“Teaching Online Made Me a Better Teacher”: Studying the Impact of Virtual Course Experiences on Teachers’ Face-to-Face Practice M. D. Roblyer, Marclyn Porter, Talbot Bielefeldt, and Martha B. Donaldson Abstract (Florida TaxWatch, 2007). Recent economic pressures have given new Anecdotal accounts from teachers have long suggested the possibility that import to the benefits of convenience and savings in travel costs that virtual teaching experiences have a positive impact on face-to-face teach- virtual schools offer. And recent accounts from virtual teachers offer the ing practices, a so-called “reverse impact” phenomenon. Survey and focus possibility of yet another kind of benefit that was the focus of the study group data collected as part of a statewide evaluation of a virtual school reported here: a so-called “reverse impact” phenomenon in which virtual offered an opportunity to explore this impact. Findings from a study of school teaching enhances face-to-face (FTF) classroom practices. teacher perceptions indicate that three quarters of teachers who teach in Background and Study Rationale both virtual and traditional environments felt that virtual experiences improved their practice in face-to-face classrooms. The authors discuss The unique potential of online environments to benefit teaching and three types of impact reflected in teacher comments and discuss tentative learning has been the subject of much discussion in distance learning implications for teacher preparation programs and for bolstering the ra- literature (Benson, 2003; Gallini & Barron, 2001–2002; Tallent-Runnels, tionale for using technology in education. (Keywords: distance edcuation, et al., 2006). For example, Tallent-Runnels et al. reviewed findings sug- online learning, virtual schools) gesting that “in asynchronous discussions, students had more time to think about their discussions … (which) improved the depth and qual- ity of responses” (p. 96), and that the “online environment may offer a unique social advantage as compared to the traditional classroom” (p. Benefits of Virtual Schooling: 97). Gallini & Barron (2001–2002) found that nearly all of the 153 Current and Proposed online students they surveyed reported increased communication with The popularity of virtual schooling, “instruction in which (K–12) stu- instructors (88%) and other students (97%) compared to their traditional dents and teachers are separated by time and/or location and interact via course experiences. computers and/or telecommunications technologies” (National Forum Rice (2006) found that online teaching strategies make best use of the on Education Statistics, 2006, p.1), continues to be a success story unique potential of the online environment when they are highly interac- unique in the evolution of educational technology. Although adoption tive and based on a constructivist model that encourages students to be of technologies in K–12 school classrooms has traditionally been slow active, independent learners. In a meta-analysis comparing achievement, and sporadic (Cuban, Kilpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Norris, Sullivan, & attitudes, and retention between FTF and distance courses, Bernard et Poirot, 2003) and benefits have often been difficult to document, virtual al. (2004) found that active learning (problem-based formats with col- schooling has seen steady acceptance and growth since its beginning in laboration among students) fostered better achievement and attitudes, 1997, and the resulting impact on U.S. education can easily be described though only in asynchronous (e.g., Web-based) formats. as transformational. Treacy (2007) described several key differences between FTF and As of September 2007, 42 states sponsored “significant supplemental online teaching that helped inform training of online high school teach- online learning programs, significant full-time programs, or both” (Wat- ers who were to teach in virtual school programs. She observed that it son & Ryan, 2007, p. 18). Other states are in the planning stages for their was useful to point out to teachers that realizing the benefits of online own virtual school offerings. The latest National Center for Education teaching formats meant they must modify all of the following: Statistics report on virtual schools (Zandberg & Lewis, 2008) found that in 2004–2005, there were an estimated 506,950 technology-based • How curriculum is organized and delivered. This includes meth- distance education course enrollments in public school districts. ods for presenting content and providing clear expectations for student participation, products, and pacing so students can work Benefits both documented and perceived have fed the growth of virtual on their own schooling. The virtual schooling movement was founded on the egalitarian • Social dynamics. They must learn to write discussion prompts and principle of providing access to educational opportunities not locally avail- create effective ways of facilitating online discussions and support- able, and indeed recent virtual school evaluations confirm greatly increased ing student engagement. access for these and other populations (Florida TaxWatch, 2007; Roblyer, • Assessment strategies. Online formats allow many ways to dem- Freeman, Mason, & Schneidmiller, 2007; Watson & Ryan, 2007). onstrate learning, including reflective participation in the online Other documented benefits include passing rates of 5–19% higher than discussion and formative feedback from the instructor. traditional programs on key outcome tests such as Advanced Placement (AP) exams (Smith, Clark, & Blomeyer, 2005, p.15) and higher achieved Transfer of practices learned in virtual environments to traditional grades in comparison to traditional course delivery for some content areas classrooms have been reported anecdotally for some time. An early Volume 25/ Number 4 Summer 2009 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 121 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. evaluation of the Virtual High School, Inc. (VHS), reported that “… 70 courses in a variety of content areas and grade levels, either through teachers indicated that they were using new teaching or assessment ap- an interactive video conferencing (IVC) system that the state put into proaches in their other courses (year 2, 61%; year 1, 55%). Both princi- place at selected schools or via a Web-based course management system pals (62%) and superintendents (68%) also said that teachers used new (CMS). When resources can be put into place to allow it, the ultimate teaching and assessment approaches in other courses” (Espinoza, Dove, goal of the program is for all courses to have a blended approach using Zucker, & Kozma, 1999, p. 26). Similar kinds of impact are the subject a combination of these platforms. Some Web-based or blended courses of informal conversations at virtual school conferences and meetings. currently use collaborative tools such as Elluminate to promote greater One study on this phenomenon was reported by Lowes (2005), who interaction. considered the question as part of a larger study of teacher design and Study Procedures teaching practices at VHS, the same large virtual school that had been the subject of the 1999 evaluation by Espinoza, Dove, Zucker, and Kozma. In light of the dramatic differences in virtual program maturity, peda- Lowes first interviewed six VHS teachers to create questions for an ex- gogical methodologies, types of teacher training, and virtual teaching tensive online survey. Two items in a large battery of questions focused experience, the researchers decided to use a more open-ended approach specifically on the pedagogical impact on FTF teaching strategies, asking to data collection than the one in Lowes’ 2005 study. Rather than using a teachers to select from 40 teaching practices they felt had changed as a pregenerated set of types of impact, we generated an ethnographic account result of virtual teaching experiences. Additionally, the survey asked four of teacher beliefs and perceptions in this area through a two-stage approach open-ended questions that focused on types of instructional changes. to qualitative data collection: online surveys followed by in-person focus groups. This two-stage approach allowed for initial analysis that could be Lowes (2005) found that three quarters of teachers who taught in both further explicated in data from subsequent conversations in order to better virtual and FTF courses reported that their virtual experiences had a posi- provide a thick description of teacher perceptions (Berg, 2007). tive impact on their in-person teaching strategies. When asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = no changes, 5 = major changes) each of the 40 possible Teachers attended a series of training sessions aimed at expanding revisions to teaching strategies, teachers tended to give higher ratings to proficiency with the state’s virtual program technologies and procedures. adding peer reviews, eliminating poorly designed lessons, redesigning At the beginning of each session, teacher attendees were invited to com- lessons or adding new ones, and providing more detailed instructions. plete an online version of five question sets (see Appendix), implemented In response to the open-ended questions, some teachers also indicated through an account with a commercial online testing and survey system. using more strategies for increasing class participation, requiring more One set of questions focused on the possibility of “reverse impact” by independent learning, using questioning techniques, and encouraging asking teachers to address the questions: “Has your experience teaching greater metacognition and reflection. at a distance affected your traditional classroom teaching? If so, in what ways has your traditional teaching been affected?” Computers were avail- A statewide evaluation of a virtual school system offered an opportunity able for each teacher to complete an individual survey, and we received to further explore this kind of transfer and to add to our knowledge of responses from 52 of the teachers in attendance, for an 80% return among the types of impact, both pedagogical and other, that teachers perceive. attendees. Teachers who did not complete surveys were new to the virtual As with personnel at other virtual schools, directors of this program had school system and indicated they did not have sufficient experience to heard comments from their teachers about the beneficial effects of virtual provide feedback. teaching on in-person classroom teaching and asked that this issue be included in the evaluation. The authors used a computer-aided qualita- The following day, evaluators held a series of eight focus groups with tive approach to gauge the extent to which the phenomenon reported by a total of 28 teachers in rooms allocated by the state department for this Espinoza, Dove, Zucker, and Kozma (1999) and Lowes (2005) occurred purpose. Focus group members had also completed the online surveys, in other virtual school settings. We also designed the study to allow so teachers were encouraged to expand on initial comments and offer a the possibility of other types of perceived impact in addition to that of richer explanation of their perceptions than that provided on surveys. improved teaching strategies, as reported in past studies. We included Although some of the survey observations were especially informative, open-ended questions with this focus in the online surveys and in-person most tended to be brief and offered few details to supplement a “yes/no” focus group interviews planned for the evaluation. confirmation. Thus, focus groups yielded additional helpful information. Focus group proceedings were recorded, and evaluators took extensive Methodology summary notes to allow for later interpretive analysis (Berg, 2007). Study Participants Analysis Procedures The teachers included in the study were 65 attendees at a state-sponsored The authors first reviewed responses for evidence that would gauge the educational technology conference who were also attending required extent of the perceived impact and analyzed them subsequently to identify training for the state’s virtual school instructors. Attendees constituted specific types of impact. To establish patterns in teacher data, we subjected almost half of the program’s 147 virtual teachers who were active in survey responses to content analysis using a constant comparative proce- the virtual school program at that time. As with most statewide virtual dure (Dye, Schatz, Rosenberg, & Coleman, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; schools, all the teachers working for this state’s virtual school program Patton, 2002). Two different coders viewed results separately, and each are state certified in the content area in which they teach. About 90% of generated an analysis on the categories of perceived impact. They com- the program’s instructors are full-time teachers in the state’s “brick and pared their analyses and came to agreement on general findings, ways to mortar” schools in addition to teaching one or more courses in online resolve discrepancies, and how to characterize results as to categories. or video-based formats. Findings: Perceived Impact of Online Study Setting Experience on FTF Teaching The virtual school program itself is a relatively new one. It began offering Overview state-sponsored virtual courses in 2005, but as of the summer of 2008, it already had 170 schools sponsoring virtual courses, which constitutes A straightforward count and analysis of survey responses enabled a conclu- about 44% of the high schools in the state. The program offers more than sion about the extent of the perceived impact within this group of teachers. 122 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education Volume 25 / Number 4 Summer 2009 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. Three quarters of the group surveyed (39 teachers, or 75% of the sample) comments were general: “Teaching with [the virtual program] has made volunteered that they believed virtual teaching did have a positive impact me better and stronger in the classroom.” Others focused specifically on their in-person instruction, results identical to those found by Lowes on improved teaching strategies: “Some things [in my in-person class] I (2005). Six teachers said they could draw no conclusions because they think are better now. [For example,] when I finally had laptops for all my no longer teach face to face, three others indicated they lacked sufficient virtual students, I also got them for my face-to-face students. I had the experience with virtual teaching to draw a conclusion, and the remaining students do French e-mails to each other and create PowerPoint [reports] four did not respond, which may be interpreted as a negative response. together using Internet resources. The two sites [FTF and online] would As expected, focus group members mentioned the same kinds of impact, often chat together.” Student engagement and motivation was another though more teachers gave additional details on types of impact. theme. One teacher commented, “As a teacher I am learning so much An interpretive analysis of survey and focus group responses from the in terms of using various technologies … I have so many more ideas on teachers who perceived online teaching had an impact on traditional class- how to engage and encourage both my face-to-face and online students room teaching led to the discovery of three categories of impact: increased … the impact has been so positive.” use/integration of technologies into traditional teaching (mentioned by Changes in teaching strategies were evident in comments such as, “I 50% of teachers in survey); more effective, student-focused teaching tend to do a lot more reviewing now. When I taught my [online] pre- methods and techniques (mentioned by 50% of teachers in survey); and calculus class, I needed to know what they had covered and what they increased empathy and communication with students (mentioned by 10% knew, so I was always asking, ‘Do you know this, do you know that?’ of teachers in survey). (Categories do not add up to 100% because some And they would say they didn’t, so I’d review it. [When I did this in my teachers expressed more than one perceived impact.) Typical comments on-site class,] my kids seemed to do better than in the previous year, and from surveys and focus groups are given under each of the categories it was probably because of that.” described here. Impact Type #3: Better Communications and Empathy Impact Type #1: Increased Technology Use and Integration with Students into Instruction Though not mentioned as frequently as the other two categories, com- The first mentioned impact in all focus groups was always increased uses ments related to improved communications and relationships with of technology and technology-integrated lessons in the in-person class- students constituted a third, and perhaps most interesting, theme. More rooms, in large part because teachers became more aware of electronic attention to articulation of student communications and to providing resources and how to use them and gained an increased comfort level with clear directions was one aspect of this theme. Example comments were: them. One teacher indicated, “Practically speaking, I have had to become “I started paying more attention with how I worded things. In my FTF more technologically savvy, which has been a definite benefit because I class, I became comfortable because I knew all of the kids, but online, learned to use the Elmo, DLP projector, etc., in my regular classroom. I it requires more detailed explanation,” and “I am much more specific in enjoy using some of the online course resources and assessments in my my assignments now and I have a better understanding of how much regular classroom. My regular classroom students enjoy hearing that I body language plays a part in my teaching.” Another said, “Teaching at teach online, and fairly often I will project some of the content from a distance, I found often the simplest appearing instructions reflect a Desire to Learn (D2L, the course management system) onto my regular daunting task to a student sometimes. Clarification is the key, and I clarify classroom screen.” often.” Still another said, “I think I am better able to explain concepts A foreign language teacher noted, “I am more actively considering to my ‘live’ students because I had to be able to explain through words opportunities to incorporate student-centered technology into my tra- alone with my Web-based students.” ditional course. Electronic submission of assignments and using Wimba One teacher noted that communications between her and her students (a digital voice application) for speaking opportunities in the foreign improved because of her increased use of technologies for communica- language classroom increases the efficiency of my traditional classroom tions, observing, “When kids can send you an e-mail and don’t have to activities. I knew these options were available, but I had not pushed myself say it in the room and perhaps be embarrassed, it is easier for them to to incorporate them. Now I realize how valuable they are and I am more say what they want to say. It has improved the way they communicate excited about using them.” with me.” Several said that they now use the online course management system Finally, a few teachers noted a new empathy with students. One said, resources (in this case, D2L, which had been put into place for distant “I have been able to see learning more from the student’s viewpoint.” students) with both distant and on-site students. One said, “My kids Another observed, “It has increased my diversity, flexibility, and com- take all their quizzes and tests online now.” Others reported realizing the passion for students!” One teacher offered, “I have learned to develop motivating influences of certain technologies. “My in-class kids fell in relationships with [virtual] students on their terms, and I try to take that love with Elluminate [an online collaboration tool],” said one teacher. understanding with me in the traditional classroom.” One said she had “After-school [Elluminate] tutoring for the ‘D2L kids’ became very become more flexible and understanding about assignment deadlines and popular with my on-site kids. They’d show up whenever they knew one requirements: “I am more sensitive to my students’ needs concerning [how was scheduled.” long it takes them when] understanding concepts and assignments.” This Some offered a more nuanced view of motivation for increased technol- more flexible, understanding attitude toward students is provocative in ogy use. One teacher said, “I began to use technologies in my face-to-face that it represents an additional, extra-instructional type of impact not classes that became available because of the [virtual] program; I found I mentioned in previous studies. had the courage to do that because of the [virtual] program.” Conclusions and Implications Impact Type #2: More Effective Teaching Strategies The results of the current study offer further tentative evidence of the long- Many teacher comments focused on the impact that virtual teaching had rumored and little-researched influence of online experiences on teachers’ on the teaching strategies they used in their in-person classrooms. Types perspectives and practice. Though based on only one state’s virtual school of impact on teaching methods and procedures ranged from gaining ideas experiences, reports from this study illustrate that using technology in for lessons to more ways to get students engaged with content. Some meaningful ways in the context of virtual courses provided the teacher Volume 25/ Number 4 Summer 2009 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 123 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. users with compelling evidence of the utility and impact of technology- as preliminary. In light of the dramatic differences in teacher training and enhanced methods and made them more likely to try the same and other instructional practice among virtual school programs, it may be that this technologies in their regular classrooms. Virtual course experiences also two-way flow of information from one delivery format to another, as well encouraged teachers to reflect on their teaching and communication as the specific types of impact observed here, are more common in some strategies with students and work to develop more effective methods and programs than others. The numbers in the current study also clearly limit procedures for their in-person classes. Another interesting finding from both the overall conclusions we are able to make and their generalizability this study was the realization of a new empathy and sensitivity to student to other programs. Further studies are needed to confirm the phenomenon needs, a willingness to relate to all students, virtual and FTF, on their itself, to clarify what types of impact can be expected to occur in various own terms. These findings, especially if confirmed by additional research kinds of environments, and to explain why this impact occurs. in other virtual school settings, have implications for teacher preparation and for building a rationale to emphasize training in and use of online Implications for the Future technologies. If they are to take advantage of the unique and powerful Findings such as those from the current study offer good directions for capacity of these technologies to encourage reflection and build stronger further research on virtual teaching benefits, as well as a vantage point for connections between students and instructors, teachers must be taught viewing the emerging future of both technologies in education and, most how to design online activities in ways recommended by Rice (2006), intriguing, of education itself. If further research shows the results reflected Treacy (2007), and others. in this study to be widespread, and these benefits can be translated into Implications for Teacher Preparation in Virtual Methods areas of new emphasis for teacher education programs, the benefits of The growing influence of virtual schooling in the U.S. and the acknowl- virtual schooling may extend far beyond redefining what it means to be edged methodological differences between virtual and FTF teaching have “in school” and help define what it means to be an effective teacher. already been great enough to spark interest in including it as an area of By navigating the unfamiliar, challenging, and changeable terrain emphasis in teacher preparation programs (Davis & Roblyer, 2005; Da- of virtual learning, teachers can travel beyond their past teaching and vis, et al., 2006; Harms, Niederhauser, Davis, Roblyer, Gilbert, 2006). learning experiences and view their teaching practices with fresh eyes. The potential for more pervasive, reform-minded impact on educational Participating in this novel teaching environment, so different in many quality seems to bolster this interest (Watson & Ryan, 2007). Findings ways from the traditional classrooms they have known, could give them such as those from the current study offer yet another compelling reason opportunities to see the impact of new approaches to familiar content; for including virtual teaching methods and experiences as a required they become empowered with the perspective that educational philosopher competency area in teacher preparation programs. Virtual clinical experi- Maxine Green (1973) advocated: to become as “strangers” in their own ences and internships may give preservice teachers more than job skills classrooms, able to see their teaching strategies as if it were the first time in an area of burgeoning interest to potential school employers. These and engage in the reflective practice (Henderson, 2001) that informs experiences may have the effect of illustrating in the most compelling their development as professionals. They may gain the insight that great way possible how useful and powerful technologies can be in reaching teaching—in any delivery format—means always trying new strategies out and engaging students with diverse needs and abilities. and learning from the results, always engaging in “continuous growth Implications for Building a Rationale for Technology and rediscovery” (Zacharias, 2004, p. 1). Emphasis References Building a rationale for technology use in K–12 classrooms has tradition- ally been problematic, in part because of the lack of a strong research Alabama Department of Education. (2008). Board of education resolu- base on pedagogical benefits, and in part due to a school and teacher tions, Thursday, May 8, 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http:// culture resistant to “disruptive” innovative methods (Christiansen, 2008; www.alsde.edu/html/boe_resolutions2.asp?id=1413 Cuban, Kilpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Roblyer & Knezek, 2003). However, Benson, A. (2003). Dimensions of quality in online degree programs. the adoption of technologies by individual educators may become less American Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 145–159. important as some states and school systems, recognizing the social and economic benefits of these technologies, decide to require them on a Berg, B. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th system-wide basis. For example, state-level decision makers in at least ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. two states (Alabama and Michigan), recognizing the need for students Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, to become more literate in the skill set and habits required for effective L., Wallet, P., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance learning virtual learning, have passed new graduation requirements for students to compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical take an online experience or course (Alabama Department of Education, literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–434. 2008; Michigan first to mandate online learning, 2006). This trend, in Christensen, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation combination with the increasing national popularity of virtual schooling will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill. as a way to give underserved students access to educational opportunities that are not otherwise available (Watson & Ryan, 2007), seems likely Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low to drive the need for teacher education programs and faculty capable of use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent preparing an increasing number of teachers who are “online instruction paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. literate.” The results of the current study indicate that, although use of Davis, N., & Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Preparing teachers for the educational technologies may be increasing due to social and economic “schools that technology built”: Evaluation of a program to train teach- reasons, this increased use has the effect of demonstrating the pedagogical ers for virtual schooling. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, benefits of these technologies and their unique role in informing better 37(4), 399–409. teaching practice. Davis, N., Roblyer, M. D., Charania, A., Ferdig, R., Harms, C., & Limitations of the Study Compton, L. (2006). Illustrating the “virtual” in virtual schooling: Chal- Though results from the study are intriguing, it should be noted that lenges and strategies for creating real tools to prepare virtual teachers. The findings from early, small-scale studies such as this one must be viewed Internet in Higher Education, 10(1), 27–39. 124 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education Volume 25 / Number 4 Summer 2009 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. Dye, J., Schatz, I., Rosenberg, B., & Coleman, S. (2000). Constant Treacy, B. (2007, October). What’s different about teaching online? comparison method:A kaleidoscope of data. The Qualitative Report, How are virtual schools changing teaching? Kentucky Virtual High School 4(1/2). Retrieved June 20, 2008, from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/ Newsletter, 1(2). QR4-1/dye.html Watson, J., & Ryan, J. (2007). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: Espinoza, C., Dove, T., Zucker, A., & Kozma, R. (1999). An evalu- A review of state-level policy and practices. Retrieved September 1, 2008, ation of the virtual high school after two years of operation. Arlington, VA: from http://www.nacol.org/docs/KeepingPace07-color.pdf SRI. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://ctl.sri.com/publications/ Zacharias, M. (2004, December). Moving beyond with Maxine downloads/evalvhs2yrs.pdf Greene: Integrating curriculum with consciousness. Educational Insights, Gallini, J., & Barron, D. (2001–2002). Participants’ perceptions 9(1). Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/ of Web-infused environments: A survey of teaching beliefs, learning publication/insights/v09n01/articles/zacharias.html approaches, and communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Zandberg, I., & Lewis, L. B. (2008). Technology-based distance educa- Education, 34(2), 139–156. tion courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2002–03 Green, M. (1973). Teacher as stranger: Educational philosophy for the and 2004–05 statistical analysis report (NCES 2008–008). Washington, modern age. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Harms, C. M., Niederhauser, D. S., Davis, N. E., Roblyer, M. D., & Gilbert, S. B. (2006). Educating educators for virtual schooling: Com- M. D. Roblyer is a professor in the Learning and Leadership EdD program at the municating roles and responsibilities. Electronic Journal of Communication, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. A longtime researcher in virtual schools, she is 16(1–2). Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.cios.org/www/ currently studying qualities that make K–12 students successful in virtual courses. For ejc/v16n1.htm#eduquer the past three years, she has been a consultant assisting with the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE’s) evaluation of the Alabama ACCESS Distance Henderson, J. G. (2001). Reflective teaching: Professional artistry through Learning Initiative, the state’s comprehensive virtual schooling program. The 5th inquiry. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril, Prentice Hall. edition of her textbook, Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (Pearson, 2010; co-authored with Aaron Doering), was just published. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. M. D. Roblyer, PhD Professor, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Florida TaxWatch Center for Educational Performance and Account- College of Health, Education, and Professional Studies, Graduate Studies Division ability. (2007). Final report: A comprehensive assessment of Florida Virtual 615 McCallie Avenue – 310 Pfeiffer Hall School. Tallahassee, Florida. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http:// Chattanooga, Tennessee 37403 www.floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/110507FinalReportFLVS.pdf 423.425.5567 [email protected] Lowes, S. (2005). Online teaching and classroom change: The impact of virtual high school on its teachers and their schools. Columbia, New York: Marclyn Porter is a doctoral student in the Learning and Leadership EdD program Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and an adjunct professor-in-residence http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/lowes_final.pdf at UTC’s Teacher Preparation Academy. During 2008–2009, she assisted with data collection and analysis for ISTE’s evaluation of the Alabama ACCESS Distance Michigan first to mandate online learning. (2006, April 3). eSchool Learning Initiative. News. Retrieved April 21, 2007, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/ news/showstory.cfm?ArticleID=6223 Marclyn Porter Adjunct Instructor, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga National Forum on Educational Statistics. (2006). Forum guide to College of Health, Education, and Professional Studies, Teacher Preparation Academy elementary/secondary virtual education (NFES 2006–803). Washington, 615 McCallie Avenue DC: U.S. Department of Education. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37403 423.425.5567 Norris, C., Sullivan, M. & Poirot, J. (2003). No access, no use, no [email protected] impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K–12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15–31. Talbot Bielefeldt is a senior research associate at ISTE in Eugene, Oregon. He has di- rected several virtual school evaluations for ISTE and is the current director of ISTE’s Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd evaluation of the Alabama ACCESS Distance Learning Initiative. Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rice, K. (2006). A comprehensive look at virtual education in the Talbot Bielefeldt Senior Research Associate, International Society for Technology in Education K–12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 180 West 8th Ave., Suite 300 425–448. Eugene, Oregon 97401 Roblyer, M. D., Freeman, J., Stabler, M., & Schneidmiller, J. (2007). 541.434.8937 [email protected] External evaluation of the Alabama ACCESS Initiative: Phase 3 report. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Martha Donaldson is program administrator for the Alabama Department of Educa- Roblyer, M. D., & Knezek, G. (2003). New millennium research for tion’s ACCESS Distance Learning Initiative, based in Montgomery, Alabama. She helped develop the ACCESS initiative and directs the program’s statewide implemen- educational technology: A call for a national research agenda. Journal of tation. Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 61–72. Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. (2005). A synthesis of new re- Martha B. Donaldson, EdD Program Administrator search on K–12 online learning. Naperville, IL: NCREL/Learning Point ACCESS Distance Learning Technology Initiatives Alabama Department of Associates. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.ncrel.org/ Education tech/synthesis/synthesis.pdf 5351 Gordon Persons Building 50 North Ripley Street Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J., Lan, W., Cooper, S., Ahern, T., Shaw, Montgomery, Alabama 36130-2101 S., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. 334.242.9594 Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. [email protected] Volume 25/ Number 4 Summer 2009 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 125 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved. Appendix: Teacher Survey outside school group. This is a tremendous opportunity to meet with the editors of educational technology publications and other leaders profes- sional associations in the content areas. Please respond to each of the following five open-ended question sets. Feel free to be open and candid in your remarks, since no one will not be SIGTE Kiwi able to identify you with your comments (unless your comments pertain Arlene and I are currently in discussion with educational technology to a certain school that you name). leaders in New Zealand about the possibility of SIGTE organizing a 1. Have you reviewed the brief summary of findings you were given visit to that country next spring. Watch for further information as this from last year’s evaluation? If not, please take a moment to read opportunity develops. this summary. From your experience with the program, how accu- rate do you feel the above 2007 evaluation findings are? Are there items that should have been added or received more emphasis? If Teaching Every Student Book so, what are they? Discussion 2. What do you feel are the most important program improvement By Sarah McPherson issues the program should address? The Teaching Every Student Ning (www.teachingeverystu- 3. Did you or your students experience technical difficulties in access- dent.ning.com) is designed to support a SIGTE learning ing evaluation surveys last year? If so, describe what they were. community based on discussion of a book titled Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning 4. On what kinds of items would you suggest the next program evalu- by David Rose and Ann Meyer. The Ning provides its 323 ation focus? What kinds of data should be collected to address members the flexibility for discussion forums, blogs, videos, them? photos, live chat, and links to other resources. The book selected for discussion this spring focuses on 5. Has your experience teaching at a distance affected your traditional universal design for learning, which is the result of research classroom teaching? If so, in what ways has it affected it? by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). The full text of the e-book is available at www.cast.org. Interactive links in the e-book demonstrate the principles of universal design for learning and provide resources to a wealth of in- President’s Message continued from p. 119 formation about curriculum adaptations for all learners. Webinars The learning community members participating in the book discussion represent all levels of learners, from college For the past three years, SIGTE has been one of the few SIGs offering professors to K–12 general and special education classroom members-only webinars on topics of particular interest to supplement teachers, to instructional technology coordinators, to assis- ISTE’s other webinar offerings. These events are free to our members and tive technology specialists, to district and state department announced on the member listserv. Last fall, Punya Mishra and Matt professional developers. The depth and breadth of expertise Koehler from Michigan State University led a session called Technology of the learning community contribute to understanding the Integration in Teaching: The TPACK Framework that was attended by concepts of the book and the collegial networking among the more than 80 members. This lively presentation, followed by questions, participants. We look forward to continuing the interaction described this important construct that moves beyond discussions of with a meet-and-greet on the evening of Tuesday, June 30, technology integration and on to the interaction of teachers’ knowledge for all those who come to Washington, D.C., for NECC of content, pedagogy, and technology as key to effective technology use 2009. Watch the Ning for details. in classrooms. This webinar is archived on the SIGTE wiki under the heading TPACK. The spring webinar Using Second Life for Professional Development of Teachers and Administrators will be led by Leaunda Hemphill from Western Illinois University. ISTE has had a significant Second Life presence for a while now, and this webinar is designed to help members think about ways they can begin to use this social networking tool for professional VViissiitt JJCCTTEE growth. This year’s SIGTE Workshop at NECC 2009 will also be led by Leaunda on this same topic to allow some face-to-face time to develop Second Life skills. oonn tthhee WWeebb aatt National Technology Leadership Summit (NTLS) wwwwww..iissttee..oorrgg// Once again SIGTE sponsored the participation of the immediate past- president and the current president at this year’s NTLS. The summit focused on characteristics of dynamic media in the context of youth jjccttee culture, exploring ways to employ these capabilities to address educational goals. Arlene worked with the participatory media in math and science group while Mike worked with the informal learning: participatory media 126 Journal of Computing in Teacher Education Volume 25 / Number 4 Summer 2009 Copyright © 2009, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved.