VIRTUAL SCHOOLS
Prologue
“School boards and parents will fight efforts to substitute machines for teachers, even when champions of reducing labor costs dress up the purchase of new technologies as overall savings and a technological Utopia.” Larry Chubb (Education Next, Winter 2009, p.52).“Governments who may use the promise of computers for children as the emotional ploy to secure the votes of anxious parents rarely see teachers as vote-worthy investments. Parents, however, clearly understand that in schools, teachers teach children and teachers' decisions about whether to use technology and how to use technology are the catalysts for effective learning technology experiences for their children. Political structures that say that investment in technology-supported classrooms in isolation will alter learning are misguided. Improved learning is a product of teachers using valid and appropriate strategies that are formed by an understanding of the available educational resources including technology.” Preamble of the Australian Council for Computers in Education (Hyperlink: ACCE).
Introduction
At the outset it is significant and worthwhile discussing what is “Virtual Schools” as constantly in all my readings authors have used the words ‘online’, ‘e-learning’, ‘virtual’, ‘cyber’, ‘web’, and even ‘distance’ inter-connectedly, thereby contributing to much confusion in the terminologies and definition of ‘Virtual Schools” (Schrum, 2005; Kapitzke and Pendergast, 2005; Cavanaugh et al, 2009; Weil, 2008; Clark, 2001; Barbour and Reeves, 2009).According to Clark (2001, p.1), “If you ask 30 people to define a ‘virtual school’, you will probably get 30 different answers.” Clark (2000, p. i; Cited by Barbour & Reeves, 2009, p.403) defined a virtual school as ‘‘a state approved and/or regionally accredited school that offers secondary credit courses through distance learning methods that include Internet-based delivery”. This definition limits Virtual Schools to secondary education alone and to virtual schools that have been approved or accredited by an official body (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). On the other hand, Glenn Russel (2004a, p.1) describes Virtual Schools as: “Unlike conventional schools where students attend regular classes with their teachers in a specially designed building, virtual schools use online computers for some or all of students' education. These involve computer-mediated processes where some or all of the conventional classroom interaction is replaced by an online equivalent.” From this definition it follows that Virtual school refer to an institution that is not "brick and mortar" bound, some or all student services and courses are conducted through Internet technology, and that virtual school differs from the traditional school through the physical medium (computer) that links (internet) administrators, teachers, and students by time and place. Unlike Clark’s (2000) definition Russell’s (2004a) definition is not limited to only approved or accredited schools but further includes ‘some’ or ‘all’ courses that are provided on the internet, with no specific percentage. According to Ellis (2008, p.144), Virtual Schools deliver any where from 20 to 80 percent of their academic instruction over the Internet or via the computer, while still others restrict the definition of Virtual Schools to those that are “delivered primarily via the Internet” (Watson, Winograd, and Kalmon, 2004, p.95; Cited by Cavanaugh et al, 2009, p2). Russell (2003, p1 ) clarifies the issues on the variety of Virtual Schools in his statement, “There are several different types of virtual schools, and one way to understand them is to determine if students are expected to work entirely from home or other places outside a conventional school. An example of the 'out-of-school' variety is Florida Virtual School in the United States.” Therefore, we understand that some Virtual Schools exist providing all their course material online (no physical contact with the student), while some provide a certain percentage online followed by contact classes at home or at a school (i.e., Teacher meets the student at home or the “Students are required to attend a school or centre on a regular basis....” Russell, 2003, p1), while still others in traditional schools can opt to take an additional unit/subject on their ‘out-of-school’ mode besides their regular brick-and-mortar school. For the purpose of this assignment we have discussed Virtual Schools from the context of Schools that do not have a building/campus where students can attend classes, and students’ learning is completely virtual or ‘out-of-school’ mode.
Benefits and Challenges of Virtual Schools
There has been much growth of Virtual Schools for obvious reasons of its benefits, in countries such as America, Canada, Europe, U.K, Australia, Israel, and Turkey (Florida Virtual School/FLVS, Virtual High School/VHS; European Schoolnet; e-magine; Virtual School Service/VSS, etc.,). For instance, the FLVS grew from 77 students in 1997 to 113,900 in 2007-08 (Chubb et al, 2009). In spite of the tremendous growth of Virtual Schools there has been very little vigorous research work done on its benefits, and therefore the much claimed benefits of Virtual Schools may be an ‘exception to the rule’ than the ‘rule’’ itself (Barbour and Reeves, 2009). Barbour and Reeves (2009, p. 407) in their review of literature on Virtual Schools clearly highlight this problem and bring to attention literature-gaps on Virtual Schools and how most scholars rely on perceptions, opinions, experiences, and statistics of adult learners and distance education experiences to apply to Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) at schools. In the words of Barbour and Reeves (2009),“... the amount of refereed research evidence in this body of literature was limited. Much of the published literature is based upon the personal experiences of those involved in the actual practice of virtual schooling…” (p.403). “Like much of the literature regarding virtual schooling, the benefits of virtual schooling have been largely reported based upon the perceptions of those involved in the delivery of virtual schooling and not based upon robust research” (p.407).
Below we discuss the benefits and challenges of Virtual Schools in realation to
- students,
- parents and
- society.
1. STUDENTS
There are many benefits and challenges that Virtual schools face students, but much of the benefits and challenges for students can be summarised under four categories: expanding educational access, allowing curricula choice/educational choice, providing high-quality learning opportunities and improving student outcomes and skills (Barbour and Reeves, 2009).Expanding educational access:
Unlike
a real school, a Virtual School is always open, where access to online
course material is available 24/7, where prospective parents can be
shown round the school, pupils can pick up their homework, and parents
can buy tickets for concerts at any time of day or night (Weil, 2008).
Probably, the most often cited benefit of virtual schooling is expanding
educational access (Barbour, 2009). All virtual school programs reach
learners who may have been unable or unwilling to gain access through
traditional means. Reasons for this may include hospitalised or
homebound due to illness/disability, learning challenges, geographic
location(specialized courses not offered in small, rural schools),
students who had been removed from the schools because of suspension or
behavioural problems, part-time enrolment was necessary (summer school
or credit recovery programs), part-time employment , assignment to
alternative programs, incarceration (The Colorado Organization for
Victim Assistance), to complete missed school subjects that might be
needed for university entrance, courses for graduation or university
admission that were unavailable to them in their schools (hyperlink:
e.g., Advanced Placement courses run by International School of Western
Australia), students who travelled due to their participation in
athletic events or parental status (i.e., children of politicians or
diplomats who split time between a number of locations), remedial
students who had failed a course or needed additional time to complete a
course, adult learners who had not completed high school, and not the
last but least, home-schooled students where parents are unable to
provide curriculum support to their children due to a lack of their own
knowledge base (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Russell, 2004a; Schrum,
2005; Dessoff, 2009; Owen, 2002). In fact, the sentiments shared below
are a common notion amongst some educators in America.
“Students that are not being offered online school courses are not being properly prepared for college. Today, if a student graduates from high school without having taken a single virtual school class, I don’t think they’re being prepared for the next level.” (Weil, 2008, p.4).
Though the list of benefits in relation to access to Virtual Schools is exhaustive most students will not find the need for virtual schools, most parents do not travel or work from homes to supervise children online, for majority of the children in the world it would be inaccessible and unaffordable, while for the developed nations it is a wonderful opportunity of “cultural imperialism”, or for others an opportunity for “Jihad” (Galeota, 2004), and for even still others an opportunity to expand on the business of “call centres” to Virtual Schools. As Russell and Russell (1999) points that It is easy for people of the developed countries to forget that a large proportion of the world cannot participate in cyberspace, thereby restricting participation to those who live in industrialised countries and can afford the required infrastructure, computer and hardware.
Lynn Zimmerman a staff writer of i-blog speaks of her experiences stating, (hyperlink: i-blog) “...you can send all the computers to Africa you want, but if there are no electricity and no phone lines to connect to, they become expensive paper weights”.
Curricula choice:
Virtual
Schools offer such a broad range of courses/subjects that traditional
schools can never be able to compete with them because of budget
constraints or inability to find qualified teachers (Dessoff, 2009; For
instance see hyperlink: FLVS courses). From the Australian context,
Virtual Schooling Service (hyperlink: VSS) an initiative by the state
government’s education department in the jurisdiction of Queensland
offers secondary school students via its Pilot programme (hyperlink: VSS
i-school ) subjects such as mathematics, economics, physics, legal
studies, and languages other than English which would not otherwise be
available to students, who live not only in rural and remote areas but
also in urban and metropolitan centres (Kapitzke and Pendergast, 2005).
The other instance in Australia is e-magine Online Campus that supports,
facilitates and coordinates the delivery of online programs in
Tasmanian schools and colleges supporting rural and isolated schools in
achieving curriculum diversity and broad learning pathways supplying to
the needs of a small group of students (or 1 student) wishing to study a
particular subjects online (hyperlink: e-magine). Though Victoria
(Australia) is lagging behind Queensland and Tasmania in the area of
Virtual Schools, distance education students have a choice to receive
curriculum materials available from the Distance Education Centre via
CD-ROM, print-based booklets, or by accessing courses online (Russel,
2003; hyperlink: DECV). Further, Virtual Schools can be of invaluable
help to gifted students (hyperlink: Virtual School for the Gifted) and
special needs students (hyperlink: DEMYSTIFYING SPECIAL EDUCATION) in
taking additional courses/subjects.
However, as attractive as it seems, it is hard to run a Virtual School with all the course offerings, such as Caribbean history, Chinese, Latin, Spanish, Statistics, Environmental Ethics, and Russian, Soviet, and Post-Soviet Studies, etc., that will really interest and excite students, besides most students will not find the need for such subjects (Schrum 2005; Barbour and Mulcahy, 2008; Johnson, 2007). Children may be required to undergo testing and submit to interviews with school officials. In fact, these courses are designed and implemented in such a way that they exclude all but the most talented and motivated high school students and recent research literature substantiates this trend (see, Barbour and Mulcahy, 2008). Additionally, students in middle and elementary school level have decisions to make with parents/teachers on subjects and courses in online schooling unlike their counter parts in traditional schools (Russel, 2006), and negative aspects of the public school curriculum and teaching techniques may be brought into the home. Further, the shortcomings of traditional schools with regard to subjects/units that cannot be included as part of their curriculum, can be offered on line, either on or off campus, generally referred to as a “Blended Approach” (see Weil, 2008).
High quality learning opportunities and improving student outcomes and skills:
Virtual
Schools use a team of expert professionals to create each of its
web-based courses which consists of instructors who act as subject
matter experts, web development specialists, project managers, and
external instructional designers; On the other hand, traditional
classroom courses are developed by individual teachers or a small group
of teachers within a department (Johnston, 2004; Cited by Barbour,
2009). The benefits of Virtual Schools include the ability to provide
individual instruction to meet specific needs and learning styles of
students, thereby allowing each student to progress at their own level,
instead of waiting for someone to catch up or being left behind as the
class moves forward (Weil, 2008). Virtual schools makes possible
visualisation and contextualisation by the production and reproduction
of inaccessible content that may be historically lost, too distant, too
costly, imaginary, futuristic or impossible to see by the human eye
(Warburton, 2009). The use of 3-D multi-user virtual environments
(hyperlink) are bringing learning environments closer to reality than
ever before (Crammer, 2006; Edirisingha et al, 2009). However, in
reality traditional brick-and-mortar schools can offer excellent
learning opportunities, one-on-one encouragement and support that
Virtual Schools can never match, and to date many do, the only downside
being that there is a heavy reliance on the quality of the teachers and
the school in general. One may also argue that not all Virtual schools
are necessarily good quality (Barbour and Reeves, 2009) and there are
huge ramifications concerning teacher-certification which we discuss
later.
Students and Teachers:
Virtual Schools offers increased opportunities to interact with teachers and students by means of collaboration with their peers through asynchronous methods (any transfer of information that is stored or archived and then later accessed), like e-mails, threaded discussion forum, web pages, instant messaging, etc., or synchronous methods (interaction that occurs and takes place in real time) by way of online chats, live audio/video conferencing, etc. Some benefits of asynchronous and synchronous technologies is it allows students the necessary ‘‘think time”, helping shy students the opportunity to become involved in conversations, encourages independent learning skills, the use of podcasts promotes metacognition and reflection in facilitating student learning (McLoughlin, Lee and Chan, 2006), allows students to formulate and make corrections on their messages prior to sending, positively affects distance learner's confidence as communicators, and promotes writing, reading and analytic skills (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Weil, 2008;). Benefits of instant messaging (IM) include the ability to socialize and communicate their feelings about the course with others, discuss and get feedback on coursework, get to know the instructors better, and be more engaged. As Chub and Moe (2009) comment,“Brick-and-mortar schools will be very different places than they are today: using more technology, staffed by fewer but more able teachers, working with much better information, and delivering instruction better matched to student needs.” –John Chubb and Terry Moe (Education Next, Winter 2009, p.50) (See video on hyper link: http://www.liberatinglearning.org/?page_id=17)
On the downside, Virtual Schools teachers are completely dependent on parents in exercising their responsibility and ensuring that the tasks assigned to the students are executed; the teacher has no cues or body language signs to better understand the student behaviour; and all it takes for a disinterested student in a Virtual School is to turn off the computer (Russell, 2006; Russell and Russell, 2000).
“By saying that the brick and mortar classroom is out-of-date and should be disbanded, aren’t we in danger of disenfranchising a large number of people who have no capability of engaging in education through technology? That is not to mention the people who have no interest in and no ability for using technology. I will focus on the practical issues now, but we cannot ignore that while the technical issues can eventually be resolved, must people with no interest in or facility (ease of use – not building) for this type of learning be forced to adapt to it and adopt it?” Lynn Zimmerman http://innovateblog.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/access-the-new-imperialism/
Students and Society:
Virtual Schools besides building strong relations between teachers and students they also provide opportunities for social interaction between individuals and communities, where students can reach out and interact with and/or build knowledge communities (Kerawalla et al, 2009), human–object interaction, and also intelligent interaction between artefacts (Warburton, 2009). They not only alleviate feelings of isolation associated with distance learning but actually help by supporting collaborative knowledge building activities and supports meaning-making through reflective learning, giving different geographic and cultural perspectives and enhancing global competitiveness and skills for the new knowledge economy, (Russell, 2005a). Virtual learning environment (VLE) enables educators to incorporate blogs, wikis and pod-casting, as well as other asynchronous and synchronous communication and collaboration tools, into their courses and opportunities to comment on their student’s work (Kerawalla et al, 2009) thereby enhancing community presence promoting a sense of belonging and purpose that coheres around groups, subcultures and geography (Warburton, 2009). Further, students can be kept in touch with their old friends and can be encouraged to actively participate in school functions or fundraising activities through alumni websites (hyperlink: SJC alumni).
However, there are a lot of concerns raised regarding asynchronous and synchronous technology as a medium of communication. For instance, it requires substantial amount of typing and time to communicate effectively, text conversation may move too quickly for a non-native speaker, those with excellent typing skills tend to dominate chats, dimensions such as touch, taste and smell are rendered impossible, and beginning students need time to reflect, frame questions, and compose responses before feeling confident to post their remarks (Saenz, 2002; Russell, 2004c). Further, students who work, for example, with virtual images of art works will often find that both large and small art works are likely to appear the same size on the monitor, (Russell and Russell, 1999). In addition, a serious issue that concerns students of Virtual Schools, hardly ever spoken in any of the articles I have read (except, Russell, 2006, 2004b) is their safety in virtual learning environments where they are at
constant risk at all times with criminals, rapists, paedophiles, financial frauds, pornography and cyber bullying to mention a few. Though we have initiatives by the government (hyperlink: National Child Protection Clearinghouse), non government agencies (hyperlink: Netty's World), and schools, they are insufficient, needing constant updates and at times shallow. While children continue to explore the ‘darkside’ that even frightens adults (hyperlink: Byron Report), there are huge literature gaps in research on its affects on children’s well-being (Byron Report). Appropriately, Russell & Russell (1997) points that with students, the experience of working in cyberspace is not necessarily beneficial. Further, Virtual Schools are heavily criticised for their high dropout rates, not all Virtual Schools are of high quality, and there is no guarantee that the mere fact that a school is virtual means that it can provide high-quality education (Barbour and Reeves, 2009).
2. PARENTS
Syllabus documents become public documents for all parents to view and monitor student progress (Stubbs, 2004). Over a period of time, parents gain a clearer insight into what is being taught at school and the requirements of the National Curriculum and develop the confidence to discuss curricular issues with teachers. Parents develop a clearer appreciation of their children's true strengths and weaknesses. This helps to overcome any mismatch of perceptions between home and school. Additionally, parents' frustration at not being told at an early stage that their children might be experiencing difficulties and falling behind should be eliminated (DCSF). Further, the base of support for the children's education within the home is extended as many fathers are quite willing to assist with homework tasks thereby changing traditional gender issue associated with parental involvement. When all parents are encouraged to help their children, the support and assistance traditionally given to many children from advantaged backgrounds, is extended to more pupils. The quality of responses generated by some homework activities frequently may enable teachers to gain a different perspective on some pupils and their families, particularly those where previously, communication may have been limited (Russell, 2006). The research and discussion work generated by homework activities can help to create a family learning ethos within the pupils' homes. It also enriches and enhances working relationships between students, parents, and schools in the Home School Agreement (DCSF).
However, in reality few virtual schools currently track and account for student’s parental involvement (see table 8-Black et al, 2008, p.39), exceptions being the Kiel eSchool in Wisconsin and FLVS, which provides an end-of-course parental assessment to evaluate parental perception of the online learning process. FLVS survey parents to get their feedback on their program and help identify what they are doing well and how they can improve and parents evaluate the school on a number of criteria including student progress, teacher support, and quality of the curriculum. (See more details in hyperlink: FLVS connections academy). According to Black et al (2008, p.38),
“many virtual schools suffer from less-than optimal parental involvement and many parents adopt an absentee role, leaving students responsible for their own daily supervision, although parental involvement increased when the students were experiencing difficulties and decreased when there were fewer problems”.
While the learner and teacher are usually separated in virtual schools, the converse can be true of parents and students, as there is a tendency for the mode of learning to promote cooperation between students and parents, teachers’ responsibility in terms of student behaviour is redistributed (Russel, 2006). Though parental/adult oversight and involvement is an important component of any educational experience, it takes special responsibility in an asynchronous self-structured virtual school environment, where parental/adult involvement can be daunting and burdensome (Black et al, 2008). Parents are generally expected to monitor attendance and student work (Long, 2004), and periodic student-teacher contact, via phone or e-mail or in person, is arranged (Ellis, 2008). Further, Virtual schools are not parent directed and controlled, decisions are made by a public school teacher outside of the home, and parents carry out the teacher's decisions. Parents’ role include, and is not restricted to, being a teacher, councillor, coordinator, I.T. professional (hardware and software), Physical Instructor, besides their day-to-day responsibilities related to the child as a parent. They will be involved in supporting their child (morally and academically), offer encouragement, supervise and coach, make decisions on their behalf, solve problem (e.g., Virtual Bullying, etc), ensuring instructions by the teacher are executed, constantly monitoring children on their internet access to the websites visited, and ensuring tasks entrusted were completed before deadlines (Russel, 2002a).
Further, disadvantages of Virtual Schools for Parents are they are told what and how to teach, and must adhere to the approved curriculum, school schedule and state standards; parents are subject to government oversight and accountability over that required of homeschoolers by law, some families have even been investigated when leaving cyber schools to homeschool independently; families who use virtual academies have restrictions in membership in joining the Homeschool Legal Defense Association and may be excluded from local homeschool support groups, parents of children from homeschool are bombarded with emails to join Virtual Schools (competing for funds), and parents are restricted with the use of religious or faith based coursework (DCSF, hyperlink: ADL; JVL; Successful Homeschooling).
3. SOCIETY
Researchers in the fields of education and human interpersonal communication have identified "interactivity" (i.e., interaction), "intimacy", and "immediacy" as attributes that enhance social presence (Hsiung Tu, 2002; See diagram on page 8, and table on page 9. Hyperlink: http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.2.6.pdf). Although social presence has been characterized as an important construct in distance and Virtual Learning Environments little existing field research describes the value learners place on it, and whether it affects their satisfaction within a mediated learning environment (Saenz, 2002). face-to-face communication has the highest degree of social presence because of its ability to convey socio-emotional cues, use natural language, and provide immediate feedback, where combinations and patterns of communication are organized using speech, hearing, touch, sight, smell, gestures, writing, and reading (the former two being the most common methods of communication) (Saenz, 2002; Russell, 2004c). Important components used to convey closeness or distance when communicating include verbal and nonverbal behaviours (Russell, 2006). Unlike adult learners learning for a child is a social process and children are not ready to assume high degrees of autonomy (Barbour and Reeves, 2009). In Virtual Schools the student is physically distant from fellow students and the teacher, and separated in time by the use of mediated technology (Glenn Russell, 2004b) and thereby lacks the support of a peer-learning group and face serious socialization problems. Two issues in virtual learning environments, directly related to the learners feeling of isolation are psychological and transactional distance (for more information see, Saenz, 2002, p.27). Although face-to-face (F2F) collaboration is minimal in a Virtual School environment the learners involved have opportunities to interact with support personnel, teachers, as well as with other students, through both synchronous and asynchronous methods, which include e-mail, threaded discussions, chat rooms, listserv, etc., (Saenz, 2002; Russell, 2005b).Further, In Virtual Schooling there is changes to the control that the teacher can exert on an individual student's academic progress. The teacher has a restricted ability both to understand the level of the students' thoughts and to manage the way that learning occurs relying on the parents to coordinate work through them (Russel, 2006; 2002a). As students become less subject to the authority of teachers and parents, their values and ethical systems are likely to be increasingly influenced by on-line computer games, chat rooms, email and other elements of cyberspace thereby reducing opportunities for empathizing with others compared to their counterparts in a traditional school (Holmes & Russel, 1999; Russell and Russell, 1999; Russell, 2004b). The rise of Virtual Schools will bring in a new generation with its own characteristics of a culture, including language, symbols, rituals, status, perceptions, value systems, and affect the very patterns of human lives, which can be seen as both an advantage and danger to society (Russel, 2007). As Russell (2004b) points, the same online technology that permits teachers to locate rich learning materials for their students reveals forms of schooling that challenge existing educational beliefs.
Therefore, the new role of the teacher in Virtual Schools calls for new skills and expertise, differing from the traditional classroom, in relation to software evaluation, psychology, educational sociology, and strategies for teaching with online computer systems (Russel, 2006). It is vital for teachers of Virtual Schools to have strong written and oral skills to communicate with their students, be motivating, be comfortable teaching electronically, and have positive attitudes (Dessoff, 2009). The role of the teacher in online learning is a challenging job as they will not be able to observe body language and behavioural cues as effectively as a conventional teacher (Russel, 2006). Liz Pape, president and CEO of the non-profit Virtual High School Global Consortium (cited by Dessoff, 2009. p.2) says,
"I think there is a sense out there that if you're a good classroom teacher you can translate that automatically into an online learning environment, and we don't share that sense".
Hence, it follows that just being a good classroom teacher does not qualify a person as a Virtual School teacher. The University of Central Florida (UCF) and FLVS are offering future teachers a unique training called virtual internships which will enable the UCF education graduates to teach in both traditional and virtual classrooms, however these initiatives are still in their negotiation stages (hyperlink: eSchool News). We have other initiatives in Australia for students and teachers in relation to ICT support, such as, the oz-Teachernet a non-profit community service managed and maintained by academics at the Queensland University of Technology, one of the many community networks in the world that has been working with and for teachers. Some of the online curriculum projects, such as Land Yachts 2008 (hyperlink) and Q150: A Children's Gallery (hyperlink), offer essential national and international networks to teachers and students. Other similar efforts are the Global SchoolNet (hyperlink), Aussie School House (hyperlink), etc. However, we are a long way to training fresh graduates into Virtual Schools. To be a Virtual School teacher (e.g., FLVS, VHS) one needs to have a minimum of three years brick-and-mortar teaching experience, and most teachers teaching in virtual schools have 10 years of teaching experience in traditional classroom. Unlike traditional schools most teachers teaching in Virtual Schools have a Masters Degree, and teachers undergo initial face-to-face training with administrators and students, including a day and night so they can get used to working later hours; Although Virtual School teachers perform tasks harder than traditional classroom teachers, the fact remains that teachers in Virtual schools are underpaid, overloaded with work and student numbers, and sufficient training is not imparted (Dessoff, 2009; FLVS; VHS; Archambaoult & Crippen, 2009)
An often cited benefit, in relation to students and society, is the rich Global Community Presence. No doubt, if students meet people in cyberspace, it is doubtful that the same mix of ethnicity, gender, nationality, or social-economic grouping which whey encounter in their daily lives will be found on-line (Russell and Russell, 1999). This diversity and mix of people will enrich multiculturalism, secularism and instil values of a Global Citizen and bring about an appreciation of all people, culture, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. A staff writer of i-blog, Steve Eskow writes,
“There is a new Agora in the process of creation, a new Commons. And it will flourish free of the constraints of buildings, and, if we let learning move to where it is needed, we will enrich the lives of all those who can’t find their way to our buildings, or can’t afford the price of admission.” http://innovateblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/the-375-billion-dollar-question-and-the-new-agora/
However, on the contrary Virtual Schools that use computers and internet may actually aggravate the divide between the rich and poor, the educated/informed and the uneducated/ill-informed, the powerful and the meek, etc. As Russell and Russell (1999, p.14) cautions us how Cyberspace is a mirror of our society, which exaggerates values and faults, and further comments
“The world on the Internet can be seen as a technological fabrication which is being substituted for reality. While it may be possible that educational cyberspace can provide a broad range of experiences, teachers and students should not expect that on-line experiences can be a satisfactory alternative to real life.”
Another often cited benefit of Virtual Schools amongst administrators is the money and time saved in administration. Some administrative benefits for Virtual Schools include, decreasing the amount of time spent on discipline issues, flexibility in scheduling (both of students and teachers), and time saved on administrative tasks associated with registration, attendance, grading, monitor content delivery, access current grade information, and for teachers to communicate with parents (Keeler; 2003; Vail, 2001; Cited by Barbour and Reeves; Nodan and Barbara, 1993). Schools have reported a dramatic reduction in the amount of photocopying (Stubbs, 2004), reduced financial cost in terms of building, infrastructure, space (especially, in heavily developed urban pockets), is often cited. However, it may be argued that the initial costs of starting a Virtual School are high because of the costs related to software and hardware, employing qualified staff, cost-benefit-ratio, and many school districts oppose home based charters as they take students and funding from traditional programs, and reduce district supervision and control over students. Russell (2006) also points to the new IT industry that was non-existent in education, lack in ethics, code-of-conduct, and accountability, which is felt more amongst Virtual Schools.
CONCLUSION:
BIBLIOGRAPY
Archambaoult, L., & Crippen,K., 2009. “K12 distance educators at work: Who’s teaching online across the United States”. Journal of Research on lèclmology in Education 363.Copyright © 2009, ISTE (international Society for l’echnology in Education). 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l). istc(aistc.org. www.iste.org.
Barbour, M.K., & Reeves, T.C., 2009.“The reality of virtual schools-A review of the literature”. Computers & Education 52 (2009) 402–416. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009
Barbour, 2007. “Portrait of Rural Virtual Schooling Portrait of Rural Virtual Schooling” Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue #59, February 11, 2007. © by CJEAP and the author(s).
Barbour, M. K., and Mulcahy, D., 2008. “How are they doing: Examining stndent achievement in Virtual Schooling”. Education in Rural Australia, Vol.18 (2), p. 63-74.
Barbour, M. K., 2007. “WHAT ARE THEY DOING AND HOW ARE THEY DOING IT?
RURAL STUDENT EXPERIENCES IN VIRTUAL SCHOOLING”. A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia in Partial fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, ATHENS, GEORGIA, 2007.
Dessoff., Alan, 2009; "The
rise of the virtual teacher: online instructors--and their special skills--are
becoming increasingly important to 21st-century schooling.(TECHNOLOGY)(Cover
story)." District Administration 45.2 (Feb 2009): 23(4). Expanded Academic
ASAP. Gale. Monash Library. 5 Sept. 2009
<http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Gale Document Number:A194619637
Chubb, J., Mo., T., Cuban,
L; 2009. “Virtual Schools: Will
educations technology change the nature of learning?” Education Next, Winter
2009, p.52. www.educationnext.org
Chalmers, M., 2002b. e-magine
Online Campus ; Tasmania's virtual school acting as a
catalyst-conf_41_051_mickchalmers. Australian Computers in Education
Conference, Hobart, July 2002. URL:
http://knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition01/html/_download/mick.pdf
Department for Children,
Schools and Families-UK hyperlink: D.C.S.F-
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/parentalinvolvement/pwp/
Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations
DEMYSTIFYING SPECIAL EDUCATION:
http://www.uscharterschools.org/specialedprimers/download/special_report_rhim.pdf
DETYA:
http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/Publications/RealTime.pdf
Edirisingha, Palitha., Nie,
Ming., Pluciennik, Mark., and Young, Ruth. Socialisation for learning at a
distance in a 3-D multi-user virtual environment. British Journal of
Educational Technology Vol 40 No 3 2009 458–479. Journal compilation © 2009
Becta. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Ellis, K., 2008. “The realities
of Virtual Schools: Cyber Charter Schools: Evolution, Issues, and Opportunities
in Funding and Localized Oversight”. Educational HORIZONS, Spring 2008,
p.142-152.
eSchool News.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/around-the-web/index.cfm?i=56731; Wed, Jan 14,
2009; eSchool News, Technology News for Today’s K-20 Educator).
Farrell, M Glen., 2001.
“Changing faces of Virtual education”. © The Commonwealth of Learning, 2001.
ISBN: 1-895369-75-4. Published by: The Commonwealth of Learning, 1285 West,
Broadway, Suite 600, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6H 3X8.
Felton, G., 2000. “A survey of
traditional and distance higher education members”. Commissioned by National
Education Association, Washington, DC 20036. URL: www.nea.org/he
Florida Virtual School; FLVS
and 360Ed Launch Conspiracy Code - First-Ever Complete Online Game-Based High
School Course.
Finger, G and Russell,
G.(2005). Principles and Priorities of ICT research for the Knowledge Economy.
Paper presentation at ECER 2005 (European Conference on Educational Research,
Dublin, Ireland, 7-10 September 2005.)Available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/142996.htm
Finger, G., Russell, N., and Russell,
G., (1999). Information Technology and Australian Teachers - Implications and
Issues: Real Time: Computers, change and schooling - National Sample Study of
the Information Technology Skills of Australian School Students. Paper
Presented to the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE),
Melbourne, December 1999. Available: http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/fin99548.htm
Galeota,
Julia., 2004. “Cultural Imperialism: An American Tradition”. The Humanist,
May-June 2004, p.22-46. URL: www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/essay3mayjune04.pdf
Hadderman, 2002. “Trends and Issues
Virtual schools”. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, College of
Education University of Oregon, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene OR
97403-5207, 541-346-2332 800438-884[Fax: 541-346-2334. This document is
available on our website: http://eric.uoregon.edu, 2002 .U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDLr.ATION F toraI p eardr and hmarnIn1, ED4CAW) NAL RESOURCES, P4FORMAT1ON , /
CENTEIR (ERIC).
Holmes, D., and Russell, G.
(1999). Adolescent CIT use: Paradigm shifts for educational and cultural
practices? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(1), 73-82
Home Schooling:
http://www.successful-homeschooling.com/virtual-schools.html
Hsiung Tu, Chih., 2002. “The
Impacts of Text-based CMC on Online Social Presence”. The Journal of
Interactive Online Learning; Volume 1, Number 2, Fall 2002; ISSN:1541-4914.
URL: http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.2.6.pdf
Jacobson, Astrid R., Militello,
Roberta., and Baveye, C., 2009. “Development of computer-assisted virtual field
trips to support multidisciplinary learning”. Computers & Education 52
(2009) 571–580 0360-1315/$ - see front matter _ 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.007
Jamieson and Finger, 2008-ACT
TO IMPROVE ICT TO IMPROVE LEARNING
Johnson, Kay., 2007. “Florida
Virtual School: Growing and Managing a Virtual Giant”. Distance Learning; 2007;
4, 1; ProQuest Education Journals. (c)Copyright 2009, Education Letter via
NewsRx.com. Pro Quest Document ID: 1743725011.
Kapitzke,
Cushla., and Pendergast, Donna; 2005. “Virtual schooling: Productive pedagogies
or pedagogical possibilities?”. Teachers College Record 107(8):pp.
1626-1651. Copyright 2005 Blackwell Publishing. Accessed from http://eprints.qut.edu.au
Kerawalla, L., Minocha, S.,
Kirkup, G., & Conole, G (2008). An empirically grounded framework to
guide blogging in higher education. Institute of Educational Technology,
The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK. Centre for Research
in Computing, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK. 2008 The
Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell National Child Protection
Clearinghouse: http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/resources/internetsafety.html
McLoughlin, C.; Lee, M. J.;
Chan, A. (2006). Using student generated podcasts to foster reflection and
metacognition. Journal: Australian Educational Computing 21 (2) 34-41.
Netty's World:
http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/nettys_world_article.html/context/377
NEA: http://www.nea.org/
Noddan, Harry., & Moss,
Barbara., 1993. “Virtual schools-Reading and writing; Virtual schools:
Reading and writing”. The Reading Teacher; Oct 1993; 47,
2;p.166-168, Academic Research Library.
Owen, T., 2002. “Learning with
technology”. English Journal; May 2002; 91, 5; p.85-88, Academic
Research Library.
Russell, G. (2007).
Globalization, Distance Education and Hegemonic Futures. The Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 8(4). Available: http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/
Russell, G. (2006).
Globalization, Responsibility and Virtual Schools. Australian Journal of
Education.50(2), 140-154.
Russell, G. (2005a).The
Knowledge Economy and Virtual Schooling. Paper presented at ECER 2005 (European
Conference on Educational Research, Dublin, Ireland, 7-10 September
2005.)Available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/142870.htm.
Russell, G.
(2005b). Implications of Virtual Schooling for Socialization and Community. In
S. Dasgupta. (Ed) Encyclopedia of Virtual Communities and Technologies. Hershey:
Ideas Group
Russell, G. (2004a). The
Advantages and Disadvantages of Virtual Schools. ICT in Education,7 (1),
6-8.
Russell, G (2004b). Virtual Schools:
A critical View. In C. Cavanaugh (Ed) Development and Management of Virtual
Schools: Issues and Trends. Hershey: Ideas Group.
Russell, G. (2004c). The
Distancing Dilemma in Distance Education. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (Online), February -
available: http://www.itdl.org/journal/Feb_04/article03.htm
Russell, G. (2002).
Responsibility for school education in an online globalised world. Focus paper
presented to Technology Colleges Trust Vision 2020 Online Conference (UK), 2002
Russell, G. (2002). Ethical
Concerns about Virtual Schools. Journal of Religious and Theological
Information, 5(1), 31-48.
Russell, G. (2001). Is Virtual
Schooling a Virtual Reality? FromNowOn, 10(6), available:
http://fno.org/mar01/covmar.html
Russell, G, and Russell, N.
(2000). Will Computers Replace Teachers? Education Review October/November,
p. 2
Russell, G., and Russell, N.
(1999), Cyberspace and School Education. Westminster Studies in Education, 22,
7-17
Saenz., B.L, 2002. “Student
perception of social presence and its value in an asynchronous Web-based
Master’s Instruction program”. Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Curriculum and
Instruction. Blacksburg, Verginia.
Schrum, Lynne (2005)'The Web
and Virtual Schools',Computers in the Schools,21:3,81 — 89. To link to this
Article: DOI: 10.1300/J025v21n03_09. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J025v21n03_09
SJC alumni:
http://www.sjc-alumni.com/member.php?idz=4&sub=5
SREB:
http://www.sreb.org/main/SREB/index.asp
Stone, J., 2006. “Virtual
bullying, managing bullying with”. Australian College of Educators (ACER).
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR. VOl 5, NO, 2 • MAY 2006 7, p.6-9.
Stubbs, D., 2004. “NESA Virtual
Schools”. E-Learning, ACE, PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR I VOl 3, No. 3 I September
2004
Virtual School for the Gifted: http://www.vsg.edu.au/
Virtual Schools:
http://virtualschools2.virtualschools.net/folders/the_benefits/
International School of Western
Australia: http://www.iswa.wa.edu.au/ap-program/apcourses/
Warburton,
Steven (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for
and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British
Journal of Educational Technology Vol 40 No 3 2009 414–426; Journal
compilation © 2009 Becta. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
No comments:
Post a Comment