There has been a steady growth of the K-12 student population taking courses online. This study examined reasons for students to choose a public online charter school program and their perceptions of online discussion. A survey was sent to 1,500 students newly enrolled in a statewide public online charter school program. From those who responded, 44% indicated that the online discussion component is not helpful in achieving their academic goals. Also, further analysis suggested that those who drop out of traditional schools probably would not stay even in an online program unless the program adequately supported the students. In this report, interrelationships among perceptual measures along with traits and preferences of online students are discussed and suggestions are made for educators.
AlexanderB. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning. Learning, 41(2), 32–44.
2.
AllenJ.ConsolettiA.KerwinK. (2009). The accountability report 2009: Charter schools. Washington, DC: The Center for Education Reform.
3.
AllyM. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In AndersonT.ElloumiF. (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 3–31). Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University.
4.
AnohinaA. (2005). Analysis of the terminology used in the field of virtual learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 8(3), 91–102.
5.
BarbourM.McLarenA.ZhangL. (2008). Secondary students perceptions of web-based learning. In BonkC.. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 2486-2495). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
6.
BarbourM.PloughC. (2009). Social networking in cyberschooling: Helping to make online learning less isolating. TechTrends, 53(4), 56–60.
7.
BarbourM.ReevesT. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402–416.
BatesA.BatesT. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
10.
BentoR.SchusterC. (2003). Participation: The online challenge. In AggerwalA. (Ed.), Web-based education: Learning from experience (pp. 156–164). London: IRM Press.
11.
BergeZ.ClarkT. (2006). Virtual schools: Planning for success. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(2), 215–218.
12.
BernardR.AbramiP.LouY.BorokhovskiE.WadeA.WozneyL.. . . HuangB. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.
BolligerD. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3, 61–67.
15.
BorghansL.DuckworthA. L.HeckmanJ. J.WeelB. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits (NBER Working Paper No. 13810). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
16.
BrayE.AokiK.DlugoshL. (2008). Predictors of learning satisfaction in Japanese online distance learners. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–24.
17.
BridgelandJ.DiIulioJ.MorisonK.HartP. H. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises, LLC.
18.
BulkleyK.FislerJ. (2002). A review of the research on charter schools. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
19.
CavalierJ. C.KleinJ. D.CavalierF. J. (1995). Effects of cooperative learning on performance, attitude, and group behaviors in a technical team environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(3), 61–71.
20.
CavanaughC. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis:International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73–88.
21.
CavanaughC.GillanK.KromreyJ.HessM.BlomeyerR. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
22.
ChanLinL. J.ChanK. C. (2004). PBL approach in Web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 98–105.
23.
ClarkT. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues. A study of virtual schools in the United States (Report commissioned by the Distance Learning Resource Network, a WestEd Project co-sponsored by The Center for the Application of Information Technologies). Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf
ClarkT.BergeZ. L. (2005). Perspectives on virtual schools. In ClarkT.BergeZ. L. (Eds.), Virtual schools: Planning for success (pp. 9–19). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
CoozeM.BarbourM. (2007). Learning styles: A focus upon e-learning practices and pedagogy and their implications for successful instructional design. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.eduquery.com/jaet/JAET4-1_Cooze.pdf
27.
CunhaF.HeckmanJ.SchennachS. (2010). Estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. Econometrica, 78(3), 883–931.
28.
DaviesJ.GraffM. (2005). Performance in e learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657–663.
29.
DelbridgeK. (2000). Individual differences in multi-tasking ability: Exploring a nomological network. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
30.
DzubakC. (2008). Multitasking: The good, the bad, and the unknown. eJournal of the Association for the Tutoring Profession, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.myatp.org/Synergy_1/Syn_6.pdf
31.
FarkasG. (2003). Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 541–563.
32.
FerdigR.DiPietroM.PapanastasiouE. (2005). Teaching and learning in collaborative virtual high schools. Unpublished manuscript.
33.
FoehrU. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors and pairings. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
FultonK.KoberN. (2002). Preserving principles of public education in an online world: What policymakers should be asking about virtual schools. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
GrayE.TuckerB. (2006). Students are streaming to state virtual schools. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
38.
GreeneJ.LovelessT.MacLeodW. B.NechybaT.PetersonP.RosenthalM.WhitehurstG. (2010). Expanding choice in elementary and secondary education: A report on rethinking the federal role in education. Retrieved from http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/finklerm/0202_school_choice.pdf
HannumW.IrvinM.BanksJ.FarmerT. (2009). Distance education use in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(3), 1–15.
41.
HeckmanJ.RubinsteinY. (2001). The importance of noncognitive skills: Lessons from the GED testing program. American Economic Review, 91(2), 145–149.
42.
HeckmanJ. J.StixrudJ.UrzuaS. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3), 411–448.
43.
HembrookeH.GayG. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46–64.
44.
JustM.KellerT.CynkarJ. (2008). A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak. Brain Research, 1205, 70–80.
45.
KerkaS. (1996). Distance learning, the Internet, and the World Wide Web (ERIC Digest). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
46.
KhalifaM.LamR. (2002). Web-based learning: Effects on learning process and outcome. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 45(4), 350–356.
47.
KolikantY. (2010). Digital natives, better learners? Students’ beliefs about how the Internet influenced their ability to learn. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1384–1391
48.
KozmaR.ZuckerA.EspinozaC.McGheeR.YarnallL.ZallesD.LewisA. (2000). The online course experience: Evaluation of the Virtual High School’s third year of implementation, 1999-2000. Arlington, VA: SRI.
49.
LathamG.LockeE. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247.
50.
LiQ. (2007) Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities?Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 377–397.
51.
LockeE.LathamG.SmithK.WoodR.BanduraA. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
MoskalP.DziubanC.UpchurchR.HartmanJ.TrumanB. (2006). Assessing online learning: What one university learned about student success, persistence, and satisfaction. Peer Review, 8(4), 26–29.
56.
MurphyE.CoffinG. (2003). Synchronous communication in a Web-based senior high school course: Maximizing affordances and minimizing constraints of the tool. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(4), 235–246.
57.
NajjarL. (1996). Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 129–150.
58.
OblingerD. G.OblingerJ. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE.
59.
ParkerA. (1999). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation. Educational Technology Review, 1, 13-27.
60.
Pena-ShaffJ.AltmanW.StephensonH. (2005). Asynchronous online discussions as a tool for learning: Students’ attitudes, expectations, and perceptions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 409–430.
61.
PiccianoA. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.
62.
PiccianoA. G.SeamanJ. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of US school district administrators. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
63.
PiccianoA. G.SeamanJ. (2009). K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of US school district administrators. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
64.
PillayH.IrvingK.McCrindleA. (2006). Developing a diagnostic tool for assessing tertiary students’ readiness for online learning. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(1), 92–104.
65.
ReinhartJ.SchneiderP. (2001). Student satisfaction, self-efficacy, and the perception of the two-way audio/video distance learning environment. A preliminary examination. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(4), 357–365.
66.
ReioT.CrimS. (2006). The emergence of social presence as an overlooked factor in asynchronous online learning. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED492785.pdf
67.
RiceK. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–448.
68.
RichardsonJ.SwanK. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.
69.
RoblyerM.DavisL. (2008). Predicting success for virtual school students: Putting research-based models into practice. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(4). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter114/roblyer114.html
70.
RosenJ. A.GlennieE. J.DaltonB. W.LennonJ. M.BozickR. N. (2010). Noncognitive skills in the classroom: New perspectives on educational research. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press.
71.
RonsisvalleT.WatkinsR. (2005). Student success in online K-12 education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 117–124.
72.
RovaiA.BarnumK. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57–73.
73.
SaundersJ. A.SaundersE. J. (2002). Alternative school students’ perceptions of past (traditional) and current (alternative) school environments. High School Journal, 85(2), 12–24.
74.
SeijtsG.LathamG. (2001). The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 291–307.
75.
SetzerJ.LewisL. (2005). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2002-03. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
76.
SheaP.FredericksenE.PickettA.PelzW.SwanK. (2001). Measures of learning effectiveness in the SUNY Learning Network. Online Education, 2, 7–31.
77.
ShoberA.MannaP.WitteJ. (2006). Flexibility meets accountability: State charter school laws and their influence on the formation of charter schools in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 563–587.
78.
StahlG. (2006). Supporting group cognition in an online math community: A cognitive tool for small-group referencing in text chat. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 103–122.
79.
SwanK. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–49.
80.
TunisonS.NoonanB. (2001). On-line learning: Secondary students’ first experience. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(4), 495–514.
81.
VonderwellS.ZachariahS. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 213–230.
82.
WaitsT.SetzerJ.LewisL. (2005). Dual credit and exam-based courses in US public high schools: 2002-TAB (NCES 2005-009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
83.
WallisC. (2006). The multitasking generation. Time Magazine, 167(13), 48–56.
84.
WangA. Y.NewlinM. H. (2000). Characteristics of students who enroll and succeed in psychology Web-based classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 137–143.
85.
WaschullS. (2005). Predicting success in online psychology courses: Self-discipline and motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 190–192.
86.
WatsonJ. (2007). A national primer on K-12 online learning. Arlington, VA: North American Council for Online Learning.
87.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker, 9(5), 1–5.
88.
WestonR.GoreP. A.Jr. (2006). SEM 101: A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719–751.
89.
ZimmerR.ZimmerR. W. (2009). Charter schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
90.
ZimmermanB.GreenbergD.WeinsteinC. (1994). Self-regulating academic study time: A strategy approach. In SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 181–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
