You are here:

The Impact of the Virtual Schooling Curriculum on Preparing In-Service Teachers for the Roles as Virtual School Facilitators PROCEEDINGS

, , Wayne State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Diego, CA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-78-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This study examined the second round of data collection from an action research project designed to help in-service teachers become better virtual school facilitators. The data included blog entries and comments from five of the seven graduate students in an instructional technology course related to K-12 online learning. The specific discussion prompts relate to virtual school readings and the Teacher Education Goes into Virtual Schooling (TEGIVS) curriculum. Based upon initial analysis, the TEGIVS curriculum was effective for providing these graduate students some experience with how K-12 online learning opportunities were delivered, along with some of the possibilities and challenges associated with K-12 online learning. The analysis of this data is continuing, and there are plans to continue this line of inquiry with additional students in future offerings as we continue to improve upon the course design.

Citation

Barbour, M. & Unger, K. (2010). The Impact of the Virtual Schooling Curriculum on Preparing In-Service Teachers for the Roles as Virtual School Facilitators. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2905-2912). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 21, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Barbour, M.K. (2005). The design of web-based courses for secondary students. Journal of Distance Learning, 9(1), 27 – 36.
  2. Barbour, M.K., & Cooze, M. (2004). All for one and one for all: Designing web-based courses for students based upon individual learning styles. Staff and Educational Development International, 8(2/3), 95 – 108.
  3. Barbour, M.K., & 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
  4. Barbour, M.K., & Mulcahy, D. (2009). Beyond volunteerism and good will: Examining the commitment of school DASHDASH
  5. Barbour, M.K., & Reeves, T.C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers and Education, 52(2), 402 – 416.
  6. Barbour, M.K., & Unger, K. (2009). Challenging teachers’ preconceptions, misconceptions, and concerns of virtual
  7. Clark, T. (2000). Virtual high schools: State of the states-A study of virtual high school planning and preparation in the United States. Center for the Application of Information Technologies, Western Illinois University. Retrieved from http://www.imsa.edu/programs/ivhs/pdfs/stateofstates.pdf
  8. Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues-A study of virtual schools in the United States. San Francisco, CA: Western Regional Educational Laboratories. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf
  9. Compton, L., Follett, J., & Demiraslan, Y. (2007). Challenging Preservice Teachers' Preconceptions, Misconceptions, and Concerns of Virtual Schooling: A Preliminary Analysis. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D.A. Willis, (Eds.). Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference Annual 2007 (pp. 2971-2976). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  10. Davis, N.E. (2007, November). Teacher education for virtual schools. A presentation at annual Virtual School Symposium, Louisville, KY. Retrieved from http://ctlt.iastate.edu/~tegivs/TEGIVS/publications/VS%20Symposium2007.pdf
  11. Davis, N., Demiraslan, Y., & Wortmann, K. (2007, October). Preparing to support online learning in K-12. A presentation at the Iowa Educational Technology conference, Des Moines, IA. Retrieved from http://ctlt.iastate.edu/~tegivs/TEGIVS/publications/ITEC2007-presentations.pdf
  12. Davis, N.E. & Roblyer, M.D. (2005). Preparing teachers for the "schools that technology built": Evaluation of a program to train teachers for virtual schooling. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 399-409.
  13. Davis, N., & Rose, R. (2007). Research committee issues brief: Professional development for virtual schooling and online learning. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.nacol.org/docs/NACOL_PDforVSandOlnLrng.pdf
  14. 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). Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/getfile.cfm?volID=7 & IssueID=22 & ArticleID=113
  15. Easton, S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor ’ s role in online distance learning. Communications Education, 52(2), 87105.
  16. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge.
  17. Keeler, C. (2004). Assessment in online environment: Across-school description of secondary courses. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://coe.nevada.edu/ckeeler/teachingportfolio/researchinterests.html #Assessment_in_Online_Environments:_A
  18. Keeler, C. (2006). Designing online Courses to meet diverse learning style preferences. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://coe.nevada.edu/ckeeler/teachingportfolio/researchinterests.html #Learning_Styles
  19. Rice, K., & Dawley, L. (2007). Going virtual! The status of professional development for K-12 online teachers. Boise, ID: Boise State University. Retrieved from http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual1.pdf
  20. Roblyer, M.D. (2005). Who plays well in the virtual sandbox? Characteristics of successful online students and teachers. SIGTel Bulletin(2). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Membership/SIGs/SIGTel_Telelearning_/SIGTel_Bulletin2/Archive/2005_20067/2005_July__Roblyer.htm
  21. Roblyer, M.D., Freeman, J., Stabler, M., & Schneidmiller, J. (2007). External evaluation of the Alabama ACCESS initiative: Phase 3 report. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from http://accessdl.state.al.us/2006Evaluation.pdf
  22. Roblyer, M.D., & McKenzie, B. (2000). Distant but not out-of-touch: What makes an effective distance learning instructor? Learning and Leading With Technology, 27(6), 50-53.
  23. Ruona, W.E.A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R.A. Swanson& E.F. Holdton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 233-263). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
  24. Watson, J.F., Gemin, B., & Ryan, J. (2008). Keeping pace with k–12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/downloads/KeepingPace_2008.pdf
  25. Watson, J.F. & Kalmon, S. (2005). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.