Dramatic increases in K–12 online education for all students, including those in traditionally underserved populations, necessitate a reconceptualization in the way educators plan and implement instruction. In this article the authors examine the complex array of variables and implementation models that must be accounted for during the pivot from a purely brick-and-mortar educational system to one that makes use of both virtual and blended environments. The authors call for enhanced emphasis on instructional goals and design principles, rather than the capabilities of available technology. They conclude that educational leaders and researchers must play a role in three key areas: using technology to enhance the accessibility and usability of curricular materials to meet the needs of different types of learners, advancing the understanding and practices of in-service and pre-service teachers through preparation that focuses on online learning, and fostering collaboration between educational researchers and technology innovators and developers to build a research base that will inform K–12 online education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchambaultL., & CrippenK. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United StatesContemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,9(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm.
2.
BashamJ. D., IsraelM., & MaynardK. (2010). An ecological model of STEM education: Operationalizing STEM for all.Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 9–19.
3.
BashamJ. D., MeyerH., & PerryE. (2010). The design and application of the digital backpack.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 339–359.
4.
CarnahanC., BashamJ., & Musti-RaoS. (2009). A low-technology strategy for increasing engagement of students with autism and significant learning needs.Exceptionality, 17, 76–87.
5.
CavanaughC. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis.International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73–88.
6.
CavanaughC., GillanK., KromreyJ., HessM., & BlomeyerR. (2004). The effects of distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A metaanalysis.Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
7.
Center for Applied Special Technology (2011). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.0.Wakefield, MA: CAST.
8.
ChristensenC. M., HornM. B., & JohnsonC. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
ClarkR. E. (2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher education: The active ingredient process.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 4–18.
11.
CollinsJ. (2001). Using the Internet as a distance education tool in selected secondary school areas.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 431–456.
12.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
EysinkT. H., & de JongT. (2011). Does instructional approach matter? How elaboration plays a crucial role in multimedia learning.Philadelphia, PA: Routledge.
18.
FridS. (2001). Supporting primary students' online learning in a virtual enrichment program.Research in Education, 66, 9–27.
KimP., KimF. H., & KarimiA. (2012). Public online charter school students: Choices, perceptions, and traits.American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 521–545.
25.
KoehlerM. J., & MishraP. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.
26.
LawlessK. A., & PellegrinoJ. 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, 575–614.
27.
MarinoM. T., IsraelM., BeecherC. C., & BashamJ. D. (2012). Students' and teachers' perceptions of using videogames to enhance science instruction.Journal of Science Education and Technology. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9421-9.
28.
MeansB., YukieT., MurphyR., BakiaM., & JonesK. (2010). Evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.
29.
MoursundD., & BielefeldtT. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education.Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology and the International Society for Technology in Education.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants.On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
35.
QueenB., & LewisL. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009–10 (NCES 2012-008). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Government Printing Office.
36.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.New York, NY: Basic Books.
37.
RepettoJ., CavanaughC., WayerN., & LiuF. (2010). Virtual high schools: Improving outcomes for students with disabilities.The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(2), 91–104.
38.
RhimL. M., & KowalJ. (2008). Demystifying special education in virtual charter schools.Primers on Special Education in Charter Schools. Retrieved from http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/.
39.
RiceK. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–448.
SchmidtD. A., BaranE., ThompsonA. D., MishraP., KoehlerM. J., & ShinT. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 42(2), 123.
42.
ShahN. (2012, March 7). Start-ups seek to master the education market: The increasing flow of venture capital into K-12 and heightened interest in educational technology are creating opportunities for market newcomers.Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/03/07/23biz-startup.h31.html.
43.
ShirkyC. (2011). Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators.New York, NY: Penguin Books.
44.
ShulmanL. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
SmithS., & OkoloC. M. (2010). Response to intervention and evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit?Learning Disability Quarterly,, 33, 257–272.
47.
SnyderT. D., & DillowS. (2012). Digest of education statistics 2011 (NCES 2012-001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gove/pubsearch.
48.
StahlS., SmithS. J., & BashamJ. (2012, October). Accessibility of online learning through the UDL lens. Presented at iNACOL Annual Conference, Virtual School Symposium, New Orleans, LA.
49.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2001). Pub. L. No. 107-110.
