Content uploaded by Michael K. Barbour
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael K. Barbour on Jul 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
!
!
Teacher Education and
K-12 Online Learning
July 2020
A special report of the State of the Nation: K-12 E-Learning in Canada project.
Douglas Archibald Michael K. Barbour
Brigham Young University Touro University California
Heather Leary E. Vaughn Wilson
Brigham Young University Mission Hills High School
Nathaniel Ostashewski
Athabasca University
The image on the front cover was selected through a Creative Commons search of Google Images for funding
“teacher education” and “online learning.” This particular image was from the Pikist and is available at:
https://p0.pikist.com/photos/876/354/online-learning-e-learning-education-knowledge-teacher-virtual-screen-
computer.jpg
Thanks to Randy LaBonte, Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian eLearning Network, for feedback on various
drafts of this report.
i
Forward
The genesis for this report began in late 2016. In fact, the data for this report was
originally collected from February 2017 to April 2017. The data was analyzed from September
2017 to December 2017, and much of the report was originally written from January 2018 to
June 2018. However, as many research projects go, the drive to see this report to completion
waned. The K-12 school year ended, the post-secondary academic year had concluded, summer
was upon us once again. Essentially, the project got pushed to the side.
The Fall came and the demands of beginning a new K-12 school year and a new
academic post-secondary year were upon everyone. The new school year introduced all
stakeholders in the field to the Government of Ontario’s e-learning announcements of 15 March
2019, and later 21 November 2019, which would propose a new regulatory regime in that
province. For us in the field, most of 2019 – and even the beginning of 2020 – were focused on
understanding the various aspects of these proposals, examining the research to support those
proposals, and combating massive misinformation and misunderstanding within the media and
general public – and the draft of this report continued to languish.
The year 2020 also brought with it a new challenge to those in the field of distance,
online, and blended learning. As early as January 2020 (maybe even the end of the previous year
for those paying closer attention), rumblings of the beginning of a new health threat began to
emerge. By February it was assumed that this would, or at least had the potential to become a
global pandemic. It was at this time that we revived our work on this report. While the data was
already dated by three years, as educators would be forced with having to manage emergency
home-based or remote teaching, we felt it important to provide an assessment of how well those
individuals were formally prepared by their teacher training programs to meet this challenge.
ii
Executive Summary
K-12 online learning continues to grow in popularity and acceptance in North America.
Canada, in particular, continues to expand with over 300,000 students being enrolled in distance
and online programs in 2019. Despite this rapid growth, there does not appear to be much
recognition of this form of learning by institutions in Canada that provide teacher training
programs. Understandably, programming changes take time to adjust to workplace needs. This
report highlights the status of teacher education programs with regard to provision of distance
and online field experiences by Canadian teacher education programs.
In-service teacher professional development is one area where distance and online
training for educators is being actioned by Canadian institutions. From Newfoundland and
Labrador to British Columbia there are examples of program offerings that support distance and
online learning professional development for in-service educators. Graduate certificate, diploma,
and degree programs across several universities in Canada are available, with Athabasca
University even offering a series of open access MOOCs targeted at supporting distance and
online education professional development.
The information presented in this report originated from a mixed method study originally
conducted in the US, which was replicated within Canada. Based upon the Canadian replication,
a minority of the respondents’ programs currently had online or blended field experiences for
their pre-service or in-service teachers. Furthermore, at the time there was little likelihood of
more programming addressing the distance and online field experience needs of educators due to
institutional lack of resources, a limited knowledge base, perceived lack of usefulness for their
teachers’ future careers, and regulatory discouraging of online field experiences. This report
highlights the dramatic need for programming in this area of distance and online education.
!
1
Introduction
Online and blended learning have become an integral part of the educational options at
many institutions of higher education and in many K-12 schools. Large-scale surveys in the
United States have shown the consistent growth of online education (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
The Babson survey reports that for the fourteenth year in a row, online distance enrolments have
increased in the US, increasing 5.6% from 2015 to 2016 (Seaman et al., 2018). Recently, the
number of K-12 students engaged in online and blended learning in Canada has also increased
significantly. In the past decade, Canadian students enrolled in distance and online programs has
grown from under 140,000 students in the 2008-2009 school year to almost 300,000 students in
the 2018-2019 school year (Barbour & LaBonte, 2019). The gains in enrolment have been even
more dramatic for blended courses. As the popularity of online and blended learning expands
and continues to spread across the nation, educators and administrators will face new and
unexpected challenges as they endeavour to maintain the frameworks necessary to support
effective online and blended learning environments.
Unfortunately, while online learning continues to grow at the K-12 level and within the
higher education context, the vast majority of teacher education programs have not kept pace
with the preparation of teachers to teach in these environments. In fact, there are almost no
examples of K-12 online and blended learning within pre-service teacher education in the
literature. Some universities include content related to distance and online learning within their
standard technology integration course, while some have created a stand alone course – often as
an elective – focused on this content. One example that stood out was Queen’s University, who
in the mid-2000s revised a course about using computers or information communications
technology to focus on online pedagogical practices (Barbour et al., 2012). In a more developed
2
fashion, Centre for Telelearning and Rural Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland
began a undergraduate diploma in 1999 focused on telelearning and rural school teaching,
although that program ended in 2004 (Barbour, 2012). While there are few examples of K-12
online and blended learning at the pre-service level, there are a growing number of examples at
the in-service level.
In a manner that is consistent with the experience in the United States (Kennedy &
Archambault, 2013), one of the most common ways that in-service teacher education has
addressed K-12 online and blended learning is through graduate certificate programs. For
example, Thompson Rivers University developed a Graduate Certificate in Online Teaching and
Learning (Harrison, 2012); as did Royal Roads University, while Athabasca University offered a
full complement of certificates, Masters and Doctorate degrees in Distance Education (Barbour,
2012). These graduate level programs were also consistent with the Additional Qualification for
Teaching and Learning through e-Learning that was offered in Ontario (Smith, 2012). Beyond
formal teacher education programs, several universities have engaged in a variety of professional
development efforts for teachers focused on K-12 online and blended learning. One of the most
extensive examples of this was the manner in which Athabasca University leveraged the content
from the Master’s of Education in Distance Education a created a series of three- or four-course
graduate certificates and diplomas (Bloomgren, 2017), as well as deconstructing the Graduate
Diploma in Distance Education Technology to create a nine-module professional learning
opportunity for teachers through the Blended and Online Learning and Teaching (BOLT)
program1 that was offered in-service teachers as professional development. Additionally,
Athabasca University developed three massive open online courses (MOOCs) that provide
1 See http://cde.athabascau.ca/programs/pd/bolt/index.php for a description of this program.
3
opportunities for educators to improve their online teaching pedagogies. Courses on topics such
as Technology-Enabled Learning, Learning to Learn Online, and Blended Learning Practice2
allowed pre-service and in-service teachers to expand their knowledge of the field (Cleveland-
Innes et al., 2018; Cleveland-Innes et al., 2019; Mishra et al., 2017; Ostashewski et al., 2019).
These MOOCs have provided quality and fully open leaning opportunities, with the option to
receive certification at no cost for thousands of educators over the past several years, and have
become Athabasca University’s primary response for supporting educators struggling with the
move to online and home-based learning around the globe. The utilization of MOOCs allowed
educators to access relevant content and the opportunity to collaborate with a large number of
their peers that exceeds the scope of typical university courses. While some of these efforts have
included credit that could be applied to the graduate level programming described earlier, it
could also be completed simply for the teacher’s own professional benefit.
Open educational resources for the purposes of professional learning are also currently
under utilized across the country. While these resources allow for more overall personalized
learning and their expansion is justified given the various learning needs of the provinces
(Blomgren, 2018), quality control is a concern as there is little research available to guide the
development of these resources. For example, Elizabeth Murphy3 developed a number of
instructional videos focused on improving various aspects of online teaching based on the
research that had been conducted by the Killick Centre for E-Learning Research (Faculty of
Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2011). However, continued research into
K-12 distance and online learning is crucial to improving. In fact, there has actually been very
2 See the complete list at http://cde.athabascau.ca/courses/mooc.php
3 Dr. Murphy’s YouTube channel is available at http://www.youtube.com/user/elizmurphy
4
little research into preparing pre-service or in-service teachers for K-12 online and blended
learning. The Killick Centre at Memorial University in Newfoundland, which has conducted
studies in both educator and leadership effectiveness in online education with results presented at
numerous conferences, serves as an excellent example of how external funding could be
leveraged to produce meaningful impact on teacher preparation for K-12 online learning.
Outlying examples aside, the bottom line is that K-12 online and blended learning has been
largely absent in both the literature related to teacher education in Canada and in the actual
delivery of teacher education in Canada.
Methods
The study was conducted as a mixed methodology inquiry (Creswell, 2014). We relied on
both quantitative and qualitative data from a survey to describe the current state of teacher
education related to K-12 online and blended learning in Canada. Potential participants were
identified by a search of the Faculty of Education websites at each Canadian university and
college. On those websites, we searched for the Dean or Director of the Faculty of Education. A
total of 72 potential participants were found at 67 institutions (see Appendix A for list of
institutions).
We adapted the instrument that was used in a similar study in the United States (see
Archambault et al. 2016; Kennedy & Archambault, 2012), making revisions where necessary to
adjust for the unique aspects of higher education in Canada and any other cultural differences
(see Appendix B for a copy of the instrument). The survey was then loaded into a web-based
SurveyMonkey questionnaire format that consisted of 31 questions (i.e. 27 quantitative questions
and four of which were qualitative). Each of the respondents were sent an email describing the
study and requesting they complete the survey. The first email was sent in mid-February, and a
5
total of six reminders were sent over the next seven weeks. Data collection ceased at the end of
April. Of the 72 individuals that were contacted, there were 32 responses that were received from
30 different institutions. This represented a 42% response rate, which was considered acceptable
for web-based instruments (Manfreda et al., 2008; Shih & Fan, 2008).
Results
As this study represented a “current state” of teacher education and K-12 virtual field
experiences across Canada, and we anticipated the dissemination of this study to be of significant
value to participants and their institutions, we made efforts to compile as complete a picture as
possible from the sample of participants. Below we describe the representative findings from the
data.
Respondent Description
Of the 30 responses to the survey, 25 reported their locations throughout Canada (see
Figure 1).
6
Figure 1. The number of respondents per jurisdiction
The provinces and territories with the highest number of responses were Ontario (n=10), and
British Columbia (n=5). All but four provinces and territories were represented (i.e., Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories).
Similar to how Kennedy and Archambault’s (2012) survey in the US presented university
size by student enrolment, Figure 2 reports the percentages of respondent universities by student
enrolment size (i.e., small, medium, large). The universities most represented in this survey were
the small institutions (i.e., 46%). Thirty-three percent of respondents represented medium-sized
institutions with between 5,000 and 20,000 students. Twenty-one percent represented large
institutions with more than 20,000 students.
7
Figure 2. Percentage of respondent universities within small, medium, and large student
enrollments.
Figure 3. The respondents’ current position(s) in their institutions’ education faculty.
To describe some background information about the respondents, the survey asked “what is/are
your position(s) in this program?” Placement coordinators were most represented in the survey
(i.e., 43.75%), followed by assistant, associate, and full professors (i.e., 37.5%), then graduate
and undergraduate coordinators (i.e., 15.6%), and finally deans at 3.1% (see Figure 3).
8
State of Programs with Field Experiences
To understand the state of programs that had field experience, respondents were asked,
“does your school offer field experiences in K-12 online program settings (e.g., guided
observations, internships, apprenticeships, etc.) for pre-service or in-service teachers?” Eight
respondents replied that they did provide field experiences (i.e., 32%), and 17 responded that
they did not (i.e., 68%).
The eight respondents who said that they did provide K-12 field experiences in their
programs elaborated further on the nature of those experiences. Two specifically reported that
they partner with elementary schools. Of those two, one has a partnership with an organization
outside of their province and one has a partnership with an organization within their province.
One of the schools, from Quebec, also specifically mentioned that in their elementary school
partnership they are able to place around 200 inservice teachers in blended field experiences
annually.
When asked if the online or blended field experience was a requirement for their
institution’s teaching degree, two respondents answered: one saying “yes” and the other “no.”
When asked if the field experience was a requirement for teacher licensure in their province one
replied “yes” and the other “no.” Only one respondent answered the questions related to the time
requirements of the field experience, saying that the teachers are required to spend four to eight
hours a week, for four to eight weeks, in the online or blended environment. This respondent also
discussed the responsibilities of these teachers during this time, indicating that they are engaged
in creating new online course content, evaluating students’ work, filling out paperwork, and
attending professional development sessions.
9
One respondent, from New Brunswick, chose to go into further detail about the field
experiences their institution provides. In this program, they place about 12 pre-service teachers
each year in elementary blended field experiences. These teachers come from a B.Ed. program
specifically designed for First People who work in elementary First Nation classrooms. Many of
the teachers are already working full-time and are taking the degree part-time. In preparation for
the field experience practicum, they take several courses about using technology in education.
When it’s time for the field experience, the pre-service teachers are placed in an online
partnership with a participating blended teacher. They typically assist that teacher by teaching
portions of the class online, but occasionally attend classes in-person as well when time permits.
This program had existed for over five years.
Reasons Programs Do Not Want to Have Online Field Experiences
Of the eighteen respondents who indicated whether or not their program should offer K-
12 field experiences for pre-service teachers, the majority reported they should not (55.6%),
while forty-four percent responded that they should. When asked “why not?” their responses
were in four basic categories: 1) lack of resources (n=6), 2) not knowing enough about it (n=4),
3) limited usefulness for their teachers’ future careers (n=3), and 4) rules discouraging online
field experiences (n=2).
The responses for “why” respondents should offer field experiences in the future were in
two basic categories: 1) allowing greater access to pre-service teachers who are studying at a
distance (n=4), and 2) allowing more flexibility for pre-service teachers to customize their
program with what they are interested in (n=3). One of the respondents replied that they would
like to offer online field experiences in the future, but did not provide any reasons why and so
10
their response could not be categorized. Some of the respondents’ replies were in multiple
categories.
Lack of resources. The main reason respondents reported they were unwilling to
implement online field experiences was a lack of resources (n=6). The resources they referred to
were items such as funding, management, or evaluation. Often, the respondents seemed to imply
that they faced a zero sum scenario where every resource devoted to online field experiences
would be diverted from existing face-to-face teaching experiences. They explained that in this
scenario, face-to-face must come first.
Lack of knowledge/need more information. The next reason provided for not having
online field experiences (n=4) was that the respondents did not currently know enough about
these experiences to include them. The responses in this category demonstrated a wide range of
understanding with regards to online field experiences. For example, one respondent clearly had
already studied the option, but was unsure of how it would work in Saskatchewan. That
respondent remarked:
We do provide extensive instruction to students in using digital media and teaching in on-
line learning contexts, but as of yet, have not attached a formal internship experience to
this, partly because we have not yet fully explored what these possibilities might look like
in Saskatchewan.
The other two respondents were confused about the term “online field experiences” itself and
stated they were unable to answer the question.
Not useful for future careers. Three respondents replied that online field experiences
had limited usefulness to pre-service teachers’ future careers. One respondent from Ontario
remarked, “at this point in time, there are insufficient career paths to make this a viable
11
alternative to face-to-face field experiences.” A respondent from New Brunswick added, “online
is just another way of providing instruction. If you can take on full teaching responsibility in a
classroom, you probably can handle an online course if you know how to use the technology.” A
third from Alberta mentioned, “most teaching is face to face and highly relational.”
Regulations. A final explanation for not being able to implement online field experiences
had to do with the regulations or standards of their province’s Ministry of Education or teacher
union. A respondent from Alberta stated that the “[Alberta Teachers Association] disapproves.”
Another respondent, from British Columbia, said, “the [British Columbia] Teacher Regulation
Branch does not allow it.” A different respondent from British Columbia, who did not answer
this question, referenced this issue in a response to a later question about implementing field
experiences, he/she said, “currently our certification regulations do not allow us to do this.”
Despite having no plans to implement field experiences in the near future for the reasons
listed above, some of these respondents mentioned extenuating circumstances where they
did/would allow it. A respondent from Alberta explained that they allowed a student to have her
field experience online because she had a serious visual impairment. A respondent from British
Columbia discussed how they sometimes allow online field experiences to cater to pre-service
teachers in remote locations. These respondents’ reasons for allowing online field experiences
despite their commitment to face-to-face teaching, touch on the reasons other respondents’
programs have embraced the idea of having online field experiences in the future: access and
flexibility.
Reasons Programs Want to Have Online Field Experiences
Increased access was the most popular reason for being in favour of having online field
experiences with four respondents mentioning it. One respondent from Ontario described how
12
this would increase access for the pre-service teachers – they would be able to work with
teachers, students, and environments they would not have access to normally. The other three –
from British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan – focused on how this would provide more
convenient access to field experiences for the pre-service teachers living in remote parts of their
respective provinces. The respondent from Manitoba said:
It sounds like a potentially interesting concept particularly for our ‘distant Education’
students… to offer up field experience and programming to our Northern Educators who
struggle with commuting to the Institution for spring & summer sessions in order to gain
their degree and certification – currently regular session (fall & winter) is really not an
option for them because of distance.
Increased access for online field experiences is an important part of pre-service teachers’
training, especially for those in more remote areas, bridging the geographic barriers for many
students.
Increased flexibility was the other reason respondents were in favour of implementing
field experiences (n=3). A respondent from Saskatchewan discussed how it should be an option
for pre-service teachers interested/specializing in teaching in online settings. The other two
respondents in this category did not elaborate on what they meant by flexibility, and so it is
unclear if they too were referring to the flexibility of pre-service teachers to specialize in it, or if
they were using the term “flexibility” in the same way the other respondents were using
“access,” or if they were referring to some other flexibility altogether such as the flexibility for
pre-service teachers to make the field experience fit their schedule more easily.
13
Future Plans for Online Field Experiences
In the survey, respondents were asked if their teacher education program currently is in
the process of designing online field experiences for pre-service and in-service teachers. Twenty-
one respondents answered, 17 (i.e., 81%) said they currently did not, and four (i.e., 19%) said
that they did.
These four respondents described what these programs would look like. The respondent
in New Brunswick whose program already has online field experiences for First Nation students
replied, it would be “more of the same thing our [First Nation] students are doing.” A different
respondent said, “we would look at best practice and determine what could work with our
program – it is unique in that our students go in blocks to do their placements all over the
province.” Another, from Saskatchewan replied, “not sure yet. It will use cooperating teachers
across the province but with technology to deliver and collect content.” Another respondent put
simply “course and supervision.”
Summary
Like the version of this study done in the US, this study also provides interesting
implications for K-12 teacher preparation in Canada (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012). Based
upon this Canadian replication, we found that a minority (i.e., 32%) of the respondents’
programs currently have online or blended field experiences for their pre-service and in-service
teachers. This finding was despite the fact that the number of students in online environments has
doubled in the last decade, and the number of students in blended environments has almost
doubled in the last three years (Barbour & LaBonte, 2019). Surprisingly, none of those field
experiences are newer than five years old (i.e., they were all established prior to 2012). It
appeared that rather than the field experiences in these programs being motivated specifically to
14
prepare teachers for the current challenge of online and blended learning environments, they
were formed by necessity due to the high quantity, the remoteness, or the tight schedules of the
teachers enrolled.
Of those programs that did not currently have any online field experiences, 55.6% also
believe that they should not provide them in the near future. Similar to what Kennedy and
Archambault (2012) found, a key reason was these respondents valued face-to-face teaching
experiences more and did not want to divert resources from those experiences. Additionally,
many respondents were under the impression that face-to-face skills easily transferred to the
online environment. However, as Brennan (2003) discussed, this perception may not be
completely accurate. Brennan found that successful online teaching required distinct skills – such
as understanding the mechanics and affordances of the medium, keeping up with constant
changes and updates, navigating new types of relationship with students, managing a new type of
workload, and adjusting to a radically different learner-centered approach. Other reasons for not
providing online field experiences were that these programs felt that they were not helping pre-
service teachers get a job, or they simply did not know enough about them.
It is understandable that every new innovation takes time to adopt (Hall & Hord, 1987).
The adoption often starts with administrators’ attitudes (Huberman & Miles, 2013),
administrators similar to many of those who were responsible for completing the survey in this
study. To prepare future and current teachers as best as possible, it will be necessary to help
current university administrators understand the benefits and challenges that online or virtual
field experiences can provide in preparing teachers to work in the classrooms of the future
(Kennedy & Archambault, 2012).
15
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. Sloan Consortium. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541571.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.
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/174116/
Barbour, M. K. (2012). Training teachers for a virtual school system: A call to action. In D.
Polly, C. Mims, & K. Persichitte (Eds.), Creating technology-rich teacher education
programs: Key issues (pp. 499-517). IGI Global.
Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2019). State of the nation study: K-12 e-learning in Canada.
Canadian E-Learning Network. https://k12sotn.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/StateNation19.pdf
Barbour, M. K., Siko, J., Gross, E., & Waddell, K. (2012). Virtually unprepared: Examining the
preparation of K-12 online teachers. In R. Hartshorne, T. Heafner, & T Petty (Eds.),
Teacher education programs and online learning tools: Innovations in teacher
preparation (pp. 60-81). IGI Global.
Blomgren, C. (2017). Current trends and perspectives in the K-12 Canadian blended and online
classroom. In N. Ostashewski, J. Howell, & M. Cleveland-Innes (Eds.), Optimizing K-12
education through online and blended learning (pp. 74-92). IGI Global.
Blomgren, C. (2018). OER awareness and use: The affinity between higher education and K-12.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(2).
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3431/4584
16
Brennan, R. (2003). One size doesn’t fit all: Pedagogy in the online environment. National
Centre for Vocation Education Research, Australian National Training Authority.
Cleveland-Innes, M., Ostashewski, N., Wilton, D., & Murphy, J. (2017). Report of the massive
open online course on introduction to technology-enabled learning (TEL MOOC).
Commonwealth of Learning. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/2760
Cleveland-Innes, M., Ostashewski, N., Wilton, D., & Murphy, J. (2018). Report of the massive
open online course on introduction to technology-enabled learning (TEL MOOC 2).
Commonwealth of Learning. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/2970
Cleveland-Innes, M., Ostashewski, N., Wilton, D., & Jensen-Tebb, C. (2019). Report of the
massive open online course on introduction to technology-enabled learning (TEL MOOC
3). Commonwealth of Learning. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3134
Cleveland-Innes, M., Ostashewski, N., Wilton, D., & Jensen-Tebb, C. (2020). Report of the
massive open online course on introduction to technology-enabled learning (TEL MOOC
4). Commonwealth of Learning. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3493
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Faculty of Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland. (2011). Killick Centre for E-
Learning Research. In M. K. Barbour (Ed.), State of the nation study: K-12 online
learning in Canada (pp. 14-21). Canadian E-Learning Network. https://k12sotn.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/StateOfTheNation2011.pdf
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. State University
of New York Press.
17
Harrison, M. (2012). The development of graduate certificate in online teaching and learning. In
M. K. Barbour (Ed.), State of the nation study: K-12 online learning in Canada (pp. 35-
36). Canadian E-Learning Network. https://k12sotn.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/StateOfTheNation2012.pdf
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2013). Innovation up close: How school improvement works.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice 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. (2013). Partnering for success: A 21st century model for
teacher preparation. International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus
other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rate. International Journal of
Market Research, 50(1), 79-104.
Mishra, S., Cleveland-Innes, M., Ostashewski, N., Wilton, D., Murphy, J., Jensen-Tebb, C., &
Yuen, L. (2017). Introduction to technology enabled learning: Course materials.
Commonwealth of Learning.
http://dspace.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/2765/2017_Mishra-Cleveland-Innes-
Ostashewski_MOOC-on-Intro-TEL-Course-Materials_.pdf
Ostashewski, D., Wilton, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Mishra, S. (2019). Supporting open
education resource qualification and creation: The TEL MOOC case. Commonwealth of
Learning. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3344
18
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580852.pdf
Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-
analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249-271.
Smith, D. (2012). Teaching and learning through e-learning: A new additional qualification
course for the teaching profession. In M. K. Barbour (Ed.), State of the nation study: K-
12 online learning in Canada (pp. 21-26). Canadian E-Learning Network.
https://k12sotn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/StateOfTheNation2012.pdf
19
Appendix A
List of institutions the survey was sent to:
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Mount St. Vincent University
St. Mary's University
Université Sainte-Anne
University of Prince Edward Island
Université de Moncton
McGill University
Bishop's University
Université du Québec à Chicoutimi
Université de Sherbrooke
Queen's University
University of Windsor
Lakehead University
Niagara University
Trent University
Wilfrid Laurier University
Regis College
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario
University of Winnipeg
Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface
University of Regina
University of Alberta
University of Lethbridge
Concordia University College of Alberta
Mount Royal University
University of Victoria
Vancouver Island University
Royal Roads University
Trinity Western University
Selkirk College
Capilano University
Yukon College
Nunavut Arctic College
St. Francis Xavier University
Cape Breton University
Acadia University
NSCAD University
University of New Brunwsick
St. Thomas University
Concordia University
Université Laval
Université du Québec à Montréal
Brock University
University of Ottawa
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
(University of Toronto)
Laurentian University
Nipissing University
University of Western Ontario
York University
Redeemer University College
Six Nations Polytechnic
University of Manitoba
Brandon University
First Nations University of Canada
University of Saskatchewan
University of Calgary
Grant MacEwan University
University of British Columbia
Simon Fraser University
Thompson Rivers University
University of British Columbia-Okanagan
University of Northern British Columbia
University of Fraser Valley
British Columbia Institute of Technology
Aurora College
20
Appendix B
Revised survey for Canadian context
Background Information
1. In which province is your teacher education program located?
• Alberta
• Saskatchewan
• British Columbia
• Manitoba
• Ontario
• Quebec
• Nova Scotia
• Nunavut
• North West Territories
• Yukon
• New Brunswick
• Newfoundland
• Prince Edward Island
2. What is the name of your school/institution?
3. What is/are your position(s) with this program? (Please check all that apply).
• Placement Coordinator
• Assistant Professor
• Associate Professor
• Full Professor
• Graduate Coordinator
• Undergraduate Coordinator
• Administrative (Dean, Associate Dean)
4. Approximately how many students attend your school?
5. Does your school offer field experiences in K-12 virtual school settings (such as guided
observations, internships, apprenticeships) for pre-service or inservice teachers?
• Yes
• No NOTE: If No is answered, then the survey branches to Future FE Plans Pg.6
Current Field Experience Description
1. Which virtual school(s) do you partner with for field experiences?
21
2. Are virtual school field experiences only made within the same province as your
university/college?
• Yes
• No
3. Approximately how many pre-service teachers are placed in virtual school field experiences in
a given year?
4. Approximately how many inservice teachers are placed in virtual school field experiences in a
given year?
5. At which grade levels are virtual school field experiences offered? (Please check all that
apply).
• K-4
• 5-8
• 9-12
• Other
Please specify
5. For how many years have you been offering these virtual school field experiences?
• 0-1 year
• 1-3 years
• 3-5 years
• 5+ years
6. Is the virtual school field experience component a required part of your teacher education
program?
• Yes
• No
7. Does your province recognize/accept a field experience in a virtual school as part of its teacher
certification?
• Yes
• No
8. Please provide an overall description of the virtual school field experience that pre- service
teachers participate in (i.e., duration, activities, expectations, structure, supervision). If there is an
existing description, (URL, web-based or electronic resource) please copy and paste it here.
22
9. In general, what type of prior knowledge/background/experience is required for preservice or
inservice teachers to participate in your virtual school field experience?
Field Experience Supervision
1. How is supervision handled in the virtual school field experience you have described? (Please
select all that apply)
• There is an internship coordinator at the University.
• There is a course instructor at the University.
• There is a supervisor at the University.
• There is a supervisor at the Virtual School.
• There is a cooperating teacher at the Virtual School.
• Other (please specify)
2. What is the duration of the virtual school field experience?
• 0-4 weeks
• 4-8 weeks
• 8-12 weeks
• 12-16 weeks
• More than 16 weeks
3. Per week, how much time is the pre-service teacher required to spend in the online
environment?
• 0-4 hours
• 4-8 hours
• 8-12 hours
• 12-16 hours
• 16-20 hours
• Other (please specify)
23
4. What are the online learning activities that pre-service teachers participate in during their
virtual school field experience? (Please choose all that apply):
• Facilitating class discussion forums
• Creating new course content
• Communicating with students
• Holding webinars
• Delivering synchronous instruction
• Evaluating students’ work
• Tracking student progress
• Completing required paperwork
• Communicating with parent/learning coach
• Attending professional development sessions
• Attending faculty meetings
• Responding to student/parent questions
• Participating in extra-curricular activities (i.e. clubs, sports, events, etc.)
• Other (please specify)
5. How are pre-service teachers assessed for their participation in the virtual school field
experiences? How do they document their experiences? (Please choose all that apply).
• Quizzes
• Journals
• Worksheets
• Logs
• Reflections
• Essays
• Observations
• Login/tracking data
• Other (please specify)
6. How are pre-service teachers matched with their cooperating teacher? (Choose all that apply).
• Random
• Grade-specific
• Subject-specific
• Other (please specify)
7. What criteria is used to select cooperating teachers for the virtual school field experience?
24
8. Are pre-service teachers and cooperating teachers given any type of personality matching
inventory/test?
• No
• Yes please describe.
9. How do pre-service teachers and cooperating teachers interact with each other? (Choose all
that apply)
• Email
• Phone
• Face-to-face meetings
• Virtual meetings (Wimba, Elluminate, Skype, Google Talk)
• Web 2.0 Tools (Facebook, Wiki, Blog, Twitter)
• Other (please specify)
10. Do cooperating virtual school teachers receive mentor training prior to working with
pre-service teachers?
• No
• Yes please describe.
11. If you’d like to add more information about your virtual school field experience or your
program in general, please use the following space:
Future Field Experience Plans
1. If your teacher education program is not offering K-12 virtual school field experiences for its
pre-service teachers, do you think they should?
• No
• Yes
2. Why or why not? Please elaborate.
3. Is your teacher education program currently in the process of designing a virtual school field
experience for pre-service or inservice teachers or planning to do so in the future?
• No
• Yes
4. If so, what might that experience look like? Please describe.
25
5. If you'd like to talk to us further about virtual school field experiences, please provide your
email address here. We look forward to talking with you! Thank you again for your time!
Thank you very much for your participation in this survey. If you have documentation to share
with us about your virtual school field experience, or if you’d like more information about virtual
school field experiences, please email Nathaniel Ostashewski, nostashewski@athabascau.ca,
and/or Michael Barbour, mkbarbour@gmail.com.
!
!
!
State of the Nation: K-12 E-Learning in Canada – http://k12sotn.ca
