The Landscape of K-12 Online Learning: Examining What Is Known

Abstract

While the use of distance and online learning at the K-12 level of growing exponentially, the availability of empirical evidence to help guide this growth is severely lacking. The author of this chapter provides an overview of the nature of K-12 distance and online learning today and a critical examination of the literature and-lack of research-supporting its use. The author further describes some of the methodological issues surround the limited among of existing research, and calls for researchers in this field to adopt practices that have been employed by their colleagues investigating adult populations over the past decades. Biography: Michael Barbour is an Associate Professor of Instructional Design for the College of Education and Health Sciences at Touro University California in Vallejo, California. He has been involved with K-12 online learning in a variety of countries for well over a decade as a researcher, teacher, course designer and administrator. Michael's research interests focus on the effective design, delivery, and support of online learning to K-12 students in virtual school environments, particularly those in rural jurisdictions.

Full text

!
!
1!
The Landscape of K-12 Online Learning:
Examining What Is Known
Michael K. Barbour
Touro University California
Abstract: While the use of distance and online learning at the K-12 level of growing exponentially, the
availability of empirical evidence to help guide this growth is severely lacking. The author of this chapter
provides an overview of the nature of K-12 distance and online learning today and a critical examination of
the literature and – lack of research – supporting its use. The author further describes some of the
methodological issues surround the limited among of existing research, and calls for researchers in this
field to adopt practices that have been employed by their colleagues investigating adult populations over
the past decades.
Keywords: cyber school, K-12 distance learning, K-12 online learning, literature, research, virtual school
Biography: Michael Barbour is an Associate Professor of Instructional Design for the College of Education
and Health Sciences at Touro University California in Vallejo, California. He has been involved with K-12
online learning in a variety of countries for well over a decade as a researcher, teacher, course designer and
administrator. Michael’s research interests focus on the effective design, delivery, and support of online
learning to K-12 students in virtual school environments, particularly those in rural jurisdictions.

!
!
521!
The Landscape of K-12 Online Learning:
Examining What Is Known
Michael K. Barbour
The use of distance and online learning at the K-12 level is growing dramatically.
However, the literature – and, in particular, the research – to support the effective design,
delivery and support of K-12 distance and online learning has not kept pace. This statement is a
common phrase used by scholars in the field as they lament the state of research into K-12
distance and online learning. While there is some truth to this statement, the amount of research
included in the overall body of literature continues to grow. It has become an unfortunate reality
within the field that this growing body of research is largely unknown to practitioners (and, in
many instance, scholars themselves). The use of non-research-based literature and tools to guide
practice, as well as scholars failing to build upon the existing body of research, has been
generally due to a lack of knowledge of the full corpus of research available.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore the literature and, in particular, the research in
the field of K-12 distance and online learning. While this exploration is not designed to be a
complete or comprehensive examination of the research in the field, it should provide the reader
with an overall understanding of the current state of the field and the general themes within the
literature. Astute readers, particularly those that are reading this chapter as a part of the overall
handbook, will notice specific takeaways based on the omissions or absence of themes they have
become familiar in the more generalized chapters or those chapters that focus on adult
populations. Finally, while the field of K-12 distance and online learning is often referred to as
K-12 online and blended learning or K-12 distance, online, and blended learning; this chapter
will focus primarily on K-12 distance and online learning, with only passing reference to K-12
blended learning.
This chapter begins with a discussion of the history and evolution of K-12 distance
learning, concluding with an overview of the current state of K-12 online learning. Next, the
chapter will provide a short description of how K-12 distance and online learning is classified
within the literature. Finally, the chapter will provide an overview of some themes from the
literature and research, using a selection of representative literature. These themes will focus on
the significant body of non-research literature, the continued use of media comparison studies by
scholars, and the research into the design, delivery, support, and administration of K-12 distance
and online learning.
History and Evolution of K-12 Distance Learning
The reality is that distance education at the K-12 or primary and secondary level has a
history that is almost as long as distance education within higher education. Since the first
edition of the

!
!
522!
Handbook of Distance Education (Moore & Anderson, 2003), readers have had the opportunity to review the
history and of K-12 distance education – at least in the United States. In the absence of Tom Clark’s chapter in
this edition of the Handbook of Distance Education, this chapter begins with a brief description of the history
and evolution of K-12 distance learning. For a more detailed description of the history of K-12 distance and
online learning in the United States, please consult Clark (2003, 2007, 2013).
The first documented use of K-12 distance learning in the United States was the use of instructional
film around 1910 (Saettler, 2004). This initial distance medium was followed by the use of correspondence
education in a program Nebraska around 1923 (Broady, Platt, & Bell, 1931), and the use of educational radio
through the Ohio School of the Air in 1921 (Saettler, 2004). While some educational radio programs continued
to serve K-12 distance education students for some time, such as the Wisconsin School of the Air (Bianchi,
2002); as technology evolved, so did the medium for K-12 distance education. For example, Bramble (1988)
described the use of an educational telephone system as the basis for the Learn Alaska Network. During the
1930s there were several instances of educational television programming (Kurtz, 1959), although according to
Clark (2000) it was rare for programs using this medium to offer full courses. In the 1960s, the use of
educational satellites emerged as another generation of technology used for the delivery of K-12 distance
learning (Jajkowski, 2004), which was used by programs in a variety of states to serve primarily rural areas
(Howley & Harmon, 2000; Kirby, 1998; Pease & Tinsley, 1986). Beginning in the 1980s, audiographics or
telematics networks began to be developed by several states, such as Iowa, Maine, and Utah (Hezel Associates,
1998).
K-12 online learning is a more recent phenomenon. In the United States the first K-12 online learning
program was developed by the private school Laurel Springs School, which began their online program around
1991 (Barbour, 2011a). Berge and Collins (1998) described how many K-12 distance learning programs, as
well as some traditional face-to-face schools, were using various Internet tools to provide aspects of online
classes. One of these earlier programs that experimented with these online tools was the Utah Electronic High
School, although the majority of the Electronic High School’s offerings were still delivered in a
correspondence model (Clark, 2003). The first full-time cyber charter school, Choice 2000 in California, was
established around 1994 (Darrow, 2010). The first entirely online supplementali virtual schools were the
Virtual High School Global Consortium (VHS) and the Florida Virtual School (FLVS), both created in 1997
(Friend & Johnston, 2005; Pape, Adams, & Ribeiro, 2005). Three years later Clark (2000) reported there were
three existing statewide virtual schools (i.e., Florida, New Mexico, and Utah), and three more in the planning
stages (i.e., Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan). The following year Clark (2001) indicated there were at least
fourteen states with existing or planned virtual schools. The growth in students participating in K-12 online
learning has increased in a similar fashion. Clark (2001) estimated that there were approximately 40,000 and
50,000 students – representing less than 0.001% of the K-12 student population – enrolled in one or more K-12
online learning courses during the 2000-01 school year. Ten years later Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin and
Rapp (2011) reported K-12 online learning activity in almost all 50 states, while Ambient Insights (2011)
indicated that there were now approximately four million students – representing approximately 6% of the K-
12 student population – enrolled in K-12 online learning courses during the 2010-11 school year. K-12 online
learning activity for the 2016-17 school year range from conservative estimates of two million students to
generous estimates of eight million students.
Jurisdictions outside of the United States have seen similar patterns of development and growth.
Barbour (2018) outlined how the K-12 distance learning technologies evolved from correspondence-based
education to educational radio to instructional television to audiographic systems to online learning in
countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In fact, Barbour argued that the evolution of K-12
distance education is one of the familiar narratives in the United States that is mirrored in many international
contexts. In terms of growth, in the first national examination

!
!
523!
of K-12 online learning in Canada – as an example, the Canadian Teachers Federation (2000) estimated
there were approximately 25,000 K-12 students – representing approximately 0.005% of the K-12 student
population – enrolled in one of more online course during the 1999-2000 school year. Just over fifteen
years later, Barbour and LaBonte (2017) indicated there were approximately 277,603 students –
representing approximately 5.4% of the K-12 student population – students enrolled in one or more
distance education coursesii during the 2016-17 school year. These figures were proportionally on par
with the American estimates provided above.
Classifying K-12 Online Learning
Historically in the United States there have been clear and specific descriptors for K-12 online
learning. For example, traditionally virtual schools have been programs where students took one or more
courses in a supplemental manner, while cyber schools were programs that had students engaged in full-
time online instruction (although the recent iNACOL Online Learning Definitions Project uses the terms
synonymously). Over the past two decades, there have been several classifications of K-12 online
learning programs, many of which have been based on the entity responsible for the administration of the
program (Clark, 2000, 2001; Watson, Winograd, & Kalmon, 2004). However, even within the United
States, it is becoming more difficult to place K-12 online learning programs into specific categories.
Beginning with the 2009 edition of the Keeping Pace with K-12 Digital Learning report, Watson,
Gemin, Ryan, and Wicks (2009) introduced a matrix of dimensions for describing K-12 online learning
programs (see Table 1).
At present it is these dimensions that are generally used to describe K-12 online learning
programs (in both the United States and internationally according to Barbour [2018]). It should be noted
that while these dimensions are also often used to describe different types of K-12 blended learning
programs, there is still a great deal of uncertainty and confusion about how to both define and describe K-
12 blended learning (Molnar et al., 2017).
Literature and Research Related to K-12 Online Learning
While the use of K-12 online learning at the K-12 level has been practiced for approximately two
decades, the availability of literature and, in particular the published research, to inform that practice has
not kept pace. For example, Barbour (2011a) reviewed 262 articles from the main distance education
journals for Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States from 2005 to 2009, only 24 articles
Table 1.
Watson et al.’s (2009) dimensions for describing K-12 online learning programs.
Dimension
Variables
Comprehensiveness Reach
District; multi-district; state; multi-state; national; global
Type
District; magnet; contract; charter; private; home
Location
School; home; other
Delivery
Asynrchonous; synchronous
Operational control
Local board; consortium; regional authority; university, state;
independent vendor
Type of instruction
Fully online; blending online and face-to-face; fully face-to-face
Grade level
Elementary; middle school; high school
Teacher-student interaction
High; moderate; low
Student-student interaction
High; moderate; low

!
!
524!
(or less than 10%) related to K-12 distance and online learning. However, this lack of published research
is changing. Cavanaugh, Barbour, and Clark (2009) indicated that of the 226 publications included in
their review of the literature there were only 29 items were from 1997 to 2000, but there were 69 items
published from 2006 to 2009.
Yet, it should be noted that much of the published literature and research that has been conducted
into K-12 online learning has focused on the experience in the United States. Barbour’s (2011a) review
found that a little more half of the 24 articles focused on K-12 distance and online learning in the United
States. More recently, Barbour (2018) reported the results of his analysis of the Journal of Online
Learning Research, which was established in 2015 by the Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (and managed by the leadership of the Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education’s special interest group focused on K-12 Online Learning). While the journal claims to
focus on K-12 online and blended learning worldwide (Kennedy & Archambault, 2015), Barbour’s
(2018) analysis found that only two of the 38 articles that had been published focused on research
conducted in other countries – while one other article had a generalized, global focus and a second article
was a conceptual article with no geographic focus. The remaining approximately 90% of the articles that
had been published by the Journal of Online Learning Research had focused on the United States.
At present, the former “Virtual Schools and Colleges” project (more commonly referred to as the
VISCED project, which was funded by the European Commission) represents the largest international
effort to explore K-12 online learning.iii Additionally, the International Association of K-12 Online
Learning (iNACOL) conducted international surveys of K-12 online and blended learning (see Barbour,
Brown, Hasler Waters, Hoey, Hunt, Kennedy, Ounsworth, Powell, & Trimm, 2011; Barbour, Hasler
Waters, & Hunt, 2011; Powell, & Patrick, 2006), although Barbour (2018) argued that these were based
on American-defined understandings of the field. Beyond these isolated instances, much of the published
literature and research has focused on the United States.
Literature on K-12 Online Learning
In their review of the open access literature, Cavanaugh et al. (2009) stated that the published
literature related to K-12 online learning was primarily “based upon the personal experiences of those
involved in the practice of virtual schooling” (¶ 5). They further indicated this literature was largely based
on focused upon the opinions and/or experiences of those involved with K-12 online learning, such as
online teachers or administrators of online programs. Within this largely practitioner-focused literature,
Cavanaugh et al. described it as being mainly literature about “statewide and consortium/multi-district
virtual schools, the roles of teachers and administrators, the promise of virtual schooling and its initial
rationale for implementation, administrative challenges, the technology utilized, and interact with
students” (Conclusions and Implications, ¶ 1). Although, as noted above, Cavanaugh et al. also indicated
that the proportion of published research in the four most recent years of their analysis had substantially
increased, as compared to the more general, practitioner-focused literature.
Having said that, in their book Virtual Schools: Planning for Success, Berge and Clark (2005)
described five potential benefits of and five challenges facing to K-12 online learning.
• Potential benefits: higher levels of motivation; expanding educational access; providing
high-quality learning opportunities; improving student outcomes and skills; allowing for
educational choice; and administrative efficiency
• Challenges facing: high start-up costs associated with virtual schools; access issues
surrounding the digital divide; approval or accreditation of virtual schools; and student
readiness issues and retention issues

!
!
525!
It is important to point out, as Barbour and Reeves did themselves, that the benefits listed were only
potential benefits. As Barbour (2010) further underlined:
[Barbour and Reeves] were careful to remind readers that while online learning may allow for
educational improvements such as a high levels of learner motivation, high quality learning
opportunities or improvement in student outcomes, it certainly did not guarantee any of these
potential benefits would be realized simply by the introduction of online learning. (p. 7)
As the research to date has clearly shown, none of these potential benefits have been proven by empirical
studies using reliable and valid methodology.
It is important for those in the field of K-12 online learning to distinguish between the published
literature in the field and the literature that is actually based upon research. While there is a growing body
of literature, Barbour and Reeves (2009) wrote that “there [had] been a deficit of rigorous reviews of the
literature related to virtual schools” (p. 402), and that “much of the research [was] only available in
unpublished Master’s theses and Doctoral dissertations” (p. 403). This was similar to the conclusions
draw by DiPietro, Ferdig, Black and Preston (2008), who stated “research-based investigations into the
teaching and learning process in this medium and at this level are still lacking” (p. 10). Finally, Rice
(2006) was likely the most direct in her assessment of the research into K-12 online learning when she
lamented that “a paucity of research exists when examining high school students enrolled in virtual
schools, and the research base is smaller still when the population of students is further narrowed to the
elementary grades” (p. 430). However, Cavanaugh et al. (2009) indicated:
in many ways, this [was] indicative of the foundational descriptive work that often precedes
experimentation in any scientific field. In other words, it is important to know how students in
virtual school engage in their learning in this environment prior to conducting any rigorous
examination of virtual schooling. (Literature Review, ¶ 1)
While this may be the case, given that K-12 online learning is now two decades old, has more than 4
million students enrolled in one or more courses, and has been adopted in the United States by the
educational reform movement (Bush & Wise, 2010); shouldn’t we expect there to be more evidence of
the success of K-12 online learning and, in particular, the factors that ensure student success in the online
environment.
There is general agreement about the themes that have been dominant in the limited amount of
research conducted on K-12 online learning to date. Rice (2006) described the research into K-12 online
learning as either being comparisons of student performance between those enrolled in online and face-to-
face environments or examinations of the qualities and characteristics of the online learning experience;
with the comparative research being the dominant of the two groups. Similarly, Cavanaugh et al. (2009)
also indicated that the research into K-12 online learning fell into two categories: effectiveness and issues
related to student readiness and retention. Cavanaugh and her colleagues also indicated that the majority
of the research had focused on the effectiveness category.
Research on the Effectiveness of K-12 Online Learning
Given the amount of K-12 online learning research focused on comparing the student
performance of students in various K-12 online learning environments to students in the traditional, brick-
and-mortar classroom, it is important to critical examine this body of research. For example,

!
!
526!
an examination of the findings related to comparison of student in supplemental K-12 online learning
environments and the traditional classroom has been mixed (see Table 2).
However, these general findings do not tell the complete story. For example, Mulcahy and
Barbour (2010) later speculated that weaker students may have been self-selecting a less rigorous
curriculum in order to avoid taking online courses (a finding that was also supported by Mulcahy, Dibbon
and Norberg [2008]). This kind of skewing of the potential sample from the K-12 online learning is quite
common in the studies listed above (see Table 3).
This kind of student selectivity in the K-12 online learning samples should not be surprising to
anyone familiar with its practice. With the exception of the past three to five years, the literature related to
K-12 online learning has provided a fairly consistent description of K-12 online learners (see Table 4).
Rice (2006) summarized this problem by indicating the research into the effectiveness of K-12
online learning as being “challenged with issues of small sample size, dissimilar comparison groups, and
differences in instructor experience and training” (p. 431, emphasis added). She concluded “that the
Table 2.
Summary of research related to the effectiveness of supplemental K-12 online learning
Study
Finding
Ballas & Belyk (2000)
performance of virtual and classroom students in Alberta were similar
in English and Social Studies courses, but that classroom students
performed better overall in all other subject areas
Bigbie & McCarroll (2000)
over half of the students who completed FLVS courses scored an A in
their course and only 7% received a failing grade
Barker & Wendel (2001)
students in the six virtual schools in three different provinces performed
no worse than the students from the three conventional schools
Cavanaugh et al. (2005)
FLVS students performed better on a non-mandatory assessment tool
than students from the traditional classroom
McLeod et al. (2005)
FLVS students performed better on an assessment of algebraic
understanding than their classroom counterparts
Barbour & Mulcahy (2008)
little difference in the overall performance of students based upon
delivery model
Barbour & Mulcahy (2009a)
no difference in student performance based upon method of course
delivery
Chingos & Schwerdt (2014)
FLVS students perform about the same or somewhat better on state
tests once their pre-high-school characteristics are taken into account.
Table 3.
Methodological issues with the supplemental K-12 online learning samples in comparative studies
Study
Sample
Ballas & Belyk (2000)
participation rate in the assessment among virtual students ranged from
65% to 75% compared to 90% to 96% for the classroom-based students
Bigbie & McCarroll (2000)
between 25% and 50% of students had dropped out of their FLVS
courses over the previous two-year period
Cavanaugh et al. (2005)
speculated that the virtual school students who did take the assessment
may have been more academically motivated and naturally higher
achieving students
McLeod et al. (2005)
results of the student performance were due to the high dropout rate in
virtual school courses

!
!
527!
Table 4.
Description of supplemental K-12 online learner from the research
Study
Sample
Kozma et al. (1998)
vast majority of VHS students in their courses were planning to attend a
four-year college
Espinoza et al., 1999
VHS courses are predominantly designated as ‘honors,’ and students
enrolled are mostly college bound
Haughey & Muirhead (1999)
preferred characteristics include the highly motivated, self-directed,
self-disciplined, independent learner who could read and write well,
and who also had a strong interest in or ability with technology
Roblyer & Elbaum (2000)
only students with a high need to control and structure their own
learning may choose distance formats freely
Clark et al. (2002)
IVHS students were highly motivated, high achieving, self-directed
and/or who liked to work independently
Mills (2003)
typical online student was an A or B student
Watkins (2005)
45% of the students who participated in e-learning opportunities in
Michigan were either advanced placement or academically advanced
students
effectiveness of distance education appears to have more to do with who is teaching, who is learning, and
how that learning is accomplished, and less to do with the medium” (p. 440, emphasis added). While
Cavanaugh (2013) concludes that the research into the effectiveness of K-12 online learning “suggests
that as distance education is currently practiced, student learning on average in well-designed online
elementary and secondary environments appears to be equivalent to learning in a well-designed classroom
environment” (p. 172). Essentially, it is the differences in how K-12 online learning is designed,
delivered, and supported – along with the characteristics of the individual student – that account for
whether the online students perform at comparable levels as traditional classroom students.
The issue of the student selectivity in the comparative studies focused on supplemental K-12
online learning is particularly true when many have indicated a growing segment of online learners who
fall into the category of at-risk students (Barbour, 2009; 2011a; Klein, 2006; Rapp, Eckes & Plurker,
2006; Watson, Gemin & Ryan, 2008). Many students identified as at-risk students are engaged in online
credit recovery, which has seen several recent studies examining the performance of students enrolled in
online credit recovery situations (see Table 5).
While each of these studies found that online credit recovery could be an effective way for at-risk
students to make up courses that they had initially failed (or at least as effective as other forms of credit
recovery), both Heppen et al. (2016) and Stallings et al. (2016) found that the online credit recovery was
actually hindered students long-term understanding or success. These findings continue the pattern that it
is often who is learning online or how that online learning is designed, delivered, and/or supported that
account for whether the online learning is as effective as face-to-face instruction.
While this discussion thus far has focused on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of supplemental
forms of K-12 online learning, it is interesting to note that full-time forms of K-12 online learning have
been found to be even less effective compared to face-to-face instruction. Over the past five years, the
National Education Policy Center – through their annual Virtual Schools in the US reports – have
documented how full-time K-12 online learning have underperformed brick-and-mortar or traditional
face-to-face schools on a consistent basis (Miron & Gulosino, 2016; Molnar et al., 2013, 2014, 2015,
2017). These annual findings have been consistent with the existing research into the effectiveness of full-
time K-12 online learning – regardless if that research has come from

!
!
528!
Table 5.
Research into student performance in online credit recovery
Study
Finding
Hughes, Zhou, & Petscher
(2015)
• likelihood of a student earning a grade of C or better was
higher when a course was taken online than when taken face-
to-face
Heppen et al. (2016)
• students stated online course more difficult and had more
negative attitudes about mathematics
• online students had lower algebra assessment scores, grades,
and credit recovery rates
• long-term outcomes were not significantly different
Stevens, Frazelle, Bisht, &
Hamilton (2016)
• less than 60% of online students received passing grade
• online students had lower passing rates than those who take
multiple courses in a semester
Stallings et al. (2016)
• little difference between success rates of online credit
recovery and other credit recovery options
• online students who did not subsequently drop out were more
likely than other credit recovery students to graduate on time
empirical studies, think tanks or policy centers, investigative journalists, or legislative audits. Even the
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (2016), an advocacy organization that supports school
choice initiatives, concluded that full-time online charters and the students that attend them perform
worse than traditional public schools.
Examining K-12 Online Learning Teacher Roles
Another area of K-12 online learning that scholars have agreed upon is the fact that the growth of
K-12 online learning has resulted in changes to the traditional role of the teacher. In a traditional
classroom environment, the teacher is responsible for designing the instructional activities that get
employed with the students, presenting the content or actually teaching the material, and helping to
facilitate students while they are completing any independent work. However, in an online environment it
is often the case that different individuals perform each of these tasks. The "Teacher Education Goes Into
Virtual Schooling” (TEGIVS) project introduced these diffused roles in the K-12 online learning
environment as: virtual school designer, virtual school teacher, and virtual school site facilitator (Davis,
2007). In a special issue of the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education devoted to K-12 online
learning, Ferdig, Cavanaugh, DiPietro, Black and Dawson (2009) further delineated the different roles
that teachers might undertake in the K-12 online learning environment into eight separate responsibilities.
The Davis (2007) and Ferdig et al. (2009) K-12 online learning teacher roles are described, and
compared, in Table 6.
While the Ferdig et al. (2009) classification is the more developed, within the literature the Davis
(2007) has become the more commonly used. For the purposes of this chapter, the following sub-sections
will explore the literature related to K-12 online learning through the lens of the virtual school designer,
the virtual school teacher, the virtual school designer, and the virtual school administrator.
Research into the Design of K-12 Online Learning. There are still only a handful of studies
that have examined the design and delivery of virtual schooling, most with methodological limitations.
For example, Barbour (2005, 2007) first proposed ten – and

!
!
529!
Table 6.
Teacher roles in online learning environments
Davis’
roles
Davis’ responsibilities
Ferdig et al.’s
roles
Ferdig et al.’ responsibilities
Designer
Design instructional materials.
Works in team with teachers
and a virtual school to
construct the online course, etc.
Instructional
Designer
The creator of the online course in
accordance with content standards
using effective strategies for the
learners and the content
Teacher
Presents activities, manages
pacing, rigor, etc.. Interacts
with students and their
facilitators. Undertakes
assessment, grading, etc.
Teacher
The educator with primary
responsibility for student instruction
within an online course including
interaction with students and assigning
course grades
Online
Facilitator
The person who supports students in a
virtual school program. The facilitator
may interact with students online or
may facilitate at the physical site
where students access their online
course.
Facilitator
Local mentor and advocate for
students(s). Proctors & records
grades, etc.
Local Key
Contact
The professional who assists students
in registering and otherwise accessing
virtual courses
Mentor
The academic tutor or course assistant
for students
Technology
Coordinator
The person who facilitates technical
support for educators and students
Guidance
Counselor
The academic advisor for students
Administrator
The instructional leader of the virtual
school
later seven – principles of effective online course design for adolescent learners (such as those found in
K-12 online learning environments). These principles were developed based on interviews with six course
developers and teachers in a single Canadian virtual school. The researcher did not conduct an analysis of
any of the asynchronous course content to determine if the developers and teachers actually implemented
any of the “principles” that they discussed. The researcher also did not interview students to gauge their
opinions on whether the principles were actually perceived as effective by the adolescents themselves.
Essentially, Barbour did not undertake any additional data collection and analysis that would have
allowed him to triangulate his findings. It is also important to note the virtual school where Barbour
conducted this study used a primarily synchronous form of delivery (almost unique among K-12 online
learning programs in North America), where teachers and students rarely use the asynchronous course
content (Barbour & Hill, 2011). Similar complaints could be made about the set of instructional design
competencies defined by Rozitis (2017), which were based on a Delphi model using the perceptions of
practitioners, instructional design academics, university pre-service instructors, online school
administrators, and practicing instructional designers.
In a separate line of inquiry, Barbour and Cooze (Barbour & Cooze, 2004; Cooze & Barbour,
2005; 2007) examined the potential for designers of K-12 online courses to focus on specific student
learning styles. The researchers concluded that students who were visual learners (traditional modalities);
possessed interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, and visual-spatial intelligences

!
!
530!
(Gardner’s multiple intelligences), or were assimilators (Kolb’s theory of experiential learning) were
naturally the better online learning; and that course designers should focus on including course elements
that would assist learners who did not posses these characteristics. Unfortunately, research into learning
styles has been found to be quite unreliable (Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004), and is seen by
most researchers as a form of pseudo-science (Reeves, 2008). Similarly, Keeler (2006) also focused on
the influence of learning styles on online course design for secondary students.
Further, Keeler, Richter, Anderson-Inman and Horney (2007) discussed the principle that online
learning should be accessible, and how differentiated instruction and universal design could be used to
create a course for students with learning disabilities. The following year, Grabinger, Aplin and
Ponnappa-Brenner (2008) also described how universal design in online learning environments could be
used to address the unique needs of students with cognitive impairments. In one of the few examples of
empirical research, Keeler and Horney (2008) conducted an analysis of 22 online high school courses
using the validated Instrument of Instructional Design Elements of High School Online Courses (Keeler,
2003). Their analysis found 38 design elements, from five categories (i.e., accessibility, web site design,
technologies used, instructional methodologies, and support systems) were important with online
instruction for students with disabilities (Keeler, 2004). However, their instrument was limited to
description of the online course (i.e., asynchronous curricular material), and failed to account for the
quality of that material.
To address these limitations, and the need to serve a wider range of students because of online
learning graduation requirements, iNACOL (as the professional association representing K-12 online
learning programs) conducted a review of published K-12 online course design standards that resulted in
the release of the National Standards for Quality Online Courses (iNACOL 2007a)iv. In the introduction
to these standards, it stated:
In partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), NACOL is adopting the
Standards for Quality Online Courses as a primary source, with an additional rubric for inclusion
of 21st century skills, with reference to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (p. 2)
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills is in reference to a report on Virtual Schools and 21st Century
Skills that was commissioned by iNACOL and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills in 2006 (see
iNACOL & Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2006). To date, in the only research to test the validity
and reliability of the iNACOL standards, Adelstein and Barbour (2016a, 2016b, 2017a) found that the
standards – and the associated rubric – did not meet the threshold of a reliable and valid instrument based
on a review of research and literature, an expert review panel, and an application of the revised rubric
using existing K-12 online courses. However, even though these standards have not been subjected to the
rigorous process on multiple instances that most “national standards” undergo, jurisdictions such as
California, Michigan, and Texas have adopted these standards for the design of their K-12 online learning
programs (Adelstein & Barbour, 2016c).
Research into the Delivery of K-12 Online Learning. Interestingly, within the field of K-12
online learning there has been almost universal agreement that while there are some similarities, the
practice of teaching in an online environment is different and requires a different set of skills than
teaching in a traditional face-to-face environment (Davis, Roblyer, Charania, Ferdig, Harms, Compton, &
Cho, 2007; Easton, 2003; Lowes, 2005; Morris, 2002; Roblyer & McKenzie, 2000). Unfortunately, the
available research into the delivery of K-12 online learning has yet to fully define on what constitutes
effective online teaching. In her chapter in the third edition of this Handbook, Cavanaugh (2013)
described research into student characteristics, course design factors, teacher preparation and

!
!
531!
development, course facilitation, and technological approaches; all have implications for the effective
delivery of K-12 online learning opportunities. However, there has yet to be a volume of research into
teaching in a K-12 online learning environment that has been able to define the unique set of skills for K-
12 online teaching; even though this is the area of K-12 online learning that has probably seen the most
published research.
One of the reasons for this lack of definition is that the research into the delivery of K-12 online
learning has similar methodological limitations that were found in the research on effective design of K-
12 online learning. For example, DiPietro et al. (2008) reported best practices in asynchronous teaching
based upon the perceptions of online teachers at a single statewide, supplemental virtual school. These
perception self-reports were not validated through observation of their teaching or through student
performance in their courses. Also, the teachers who were interviewed were those that had been identified
by the virtual school itself as being “good online teachers.” Later, DiPietro (2010) described five beliefs
of “successful” asynchronous pedagogic practices based on interviews with virtual school teachers, along
with samples of course content shared by the teachers, at a single statewide supplemental virtual school.
Similar to the earlier study, there was no independent verification that the beliefs of these teachers were
actually acted upon in their online teaching, and students were again excluded from the data collection
process. Another example of this methodologically limited line of inquiry comes from the work that
Murphy and her colleagues have conducted on synchronous instruction in K-12 online learning
environments (Murphy & Coffin, 2003; Murphy & Rodríguez-Manzanares, 2009a, 2009b; Murphy,
Rodriguez-Manzanares & Barbour, 2011; Nippard & Murphy, 2007), while Archambault (2014) focused
on the self-reported practices from a group of K-12 online teachers from a cyber charter school.
In addition to standards for online course design, iNACOL also conducted a review of published
K-12 online teaching standards that resulted in the release of the National Standards for Quality Online
Teaching (iNACOL, 2007b)v. Like their other set of “national standards,” there has been no research
published to support the selection of the individual standards included. There has also yet to be any
attempt to validate these standards using empirical research methods. Recently, authors have attempted to
seek evidence from within the literature to support these national standards (e.g., Ferdig et al. 2009) or
have surveyed online teachers to determine their perceptions of these national standards (e.g., Smith,
2009). However, there still has not been a systematic validation of these standards or the associated
instruments to measure these standards released by iNACOL.
One of the few efforts to validate or ground the examination of in a larger theoretical or
conceptual framework, McCombs and Vakili (2005) developed a learner-centered framework containing
online learning practices based upon the American Psychology Association’s (APA) 14 learner-centered
principles (i.e., APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs, 1997). In their review of the
research literature related to the delivery of education using online learning, McCombs and Vakili used
the APA’s original four domains to propose 37 online learning practices: metacognitive and cognitive (10
practices), affective and motivational (10 practices), developmental and social (9 practices), and
individual-differences factors (8 practices). However, like many of these proposed frameworks –
particularly within the field of K-12 online learning – there has yet to be empirical research to validate
any of these practices beyond the initial literature review.
One of the difficulties that these perception-based studies and online teaching standards or
frameworks that have yet to be validated is that they do not provide guidance for initial teacher
preparation and/or in-service teacher professional development. For example, both Archambault and
Crippen (2009, 2010) and Rice and Dawley (2007, 2009) investigated the characteristics of those who are
teaching online in different contexts; and each of these studies included aspects that focused on the
knowledge, skills, and abilities that these teachers perceived were required for the K-12 online learning
environment (Archambault, 2011; Dawley, Rice, & Hinck, 2010; Rice & Dawley, 2008). Similarly,
Kennedy, Cavanaugh, and Dawson (2013) examined the perceptions of pre-service

!
!
532!
teachers who undertook a field experience in a K-12 online learning environment. It is based on this kind
of research that the limited number of programs has even engaged in the preparation of pre-service or in-
service activities related to K-12 online learning. For example, Kennedy and Archambault (2012) found
that that only 1.7% of responding teacher education programs in the United States offered any type of
field experience in K-12 online learning environments; while a follow-up study found that number
increased to 3.5% (Archambault, Kennedy, Shelton, Dalal, McAllister, Huyett, 2016). Essentially, those
involved in the training of K-12 online learning professionals have little help on what should be included
based on the available research. Even more unfortunate is the fact that, even without research supporting
what constitutes effective K-12 online teaching, some states have begun to add online teaching
endorsement to their teacher certification or licensure system (Archambault, DeBruler, & Freidhoff, 2014;
McAllister & Graham, 2016).
Research into the Support of K-12 Online Learning. Consistent with the research into the
delivery of K-12 online learning, the research into effective strategies to support K-12 online learning has
also grown since the last edition of the Handbook of Distance Education; although it also has some of the
same methodologically limitations. One of the early lines of inquiry in this area was undertaken by
Roblyer and her colleagues, who developed an instrument designed to predict whether an online learning
student will be successful in their online course. The Educational Success Prediction Instrument (ESPRI),
initially reported by Roblyer and Marshall (2002-2003), was developed to "help predict which high
school students would be likely to succeed in online courses and provide a basis for counseling and
support for other students interested in becoming online learners to help them become more successful"
(p. 241). Roblyer and Marshall conducted a validation study of the ESPRI and found that the instrument
had a reliability level of 0.92 with a sample of 135 online learning students, which included students with
disabilities. In a follow-up to their initial study, Roblyer, Davis, Mills, Marshall and Pape (2008) again
found the ESPRI had a reliability level of 0.92, this time with a sample of 4100 online learning students,
which again included students with disabilities. Roblyer (2005) stated that the next step in this line of
inquiry was "to develop preparation materials to help students whose ESPRI results indicate potential for
problems in online learning" (¶ 8). While the development of this validated instrument represented a
positive step, and is still one of the few validated instruments within the field of K-12 online learning,
Roblyer et al. (2008) also found GPA to be as reliable a predictor of student success in the K-12 online
learning environment as the ESPRI.
While there is a limited amount of research into the various roles facilitators or mentor teachers
undertake, the research has indicated this individual has a critical role on students’ success in online
learning (Barbour & Mulcahy, 2004; Roblyer, Freeman, Stabler, & Schneidmiller, 2007). For example,
Barbour and Mulcahy (2004) found that teachers at the school level provided substantial levels of support
in a wide range of areas, including supervisory and administrative duties, technical troubleshooting, and
providing content-based assistance. However, these findings were based on only five teachers performing
this role in the first year of operation for a single, Canadian virtual school. In a follow-up to that initial
study, Barbour and Mulcahy (2009b) found that the amount of time these school-based teachers spent
supporting the students engaged in online learning had actually increased. The authors also found that as
students with a wider range of abilities are enrolling in online courses the local school-based teachers
have to spend more time monitoring students’ progress and assisting the academically weaker students.
Similarly, in their evaluation of a statewide virtual school, Roblyer et al. (2007) found that school-based
teachers “directly working with students day by day [were] key to the success of the [K-12 online
learning] program” (p. 11). However, beyond the findings in these two individual province-
wide/statewide supplemental programs, there has no been additional research into the role of local
teachers in supporting K-12 students engaged in online learning.

!
!
533!
The most systematic investigation into the support for students engaged in K-12 online learning
was lead by the National Center for Rural Education Support at the University of North Carolina – Chapel
Hill. A team of researchers explored the impact of web-based professional development for school-based
facilitator personnel and whether that training affected student performance and retention in the
supplemental K-12 online learning environment. The online professional development focused on several
issues identified as common challenges for virtual school facilitators (e.g., the first day of school, how to
talk about and support online assignments, potential student fears, helping to develop time management
skills, assisting with the problem of too much work, what to do when students become disengaged, how
to ease students who are worried about their grades, etc.) (Irving, Hannum, Farmer, de la Varre, & Keane,
2009). The multi-year study included students enrolled in a variety of K-12 online learning programs
from multiple states. The researchers found online students that had facilitators who completed the
professional development had a higher level of retention (Hannuma, Irvin, Lei, & Farmer, 2008). Finally,
the researcher also stated that effective facilitators should have “a good, working relationship, who were
consistently responsive in their interactions with the teacher, and engaged with and interested in their
students” (de la Varre, Keane, & Irvin, 2010, pp. 202-203); and facilitators should also assist the online
teacher by projecting teacher presence (de la Varre, Keane, & Irvin, 2011).
In one of the few inquiries into the full-time K-12 online learning, Borup, Graham, and Davies
(2013a, 2013b) explored interaction as a variable to describe the types of support students in online
environments. This initial exploration led to the development of the Adolescent Community of
Engagement (ACE) framework (Borup, West, Graham, & Davies, 2014), which has allowed Borup and
his colleagues to examine the role of online teachers, parents (i.e., who perform the mentor or support role
for students in the full-time online environment), and fellow students (Borup, 2016a, 2016b; Borup,
Graham, & Drysdale, 2014; Borup & Stevens, 2016). Additional research using the ACE framework has
explored support provided to both full-time and supplemental K-12 online learners (Borup & Stevens,
2017; Borup, Stevens, & Hasler Waters, 2015; Drysdale, Graham, & Borup, 2014; Drysdale, Graham, &
Borup, 2016; Freidhoff, Borup, Stimson, & DeBruler, 2015; Oviatt, Graham, Borup, & Davies, 2016).
One of the unique aspects of the work by Borup and his colleagues is the fact that it is grounded in a
particular conceptual framework, a trait not seen in most K-12 online learning research.
Research into the Administration of K-12 Online Learning. Prior to the publication of the last
edition of the Handbook of Distance Education, there was very little literature related to the
administration of K-12 online learning – at least from the perspective of school leaders in the K-12 online
learning environment. In fact, one of the sole sources that explored the perceptions of school leaders in
relation to K-12 online learning were the Sloan Consortium’s reports based on surveys of U.S. school
district administrators (Picciano & Seaman, 2007a, 2009). These surveys were designed explore the
nature of online learning in K–12 schools based on the perceptions of school leaders, as well as their
impressions of online learning planning, operational difficulties, and providers. The authors indicated that
K-12 online learning might provide opportunities for small rural schools, and “that the blended model
may prove to be attractive to K-12 schools, especially those that are struggling with issues of online
learning quality, student readiness, and teacher professional development” (Picciano & Seaman, 2007b,
31). This lack of literature may explain the reason why even though Ferdig et al. (2009) had identified the
virtual school administrator, this sub-section was not included in this chapter in the previous edition of the
handbook.
Since the last edition of the handbook, there have been studies into how virtual school teachers
perceived school personnel practices and leadership (Beck & Maranto, 2014), the challenges faced by
virtual school leaders (Richardson, LaFrance, & Beck, 2015), and the perceived differences between
being a school leader in a virtual school environment compared to a brick-and-mortar environment

!
!
534!
(Quilici & Joki, 2011; Richardson, Beck, LaFrance, & McLeod, 2016). Simply put, as McLeod and
Richardson (2014) described, “there… are a few reports and studies that address the practices and
preparation of leaders of virtual schools. These articles are insufficient, however, to paint a rich picture of
virtual school leadership” (p. 290). This reality likely explains why LaFrance and Beck (2014) found that
only 9% of school leadership programs provided exposure to K-12 online learning settings, and greater
than 75% had no plans to provide opportunities for field experiences in online settings.
However, if the concept of the ‘administration of K-12 online learning’ is expended to include
how K-12 online learning is administered at the local, district, and state level than it opens itself up to a
wider body of literature focused on issues related to the governance and policy of K-12 online learning.
For example, the annual Virtual Schools in the US reports published by the National Education Policy
Center feature a complete section that examines the legislative initiatives related to K-12 online and
blended learning (Molnar et al., 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017). The Michigan Virtual Learning Research
Institute has explored policies related to the initial approval and on-going evaluation of K-12 online
learning programs (Barbour, Clark, DeBruler, & Bruno, 2014), as well as undertaking case studies to
examine state level policy related to K-12 online learning (Archambault, Kennedy, Freidhoff, Bruno,
DeBruler, & Stimson, 2015; Barbour, Miron, & Huerta, 2017; Clark, 2016). It should be noted that most
of this literature has been descriptive in nature, and has tended to focus on full-time K-12 online learning
(and in particular online or cyber charter schools).
Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this chapter was to provide an overview of the state of research into K-12 distance
and online learning, While not comprehensive in nature, the chapter describes many of main themes – as
well as limitations – present in the research; in addition to many takeaways from the current body of
literature. The first takeaway is that there is a growing body of literature and research, but the practice of
K-12 distance and online learning is still outpacing both the availability and use of that research. The
second takeaway is that there is still a significant body of literature that is not research based, or that is
contrary to what is known based on the research, that guides practice. The third takeaway is that
comparisons of student performance in the online environment vs. a face-to-face environment (i.e., media
comparison studies) continue to a significant aspect of K-12 distance and online learning research. The
final takeaway is that much of the published research is methodologically limited or the findings are
limited to the individual program(s) where the research occurred.
At this stage of the development of the field, the continued focus of research on media
comparison studies does little to further our understanding of K-12 online learning – both due to the
skewed samples found in most of the online learning samples and because of the inherent difficulties in
comparing student performance based solely on method of delivery without controlling for any additional
factors. Beyond this body of comparative research, much of the research has been qualitative in nature
(which can be quite useful for understanding K-12 online learning in a specific setting, but by definition
are not generalizable to other jurisdictions). Further, a significant portion of the body of research suffers
from issue of over reaching (e.g., interviewing a group of hand picked teachers or developers and using
their opinions to generate “best practices”). These shortcomings in the current body of research provide
scholars in the field with a specific path forward.
Future research in the field of K-12 distance and online learning needs to find ways to overcome
these methodological limitations. For example, an astute reader of this chapter will have noticed that in
describing the current body of research that there are numerous exploratory studies, but there is an almost
complete absence of the use of validated instruments. In the previous edition of this handbook, Saba
(2013) wrote that “as needed and important as these [exploratory] studies are, their results are seldom
subjected to experimental data-based research for determining the validity of newly surfaced constructs
beyond their initial exploration” (p. 51). In addition to the use of validated

!
!
535!
instruments, the use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks – such as those described in the first part of
this handbook – can be used by researchers to help explain the relationships within an individual program
or a specific system within that program. Again, a keen reader of this chapter would have also noticed few
examples of research that was based on or that utilized theoretical or conceptual frameworks to explain
relationships or guide the exploration of different variables. All of these shortcomings provide researchers
with guidance for future research within the field of K-12 online and distance learning.
Notes
1 Terms such as full-time, supplemental, virtual school, and cyber school are described in the following section.
1 A significant portion of K-12 distance education in Canada is still delivered using correspondence, instructional televisions and
video conferencing delivery models.
1 See the VISCED Project website at http://www.virtualschoolsandcolleges.info/ and the VISCED Project wiki at http://virtual-
learning.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page
1 A second version of these standards has been released (see iNACOL, 2011a). These updated standards are supposedly based
upon research conducted in the States of Texas and California, however, the standards document does not mention any specific
details or findings from this research and there has yet to any formal presentation or publication of this “research.”
1 iNACOL has also released an updated version of these “national standards” (see iNACOL, 2011b).
Bibliography
Adelstein, D., & Barbour, M. K. (2016a). Building better courses: Examining the content validity of the iNACOL
national standards for quality online courses. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2(1), 41-73. Retrieved
from http://www.editlib.org/p/171515
Adelstein, D., & Barbour, M. K. (2016b). Redesigning design: Field testing a revised design rubric based of
iNACOL quality course standards. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 31(2).
Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2800
Adelstein, D., & Barbour, M. K. (2016c). Redesigning design: Streamlining K-12 online course creation. MACUL
Journal, 37(1), 20-21.
Adelstein, D., & Barbour, M. K. (2017). Improving the K-12 online course design review process: Experts weigh in
on iNACOL National Standards for Quality Online Courses. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 18(3). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/976
Ambient Insight. (2011). 2011 Learning technology research taxonomy: Research methodology, buyer
segmentation, product definitions, and licensing model. Monroe, WA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ambientinsight.com/Resources/Documents/AmbientInsight_Learning_Technology_Taxonomy.
pdf
American Psychology Association Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered
psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: Author.
Archambault, L. (2011). The practitioner’s perspective on teacher education: Preparing for the K-12 online
classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 73-91.
Archambault, L. (2014). Teaching virtually: Strategies and challenges in the 21st century online classroom.
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 4(1), 1-15.
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United
States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from
http://www.citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/examining-tpack-among-k-12-online-distance-
educators-in-the-united-states
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). K–12 distance educators at work: Who’s teaching online across the United
States. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 363-391.
Archambault, L., DeBruler, K. & Freidhoff, J. (2014). K-12 online and blended teacher licensure: Striking a balance
between policy and preparedness. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 83-106.
Archambault, L., Kennedy, K., Freidhoff, J., Bruno, J., DeBruler, K., & Stimson, R. (2015). Accountability in K-12
online learning course access programs: Stakeholder recommendations for policy and practice. Lansing,
MI: Michigan Virtual University. Retrieved from
http://media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/Accountability_2015.pdf
Archambault, L., Kennedy, K., Shelton, C., Dalal, M., McAllister, L. & Huyett, S. (2016). Incremental progress: Re-
examining field experiences in K-12 online learning contexts in the United States. Journal of Online
Learning Research, 2(3), 303-326. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/f/174116/

!
!
536!
Ballas, F. A., & Belyk, D. (2000). Student achievement and performance levels in online education research study.
Red Deer, AB: Schollie Research & Consulting. Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20051031044348/http://www.ataoc.ca/files/pdf/AOCresearch_full_report.pdf
Barbour, M. K. (2005). The design of web-based courses for secondary students. Journal of Distance Learning,
9(1), 27-36.
Barbour, M. K. (2007). Teacher and developer perceptions of effective web-based design for secondary school
students. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 93-114. Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/30
Barbour, M. K. (2009). Today's student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges, the promise... Journal of
Distance Learning, 13(1), 5-25.
Barbour, M. K. (2010). Researching K-12 online learning: What do we know and what should we examine?
Distance Learning, 7(2), 7-12.
Barbour, M. K. (2011a). The promise and the reality: Exploring virtual schooling in rural jurisdictions. Education in
Rural Australia, 21(1), 1-20.
Barbour, M. K. (2011b). State of the nation study: K-12 online learning in Canada. Vienna, VA: International
Council for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/iNACOL_CanadaStudy_201111.pdf
Barbour, M. K. (2018). Exploring K-12 distance, online, and blended learning worldwide. In R. Ferdig & K.
Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (2nd ed.) (pp. ##-##).
Pittsburgh, PA: Entertainment Technology Center Press, Carnegie Mellon University.
Barbour, M. K., Brown, R., Hasler Waters, L., Hoey, R., Hunt, J., Kennedy, K., Ounsworth, C., Powell, A., &
Trimm, T. (2011). Online and blended learning: A survey of policy and practice from K-12 schools around
the world. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/iNACOL_IntnlReport2011.pdf
Barbour, M. K., Clark, T., DeBruler, K., & Bruno, J. A. (2014). Evaluation and approval constructs for online and
blended courses and providers. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute. Retrieved from
http://media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/Online_Eval.pdf
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.
Barbour, M. K., Hasler Waters, L., & Hunt, J. (2011) Online and blended learning: Case studies from K-12 schools
around the world. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 On-line Learning.
Barbour, M. K., & Hill, J. R. (2011). What are they doing and how are they doing it? Rural student experiences in
virtual schooling. Journal of Distance Education, 25(1). Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/725
Barbour, M. K., Miron, G., & Huerta, L. (2017). Virtual schools in the U.S.: Case studies of policy, performance,
and research evidence. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual University. Retrieved from
http://media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/VSCase-17.pdf
Barbour, M. K., & Mulcahy, D. (2004). The role of mediating teachers in Newfoundland’s new model of distance
education. The Morning Watch, 32(1-2). Retrieved from
http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/fall4/barbourmulcahy.htm
Barbour, M. K., & Mulcahy, D. (2008). How are they doing? Examining student achievement in virtual schooling.
Education in Rural Australia, 18(2), 63-74.
Barbour, M. K., & Mulcahy, D. (2009a). Student performance in virtual schooling: Looking beyond the numbers.
ERS Spectrum, 27(1), 23-30.
Barbour, M. K., & Mulcahy, D. (2009b). Beyond volunteerism and good will: Examining the commitment of
school-based teachers to distance education. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (779-784). Norfolk, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Barbour, M. K. & Plough, C. (2009). Social networking in cyberschooling: Helping to make online learning less
isolating. Tech Trends, 53(4), 56-60.
Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers and
Education, 52(2), 402–416.
Barker, K., & Wendel, T. (2001). e-Learning: Studying Canada's virtual secondary schools. Kelowna, BC: Society
for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20040720185017/http://www.saee.ca/pdfs/006.pdf

!
!
537!
Beck, D., & Maranto, R. (2014). Empowering teachers? An exploratory study of personnel practices in virtual
charter schools in the United States. Journal of Open Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(2), 59-81.
Retrieved from http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/213
Berge, Z. L., & Clark, T. (2005). Virtual schools: Planning for success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (Eds.). (1998). Wired together: the online classroom in K-12. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Bianchi, W. (2002). The Wisconsin School of the Air: Success story with implications. Educational Technology &
Society, 5(1), 141-147. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/5_1/bianchi.html
Bigbie, C., & McCarroll, W. (2000). The Florida high school evaluation 1999-2000 report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida
State University.
Borup, J. (2016a). Teacher perceptions of parental engagement at a cyber high school. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 48(2), 67-83.
Borup, J. (2016b). Teacher perceptions of peer engagement at an online high school. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(3), 231-250. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2361
Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. S. (2013a). The nature of adolescent learner interaction in a virtual high
school setting. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 153-167.
Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. S. (2013b). The nature of parental interaction in a virtual high school setting.
American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 40-55.
Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. (2014). The nature of online teacher engagement at an online high school.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 793-806.
Borup, J. & Stevens, M. (2016). Parents’ perceptions of teacher support at a cyber charter high school. Journal of
Online Learning Research, 2(3), 227-246. Retrieved from http://www.learntechlib.org/p/173212
Borup, J. & Stevens, M. (2017). Using student voice to examine teacher practices at a cyber charter high school.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(5), 1119-1130.
Borup, J., Stevens, M., & Hasler Waters, L. (2015). Student and parent perceptions of parental engagement at an
online charter high school. Online Learning, 19(5). Retrieved from
http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/699
Borup, J., West, R. E., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. (2014). The adolescent community of engagement framework:
A lens for research on K-12 online learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22, 107-129.
Bramble, W. J. (1988, Winter). Distance learning in Alaska's rural schools. Learning Tomorrow, 4, 241-256. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 302 210)
Broady, K. O., Platt, E. T., & Bell, M. D. (1931). Practical procedures for enriching the curriculums of small
schools. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
Bush, J. & Wise, B. (2010). Digital learning now. Tallahassee, FL: Foundation for Excellence in Education.
Retrieved from http://www.excelined.org/Docs/Digital Learning Now Report FINAL.pdf
Canadian Teachers Federation. (2000). Facts sheets on contractual issues in distance/online education. Ottawa, ON:
Author.
Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning: A review of
literature. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/607
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Bosnick, J., Hess, M., & Scott, H. (2005). Succeeding at the gateway: Secondary
algebra learning in the virtual school. Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida.
Chingos, M. M., & Schwerdt, G. (2014). Virtual schooling and student learning: Evidence from the Florida Virtual
School. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG14_02FVS_Chingos_Schwerdt.pdf
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
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
Clark, T. (2003). Virtual and distance education in American schools. In M. G. Moore, & W. G. Anderson (Ed.),
Handbook of distance education (pp. 673-699). Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Clark, T. (2007). Virtual and distance education in North American schools. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of
distance education (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

!
!
538!
Clark, T. (2013). The evolution of K-12 distance education and virtual schools. In M. G. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of
distance education (3rd ed.) (pp. 555-573). New York: Routledge.
Clark, T. (2016). Quality assurance in K-12 online learning programs: Michigan case studies. Lansing, MI: Michigan
Virtual Learning Research Institute. Retrieved from http://media.mivu.org/institute/PDF/QA-report.pdf
Clark, T., Lewis, E., Oyer, E., & Schreiber, J. (2002). Illinois Virtual High School Evaluation, 2001-2002. Carbondale, IL:
TA Consulting and Southern Illinois University. Retrieved from
http://www2.imsa.edu/programs/ivhs/pdfs/IVHS_FinalRpt.pdf
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A
systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Retrieved from
https://crm.lsnlearning.org.uk/user/order.aspx?code=041543
Cooze, M., & Barbour, M. K. (2005). Learning styles: A focus upon e- learning practices and pedagogy and their
implications for success in secondary high school students in Newfoundland and Labrador. Malaysian Online
Journal of Instructional Technology, 2(1). Retrieved from http://pppjj.usm.my/mojit/articles/pdf/April05/02-
Michael%20Barbour.pdf
Cooze, M., & Barbour, M. K. (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
Darrow, R. (2010). A comparative study between online charter high schools and traditional high schools in California.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California State University, Fresno, CA.
Davis, N. E. (2007, February). Teacher's Education Goes into Virtual Schooling. Paper presented at the FIPSE
Comprehensive Conference.
Davis, N. E., & Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Preparing teachers for the "schools that technology build": Evaluation of a
program to train teachers for virtual schooling. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 399-409.
Davis, N., Roblyer, M., Charania, A., Ferdig, R., Harms, C., Compton, L., & Cho, M. (2007). Illustrating the "virtual" in
virtual schooling: Challenges and strategies for creating real tools to prepare virtual teachers. Internet and Higher
Education, 10(1), 27-39.
Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010). Going virtual! The status of professional development and unique needs of K-
12 online teachers. Boise, ID: Boise State University. Retrieved from
https://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual.htm
de la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2010). Enhancing online distance education in small rural US schools: A hybrid,
learner-centred model. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 193-205.
de la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2011). Dual perspectives on the contribution of on-site facilitators to teaching
presence in a blended learning environment. Journal of Distance Education, 25(3). Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/751/1285
DiPietro, M. (2010). Virtual school pedagogy: The instructional practices of K-12 virtual school teachers. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 327 – 354.
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
Drysdale, J., Graham, C. R., & Borup, J. (2014). An online high school “shepherding” program: Teacher roles and
experiences mentoring online students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22, 9-32.
Drysdale, J., Graham, C. R., & Borup, J. (2016). Teacher and student perspectives on facilitating a sense of community
through an online high school’s “shepherding” program. International Journal of e-Learning, 15(2), 149-177.
Easton, S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87–105.
Espinoza, C., Dove, T., Zucker, A., & Kozma, R. (1999). An evaluation of the Virtual High School after two years in
operation. Arlington, VA: SRI International. Retrieved from
http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/evalvhs2yrs.pdf
Ferdig, R., Cavanaugh, C., DiPietro, M., Black, E., & Dawson, K. (2009). Virtual schooling standards and best practices
for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 479-503.
Freidhoff, J. R., Borup, J., Stimson, R., & DeBruler, K. (2015) Documenting and sharing the work of successful on-site
mentors. Journal of Online Learning Research, 1(1), 107-128.
Friend, B., & Johnston, S. (2005). Florida Virtual School: A choice for all students. In Z. L. Berge & T. Clark (Eds.),
Virtual schools: Planning for success (pp. 97-117). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Grabinger, S. R, Aplin, C. & Ponnappa-Brenner, G. (2008). Supporting learners with cognitive impairments in online
environments. TechTrends, 52(1), 63-69.
Hannum, W. H., Irvin, M. J., Lei, P.-W., & Farmer, T. W. (2008). Effectiveness of using learner-centered principles on
student retention in distance education courses in rural schools. Distance Education, 29(3), 211-229.

!
!
539!
Haughey, M., & Muirhead, W. (1999). On-line learning: Best practices for Alberta school jurisdictions. Edmonton, AB:
Government of Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.phrd.ab.ca/technology/best_practices/on-line-learning.pdf
Heppen, J., Allensworth, E., Sorensen, N., Rickles, J., Walters, K., Taylor, S., Michelman, V., & Clements, P. (2016).
Getting back on track: Comparing the effects of online and face-to-face credit recovery in algebra I. Chicago,
IL: American Institute for Research. Retrieved from
http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Online-vs-F2F-Credit-Recovery.pdf
Hezel Associates. (1998). Educational telecommunications and distance learning: the state-by-state analysis, 1998-99.
Syracuse, NY: Hezel Associates.
Howley, C. B., & Harmon, H. L. (2000). K-12 unit schooling in rural America: A first description. Rural Educator, 22(1),
10-18.
Hughes, J., Zhou, C., & Petscher, Y. (2015). Comparing success rates for general and credit recovery courses online and
face to face: Results for Florida high school courses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southeast/pdf/REL_2015095.pdf
International Council for K-12 Online Learning. (2007a). National standards for quality online courses. Vienna, VA:
Authors. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/resources/nationalstandards/NACOL%20Standards%20Quality%20Online%20Courses%2
02007.pdf
International Council for K-12 Online Learning. (2007b). National standards for quality online teaching. Vienna, VA:
Authors. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/resources/nationalstandards/NACOL%20Standards%20Quality%20Online%20Teaching.p
df
International Council for K-12 Online Learning. (2011a). National standards for quality online courses. Vienna, VA:
Authors. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/iNACOL_CourseStandards_2011.pdf
International Council for K-12 Online Learning. (2011b). National standards for quality online teaching. Vienna, VA:
Authors. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/iNACOL_TeachingStandardsv2.pdf
International Council for K-12 Online Learning & Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Virtual schools and 21st
century skills. Vienna, VA: Authors. Retrieved from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/VSand21stCenturySkillsFINALPaper.pdf
Irvin, M. J., Hannum, W. H., Farmer, T. W., de la Varre, C., & Keane, J. (2009). Supporting online learning for Advanced
Placement students in small rural schools: Conceptual foundations and intervention components of the Facilitator
Preparation Program. The Rural Educator, 31(1), 29-36.
Jajkowski, S. (2004). MPATI: The flying classroom. Chicago, IL: Chicago Television. Retrieved from
http://www.chicagotelevision.com/MPATI.htm
Keeler, C. (2003). Developing and using an instrument to describe instructional design elements of high school online
courses. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Keeler, C. (2004). Assessment in online environment: A cross-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
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
Keeler, C. G., & Horney, M. (2007). Online course designs: Are special needs being met? American Journal of Distance
Education, 21(2), 61-75.
Keeler, C. G., Richter, J., Anderson-Inman, L., Horney, M. A., Ditson, M. (2007). Exceptional Learners: Differentiated
Instruction Online. In C. Cavanaugh & R. Blomeyer (Eds.), What works in K-12 online learning (pp. 125−178).
Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. M. (2012). Offering pre-service teachers field experiences in K-12 online learning: A
national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185–200.
Kennedy, K. & Archambault, L. (2015). Bridging the gap between research and practice in online learning. Journal of
Online Learning Research, 1(1), 5-7. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/149914/
Kennedy, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Dawson, K. (2013). Preservice teachers' experience in a virtual school. American Journal
of Distance Education, 27(1), 56-67.
Kirby, E. (1998). Administrative issues for high school distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 1(2). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer12/kirby12.html
Klein, C. (2006). Virtual charter schools and home schooling. Youngston, NY: Cambria Press.

!
!
540!
Kozma, R., Zucker, A., & Espinoza, C. (1998). An evaluation of the Virtual High School after one year in operation.
Arlington, VA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/evalvhs1yr.pdf
Kurtz, B. E. (1959). Pioneering in educational television, 1932-1939. Iowa City, IA: State University of Iowa.
LaFrance, J. A., & Beck, D. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Educational leadership field experiences in K-12 virtual schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 160-189.
Lowes, S. (2005). Online teaching and classroom change: The impact of virtual high school on its teachers and their
schools. New York: Institute for Learning Technologies, Columbia University.
McAllister, L. & Graham, C. (2016). An analysis of the curriculum requirements for K-12 online teaching endorsements
in the U.S. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2(3), 247-282.
McCombs, B., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582-
1600.
McLeod, S., Hughes, J. E., Brown, R., Choi, J., & Maeda, Y. (2005). Algebra achievement in virtual and traditional
schools. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2014, January). School administrators and K-12 online and blended learning. In R.
Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds)., Handbook of research on k-12 online and blended learning (pp. 285-301).
Pittsburgh, PA: Entertainment Technology Center Press, Carnegie Mellon University.
Mills, S. (2003). Implementing online secondary education: An evaluation of a virtual high school. In C. Crawford et al.
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2003
(pp. 444-451). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Miron, G. & Gulosino, C. (2016). Virtual schools report 2016: Directory and performance review. Boulder, CO: National
Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2016
Molnar, A. (Ed.); Huerta, L., Shafer, S. R., Barbour, M. K., Miron, G., Gulosino, C. (2015). Virtual schools in the U.S.
2015: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2015
Molnar, A., Miron, G., Gulosino, C., Shank, C., Davidson, C., Barbour, M. K., Huerta, L., Shafter, S. R., Rice, J. K., &
Nitkin, D. (2017). Virtual schools in the U.S. 2017. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved
from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2017
Molnar, A. (Ed.); Miron, G., Huerta, L., Cuban, L., Horvitz, B., Gulosino, C., Rice, J. K., & Shafer, S. R. (2013). Virtual
Schools in the U.S. 2013: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education
Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2013
Molnar, A. (Ed.); Rice, J. K., Huerta, L., Shafer, S. R., Barbour, M. K., Miron, G., Gulosino, C., Horvitz, B. (2014).
Virtual schools in the U.S. 2014: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. Boulder, CO: National
Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2014
Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (2003). Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Morris, S. (2002). Teaching and learning online: A step-by-step guide for designing an online K-12 school program.
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press Inc.
Mulcahy, D., & Barbour, M. K. (2010, May). Duck and cover: Are rural students taking basic courses to avoid taking
them online? A roundtable presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Denver, CO.
Mulcahy, D. M., Dibbon, D., & Norberg, C. (2008). An investigation into the nature of education in a rural and remote
region of Newfoundland and Labrador: The Straits. St. John’s, NL: The Harris Centre, Memorial University of
Newfoundland.
Murphy, E., & Coffin, G. (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.
Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2009a). Learner-centredness in high-school distance learning: Teachers'
perspectives and research-validated principles. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 597-610.
Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet25/murphy.html
Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2009b). Teachers' perspectives on motivation in high-school distance
education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 1-24. Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/602
Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M., & Barbour, M. K. (2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching:
Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology,
42(4), 583–591.

!
!
541!
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 50-State Campaign for Achievement Now, & National Association of
Charter School Authorizers. (2016). A call to action to improve the quality of full-time virtual charter public
schools. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Virtuals-FINAL-06202016-1.pdf
Nippard, N., & Murphy, E. (2007). Social presence in the web-based synchronous secondary classroom. Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(1). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol33.1/nippard.html
Oviatt, D., Graham, C. R., Borup, J. & Davies, R. S. (2016). Online student perceptions of the need for a proximate
community of engagement at an independent study program. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2(4), 333-
365. Retrieved from: http://www.learntechlib.org/p/173649
Pape, L., Adams, R., & Ribeiro, C. (2005). The Virtual High School: Collaboration and online professional development.
In Z. L. Berge & T. Clark (Eds.), Virtual schools: Planning for success (pp. 118-132). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Pease, P. S., & Tinsley, P. J. (1986, October 7-10). Reaching rural schools using an interactive satellite based educational
network. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Rural and Small Schools Consortium,
Bellingham, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 281 681)
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007a). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Needham,
MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/survey/K-
12_06
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007b). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Online
Learning, 11(3). Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/jaln_full_issue/volume-11-issue-3-
september-2007/
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K–12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of U.S. school district
administrators. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from
https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/survey_report/k-12-online-learning-2008-follow-survey-u-s-school-district-
administrators/
Quilici, S. B., & Joki, R. (2011). Investigating roles of online school principals. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 44(2), 141-160.
Rapp, K. E., Eckes, S. E., & Plurker, J. A. (2006). Cyber charter schools in Indiana: Policy implications of the current
statutory language. Education Policy Brief, 4(3). (online) Retrieved from
http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V4N3_Winter_2006_CyberCharter.pdf
Reeves, T. C. (2008, December). Do generational differences matter in instructional design? A paper presented to the
Instructional Technology Forum. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.581.7524&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 38(4), 425-448.
Rice, K., & Dawley, L. (2007). Going virtual! The status of professional development for K-12 online teachers. Boise, ID:
Boise State University. Retrieved from https://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual.htm
Rice, K., & Dawley, L. (2007). Going virtual! Unique needs and challenges of K-12 online teachers. Boise, ID: Boise
State University. Retrieved from https://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual.htm
Rice, K. & Dawley, L. (2009). The status of professional development for K-12 online teachers: insights and implications.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 523-545.
Richardson, J. W., Beck, D., LaFrance, J., & McLeod, S. (2016). Job attainment and perceived role differences of
cyberschool leaders. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 211-222.
Richardson, J. W., LaFrance, J., & Beck, D. (2015). Challenges of virtual school leadership. American Journal of Distance
Education, 29(1), 18-29.
Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Who plays well in the virtual sandbox? Characteristics of successful online students and teachers.
SIGTel Bulletin, (2). Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20060930130650/http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Membership/SIGs/SI
GTel_Telelearning_/SIGTel_Bulletin2/Archive/2005_20067/2005_July_-_Roblyer.htm
Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008) Toward practical procedures for predicting and
promoting success in virtual school students. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 90–109.
Roblyer, M. D., & Elbaum, B. (2000). Virtual learning? Research on virtual high schools Learning & Leading with
Technology, 27(4), 58-61.
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

!
!
542!
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.
Roblyer, M. D., & Marshall, J. C. (2002-2003). Predicting success of virtual high school students: Preliminary
results from an educational success prediction instrument. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 35(2), 241-255.
Rozitis, C. P. (2017). Instructional design competencies for online high school teachers modifying their own
courses. TechTrends, 61(5), 428-437.
Saettler, L. P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Smith, R. D. (2009). Virtual voices: Online teachers’ perceptions of online teaching standards. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 547-571.
Stallings, D. T., Weiss, S. P., Maser, R. H., Stanhope, D., Starcke, M., and Li, D. (2016). Academic outcomes for
North Carolina Virtual Public School credit recovery students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southeast/pdf/REL_2017177.pdf
Stevens, D., & Frazelle, S. (2016). Online credit recovery: Enrollment and passing patterns in Montana Digital
Academy courses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northwest/pdf/REL_2016139.pdf
Vail, K. (2001). Online learning grows up: No longer an experiment, virtual school is here to stay. Electronic
School. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20080608145221/http://www.electronic-
school.com/2001/09/0901f1.html
Watkins, T. (2005). Exploring e-learning reforms for Michigan: The new educational (r)evolution. Detroit, MI:
Wayne State University. Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20051208000848/http://www.coe.wayne.edu/e-learningReport.pdf
Watson, J. F., Gemin, B., & Ryan, J. (2008). Keeping pace with k–12 online learning: A review of state-level policy
and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Consulting Associates. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/
Watson, J. F., Gemin, B., Ryan, J., & Wicks, M. (2009). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A review of state-
level policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from
http://www.kpk12.com/
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An
annual review of state-level policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved
from http://kpk12.com/
Watson, J. F., Winograd, K., & Kalmon, S. (2004). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A snapshot of state-
level policy and practice. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from
http://www.kpk12.com/
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i Terms such as full-time, supplemental, virtual school, and cyber school are described in the following section.
ii A significant portion of K-12 distance education in Canada is still delivered using correspondence, instructional televisions and video conferencing delivery models.
iii See the VISCED Project website at http://www.virtualschoolsandcolleges.info/ and the VISCED Project wiki at http://virtual-learning.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page
iv A second version of these standards has been released (see iNACOL, 2011a). These updated standards are supposedly based upon research conducted in the States of Texas and California, however, the standards document does not mention any specific details or findings from this research and there has yet to any formal presentation or publication of this “research.”
v iNACOL has also released an updated version of these “national standards” (see iNACOL, 2011b).