Research and Practice in Distance Education for

K-12 Students with Disabilities

Eleazar Vasquez III and Barbara A. Serianni
University of Central Florida

Abstract This review of literature highlights the empirical work to

date in the area of K-12 distance education and online learning. While research indicates that distance and online learning can be equally effective as

compared to more traditional learning environments for many students, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that previously validated face-to-

face best practices can be effective in the online environment or if students with disabilities have similarly parallel experiences. Technology/media—

the debate as to whether it is a part of instructional design or an inert component of the learning environment seems to be ending as the sophistication

of technology changes the very nature of instruction and demonstrates the need for empirically validating practices in this new environment. The

potential impact on rural schools and districts is of particular import in light of their often-critical need for access to qualified teachers and advanced

coursework for their students. We conclude with considerations for research including lingering questions as well as a call for action on the part of

educational researchers.

Keywords: electronic learning, web-based instruction, Internet, distance education, reading strategies,
reading instruction, reading improvement

Distance education holds tremendous
promise, offering viable and attractive options for
advancing student skills, increasing access, and
potentially lowering the cost of educational services. For
some, the term distance education may still call up old
images of educational television or other dated methods.
However, media used in distance education have
undergone remarkable changes over the years. A
comprehensive definition of distance education must be
broad because it encompasses so many different learning
environments. Greenberg (1998) defined contemporary
distance education as “a planned teaching/learning
experience that uses a wide spectrum of technologies to
reach learners at a distance and is designed to encourage
learner interaction and increases in learning” (p. 36).
Teaster and Blieszner (1999) indicated that distance
learning might be applied to many instructional methods,
“however, its primary distinction is that the teacher and
the learner are separate in space and possibly time” (p.
741). Keegan (1996) provided a thorough definition, one
that is frequently cited by researchers. He stated that
distance education and training result from the
technological separation of teacher and learner which
frees the student from the necessity of traveling to “a
fixed place, at a fixed time, to meet a fixed person, in
order to be trained” (p. 7). Keegan’s definition of distance
education involves five qualities that distinguish it from
other forms of instruction: (a) the
quasi permanent separation of teacher and learner; (b) the
influence of an educational organization in planning,
preparation, and provision of student support; (c) the use
of technical media; (d) the provision of two-way
communication; and (e) the quasi permanent absence of
learning groups.
A great deal of research on distance education
focuses on comparing media. New media are typically
compared to traditional face-to-face instruction to
determine whether the new media is more, less, or
similarly effective relative to traditional instruction. Clark
(1983, 1994) ignited a debate on the relevance of such
media comparison studies. Clark began the debate by
stating that, “media do not influence learning under any
conditions.” He stated that media are “mere vehicles that
deliver instruction but do not influence student
achievement anymore than the truck that delivers
groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (1983). Clark
updated his analogy in 1994, comparing the various
methods of pharmaceutical delivery (pills, suppositories,
IV, and injections) with their effectiveness. He indicated
that the delivery method does not increase the patients’
health; rather, improvement in health outcomes is the
result of active chemical ingredients (1994). At the core of
Clark’s argument was the dichotomy between two
components of instruction: (a) the instructional design
(the information given to the student, the responses the
student makes, the feedback the student is given,

Author Note Address all correspondence to Eleazar Vasquez III

(eleazar.vasquez@ucf.edu).

Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4) 33

Rural Special Education Quarterly 31(4) 33-42 ©

2012 American Council on Rural Special Education

Reprints and Permission: Copyright Clearance

Center at 978-750-8400 or www.copyright.com

and so on); and (b) the media that deliver this instruction
(live interaction, paper and pencil, computer delivered,
etc.). He argued that most media comparison studies
confound these two kinds of variables. That is, when two
media are compared, the programs offered over the
competing media also differ in their instructional design.
If one program has a more effective instructional design,
we would expect it to be more successful, and its success
could not be attributed to the delivery medium. Only if the
instructional design were identical across media could a
valid comparison be made, but, if instructional design
were equated, then, by definition, there would be no
differences in relevant learning experiences for the
student. Thus, according to Clark, media per se is neutral.
Media simply deliver the instruction; it is the instruction
that is responsible for learning.
Several researchers (Kozma, 1994; Morrison, 1994;
Tennyson, 1994; Ullmer, 1994) have rebutted Clark’s
(1983, 1994) position. Kozma’s main argument was that
both media and methods are part of the instructional
design. He asserted that the media design can provide new
methods of teaching and our instructional methods must
take advantage of media’s capacity to change teaching
and learning. Further, Kozma suggested that recent media
uses involve highly interactive sets of events that occur
between learners and teachers, among learners (e.g.,
collaborative learning), and even between learners and
nonhuman agents or tools; so considering media and
instruction to be discrete variables no longer makes sense.
Kozma has claimed that these interactive media are not
neutral carriers of content but allow for specific kinds of
instructional interactions and therefore are potentially
active elements of instruction. That is, new media offer
options for instructional interactions that are simply not
possible in other media. Thus, holding instructional
features constant removes critical and potentially
powerful features of various media. According to this
view, the point of developing new media is to enable
instructional interactions that were not possible (or were
difficult) with previously available media.
Both arguments contain valid points. As Clark (1983,
1994) noted, media, instruction, and curriculum are
frequently confounded and disentangling them is difficult
at best. Further, if instruction and curriculum are equated,
then media comparisons become trivial. However, media
can certainly hinder the delivery of instruction and
thereby impact student outcomes. For example, if one
attempts to teach reading over a form of media that is
strictly audio, such as the radio or telephone, it would be
very difficult to present specific written words and point
out specific letters within the words. In addition, small and those are far outnumbered by the number of
providing proper error correction would be impossible. In studies showing no difference.
this “I did not use any scientific sampling method but
instead listed every study found that showed no
34 Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4) significant difference. . . . The point remains that . . .
example, the technology simply does not afford the studies [showing a significant difference] are
necessary modality to present visual stimuli nor the practically nonexistent and the very few that do exist
interactive capabilities to provide the necessary are offset by a like number which show negative
discriminated feedback on student responses. However, results for the technology based instruction” (p.
with a computer conferencing system that can afford real xiii).
time two-way audio and video, reading instruction is Essentially, Russell selected studies based on their
much less hindered by the technology. If media can outcomes, cited those that showed no significant
hinder instruction (relative to face-to-face), there may be
difference in the annotated bibliography, and excluded
ways that media may afford instructional opportunitiesarticles which showed a significant difference. For these
not available in face-to-face instruction. The ways that
reasons, numerous researchers (e.g., Bernard et al., 2004;
media may enhance or hinder instruction may be subtle;Diaz & Cartnal 1999; Ehrmann, 1995; Kozma, 1994;
therefore, any new form of technology used to deliver Moore & Thompson, 1997; Saba, 1999) have questioned
instruction should be empirically validated in ordertheto validity of Russell’s claims. To address other
make claims of effectiveness. Unfortunately, little researchers’ questions, Russell developed a website that
validation research of this type is available. Review nowof accepts both significant and non- significant articles
Distance Education Effectiveness into a database (Russell, 2008).
Bernard et al. (2004) argued that there are
Research
several problems with Russell’s (1999) approach. First,
The logical implication of Clark’s (1983, not 1994)
all studies are of equal quality and rigor, and to
position is that, when instructional and content factors are them all, without qualification or description,
include
reasonably well controlled, comparative research renders
should conclusions and generalizations difficult. Second,
find no differences between media, and, when differences
Bernard argued that an accepted null hypothesis is not
are found, media is likely confounded with substantialstrong evidence that there is no difference between the
instructional and content differences. We can examine the
treatments; it only means that any differences were not
comparative distance education research literaturelarge to see
enough to exceed the critical value of the statistical
whether this pattern is present. significance test. This is particularly important in small-
Numerous narrative reviews, meta-analyses sample of the studies where the power to reject the null
media comparison, and distance education literatures are
hypothesis is not high. Third, the different sample sizes of
available, and results of these reviews have not individual
always studies make it impossible to aggregate the
agreed. One of the most widely cited reviews is Russell’s
results of different studies solely on the basis of their test
(1999) annotated bibliography of 335 papers and statistics.
articles Thus, Bernard concluded that Russell’s work
that show no significant difference between traditional
represents neither a sufficient overall test of the
and technologically delivered instruction. This work is
hypothesis of no difference nor an adequate estimate of
often cited as empirical support for Clark’s (1983,the 1994)
magnitude of effects attributable to distance education.
argument. Russell declared that there was no compelling Phipps and Merisotis (1999), in another
evidence to refute Clark’s original 1983 claim widely that acited report prepared for the American Federation
delivery medium contributes little if anything ofto the Teachers (1999) and the National Education
outcomes of planned instruction and that technology- Association (2004), reviewed articles published from
delivered distance education confers no advantages 1990 into 1999 that addressed two-way interactive video,
terms of educational outcomes. According to Russell, the prerecorded video, two-way audio/ one-way
one-way
number of studies showing a significant differencevideo,
is veryand computer mediated learning in college-level
courses. Phipps and Merisotis identified only 12 articles
on this topic and did not provide a quantitative synthesis
of results such as an average effect size. Rather, they
described different types of distance education research
(i.e., descriptive research, case studies, correlation, and
experimental research). The authors suggested that design
flaws in distance education research make the results
inconclusive, noting that few studies choose participants
using random selection. However, researchers have
reported a favorable comparison of distance education and
face- to-face instruction across content areas and grade
levels while surveys have reported higher satisfaction of
participants in distance education without regard to the
type of technology used.
Bernard et al. (2004) criticized the Phipps
and Merisotis (1999) review for lack of clear inclusion
and exclusion criteria. This lack of clear and objective
criteria for which studies are included in a review raises a
potential selection bias. The reviewer may select research,
to make a point rather than accurately
characterizing the state of research literature around a
given question. Bernard argued that Phipps and Merisotis’
finding of the “high user satisfaction” based on a select
sample of studies is no more credible than Russell’s claim
of non-significance based on his reporting on only studies
that showed no significance.
To identify the extent to which existing
literature provides empirical evidence on distance
education compared to face-to-face modalities, we
conducted a review of the literature. Articles selected for
inclusion in this review were located by (a) a search for
information related to synchronous tutoring, online
tutoring, distance tutoring, telecommunication, and video
conferencing; (b) a formal search of ERIC, EBSCO Host,
and Educator Full Text indexes; and (c) exploration of
websites of various federal agencies (e.g., Department of
Education, Federal Government Distance Learning
Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012
there was a need for more systematic research on the
effect of networked and on-line technologies, particularly
with a focus on children and adolescents, women/girls,
and people from marginalized populations (Ungerleider &
Burns).
Bernard et al. (2004) and Cavanaugh, Barbour, and
Clark (2009) reviewed research on distance education
Association, and International Centre for Distance
Learning), and private educational organizations that
provide supplemental instruction over technology (e.g.,
Sylvan, Lightspan Inc., Brainfuse, and Tutor.com). The
formal search included search terms to define:
1. The mode of instruction: (a) distance education, (b)
internet learning, (c) web-based instruction, (d) online
instruction, (e) telecommunication, and (f) video
conferencing 2. The population: (a) at-risk, (b) special
education,
(c) elementary, and (d) K-12 Seven quantitative
syntheses specifically related to distance education and
face-to-face academic instructions were published
recently (Allen, Bourhis, Burrell, & Mabry, 2002;
Bernard et al., 2004; Cavanaugh, 2001; Cavanaugh,
Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004; Machtmes &
Asher, 2000; Shachar & Newmann, 2003; Ungerleider &
Burns, 2003). Shachar and Newmann’s research
compared university students’ final grades in distance
education with those in traditional classes. Their meta-
analysis of 86 studies between 1990 and 2002 resulted in
a statistically significant overall effect size of 0.37
favoring distance education programs.
In another recent study, Ungerleider and
Burns (2003) conducted a systematic review for the
Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, including a
quantitative meta-analysis of the literature on networked
and online learning for secondary and post secondary
students. They found poor methodological quality from a
sample of 25 articles, to the extent that only 12
achievement and 4 satisfaction outcomes were of
sufficient quality to be analyzed. They found an overall
effect size of zero for achievement and an effect size of -
0.509 for satisfaction. Both findings were significantly
heterogeneous—that is, the set of studies showed a wide
range of results. They concluded that
31(4) 35
published between 1985 and 2003. Bernard et al.
identified articles comparing traditional instruction to
distance education instruction. They included all
educational levels including K-12, post secondary,
professional adult training, and military training. None of
the articles selected included studies in K-6 settings;
however, in 11 articles, researchers compared secondary-
level students in science, computer applications, math
(statistics, calculus, and algebra), and geography. Bernard
et al. found a near zero overall effect size (.0128) for
student achievement. The split between synchronous and
asynchronous distance education resulted in a small
negative mean effect size for synchronous of -0.102 (92
studies) that was statistically significant. The mean effect
size for asynchronous delivery was statistically significant
favoring distance education but very small (.0527 based
on 174 studies; Bernard et al.). Bernard et al. concluded
that, overall, classroom instruction and distance education
are comparable; however, the wide variability present in
all outcome measures (e.g., achievement, attitude, and
retention) precludes any firm declarations. Cavanaugh et
al. (2009) reviewed both experimental and non-
experimental studies, resulting in a conclusion that there
is a dearth of literature on the benefits and challenges of
K-12 online learning. The researchers reported on the
clear themes that emerged from their study but concluded
that there was much more work to be done in these areas.
Identified themes included continued growth of online
learning; research focus on benefits, challenges, and
effectiveness of online learning; and the discussion of
standards for online learning and emerging effective
practices. K-12 Online Instruction
The growth of online and virtual instruction for all
levels of education has been substantial. Once a college
only instructional practice, online learning is becoming
much more common in K-12 across the country
(Emeagwali, 2004). Online courses and virtual schools
have become increasingly prevalent in the K-12 sector as
educators look for ways to provide innovative learning
tools to all students (Pape, 2005). Podoll and Randle
(2005) reported that some form of online learning is
offered in 41 percent of K-12 schools. Web- based
courses have evolved into communities of learners,
interactively communicating and constructing knowledge
(Siegle, 2002). Entire schools, called virtual
36 Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4)
high schools, are now providing online curricula to a large
number of students (Wicks, 2010). Recently, use of online
instruction has been employed to increase the school-
related performance of students with disabilities (Smith &
Meyen, 2003). Therefore, through online education,
academic classes can be designed to meet a variety of
learning styles and needs (Pape).
Online learning offers students several benefits. A
student-centered learning environment and high levels of
student engagement are achieved through an online
education. Pape (2005) explained that technology used in
online educational environments results in high levels of
student interest as a result of expanded course offerings,
increased rigor, and opportunities to interact with students
across district lines. Students are more motivated because
online learning can involve a variety of multimedia
activities (Mupinga, 2005). Distance education offers
students opportunities to sharpen skills for lifelong
learning and success outside school. The ability to use
technology with a high level of skill will provide online
high school graduates an advantage over their peers.
Students gain technology skills that will improve their
individual marketability as they enter the work force or
higher education (Donlevy, 2003).
Rice (2006) completed a meta-analysis of 16 studies
designed to compare online education to traditional
instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade settings.
She concluded that students can fail or succeed within
either type of learning environment, but certain student
characteristics are particularly important within online
environments. Specifically, she noted that students’
success within an online environment seems to be linked
to their level of independence and responsibility related to
the completion of schoolwork and their affective abilities
related to online interactions with teachers and other
students. Rice’s meta-analysis also revealed that support
related to technology issues and support in terms of adult
engagement are critical variables in terms of student
success within online environments. Roblyer, Davis,
Mills, Marshall, and Pape (2008) extended this line of
research and reported additional factors that contribute to
student success. These include achievement beliefs,
instructional risk taking, technology self-efficacy, and
organizational strategies.
In addition to research related to general success
variables within online environments for school-aged
students, a few researchers have investigated student
performance within specific content areas. Mixed results
have emerged from these studies. For example, Hughes,
McLeod, Brown, Maeda, and Choi (2007) compared
technology delivery on Algebra performance of high
school students who were taught online to the
 performance of similar students who were taught in communication
face- should be integrated across curricular
to-face settings and found that those who wereareas. taughtIt also indicates that technology provides
online did better than the students who were opportunities for teachers to tailor their instruction to meet
taught using traditional methods. Other researchers the individual goals, needs, interests, and prior experience
(Chandra & Lloyd, 2008; Wang & Reeves, 2007) of each student. Implications for Rural
investigated the benefits of online instruction within the
area of high school science. Chandra and Lloyd reported
Locations
mixed results related to the effectiveness of a blended According to the report Why Rural Matters
(online and face-to-face) approach when compared to 2007 (Johnson & Strange, 2007), rural districts account
traditional instruction; Wang and Reeves reported positive for 40% of all U.S. school districts and represent almost
outcomes related to student performance in online 10 million students. These schools and districts are
environments. burdened by the cost of a disproportionate number of
Only a few researchers have investigated the students who qualify for free and reduced lunch, are
effects of online instruction related to critical content racially, culturally and/or linguistically diverse, or are
areas in which the performance of students with students with disabilities. Currently, some rural schools
disabilities was analyzed separately from students without are using online courses to provide content in areas where
disabilities. Okolo, Englert, Bouck, and Heutsche (2007) highly effective teachers are not available. Inadequate
examined the effectiveness of a web-based virtual history resources, low teacher salaries, and poor educational
museum to help middle school students acquire outcomes create hurdles for recruiting and retaining
knowledge and reasoning skills related to historical quality teachers in rural areas (Johnson & Strange, 2007).
information. They found that students with disabilities, However, the tide is beginning to turn, and
students without disabilities, and honor students these issues are finally getting national attention. The
performed equally well on a history unit posttest. There plight of rural schools has become a federal priority
were differences in performance, however, on a written (Duncan, 2010). Resources, technologies, and policy are
paper related to the history unit. Honor students being directed to rural communities. Technologies,
outperformed both students with and without disabilities, including online learning, are being touted as at least a
and students without disabilities outperformed students partial solution to providing a “world-class” education for
with disabilities. Poorer writing skills among students every child (para. 13). Online classrooms provide a door
with disabilities seemed to affect their ability to to learning regardless of location and unparalleled access
communicate what they had learned in the history unit. In to content from countless institutions and agencies on the
another study, Kaffar (2006) investigated the Web. The Blueprint to Reform ESEA has provisions to
effectiveness of online instruction for high school students assist rural schools and districts in obtaining and using
with and without disabilities who were taught The technology to expand educational offerings with online,
Paragraph Writing Strategy (Schumaker & Lyeria, 1993) personalized instruction (Duncan, 2010). Distance and
using three different online formats: (a) PowerPoint online learning has been validated as a tool to provide
media, (b) streaming video, and (c) multimedia rural school students high quality course options without
(PowerPoint and streaming video). The writing leaving their communities. Rural schools and districts will
performance of students with and without disabilities require both financial and administrative help to develop
improved significantly, but students with disabilities and support the infrastructure necessary to access this
benefitted more from the PowerPoint media; students technology (Johnson & Strange, 2007).
without disabilities benefitted equally in all three formats. Online learning is poised to meet a variety of
The conclusions from these initial research needs in all types of schools and school districts. It is a
studies concur with recommendations from the National potential solution to scarcity of qualified teachers,
Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of expanded course offerings, class size requirements,
Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2010). This budget constraints, credit recovery, acceleration, and
plan suggests that technology and multimedia individualized instruction. Urban, suburban, and rural
schools share these educational challenges and are
looking for low cost, high quality instructional options—
hence the explosive growth of virtual classrooms
(iNACOL, 2012).
Given the increasing trend toward online
instruction for school-aged students and the limited
amount of research (Kaffar, 2006; Okolo et al., 2007)
related to the academic effectiveness of this type of
instruction for students with disabilities, there appears to
be a tremendous need to extend this line of inquiry. This
is especially true as it relates to evidence-based strategies
designed to help students acquire critical academic skills
in reading, including decoding and comprehension.
Without proficiency in basic reading skills, students will
struggle with most, if not all, other areas of the school
curriculum. Conclusions and Lingering
Questions
Research questions are similar across
educational environments. Educators in rural schools have
similar

Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4) 37

interests in pedagogy, student outcomes, and the cost teaching strategies. Dipietro et al. (2008) conducted one
effectiveness of online learning as urban areas. Specific of the few studies that examined effective asynchronous
research questions may include the following: teaching strategies in virtual schooling (Cavanaugh, 2007;
1. Who is enrolling in online classes? 2. What Clark, 2007). Some of the literature reviewed above
motivates students to enroll in online provided non-empirical accounts of strategies that
teachers at the Florida Virtual School (FLVS) and the
classes? 3. How well are students in online classes
VHS Collaborative (VHS) find useful (Elbaum, McIntyre,
performing academically as compared to students in
& Smith, 2002; Johnston, 2004; Johnston & Mitchell,
traditional classrooms? 4. What benefits do schools and
2000; Pape, Adams & Ribeiro, 2005; Zucker & Kozma,
school districts
2003), but there has not been systematic research into the
derive from providing online options to students? 5. Is
best practices of virtual school teaching strategies,
online learning truly providing a cost effective
particularly asynchronous teaching strategies (Hill, Wiley,
alternative to traditional classroom instruction? 6. Is
Nelson, & Han, 2004; Rice, 2006). Another emerging use
online learning providing instruction by highly
of online instruction includes synchronous systems to
qualified, content certified teachers? This list is not
deliver online instruction. To date, only a handful of
exhaustive; however, the needs are great given the swift
empirical studies (see Straub, 2012; and Vasquez &
movement of schools in adopting online courses,
Slocum, 2012) have demonstrated K-12 outcomes over
especially for children with disabilities.
synchronous platforms.
To date, the literature related to online and virtual
schooling has concentrated first on defining and then 38 Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4)
describing the benefits and the challenges for K-12 A second area to establish research is on requirements
students and teachers. The research in the field in the and standards needed for online teacher certification or
earlier years (i.e., 1990s) focused on the effectiveness of training. The National Education Association (NEA,
online instruction by comparing it to traditional face to 2004), provides a global perspective of qualifications in
face schooling and issues surrounding student readiness their list of essential characteristics of a quality teacher
for and retention in virtual schooling. In recent years (i.e., that includes knowing his/her content area, knowing how
post-2000), the growing body of literature shifted to a to teach that content area, and understanding how to
refined description of practice and outcomes in online engage students in learning that content.
schools. However, the amount of empirical research is The process of acquiring and demonstrating those
still limited. Based on the limited research in our review characteristics varies slightly by state, but, across the
of the literature, we have identified areas for future nation, teacher credentialing generally includes a
research. bachelors degree from an accredited college or university,
The first area is to establish best practices for online course work or degree (varies by state) from an approved
 teacher preparation program, state licensure (including
which to structure their own requirements.
exams as determined by individual states), a supervised Going Virtual! 2010 provides general
internship in a K-12 setting, ongoing professional statistics regarding the education and training of online
development in pedagogy and/or content area, and (Dawley, Rice, & Hinch, 2010). Items of interest
teachers
observation and evaluation of performance outcomes include 56% of online teachers report having 6-15 years
(NEA, 2007). of teaching experience, while 24% report 16 or more
The emphasis on teacher qualifications has givenyears
way of teaching experience; 12% of new online teachers
in recent years to an emphasis on effective teachers.
have never taught in a regular classroom; and 99% report
Federal programs such as the Teacher Incentive Fund having
and state or national teaching certification, while 60%
Race to the Top are incenting states to evaluate teachers
have a Master’s degree or higher. Going Virtual also
in order to create individualized professional development
reports information on the experiences and perceptions of
plans as well as determine fitness for teaching onlineorteachers regarding their professional development
promotion. Under these programs, states are charged (PD)with
experiences. Notable statistics include 25% of new
development of their own measures of online teacherteachers received no initial training, 94% reported
effectiveness (U.S. Department of Education, 2012), gettingas PD from their virtual school, 30% got their PD
even the definition of an effective teacher can varyfrom bya university, and 12% of new online teachers
state. received training at their college/university. In total, 86%
Online learning has created classrooms that haveare notreceived training about online teaching; over 90%
bound by district or state borders. This dynamic have received training in some technology skills; and 85%
havefor
complicates the state-specific certification standards received training in digital etiquette, behavior, and
teachers and is prompting the need for reciprocity assessment. With respect to online teacher-perceived
needs for PD: 16% would like to receive training about
agreements between states. These state-specific standards
are quickly becoming out-of-date as K-12 online onlineteaching, 44% want to have PD in the psychology
of
instruction continues to experience exponential growth online learning, and 64% want training on meeting the
and ignore the boundaries of traditional classrooms needs
(Fiskof students with disabilities online.
Natale, 2011). Online schools have recognized the need for
additional training for their new teachers as well as
At this time no state mandates additional certification
for teachers in online classrooms; however, ongoing
the professional development for their existing
Educational Testing Service ( Fisk Natale, 2011) teachers
reports as they continue to expand and develop those
that almost all states require online teachers to be state Teacher preparation programs, however, have
programs.
not kept pace with the exponential growth of online
certified. Six states (Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan
and South Carolina) have an optional online teachingteaching or the need for preservice preparation of teachers
endorsement, with more considering for virtual classrooms (Dawley, Rice, & Hinch, 2010).
similar
endorsements; Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Kansas in Five teacher preparation programs including
varying ways are requiring additional professional the University of Central Florida (UCF), the University of
development to teach in online classrooms; otherFlorida,
states and the University of South Florida provide
are considering online teaching endorsements opportunities
and for preservice teachers to meet their clinical
professional development; and several states are looking
experience requirement through a virtual internship.
at content-area tests for online teachers. These Florida universities partner with Florida Virtual
The International Association for K-12 School Online (FLVS), which is the largest K- 12 online school
Learning has published national standards for in the nation (Tormo, 2010). UCF piloted their virtual
quality
online teaching (iNACOL, 2011). Several states are internship partnership with FLVS in 2009 adapting their
looking towards those standards for their professional traditional internship supervision model to the new
development and online endorsements (Fisk Natale, environment. Over the years, that model has continued to
2011). While these standards are only recommendations, evolve.
they are providing states with a set of guidelines around There are several issues to consider in the
supervision of virtual interns. Without a physical a few hours of the actual event. Supervisors also can plan
classroom, the observation model has to change to attend these sessions live in the Elluminate room.
significantly in order for interns to continue to meet the Conference calls, SkypeTM, Google
high standards of the UCF program. Much of what virtual TM
Hangout , and other Web 2.0 applications make “being
teachers do is impromptu and on the telephone; all of
there possible for intern supervisors and their virtual
what they do is distant from not only the students and
interns. In live sessions, interns can receive real time
parents, but from their colleagues and instructional leaders
feedback via a private chat box, Instant Messenger, or
as well. Virtual teachers spend most of their teaching time
“bug in the ear bluetooth technology.” After action
interacting with students, content, assessments, and data
feedback of these live sessions can happen immediately as
via the Internet.
supervisors coach interns through a reflective evaluation
One of the biggest challenges is the
of their teaching session.
observation of critical components of the virtual teaching
The third area of empirical research is to
practice. An equally important consideration is gathering
improve the identification of characteristics that are
the documentation to demonstrate that interns have
necessary for K-12 students to be successful in online
demonstrated the required state teacher competencies. To
learning environments and to provide remediation for
combat these challenges, supervisors often have interns do
students who are lacking these characteristics. The range
much of their planned observation events within the
of students enrolling in online learning opportunities is
Elluminate environment. Elluminate is a web
expanding (Barbour & Mulcahy, 2008; Cavanaugh,
conferencing platform that allows teachers to create a
2007). Yet, the ability of virtual schools to support a
virtual classroom, host meetings, collaborate, and provide
broad range of student abilities appears to be limited.
one-on-one or small group instruction
After describing the promising results associated with the
(http://www.elluminate.com). Interns perform their
use of the Educational Success Prediction Instrument
teaching tasks inside the shell of an Elluminate room,
(ESPRI), Roblyer (2005) stated that the next step in this
recording the sessions for later review. Supervisors can
line of inquiry is to create materials to assist in the
then watch their intern teach a “live” lesson, give an oral
remediation of those students whose ESPRI results
assessment, make a monthly call to a parent, or participate
indicated potential problems. Rice (2006) also suggests
in a data chat designed to drive instructional decisions and
that researchers need to continue the research into and
then provide observation feedback to the intern within just
development of prediction tools, such as the ESPRI.

Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4) 39

Fourth, empirical research should address how virtual and earlier, the range of students enrolling in online learning
brick-and-mortar school personnel can encourage more opportunities is expanding. Scherer (2006) indicated that
interaction between in-school and online classmates. as the range of students with new and different needs
Interaction was one of the key components to create a expands, research is required to ensure that online
learning community for virtual school students (Barbour, learning is a realistic and accessible opportunity. Research
2007). Research into the field of learning communities in studies investigating the online learning experience for
online learning environments has been growing over the lower performing students will assist personnel to design
past decade. However, like the literature on distance appropriate supports as this particular population of
education and online learning in general, the research into students continues to grow within virtual schools.
online learning communities is almost exclusively focused There are significant implications for teacher
upon adult populations (including all of the references
cited above). There is a dearth of research exploring the
development of K-12 online learning communities.
Finally, researchers need to examine the quality of student
learning experiences in virtual school environments,
especially those of lower performing students. As stated
40 Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4) endless.
preparation programs, many of those still in the form of While the field of online learning is well into its
questions. What skills do teachers need to be effective in adolescence, the research necessary to inform practice is
the online environment? What experiences do teacher still in its infancy. While researchers and educators
preparation programs need to provide to build and assess discuss the issues relevant to the implementation, practice,
those skills? How do face-to-face instructional strategies best practices, teacher qualifications, and concerns for
translate into the online classroom? What does teaching student learning, students continue to enroll in online
look like in a virtual school? Are teacher educators courses. Number of enrollments in online courses is
prepared with the technological skills and experiences to growing exponentially; the time to discuss the pros and
effectively prepare preservice teachers to teach in an cons of this trend is long gone. This is a call to action. We
online environment? Do universities have collaborative can no longer discuss what we must do; we must mobilize
relationships and partnerships with virtual schools to and do it. The time to research is now . . . the
provide experiential opportunities for preservice teachers? opportunities for research are endless.
The implications as well as the questions are seemingly
References
Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing
Greenberg, G. (1998). Distance education technologies: Best prac- student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in
tices for K-12 settings. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, (Winter), higher education: A meta analysis. American Journal of Distance Educa- 36-
40.tion, 16(2), 83-97.

Hill, J. R., Wiley, D., Nelson, L. M., & Han, S. (2004). Exploring American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (1999). Building one the
research on Internet-based learning: From infrastructure to interactions. best, learning from what works: Five promising remedial reading interven-
In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communica- tion programs. Washington, DC: Author.
tions and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ- Barbour, M.K. (2007). Principles of effective web-based content for
ates, Publishers. secondary students; teacher and developer perceptions. Journal of Dis-
Hughes, J. E., McLeod, S., Brown, R., Maeda, Y., & Choi, J. (2007). tance Education, 21 (3), 93-114.
Academic achievement and perceptions of the classroom learning envi- Barbour, M. K., & Mulcahy, D. (2008). How are they doing? Exam- ining student
achievement in virtual schooling. Education in Rural Aus-
ronment in virtual and traditional secondary mathematics classrooms. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 199-214. tralia, 18(2), 63-74.
iNACOL. (2011). National standards for quality online teaching. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A.,
Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with
iNACOL. (2012). Fast facts about online learning. Vienna, VA: In- classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review
ternational Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http:/ of Educational Research, 74, 379-439.
/www.inacol.org/press/docs/nacol_fast_facts.pdf Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance
Johnston, S. (2004). Teaching any time, any place, and pace. In C. education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis. International
Cavanaugh (Ed.), Development and management of virtual schools: Is- Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73-88
sues and trends (pp. 116-134). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. Cavanaugh, C. S. (2007). Effectiveness of K-12 online learning. In
nd
Johnston, S., & Mitchell, M. (2000). Teaching the FHS way. Multi- M.G. Moore (Ed.) Handbook of distance education (2 ed., pp157-168).
media Schools, 7(4), 52-55. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Johnson, J., & Strange, M. (2007). Why rural matters 2007: The Cavanaugh, C. S., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research
realities of rural education growth. Arlington, VA: Rural School and Com- and practice in K-12 online learning: A review of open access literature.
munity Trust. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED498859.pdf The International (1), 1-22.
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10
Kaffar, B. J., (2006). Exploring the effects of online instructional models on the writing achievement of high school students with and with- Cavanaugh, C.,
Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R.
out disabilities (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Nevada, Las Vegas. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta
analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Keegan, D. (1996). Distance education technology for the new millen- nium: Compressed video teaching. ZIFF Papiere. Hagen, Germany: Insti- Chandra,
V., & Lloyd, M. (2008). The methodological nettle: ICT
tute for Research into Distance Education. (Eric Document Reproduc- and student achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology 39 (6),
tion Service No. ED 389 931) 1087-1098.
Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from me-
debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19. dia. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 445-459.
Machtmes, K., & Asher, J. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effec- Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational
tiveness of telecourses in distance education. The American Journal of Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 21-29.
Distance Education, 14(1), 27-46. Clark, T. (2007). Virtual and distance education in North American
nd
Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. (1997). The effects of distance schools. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2 ed.,
learning Rev. Ed. (ACSDE Research monograph # 15). University Park, pp. 473-490). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education, Pennsylvania Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinch, G. (2010). Going virtual! The status
State University. of professional development and unique needs of K-12 online teachers. Boise,
Morrison, G. R. (1994). The media effects question: Unresolveable ID: Department of Educational Technology, Boise State University. Re-
or asking the right question. Educational Technology Research & Develop- trieved from http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual3.pdf
ment, 42(2), 41-44. Diaz, D., & Cartnal, R. (1999). Students’ learning styles in two
Mupinga, D. M. (2005). Distance education in high schools: Ben- classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-campus. College Teach-
efits, challenges, and suggestions. Clearing House, 78 (3), 105-108. ing, 45(4), 21-35.
National Education Association (2004), Distance Education, accessed DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W. & Preston, M. (2008). Best
Nov. 2012, http://www.nea.org/home/34765.htm. practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan School teachers. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning. 7(1).
Virtual
Okolo, C. M., Englert, C. S., Bouck, E. C., & Heutsche, A. M. (2007) Web-based history learning environment: Helping all students learn Donlevy, J.
(2003). Online learning in virtual high school. Interna-
and like history. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 3-11. tional Journal of Instructional Media, 30 (2), 117-121.
Pape, L. (2005). High School on the web: What you need to know Duncan, A. (2010). Rural America learning opportunities and tech-
about offering online courses. American School Board Journal 192(7), 12- nology. Remarks at the National Rural Education Technology Summit.
16. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/ rural-america-learning-opportunities-and-technology-secretary-arne- duncans-
remarks-nat
Pape, L., Adams, R., & Ribeiro, C. (2005). The virtual High School: Collaboration and online professional development. In Z. L. Berge & T. Clark (Eds.),
Virtual education, real educators: Issues in online learning. Elbaum, B., McIntyre, C., & Smith, A. (2002) Essential elements: Pre-
Ottawa, ON: The Canadian Teachers’ Federation. pare, design, and teach your online course. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of Ehrmann, S. C. (1995). Asking the right questions. Change, 27(2),
contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher edu- 20-28.cation. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Emeagwali, N. S. (2004) High school students increasingly learning

Podoll, S., & Randle, D. (2005). Building a virtual high school: Click from a distance. Techniques 75(5), 14-16
by click. T.H.E. Journal, 33 (2), 14-19. Fisk Natale, C. (2011). Teaching in the world of virtual K-12 learn-
Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in ing: Challenges to ensure educator quality. Washington, DC: Educational
the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), Testing Service.
425-448.
Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4) 41
Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Who plays well in the virtual sandbox? Characteristics of successful online students and teachers. SIGTel Bul- letin, 2..
Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L, Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical procedures for predicting and promoting success in vir- tual school
students. American Journal of Distance Education 22 (2), 90- 109.
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Ra- leigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Office of Educational Tele- communications.
Saba, F. (1999). Is distance education comparable to “traditional edu- cation?” Retrieved August 10, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http:// distance-
educator.com/der/comparable.html
Scherer, J. (2006). Special report: Virtual high schools. San Diego, CA: Distance-Educator.com.
Schumaker, J. B., & Lyeria, K. D. (1993). Paragraph Writing Strat- egy: Instructor’s Manual. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Center for Research on
Learning.
Siegle, D. (2002). Learning online: A new educational opportunity for teachers and parents. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 25 (4), 30-33.
Shachar, M., & Newmann, Y. (2003). Differences between tradi- tional and distance education academic performance: A meta-analytic ap- proach. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learn- ing, 4(2), 1-20.
Smith, S. J. & Meyen, E. L. (2003). Applications of online instruc- tion: An overview for teachers, students with mild disabilities, and their parents. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 35 (6), 1-15.
Straub, C. (2012). The Effects of Synchronous Online Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing for Students with Learning Disabilities (unpublished doctoral
dissertation.) University of Central Florida, Orlando Florida.
42 Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4)
Teaster, P. B., & Blieszner, R. (1999) Promises and pitfalls of the interactive television approach to teaching adult development and aging. Educational
Gerontology, 25(8), 741-753.
Tennyson, R. D. (1994). The big wrench vs. integrated approaches: The great media debate. Educational Technology Research and Develop- ment, 42(3), 15-28
Tormo, J. (2010, April 15). “Virtual” internships prepare student teachers for new world of online schooling. University of Florida COE News. Retrieved August
7, 2012, from http://education.ufl.edu/news/ 2010/04/13/virtual-internships-prepare-student-teachers-new-world-of- online-schooling/
Ullmer, E. J. (1994). Media and learning: Are there two kinds of truth? Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 21-32.
Ungerleider, C., & Burns, T. (2003). A systematic review of the effec- tiveness and efficiency of networked ICT in Education: A state of the art report to the
council of ministers Canada and industry Canada. Industry Canada, Ontario.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technol- ogy. Washington,
DC: Author.
Vasquez, E., & Slocum, T. (2012). The evaluation of synchronous online tutoring for students at-risk of reading failure. Exceptional Chil- dren, 78 (1) 221-235
Wang, C., Reeves, T. C. (2007). Synchronous online learning expe- riences: The perspectives of international students from Taiwan. Educa- tional Media
International. 44 (4), 339-356.
Wicks, M. (2010). A national primer on K-12 online learning, ver- sion 2. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/ iNCL_NationalPrimerv22010-
web.pdf
Zucker, A., & Kozma, R, (2003). The Virtual High School: Teaching generations V, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Rural Special Education Quarterly

Journal Order Form

_______________________________________________ Member: Yes _____ NO _____ Name

__________________________________________________________________________________
Institution/Organization Day Phone

__________________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address (building number, street) Email Address

__________________________________________________________________________________
_ City State/Province Postal Code Country

Journal Subscription
□ Library $100 per year (add $6 for international)

□ Individual $75 per year (add $6 for international)-- includes membership in ACRES

□ State or regional agency, school, or university $100 per year (add $6 for international)-- includes membership in ACRES
(identify name of contact person who will receive member benefits)

□ Student $25 per year (add $6 for international)-- includes membership in ACRES

Back Issue Order (where available, as print copy sent to mailing address)
□ per issue $15 for members / $20 for non-members / (add $2 for international)

Please Indicate the volume and issue number of EACH issue you wish to order below:
Individual Article Order (where available, as PDF file or print copy)
□ per article $5 for members / $7 for non-members

Please Indicate the volume, issue number and title of EACH article you wish to order below:

*************************************************************************************************************************************** Please
complete this form and return with check made payable to ACRES:

ACRES HEADQUARTERS NOTE: A $15 service fee will be assessed on West Virginia University returned
checks Department of Special Education 509 Allen Hall, PO Box 6122 Morgantown, WV 26506-6122 For
Office Use Only:

1-304-293-3450 Check #_______________ Date: ________________ Email: acres-sped@mail.wvu.edu Web:

http://acres-sped.org Amount: _______________ Dep #:_______________

Rural Special Education Quarterly 2012 31(4) 43