Teacher Education Goes Into Virtual Schooling: Developing National Models for Virtual Schooling Experiences

Transcription

1 Teacher Education Goes Into Virtual Schooling: Developing National Models for Virtual Schooling Experiences Niki Davis, Yasemin Demiraslan, Amina Charania, Lily Compton, and Ana Correia, Iowa State University Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching Abstract Virtual Schooling (VS), or K-12 distance education, has become part of legislated school reform and improvement in many states, including Florida. Distance education is now established in K-12 schools and the preparation of new teachers must evolve too. Key roles in VS are: VS site facilitator, VS teacher, and VS designer. This paper presents a kaleidoscope of work in our national project Teacher Education Goes Into Virtual Schooling, and is particularly relevant to those in teacher education and distance learning. Descriptions of three VS models and real-life examples of these models are reflected in our VS lab scenarios plus their evaluation in two programs of preservice teacher education. Introduction Virtual Schooling (VS) is rising in both popularity and importance (Clark, 2001; Setzer, Lewis, & Green, 2005; Zucker & Kozma, 2003; NFES, 2006; Watson, 2007; Roblyer, 2008), becoming part of legislated school reform and improvement in many states, including Florida. In light of the increasing demand for virtual courses and the rapid expansion of schools to meet the demand, it is apparent that there is a need for teachers who are prepared to teach at a distance from their students. Research indicates that the online instructor's role requires a paradigm shift in perceptions of instructional time and space, virtual management techniques, and ways of engaging students through virtual communications (Cyrs, 1997; Easton, 2003; Rice, 2006). There is a complementary need for VS Site Facilitators and other support personnel who understand the benefits and demands of this new mode of education and are prepared to meet its needs and requirements. Research in K-12 VS shows that a distant teacher should be complemented with an adult who facilitates students learning at a distance (Aronson & Timms, 2003; National Education Association, n.d.; Davis & Niederhauser, 2007). Therefore, VS is more likely to have a beneficial impact if all K-12 teachers become competent as a VS Site Facilitator. To help meet this need, the goal of the Teacher Education Goes into Virtual Schooling (TEGIVS) project is to create a national model that integrates VS into preservice teacher education in four collaborating institutions (Iowa State University, University of Florida, University of Virginia, and Graceland University). VS curricula are being developed for three roles: VS Site Facilitator, VS Teacher, and VS Designer. This paper describes three VS models accompanied by examples of these models reflected in VS lab scenarios. In addition, the formative evaluation is also described. A Virtual Schooling System The virtual classroom includes a teacher and groups of students who are distributed among two or more distant schools. The teacher may also have a local class. Rather than meeting in a traditional classroom, the teacher and students communicate and share resources using digital technologies, such as , videoconferencing, and/or a Web-based learning environment (e.g. Blackboard or Moodle). The three key roles in a VS system are VS Site Facilitator, VS Teacher, and VS Designer. In the typical VS course shown in figure 1, instructional designers (D) create instructional activities and materials with and for the teacher; the VS teachers (T) take on responsibilities including teaching, facilitating, monitoring, evaluating student learning, and coordinating the overall VS experience. Each VS Site Facilitator (F) provides immediate, personal, face-to-face communication with students, engages in local problem-solving of many types, and mentors students. Students (S) rely on VS Site Facilitators to provide information about VS possibilities, instructional support when taking VS courses, coordination of VS facilities, and access to VS resources. These key players are supported by administrators (A), instructional technology coordinators (IT) and the students parents or guardians (P). Of course, there is considerable overlap in these roles, and in some situations; individuals may take on multiple roles. Technology-mediated communication that occurs between and among teachers and students in the VS classroom is essential for success (Harms. Niederhauser, Davis, Roblyer, & Gilbert, 2006). 103

2 An example of this type of virtual schooling system can be seen in some of the courses provided through Iowa Learning Online (ILO). ILO has produced several high quality science courses to meet demand in Iowa, where there is a chronic shortage of science teachers. ILO recruits and registers students, manages teachers and quality assurance, and supports and maintains hardware, software, and related instructional design in collaboration with Iowa Public Television. ILO has developed training for the ILO coaches at host schools (coach is the ILO term for the VS Site Facilitator). Figure 1 was developed by the project to distill the practice first developed by their lead mentor teacher Gail Wortmann in her teaching courses of Anatomy and Physiology, which won a WebCT award. This course was used in one of the TEGIVS secondary lab scenarios called Nick s Online Anatomy/Physiology course ( Figure 1: VS model 1: Class offered by a VS organization to students in two regular schools The project developed figures for two further models in order to reflect the variety of VS experiences. The model in figure 2 depicts tele-collaboration that supports collaborative learning and teaching between two distant classes. According to Judi Harris (2001) tele-collaborative learning activities create valuable opportunities to expose students to multiple points of view and experiences, to communicate with a real audience using written language, and to expand global awareness (Harris, 2001), providing they are carefully designed. An example of this tele-collaboration was depicted in the TEGIVS Teddy Bear Scenario ( developed for elementary school teachers using the International Education and Resource Network s (iearn) Teddy Bear project ( with permission). That project stimulates on-line collaboration between children in different cultures though exchange of teddy bears, in order to enhance understanding and acceptance of diverse cultures. Children participate in the discussions as individuals or as a whole class with the guidance of their teachers. The third VS model shown in figure 3 depicts an additional section taught by one teacher in two classrooms connected by a videoconferencing system. An example of this model was drawn from a case study collected by two of the authors in Iowa. The TEGIVS secondary lab scenario Danielle's Chemistry Class is set in this context and the additional web resources link with the original case study and related guidance ( 104

3 Figure 2: VS model 2: Tele-collaborating classrooms Figure 3: VS model 3: Teacher teaching an additional section of the class in a distant school. Virtual School Lab Tool Development The goal of the TEGIVS project is to create curriculum and related tools that are easy to adopt nationwide. The rapidly evolving kaleidoscope of VS described by Roblyer (2008), plus the variety of technologies and issues across differing content areas was a big challenge. Specifying three models helped to clarify some of the diversity. In addition, the TEGIVS team decided to specify the VS curriculum and then repetitively prototype both the curriculum and the tool interfaces in order to develop VS Lab tools that could be adapted to the variety of preservice programs in the US. The process began with a brainstorm session that ended with grouping the various aspects of VS into four main categories, namely: pedagogy, technology, assessment, and VS classroom management issues. 105

4 Then, the contexts were chosen for the secondary cases where multimedia was available, which were a high school foreign language course and two high school science courses. Fictional scenarios that challenged viewers were created in order to address the specific issues in using VS, including VS implementation methods, and ways to organize learning within the VS environment. They aimed to illustrate different aspects (pedagogy, learning environment, assessment, and challenges) so as to complement one another without repetition of specific items. In terms of pedagogy, the fictional scenarios illustrate how VS courses may be structured using different learning approaches including didactic inquiry and problem-based learning. The communication and interaction among the VS teacher, students, and content, different teaching strategies such as individual and group work, and variations in the flow of communication in VS courses were illustrated in designing VS curriculum. The issue of evaluating learning in a VS context was illustrated with several methods of assessment including reflections, proctored and performance-based tests, and quizzes. The three common and contrasting technologies used in VS courses were selected: managed learning environment (WebCT), classrooms connected via live videoconference (Iowa Communications Network), and a multimedia audio conferencing interface (Elluminate). Additionally, the scenarios presented a range of tools used to support the learning process with both synchronous and asynchronous modes including discussion boards, chat rooms, audio/video, , and whiteboard. Following the successful piloting of the secondary lab, the elementary team teaching the Iowa State University course that introduces instructional technology in the early childhood elementary teacher education program requested a lab more suited to their students. This TEGIVS elementary lab takes a slightly different approach in setting the fictional scenario in a more realistic context of a newly graduated teacher in a grade 1 class for the teddy bear scenario and a middle school class for Max Takes Math From Hospital. The instructor and her teaching assistants were pleased with the result. These materials have been tested with 77 elementary and 21 secondary preservice teachers from Iowa State University and 133 students from the University of Florida in the fall The elementary lab has also been successfully tested. Results from the usability test (See Table 1 in Appendix 1) indicated that students were generally favorable in their ratings of the tools but also had many recommendations for how to improve their usefulness. The evaluation of the pilots and findings from these initial studies are described in our article in The Internet and Higher Education (Davis, et. al, 2007). The University of Virginia and Graceland University will adapt and pilot these experiences into their content-specific introductory course and methods course respectively in fall Virtual Field Experience VS has also been introduced in an additional course at Iowa State University that prepares preservice teachers for field experiences in regular schools. The first pilot simply used web pages with readings and responses that were ed to the instructor. Students were required to read news articles on VS and place them in the context of their growing understanding of the US educational system. The articles used covered the topics of VS myths, legislature challenges, and impact of VS on student learning and were included to stimulate more discussions and responses. They were also required to respond thoughtfully to questions set by the instructor, who used these during a debriefing seminar. This was improved in the following semester with the creation of a course in Iowa State University s WebCT course management system as the tool. While maintaining focus on the content, tasks were organized and designed to expose students to several functions and options available in such an environment, e.g. online assignments, assessments, and threaded discussions. The interface improved tracking and organization. The new tool, WebCT, provided a secure interface for preservice teachers to post their responses, since passwords and user identifications were necessary. Compton, Follett and Desmiraslan (2007)conducted a preliminary analysis of the preservice teachers reactions and responses in the fall 2006 trial. Their findings also indicate the importance of communicating the range and diversity of VS and the need to create virtual field experiences in virtual schools. Conclusions and Future Opportunities The TEGIVS project is building VS competencies by developing tools that can be shared within the teacher education community. Initial findings suggest that such a tool can influence future educators thinking about the colorful kaleidoscope of teaching and learning in the 21 st century. Multiple and crisscrossed tours are necessary through the complex and ill-structured domain of teaching, (Spiro et al., 1988) and we are sure that this also applies to teaching online. We believe that the approach of repetitive prototyping to create materials that are easy to redevelop and adapt to the wide range of approaches to preservice teacher education is particularly important to the kaleidoscope of 106

5 VS. We aim to release all our materials under a Creative Commons license in order to facilitate further development both of scenarios and tools. It will be important to have scenarios that reflect pedagogic content knowledge, which varies with the age of the learner and their context. Therefore, the courses in each of the three partner universities will create further materials. In addition, the field and internship experiences for students will result in continual updating of technology within our program at Iowa State University. In fall 2007 it is planned to incorporate VS in an additional course, this time in instructional design to improve its applicability to the design of materials and pedagogy for VS. All these trials and pilots will provide us with more evidence on the effectiveness of interventions in the preparation of teachers. Furthermore, we are keen to hear from others who are engaged in or planning similar innovations in higher education. In terms of delivery, this ambitious attempt aims to influence a broader community of practice, in keeping with project goals. This project invites a re-examination of the complexity of both the subject of teaching and the context of teaching to teach. In the initial research, the medium of delivery, the curricular support, and the pedagogical strategies of implementation all provided both affordances and constraints to successful teaching and learning. If successful, the VS tools described here and those yet to be developed will reveal a new world of teaching and learning through the lens of VS practice. Acknowledgements The contents of this paper were partly developed under a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education. However, these contents do not necessarily represent policy of the Department of Education, and no one should assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Support from all participating organizations, particularly the Iowa State University Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching, is also acknowledged. The figures were designed by Lingli Yao as part of her work for the TEGIVS project. References Aronson, J. Z., & Timms, M. J. (2003). Net choices, net gains: Supplementing the high school curriculum with online courses. WestEd Knowledge Brief. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from Clark, T. (2001). Virtual Schools: Trends and issues. Report commissioned by the Distance Learning Resource Network, a WestEd Project; co-sponsored by the Centre for the Application of Information Technologies at Western Illinois University. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from Cyrs, T. E. (1997). Competence in teaching at a distance. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Compton, L., Follett, J. & Demiraslan, Y. (2007, March). Challenging pre service teachers preconceptions, misconceptions, and concerns of virtual schooling: A preliminary analysis. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Antonio, Texas. Davis, N.E., Roblyer, M. D., Charania, A., Ferdig R.,Harms, C., Compton, L.K.L. & Cho, M.O. (2007). Illustrating the Virtual in Virtual Schooling: Challenges and Strategies for Creating Real Tools to Prepare Virtual Teachers. The Internet and Higher Education, 10 (1), Easton, S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor's role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), Harms, C. M., Niederhauser, D.S., Davis, N.E., Roblyer, M.D. & Gilbert, S.B. (2006). Educating educators for virtual schooling: Communicating roles and responsibilities. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 16 (1-2). 107

6 National Education Association (n.d.). Guide to online high school courses. Washington DC: National Education Association. Available online at National Forum on Educational Statistics. (2006). Forum guide to elementary/secondary virtual education (NFES ). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Rice, K. (2006). A comprehensive look at virtual education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), Roblyer, M. D. (2008, in press). Virtual Schools: Redefining A place called school. In In Joke Voogt & Gerald Knezek (Eds.) International handbook of information technology in education. Amsterdam: Springer. Setzer, J.C., Lewis, L., & Greene, B. (2005). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: (NCES No ). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D.K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains, Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Zucker, A., & Kozma, R. (2003). The virtual high school: Teaching generation V. New York: Teachers College Press. 108

7 Appendix Table 1. Overall Results of Usability Ratings Sheets on VS Tools Across Sites for Fall, 2006 and Spring, 2007 Fall, 2006 Spring, 2007 Mean (High=5) SD Avg. Sum (Possible=55) Mean (High=5) SD Avg. Sum (Possible=55) ISU - Tour Tool CI ISU - Lab Tool CI 201-Elementary CI 202-Secondary UF - Lab Tool