1. Rural Distance Learning Project Overview of Research & Findings Matthew J. Irvin, Ph.D. Supported by grant #R305A04056 from the Institute of Education Sciences to the National Research Center on Rural Education Support.

2. Background: Issues & Needs Rural issues – fewer numbers of students for courses – geographic isolation & lower wages – difficulties recruiting & retaining teachers certified in advanced courses – rural schools’ constrained in ability to provide enrichment/advanced/AP courses

3. Background: Issues & Needs Online learning provides a potential way of addressing these issues in rural schools – research demonstrates it is effective as traditional classes – students often less engaged & feel isolated or unsupported because teacher is not physically present – dropout rates typically higher – research rarely involved rural youth – rural schools/students more apt to use online learning than urban/suburban counterparts

4. Need for Research Online learning may help rural schools overcome challenges and allow to offer advanced courses Rural schools are using distance learning and rural youth are prepared for it Lack of data on how to improve rural students’ success in and completion of online courses

5. Our Research at NRCRES Rural Distance Education Survey (RDES) survey research Enhancing Rural Online Learning (EROL) intervention Future directions

6. Rural Distance Education Survey (RDES)

7. RDES: Purpose Examine extent to which rural schools use distance education & related factors that may be a factor in effective use of distance education – prevalence of & need for distance education – barriers to distance education – course subjects & delivery formats – satisfaction – students’ course completion & preparation

8. RDES: Approach randomly selected 400 rural school districts – 10% of all rural districts that qualified for Small Rural School Achievement program (311 districts) fewer than 600 students; county with fewer than 10 people per square mile; all schools in locale code 7 or 8 (i.e., fewer than 2,500 residents) – 10% of all rural districts that qualified for Rural Low Income School program (106 districts) at least 20% of students from families with incomes below Federal poverty line; all schools in a local code 6, 7, or 8

9. RDES: Approach contacted selected districts & conducted telephone survey with district administrators (or person most knowledgeable about districts’ distance education) trained interviewers administered in standardized fashion with pre-programmed database 95% participation rate

10. RDES: Descriptive Results 85% of rural districts had used or were using distance education – 69% currently using distance education – 16% previously used distance education but not currently – few districts had never used distance education (15%) 81% of school administrators reported that they needed distance education to provide advanced or enrichment courses students wanted

11. RDES: Descriptive Results Course subjects most often provided via distance education – Foreign language (35%) – Algebra (12%) – Psychology/sociology (12%) – Language/composition (11%)

12. RDES: Descriptive Results Student preparation – “very well” prepared in terms of computer skills (77%) & academic background (50%) – fewer “very well” prepared in terms of study skills (28%) Reasons stopped using distance education – limited student interest – time/scheduling issues – lack of support personnel

13. RDES: Barriers Results Barriers - most frequent/common: – District barriers Distance education not needed for curriculum requirements (68%) Funding (64%) Distance education not being a district priority (53%) – Logistical barriers Scheduling (59%) Difficult to implement (45%) – Personnel barriers Personnel not trained to support distance education (47%) Not have personnel available to support distance education (34%)

14. RDES: Barriers Results Barriers - least frequent/common: – Technology barriers Lack technology enhanced rooms (15%) Technology inadequately maintained (10%) Insufficient connectivity (7%)

15. RDES: Barriers Results Barriers – relation to other factors: – “Personnel not trained to support distance education” & “distance education difficult to implement” related to: lower use of any distance education courses lower satisfaction with distance education courses lower student preparation

16. RDES: Satisfaction Results Districts’ Satisfaction – examined factors related to – for every one unit increase in students’ study skills districts are 123% more likely very satisfied with distance education – for every one unit increase in students’ computer skills districts are 135% more likely very satisfied with distance education – use of synchronous delivery formats related to increased likelihood rural districts very satisfied with distance education by 82.5% – use of asynchronous delivery formats not related to increase or decrease in satisfaction (more often use)

17. Enhancing Rural Online Learning (EROL)

18. EROL: Context of Study Rural schools using online learning to address previously discussed issues – e.g., insufficient numbers of students, difficulties finding & retaining certified teachers – especially case for enrichment/advanced/AP courses that may help students prepare for & be successful following post-secondary transition

19. EROL: Context of Study Common model – students take an advanced online course during a designated class period – have a school-based facilitator/mentor that provides basic support - helps log-in, takes attendance, keeps on-task often not a teacher (coach, counselor, secretary) not trained to support learning receive no/little training to be facilitator (e.g., how to log students in, check grades, record attendance)

20. EROL : Problem when complete course research indicates learning same as in traditional face-to-face class higher dropout rates in online courses in online courses students have less support because teacher at remote location – may be particularly difficult for rural youth used to close ties with & substantial support from teachers (mismatch)

21. EROL : Approach provide additional training to school-based facilitator/mentor – so provide environmental supports & create experiences (e.g., facilitate working together with peers) typically missing in online courses developed & tested Facilitator Preparation Program

22. EROL : Approach Facilitator Preparation Program – provides info on principles of development & learning (APA’s Learner-Centered Principles) multiple factors involved; holistic view; uniqueness of rural youth – scenarios depicting common student issues in online courses (from pilot work) – professional learning community with other facilitators – data-based assessments of learning context (student- reports) & facilitator consultation/professional development to address

23. EROL : Study Examine if having a facilitator who completed Facilitator Preparation Program (intervention condition) reduces course dropout & improves learning In comparison to having a facilitator who received typical training (e.g., how to log students in, check grades, record attendance) (control condition) 2-year cluster randomized controlled trial – Year 1 (2007-2008) - 37 schools & 246 students – Year 2 (2008-2009) – 56 schools & 463 students

24. EROL: Location of Schools AR AZ CA CO FL-3 GA-8 IA IL KS MI MO MT NE NM NY OK SD TX WA WI AK VT IN KY ME MN MS ND OH PA TN UT WY

25. EROL : Intervention Results Facilitator Preparation Program reduced dropout – for students in Year 1 – did not have an impact on student learning

26. EROL: Year 1 Results

27. EROL : Additional Findings Teachers unequivocally reported that having a supportive facilitator important – communication with teacher crucial Facilitators reported that main challenges facing students taking online AP class were – rigor of course and grading – online format lack of face-to-face communication lack of immediate feedback from online instructor (synchronous)

28. EROL : Additional Findings Facilitators reported that Facilitator Preparation Program very helpful in following respects – scenarios training may be better if involves real-world situations – clarified role and need to actively support students

29. Future Directions

30. continue develop & adapt Facilitator Preparation Program to other subjects – math/science adapt for struggling students/youth at-risk of school dropout – credit recovery – alternative schools