Preparing School
Administrators for Online Learning
Greg Kearsley & Robert
Blomeyer
In recent years, K-12 schools
have shown increasing interest in online learning (Clark, 2001; Kearsley, 2000;
U.S. Dept Education, 2000). This has resulted in a lot of attention to
preparing teachers to teach online (Collison et al., 2000; Kearsley & Blomeyer, 2004; Ko & Rossen, 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 2001).
However, little attention has been focused on preparing school administrators
to manage online learning programs. This article describes a project at NCREL
to develop and deliver an online course about the management of online
learning.
Rationale
The rationale for the
Management of Online Learning (MOL) course is as follows:
1.
The course
management, technical and instructional support needed to insure that online
courses are conducted efficiently and that online teachers are able to devote
sufficient time to instructional interaction with participants is non-trivial.
2.
To assure the
quality of online courses, standards should be established and maintained to
insure acceptable levels of institutional support for online teaching and
learning.
3.
Research on benchmarks
for success in Internet-based distance learning reports that prerequisites
for effective online courses include an organizational commitment to supporting
effective course development, the teaching/learning process, course management,
student support, instructor support, and evaluation/assessment. (Phipps &
Merisoitis, 2000)
State,
district and building-level leadership for online learning projects must assume
responsibility for establishing and maintaining these important prerequisites
for the success of Internet-based online courses. Our Management of Online
Leaning course is a reasonable first step toward assuring that K-12 educational
leaders have the opportunity to examine and understand the research-based benchmarks for e-learning success. It moves the research-based knowledge about
“What Works” to support the effectiveness of Internet-based distance learning
toward becoming established as part of the work assumed by the educational
leadership in our public schools.
The Audience
We use the term “school administrators”
to define a broad category of individuals who manage some aspect of K-12 school
systems. At the school level, this includes principals and assistant principals
as well as technology coordinators/support staff. At the district level, it
includes superintendents, school board members, and Informational Technology
(IT) staff. At the regional and state level, there are technology planners who
will be involved with online learning programs. Additional players include
online learning vendors/consultants as well as faculty from schools of
education who are involved in teacher training and technology efforts tied to
school systems.
Technology Competencies
In 2001, the Technology
Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) were developed through the collaborative
efforts of many organizations and promulgated by ITSE as the National Education
Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS*A). The following table lists the
six major TSSA competency domains and lists a critical competency for each.
|
TSSA Standard |
Critical competency |
|
1. Leadership & Vision |
develop and communicate a
plan for technology |
|
2. Learning & Teaching |
identify curriculum and
teacher training needs related to technology |
|
3. Professional Practice |
model the use of technology |
|
4. Support, Management
& Operations |
implement procedures and
policies regarding technology use |
|
5. Assessment &
Evaluation |
collect and analyze data on
technology use |
|
6. Social, Legal&
Ethical Issues |
develop guidelines related
to technology |
Note that the TSSA standards are not specific to online learning; however, they cover generic technology competencies that would pertain to any technology application in schools. More details on TSSA can be found at http://cnets.iste.org/tssa
Technology Skill Levels
One of the important
questions in designing a course to prepare school administrators to manage online
is the current technology awareness and skills of prospective participants.
Unfortunately, there is no systematic or reliable data available on this
question. Ironically, the Gates Foundation State Challenge Leadership Grant
program supported extensive technology training activities for administrators
across the U.S. between 2000-2003, yet collected no data on the competency
levels of participants (for a report on the outcomes, see NSDC, 2004).
Extensive data on technology
usage by teachers and students was collected using the TAGLIT assessment
(Taking a Good Look at Instructional Technology) as part of the Gates
Foundation State Challenge programs (see Abbott, 2003). However, this work
doesn’t provide data to support conclusions about the technology competencies
of most educational leaders and school administrators. Lacking this or other applicable research
portraying the “usual and customary” administrator technology competencies, we
assumed that participants would be comfortable using the internet and the usual
application tools (i.e., word processing, spreadsheets, slide presentation
software). The extent to which administrators are truly comfortable using
technology is a key variable in their ability to understand and implement
online learning.
MOL Design Considerations
Another design consideration
of the Management of Online Learning (MOL) course was ensuring regular
participation. School administrators are very busy individuals and making time
for an online course is a difficult proposition, even when they are very
interested/committed to the topic. Unless regular participation can be
achieved, online courses are not likely to be effective. We relied on three
strategies to increase participation: (1) course activities that were tied to
the participant’s school setting, (2) course activities that encouraged
participants to share their experiences, and (3) weekly web conferences that
created a live event to attend and reinforced the course schedule. While none
of these strategies alone guaranteed participation, together they appear to
help make the course sufficiently engaging to keep school administrators
actively involved.
The course was originally
designed with six units, roughly corresponding to the major TSSA competencies.
Each unit was to take a week to complete. The units included online readings
and activities relevant to the topic of the week. The major activities for each
unit in the initial scope and sequence are shown below:
|
TSSA Standard |
MOL Session |
Primary Activity |
|
1. Leadership & Vision |
Unit/Week 1 |
Identify
benefits/limitations |
|
2. Learning & Teaching |
Unit/Week 2 |
Identify learning &
teaching opportunities |
|
3. Professional Practice |
Unit/Week 6 |
Develop and present plan |
|
4. Support, Management
& Operations |
Unit/Week 3 |
Identify resources &
financial considerations |
|
5. Assessment &
Evaluation |
Unit/Week 4 |
Identify evaluation
approach |
|
6. Social, Legal&
Ethical Issues |
Unit/Week 5 |
Describe relevant issues |
Each activity required
participants to post a short message on the class discussion board describing
how it applies to their own school setting and then comment upon the postings
of others. The activity for week 6 involved the development of a plan for online
learning and presenting this plan to the other participants in the weekly web
conference.
After implementation of the
original six-week version, reviews were solicited from selected educational
leaders with experience administering and managing online learning projects.
After critical reviews raised questions about the practicality of offering a
six-week course for educational leaders that required 12-15 hours of
participation per week, we redesigned content of the course for a shorter
duration of three weeks.
The First MOL Pilot
In April 2004 we ran a pilot
version of the MOL course with an initial enrollment of 15 participants. This
first MOL pilot was a 3 week version of the full course that included units 1,
3, & 4. The shortened version of the course was intended to test the basic
design strategy and our assumptions about course duration.
The course was delivered using the Blackboard learning system for the
asynchronous activities and the Microsoft LiveMeeting system
supporting synchronous, interactive web/phone conferences.
Participants in the pilot
included: 1 superintendent, 3 principals, 4 technology coordinators, 4 higher
ed faculty involved in teacher training, 1 school program manager, and 2
regional/state education managers. Almost all participants had considerable
experience with technology and about half were currently involved in online
learning/virtual school efforts. This group had more technology experience than
we would expect from typical participants, but that was helpful in terms of
assessing the course content and materials.
Of the 15 initial
participants, 13 completed all course activities. Participants completed a pre
and post-course survey in which they rated various aspects of the course as well
as their understanding of the course concepts. The table below compares their
ratings for the major competences in the pre and post- course surveys:
|
TSSA
Competency |
Pre-course
Percentage Rating Confident |
Post-course
Percentage Rating Confident |
|
Benefits/Limitations |
93 |
100 |
|
Hardware/Software |
73 |
92 |
|
Human
Resources |
73 |
100 |
|
Financial
Considerations |
60 |
75 |
|
Creating
a Plan for OL |
80 |
92 |
|
Identifying
Resources |
73 |
100 |
As the data indicates, the confidence
level of participants increased for all competency areas from the pre to
post-course survey. The post-course
survey asked participants to describe if their views about online learning had
changed as a result of participation in the course. Since most of the
participants already had some or considerable experience with online learning,
we were particularly interested to see what (if any) impact the course might
have. Their responses included:
|
I
have definitely heard some new and interesting ways to use online learning --
such as a way to keep PSEO students in school.
|
|
My
views have expanded. As I learned what others are doing or planning to do
with online learning, it really helped me see how these tools fit into the
wide range of resources for student and adult learning. |
|
I
think I have a gained a better perspective on the diversity of options and
the difficulty of implementing an online learning experience. |
|
My
views have changed - it is even harder that I think it will be to get this to
happen. But - my view is strengthened - this will help some who have been
lost. We will help learners learn. |
|
I
feel that I now have a better understanding of the status and approach for
online learning used in post secondary as compared to K12. |
|
I
am now a lot more aware of all of the considerations before implementing online
programs for our students. Prior to this course, I had a limited view of the
types of courses that may be available for students online and the delivery
systems that are available. I now know that there is a multitude of
approaches that may be taken for students. Depending upon the type of
approach taken, a variety of students may be served through online
coursework. This will allow me to better able assess the online learning
process and ways in which our district may be able to expand our current curriculum
to meet the students' needs. |
|
This
course has only confirmed for me that what we are doing to build our own
online program in our district is headed in the right direction. It also
seemed evident that partnerships help build stronger programs. |
|
I
do not think they have been changed as much as they have been strengthened. |
|
My
views as a viable learning option have been reinforced. We look to expand our
present program in the future. |
|
My
previous views have been greatly expanded. My focus was on the curriculum and
pedagogy. I am now much more aware of the external elements that need to be
considered. |
|
I
don't think my views have changed but I learned more about what others are
doing. |
|
Yes.
I have a much better perspective of what is going on "out there". A
good course leaves you with some new answers. A great course leaves you with
a whole new set of questions. |
The responses indicate that
the course provided participants with new ideas about online learning as well
as affirming their current views and understanding.
From this we conclude that a
course such as MOL might be valuable for administrators even if they are
already involved in online learning programs.
The Second MOL Pilot
In October 2004, we ran a
second pilot, another 3 week course that addressed units 2, 4 and 5. We wanted to try out the basic design of the
course for the TSSA competencies that were not covered in the initial pilot.
There were 15 initial participants in the second pilot, 4 of whom had also
participated in the first MOL pilot. Participants spanned the same range of
backgrounds as the initial pilot group – most were practicing administrators
and already involved in online learning programs.
The second pilot course used
exactly the same delivery system as the first course: the Blackboard course management system for asynchronous interaction
and the Microsoft LiveMeeting system
for weekly one hour live web conferences.
The same course design was
used in the second pilot, although some changes were made to the way the live
conferences were conducted (i.e., discussion of the weekly readings were added
as well as case study scenarios). The final activity in week 3 of this second
course was the development of an assessment plan for online learning.
Of the 15 initial
participants in the second pilot course, 9 completed all assignments.
Participants again completed a pre and post course survey in which they rated
various aspects of the course as well as their understanding of the course
concepts. The table below compares their ratings for the major competences in
the pre and post- course surveys:
|
TSSA
Competency |
Pre-course
Percentage Rating Confident |
Post-course
Percentage Rating Confident |
|
Selecting/Preparing
Teachers |
83 |
100 |
|
Ethical/Legal
Issues |
79 |
83 |
|
Evaluation
of OL |
71 |
100 |
|
Creating
a Plan for OL |
86 |
83 |
|
Identifying
Resources |
100 |
100 |
As the data indicates, the confidence
level of participants increased for the three major competency areas covered in
this pilot from the pre to post-course survey. The rating for the ability to
create a plan for OL was marginally lower.
The post-course survey also asked participants to describe if their
views about online learning had changed as a result of participation in the
course. Their comments included:
|
My views have broadened to include areas related to online
learning that I haven't dealt with until now. |
|
This course has made me more aware of the amount of research
available to support the effectiveness of online learning. Evaluation and
assessment tools for OL vary greatly and in some cases there is no
consistency of what is being done from one district to the next. |
|
I believe my views have become broader on the three areas
covered in this course: teacher selection, ethical and legal issues, and
assessment and evaluation. I have become more aware of the importance of
developing an assessment and evaluation process as a part of your overall
online learning plan. Also, having access to the wide range of experience of
the participants has helped form my views of state versus local district
control. |
|
I have a greater appreciation for the breadth of skills and
tasks needed to adequately manage an online program, along with some of the
potential stumbling blocks. The MOL course has pulled together and provided a
wealth of resources that I would never had discovered on my own and what I've
learned here will be invaluable as our online project develops. |
|
Not much change in perspective, however it's always enjoyable
to engage in conversations with higher ed and k12 at the same time. |
The responses of the participants
in the second MOL pilot are similar to those made in the first course, namely
participation in the course broadened their understanding of online learning
and increased their knowledge of relevant management strategies.
Technology Issues
School administrators face a
broad and complex set of instructional, procedural and policy issues associated
with online learning. Some of the issues that emerged in the course include:
·
Which students
can benefit most from online learning? The primary audience is usually the more
academically proficient students (e.g., AP courses), but what about “at risk”
students? Will online learning work for any
student?
·
How should online
learning be integrated with existing classroom instruction? How do in-class activities
mesh with online activities and curriculum? Do online courses need to be tied
to classes at schools or can they be wholly independent?
·
What is the role
of teachers in online learning programs? Should they teach both regular classes
and online classes at the same time? How should teachers be selected and prepared to teach online?
·
Should online
courses be purchased from vendors or other school systems? Should they be
developed locally by teachers? Can portions of courses be used?
·
How can student
cheating in online courses be addressed (particularly authentication of student
identity). How can student behavior be monitored effectively?
·
How will
extensive online learning affect student socialization? Does online interaction
and collaboration foster appropriate social skills?
Questions Arising from the MOL Pilots
The MOL pilots demonstrated
that the course was successful achieving its stated performance-based goals
with the particular individuals who participated. Data gathered detailing the
professional background of this group of participants suggests that that they
may have been more generally knowledgeable about technology and online learning
than most other typical school administrators.
For this reason, we are unsure how effective MOL would be with a more
representative audience of K-12 administrators and educational leaders who lack
such familiarity with technology and online learning.
Based upon the results of the
MOL pilots (particularly the feedback received from participants), we believe
that two 3 week courses are likely to more effective than the originally
planned 6 week version. Although the 3 week versions present a very short
timespan for the complex topics covered in the course, it seems to fit more
comfortably into the busy schedules of administrators. We believe that the
shorter courses result in a higher level of participation and completion than a
longer course. However, the only way to verify this hunch would be to run the 6
week version of the course and find out.
The MOL pilot raises the
important question of how participation in such a course might affect
administrative practice with respect to online learning programs. On one hand,
it may be unrealistic to expect such a short
term intervention to have much effect on something as complex as school
performance and student academic achievement.
However, participants reported that the course was a powerful learning
experience that effectively catalyzed their actions. Follow-up interviews with
the participants would be needed to assess this factor.
Conclusions
We have reported the
development and delivery of an online course intended to help school
administrators manage online learning programs. According to the course
evaluation data provided by the participants, the pilot versions of the course
appear to be successful. However, we do not know about the generality of the
course and how effective or suitable it would be for all school administrators.
More research with different groups and approaches is needed to understand how
to best prepare administrators to manage online learning programs.
About the Authors
Greg Kearsley is an
independent consultant who designs and teaches online courses. His email is gkearsley@sprynet.com
Robert Blomeyer is a senior
program associate at Learning Point Associates/NCREL and is the program
director for online learning courses. His email is rblomeyer@learningpt.org
References
Abbott, M. (2003, November).
State Challenge Grants TAGLIT Analysis. Fouts & Associates. Available at http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/downloads/ed/researchevaluation/TAGLITDataAnalysis.pdf
Clark,
T. (2001). Virtual high schools: State of
the states.
Collison,
G. et al., (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for
moderators.
Kearsley,
G. & Blomeyer, R. (2004, January-February), Preparing K-12 teachers to
teach online. Educational Technology, 44(1),
pp. 49-52.
Kearsley, G. (2000). Learning
and teaching in cyberspace.
Ko,
S. & Rossen, S. (2001) Teaching online: A practical guide.
National Staff Development
Council (2004, January). Building for success: State challenge grants for
leadership development.
Palloff,
R & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The
realities of online teaching.
Phipps, R., & Merisoitis, J. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in
Internet-based distance education.
Relevant Resources
National Education Association (2002). Guide to
Online High School Courses. Considerations associated with online courses
for high schools. http://www.nea.org/technology/onlinecourseguide.html
National
Education Technology Plan –research reports about technology use in schools. http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/resources.asp
National
Staff Development Council (2001), E-learning for Educators: Implementing the
Standards for Staff Development. Excellent set of guidelines focused on staff
development issues and decisions.
http://www.nsdc.org/library/strategies/e-learning.pdf
NCREL enGauge framework –
methodology for technology planning. http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/framewk/index.htm
NSBA
Education Leadership Toolkit – resources relating to technology policy,
funding, curriculum, assessment, facility planning, and community involvement.
http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit