K-12 Online and Blended Teacher Licensure: Striking a Balance ...

Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education (2014) 22(1), 83-106

K-12 Online and Blended Teacher Licensure: Striking a Balance Between Policy and Preparedness Leanna Archambault Arizona State University, USA [email protected] Kristen DeBruler and Joseph R. Freidhoff Michigan Virtual University, USA [email protected] [email protected] As the number of K-12 students participating in various forms of online and blended learning steadily rises, teacher quality is of paramount concern. This article explores the theoretical underpinnings surrounding teacher quality in online settings as well as practical considerations for what teachers should know and be able to do in online environments. Following this understanding, we examine state-level policy from across the nation aimed toward establishing mechanisms to ensure online teacher quality. Based on this analysis, policy recommendations are suggested to help inform the development of high quality online teachers. While additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of such measures, a vital first step is to begin the process of a systematic review concerning what current research reveals about quality online teaching, actions states are taking along these lines, and lessons that can be gleaned from each of these areas.

K-12 online and blended learning opportunities have grown remarkably in the past several years. During the 2009-2010 school year, there were approximately 1.8 million K-12 online student enrollments in supplemental and full time classes compared to 600,000 student enrollments in 2006 (Queen, Lewis & Coopersmith, 2011). This represents a dramatic increase

84

Archambault, DeBruler, and Freidhoff

in the number of students taking K-12 online classes. Much of this growth has occurred in fully online schools offered by multi-district programs that have increased to an estimated 310,000 student enrollments. These figures have experienced well over 100% growth in the past five years (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013; 2012). One of the drivers of the growth in K-12 online and blended learning in the United States has been changes to state-level policy where an increasing number of states have added specific educational policies governing virtual schooling (Bailey, Patrick, Schneider, & Vander Ark, 2013). For example, some states such as Michigan (2006), Alabama (2008), Florida (2011), Arkansas (2012), North Carolina (2012), and Virginia (2012) have added requirements for students to complete an online learning experience in order to graduate (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013). In addition to requirement statutes, Florida state law has mandated that all school districts offer some form of online learning (Digital Learning Now Act, 2011), and Michigan recently approved state policy changes allowing students and parents the right to choose up to two online courses per term while maintaining enrollment in their local districts. The surge in enrollments brought about by student interest and policy changes has not, however, been coupled with an increased emphasis on preparing educators to teach in online and blended contexts (Archambault, 2011). At present only a handful of states (Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Louisiana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont) have adopted online teacher standards and have created a state-level teaching license dealing with online teaching, with Georgia and Idaho representing the first states to offer specific teaching endorsements in K-12 online teaching. While the call for better preparation and certification of online and blended teachers is not a novel one (Cavanaugh, 2004; Ferdig et al., 2009), it remains largely unrealized. What is new, however, is the assertion put forth here that state-level policy needs to be the impetus for the creation and retention of a prepared online and blended teaching workforce. Instead of the current fragmented, convoluted system that involves multiple organizations and agents acting in isolation, there is a need for state-level policy to outline and direct a pragmatic and systematic approach toward preparing and licensing large numbers of high quality, well-prepared online and blended teachers. This need is increasingly essential, as the supply of teachers prepared to teach in online environments must match, if not exceed, student demand for learning online. For this to be accomplished, both statelevel policy and teacher training must reinforce the need for effective online and blended teachers. In addition, the efforts of state departments of educa-

K-12 Online and Blended Teacher Licensure

85

tion, teacher education programs, and school districts must be coordinated and focused on achieving this desired outcome in the most efficient and economical way possible. Unfortunately, this kind of systematic, coordinated approach to policy and preparation is currently lacking. The purpose of this paper is to identify the necessary skills and knowledge for successful online teaching, critically examine policies governing online teacher preparation and quality, and subsequently provide recommendations for maximizing the impact of preparation efforts. We start by providing a theoretical background regarding quality teaching through the lens of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Next, we identify the requisite knowledge and skills for successful online teaching followed by a description of the policy analysis methodology. Then, relevant policies aimed at ensuring online teacher quality are examined, including implementation examples from Georgia, Idaho, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, along with a look at a national certification program and relevant national online teaching standards. Finally, we provide policy recommendations geared to both maximize impact and ensure the development of high quality online teachers. Preparing Quality Online and Blended K-12 Teachers Teacher effectiveness has been correlated with student achievement in traditional classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 2000), and as such, teacher quality is likely a major factor when it comes to ensuring quality online and blended learning experiences for K-12 students. This area is in dire need of additional, in-depth research focusing on teaching in online contexts. Teachers are the most important and largest factor when it comes to adding value to student learning (Sanders & Horn, 1998). While there is little doubt that quality teachers matter, what is less clear is determining exactly what quality teaching encompasses (Cochran-Smith, 2003). Current views on quality traditional teaching are shaped by education policy in conjunction with standards that are developed by accrediting bodies, including the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC). In addition, professional organizations, such as the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), the National Education Association (NEA), the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and the Michigan Association for Computer Users in Learning (MACUL) also adopt standards that influence

86


and shape our understanding of quality practice when it comes to face-toface teaching. These entities not only guide our perception of good teaching in the traditional sense, but they also play a large role in influencing the coursework that teacher education programs require for graduation. Generally speaking, these standards focus on areas of the learner and the process of learning, content knowledge, teaching methods or pedagogy, assessment strategies, and professional conduct/responsibilities. The relevant standards address the issue of what quality teachers should know, but it is also important to understand the theoretical base supporting the standards and how this knowledge contributes to quality teaching. Pedagogical Content Knowledge From a theoretical standpoint, quality teaching is a blend of knowledge and skills related to a specific content area coupled with skills specific to teaching strategies and methods. Shulman (1986) deemed this concept pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which he defined as knowledge that goes beyond content or subject matter to include specific ways to teach content. Within PCK, he included, “the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (p. 9). The knowledge of what makes a subject difficult or easy to learn is also a part of PCK. This means that in order to be able to effectively teach a particular topic, teachers should know the potential pitfalls to which students frequently fall victim based on their preconceptions and prior knowledge. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Online/Blended Teaching The concept of PCK is particularly salient to online and blended teaching because it sheds light on what teachers should know and be able to do within the context of the virtual learning environment. Online educators need to be able to implement cognitive strategies such as implementing modeling, analogies, and metaphors to aid in understanding the contentrelated material in the online environment (Brennan, 2003). The teacher in the virtual classroom needs to be able to address the common misconceptions centered on a particular topic within the content they are teaching (Archambault & Crippen, 2009). While these aspects of teaching are important


87

in any educational context, approaches for implementing these skills in the online venue differ. Based on the assumption of dynamic relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy in the TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2005) online teachers need to have not only an excellent grasp of their given content area but also an appreciation of how technology and the online environment affect the content and the pedagogy of what they are attempting to teach. When considering the application of TPACK to online and blended environments specifically, focus should be centered on technical considerations (technological aspects that impact the extent to which technology facilitates student learning), differences in online pedagogy (the differences in teaching strategies that have to be implemented when adapting curriculum to an online environment, including fostering student interaction, the role of the teacher, and assessment of student learning outcomes), and principles of instructional design (sufficiently knowing a particular content to be able to use adopted technology to develop and offer quality online teaching). Necessary Skills and Experiences for Successful Online Teaching The TPACK framework offers a general lens for teacher education programs, certification programs, state-level endorsements, and related professional development opportunities to examine how the framework elements (technology, pedagogy, and content) are currently addressed and how they would need to be altered to specifically target the skills and knowledge necessary to teach online. While teacher education programs around the country have embraced and successfully applied the TPACK model to instructional design and educational technology, no such widespread adoption model exists for preparation of online teachers with content and preparation experiences varying across programs (Barbour, 2012). Cavanaugh et al. (2004) recognize a lack of formal preparation when it comes to K-12 online instruction as do Ferdig et al., (2008) who note, “Finally, there are few statewide, national, or international endorsements for online K-12 instruction at this time. Identifying the unique elements of virtual school instruction illustrated through best practices would serve as both a justification and foundation for the establishment of state endorsements for virtual school instruction” (p. 481). One of the challenges Ferdig et al. (2008) identify is the multiple roles online teachers play in the virtual classroom including teacher, instructional designer, site coordinator, local key contact, administrator, mentor, tech

88


coordinator, and guidance counselor. The role of the online educator is expanded beyond that of a traditional teacher, and as such, the skills needed are multiple and diverse. Quality online teachers need to be able to use digital means to motivate students, monitor student progress, and maintain flexibility with time. They should have an understanding of how learning occurs in an online environment, particularly where content is self-directed. Online teachers must be available to their students, and this availability is distinct from the confines of a specific class period in a traditional setting. This may necessitate applying classroom and time management strategies to maximize individual interaction while still maintaining appropriate boundaries. Online teachers are required to assess students in meaningful ways, and in the digital era, this includes being able to make sense of large amounts of formative and summative data and use this data to guide instruction. In addition, online teachers need to know how to use digital tools and communication techniques to acknowledge and use students’ interests throughout their courses. The expanded role and responsibility of the online teacher is also present in the relationship between the online teacher and the on-site student mentor or facilitator. In the state of Michigan specifically, an onsite mentor must be assigned to each student enrolled in an online course to monitor progress and provide support to that student (Michigan Department of Education, 2011). While research centering on the specifics of the online teacher and the on-site mentor relationship is limited and in need of deeper investigation (Barbour, 2012), it is clear that the role of the on-site mentor changes the online teacher’s responsibility and is critical to student success (Roblyer, Freeman, Stabler, & Schneidmiller, 2007). Online teachers also need to be able to form meaningful and supportive relationships with students in the online environment, which could be challenging for teachers when separated from students in space and time. Along with this, teachers should build and facilitate community to enhance the learning environment, provide timely feedback, and be able to address technology access issues for students (DiPietro, Ferdig, Black, & Preston, 2008). Similar skills are echoed by Kearsley and Blomeyer (2004) who cite providing prompt feedback, preparing engaging learning activities, motivating students, allowing for student-to-student interaction, and promoting critical and reflective students as essential components for effective online teaching. In addition, teachers must be versed in online pedagogy and teaching methods. This includes creating a learner-centered environment, assessing students’ prior knowledge, designing quality online materials, implementing online teaching and learning methodologies that develop cognitive skills, ensuring interactivity among all participants, and offering a consis-


89

tent level of quality feedback, including self-testing, review, and reflection (Brennan, 2003). Programs seeking to develop quality online teachers need to provide coursework designed to cultivate skills in these areas, in addition to providing opportunities for implementation and practice through a field experience component. Formal Avenues of Study to Prepare Quality Online and Blended Teachers Clearly there is a great deal that teachers in online and blended environment need to know and experience in addition to what is required for face-to-face classrooms necessitated largely by context. However, there exists great variation in how teachers acquire this knowledge. From current research, it appears that initial preparation for the classroom is entirely the same for traditional and online teachers. In a national survey of approximately 600 K-12 online teachers, it was determined that bachelor’s degrees were identical by percentage (92%) between online and traditional teachers (Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Strizek et al., 2006). However, online teachers reported a higher incidence of master’s degrees, at 62% versus 41% of traditional teachers. Also, 13% of the online teachers surveyed reported having degrees and licensure beyond or in addition to their master’s degree, as opposed to 7% of traditional teachers (Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Strizek et al., 2006). This may indicate a need on the part of online teachers seeking additional training and professional development related to their setting. Teachers at public schools--whether in traditional, blended, or online settings--typically hold teaching licenses and maintain their highly qualified status (NCLB, 2001). While states have a great deal of discretion in setting these requirements, under No Child Left Behind (2001) requirements teachers must hold (a) a college degree, (b) demonstrate subject-matter knowledge, and (c) meet any state licensure requirements. Subject matter knowledge can be demonstrated through majoring in the subject in college, taking courses that would be equivalent to a major, earning an advanced degree or credential in the subject, or passing a rigorous state test in the subject (NCLB, 2001). Currently, however, there is no distinction between the preparation requirements based on the teaching environment. The vast majority of online and blended teachers are qualified under current No Child Left Behind requirements. A closer examination of each of the various avenues through which teachers are gaining the necessary knowledge is warranted to provide additional clarity on the larger issue of how to train and identify

90


quality online and blended teachers. The following sections examine how teachers are gaining this knowledge both formally and informally including the role states are playing in preparing teachers to teach online. Methodology To address the possible need for state-level online teacher preparation along with providing potential recommendations for states in this area, a policy analysis methodology is appropriate. Policy analysis requires a systematic approach. This includes detailing a historical background, presenting a description of the issue, and offering an analysis of the goals, feasibility, and impact of implementing the policy (Karger & Stoesz, 2009). Policy analysis involves carefully presenting related data that attempt to clarify a problem while examining the cause and effects surrounding the issue, together with considering the impact of various solutions. According to Kraft and Furlong (2004), “…policy analysis involves both descriptive (empirical) study, which tries to determine the facts of a given situation, and a normative or value-based assessment of the options” (p. 103). The purpose of this type of analysis is to better understand a problem, suggest possible solutions, and examine the results of implementation in a given context. As such, the research questions for the current analysis are as follows: 1. From a research perspective, what are the necessary skills that teachers need to have in order to be successful in an online environment? 2. What national, state, and local policies currently exist to ensure teacher quality in the online environment, including formal mechanisms for preparation and professional development? 3. What policy recommendations can be made to help ensure teacher quality in the online environment? Data Collection To answer the research questions, the researchers relied on the following data sources: a) existing and relevant literature within the field of K-12 online teaching, b) pertinent state laws and state-level policy decisions made available via the websites of individual state legislatures, and c) interviews with three key stakeholders who could shed light on how state-level policies were being implemented. Interviewees included the Associate Director of


91

Strategic Planning at Georgia Virtual, the Director of Program Development for the Idaho Digital Learning Academy, and the President of the Minnesota K-12 Online Learning Alliance. These individuals were purposefully selected because they were in positions to be able to shed light on how state-level policy, including the creation of endorsements specific to K-12 online teaching in the case of Idaho and Georgia, were being implemented. These interviews were conducted by phone due to the physical distance between the interviewees and the researchers. Each interview lasted between 45 minutes to 1 hour and were semi-structured in nature. This allowed for the use of prompts and follow-up questions if an answer required clarification. Questions centered around the nature of the K-12 online teaching endorsement and the perceived impact of specific state-level policy pertaining to teacher education, certification, and preparation for K-12 online learning contexts. Data Analysis Data were analyzed using multiple methods. First, a careful analysis of existing literature related to teacher preparation for K-12 online contexts, including specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for success was completed. Next, a historical review at the creation of state-level policy was conducted, which provided background concerning the policies, in addition to providing a more in-depth look at the issues surrounding creation of the policies. The careful analysis of pertinent policies as described by individual state laws as well as descriptions via documents provided by state departments of education allowed the researchers to better understand the problem, suggest possible solutions, and examine the results of implementation in a given context (Karger & Stoesz, 2009). Finally, in addition to the analysis of the written material, interview data were examined for relevant themes in an effort to illuminate specific state-level policies in practice and to understand each participant’s perspectives and experiences with respect to the policy implementation. Expert interviews are prevalent in qualitative analysis and can be used to solicit not only relevant facts about a particular issue or set of issues, but also to explore the respondent’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions regarding the topic (Yin, 2003). As such, these data were utilized to provide necessary information and vital context to examining relevant state-level policy concerning K-12 online teacher preparation.


92

Limitations This study, as with all research, has limitations that need to be addressed. First, the topic of policy and teacher preparation for K-12 online environments is relatively new. As a result, this work is exploratory in nature and is a significant area for continued research. Also, this study employs a qualitative analysis of existing documentation and interview data. Consequently, findings are context-specific and may not be generalizable from state to state. Despite these limitations, there is much to be learned from how states are addressing issues of teacher quality in online contexts via state-level policy and program-level implementation. Examining Existing Policy to Ensure Teacher Quality Currently, several disparate avenues of formal preparation exist intended to meet the demand for additional preparation for the online environment. These include using national online teaching certificates, state-level online teaching endorsements, and professional development opportunities provided by non-profit organizations, professional organizations, virtual schools and/or other K-12 online learning programs. There is, however, wide variation between and among these avenues. For instance two states, Georgia and Idaho have created state-level endorsements specific to K-12 online teaching, while other entities, both public universities, as well as consortiums, such as the Leading Edge Alliance, have created certificate programs consisting of coursework geared toward online teaching. Other professional development programs use standards geared toward technology and/or online teaching, such as those developed by the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL), to guide the skills effective online teachers need to acquire to be prepared to teach online. Online State-Level Endorsements Few states currently have state-level initiatives centering on online and blended teaching, and those that do vary widely in their requirements (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, Rapp, 2013). For every state endorsement, there is a different model with different requirements and criteria for obtaining the endorsement. For example, Georgia offers an optional online teaching endorsement which requires certified teachers to complete courses


93

centered on instructional technology, online teaching and learning methodology, and online assessment, along with completing an online field experience component that is appropriate to the teacher’s current content and grade level (Georgia Online Teaching Endorsement Program, 2006, 505-3.85). Idaho offers an endorsement to certified teachers who take coursework in online teaching in addition to completing an eight-week field experience in online teaching or who have one year of experience delivering K-12 curriculum in an online environment (Idaho State Board of Education, IDAPA 08, Title 02, Chapter 02). While not a teaching endorsement, Wisconsin previously mandated that, “Beginning July 1, 2010, no person may teach an online course in a public school, including a charter school, unless he or she has completed at least 30 hours of professional development designed to prepare a teacher for online teaching” (Public Instruction, 2009). Other states have endorsements in educational technology but do not make a separate distinction for K-12 online teaching. For example, since 2006, Michigan has had an educational technology endorsement that also includes standards related to online teaching. However, there are limited employment benefits associated with the endorsement and even fewer connections relating specifically to online teaching standards. Additionally, a majority of the coursework offered by colleges and universities focuses exclusively on general educational technology, with variable emphasis on online teaching in the required curriculum. Demand for, and arguably impact of, the educational technology endorsement is relatively low. The following section focuses on four states that have created state-level policy specific to K-12 online teaching: Georgia, Idaho, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Georgia. The Georgia Online Teaching Endorsement, enacted at the end of 2006, is the first state-level teaching endorsement focused on K-12 online teaching and grew out of a state-wide recognition that teachers in Georgia were not well prepared to teach online. The endorsement is granted only to teachers currently holding renewable teaching certificates and those who successfully complete an online endorsement program at an approved teacher education institution that addresses the Georgia Online Teaching Standards, based on the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) Standards for Quality Online Teaching. The state specifies that the program from which the teacher candidate takes coursework pertaining to online teaching should ensure that he/she possesses knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to technology as described in the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS*T). In addition, teachers should demonstrate competency

94


in technology specific to an online learning environment. University programs that want to offer coursework pertaining to the endorsement must submit their programs of study to the state to be approved as a provider by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GPSC). The intent of the endorsement is to certify that teachers have the content knowledge and skills specific to instructional technology, online teaching and learning methodology, and effective online assessment. The number of credits varies across the state, ranging from nine to 12. In addition to completing the teacher education program, teachers must complete a grade-level and content area appropriate online practicum or internship. The length of the online teaching internship/field experience is not dictated by the state and ranges from six credit hours (Kennesaw State University) to three credit hours (Valdosta State and Georgia Southern University). Courses vary, from Theories and Models of Instructional Design, Pedagogy of Distance Learning, and Field Experience in Online Teaching and Learning at Georgia Southern University to Course Management Systems for ELearning, Resources and Strategies for E-Learning, and Design and Delivery of Instruction for E-Learning at Valdosta State University. The goal is for candidates to acquire the pedagogical and technological knowledge and skills needed for successful teaching in a virtual school environment. The Georgia Online Teaching Endorsement is not required to teach online at the state-level. The decision to make the endorsement optional, at least initially, was purposeful as to not further limit the already limited supply of quality online teachers. This decision, while a pragmatic one, has had unintended consequences regarding the overall clarity and value surrounding the endorsement. From the perspective of the state official, there appears to be little if any added value beyond the knowledge and skills gained in obtaining the endorsement. Unlike other, required endorsements in the state, the Online Teaching Endorsement does not necessarily lead to salary gains or increased employment opportunities. This issue is further compounded by the variability in thoroughness and quality of programs offering coursework towards the endorsement. The programs not only vary in terms of quality and readiness of teachers to actually teach online, but the teacher education programs tend to focus heavily on the theoretical nature of online teaching, often at the expense of practical skills and experiences. Idaho. Idaho, home to one of the largest state virtual schools (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013), added its online teaching endorsement in 2011 as a competency-based program available through accredited and state-approved colleges and universities (K-12 Online Teaching En-


95

dorsement, 2013). The endorsement, originally envisioned as an accountability measure required in order to teach online in the state, was later made optional as to not decrease the supply of qualified online teachers. Because the program is competency-based, teachers can demonstrate their online teaching and learning capability by meeting recommended proficiencies through a combination of course completions and submitted artifacts. The endorsement is an add-on to existing teaching certificates and is only available to teachers who meet the Idaho professional teaching standards and/or are licensed to teach in the state. To receive the endorsement, teachers must complete a minimum of 20 credit hours in courses directly related to online teaching and demonstrate proficiency in the Idaho Standards for Online Teaching, based on the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS*T) which include: Knowledge of Online Education and Human Development; Facilitating and Inspiring Student Learning and Creativity; Designing and Developing Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments; Modeling Digital-Age Work, Learning, and Digital Citizenship and; Engaging in Professional Growth and Leadership. Teachers create an electronic portfolio to include artifacts that demonstrate their proficiency in each of the Idaho Standards for Online Teaching. In addition to their portfolios, teachers must also complete an eight-week K-12 online teaching internship or have one year of online teaching experience, completed no more than three years prior to seeking the endorsement. Since August 2011, Boise State University has been the major approved program to offer applicable coursework for teachers to obtain the K-12 Online Teaching Endorsement program. These courses include: Internet for Educators, Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology, Online Course Design, Teaching Online in the K-12 Environment, Advanced Online Teaching, Field Experience in Online Teaching, and Social Network Learning (K-12 Online Teaching Endorsement, 2013). Like the Georgia Online Teaching Endorsement, the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement is not required, and as with Georgia, there is little incentive for teachers to pursue the endorsement. This is evidenced by the small number of teachers who are currently pursuing the endorsement. Idaho has not yet experienced the variability in quality and thoroughness of teachers with the endorsement, likely attributed to the fact that so few teachers possess the endorsement. One of the major differences between Georgia and Idaho is that the Idaho Digital Learning Academy (IDLA), the main employer of online teachers in Idaho, partners with universities in state to offer courses and professional development that count towards the endorse-

96


ment. Also, according to the state official, IDLA was an active partner in conceiving the endorsement as it is currently configured as well as the Idaho Standards for Online Teaching. This allowed for IDLA to have significant input as to how the endorsement was created and implemented. However, because the Idaho endorsement is still quite new, little is currently known about the effectiveness of the implementation and endorsement model. If the state can find a way to entice more teachers to pursue the endorsement, the advantages of this model, along with its challenges, will become apparent in years to come. Wisconsin. Wisconsin was one of two states that chose to pursue state statutes regarding either professional development or preparation of online teachers. Wis. Stat. 118 § 118.19(13), effective July 1, 2010, stated, "No person may teach an online course in a public school, including a charter school, unless he or she has completed at least 30 hours of professional development designed to prepare a teacher for online teaching." The statute did not provide recommendations or mandates on what content the professional development must cover, only that it was “designed to prepare a teacher for online teaching.” The statute also did not designate an approved professional development provider thus allowing a variety of organizations to offer the training. A bill was introduced to the Wisconsin legislature on February 20, 2013, that among other legislative acts, repealed Wis. Stat. 118 § 118.19(13) and eliminated the 30-hour professional development requirement for online teachers. Further, the new legislation prohibits the Department of Public Instruction from requiring professional development of exclusively virtual teachers (Evergreen Education Group, 2013). Minnesota. Minnesota has also passed state statutes concerning online education. Minnesota Senate Bill 273 § 1528.1.3a, approved by the Legislature in 2012, established parameters for online learning, as well as defined “digital learning,” “blended learning,” and “online learning,” and called for teacher preparation for online settings. Specifically, the statute states, “All colleges and universities approved by the Board of Teaching to prepare persons for classroom teacher licensure must include in their teacher preparation programs the knowledge and skills teacher candidates need to deliver digital and blended learning and curriculum and engage students with technology. This section is effective for candidates entering a teacher preparation program after June 30, 2014” (Minnesota Senate Bill 273, 2012). In addition to this requirement for preservice teachers, the law also requires that staff development for inservice teachers include activities that “effectively deliver digital and blended learning and curriculum and engage students with technology.” While the statute is still relatively new and its full


97

effects have yet to be seen, initial criticisms of the statute stem from its generally vague, non-prescriptive language. One related theme from interview data is the general concern that the well-guided intent of the statute to recognize and provide instruction related to online and blended teaching will be thwarted by insufficient or misguided implementation. Additionally, given the non-specificity of the language and lack of clear expectations, it is feared that colleges and universities will consider themselves to already be in compliance and consequently will make few, if any, changes, to their teacher preparation programs. Nevertheless, it represents the first attempt at requiring that teachers new to the profession have exposure to teaching in an online/blended setting. National Online Teaching Certificate Programs In response to differing state requirements, national certificate programs such as the Leading Edge Online and Blended Teacher Certification have been developed to standardize objective markers of quality online and blended teachers and to address some of the concerns around statelevel online and blended teaching endorsements. These certifications move away from state educational policy recommendations and instead focus on standards of teacher quality and objective skills and markers of online and blended teaching quality (Online and Blended Teacher, 2013). The Leading Edge Online and Blended Certification is offered by an alliance of core and stakeholder members made up of institutions of higher education, governmental agencies, professional organizations, and other non-profit groups. Members are eligible to produce training for the certification project; however, they are required to demonstrate the capacity to do so, along with offering the training so that it is consistent with the program design. The Leading Edge Online and Blended Certification is comprised of eight modules, which provides 60 hours of instruction including: introduction and overview, online learning history and concepts, pedagogy, building community, online accessibility, assessment and evaluation, policies and preparation, and closure and summation. Modules are based on the iNACOL National Standards for Online Teaching. Table 1 provides a summary of the content that is taught as part of the certification.


98

Table 1 Leading Edge Online and Blended Certificate Modules Module

Description/Topics

1. Introduction and Overview

Examines traits of successful online learners, identify requirements for the course, get to know learning community

2. History and Concepts of

Reviews academic research, skills needed to be a success-

Online Learning

ful blended and/or online teacher, and compare and contrast online, blended, and face-to-face teaching

3. Pedagogy

Explores student-centered instructional strategies to encourage active learning and interaction, using a variety of Web 2.0 tools appropriate for higher levels of cognition, and identifing technology tools and strategies to move project-based learning into the online environment

4. Building Community

Develops community building skills in the online environments, examines strategies for breaking down the barriers between face-to-face learning and virtual community learning, explores the critical issues that contribute to student success in synchronous and asynchronous environments

5. Online Accessibility

Introduces the participant to laws and regulations related to making online and blended learning materials accessible to all students, including how to follow Universal Design principles to ensure that all students have accessible curriculum

6. Assessment and Evaluation

Explores differences and similarities between online, blended, and face-to-face assessment strategies as well as demonstrates a variety of tools that can be used for delivering effective formative and summative assessments

7. Policies and Preparation

Examines roles the online/blended teacher must understand in order to successfully coach students in an online environment: the instructor, social director, program manager, and technical assistant

8. Closure and Summation

Summarizes areas of strength and areas for growth needed to become a quality online teacher and synthesizes what was learned in relation to the iNACOL Standards for Quality Online Teaching, assemble Leading Edge Certification portfolio.

While this type of nationally-recognized certification does seem to address some of the anticipated challenges of state-level online and blended endorsements by creating a rigorous, standards-based program focused on online teaching, it also presents challenges and implications. One of the largest issues currently is that the “payoff” of these certificates to teachers is not yet widely recognized. Without being required or even recognized by


99

many K-12 districts, the cost of obtaining a certificate does not present a significant benefit. Although the certificate may hold deep pedagogical and instructional value, the lack of demand on the part of school districts makes them something driven largely by educators’ own desires to become skilled at teaching online. National Standards and Benchmarks National standards and benchmarks are unlike online teaching certificates and endorsements in that they are advisory in nature and do not contain coursework recommendations, training requirements, or competency metrics. However, standards and benchmarks are relevant to the larger discussion of state-level endorsements and online teacher education. Many endorsements and certificates are developed using these guidelines in an effort to assure quality and a uniform set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions teachers will acquire as a result of coursework and/or related professional development opportunities. National benchmarks on online and blended teaching, like those developed by the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) and the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), focus on a series of skills related to online and blended teaching and on what a teacher should be able to do. These standards typically focus broadly on online curriculum and instruction, online pedagogy, and online assessment and evaluation. For example, iNACOL’s Standard B of the National Standards for Quality Online Teaching states, “The online teacher knows and understands the importance of interaction in an online course and the role of varied communication tools in supporting interaction” and “the online teacher is able to use communication technologies in a variety of mediums and contexts for teaching and learning” (iNACOL, 2011). The iNACOL standards specifically provide detailed elements that online and blended teachers must know, together with the subsequent demonstrable actions associated with that knowledge. The focus of the standards is outlining the necessary knowledge and skills for effective teaching in an online setting. Originating from professional organizations, these standards do not solely concentrate on preparing teachers for online learning; they also cater to meaningful technology integration in general and can be applied to the vast spectrum of K-12 online learning programs. Organizations and their respective standards include the following, in chronological order:


100

○ Southern Regional Education Board’s (SREB) Essential Principles for High-quality Online Teaching (SREB, 2003)

○ National Education Association’s (NEA) Guide to Teaching Online Courses (NEA, 2006)

○ International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National ○ ○

Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS*T) (ISTE, 2008) International Association for K-12 Online Learning’s (iNACOL) National Standards for Quality Online Teaching (iNACOL, 2011; 2008) Quality Matters Design Standards for Online and Blended Courses (Quality Matters, 2010)

For a cross-reference of these standards addressing online teaching skill sets pertaining to curriculum, online pedagogy, the role of the online instructor, as well as technological experience, please see Kennedy and Archambault, 2012b. iNACOL is also currently developing K-12 blended teaching competencies based on the blended teaching competencies model created by C. Elizabeth Rabbitt (2013) that speak to what teachers should know and be able to do in blended learning environments. Policy Recommendations to Ensure Teacher Quality Online Taking into consideration the necessary skills online teachers need to be successful in an online environment from a research standpoint (Brennan, 2003; DiPietro et al., 2008; Ferdig et al., 2008; Kearsley & Blomeyer, 2004), along with examining relevant policy and formal avenues aimed at ensuring online teacher quality (Georgia Online Teaching Endorsement Program, 2006, 505-3-.85; Idaho State Board of Education, IDAPA 08, Title 02, Chapter 02; Minnesota Senate Bill 273 § 1528.1.3a), specific recommendations are warranted. These are discussed below. Curriculum for teacher preparation in online and blended settings should be aligned with national standards for online teaching, specifically focusing on online curriculum and instruction, online pedagogy, and online assessment and evaluation. In addition, in cases where preparation takes place online so that teachers can experience the environment as a student, care should be taken to ensure that the learning experience itself meets the standards it is designed to cover. The standards previously described have been created by various professional organizations in consul-


101

tation with experts and stakeholders in the field from K-12 as well as postsecondary levels, universities, and state departments of education (SREB, 2003; ISTE, 2006; NEA, 2006). In the case of the National Standards for Quality Online Teaching (iNACOL, 2011), the professional organization brought together a team of experts including online teachers, professional developers, instructional designers, researchers, course developers, and administrators to review the existing standards, consider recent literature, and then make necessary changes (iNACOL, 2011). Prior to this review, the iNACOL standards were based on those from the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) Standards for Quality Online Teaching. According to iNACOL, “The standards as identified by SREB were already in use by sixteen SREB states; they proved to be the most comprehensive among those reviewed and included guidelines set forth in the other criteria from the literature review” (p. 3). While a systematic validation study has yet to be completed, a cross reference of the available standards show common themes for quality online teaching (Kennedy and Archambault, 2012b). The areas of online curriculum and instruction, online pedagogy, and online assessment and evaluation are well aligned to how the literature, and the TPACK framework in particular, frame quality online teaching. State policy needs to mandate field experience (or equivalent online teaching experience) as a requirement for any endorsement in online teaching. A field experience or practica component should be included in any teacher preparation or professional development course designed for online teachers. Teachers need to experience an authentic learning environment in an online, Web-based setting. The field experience should take place together with an expert online teacher who is able to make visible all strategies, techniques, and approaches unique to online teaching, including ways the mentor teacher motivates online students, tracks their progress using real-time data, and keeps up with the need for continuous digital communication. Field experiences lie at the heart of teacher education programs because they provide future teachers the opportunity to complete first-hand guided work in the classroom prior to them being required to assume roles as full-fledged education professionals (Aiken & Day, 1999; Buck, Morsink, Griffin, Hines, & Lenk, 1992; Harlin, 1999; Joyce, Yarger, Howey, Harbeck, & Kluwin, 1977; Wiggins & Follo, 1999). Practica are such a critical part of teacher preparation that state departments of education established them as a required element of the traditional teacher licensure process in the 1970s (Moore, 1979). In addition to these elements, a key advantage is for prospective online teachers to examine their beliefs about the role of the teacher and decide whether or not this form of instruction represents a good fit.

102


Experiences in virtual classrooms, either in addition to or in lieu of face-to-face placements, are essential to developing robust knowledge of teaching online as this knowledge is inextricably situated in and progressively developed through the practica activity (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). To address the need of preparing online teachers, a handful of university teacher education programs have begun offering field experiences in virtual school settings (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012a). Several skills taught in these settings include hands-on experience with managing online classrooms, interacting with students and encouraging interaction between students, motivating students in the online classroom, translating teaching from face-to-face to online format, navigating the course management system, learning to build relationships with students, discovering the various models of K-12 online learning programs, creating online content, and differentiating lessons and providing one-on-one assistance to students (iNACOL, 2008). This type of first-person experience is an essential part of ensuring that online teachers have the necessary skills to be effective in the virtual classroom. When preparing teachers for online environments, attention to all of these areas, including a field experience component is ideal. Because the field experience component plays a critical role to teacher preparation (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012a), it will be necessary for teacher preparation and development programs to create statewide and national partnerships to ensure productive placements for their teachers. This requires extensive collaboration with virtual schools to ensure fruitful pairings of skilled online mentor teachers with novice ones. In addition, because these placements are not location-bound, it is possible that teacher candidates in one state are matched with online teachers from another, a practice that is already happening in some models (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012a). Agreements and memoranda of understanding would need to be developed to ensure a fruitful partnership and to outline the expectations and requirements of each organization. To successfully train enough qualified and prepared online teachers to meet demand, states will have to look towards partnerships with online course providers and local districts to offer both quality content and effective field experiences. Preparing enough educators in online teaching is simply not feasible through existing channels. Practicing teachers, those with multiple years of valuable experience, may be unable or unwilling to attend traditional college courses, particularly those physically on college campuses. It may also be impractical for teachers to attend largescale professional development sessions as they are confined by the strict schedules of schools and districts. Although specific data is not yet available, the Idaho model of close partnership between IDLA, teacher prepara-


103

tion institutions such as Boise State, and the Idaho Department of Education should be replicated in other states. This leverages the capabilities of each entity. For example, IDLA has experience training teachers while teacher preparation programs have a better understanding of what online teachers actually need to know (practical skills like building familiarity with the specific Learning Management System being used). The Department of Education then serves as the accrediting body. This provides relevance to the endorsement, and in turn, cultivates its longevity and demand. Additional models may be developed between states, districts, and online providers to offer informal routes to development and certification for online teachers, routes that are not confined by formal state requirements such as university credit hours required for endorsements. Begin moving toward widespread integration of online and blended teaching into preservice and inservice teacher preparation programs. This inclusion is long overdue. As blended learning models gain popularity among local districts and the availability of online learning expands, all teachers, not just those who want to pursue full-time online teaching, need at least some basic knowledge of and experience teaching online. Currently, teacher preparation programs continue to prepare teachers in the same manner they have done for decades (Levine, 2006). In fact, some programs express negativity toward online learning, not recognizing it as a valid form of education (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012a). This value must adapt and change if we hope to have teachers prepared to be successful in both the face-to-face as well as the blended and online learning environments. With the ever-increasing number of students taking online courses throughout the United States, there is a need on the part of states to consider the mechanisms already in place nationally and what needs to be in place locally to ensure quality educators are preparing to meet this demand. Through examining theoretical and practical considerations for what teachers should know and be able to do in an online environment, coupled with learning from states that have already created mechanisms attempting to ensure online teacher quality, states contemplating such measures have much to consider. Future research is needed to assess the effectiveness of such measures. However, because teachers have a direct impact on learning outcomes, every effort should be made to ensure teacher quality, particularly in the online setting. A first step is to create a systematic process by which virtual schools, districts, and states can be assured that potential hires have the adequate preparation and experience necessary for success within the online environment.

104


References 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. & 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/ vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm Baily, J., Patrick, S., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2013). Online learning: Myths, reality & promise. Author. Retrieved from http://www.digitallearningnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Online-Learning-Paper-.pdf Barbour, M. K. (2012). Models and resources for online teacher preparation and mentoring. In K. M. Kennedy & L. Archambault (Eds.), Lessons learned in teacher mentoring: Supporting educators in K-12 online learning environments (pp. 83-102). Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Brennan, R. (2003). One size doesn’t fit all: Pedagogy in the online environment. Kensington Park, Australia: National Centre for Vocation Education Research, Australian National Training Authority. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from http://faculty.education.ufl.edu/cathycavanaugh/docs/EffectsDLonK-12Students1.pdf Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 5-28. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44. 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), 10-35. Digital Learning Now Act. Fla. Stat. § 1002.321 (2011). Evergreen Education Group. (2013). Wisconsin. Keeping pace with K-12 online & blended learning, retrieved from http://kpk12.com/states/wisconsin/ Ferdig, R. E., Cavanaugh, C., DiPietro, M., Black, E. W, & Dawson, K. (2009). Virtual schooling standards and best practices for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 479-503. Flanigan, R. L. (2012). Virtual ed. addresses teacher-certification questions. Education Week, 32(2), 10-11. International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2011). National standards for quality online teaching, Version 2. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/cms/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/iNACOL_TeachingStandardsv2.pdf


105

International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL). (2008). National standards for quality online teaching. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste. org/docs/pdfs/nets-t-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2 K-12 online teaching endorsement. (2013). Retrieved November 12, 2013, from http://edtech.boisestate.edu/idaho-k-12-online-teaching-endorsement-program/ Karger, H., & Stoesz, D. (2009). American social welfare policy (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kearsley, G., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). Preparing K-12 teachers to teach online. Educational Technology, 44(1), 49-52. Kennedy, K. & Archambault, L. (2012a). 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. (2012b). Design and development of field experiences in K-12 online learning environments. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 2(1), 35-49. Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge . Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152. Kraft, M., & Furlong, S. (2004). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_ Teachers_Report.pdf Michigan Department of Education. (2011). Pupil accounting manual. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-5235_6539-22360--,00.html National Education Association. (2006). NEA guide to teaching online courses. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/30103.htm No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Online and blended teacher. (2013). Retrieved November 12, 2013 from http:// www.leadingedgecertification.org/online-and-blended-teacher.html Public Instruction, Wis. Stat. 118 § 118.19(13). (2009). Quality Matters. (2010). Design standards for online and blended courses: Grades 6-12 QM rubric. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved from https:// www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/G6-12 Rubric Brochure 2011.pdf Queen, B., Lewis, L, & Coopersmith, J. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009-10 NCES 2012008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. Rabbitt, C. E. (2013). Human capital in blended learning schools developing an early stage talent strategy for touchstone education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge.

106


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 S. 1528, 87th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2012). Sanders, W. & Horn, P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee ValueAdded Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247-256. Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3-36). New York: MacMillan. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2003). SREB essential principles of high-quality online teaching: Guidelines for evaluating K-12 online teachers. Retrieved from http://info.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/PDF/ Essential_Principles.pdf Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2006-313 Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006313.pdf Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2012). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping pace with K-12 online & blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Wisconsin Legislative Data. Assembly Bill 40. (2013, June 14). Retrieved from https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/frame/2013/proposals/ab40 Yin, Robert K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed., vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Acknowledgement Special thanks to the Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute for supporting this research through a fellowship.