge then becomes the foundation for relationally educative spaces where educator, students, and curriculum meet in meaningful ways that generate positive reinforcing experiences. Relationally, educative spaces online, like quality instruction, cannot be reduced to technique or a list of steps; it emerges from the experiences, some of which are shared, and integrity of the educator.

Relationally Educative Experiences Teacher experience comes through practice and according to Glassman (2001), requires the educator to question these experiences with the purpose of creating and maintaining relationally educative spaces. For this to occur with online education, the educator must be actively engaged in creating and maintaining engaging and meaningful lessons. Through the analysis of relationally educative experiences, better practices can emerge. It is from the application of knowledge and understanding (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990), which results from reflecting upon these online relationally educative experiences, that improved learning environments can be supported

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

199

(Bullough, 2012). A culture of positive learning experiences consists of its practices and relationships which may shift over time in response to changing conditions (Purcell-Gates et al., 2011). Knowledge that emerges from life-experience can be applied to future teaching practices (Clandinin, 1985) that function to establish and maintain meaningful relational spaces and an engaging pedagogy. Within these spaces talents, which are no longer hidden, can become a feature of educative experiences. Such relationally educative spaces can allow for background knowledge to be accessed, cultural values and beliefs to be shared, and learning to occur as it did with Dallin and his peers. Students can be more willing to make personal and academic risks within a safe learning environment. For an example of a space to safely risk, I return to my experiences teaching English. Poetry studies became more meaningful as students found safe spaces to practice and share their skills at writing and rapping, Shakespeare became more appealing as students shared their experiences, albeit limited, with love and family conflicts, and magicians even appeared as we studied myths and fairytales. The relationally educative environment allows for experiences to enhance immediate learning opportunities (Dewey, 2007). Therefore, attending to this in a dynamic online setting can support the objectives, goals, and identities of both educator and student. Beattie (1995) suggests that teacher identity is created through “responsive and responsible relationships” (p. 139). These educator student and student peer relationships may support an environment where shared space and experiences can develop cultural awareness. Within an educative setting, a teacher can identify and understand what interests and motivates their students, both collectively and individually. In this way, instructional opportunities present themselves, student engagement increases, and academic growth can be better achieved. As both collective an individual identities emerge a language of learning develops as occurred with Dallin’s English class mentioned above. The act of teaching is an act of being and living in relation with students and colleagues (Murphy, Ross, & Huber, 2012). When educators create lessons and learning activities that incorporate topics, ideas, and values that are connected to students’ own identities, their educative experiences are more meaningful. As shared academic, social, and cultural experiences merge with relational spaces students become more confident, engaged, and proficient learners (Amanti, 2005). According to Belcher and Connor (2001), student proficiency is influenced by the quality of the educator and the student interest in the lesson topic.

200

BRIAN JOE RICE

Bullough (1997) suggests that teacher identity and quality teaching are linked. Identity is reflected in the decision-making process of which direction or action should be undertaken in order to advance the educational growth and learning within an online setting. This reflective process requires educators to know themselves as an individual as much as they know the curriculum and his students (Palmer, 1998), in order to make decisions intended to lead toward student achievement and learning. Educators can then have the capacity to assess student learning and needs, understand the current educational moment, and make decisions that support relationally educative experiences. Yet in an online environment, the educator may have difficulty leveraging the process that he uses to know online students in the same way a traditional face-to-face interaction that occur within the classroom setting readily provides. The relational connection between teacher and student and student and peer can be hindered when interactions are limited to electronic lessons, assignment submissions, grading, feedback, and e-mail. According to Dewey (2007), the educator must create the environment that leads to student engagement and ultimately student learning. Rice (1996) argues that it is not the subject or the method that is educative. The quality of the curriculum and teaching strategies, as well as the educator’s identity and ability to create and foster relationships with students can manifest as educationally meaningful experiences of being and knowing. The creation of meaningful relationally educative spaces leads to positive learning experiences that occur within the educational setting be it a physical classroom or in cyberspace. According to Wubbels, den Brok, Van Tartwijk, and Levy (2012), positive teacher student and student peer relationships contribute to student learning supporting both positive student outcomes and development. The relational experiences that emerge from such spaces are co-constructed by the educator and student and by the student and their classmates as peers. Creating and maintaining positive experiences (Dewey, 1981) allow the educator to rely on their knowledge of the students’ ability levels and identities both individual and collective. Educator knowledge of students’ values, beliefs, and culture can also lead to meaningful and educative experiences (Rice, 1996). Online instruction allows for participants to engage in designed coursework with the flexibility of time and space (Anderson, 2008; Twigg, 2003). Online students can attend to lessons, readings, and assignments outside the structure a classroom provides. Quality online education programs may limit and in some cases eliminate the need for face-to-face interaction

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

201

(Twigg, 2003). Many educators use online instruction as a mirror of their classroom, as in the case with the professor from the study conducted by Steinweg et al. (2005). Online instruction, therefore, can be viewed as an alternative to and possibly a replacement for traditional classroom instruction when student learning occurs. With online instruction there is a sense that learning can be accomplished, in some cases, better than in the traditional classroom setting (Twigg, 2003). An example of this is how interactive online learning environments create opportunities and relational space for students to participate, contribute, and share insights and ideas to the group discussion in ways a classroom learning environment could not (Roberson & Klots, 2002). The space for multiple voices to engage in topic discussions acts to equalize student participation. Students who have been silenced (Morita, 2004) due to shyness, language ability, or disability can participate because the relational space to do so exists. However, a comparison of face-to-face and online courses conducted by Mentzer, Cryan, and Teclehaimanot (2007) found that students in the face-to-face course rated the instructor and course significantly higher than did their online counterparts. In their findings, the researchers state that with the online course “students [had] limited access to instructor interactions with other students” (p. 242). When students had questions, they did not use the chat room but directed their questions via personal e-mails to the professor. The professor’s response was returned privately, preventing other students with the same problem to benefit from the exchange. This suggests that a relational space, where students feel comfortable sharing among other participants, was underutilized and possibly did not exist. I had a similar experience with an early online course I was assigned. The curriculum was preset. Students were required to follow a schedule of readings and assignment submissions. I graded assignments and provided feedback. When student’s submissions were lacking, I would send an e-mail with feedback and the option to resubmit with changes. I sent an e-mail to a student who did not complete a given assignment. The university e-mail that was on record was not the one the student actively used so it was several weeks before a reply appeared. The student e-mailed me her confusion over her grade for that particular assignment. The student did not feel the grade she received on the assignment reflected the grade she deserved. I referred her to the rubric and offered a more in-depth explanation of the why behind her grade. I even gave her the option to resubmit for full credit. When the online student continued her challenge, I prepared a terse e-mail confirming that she was correct. That in fact the grade she received was not

202

BRIAN JOE RICE

the grade she earned. That according to the rubric I was too generous. After detailing how her assignment submission compared to the rubric I offered her three options: (1) accept the original grade, (2) accept the lower grade that aligned more closely with the rubric, or (3) complete and resubmit the assignment. I did not send this e-mail. Instead I resent the previous e-mail, which included feedback, referred to the rubric, and offered her the opportunity to resubmit the assignment for full credit. I believe that sending the terse e-mail would negatively affected any positive relationship we could develop. My intent was to be helpful and supportive. Agreeing with Cochran-Smith (2008) a positive educative environment can promote students’ learning and the enhancement of their life opportunities and success. This after all is my goal as an educator. The student’s unwillingness to attend to my feedback and resubmit the assignment is indicative of the impersonal interaction that may occur within an online setting. This realization may keep online students from seeking redress with their online instructor. As the semester continued, my feedback became less and less important. If students were satisfied with their grade, they did not attend to my feedback or e-mails. Only when there was a discrepancy in the online student’s expectation, either in what the instructor expected in terms of assignment quality or the student in terms of assignment grade, did communication extend beyond the assignment given→assignment submitted→assignment graded paradigm. Quality online instruction revolves around the ability to instruct without restrictions of time (Jaschik, 2009) or place. This raises questions of the best ways for student teacher communication (Muirhead, 2000). The online format may limit and even inhibit communication as it appeared to do with the participants in my online class and online students in Mentzer et al. (2007) study. The instructor initially communicates to students through the course syllabus. Communication continues through assignment submissions followed by instructor grading and feedback and via e-mail exchanges. The relational aspect of feedback within the online instruction environment may be compromised due to feedback loops that may not be fast enough to generate meaningful opportunities for understanding, learning, and clarity. An additional concern regarding online instruction and its effect on relational space is the validity of the information available on the web. Some websites are well crafted in appearance but lack useful information (Fabianic, 2002). The educator must then account for the ability of students to distinguish sites of value from those of less value. Helping students negotiate membership within the online learning environment will help

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

203

support a sense of legitimacy (Morita, 2004) that allows online experiences to become opportunities for learning.

CONCLUSION Education is a relational endeavor. It involves individuals and their interactions not only with the curriculum but also with teachers, students, family (Clandinin & Huber, 2011), the community, and multimodal materials (Ajayi, 2012). Vygotsky (1980) advocates for an educational relationship where the educator, acting as the more capable other, creates a relational environment that will lead the student toward knowledge. The educator, when acting as a more capable other, can be described as a mentor. In this role, the educator behaves as a kind and wise figure who uses knowledge from past experiences, present thinking, and future plans that help guide learners toward achievement and learning and in so doing the learner discovers who they are and uncovers who they may become. Focusing on relationally educative spaces enables the educator to uncover ways educational relationships can influence the meanings and expression of values in learning and acquiring knowledge. One’s educational identity is unique and can be reinforced through relational interactions or the lack thereof. According to Dewey (1981, 1985, 2007), experiences are relational as we negotiate meaning from them. The purpose of implementing relationally educative spaces online is twofold: (1) to examine meaningful interactions and relationships between members of the classroom and (2) to examine ways the experience of learning is readily accessible or limited by the online format. Educators must focus on developing online courses that support relationally educative spaces. Cyber experiences of learning are often focused on the production of products that demonstrate learning. In a face-to-face setting, the teacher can more readily apply personal practical knowledge (Clandinin, 1985, 1992; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988), with the purpose of creating space where useful and meaningful curriculum, recognition and acceptance of cultural diversity, and relational experiences can emerge. The health, professional, and domestic lives of students may make it difficult for their regular attendance in a traditional classroom course. Online courses can provide an alternative for students to learn, demonstrate knowledge, and earn credit as well as assist in overcoming travel restrictions, time issues, and professional and domestic responsibilities. When

204

BRIAN JOE RICE

planning to accommodate the varying needs of online students, course designers, and educators must avoid what Twigg (2003) describes as a “one-size fits all approach” (p. 38), which promotes the belief that all students and even instructors are the same. Such a limiting approach can negatively affect relationally educative spaces, their existence, and their function. Wubbels, den Brok, Tartwijk, and Levy (2012) reinforce the educator’s role in creating and maintaining an effective learning environment that can positively influences student outcomes. Fabianic (2002) challenges educators to develop ways for online students to utilize Internet resources effectively in addition to enhancing students’ ability to process and analyze information encountered via online lessons in a discriminating manner. Creating relationally educative space is a way the educator and students can work toward positive experiences. Students may not feel responsible for attending to feedback because of the delay experienced within the feedback loop between assignment submission, grading, and feedback. The measure of a successful online program is the relationships generated when both teacher and students are afforded the time and space for humanity and personal experience to take a central role (Clandinin, 1985). Online courses should be consistently evaluated with regard to clarity, student teacher communication, experience, and relational outcomes. Where classroom instruction is often limited by the school bell, online instruction can afford students more freedom to choose how much time to spend on a given task. In this way, the standard of education the online student experiences is supported by the program’s design, allowing for the merits of individual ability and effort, what Dewey (2007) describes as the capacity of every individual to emerge, leading toward quality learning all contained within a relationally educative space.

REFERENCES Ajayi, L. (2012). Video “reading” and multimodality: A study of ESL/literacy pupils’interpretation of Cinderella from their socio-historical perspective. The Urban Review, 44(1), 60 89. Amanti, C. (2005). Beyond a beads and feathers approach. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. In N. Gonza´lez, L. C. Moll & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 131 141). New York, NY: Routledge. Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

205

Beattie, M. (1995). The making of a music: The construction and reconstruction of a teacher’s personal practical knowledge during inquiry. Curriculum Inquiry, 25(2), 131 150. Beattie, M. (2009). Narratives of professional learning: Becoming a teacher and learning to teach. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 1(2), 1 22. Retrieved from http://ojs.ml. unisa.edu.au/index.php/EDEQ/article/download/573/443 Belcher, D. D., & Connor, U. (Eds.). (2001). Reflections on multiliterate lives (Vol. 26). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131 146. Bullough, R. V., Jr. (1997). Practicing theory and theorizing practice in teacher education. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 13 31). London: Falmer Press. Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2012). Against best practice: Uncertainty, outliers and local studies in educational research. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 38(3), 343 357. Cammarota, J., Moll, L., Gonzalez, M., & Cannella, C. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives on interpersonal relationships in schools. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 6(3), 12 16. Retrieved from http://amaejournal.utsa.edu/index.php/amae/ article/viewFile/111/93 Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers’ classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(4), 361 385. Clandinin, D. J. (1992). Narrative and story in teacher education. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 124 137). London: The Falmer Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Huber, J. (2011). Familial curriculum making: Re-shaping the curriculum making of teacher education. International Journal of Early Childhood Education, 17(1), 9 31. Cochran-Smith, M. (2008). The new teacher education in the United States: Directions forward. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 271 282. Comstock, D. L., Hammer, T. R., Strentzsch, J., Cannon, K., Parsons, J., & Salazar II., G. (2008). Relational cultural theory: A framework for bridging relational, multicultural, and social justice competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3), 279 287. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2 14. Culligan, K. (2013). The relationship between language and thought: Exploring vygotsky and sociocultural approaches to second language research. Atlantic Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 1(1), 1 16. Retrieved from http://ejournal.educ.unb.ca/index.php/ ejournal/article/viewFile/20/17 Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power, and identity in teaching english as a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 33 58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, J. (1981). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, 1925 1953: Vol. 1. Experience and nature. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

206

BRIAN JOE RICE

Dewey, J. (1985). In J. A. Boydston & P. Baysinger (Eds.), Democracy and education 1916. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Fabianic, D. (2002). Online instruction and site assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13(1), 173 186. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Frelin, A., & Granna¨s, J. (2010). Negotiations left behind: In between spaces of teacher student negotiation and their significance for education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(3), 353 369. Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3 14. Jaschik, S. (2009). The evidence on online education. InsideHigherEd, June 29. Kitchen, J., & Hodson, J. (2013). Living alongside: Teacher educator experiences working in a community-based aboriginal teacher education program. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l’Education, 36(2), 144 174. Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2014). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Retrieved from http://184.168.109. 199:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/2257/EJ842695.pdf?sequence=1 Mentzer, G., Cryan, J., & Teclehaimanot, B. (2007). Two peas in a pod? A comparison of face to-face and web based classrooms. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 233 246. Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20 24. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132 141. Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573 603. Muirhead, B. (2000). Enhancing social interaction in computer-mediated distance education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3(4), 1 11. Murphy, M. S., Ross, V., & Huber, J. (2012). Attending to the temporal dimension of narrative inquiry into teacher educator identities. In Chan E., Keyes D., & Ross V. (Eds.), Advances in research on teaching: Narrative inquirers in the midst of meaning-making: Interpretive acts of teacher educators (Vol. 16, pp. 51 75). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Pinnegar, S. E., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Purcell-Gates, V., Melzi, G., Najafi, B., & Orellana, M. F. (2011). Building literacy instruction from children’s sociocultural worlds. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 22 27. Rice, S. (1996). Dewey’s conception of “virtue” and its implications for moral education. Educational Theory, 46(3), 269 282.

Online Teacher Preparation and Professional Development

207

Rice, M. F., & Carter, R. A., Jr. (2015). With new eyes: Online teachers’ sacred stories of students with disabilities. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online (pp. 205 226). Advances in Research on Teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Roberson, T. J., & Klotz, J. (2002). How can instructors and administrators fill the missing link in online instruction? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(4), 1 7. Roberts, J. W. (2006). Disney, dewey, and the death of experience in education. Education and Culture, 21(2), 4. Steinweg, S. B., Davis, M. L., & Thomson, W. S. (2005). A comparison of traditional and online instruction in an introduction to special education course. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(1), 62 73. Twigg, C. A. (2003). Models for online learning. Educause Review, 38, 28 38. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Whitehead, J. (2009). How do I influence the generation of living educational theories for personal and social accountability in improving practice? Using a living theory methodology in improving educational practice. In D. Tidwell, M. Heston & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 173 194). Dordrect: Springer. Wilson, A. A., Chavez, K., & Anders, P. L. (2012). “From the koran and family guy”: Expressions of identity in english learners’ digital podcasts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(5), 374 384. Wubbels, den Brok, P., Van Tartwijk, J., & Levy, J. (2012). Interpersonal relationships in education: An overview of contemporary research. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Young, S., & Bruce, M. A. (2011). Classroom community and student engagement in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 219 230. Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 326 340.

This page intentionally left blank

WITH NEW EYES: ONLINE TEACHERS’ SACRED STORIES OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Mary Frances Rice and Richard Allen Carter, Jr. ABSTRACT Purpose Happiness in teaching, termed Eudemonia, comes from a perception of a relationship with students. Such a perception is vital to sustaining teachers in their work in both on- and offline contexts. While the importance of these relationships has been acknowledged, there have not been attempts to account for how teachers pursue relationships and the accompanying sense of happiness. It is in this frame that we discuss findings from a larger study of online teachers working to support students with disabilities in a part-time program at a large virtual school. Methodology/approach The chapter considers expectations for online teachers and sets up a dialogue between same and different as they relate to on- and offline pedagogy. It then asks more questions about these responsibilities in the context of efforts by teachers to feel legitimate in their claims to relationships with students. Findings Stories that both elicited and threatened Eudemonia are shared and discussed. In particular, the authors learned that online

Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 25, 209 230 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3687/doi:10.1108/S1479-368720150000027011

209

210

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

teachers desired relationships with students to such a great extent that they were willing to narrate relationality into most interactions with the students. Research implications These findings suggest the difficult emotional work that online teachers must do in order to consider their work with students as beneficial. More work is needed to think about how relationships between teachers and students online can be leveraged for greater learning and to sustain both teachers and students in their work. Originality/value This chapter offers in-depth insight into the teacher work that online learning requires. It also offers a unique theoretical approach in the juxtaposition of stories of relationships with students online and offline. Keywords: Students with disabilities in online courses; teacher student relationships online; Eudemonia; relationships and pedagogy; online teacher authority; narratives of online learning

INTRODUCTION I (Mary) taught English at a public brick-and-mortar junior high school for almost a decade. My teaching assignments usually included reading, English/language arts, and English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. For several years, I had struggled with vision loss and eventually I needed to have surgery on both eyes. To prepare my students, I told them about the procedure, assured them I would be fine, but that I would either be wearing sunglass while I taught or the lights would be dimmed for several days until my eyes healed. Fernando, a student in my ESL class, was concerned and asked many questions. I reiterated that all would be well, and in fact, I would be able to see his face and the face of his classmates better than I ever had. He seemed to calm at hearing this. On the Monday following the surgery, I arrived at school to find Fernando already sitting in my room with the lights adjusted so that only half were on. He was at least 30 minutes early when his typical pattern was to arrive barely on time, or even slightly after the first bell. When I complimented him on his early start to the day, he looked up at me, beaming, and said “Mrs. Rice, I wanted you to see me first.” I walked over and sat at a desk near him. “How thoughtful, Fernando,” I said. “I see you and you are so beautiful.”

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

211

I do not teach adolescents in a public school setting anymore. Instead, I research curriculum from the perspectives of Schwab (1969). That is to say, I look at curriculum as a comprehensive way of life in a school that attends to teachers, learners, subject matter, and milieu as they come together in activity. I agree with the proposition that Schwab’s work paved the way for modern efforts to carve spaces of renewal for teachers (Craig, 2008). This perspective gives my work a broad scope, even when I am only looking at one aspect of a curriculum. Further, I subscribe to the idea that curriculum is not about what learners learn or teachers teach as static artefacts, but rather as living storied dimensions that are interconnected as a curriculum of lives (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). In this view, my experience with Fernando represented moments of curriculum built between us. These moments were not the curriculum of standards, objectives, and indicators (Tyler, 1949) but instead they were relational moments vital to classroom life. Fernando’s desire to have me see him first changed how he lived on the school landscape that day and beyond. It changed me too. Who would have thought that a child would make the effort to do such a thing? That he would see something important about coming and sitting my classroom so I could look at him. He had to have known that I had been walking around over the weekend seeing people. That I had driven to school and entered the building with my recovering eyes open. Yet, there was a story he had to be able to tell. That story was that in the space of our classroom the initial and only student in the room was he that I saw him “first.” I have many stories like this. Clandinin and Connelly (1996) called them sacred stories. These are stories teachers tell about their classrooms in safe places under safe circumstances. Other teachers have stories like these too. We have them, according to Bullough and Pinnegar (2009), because they sustain teachers in teaching. Invoking the Aristotelian concept of Eudemonia, these scholars suggest that teaching can and should bring happiness. The source of that happiness, they explain, is when a teacher reaches out to learners with goodwill and the learners, in turn, reach back. In the story with Fernando, I told my students that I was going to have surgery. In so doing, I invited them to care. When they did care, I answered their questions, but then Fernando decided to reach to me again when he came early to class. When he told me why he had come, I felt Eudemonia. I was content to teach, much more so than if I had received a raise or been offered an extra planning period. Fernando gave me a gift of his time, his concern, and his kindness, but he also gave me the gift of a story. This story is one that I can tell as a sacred one. It is a story that I keep in my

212

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

heart as I research teachers, learners, and subject matters in milieu on the university landscape. When I tell people that I conduct research with teachers in online schools, one of the first things I am usually asked sometimes seriously, sometimes rhetorically is how teachers can possibly build relationships in an online setting. Admittedly, I found it difficult to imagine many of my sacred stories as being easy to translocate to a virtual setting. The reason I had to tell the students about my surgery was because I was going to have to change the environment by dimming the lights to accommodate myself. My other option was to wear sunglasses, which constituted a change in my appearance and the breach of a school policy from the dress code. The students were not allowed to wear sunglasses during class. Such a policy would not be necessary for completing work in a virtual setting. Since I wanted to blatantly do something that they could not do, she elected to reason with them, rather than just expect that I could do what I wanted because she was a teacher and the dress code was for students or because I knew that I had a legitimate reason. As a virtual teacher, I might not have been obliged to say anything to the students. Maybe I would mention I would be unavailable for several hours. If I did say she was having surgery, other than the potential window of unavailability, it would not have been necessary for the event to reverberate through their lives like it did for my students the week after she returned to class. When Fernando came to my classroom, he came early because school runs during a specific time at a specific place. He changed how he engaged with those expectations of time and place so that he could be in my visual field at a point in time that was ahead of his peers. When he told me why he was early, I moved physically closer to him. I looked at him under dimmed lights. I was able to see him better than I ever had, both physically and symbolically. On both counts, he was beautiful. We had always had good interactions. But after I saw him first, both of us took up our work together with new eyes. This was a moment of great intensity that was largely driven by shared place and time and it figured as a major event in the plotline of our year for both of us. As I mentioned, this story is still a major event in the plotline of my teaching, even though I no longer teach adolescents. Yet I was intrigued by the possibilities for Eudemonia online. Scholars such as Dreyfus (2001) have suggested that cyber learning carries an absence of intensity for both students and teachers. If true, this would be tragic since intensity is seen as integral to learner commitment and engagement (Turner, Christiansen, Kackar-Cam, Trucano, & Fullmer, 2014). However, scholars such as Land (2004) have examined the

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

213

possibility that learning in cyberspace, rather than being absent of risk, contains perils and disquietudes that are in some ways far more challenging for all stakeholders, and have the potential to instigate the intensities that lead to relational teaching. My story with Fernando is about seeing, but it is also about hearing and doing, and moving. Surely online work can tap into these activities that bring about stories of happiness for teachers. As I was thinking about these issues of relationships and Eudemonia, in off- and online contexts, I brought my ideas to my research partner Richard and we began to consider them in our intermittent meetings. Like me, Richard had taught in brick-and-mortar schools and had memorable and interesting experiences on that landscape that he brought with him to graduate school and which appeared directly and indirectly in his doctoral work. As we worked on various projects, we saw the ways in which stories formed layers the stories of ourselves within the academe, as researchers and teacher educators, and without, particularly as former public school educators ourselves, and as children of public school educators. As scholars with lifelong interests in narrative spaces, we knew that space and time were more elusive and ephemeral than effable and stable. But we also believed that teaching well hinges on present moments, or as Rogers and Raider-Roth (2006) put it, moments of presence where intense concentration on one or a few students in a spirit of openness brings about all kinds of insight into student’s lives as learners. The kind of concentration required to achieve presence, as a concept from Waks (1995) who referenced Buddhism, involves becoming empty first, by clearing one’s mind and then using as many senses as possible and as much information as is at your disposal to really make sense of what is happening for a small moment of time. In addition to this intense form of presence, Garrison (2003) argued that interactions online must be mediated by three kinds of presence: cognitive, social, and teaching. These types of presence overlap as teachers select content, support discourse, and manage the setting and climate of the virtual learning space. Learning online, according to Garrison, occurs at optimal levels when teachers achieve appropriate balances of his three types of presence. In this frame, presence is not as much about a frame of mind as it is about projecting particular kinds of authority engaged to move learners toward intellectual freedom. This model of teacher work in online learning draws to some degree on Dewey (1938) challenge to teachers regarding their treatment of subject matter. Dewey hoped that teachers would attend to this challenge by engaging their students in reflective inquiry and problem solving as curriculum. The culmination of this type of curriculum is

214

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

self-directed learning, which Garrison argued is the crowning achievement of the potential of online learning. Although Garrison (2003) wrote about kinds of presence as authority that should be asserted online, his work does not necessarily theorize the sources of authority. For this, French and Raven (1959) suggested that people draw authority from five bases and McCroskey and Richmond (1982) brought these bases into education with the additional explanation that these bases are interdependent. The bases, theorized before online learning had come to be an option are (a) reward the ability to provide incentives or remuneration, (b) coercion the ability to discipline or punish, (c) legitimacy the power that comes from the prestige of one’s social position, (d) expertise freedom to display knowledge and develop cognition in others, and (e) referential the strength of relationships. It is in this frame that we discuss findings from a larger study of online teachers working to support students with disabilities in a part-time program at a large virtual school. The teachers in this study shared instances of great intensity as they worked with the relational context of online coursework, which caused us to wonder about the ways in which online teachers use stories to claim Eudemonia and assert relational capacity with students and families. The rest of this chapter includes an overview of the expectations for online teachers and sets up dialogue between same and different as they relate to on- and offline pedagogy and then asks more questions about these responsibilities in the context of efforts by teachers to feel legitimate in their claims to relationships with students. Finally, stories that both elicited and threatened Eudemonia will be shared and discussed, highlighting implications for preparing teachers to work with students in online contexts.

EXPECTATIONS FOR ONLINE TEACHERS The expectations for teachers in online settings, like the expectations for all teachers, are substantial and have only been increasing in number and complexity over time (Archambault & Kennedy, 2014). Online teachers need to be competent in selecting and coordinating of pedagogy, technology, and content (iNACOL, 2011). Curriculum planning skills are considered a primary task for providing students with quality online learning opportunities (Kurtz, Beaudoin, & Sagee, 2004). While all teachers are expected to have dexterous pedagogical and instructional design skills and all teachers are

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

215

supposed to be able to integrate and use technology as a means of instruction, teachers who are dependent on technologies as the sole medium of interaction with students are additionally required to be able to modify the instructional practices and pedagogical techniques that are recommended for success in face-to-face settings for the online environment (DiPietro, Ferdig, Black, & Preston, 2008). In effect, teachers in online settings are charged with developing the ability to translate best practices from traditional classrooms and then translocate that knowledge into virtual instructional settings. Even though it is often assumed that teachers and teachers in training reach for their understanding of schooling from traditional environments and then reach forward to tweak those skills in online teaching, the implementation of new, or revamped strategies associated with the use of pedagogy, technology, and instructional design requires teachers to make significant shifts in their understandings about teaching from what they may have experienced in offline settings (Coppa, 2004). These shifts include the expectation that virtual teachers will be able to incorporate the skills of an interaction facilitator and an instructional designer into their role (Easton, 2003) in ways that defy space and time as fixed properties. This usually requires the teacher to be available to students at more times during the day, more days of the week, and more weeks of the year (Cavanaugh, 2005). We wondered how these working conditions might show up as the teachers attempted to implement their instruction and do things such as develop and exercise their authority online. While online teachers’ use of communication tools to foster a high level of interaction is considered one of the most important factors in facilitating student learning in online environments (Volery, 2001), these interactions and lessons must be planned with the physical distance between students and teacher in mind. Doing so requires teachers to make materials that can be accessed by students at any time, that is within the technological skills of the students to access, and that does not require students to be familiar with any particular local geography. Finally, it has been charged that parents of students in online courses have additional responsibilities for communicating with teachers around their children’s progress and for helping their children work through course content (Borup, West, Graham, & Davis, 2014; Curtis, 2013). When students have disabilities and are taking online courses, the assumption is that there is an additional layer of complexity about how online courses should work, but there is little research that looks at online learning for K12

216

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

students with disabilities (Greer, Rice, & Dykman, 2014). In addition, it is unclear who (parents or teachers) bear the responsibility for managing that complexity. Online schools want to attract parents who desire to be highly involved in their children’s learning, especially if children have disabilities, but if the schools are public (including charter), then they must accept everyone, especially when online courses are required by state law. Since the school only has limited control over what parents who enroll their children in online courses are able and willing to do, the teacher is the next candidate to manage that complexity. In theory, these teachers are trained to work with students with disabilities and have regular contact with the student. However, the teacher sitting in a remote location with only email addresses and telephone numbers for families can initiate all kinds of contact, but they cannot manage the case of a student with special needs unless someone responds to their contact.

COLLECTING AND ANALYZING THE STORIES Four teachers from a part-time program at State Virtual School in the United States participated in this study. They had all had previously taught in traditional educational settings, but not necessarily at their currently assigned age and subject area. They all have special education endorsement training. The number of total years of experience ranged from 6 to 20 + years. These teachers, all women, taught various subjects and grades in traditional schools before coming to teach online. These women live all over a very large state and so do their students. The stories were collected, analyzed, and interpreted as a collaborative effort between two researchers and the teachers themselves. In this report, these women are Ms. Bongiovi (Algebra), Ms. Cardio (Physical education), Ms. Cassidy (English), and Ms. Smith (English). The research conversations that took place over the course of this study were held in concert with the collection of a variety of objects that the teachers shared with us as we conducted one-on-one research conversations with them during the study. Among the objects collected were records of interactions with parents, students, and teachers around accommodations for students with disabilities including implementation of their Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs). The interviewing research team member also took careful notes from meetings as research texts. Research team members and the teachers also shared research articles back and forth

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

217

and discussed them during the course of the inquiry, which took place mostly between February and August 2014. The stories that emerged from these objects functioned as materializations of stories (Frank, 2010). The teachers had the opportunity to give additional perspectives on the stories and to reject the authorization to publicly share certain stories. We shared and kept field notes and jottings of the experiences we had when we were teachers that were brought to mind while the teachers told their stories to us. Our experiences as we analyzed the stories are made visible in this chapter. As the stories were read, shared, and considered, the work of Althusser (1971) offered resonant perspectives for interpretation. According to Althusser, one of the critical functions of narrative is the interpellation of characters. He explains interpellation as the calling on of a person to acknowledge and act on a particular identity to hail someone. A story calls on characters to be particular sorts of selves and it calls on listeners to recognize themselves in the stories. Myths generate much of their power as sacred stories from their interpellative qualities. In these stories, there is also powerful subject positioning. Characters are more or less reflective about and aware of whom the story is requiring them to be and what it requires them to do. In this scenario, both tellers and hearers are left, in the aftermath of a story, with Bourdieu (1977) “unchosen choices.” In order to avoid fatalism then, agency is derived from the fact that individuals are living and telling multiple stories at one time. Increasing agency in this framework is accomplished through increasing the number of stories people have access to, where they are given more interpellations for future actions. These sentiments about finding oneself in the stories were also present in the work of Portelli (2010). According to him, each person is at a crossroads for potential stories. Further, stories can be object for interpretation by (a) translating the story into images, (b) translating the story to be told from the point of view of previously marginalized characters, (c) noticing what details might be expected, but omitted, and (d) attending to the differences between the storyteller and the analyst. He also encouraged interpreters to slow down and appreciate the story and the storytellers. We also drew on the work of Riessman (2008) who argued that there should not be a method of analyzing stories if method means a set of predetermined steps. In the same vein, Mills (2000) has advocated narrative analysis as a type of artisanship that is intellectual in nature. Arthur Frank (2010) has used “practical criticism” to describe the same set of principles governing narrative analysis conducted without predetermined method. In order to become comfortable with this type of story analysis where

218

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

questions arise regarding dominant images and supporting details, we turned to our own stories of teaching. I started with the story about Fernando coming so I could see him first. What I learned from thinking about the nuances of the story and how time and space governed its telling formed the basis of the introduction to this chapter.

STORIES OF ONLINE TEACHER STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS Just as I was able to see Fernando, the teachers we worked with at State Virtual School were also able to look at their students, but they did so with the eyes of their parents. They also looked at their students through the work that they had done while logged into the computer. They saw what was given to them in IEPs and similar documents, and they saw their students through the stories they had of them and the stories they created about them. As the teachers were able to do this, they experienced Eudemonia and to them their students were beautiful. The stories were striking in that they demonstrated teachers’ desire to have relationships more than the actual relationships. In addition, these stories revealed these teachers’ relentless efforts to create not only the relationships, but to preserve the stories of those relationships as Eudemonia. The first story comes from Ms. Bongiovi, who teaches Algebra in State Virtual School. In the story, she describes the experience of giving a required assessment conversation with Steven, a student with an exceptionality. She narrates through the Eudemonia that she experienced as she helped this child meet the demands of the task with the help of his father. Some of our students do well when they can explain. For example, I conducted two assessment conversations last night with a student that was diagnosed with Asperger’s disorder. Now normally this child Steven has a hard time talking. This was the second segment of the course where I have had to administer an assessment conversation. You don’t understand how hard it was to get him to get going in the beginning. Well I decided to always make sure that his dad’s around to do the assessment conversations with him. I’ll ask a question, but sometimes I might ask it in a way where he cannot understand it, or I might talk too fast. So last night I said, “Steven, how do you know if a parabola is going to be a minimum or a maximum? What do you look at?” And he was like, “huh?” And his father stopped and said “Steven, remember the quadratic equation. What do you look at?” And Steven remembered. “Oh yeah, the sign in front of A.” This answer came quickly because his dad knows him so well, and I realized that I should have been the one to

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

219

say, “Steven, when you’re looking at the equation of a quadratic, how do you know if it’s a minimum or a maximum”? But instead I said what I said. I forgot that Steven is very literal. His father was able to ask him a question that took that into account. Those are other little accommodations that, you know, I do for students. I’ll ask the parent to be present in case I’m wording something not right; they know their kids more than I do. And another thing, you know, they get nervous and parents usually make the kids less nervous. It also lets me find places to laugh. Like I can say, “Steven, do you think dad could get this right? And we laugh, you know?” [Ms. Bongiovi chuckles again, remembering] I try to get like that, you know, comedy out of him. At certain points, I also told Steven to tell his dad how to do what I was asking instead of telling me. That worked really well. (Reconstructed from a research conversation with Ms. Bongiovi, May 2014)

In this story Ms. Bongiovi narrates a strategy for helping Steven by having his father attend the assessment conversation. The father shares physical space with Steven and is therefore positioned to see his facial expressions and other movements and report them. Ms. Bongiovi appreciates this, and in fact, is relying on the father to do this. However, Ms. Bongiovi narrates the true power of the father’s presence as his shared history with Steven. He is positioned as an authority not because he is in the same room with his son, but because he knows him better and can figure out how to serve him best in this task. As a way to illustrate this superior knowing when it comes to Steven, Ms. Bongiovi recounts the part of the evening where the father rephrases a question. This question reveals to us that the father has some mathematical knowledge, but to Ms. Bongiovi he was able to come up with this rephrasing because of his parental intuition. Another advantage the parent has in this narration is that he is less intimidating. According to Ms. Bongiovi, a teacher on the other side of a phone line or Internet connection can make young people nervous, while their parents make them calm. Immediately after making this assertion again in another research conversation, Ms. Bongiovi told another story about a boy whose mother was actually not helpful during the assessment conversations. In this case, the parent made the child apprehensive and she felt it would be better if she were not there, but in general, she asserted, the parent of a student with a disability is an invaluable asset to her work as a teacher. Ms. Bongiovi was joyous as she told me this story. To her, this was a prototypical narrative of what it meant to her to work with students with disabilities in online coursework and have them succeed. It was successful because she was able to communicate with Steven, not so much through

220

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

technologically assisted means, but through a person that could see his capabilities and intervene to make sure that Steven could show what he knew. Even if Ms. Bongiovi had used visual communication instead of the telephone, she still would have needed Steven’s father to be present because it was the strength of presence (Rogers & Raider-Roth, 2006) that made the difference and resulted in the happy outcome. This story also illustrates one of the main tensions of online teaching interactions as being irrespective of distance (Volery, 2001). Essentially the teacher in the online situation, Ms. Bongiovi in this case, used interaction to narrow distance symbolically while leaving it physically intact. The ability to do this forms the basis upon which online teachers can make relational connections with students and their families. Another strategy that teachers used that brought them satisfaction was frequent communication with those enrolled in their classes. The teachers are required to contact their students and their parents regularly, but this is made so much easier when the parents and students read their emails and their text messages, and above all, answer their phones. However, what really makes the teachers happy is when students initiate contact. Ms. Smith, an English teacher, described her efforts to reach first to the students in the hopes that they will reach to her as often as necessary. I just tell them to call anytime just so that they know not to hesitate. Any of these, Mary, are coming out of, you know, traditional school. They wouldn’t even conceive of like, you nor I would have to call our teachers at night, you know, after we were home, you know. So, I think that, you know, not having been used to that, I want them to really be aware that they can call me and that they can email, that I will answer. During a welcome call I tell them straight out that I do have students who call three times a day and that I’m delighted to work with them and not to hesitate to be a student that calls that often. I really do have students who have called me three times a day; it is only just once every so often. It’s not an on-going thing. But I like to tell new students that they can call just so they are comfortable. If they’re working on something and suddenly find that they’re not sure about something and then they have already called once, I don’t want them to sit there and say, “Well, I can’t call her again.” So, I just let them know that if we’re available, and that we’re indeed available for them. (Reconstructed from a research conversation with Mrs. Smith, May 2014)

During our research conversations, Ms. Smith described her daily schedule as usually starting at 6 a.m. or earlier. She is obliged to stay available to students until 8 p.m. but she often reported taking calls until 9 or 10 in the evening. Unlike many online teachers, Ms. Smith does not have a cell phone or other telecommunication device that allows her to answer phone

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

221

calls or grade while going other places and doing other things. She does all her work at her desk in her office in her home. Ms. Smith had many stories about the joy of getting a call from a student. One male student, in particular, had to withdraw from her classes because he decided to get a graduate equivalency degree (GED) and before doing so, the state requires GED candidates to completely withdraw from all regular diploma classes. Ms. Smith lamented to me that she was losing this boy because she felt like he could do the work in the course and should have a regular diploma instead. After she reported this in a research conversation, she was asked later on in the inquiry if she had heard from that student. She had. The timbre of her voice changed as she reported that she had heard from him and was doing fine. Since the student was no longer enrolled in the course, this was particularly touching. He called her to tell her how he was doing because of a connection he had to her, rather than an obligation to talk because of school policies. All the teachers that we worked with in this study reported relationships with students that went beyond regular obligations as a huge part of what sustains them in online teaching. Teaching in an online school is really, really challenging because the strategies normally used will not do. We definitely build rapport as online teachers, a lot of people to have hard time believing that. We definitely do. (Reconstructed from a research conversation with Ms. Cardio, May 2014)

In order to facilitate these relationships, Ms. Cardio, who teaches physical education, talked about times when she signed up to run a 5K and invited her students to join her. She was aware that it would not be possible for most of them to come but she hoped that a few who lived close to the race site might be able to participate. Students who were able to come were able to count running as part of their required activity logs for the class, but since coming was truly optional, the students who did come brought Ms. Cardio much joy. They also gave her a story to tell me and to tell others about how online teaching can reach across space and time, but not by using technology, but by leveraging the technology to bring at least a few students together with her to run a race. It is not important whether the students came, but that the teacher made the effort to invite the students. In a brick-and-mortar teaching situation, to not have anyone come, or only having a few show up at the race might have been really devastating, but in an online context the fact that the teacher invited all the students, including the ones that have disabilities, forms the plotline of the story about how much the teacher cares about each individual relationship

222

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

with each individual student. In the online setting, getting invited to see the teacher out in the community is a bonus an extravagance is a relational act. These experiences of working with students to mediate relationships through technology do not always bring joy. The teachers we worked with also had many sad stories about their work with students. These stories start as explanations for what happens when a student stops working. Although they do not physically disappear, they do virtually. Sadly, these disappearances are more likely to happen with the students who have disabilities. In one example of such a narrative Ms. Cassidy discussed what happened when she lost track of a student in her English class and was able to later reconnect. One of my students with a disability disappeared for a long time, and I had to withdraw her last week just because nobody would answer my calls. She had not submitted work since March, and that’s our rule; that if they don’t work for three or four weeks and they’re not returning contact, we have to withdraw them. So I did, and she finally got back with me and told me they had five deaths in the family, they were moving, they had no Internet at their house before, and her phone service went out. (Reconstructed from a research conversation with Ms. Cassidy, May 2014)

The rule that Ms. Cassidy refers to is a policy that State Virtual School has in place. The accountability demands in the United States incentivizes the removal of student names from the rolls of public and charter schools in order to avoid having to answer for a zero score on a state test when the student was not able to take it. However, this policy may also advantage a virtual school because there are few things that the school can do to send a signal to learners and parents that their students must keep working. Under threat of removal from the system, logic dictates that families would want to take responsibility to make sure that their children who are enrolled in courses continue to log in periodically. While the students are logged on, they may also be more likely to move through the lessons and units of the coursework. Displacement from the family residence disrupts all of these kinds of services, which according to the parent in this case, disabled the child from working and did not permit the family to tell the teacher or anyone else at the virtual school. From Ms. Cassidy’s description of her student, we also learn more about what bodies need in order to do online learning. Access to the Internet and a device that will allow a user to view the course content are two of those things. However, Ms. Cassidy reminds us that the promise of “anytime, anyplace” of online learning does not include major life disruptions for many families. As we thought about this story, we wondered how five

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

223

people in one family could pass away within such a close timeframe. We believed that it was possible, but we also had a sense that such a scenario would likely require a substantial tragedy or string of them. We also wondered whether the disconnection of telephone and Internet services related to the family deaths by draining family finances. If five deaths were an exaggeration or fiction, we wondered “why five?” One or two deaths would have convinced the teacher to relent and reinstate the child in the course. If there were not five deaths, we wondered why the mother felt that she needed to portray such a dire situation in order to be excused from contacting the teacher to maintain the child’s enrollment. Notice how the teacher has to adjudicate the situation to determine whether to allow the student to reenroll with very little information. In a traditional setting, she might hear talk of a tragedy that killed five people among the students or colleagues. She might have students come in to class and tell her that they were upset. Instead Ms. Cassidy has to hear the story over the phone and make a decision quickly about what to do. Yet, Ms. Cassidy is able to handle the matter efficiently, almost matter-of-factly, secure in the belief that she knows this family and she knows families like this family. Even though the student had not been working in the class, Ms. Cassidy has been following the case and making the contact enough to assert a relationship. In the end, the story of these five deaths secured the compassion of the teacher and allowed her to do something to exert some authority; to show some mercy to save the child from the fate of attrition. This display of power resulted in Eudemonia, not because the teacher was glad about the awful situation, but because she could advocate for a student with a disability whose family that had clearly fallen on hard times. The teachers at State Virtual Schools are saddened by the attrition rates in online schooling. They are saddened because they do not like reporting students who have vanished, but it also bothers them because they do not know what happened to these young people. These teachers can have such strong aversions to students who suddenly stop turning work in, even though they never physically shared the same space because of how they have interpellated the students (Althusser, 1971). When the teachers do hear from the families, they often hear that the attrition was because of tragedy. The teachers believe the students that come to them with disabilities are already disadvantaged in terms of their ability to complete the coursework quickly and independently. Further, these disadvantages are especially acute when students’ disabilities are due to health problems. In fact the teachers reported that some of the students they have in online classes are

224

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

there not because the children have health problems or special needs, but because their parents do. Even so, many of their students they talk the most about have chronic illnesses and are permanently or frequently hospitalized. Ms. Smith describes the ways in which she has tried to use the school’s activation/deactivation policy as a tool for advocacy for students with poor health. Well, about a month ago I had a situation with another student who had already been my student for a whole semester and so I was ready to activate her. I talked to Mom, she said go ahead and activate her. That day I activated her, well the next day I got an email from another teacher saying the daughter was hospitalized and I knew some of her medical situation with her health. So I was able to go into the computer and deactivate her right away because it had only been 24 hours. And I didn’t know how long she would be hospitalized and what the situation was. It did end up being three weeks before I activated her again. So sometimes that game of activation is; it’s sort of a risk. You don’t really know when you go with your gut if it’s right at all. But you want to do what’s in the best interest of the student of course and then you always have to remember though that the student has a certain window of time, except for students of course that have the IEP and the protection of you know, extended time or alternative pacing guides. So that particular situation worked out perfectly because she’s now actively working and the three weeks (if I had left her activated) would have her three weeks behind. (Reconstructed from a research conversation with Ms. Smith, April 2014)

Here we see another opportunity for the virtual teacher to advocate for students and in so doing lay claim to a relationship that will benefit the student academically. The teacher was able to juggle the start time of the course and then communicate that to the family. Ms. Smith’s advocacy enabled the student to slide right back in the course and work actively thereafter. The teachers were all in agreement that this kind of strategy built up goodwill, but also helped the student enter the class under less discouraging terms. The women who teach at State Virtual School also believe that these students coming to them from brick-and-mortar schools are in virtual school because the state law mandates one class for graduation. They also believe that those schools are not prepared to work with students with disabilities and when those students also are not successful in the online courses, they do not just leave the virtual school, but K12 school entirely. And then sadly student who was homeless, I think I mentioned I talked to him almost every day. This is a delightful boy, delightful and I’ve had him since last, I don’t know, May, April, May, and he had two assignments at the very end and he would have finished one semester with me two assignments to the end. And he went to sign up for GED and they said that he had to drop this course before he can take the GED

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

225

test. And he could have stayed with us since he was had a learning disability, but he decided to go the route of GED because then he could also be accepted into the college offering the GED course if he did well. So he was forced to do it and I mean, it was just so sad. (Reconstructed from a research conversation with Ms. Smith, April 2014)

The concept of the unchosen choice (Bourdieu, 1977) is also apparent in this story. From the teacher’s perspective, this young man was easily persuaded to drop out of a course for which he had two assignments left when the institution offering the GED told him that he might be able to go there if he took their preparation classes and passed the test. Leaving an online course with so few assignments left, especially when it means leaving school for a GED is anathema to the teachers at State Virtual School. The teachers are on the front lines of an effort to try to give them a successful learning experience when they believe the students have had mostly awful experiences in other settings. I think that the students were hammered and just so pounded down in the traditional brick and mortar, and then they come in here and then at first they’re shy, whatever and then since they’re working on their own; they’re not in the classroom; they’re not getting picked on; they can work on their own pace. You have your teachers here at State Virtual saying, “No, you can do this, you can do this.” (Reconstructed from a research conversation with Ms. Bongiovi, April 2014)

When that experience fails because parents cannot provide integral assistance, calls go unanswered, questions go unasked, and work goes undone, these women feel that there are few alternatives for these students in terms of credit accrual and in terms of their ability to see themselves as learners. When students with disabilities are concerned, there is a sense that the teachers see them as being wounded on multiple fronts. These wounds are physical where there is physical impairment, but the worse wounds are actually regarded to be the social and emotional scars from previous learning situations. The teachers derive a sense of efficacy from their role as people who understand that they are in pain and online learning offers the salve of isolation from traditional school and the balm of encouragement from an adult who cares. The teachers sense that the online lessons and the policies generally applied for earning points at State Virtual School are not always easily to navigate. They were appreciative of the lessons provided by the school based on state guidelines, but they also wished that they had more liberty around things, like topics for writing. When there is space in the curriculum for teachers to provide direct modifications to coursework, they are more than willing to do so. For example, Ms. Cardio talked about the

226

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

requirement for the students to wear pedometers, but her students in wheelchairs would not be able to log an activity for that and so she instructs them to put it on their arms. When the students receive this directive, she talks about how grateful they are that there is such a simple fix to what they thought was a hopeless situation. In the end, it is small adjustments like these that gave these teachers the most joy, even though they are aware that some might see these efforts as insipid because they are not large in scope or complex to implement. In fact, most of the accommodations these teachers are the most proud of doing for students are things that are not even necessary to include in an IEP under most circumstances. The teachers’ accommodations are largely described as small acts of kindness and extra care where the time and distance between student and teacher can be diminished through frequent contact from the teacher.

IMPLICATIONS FOR WORKING WITH STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ONLINE The story Mary told about Fernando coming to see and be seen by her is from her perspective only. We do not know what Fernando thought or what he thinks now. He may not even remember the event, although he might remember Mary as his teacher. The fact that Mary owns that story and can control when and to whom it is told is part of what makes it one of her sacred stories of teaching. The stories told by teachers from State Virtual School are also from their perspectives only. We do not know what the students or parents think about the relationships they have with virtual teachers in general, with those teachers specifically, or even what they thought about the events described in this chapter. What we can see is how these online teachers worked not only to make contact with the students but also to capture their experiences as stories that would elicit Eudemonia. The teachers in this study wanted relationships with those children and their parents and they needed to be able to say that they had them in order to feel sustained in what is the very time and labor intensive work of teaching students with disabilities online. Being an online teacher in this frame requires “new eyes” on multiple fronts. New eyes to see students through their work; new eyes to see how parental interest in children’s education can be leveraged through cyberspace; and new eyes to see a role as an personal advocate in the what can be perceived as a cold cruel world system of

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

227

policies and institutions designed in such a way as to make students feel restricted rather than liberated. The teachers’ sacred stories have several implications for preparation to teach students with disabilities, especially when those students will be taking online courses. One major implication is about the reality of what teachers and students really need to work online effectively and how to prepare online teachers to confront these realities. A body needs things to work online. It needs a place to sit or stand comfortably. It needs to be able to breathe well and carry out its other essential functions while learning online. It needs nourishment and to be generally free from distraction. However, these things are the hard to come by for some bodies. The teachers in this study know this, but they are without the authority to fix these circumstances and in some cases, it is unclear what or who could do so. This understanding is alive and well in the online world, but may be taken for granted in traditional schools. Teachers in brick-and-mortar situations may not be able to meet all the needs of their students’ bodies either, but they are presumed to have some control; when they abuse or neglect a child’s body, there can be all kinds of ramifications from complaining parents to widely circulated Internet new articles and calls for dismissal. Returning to the terminology of French and Raven (1959), these teachers have no coercive/reward power (except to delete them from the system), little legitimate power (they are at the mercy of parents to participate with them and return phone calls/texts), and expert power that competes with the pre-packaged lessons in the course content (although the teachers make efforts to modify the curriculum). The teachers then come to rely heavily on referent power authority derived from the strength of their relationships to help students who the teachers believe do not have many advocates in their schools of record. The sense of having a relationship is captured as authority to advocate and experienced in sacred story. That authority indemnifies the presence of Eudemonia for the teachers. When we tell people these stories or as we have submitted work for publication, our colleagues are sometimes shocked that we do not discuss technology more. The reason why we do not is because those women did not. They are perfectly comfortable with talking to people on the phone. They are totally capable of putting together presentation materials, running a live session via the Internet, navigating the course curriculum, and in helping parents understand how to do these things. What they struggle with as teachers of students with disabilities is making the kinds of connections with students and their families that will keep the students logging on to learn, and keeping the stream of information flowing unobstructed between

228

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

themselves, the learners, and their parents. This struggle is so intense that any attempt to work on the part of the student or any contact or support from parents is seen as personal victory and is proof that positive relationships exist. The findings of this study also demonstrate that the although referent power and goodwill are major tools online teachers employ for narrating relationships with students and families, there is a mistrust between their online school and other entities that are supposed to serve the children. The traditional schools are found to be abusive at worst and unhelpful at best. The institutions that offer GEDs to students are regarded not to have the best interests of the students at heart. State sponsored curriculum standards form barriers to teachers as they try to make modifications and sometimes even the policies of State Virtual School itself are seen as more constricting than liberating to students with disabilities without mediation from a teacher. In terms of online teacher preparation for students with disabilities, there is a need for greater discussion about how to leverage the policies in online spaces in favor of students and families and there ought to be some discussion about the various shapes arrangements with traditional schools and other service providers can take for students with disabilities in online settings. In this study, advocacy online looks like encouragement, the relentless pursuit of contact, constant availability, small adjustments to assignments and tests, and the will to assert the presence of a relationship. What of these can be infused into online teacher education? How? These are the questions that will be important as online learning continues to grow. It also occurred to us that much of these strategies do not have to be enacted online, but that somehow, for these teachers all of whom had taught in brick-and mortar-situations doing what they do online seems very different to them. More work is needed in online teacher identity research to uncover why these teachers see this work as being different. To do so would give greater insight into teacher preparation and development.

REFERENCES Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In B. Brewster (Trans.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press. Retrieved from http://ghostprof.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 09/Althusser-on-ISA-and-RSA.pdf. Accessed on December 16, 2014.

Online Teachers’ Sacred Stories of Students with Disabilities

229

Archambault, L., & Kennedy, K. (2014). Teacher preparation for K-12 online and blended learning. In R. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 225 243). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: ETC Press. Retrieved from http://press.etc.cmu.edu/files/Handbook-Blended-Learning_Ferdig-Kennedy-etal_web.pdf. Accessed on December 17, 2014. Borup, J., West, R. E., Graham, C. R., & Davis, R. S. (2014). The adolescent community of engagement: A framework for research on adolescent online learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 107 129. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645 668. Bullough, R. V. Jr., & Pinnegar, S. (2009). The happiness of teaching (as eudemonia): Disciplinary knowledge and the threat of performativity. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 241 256. Cavanaugh, J. (2005). Teaching online—A time comparison. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/ spring81/cavanaugh81.htm. Accessed on December 27, 2014. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories. Stories of teachers. School stories. Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24 30. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Coppa, L. (2004). The ABC’s of the K-12 virtual community (the who, what and how for K-12 teachers). AACE Journal, 12(3), 343 347. Craig, C. J. (2008). Joseph Schwab, self-study of teaching and teacher education practices proponent? A personal perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1993 2001. Curtis, H. (2013). A mixed methods study investigating parental involvement and student success in online education. Unpublished dissertation, Northwest Nazarene University. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi Publications. DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 10 35. Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On the internet. London: Routledge. Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87 105. Frank, A. W. (2010). Letting stories breathe: A socio-narratology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. French, J. R. P. Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150 167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, 4, 47 58. Greer, D., Rice, M., & Dykman, B. (2014). Reviewing a decade (2004 2014) of research at the intersection of online learning coursework and disability. In R. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 135 159). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: ETC Press. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/ 149393/. Accessed on December 27, 2014.

230

MARY FRANCES RICE AND RICHARD ALLEN CARTER, JR.

iNACOL. (2011). National standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved from http://www. inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/national-standards-for-quality-online-teaching-v2. pdf. Accessed on August 18, 2015. Kurtz, G., Beaudoin, M., & Sagee, R. (2004). From campus to web: The changing roles of faculty from classroom to online teaching. The Journal of Educators Online, 1(1), 1 28. Land, R. (2004). Issues of embodiment and risk in online learning. Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings ASCILITE Perth 2004. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/ perth04/procs/land.html. Accessed on December 9, 2014. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982, May). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student perceptions. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Communication Association. Hartford, CT. ED 215389. Mills, C. W. (2000). The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Portelli, A. (2010). The death of Luigi Trastulli and other stories: Form and meaning in oral history. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rodgers, C. R., & Raider-Roth, M. B. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 265 287. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78(1), 1 23. Turner, J. C., Christiansen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Trucano, M., & Fullmer, S. M. (2014). Enhancing students’ engagement: Report of a 3-year intervention with middle school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1195 1226. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Volery, T. (2001). Online education: An exploratory study into success factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 77 92. Waks, L. J. (1995). Emptiness. In J. W. Garrison & A. G. Rud, Jr. (Eds.), The educational conversation: Closing the gap (pp. 85 96). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

AFTERWORD Leanna Archambault It is with great pleasure that I write the afterword for such a necessary and valuable volume as Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online. In 2010, I led the research subcommittee of the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) organization in examining how online programs were working to serve student populations who were considered “at-risk (Archambault et al., 2010).” As Somer Lewis, Aimee Whiteside, and Amy Garrett Dikkers point out in the chapter “Providing Chances for Students to Recover Credit: Is Online Learning a Solution?” students can be considered “at-risk” for a number of reasons, including learning disabilities or challenges, familial responsibilities, becoming parents themselves, dealing with addiction or juvenile records, or any number of other challenges. I was motivated to explore this area, as I have a son with Asperger’s syndrome whose needs were not being adequately met via the traditional school setting. Through the report, the committee identified key factors, such as the use of supportive faculty and staff, individualizing instruction, and using specific instructional and intervention strategies to support student achievement. Since the release of An Exploration of At-Risk Learners and Online Education, scholars have continued to call for additional studies to explore the unique experiences and needs of diverse learners in online environments. Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online represents an important step forward with regard to research in this area. This book offers exceptional insight into how the community of teachers, families, students, and online providers is an essential element to supporting the education and success of learners with unique needs. Stakeholders must work together to foster and support safe, productive online learning environments, leveraging the power of technology, so that learners can achieve at the highest levels. To reach the goal of all learners being able to obtain their educational ambitions in online settings, Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online centers on three key themes: (1) the potential affordances of technology to connect learners and their families with teachers and schools to 231

232

LEANNA ARCHAMBAULT

transform learning, (2) support structures that are needed to assist diverse learners in the online environment, and (3) pedagogies that enable successful engagement in online settings and ways that these strategies can be honed throughout teacher preparation and professional practice. Each of these areas is discussed below.

POTENTIAL AFFORDANCES OF TECHNOLOGY TO TRANSFORM TEACHING AND LEARNING Within emerging learning environments, teachers play a critical role when it comes to implementing technology in ways that can transform the learning process. To do so, however, they need to develop specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions to understand how technology can play a pivotal role as part of instruction. Shawn M. Bullock eloquently points out how important it is for teachers to understand the ways in which various technologies can impact our interactions with one another given the social nature of teaching, and for the field to recognize how relevant theory influences our conceptions of the effective use of technology. Bullock pushes the reader to consider the ideas of boyd (2014), particularly the impact of “networked publics.” Through this process, teachers have the opportunity to grasp how students’ use of technology might affect the nature of social actions within and outside of the classroom. Applying this idea to the classroom, Jennifer Thomas utilizes action research to study her practice by conducting an inquiry-based research project using the Internet with two students who have special needs. She advocates that teachers need to carefully consider and evaluate how they are implementing technology in their teaching and how they can use such projects to better individualize learning for students. Through the use of Internet inquiry projects, the participating students were able to demonstrate strategic thinking, and use technology in an authentic, real-world manner to locate, evaluate, and synthesize key information important skills for success in the 21st century. Focusing more specifically on North Carolina Virtual Public Schools’ (NCVPS) Occupational Course of Study program (OCS), Amy Garrett Dikkers, Somer Lewis, and Aimee L. Whiteside describe the success the OCS program has experienced having both virtual and face-to-face teachers work together through co-teaching to provide high-quality academic content in a blended format to meet the individual needs of diverse learners. In leveraging the potential of technology to enhance learning, Exploring

Afterword

233

Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online highlights the need to collaborate using technology as a way to connect learners, teachers, parents, and schools.

SUPPORT STRUCTURES NEEDED TO ASSIST DIVERSE LEARNERS IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT Families are critical to the success of all learners and particularly those in online settings. Jered Borup and Mark Stevens outline the burgeoning literature in this area and point out how parents and caregivers provide essential nurturing and mentorship, as well as motivation, monitoring, instruction, organization, and voluntary assistance through the Adolescent Community of Engagement (ACE) framework (Borup, West, Graham, & Davies, 2014). This framework seeks to outline the pivotal role that parents, teachers, and peers play to positively impact student engagement and outcomes in online settings. While online providers rely on parental support to ensure student success, interestingly, they have used a variety of marketing techniques to appeal to parents in their promotional videos, as Mary Frances Rice insightfully examines in her chapter in which she uses narrative theme analysis (Rowland, 2005). The materials present online learning as a solution for students whose needs may not have been met in a traditional setting. The videos often seek to relieve parents’ anxiety about students’ school performance and help parents feel a sense of efficacy as a result of enrolling in the online program. However, as Rice clearly articulates, parents should go beyond marketed information to consider the needs of their student, examining outside reviews, completion rate data, and/or trial versions of content, so that they are able to understand what is involved and are able to provide the necessary support. In addition, teachers in online settings need to understand the crucial role that parents play and share in teaching their children. From their systematic case studies examining online credit recovery in two different settings in North Carolina, Lewis, Whiteside, and Dikkers provide helpful, data-driven suggestions for helping online students succeed. They highlight the need to acclimate students to the online environment through orientations and tutorials in order to provide necessary skills and familiarity, the need for teachers to offer individualized support to their students by establishing relationships and maintaining ongoing contact, and the need for schools and districts to create program structures

234

LEANNA ARCHAMBAULT

that lead to student success, such as considering computer lab accommodations, providing additional support staff to help students, and/or mandating an attendance policy.

PEDAGOGIES TO ENABLE ENGAGEMENT IN ONLINE SETTINGS Finally, a key area to supporting diverse learners in online is discovering and evaluating approaches that work in online environments. For example, Heather Greenhalgh-Spencer argues that we need a pedagogy that allows us to map the glocal (both global and local) to become aware of our own ecosophic lens that is centered on understanding our connections and relationships with things and spaces. This lens, together with using a glocal pedagogy, focuses on mapping ties to the local, to the global, and the networks of relationship that connect us. Brian Joe Rice also reminds us of the importance of social interaction in online instruction and highlights key theorists, including John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, and Paulo Friere. Using their work as a foundation, Rice emphasizes the significance of creating and maintaining relational spaces in online education. Pointing out that teachers need to cultivate relationships with diverse learners to improve their instruction, he asserts that all stakeholders must work to develop an understanding of the student as an individual, what his/her needs are, and what resources are needed to support their personal, academic, and cultural growth. Following along these lines, Mary Frances Rice and Richard Allen Carter Jr. explore the notion of Eudemonia, or happiness in teaching, that stems from building relationships with students in the context of teaching online to students with special needs. Building on the ideas of Schwab (1969), the authors view curriculum as a comprehensive approach that considers teachers, learners, content, and context as they work together. Using the power of the sacred story, Rice and Carter demonstrate how online teachers can experience Eudemonia when reaching out to a student and making a connection, as the student in turn connects to the online teacher. While teachers use specific strategies to connect online, such as working closely with parents and frequent communication via text, email, and phone calls; building goodwill; and using “referent authority” gained from the strength of their relationship, it is still quite challenging in the online

Afterword

235

setting. There is still a great deal of work to be done to understand online teacher identity, how this identity impacts teacher preparation, and how teachers can be better prepared to meet the needs of students, particularly those who may have disabilities or might be considered “at-risk.” Throughout this much needed volume, the vital importance of cultivating relationships within education is illustrated. Exploring Pedagogies for Diverse Learners Online emphasizes the importance of teachers understanding the unique needs of their students, the need for virtual schools and teachers to forge connections with parents, and how teacher education programs would benefit from developing ongoing ties with virtual schools to better prepare future educators with the skills necessary for successful teaching in the online environment. The importance of nurturing relationships at all levels of education underscores the social nature of learning, as described by sociocultural learning theory outlined by Ramona Maile Cutri and Erin Feinauer Whiting in this volume. By applying this framework, we seek to explore and to better comprehend interactions between and among students, parents, teachers, staff, and of course, with the online content itself. To gain this understanding, we must continue our work to research how to best meet the needs of diverse learners in online settings. Additional research is desperately needed to explore the nature of social interactions and how technology can potentially play a pivotal role in offering affordances to the learning process. Research is also warranted when it comes to offering various support structures to students in online settings, from exploring what supports are most helpful to better understanding the essential role parents play, particularly when assisting students with special needs. Additionally, teacher preparation and the honing of effective pedagogies for teaching is also an important area to continue to examine. While teacher education programs may not currently be focused on preparing future teachers for online settings, let alone those with diverse learners, the field continues to grow and expand. Programs need to recognize the legitimacy of online learning and work to build the necessary skills among teachers so that they can be successful with all students in all settings. What remains clear is that through focused and dedicated work, such as that represented in this volume, we are impelled to see both the potential and the challenges of online learning. As a field, we must stay focused on the necessity of forging, fostering, and cultivating relationships with one another through the effective use of technology to learn how to best meet the needs of diverse learners within 21st century learning environments.

236

LEANNA ARCHAMBAULT

REFERENCES Archambault, L., Diamond, D., Coffey, M., Foures-Aalbu, D., Richardson, J., Zygouris-Coe, V., … Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Research committee issues brief: An exploration of at-risk learners and online education. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Borup, J., West, R. E., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. S. (2014). The adolescent community of engagement: A framework for research on adolescent online learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 107 129. boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rowland, R. (2005). The narrative perspective. In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), The art of rhetorical criticism (pp. 131 161). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 1 23.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS Leanna Archambault is an Associate Professor at Arizona State University. Her research interests include K12 online learning and teacher preparation, the use of emerging technologies in education, and the educational implications of virtual environments. Her research centers on the challenges that teachers face in online environments, the nature of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and the use of emerging technologies to improve the teaching/learning process and outcomes for both teachers and students. Jered Borup is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Learning Technologies at George Mason University. His research currently focuses on online and blended learning communities and interactions in both K12 and higher education. Information about his work can be found on his website https://sites.google.com/site/jeredborup/ Shawn Michael Bullock has a research focus on the epistemological problem of how we learn from experience with particular attention to how preservice and early-career science teachers learn from the problems and tensions they encounter in personal practice. Scho¨n’s (1983) ideas about the nature of professional knowledge are of particular relevance to his research that explores connections between reflective practice, the history and philosophy of science (HPS), and science education. He is interested in how problems of learning science, problems of learning to teach science, and problems of learning to teach science using digital technologies interact with one other. Richard Allen Carter Jr. is a Doctoral Student in the Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas. His current research centers on student self-regulation in blended learning environments particularly how self-regulatory behaviors are mediated in the absence of a traditional teacher in innovative learning settings. Richard carries out this research in the Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities at KU. In this role, he also assists with studies that examine a broad range of effects of online instruction on students with disabilities. 237

238

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Ramona Maile Cutri is an Associate Professor of multicultural education in Brigham Young University’s Teacher Education Department. Her research explores multicultural teacher education, particularly preservice teacher candidates’ identification of social privileges and their impact on schooling, the influence of teacher educators’ backgrounds on their work as multicultural teacher educators, and how technological integration can help engage preservice teacher candidates intellectually and emotionally in the ethical, dispositional, and pedagogical issues related to critical multicultural teacher education. Amy Garrett Dikkers is an Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington in the Educational Leadership department. Her research interests include blended learning models in K12 Education, intersections of online and face-to-face teaching, technology enhanced community (TEC) partnership model in education, and social presence in online learning. She has been engaged in a longitudinal study of the North Carolina Virtual Public School for several years, focusing on the power of online learning for at-risk youth. Helen Freidus is a member of the graduate faculty in the Department of Teacher Education at Bank Street College of Education in New York City. She teaches in the Reading and Literacy Program and is co-editor of an issue of the Bank Street Occasional Paper Series, entitled Constructivists Online: Reimagining Progressive Practice. Her current research focuses are the development of digital pedagogy, online classrooms in teacher education, and knowledge development of pre-service and in-service teachers. Dawn Garbett is an Associate Professor of teacher education at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Her research interests reside in the changing landscape of teacher education as it lives alongside the changing landscape of teaching in K12 settings. She is also interested in how these changes enable teacher educators to collaborate to improve practice. Heather Greenhalgh-Spencer is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas Tech University. Her work focuses on embodiment, global education and globalization policies, and online educational practices and spaces. Her work is highly informed by feminist theories, kinesiology, ecosophy, and science and technology studies. Heather is a certified teacher and has taught at the secondary level for several years.

About the Contributors

239

Heather’s work has appeared in many peer-reviewed international journals. She has published works exploring online education, educational technology, sociology of education and the body, philosophy of education, gender and embodiment, and identity and online practices. Heather is also co-editor of the New Media Studies book: New Times: Making Sense of Critical/Cultural Theory in a Digital Age. Somer Lewis currently serves as the Professional Development System Director in the Watson College of Education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington where she also coordinates both the First Years of Teaching Support Program and the National Board Certification Support Program. Her research interests include online learning for K-12 students, as well as preparation and retention of beginning teachers. Alan Ovens is a Principal Lecturer at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. He conducts research into the curriculum of physical education as it connects to teacher work in this content area and in teaching generally. He is also interested in how technologies offer promise for improvement of research in teacher education practice. Brian Joe Rice is a Doctoral Student at the University of Kansas. He is interested in the ways in which educators develop and maintain relationally educative spaces that support the success of at-risk students. His focus on preservice teachers has led to research in narratives of curriculum making for both students with disabilities as well as students who are culturally and linguistically diverse. Mary Frances Rice studies online course curricula as a discursive system alongside online educators’ professional identities at the University of Kansas Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities. She is particularly interested in how educators and students narratively engage with textual resources and negotiate their stories in time-space or chronotope. Mary is also the author of Adolescent Boys’ Literate Identities, Volume 15 of the Advances in Research on Teaching series. Mark Stevens is currently a PhD Student in the Learning Technologies Design Research department at George Mason University in Fairfax County, Virginia. His research interests include K-12 online learning, with a specific focus on blended learning in secondary education. He is also employed as a classroom teacher in a middle school in a large public school

240

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

district in the Southeastern United States. His practice includes a major focus on blended learning to serve the needs of all students. Jennifer Thomas teaches English Language arts and Resource English at Willowcreek Middle School in American Fork, Utah. She is interested in how students in resource classrooms engage with Internet resources to display literacy and build competencies. Karen Vignare serves as Vice Provost at the Center for Innovation in Learning at University of Maryland University College (UMUC) leading the search and evaluation for next generation learning models. Dr. Vignare is responsible for identifying innovations and collaboratively implementing them with core teams at UMUC. Her specific areas of experimentation include adaptive learning, onboarding, prior learning, course design, analytics, e-resources, open educational resources, instructional design changes, and competency-based models. Aimee L. Whiteside is the Interim Co-Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Tampa. She specializes in social presence, blended and online learning, learning environments, and technical and professional communication. Dr. Whiteside’s research has been featured in the Journal for Interactive Online Learning (JIOL), International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (IJSTL), International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education (IJEDE), EDUCAUSE Review, and Online Learning Consortium’s Effective Practices. Erin Feinauer Whiting is an Associate Professor of Multicultural Education at Brigham Young University. Her research work has examined many aspects of community, inequality, and culture. She is particularly interested in social inequality and stratification focusing on race, ethnicity, and class in the developed world. She has also engaged in research examining how preservice teachers interact with multicultural content that is intended to unpack social privilege and cultural difference.