I apologize for the delay in posting these items, but the conference hotels do not provide free wireless access. The first paper in the K-12 Online Teachers: SIG-Online Teaching and Learning session was:
Who’s at the Keyboard? A Description of K-12 Online Teachers in the United States
Schedule Information:
Scheduled Time: Tue, Apr 14 – 12:25pm – 1:55pm Building/Room: San Diego Marriott Hotel & Marina / Newport Beach
In Session: K-12 Online Teachers
Authors:
*Leanna Matchett Archambault (Arizona State University)
Kent J. Crippen (University of Nevada – Las Vegas)
Abstract: Virtual schools continue to grow in popularity as a realistic alternative to traditional education. Because of this, a growing number of teachers throughout the nation are facing the challenge of creating and presenting quality online content and instruction. Little is known about this population of educators and how they compare to traditional teachers. This study presents data gathered as a result of a national survey of 596 online teachers and describes the characteristics of a group of K-12 online teachers from 25 different states. By studying this particular population, teacher educators can better understand the specific needs of online teachers. This, in turn, can inform changes, adaptations, and improvements to teacher preparation programs across the United States.
So, I missed the first few minutes of Leanna’s and Kent’s presentation, as I was trying to find the well-hidden Newport Beach room in the Marriott. This portion of the presentation was based on Leanna’s dissertation.
The study itself was based on a national survey that was solicited via e-mail – using the Keeping Pace report and Google searches to identify the various virtual schools. She was able to contact a variety of different types of online teachers.
She used an interesting model for contacting the teachers, which she called “Tailored Method Design (Dillman, 2007)”, which I think was useful for other researchers. It followed:
Step 1 – pre-notification e-mail
Step 2 – E-mail with survey access link
Step 3 – E-mail with survey access link
Step 4 – Follow-up e-mail
Step 5 – Final e-mail (included an MS Word version)
Leanna specifically mentioned that she received positive feedback from the respondents concerning her use of this model, particularly Step 1. She noted that none of the teachers completed the MS Word version (i.e., they either completed it online or not at all).
In her searching, Leanna identified 2262 potential respondents. Based on the e-mail sent out in Step 1, 413 bounced back as undeliverable – 48 were corrected and re-sent for a total sample of 1897. Of those, it was determined that 102 teachers did not meet the criteria so the survey was sent to 1795 online teachers.
There were 549 respondents and the sample represented all 50 states, although none of the online teachers in Michigan or New Mexico completed the survey. Of those who did complete the survey:
-77% were female
-63% were between 26-45 years of age
-91% were Caucasian
-they had an average of 14 years of overall teaching experience
-they had an average 4 years of online teaching experience
-62% had Master’s degree and 13% had more than Master’s
-54% full time and 36% were part-time
Compared to traditional teachers, there were 21% more online teachers with Master’s degree than brick-and-mortar teachers. Also, there were 6% more online teachers with higher than Master’s degree education than what is found in brick-and-mortar schools.
In looking at some of the differences between part-time online teachers and full-time online teachers. For example, part-time online teachers had on average 4 more years teaching experience and 0.4 years more online teaching experience.
Of the online teachers who responded:
-81% reported teaching asynchronously
-38% reported to teaching in state-based schools, while 31% reported to teaching in an online school managed by a local education authority
-80% of respondents taught all of their classes online with an average of 97 students
Interestingly, when asked who authored the content that the online teacher taught with, they responded:
-38% the teacher themselves
-42% a content provider
-20% a curriculum specialist
-15% a colleague
-7% other (e.g., a team of teachers – and the online teacher may have been one of those, a textbook provider, etc.)
With the qualitative data, the teachers were asked an open-ended question about why they taught online. The responses included:
-ability to work from home (19%0
-new model of education (14%0
-need for employment (10%)
-flexibility (8%)
-retirees (3%)
In response to another open-ended question, K-12 online teachers also reported:
-63% reported a positive response to teaching online
-29% had mixed experience (challenging, but rewarding)
-8% had a negative experience
Finally, participants found online distance education allowed them to work more one-on-one with students and being able to provide them with more individual support, moreso than the brick-and-mortar environment.
Again, sorry I missed the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) stuff that Kent presented at the beginning (which formed the lens through which Leanna looked at this data). If you’re reading this Leanna, please add a few sentences in the comments to describe the part that I missed.