Rice, K. & Dawley, L. (in press). The status of professional development for K-12 online teachers: Insights and implications.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4).

 

Abstract

The authors share data, insights and implications from “Going Virtual!: The Status of Professional Development for K12 Online Teachers,” a study supported by the North American Council for Online Learning. The report detailed results of a 2007 national survey of K-12 online teachers, administrators, and professional development trainers, specifically targeting respondents working with fully online courses, programs, and schools. The authors provide three main insights from the study, and discuss implications for K12 online teacher professional development practice, policy, and research.

The Status of Professional Development for K-12 Online Teachers:

Insights and Implications

 

            Past trends indicate, and current forecasts project, continued growth in online virtual schools and programs aimed at K-12 learners (Hassel & Terrell, 2004; Long, 2004; O’Gorman, 2005; Southern Regional Education Board [SREB], 2007). Forty-two states currently offer either state supplemental programs, full-time online programs or both (Watson & Ryan, 2007). Half of these programs report 25% enrollment growth for 2006-2007, and the remaining programs report enrollment growth of 50%. Forces fueling the growing enrollments include funding shortages, outdated facilities (Clark, 2001; Fulton, 2002), and policy initiatives supportive of expanded opportunities for alternative routes to education (Hassell & Terrell, 2004; U. S. Department of Education, 2004; Web-Based Education Commission, 2000).

The unprecedented demand for online teachers prompted by this growth make us question: Who are those teachers and how are they learning to teach online? And perhaps more importantly, how does one successfully teach online?

Recently, the North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) released National Standards for Quality Online Teaching (2008). Other state and professional organizations have also released reports or guidelines on standards for online teachers (National Education Association [NEA], 2006; SERB, 2006). Along with these emerging competencies and standards is a call for additional empirical research on effective professional development (PD) for K-12 online teachers (Dawley, 2007; NEA, 2006; Rice, 2006). While higher education has a developed research base on best practice in online teaching due to the longer implementation cycle of online classes in university settings, the same cannot be said for the K-12 arena. As a result, educators and policymakers designing competencies for K-12 teachers currently rely on the research base from higher education and on the personal experience of trainers and educators in K-12 online education. Just as online education has evolved from traditional forms of education, professional development of online teachers has evolved from traditional forms of PD. This influence is due, in part, to the many social, political, and organizational contexts surrounding education (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).

A reliance on research, practice, and policies from contexts that may not reflect the needs of K-12 online education may result in unintended negative consequences. While there are some consistencies between effective teaching in higher education vs. K-12 education, and while there is value in the personal input of experienced online teacher trainers, there are also as yet unidentified PD needs due to the multiple unique contexts of K-12 online schools and the unique and differing needs of teachers who teach children as opposed to adult learners.

In spring 2007, we began phase one of a three-phased research series, “Going Virtual!: The Status of Professional Development for K12 Online Teachers” (Rice & Dawley, 2007). We conducted a national survey to gather baseline data identifying practices, models, and contexts related to the professional development of K12 online teachers. In this paper, we summarize key findings, insights, and implications from that study.

Frameworks for Researching K-12 Online Teacher Professional Development

            Historically, we know that teacher PD is an important element in affecting change in teaching practice, and through this change an impact on student outcomes. Establishing empirical evidence of impact on classroom practice is difficult because the linkages are complex (North Central Regional Educational Lab, 1999). Most models of PD are based on a stage model, wherein the professional teacher moves through stages of cognitive development such as novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert level (Berliner, 1994; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Sternberg & Ben-Zeev, 2001). Although these models may vary in the number and nature of each stage, they are all similar in that they emphasize the growth of the teacher in fixed sequences of stages in regards to both knowledge and skill acquisition. These models of PD have been criticized for (Dall' Alba & Sandberg, 2006):

·      Their lack of empirical evidence of effectiveness

·      a focus on cross-sectional studies vs. those investigated over time

·      the absence of adequate explanations for learners who fail to reach expert status

·      overlooking the importance of contextualized training vs. acquistion of skills and knowledge outside of embodied practice

·      over-looking the professional skill being developed in favor of a focus on the stages of acquisition.

Dall’Alba and Sandberg (2006) address this complexity and propose an alternative model of PD emphasizing a step-wise progression of growth on both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The horizontal dimension represents the practical knowledge and skills typically accounted for in traditional stage models, and their proposed vertical dimension takes into account the variations in teaching practice as is evidenced in classroom activities and interaction, also known as the embodied understanding of practice. In the figure below, we see two teachers, teacher 1 learning along the horizontal dimension and gaining in skill progression but not implementing those skills in classroom practice. Teacher 2 is demonstrating growth along both dimensions.

Figure 1. Horizontal and vertical dimensions of professional development (adapted from Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 2006).

Dall'Alba & Sandberg's model of PD provides an analytic framework for not only understanding the online teacher's knowledge and skill development, but for examining that development in context.

            In the first phase of the “Going Virtual!” research series, we collected baseline data on the contexts associated with the horizontal dimension of Dall’Alba & Sandberg’s model. This “macrolevel” analysis allows examination of variations across PD programs and the creation of common constructs on which to base future analysis (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).

Design and Methods

            In the study, a non-random purposive sample of 259 online K-12 stakeholders from virtual public schools, programs and organizations across the United States completed a comprehensive survey delivered via the web. The respondents represent a cross section of teachers (n=167), administrators/site coordinators (n=61) PD trainers or directors (n=15), and others (n=16) from 41 different schools or online programs in more than 30 states. Administrators consisted of principals, assistant principals, superintendents, heads of school, directors, CEOs, technology coordinators, and others in supervisory roles, and represent more than 1,200 teachers in total.

            Two main questions guided the study: “What are the contextual factors (such as school philosophy, goals, state policies) that influence the design of professional development?” and “What practices and models of teacher professional development are being used in K-12 virtual schools and programs across the country?” Specific questions framing data collection included items related to demographics and current practice:

1.     What are the demographics of K-12 online teachers?

2.     How many teachers are receiving training?

3.     Is prior teaching experience considered in training design?

4.     When and how often does training occur?

5.     Describe the school philosophy and goals towards learners, curriculum, instructional methods, and PD

6.     What is the sequence of training?

7.     What types/models of training are used? What topics are covered? What delivery methods are used?

8.     Does training meet certification requirements?

            A full report of the study is located at http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual1.pdf

The data was sorted and analyzed by respondent group (i.e. teacher, administrator and trainer), as well as by responses based on affiliation with a particular program or school model. During analysis, we were able to identify and triangulate several emergent common constructs. These were grouped to provide three insights that answer the research questions and are discussed in the following sections:

·      Insight #1: The Influence of Evolving Context on Professional Development

·      Insight #2. The Broad Continuum of Professional Development Practices & Models

·      Insight #3. Global and Situation-Specific Professional Development Needs

Insight #1: The Influence of Evolving Context on Professional Development

            There are many contextual factors that can influence the design of PD. These include such things as federal, state, and organizational policies and practices, research on best practice, philosophies and beliefs about teacher PD and access to resources. Because of the rapid expansion of K-12 online education over the last several years, the field has experienced substantial growth and development, resulting in contextual factors that can change on a daily basis. In this section, we present findings from three areas of the data set, and discuss the influence that evolving contexts can have on PD for K-12 online teachers:

·      School or program model affiliation

·      Demographics of online teachers and administrators

·      Philosophy & purpose of training

School or Program Model Affiliation

One obvious contextual influence was school or program affiliation. Respondents indicated affiliations with a variety of school and program models (see Table 1). Models have been organized into a tiered framework which emerged from past research (Rice, 2005; Watson, 2005; Watson, 2006) and the results of the study. In the framework, the vast majority of programs will fall under one of the first two categories: Virtual School or Supplemental Program. Most will also meet the criteria of either a State-wide, District-wide, or School-wide accountability system, and some may meet additional criteria for Consortium or Charter School.

Table 1

Which Model(s), Listed Below, Describes Your Online School or Program?

Note: Percentages will not calculate to 100 because of dual associations (n=255). Other responses included UMOHS – Kaplan Virtual Education (n=2), private-not-for-profit, digital content provider, training provider to all models, and contract school.

Program and school model differentiation is an important contextual aspect of online K-12 education, as model associations often result in differing PD needs. For example, many programs and schools operate with a proprietary learning management system requiring a specific set of skills. Some virtual schools operate in a central facility while others employ teachers who work from home and may live across a whole state. Consortiums may work with teachers across state lines. Supplemental programs hire teachers part-time, while virtual schools tend to hire full time. Virtual schools often operate with the assistance of private, for profit, management companies with interests that may not align with those of district- or state-wide programs.

Even when analyzed using this simple framework, differences in course delivery methods, curriculum development, and the grade levels served add to the complexity in determining the particular needs of teachers. All of these factors are important to consider when developing and evaluating the effectiveness of PD, and demonstrate that PD needs may not be universal. Thus, standards and state policies for online teacher PD need to be broad in scope to allow for individualizing according to contextual needs.

Demographics

The field of online education is still very new. The majority of respondents had been involved in online education for 5 years or less (93%). However, when we looked at the overall experience of online teachers and administrators, we see that the majority were highly qualified instructors and administrators. Sixty-three percent of teachers had five or more years of total teaching experience, with 35% reporting 10 or more years of teaching experience. Over half of the teachers reported a master’s degree or better. This implies that PD for the current workforce should focus on elements specific to teaching online, and not on general best teaching practices as might be true for inexperienced classroom teachers. However, trainers could easily draw off existing best practice research as a means to scaffold instruction for new online teachers. For example, when planning a workshop on discussion board facilitation, trainers can explain how best practice for facilitating live discussions in face-to-face classrooms translates to the online environment.

Philosophy and Guidelines for Training

Administrators were asked to describe the philosophy, goals, policies, and guidelines underscoring PD for their local school or program. Most administrators described what could be labeled as a pragmatic approach to training online teachers. They noted PD practices considered effective in traditional classroom environments: training should be ongoing, relevant, just-in-time, and with a focus on student outcomes. However, several aspects specific to K-12 online teaching were also mentioned by administrators: communication protocols, promoting interactivity in the online environment, teacher-to-teacher community building, multimedia and online lesson development, differentiated instruction and technology use skills.

Although national and regional guidelines for quality online teaching exist, few administrators reported using them (see Table 2). Many virtual school programs, such as Virtual High School and Florida Virtual School, have established self-developed guidelines for online teacher PD (Lowes, 2007).

Table 2

What Guidelines Do You Follow in Your PD Program?

Note: The North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) has recently released guidelines and standards for online teaching and learning ( 2008), these were not available at the time of this study.

In the table above, over 20% of administrators reported not following any guidelines or not knowing if guidelines influenced PD. The inconsistent use of guidelines across programs leads to an obvious problem of unequal training opportunities depending on the program in which the teacher might be employed..

Administrators’ philosophies and goals driving teacher PD reflect the current context of the state of online education. Administrators show evidence of carrying traditional views of what is important for teachers to know and do, but also demonstrate awareness of specific needs related to online education. As a group, they tended to base decisions about PD on guidelines (either state of self-developed), but in general, had not yet adopted guidelines offered by national organizations. One implication of this finding is the need to ensure administrators have awareness, input, and access to emerging national standards, and that these are considered in the development of PD programs.

Insight #2. The Broad Continuum of Professional Development Practices & Models

Our second research question asked, “What practices and models of teacher PD are being used in K-12 virtual schools and programs across the country?” Analysis of the data revealed a continuum of PD opportunities, types, and approaches that varied greatly among respondents. Representative comments illustrating that continuum ranged from “we don’t have a training program” to “…over 30 professional development courses for educators, administrators, paraprofessionals, site based council community members, counselors, etc. Most courses are seven weeks in length and offer 12-24 hours of CEU credits.”

However, the majority of teachers represented in the study had participated in some form of PD (see Table 3).

Table 3

Teachers Who Received PD (sorted by model)

Note: Respondents could choose each option that applied. For example, if a person responded that his or her school or program was “Virtual school” and “School-wide”, that person’s responses to the remaining questions would be counted for both models.

The highest response (92.7%) for this question was reported by those who had an affiliation with Supplemental Programs, and the lowest response (83.3%) reported by those in school-wide programs. Supplemental programs often serve large numbers of students throughout the state, and hire hundreds of teachers who teach part-time courses. Typically, these programs have organized systems and policies in place for PD, perhaps explaining the high percentage reported above.

In this section, we look at the following aspects to better understand the distinguishing features of the practices and models within this PD continuum:

·      When PD Occurred

·      How PD Occurred

·      Amount of PD

When Professional Development Occurred

When the data is sorted by program or school model (see Table 5), teachers and administrators associated with Supplemental Programs reported the highest occurrence of PD prior to teaching online (38.1%), almost double the responses for Virtual Schools and Charter Schools.

Table 4

When PD Occurred (sorted by model – teachers and administrators)

 

The majority of survey respondents did not receive training in online education prior to teaching in the online classroom. In traditional teacher education programs, the PD of a teacher occurs over an entire career, typically starting with a pre-service credential program, and supplemented with in-service training, and/or graduate education. Although this study did not focus on pre-service education for online teaching, it is important to note as more schools go online, and offer fully online or hybrid courses, pre-service teacher education programs should be prepared to address these emerging needs.

It is also important to note that the low percentages reflected in PD offered after the first year, and each year, might be representative of the limited years that teachers have actually worked in online education. As online schools and programs continue to grow and gain years of experience, PD offerings and opportunities will need to continue to grow, as well.

How Professional Development Occurred

We asked all respondents to indicate how their PD was delivered, including the format of delivery methods, types of PD, recertification credit, individualized PD, and peer mentoring.

Delivery method. Respondents reported a combination of various delivery methods (online 46%, hybrid 27%, face-to-face 27%). However, 12% of teachers reported receiving training only in a face-to-face format. This contradicts NACOL (2007) and NEA (2006) standards for quality online teaching which calls for teachers to experience learning in the same format as their students.

Types of PD. Teachers were also asked to indicate the types of PD activities in which they participated. Ongoing training sessions received the highest number of responses (69.1%), followed by limited, one-time sessions (52.3%). When sorted by model, the highest reported response was also Ongoing Training from those affiliated with Virtual Schools (37.2%) and Charter Schools (37.2%) (see Table 6). Ongoing training is a recommended strategy for teacher professional development (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 1996).

Table 5

Professional Development Types (sorted by model)

 

In addition, there are a higher number of responses for one-time sessions by those affiliated with School-Wide programs. The “skill and drill” methods associated with limited one-time sessions often take a bad rap in teacher PD. However, limited one-time sessions in the form of “just-in-time” training are a recent trend in employee skill development and can be an effective way to acquire necessary skills.

Recertification credit. We were interested in determining if the training online teachers received might facilitate advancement within their profession by providing continuing education or university credits. Forty-three percent of teachers indicated that training qualified for or met state requirements for recertification. Sixty-one percent indicated the training they received provided CEU, graduate, or other PD credit through a university or other crediting institution. Few states (Alabama, Kansas, and South Dakota) currently require PD related specifically to K-12 instruction for online teachers (Watson, 2006). However, these state certification requirements are growing each year.

            Individualized PD. One half of trainers indicated that PD was individualized based on prior teaching experience. Twenty-four percent of administrators responded that their teachers’ training was modified to reflect prior experience and 21% of teachers responded that they were given options based on their prior experience. Similar results were reported on individualization when the data was sorted by school program or model, with a high of 27.6% for Charter Schools and a low of 5.3% for District-Wide programs and schools. So, although there is some acknowledgement of needing to adjust PD to specific learning needs, the low rate of individualization at this time might reflect 1) a belief that all teachers need basic training, regardless of prior experience, or 2) not enough resources (time, money, personnel, etc.) were available to provide further customized learning.

Peer mentoring. Sixty eight percent of teachers, 82% of administrators and 85% of trainers reported the use of mentoring or peer coaching strategies. Peer mentoring can be a positive step in the professional growth of teachers, but just because a peer mentoring program is in place, doesn’t mean it is effective. As one of our respondents reported, “…My trainer, while a nice person, was not particularly engaged…He went over basics with me during the in-house training, but was only sporadically available thereafter.” Comments such as this remind us that peer mentoring programs should be established and managed based on what is known about best practice in peer learning, or could imply that peer mentoring programs need modification for the online environment.

Amount of Professional Development

We also asked teachers about the number and type of training opportunities they had received specific to online instruction (see Table 4).

Table 6

Number of teacher reported PD opportunities

 

The highest reported responses included participation in at least one graduate course (42.2%), two limited sessions (29.3%), one summer workshop (37.7%), and six ongoing training opportunities (26.2%). Note over one-quarter of respondents have never attended a summer workshop.

            While we see that a majority of respondents have had training or PD opportunities, the continuum of the number of opportunities and types varies greatly. Earlier in this paper, we noted the majority of online teachers represented by this study are highly educated. In this section, we see further detail about this finding: over 80% had taken one or more graduate courses specific to online instruction and over 25% had participated in 6 or more ongoing training opportunities. Although this is good news, the data shows we have an opportunity to further capitalize on summer workshops, the development of graduate certificate programs and endorsements, and reduce the use of limited, one-time training sessions to meet just-in-time training needs.

Insight #3. Global and Situation-Specific Professional Development Needs

In analyzing the last portion of the data set, it became apparent that who is providing PD, and the specific topics covered during PD are very different from what might normally be seen in traditional school settings. As illustrated in the section below, we identify both global and situation-specific PD needs, how those needs are or aren’t being met, and by whom. The following topics are covered in this section:

·      Who Provided PD

·      Topics Covered in PD

Who Provided PD

Responsibility for providing PD typically appears to fall on the school or program with which respondents were affiliated, as reported by a majority of teachers (70.2%) and a large number of administrators (46.8%). When the data are sorted by model (see Table 7), the majority of respondents indicated that their affiliated school or program was primarily responsible for providing PD although differences were noted when comparing School-Wide (70%) and Consortium (35%) models.

Table 7

Who provided PD?

 

            It’s interesting to note the heavy reliance on the school, program, and/or organization (such as a virtual school corporate headquarters) to provide PD. Universities and districts have very little influence at this time on the PD of K-12 online teachers. This places schools, programs, and organizations in the position of being accountable for teacher training and recertification needs, such as meeting any state PD standards and offering continuing education units. It also implies that the school or program must expend additional resources in order to provide PD that a regular classroom teacher might receive through other channels, such as a university.

Topics Covered in PD

What content is covered in PD programs? Teachers reported on four categories of topics: Foundational Knowledge, Technology Tools, Facilitation Strategies, and Lesson Design (see Table 8).

1. Foundational Knowledge: Seventy four percent of teachers received training on knowledge of the field of online teaching, 57% reported receiving training on theoretical foundations.

2. Technology Tools: Ninety one percent of teachers reported receiving training in how to use learning management systems. Seventy-eight percent of teachers reported receiving training in both synchronous and asynchronous technologies.

3. Facilitation Strategies: The most-reported topic under facilitation strategies was “meeting the needs of students with multiple learning styles in the online classroom” (78%).

4. Lesson Design: The most-reported topic under lesson design was “multimedia design principles” (55%). More than 31% of teachers reported receiving no training in online lesson design.

Table 8

PD Content Covered as Reported by Teachers and Trainers

 

Trainers were asked to select content and concepts covered in the first year of training and then to select content and concepts covered in the second year (see Table 8, sorted by high to low responses in Year 1). The purpose of the question was to detail any differences in content covered in initial training versus more advanced training.

Trainer responses highlight important trends. First, the focus of training is mainly on technology skills (i.e. learning management systems or communication tools) and less on pedagogy (i.e. lesson delivery or instructional design) and community-building practices. Second, what is perhaps most notable is what is not covered. Least covered topics in year 1 included multimedia presentation tools (0%), design of syllabi (0%), assessment tools (18.2%), data analysis tools (18.2%), strategies for differentiated instruction (9.1%), and design tools and concepts (9.1%). Many of these were covered in year two, but at lower percentages, in general, than other content and concepts. The low percentages reflected in topics related to online lesson design may be attributed to many programs adopting a pre-defined curriculum. In these settings, design is not an immediate situation-specific need.

Because online schools have to focus on situation-specific training in the first year of employment, i.e., how to use a specific learning management system, this implies there are opportunities for pre-service and graduate education to better support more global PD needs, i.e., strategies for meeting the needs of students with disabilities in the online classroom. Although there are current online programs, such as Virtual High School, that support global and situation-specific PD needs (Lowes, 2007), not all online schools and programs can accommodate this full spectrum of needs.

Discussion

            The last five years in K12 online education have had a huge influence on the current larger context in which we examine PD. We have seen a ground-up movement wherein virtual schools and programs have had to design individualized training opportunities and guidelines to support teachers in response to rapid growth in enrollments. Due to the longitudinal nature of research required to build constructs and identify linkages between teacher PD and student learning outcomes, research has also been slow to respond to this emerging need. While there are documented case studies and examples of specific PD programs for K12 online teachers (Lowes, 2007), our goal was to identify common constructs and themes across multiple PD programs on a national scale. In the section below, we discuss possible next steps for practice, policy, and research for K12 online teacher professional development.

Implications for Practice

Online teachers require technical knowledge in order to be able to function in this unique environment. First, they must master the interface in which instruction will be delivered. This will typically include the use of proprietary learning management systems, tools for communication, and tools for accountability. Depending on the school or program model, teachers may also need to 1) develop and deliver activities that are collaborative, highly interactive, and motivating, while encouraging engagement with the content, 2) develop or deliver lessons that address a variety of learning styles and learner needs, 3) become a master at written communication 4) understand how and when to provide appropriate student supports, 5) understand how to provide opportunities for students to interact with each other and with the instructor, 6) understand how to use and select appropriate resources, and 7) know when to develop resources to serve specific purposes.

Our respondents reported a broad continuum of PD opportunities in response to the above needs. Some respondents reported limited training to meet short-term needs, while others who had more opportunities and resources had moved farther along the continuum in pursuit of more transformational forms of PD. This is a core tension reported in evolving PD models (Kettlehut, McCloskey, Dede, Breit & Whitehouse, 2006).

Data clearly indicates that the online teachers in our study were highly educated, yet new in the profession of online teaching. In this current context, trainers can use teachers’ existing knowledge base to scaffold and translate best practices from the live classroom to the online environment. In analyzing the data, we identified several aspects currently associated with best practice (NFIE, 1996) in traditional teacher PD programs:

1. Teachers should be provided with PD opportunities: The vast majority of respondents in this study reported receiving PD specifically addressing online teaching.

2. Training should be extended over time: 69% of teachers reported ongoing training sessions.

3. Training should be extended over time: 69% of teachers reported ongoing training sessions.

4. Mentoring or peer coaching should be included as part of PD: 68% of teachers, 82% administrators, and 85% of trainers reported using peer mentoring.

The respondents in this study also reported aspects of PD that may not be in line with best practice:

1. PD should be provided from the perspective of the student (Kettlehut, et al, 2006; NACOL, 2008): 12% of teachers reported only face-to-face training.

2. Training should be customized to the needs of teachers (NFIE, 1996): 21% of teachers, and 50% of trainers reported customization of training.

3. Guidelines should be used to inform training: Only 14% of administrators reported following national guidelines in their PD programs.

4. PD should be provided prior to teaching online: The majority of teachers reported receiving no training prior to teaching online.

What we expect teachers to know and do as they enter the online workforce will expand as online education continues to evolve. An understanding of their needs combined with a clear idea of who should take responsibility for ensuring teachers meet these expectations is a necessary next step in the evolution of PD for K-12 online teachers. In the next section, we look at these types of implications for policy.

Implications for Policy

Although many online schools and programs offer rigorous PD opportunities, we are still in a pioneering era for training K12 online teachers. K-12 online education has evolved in ways that are very distinct from traditional education. Most teachers working in online schools today did not receive training as part of their initial credentialing program. Thus, PD at the current time has to support not only instruction on a particular set of practices or tools in a specific school or program, but must also include instruction on best practices of online teaching, in general. Covering such a large range of needs can impose a burden on programs or schools who lack access to trainers or funding. This approach to PD can also create inconsistencies across programs and schools, thus potentially affecting teacher quality, student and parent satisfaction, and learning outcomes.

Above we reported that the majority of respondents had not received training prior to teaching online. Teacher pre-service education and professional development has historically been a main mission of higher education (NFIE, 1996). Pre-service teacher education programs should be prepared to address these emerging needs. One example of an emerging program is the TEGIVS project at Iowa State University (NACOL, 2007).

In the current context, organizations and others involved in the management of and delivery of virtual programs and schools have developed PD programs designed to meet specific needs of their particular teaching context. These needs are often driven by contextual factors such as philosophical beliefs about how teacher training should occur, situation-specific needs of the school or program, and the use of state or self-developed guidelines. Although, administrators tended to assume a pragmatic approach to PD--they demonstrated awareness of specific needs related to online education, in addition to carrying traditional views of what teachers should know and be able to do - on the whole, they did not follow national standards and guidelines. This finding implies the need to ensure administrators have awareness, input, and access to emerging national standards. In addition, these evolving and varying contexts imply that standards and state policies for online teacher PD need to be broad in scope to allow for individualization according to contextual needs.

Implications for Research

Phase one of the current study was designed to determine the status of PD for K-12 online teachers. The key questions addressed included:

1.     What are the contextual factors (such as school philosophy, goals, state policies) that influence the design of professional development?

2.     What practices and models of teacher professional development are being used in K-12 virtual schools and programs across the country?

Using Dall’ Alba & Sandberg’s PD model as an analytic framework, we have gained an understanding of the initial constructs and themes along the horizontal dimension of online teacher PD, providing a basis for future research. Key components of proposed phases of study should continue to identify additional constructs along both the horizontal and vertical dimensions including: 1) the knowledge, skills and dispositions online teachers possess, 2) the unique needs and challenges of K-12 online teachers, and how they vary according to the context of the school or program model, and amount of prior teaching experience, 3) the outcomes of various PD models in terms of the ability to meet the unique needs of K-12 online teachers, skill progression and variations in impact on teaching practice, and finally 4) linkages between PD practices and student outcomes.

 

 

 

References

 

Berliner, D. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. Mangieri & C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.

Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues: A study of virtual schools in the United States [Electronic version]. Malcomb, IL: Western Illinois University.

Dall’Alba, G. & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383-412.

Dawley, L. (2007). The tools for successful online teaching. Information Science Publishing: Hershey, PA.

Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.

Fulton, K. (2002). Brave new world of virtual schooling in the U.S. National Association of State Boards of Education. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.nasbe.org/Standard/10_Summer2002/fulton.pdf

Hassel, B. C., & Terrell, M. G. (2004). How can virtual schools be a vibrant part of meeting the choice provisions of the no child left behind act? Virtual School Report. Retrieved September 6, 2004, from http://www.connectionsacademy.com/PDFs/VirtualNews704.pdf

Ketelhut, D. J., McCloskey, E., Dede, C., Breit, L., & Whitehouse, P. (2006). Core tensions in the evolution of online teacher professional development. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online Professional Development for Teachers: Emerging Models and Methods (pp. 237-263). Cambridge, Ma: Harvard Education Press.

Larreamendy-Joerns, J. & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.

Lawless, K. A. & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research 77(4), 575-614.

Long, A. (2004). Cyber schools. Retrieved October 27, 2004 from the Education Commission of the States Website: http://www.Ecs.Org/ecsmain.Asp?Page=/search/default.Asp

Lowes, S. (2007). Professional development for online teachers. In C. Cavanaugh & B. Blomeyer (Eds.), What works in K-12 online learning. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

National Education Association. (2006). Guide to teaching online courses. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.nea.org/technology/onlineteachguide.html

National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.neafoundation.org/publications/takecharge.htm

North American Council for Online Learning. (2007). Research committee issues brief: Professional development for virtual schooling and online learning. Washington, DC: Author.
http://www.nacol.org/docs/NACOL_PDforVSandOlnLrng.pdf

North American Council for Online Learning. (2008). National standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.nacol.org/

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1999). State policy on professional development: Rethinking the linkages to student outcomes. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.ncrel.org/quality/policy/index.html

O’Gorman, D.  (2005, April).  National trends in online education:  Implications for US.  Retrieved May 15, 2005, from the University of Illinois, Springfield, Web site: http://otel.uis.edu/techday2005/ogorman.htm

Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-447.

Rice, K. & Dawley, L. (2007, November). Going virtual! The status of professional development for K-12 online teachers. Research report presented at the Virtual School Symposium. Louisville, KY. Supported by NACOL. Retrieved April 30, 2008 from http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual1.pdf

Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning. Naperville, Illinois: Learning Point Associates

Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2007). Report on state virtual schools. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/SVS/2007_report_on_state_virtual_schools.pdf

Southern Regional Education Board. (2006). Standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved August, 19 2007 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/PDF/StandardsQualityOnlineTeaching.asp

Sternberg, R. J., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought. New York: Oxford University Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington DC: National Educational Technology Plan 2004.

Watson, J., & Ryan, J. (2006). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and practice. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory at Learning Point Associates. Retrieved January 9, 2007 from http://www.nacol.org/docs/Keeping%20Pace%20with%20K-12%20Online%20Learning%202006.pdf

Watson, J., & Ryan, J. (2007). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and practice. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory at Learning Point Associates. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from http://www.nacol.org/docs/KeepingPace07-color.pdf

Web-based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission/index.htm

Whitehouse, P. L., Breit, L. A., McCloskey, E. M., Ketelhut, D. J., & Dede, C. (2006). An overview of current findings from empirical research on online teacher professional development. In C. Dede (Eds.), Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods, (pp. 13 - 29). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.