VOL. 13, No. 2, 33-50
The purpose if this study was to investigate a virtual program, providing descriptions and assessments from the different participants at the host junior high school. Kearsley, Lynch, and Wizer (1995) indicate that numerous studies have concluded that “online learning activities are well suited for graduate level education” (p. 37). However, successful online programs at the postsecondary level do not mean that they are appropriate programs for middle-grades students. This study is one of few conducted specifically at the middle-grades level. It chronicles what the participants feel were the strengths, weaknesses, and factors influencing students’ success in the virtual school environment. It also raises a number of issues for educators to consider when investigating the implementation of virtual school programs.
Le but de cette étude était d’analyser un programme du premier cycle du secondaire, offert en mode virtuel, en utilisant les descriptions et les évaluations de ce programme fournies par les participants de l’école-hôte. Kearsley, Lynch, et Wizer (1995) indiquent que de nombreuses études ont conclu que « les activités d’apprentissage par télématique conviennent bien à l’enseignement supérieur » (p. 37). Cependant, la réussite des programmes offerts par télématique au post-secondaire ne signifie pas que ce mode de diffusion convienne nécessairement aux étudiants du premier cycle du secondaire. Cette étude est l’une des rares à s’intéresser spécifiquement à cet ordre d’enseignement. Elle dresse l’inventaire des perceptions des participants sur les forces et faiblesses du programme, et sur les facteurs influençant le succès des élèves dans l’environnement scolaire virtuel. Elle soulève aussi un certain nombre de questions sur lesquelles devraient se pencher les éducateurs quand ils envisagent l’implantation de programmes scolaires virtuels.
Being part of this (Cyber Junior Secondary), I realize that there is no substitute for a human being, and it has just been encouraging for me to see there isn’t just some boogy man on the horizon. It’s a little thing that might work for some kids, but it’s certainly not going to turn into “The way” of delivering education as far as I can tell. (A teacher participant)
In our current educational environment, almost any educational innovation, especially one having to do with computers, is a contentious issue with both educators and governments. Virtual schooling is no exception. Virtual schooling is a form of distance education provided electronically from a school site or off-campus, under the instruction and supervision of a certificated teacher of a board or an accredited private school (Alberta Education, 1998). In practice, many characteristics of traditional classrooms exist in virtual schooling; however, instructional activities and interaction are mediated through computer software rather than face-to-face interaction (Hiltz, 1995).
Although the roots of virtual schooling can be traced back to the early 1960s, routine implementation of programs “online” is a relatively new phenomenon in education. More rapid growth of online education took place in the 1980s, typically involving universities that were seeking to bridge the geographical barriers raised by traditional face-to-face classroom settings (Harasim, 1990). In K-12 settings, the history of virtual schooling is even shorter.
In 1998 most virtual schooling in Canada was in Alberta. During the 1997-1998 school year, there were 20 virtual programs of various sizes and affiliations operating in Alberta. Approximately half of these programs served fewer than 50 students, with most of these smaller programs affiliated with a single school. Only four of the larger programs that served more than 50 students were stand-alone virtual schools (Haughey & Muirhead, 1999). The interest generated by these programs indicates strongly that there will continue to be significant increases in the number of students educated online in Alberta.
Although technically it is possible to implement virtual school programs with middle-grades students, I believe that there are some concerns that should be raised. There is a growing body of research promoting online education; however, much of this research deals primarily with adult learners: mature, self-directed, motivated learners who link education with work and find this means of education attractive (Tiffin & Rajasingham, 1995). The success of online programs at the adult/postsecondary level does not mean that they are necessarily appropriate at the middle grades. Obviously, substituting adolescent students for adults and middle-grades schools for universities makes for vastly changed educational landscapes. Thus the need for research at the middle-grades level is urgent because limited research has been conducted (Wynne, 1997) and virtual schooling is growing rapidly.
This case study of one virtual program, Cyber Junior Secondary, was conducted from the perspective of the constructivist research paradigm, using qualitative research methodology in an emergent design. The research was conducted over a two-year period. I conducted this study as a means to explore the participants’ experiences, understandings, and perceptions of their participation in one virtual school program. Furthermore, I reconstructed those experiences, understandings, and perceptions around areas in which there was relative consensus, or at least some movement toward consensus (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Overall, this study was intended to be interpretive, inductive, and transferable.
Interviews were the primary source for most of the data used. In the formal interview process, I used a semistructured interview format employing both closed- and open-ended questions; there was also extensive probing. Instructors, parents, and students involved with the program were solicited as participants for the interviews. In total 32 interviews took place: 12 with teachers, 13 with students, and 7 with parents. All interviews were transcribed verbatim.
Other methods of data collection were used to ensure triangulation, including participant observation (observing both the e-mail log of the online classes in progress and the callback sessions), a diary (for personal reflections and identifying emerging themes), and document examination (grades, assignments, and e-mail transcripts). A more detailed description of data collection and analysis is available in Litke (1998).
Although I cannot give full disclosure of my position of employment for ethical reasons, my position in my school division allowed me generous access to the inner workings of the program, and I had established professional relationships with all the teacher participants in the program prior to the study. Thus I had an insider’s perspective of the environment where the study took place, but I also possessed some sense of distance because I was not directly involved in either administration or instruction in the virtual school program.
Cyber Junior Secondary, a pseudonym, is a virtual school program designed for middle-grades students (aged 11-14), who elected to receive their schooling at home, were physically or medically unable to attend school, or required flexible school schedules. Students in Cyber Junior Secondary are assigned the standard Alberta Education junior high curriculum, and they access instruction through their home computers via the First Class (<F128M>�<F255D>) conferencing system. In financial compensation, the host school uses the basic per-pupil grant as assigned by Alberta Education to pay for the computers, textbooks, and instructional costs.
The virtual program involved in this study may be more appropriately described as a virtual classroom. The reason is that the virtual program Cyber Junior Secondary consists of just 20 to 25 students from grades 7 through 9, and it is under the jurisdiction of the host junior high school, which enrolled over 500 students.
Students who enrolled in Cyber Junior Secondary received a Macintosh Performa 5200CD computer and appropriate software. Before receiving a computer, an insurance agreement was signed by each student’s key parent indicating the school’s ownership of the computer and the key parent’s financial responsibility for damages (key parent: parent or guardian who assumes the responsibility for supervision of the student in the home and interaction with the teachers in the program. Each family must designate a key parent). The key parent was also responsible for providing adequate supervision for the student at home.
Students in Cyber Junior Secondary enrolled in five core courses (math, science, physical education, social studies, health/advisory, language arts) and three complementary courses (computer studies, keyboarding, and ecostudies). Students also had the option of blending their program by taking complementary courses and/or physical education at the school site with regular classes. Students participated in callbacks at regular intervals. Callbacks are days when the students returned to the school site to engage in face-to-face instruction with their teachers. Testing, labs, the teaching of difficult concepts, and issue resolution were common activities.
The school building itself was relatively new; erected in 1990 at a cost of $7.2 million, it had been designed as a state-of-the-art facility specifically in terms of computer technology in order to be able to accommodate future technological developments.
Teachers on this staff were expected to be computer literate. The school had provided all teachers with computer workstations on their classroom desks since 1991 (with 3 subsequent upgrades of hardware to 1997), provided a local e-mail system for teachers in 1992, used a centralized computerized report card system since 1993, and implemented a wide area network with Internet access in 1997. In addition, any teacher who had been hired since 1990 was required to have a solid foundation of computing skills. Overall, seven teachers were involved in the virtual school program each year. They also taught in the regular school program. As a result of the combination of computer expertise on site and the excellent facilities, the district often used the school to pilot technology-based programs. In addition, because of its modern networked infrastructure, the building also serves as a district hub, hosting all of the communications technology hardware (both LAN and WAN).
Economic and political forces influenced decision-making regarding implementation of the virtual school program. The motives for implementing such a program revealed a strong emphasis on the economic realities of the host site: an impending drop in enrollment and the consequent reduction in funding resulting in a potential loss of both staff and programs. In addition, much of the decision-making was done in haste due to another economic reason: competition. This was because other neighboring districts were also quickly moving toward implementing virtual program sites. Even the choice of e-mail system held economic and political ramifications. The administration felt that the First Class e-mail system was safe; the staff knew it well as they had used it for a number of years, and the school would not have to deal with the moral and legal issues of using Internet-based e-mail, which would allow the students at home Internet access without direct teacher supervision. There was no discussion of which system would make the best pedagogical sense or which system would best facilitate learning; the decision was made on political and economic grounds.
It’s like trying to reach someone through a brick wall. You can’t get your hands on them. All you can do is shout over it. (A teacher participant)
The first issue that the teachers confronted was students missing deadlines or not handing in the assignments. The teachers originally felt that if they modified their onsite assignments and sent them through the e-mail, the online students would progress at the same speed as in their onsite classes. Unfortunately, this did not happen; however, this may not have been surprising given the clientele. The public school setting had failed for most of these students, and thus the implementation of a philosophical approach that simulated the school structure may have been doomed to failure. Metaphorically, one participant described the students as “the square pegs” and the teachers’ approach was “the round hole.”
Interestingly, when the situation online broke down, the response of the teachers was to increase the frequency of callbacks (every four weeks as opposed to six) and pound those square pegs into the round holes by getting students out from behind their computers at home and “getting into their faces” at school.
Although the square pegs got a little more rounded, as relationships between teachers and students developed, the round holes also got a little more squared through the teachers’ reflection on their approaches and their attempts to change their perspectives regarding the program in order to teach the students better. As a result, there was a great deal of mutual shaping as both groups confronted change.
Important issues associated with program implementation that teachers identified were increased workload (compared with face-to-face teaching), overwhelmed teachers and students in confronting change, software and maintenance problems with the computers, and the difficulties of building positive working relationships with students and parents.
Curriculum issues were also a problem in the online environment. Programs such as the Western Canadian Protocol (WCP) in mathematics were designed specifically for onsite classroom use, incorporating elements of cooperative learning, the use of manipulatives, and discovery learning. Textbooks and support materials were also written with the assumption that the traditional classroom would be the learning environment. Although it is possible to teach mathematics online with the WCP, the teachers felt hampered by what they felt was the lack of appropriate learning resources to help them adapt to the online environment.
The teachers believed that the program benefited the students, the school, and themselves. Benefits for students included an education superior to traditional home schooling programs, an increase in social interaction compared with home schooling, the program’s flexibility, a viable option for students who were unhappy at school, and a low pupil-teacher ratio. Home schooling students returning to the school, an additional program for the school, and an alternative to expulsion were identified as benefits for the school. Home schooling was the term used for students who were using correspondence programs at home. Personal benefits for teachers included enhancements for one’s résumé, increased organizational skills, an interesting change in teaching assignment, a decrease in discipline problems, and personal professional growth.
In terms of weaknesses in the program, teachers listed: students missing deadlines and not completing assignments; an educational environment that was inferior to the traditional classroom; an absence of personal relationships with students and parents; the loss of discussion, stories, and “teachable moments”; the math program; the lack of parental involvement; the emergence of responsibility and authority issues; a lack of time; the occasional inappropriate use of the e-mail system (profanity); problems with clearly communicating instructions in text form; a lack of teacher articulation about the curriculum, program, and students; the home schooling clientele; and difficulty in dealing with students whose major problems were academic.
For these teachers, student success was influenced by: student success characteristics (self-motivation, persistence, intelligence, etc.); supportive parents; and self-motivation, the latter considered as the most important.
Teachers in the study had some advice for others who may become involved in teaching online. Most of the advice centered on attitudinal issues such as being prepared, flexible, patient, and willing to work, especially on the computer. Taken at face value, perhaps none of the advice is particularly remarkable. However, I would argue that the lack of practical hands-on advice reflects a view that beliefs and attitudes are the biggest barriers to becoming successful online educators. Both Claeys, Feyten, and Levin (1997) and Fullan (1991) warn that it is much easier to change teachers’ use of educational materials and technology than it is to change their pedagogical beliefs.
It is important to reflect on the values represented by the teachers’ statements about the strengths of the program. Their preoccupation with both direct and indirect comparisons to home schooling revealed their belief that home schooling was an inferior form of education and that, ideally, students are best served in regular classrooms. By providing virtual schooling students with more social interaction, the choice to take courses onsite, some extrinsic motivation from the teachers, quicker feedback and turnaround time with messages and assignments (in short, providing a program that looks less like home schooling and more like regular schooling), the teachers felt that they were improving the quality of education for home schooling students. When the teachers reported on the benefits to the school, they again revealed their preference for traditional education, citing benefits such as getting the students back to school and removing discipline problems and bullies from the school by placing them in the virtual program. These benefits would make the regular school more effective by having more students onsite and fewer online, plus removing the difficult students from the school.
Conversely, teachers identified as weaknesses variables that made the program more like home schooling and less like regular school. For example, the loss of “teachable moments,” the absence of relationships between both students and teachers and students and students, the loss of discussion and stories, and the adherence to deadlines are all characteristics that are deemed desirable in the regular school setting. However, I would expect that some home schooling advocates may argue that some of these concepts are not necessarily of particular importance for quality education in home schooling. Thus the weaknesses again emphasize the view of the staff that the regular classroom situation is the most desirable learning situation for the vast majority of students.
The conflict between teachers and students involving deadlines raises the issues of authority and responsibility. Online teachers are inhibited in establishing authority by the lack of physical presence that they have in the program. Realistically, the students can simply gain control of the program by turning off the computer. Consequently, the teachers delegated responsibility to the parents for ensuring that the students adhered to the pace of the program. The initial contract that the key parent signed was a formal acknowledgment of this delegation of responsibility. To the teachers’ dismay, a number of parents passed that responsibility back to the students who, to the teachers’ further dismay, did not meet the deadlines. As a result, the teachers’ intense frustration stemmed partly from their perceived lack of authority in the online environment.
The issues of responsibility and authority are also present in another perceived weakness, the teachers’ inability to deal with the students who had academic problems. Typically, when students experience difficulties onsite, teachers attempt to schedule face-to-face meetings to deal with issues and provide students with individual attention. The online environment takes away the face-to-face aspect, and the text-based nature of the program slows down communication when compared with an oral conversation. As a result, teachers felt powerless in correcting academic problems because their preferred option, individualized face-to-face tutoring, was not available in the online environment.
One of the teachers in the study proposed the metaphor for teaching in the virtual school program of “being a first-year teacher.” Those in education know the trials of the first-year teacher: tremendous workloads, overwhelming stress, a sense of constantly being lost, and coping to survive. The metaphor is appropriate in describing the implementation of the virtual school program; however, it does stop short of the entire picture. Imagine an educational scenario where all of the participants both onsite and online are in their first year: teachers, administrators, parents, and students. There are no onsite mentors; the only experiences participants can draw on are those of a vicarious nature that participants apply as best they can. Given this scenario, the teachers struggled to learn to teach online.
Being on Cyber is like—I haven’t really done anything that I can compare it to. I really like it because it’s like a game of solitaire pretty much, or by yourself I guess. Interesting: like a game of solitaire. (A student participant)
The student participants came from a variety of educational backgrounds. Students indicated that they were drawn to the Cyber program because of problems at school such as harassment by other students, not fitting into the school setting, problems with teachers, and the “atmosphere” of public schools. In addition, the students indicated that the computer also played a role in motivating them to enroll in Cyber as opposed to other forms of home schooling.
The multiple realities in the virtual setting are clearly reflected in the different responses about the technical problems that the program encountered. The technical people at the school level complained about the tremendous workload that was caused by students “fiddling” with their computers. “They [the students] get into everything. Like everything! From the preferences to the chooser to the system folder. Like everything in the system folder is fair game to them!” This created large amounts of computer maintenance time to keep the program running smoothly. The students, however, barely mentioned computer problems. To students, the odd phone call, e-mail, or occasionally bringing their computer into the school for servicing was hardly worth mentioning.
Strengths, Weaknesses, and Factors Influencing Success
Student participants identified freedom, time flexibility, fewer distractions, better marks, more individual attention from teachers, a higher degree of satisfaction, and fewer hassles with teachers and other students as the major strengths of this program. They also identified the benefits of the program as financially cheaper than private school, involving parents in their studies, and working collaboratively.
Students identified the isolation at home, lack of personal contact with teachers and classmates, and distractions in the computer such as computer games or experimenting with the functions of the computer as the major weaknesses of the online environment. Other weaknesses identified by the students were inappropriate student use of e-mail (such as harassing messages to other students or profanity), slow response to e-mail messages (by teachers), and unclear instructions from the teachers. In addition, some students complained that they experienced headaches from working at the computer for long periods.
Students selected personal characteristics such as motivation, organization, and independence as the most important factors influencing success. Agreeing with the teachers, the students saw themselves as being most responsible for success in the program. Also, students felt that parental support, good teachers, and quality of instructional packages influenced their success.
Three patterns of parent roles emerged from the students’ perceptions of their parents: absentee parents, parents as supporters, and participatory parents.
This role was indicated by less than one third of the students in the study. All involved a single-parent family situation where the parent worked outside the home. As a result, the students were often at home alone and were responsible for their own supervision with little tutorial help available.
In this scenario, the parents ensured that the students fulfilled their responsibilities by asking questions regarding their progress, occasionally speaking with teachers, and providing tutorial assistance. Their involvement typically varied, increasing when the students were experiencing difficulties and decreasing when there were fewer problems. Just fewer than one half of the participants in the study described their home environments in this manner, making this the largest group.
Some students mentioned that their parents were influential in their schooling. These parents were involved in many aspects of the program including frequent tutoring, editing, checking assignments, supervision, and even working on the computer. Again, fewer than one third of the online families seemed to fall into this description.
The findings of this study parallel other studies (Moore, 1982; Van Galen, 1991; Knowles, Muchmore, & Spaulding, 1994) that suggested that the home schooling movement is often an expression of intense dissatisfaction with the structures of existing schools. The complaints about student harassment, students not fitting into established cliques, the school environment, and ineffective teachers expressed this dissatisfaction clearly. Another study, Natale (1995), is also reflected when students cited the computer as a factor in attracting them to a virtual program.
The most striking feature of the students’ commentary on program strengths was the major philosophical differences that this section portrayed between the teachers and the students. One of the major themes of the teachers was their perception that the virtual classroom offered a better program for students than the traditional home schooling program; however, the teachers were insistent that the students in their regular classroom were getting a superior quality of education. On the other hand, the students had a strong focus on what they could do online versus the limitations of the traditional classroom. Issues such as freedom and control over one’s day, time flexibility, fewer distractions and hassles clearly speak to what students see as weaknesses in traditional schooling.
Interestingly enough, despite their positive perceptions of online learning, the students did not feel that the virtual classroom was a viable option for most students. The student participants emphasized that the program was only appropriate for those students who had social problems at school, had the proper motivation to succeed, or desired the opportunity to move at their own pace. The students were clear in conveying that online environments were not the answer to the educational needs of all students; rather, they saw it as an answer to their own unique needs. This perception closely paralleled the views of the teachers.
By acknowledging that personal characteristics such as motivation, organization, and independence were important factors in achieving success, the students affirmed that they understood that they had major responsibilities in the virtual program. As some students noted, they could demonstrate their control of the program extremely easily; they could simply turn off their computers or choose to not turn them on.
In classroom education, it is assumed that the greater the level of parental involvement, the greater the likelihood of student success. However, the issue is more complex in the online environment. Take, for example, the category of Absentee Parent. In two of the cases in this category, the students dropped out and returned to school, primarily because they were failing. In the third situation, however, the student in the Absentee Parent environment completed the program with better than average grades. Certainly the success rates of students appeared to improve with the other two categories (Parents as Supporters, Participatory Parents); however, success was not guaranteed in any category.
It can be argued that the labels I have given the categories describing the parents may not be appropriate; however, it is beyond dispute that there were major differences in the sharing of responsibilities among participants. If students accept responsibility for their progress like the successful student in the “Absentee Parent” environment, they can attain a high level of achievement. As a result, the degree to which parents must assume responsibility for their children’s learning online depends primarily on the amount of the responsibility the students ultimately accept for their learning and, consequently, how much of the responsibility they cede to parents. The Absentee Parent case also shows that if neither the student nor the parent in the home environment accepts responsibility for the student’s education, failure is certain.
The strength is when you have a boy like I have who is extremely individualistic, a very strong idea of who he is and that he should have some kind of command over his day. This gives him that freedom that empowers him to make choices. (A parent participant)
The parents were not able to speak about the program with the degree of depth that the other participants did, but they were comfortable in sharing insights about their children. As a result much of the interview time focused on their child.
Although each child is certainly different, common themes surfaced in the parents’ descriptions of the children. Generally, most of the parents perceived their children as bright but underachieving, different from other children, and bored with the structures and environment of the traditional classroom.
It is no surprise given these descriptions of their children that parents would be looking for other educational alternatives. Parents’ justifications for enrolling their children paralleled the students’ explanations: unhappy children and dissatisfaction with schools. Most parent participants believed that schools had failed to provide for the unique needs of their children, leaving their children bored, frustrated, and unhappy. In addition, the computer helped to legitimize the program in the minds of some parents because it made the program appear “high tech” and current. One commented: “It sounded really interesting ... Because the kids are going to need computers when they get into the work force. This is a good way of getting used to it.”
In terms of program strengths, the parents identified time flexibility, the removal of problems associated with schools (hassles with other students, unfriendly environments, distractions such as the class clown, teachers’ labels, and peer pressure), increased parental involvement, happier kids, academic skill development, the development of life skills, improved family relationships, and an improvement over traditional home schooling programs.
Although the parents seemed to have a more positive perspective than both the teachers and students in viewing the program, they did perceive weaknesses in the program similar to the other two groups. Parents cited lack of socialization, lack of contact with teachers, time demands on parents, student motivation, the loss of the teachable moment, increases in teacher workloads, and issues of trust as weaknesses in the program.
Parents cited student motivation, parental support, and quality of instruction as the major factors influencing student success. It was also the consensus of the parents that the student’s motivation was the most important factor influencing success. Some parents also noted that one of the major motives for their children to be successful on the virtual program was the motivation not to be in school because the students knew that they would have to return to school if they were unsuccessful in the online program.
Despite minor technical glitches, parents were generally satisfied with the implementation of the program, as they expected some difficulties with a first year program. Many parents also reported that they were pleased with the changes that they observed in their children since they began the program.
It is important to note areas of strengths where teachers, students, and parents reached a consensus. First, all three groups recognized that time flexibility was a strength of the program. Second, all agreed that the program could effectively serve the student who was dissatisfied at school rather than forcing the unhappy student to cope with a negative educational environment. This was especially true in cases where the student had not rejected the purposes of schooling, but had merely rejected the school environment. Parents also seemed to be philosophically in tune with the teachers in recognizing the importance for students to be provided social opportunities through the callbacks.
In terms of motivation in the online community, the parents indicated that much of the teachers’ responsibility for motivation had moved to the students. Parents, however, indicated that they had assumed the most significant portion of the supervisory responsibilities.
Tutorial or instructional support is another matter. Although the parents suggested that they had assumed a role in the instructional or tutorial process, it was clear that they expected the teachers to maintain most of the responsibility in this area. All parents expected prompt responses by teachers to students’ questions and concerns, and all parents expected the teachers to make frequent contact with the students by e-mail.
Interesting to me was the degree to which parents wanted the teachers to maintain positive relationships with their children in the program. The teachers generally lamented that being online greatly limited their opportunities to establish positive relationships with students, relationships that are vital for success according to both the teachers and the literature (Rutherford & Billig, 1995; Whisler, 1990) on middle-grades students. Parents also implied that these relationships were important, desiring teachers to view students as “real people,” not just characters on the computer screen. In this respect, online parents were no different from parents in traditional schools; they valued teachers who genuinely cared about their children. Despite the limited opportunities that teachers may have felt they had to establish strong relationships with the students in a virtual school program, parents still expected them to try to establish those relationships and resented the teachers who they felt didn’t try.
The teachers also indicated that they felt a great deal of pressure and stress about the changes required to teach in the virtual program. This caused many teachers to reevaluate and reflect on their most basic philosophies of teaching. Teachers struggled to cope with the demands, especially time demands, of teaching a new program online, especially in view of their perceptions that they already were teaching a more effective program face to face. On the other hand, the parents recognized that the program was in its infancy and expected the program to have problems and glitches. For parents there was an absence of the soul-searching and stress that the teachers experienced because the internal conflict that the parents faced ended once they had made the decision to enroll their child online.
It is interesting to examine the ironies in the polarized levels of stress between the parent and teacher participants. Although the program caused the teachers to cede much of their supervisory and motivational responsibilities to the parents and students, it could be argued that the loss of those responsibilities actually increased their stress. On the other hand, gaining these responsibilities may have actually reduced stress for the parents because they no longer had to cope with the unhappiness of their children who did not want to attend school. It appeared to be an ironic twist of this program that, to some degree (obviously increased workloads, lack of experience, etc. also played a role), the program change that resulted in a loss of certain responsibilities actually increased the teachers’ stress and the gaining of certain responsibilities reduced the parents’ stress.
The changes that the parents recognized in their children also underscored the differences in perspectives of the two adult groups. For many teachers, one of the more rewarding aspects of their profession is seeing the growth and progress of their students. Because of the lack of personal relationships they established with students, teachers were not able to celebrate the successes of their students to the same degree as in the regular classroom. In part this may explain why some teachers found the online experience comparatively unrewarding. Parents, however, were able to recognize and celebrate the growth of their children in the program. I would propose that the teachers did not just cede certain responsibilities online to the parents in the program; they also ceded some of the rewards of their profession, specifically the celebration of student success.
The participants in the study provided many insights into virtual schooling, and I would make the following comments and suggestions to other educators in this developing area.
Certainly one case study does not fill the void in the literature dealing with virtual schooling at the middle-grades level. However, this project may actually have more transferability than most cases because of the technological infrastructure that made this school an excellent candidate for implementing a virtual school program. Despite the favorable scenario for program implementation, a number of issues emerged that hampered the program. Speculation would be that less developed infrastructures would yield even more problems and issues.
I argue that one cannot simply take an innovation that works for adults and universities and implement it with middle-grades students and schools. There were, however, many links between the literature regarding online education at the adult education level and the virtual school program in this study. A number of the strengths that the participants identified such as time flexibility, the improvements over traditional forms of distance education, and the satisfaction of learning in the home environment were identified in the research with adults. Weaknesses such as limited socialization, organizational and motivational issues, unclear messages, and overloaded instructors also appear to apply at both levels (Courtney, 1992; Tiffin & Rajasingham, 1995). However, due to the numerous linkages with the research in other areas such as middle-grades education and home schooling, I would suggest that it remains important to continue to study virtual schooling contextually at the middle grades in order to continue to build the literature scaffolding with much-needed research in this unique area. Many programs like the one involved in this study are struggling through program implementation without the benefit of substantial research in this area.
In May 1998, the administration decided to suspend officially the operation of the virtual program. The projected drop of enrollment for 1997-1998 that provided the incentive for the implementation of this program never materialized due to sudden community growth. With a further projected increase of the student population of over 50 students for 1998-1999, the school faced a different set of problems, specifically a crisis of overcrowding. The school felt that trying to accommodate the virtual program was counterproductive for the general student population given many of the reasons identified in this study, especially the vast amount of time required to operate the program effectively. Thus the focus on the priorities of the regular school eventually resulted in the suspension of the online program. Unofficially, the server hardware and software will be maintained in case there are students onsite who would be better served by a online program.
The author would like to recognize the contribution of his colleague Barb Andersen to this research project.
Alberta Education. (1998). Common practices in online learning: A best-practice study of integrating technology in learning. Draft report. Edmonton, AB: Author.
Claeys, C., Feyton, C. & Levin, H. (1997). Europe’s approach to new technologies in education: Government vs. industry. Proceedings of Ed Media ’97: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Calgary, AB: [CD-ROM] Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education [Producer and Distributor].
Courtney, S. (1992). Why adults learn: Towards a theory of participation in adult education. London: Routledge.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harasim, L. (1990). On-line education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), On-line education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.
Haughey, M., & Muirhead, W. (1999). Common practices in online learning: A best practice study of integrating technology in learning. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education.
Hiltz, S. (1995). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kearsley, G., Lynch, W., & Wiser, D. (1995). The effectiveness and impact of online learning in graduate educaton. Educational Technology, 35(6), 37-47.
Knowles, J., Muchmore, J., & Spaulding, S. (1994). Home education as an alternative to institutionalized education. Educational Forum, 58(Spring), 239-242.
Litke, C.D. (1998). Virtual schooling at middle grades: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary.
Moore, R. (1982). Research and common sense: Therapies for our homes and schools. Teachers’ College Record, 84(2), 355-377.
Moore, R. (1984). Home schooling: An idea whose time has returned. Human Events,
September.
Natale, J. (1995). Home, but not alone. American School Board Journal, 182(7), 34-36.
Rutherford, B., & Billig, S. (1995). Parent, family, and community involvement in middle grades. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 273)
Tiffin, J., & Rajasingham, L. (1995). In search of the virtual class: Education in an information society. New York: Routledge.
Van Galen, J. (1991). Ideologues and pedagogues: Parents who teach their children at home. In J. Van Galen & M. Pitman (Eds.), Home schooling: Political, historical, and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 63-76) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Whisler, J. (1990). Young adolescents and middle level education: A review of current issues, concerns and recommendations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 960)
Wynne, S. (1997). Open schools, open minds: An overview of virtual schooling in North America and Europe. Vancouver, BC: Open School.
C. Del Litke received his doctorate in educational research from the University of Calgary, and his Master and Bachelor of Education from the University of Alberta. He has 17 years experience teaching the middle grades and 10 years as a school-based administrator. He is currently Assistant Principal at Lacombe Junior High School.