The Nature of Teacher Engagement at an Online High School

Running head: ONLINE TEACHER ENGAGEMENT 1

This is a prepublication draft of the article to appear in:

Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2014). The nature of teacher engagement at an online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793–806. doi:10.1111/bjet.12089

The Nature of Teacher Engagement at an Online High School

ONLINE TEACHER ENGAGEMENT

Article Source: Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Drysdale, J. S. (2014). The nature of teacher engagement at an online high school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 793–806. doi:10.1111/bjet.12089

2

Abstract

Little research has examined the critical components of successful K-12 online schools, due in part to the theoretical focus of current frameworks on higher education rather than characteristics of K-12 online learners and environments. Using K-12 online research, this paper examined teaching presence as explained by the Community of Inquiry framework and identified additional teacher roles that needed stronger emphasis. We termed the new construct teacher engagement. Teacher engagement was shown to be helpful in describing and identifying effective teacher practices at the Open High School of Utah (OHSU)—a successful online charter school. Through a series of 22 interviews with over half of OHSU faculty, it was found that teachers worked to improve student outcomes by (1) designing and organizing learning activities, (2) facilitating discourse with students and parents, (3) providing students with one-on-one instruction, (4) nurturing a safe and caring learning environment, (5) motivating students to engage in learning activities, and (6) closely monitoring student behavior and learning. These six elements describe the core of teacher engagement. What is already known about this topic

• Although difficult to measure, online attrition is considered a major problem in K-12 online learning.

• Little research has examined the critical components of successful K-12 online schools. • The lack of research is caused in part by the focus of existing online learning frameworks

on higher education rather than K-12 online learners, who tend to be less autonomous and motivated.

What this paper adds

• We present the concept of teacher engagement, which was created using K-12 online research to build on the Community of Inquiry’s concept of teaching presence.

• The current research found the concept of teacher engagement helpful in describing and identifying effective teacher practices.

• We share teachers’ practices to improve course outcomes at the Open High School of Utah (OHSU)—a successful online charter school.

Implications for practice and/or policy

• The concept of teacher engagement may prove helpful to other researchers examining K-12 online teacher practices.

• We share teacher practices at OHSU that may provide insights to online teachers, administrators, and course designers wishing to improve course outcomes.



3

The Nature of Teacher Engagement at an Online High School

An increasing number of K-12 students are enrolling in online learning (Aud et al.,

2012). However, high online attrition rates remain a major concern (Hawkins & Barbour, 2010;

Rice, 2006), and more rigorous examination of the “critical components of successful programs”

is needed (Rice, 2009, p. 170). Although research in K-12 online learning environments is

limited, teacher contact in face-to-face environments has been shown to significantly impact

student success (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Slater, Davies, & Burgess, 2011), supporting

Belair’s (2012) claim that K-12 online teacher practice is a critical component requiring

examination. Similarly, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) viewed teachers as the “binding

element” (p. 96) of online learning communities, with students likely to fail without teacher

leadership. This is especially true in K-12 environments where students tend to be less

autonomous than adults and have more difficulty succeeding online (Cavanaugh, Gillan,

Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004). This paper addresses this issue by examining teacher

practices at a successful online charter high school.

Theoretical Framework

Research on K-12 online learning is limited but increasing (Barbour & Reeves, 2009;

Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark, 2009; Searon, Jones, & Wold, 2011). Rice (2006) blamed the

deficit in part on lack of a theoretical rationale, consistent with Smith, Clark, and Blomeyer’s

(2005) literature review showing that K-12 online researchers generally cite no theoretical

framework. Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2009) explained that Garrison et al.’s (2000)

Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, originally designed to examine higher education’s

distance education, may provide insights for K-12 online learning.



4

The CoI framework focused on the collaborative-constructivist learning model and

identified three essential elements that make up a community of inquiry:

1. Teaching presence: “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social

processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally

worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 5).

2. Social presence: “the ability of participants in the Community of Inquiry to project their

personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to the other

participants as ‘real people’” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89).

3. Cognitive presence: “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration

of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained

communication” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89).

It was also hypothesized how these elements were related to each other. For instance, Garrison

et al. (2000) explained that cognitive presence was more likely to occur following the

establishment of social presence because social presence allows participants to more easily

communicate and exchange ideas. Garrison et al. (2000) placed special importance on the

teaching presence because “appropriate cognitive and social presence, and ultimately, the

establishment of a critical community of inquiry, is dependent upon the presence of a teacher”

(p. 96).

Although more recent research has worked to quantitatively measure the different

elements and explain their relationships (Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice,

Richardson, & Swan, 2008; Lowenthal & Dunlap, in press; Shea & Bidjerano, 2010; Swan,

Richardson, Ice, Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Arbaugh, 2008), Garrison and his colleagues’

initial research using the CoI framework was exploratory and descriptive, analyzing discussion



5

board comments to identify indicators of the three identified elements of a community of inquiry

(Anderson et al., 2001; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, &

Archer, 2001). For instance, Anderson et al.’s (2001) analysis of course discussion boards

identified three indicators of teaching presence: designing and organizing, facilitating discourse,

and providing direct instruction. However, online courses involve more than discussion boards,

and Anderson et al. (2001) urged extension of the concept to additional aspects. The CoI

framework emerged in higher education contexts and more exploratory and descriptive work is

required to apply the framework to the K-12 online learning environment. Garrison, Anderson,

and Archer (2010) acknowledged this gap when they stated that “work remains in validating the

composition of the presences across various populations (e.g., colleges, professional

development, high schools)” (p. 8). To better understand effective K-12 online teaching

practices, we examined the composition of teaching presence through the lens of existing K-12

online-learning research and identified three teacher roles needing stronger emphasis: nurturing,

motivating, and monitoring. Although the CoI framework partially identifies these roles, the

characteristics of adolescent learners require greater emphasis on them. We termed the new

construct teacher engagement, a term chosen for three reasons: (1) to distinguish the new

construct from teaching presence, (2) to use the term engagement familiar in K-12 literature, and

(3) the term presence is passive while engagement emphasizes the caring and committed action

that is often required in K-12 environments (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005).

Not all K-12 online teachers are responsible for all identified indicators of teacher

engagement. Davis and Rose (2007) explained that “roles and responsibilities of an online

teacher vary depending on the grade level they teach and the model of elearning they follow” (p.

8). For instance, Harms, Niederhauser, Davis, Roblyer, and Gilbert’s (2006) model for virtual



6

schooling programs proposed three complementary roles: teachers who monitor and assess

learning, on-site facilitators who provide face-to-face support, and instructional designers who

create course content and learning activities. Although the majority of research has focused on

the instructor role, facilitation should not be ignored. Hamas et al. (2006) acknowledged

significant overlap within these roles and multiple roles could be performed by a single person.

For instance, de la Varre, Keane, and Irvin (2011) found that on-site facilitation can include all

aspects of teaching presence. Similarly we acknowledge that our six indicators of teacher

engagement can be performed by one or more individuals depending on the context and

environment.

The first element of teacher engagement is designing and organizing, explained by the

CoI framework as consisting of several responsibilities, which include creating a mix of

individual and group learning activities and establishing a timeline (Anderson et al., 2001). K-12

students’ lower autonomy requires lessons to be organized as shorter segments with more

concrete deadlines—shared with parents (Cavanaugh et al., 2004; Barbour & Reeves, 2009).

Barbour (2007) added clear instructions, visual and interactive elements, and personal examples

relatable to students. Organization of elements is critical; courses without consistent

organizational patterns can inhibit student engagement—particularly that of students with special

needs (Keeler & Horney, 2007). Although course designers create and organize most content

and learning materials, teachers can supplement and modify to tailor to student needs (Harms et

al., 2006).

Facilitating Discourse is another important element of teacher engagement. The CoI

framework directs teachers to facilitate discourse with and among students (Anderson et al.,

2001). K-12 teachers should also facilitate discourse with parents and between parents and



7

students (Black, 2009; Epstein et al., 1997), as required by many online schools’ interaction

policies (Cavanaugh et al., 2009b). Some virtual schools have on-site facilitators to provide

students and parents with a communication link with the course instructor (Harms et al., 2006).

Instructing is the third element of teacher engagement. Because course content and

assignments can be purchased and organized in a learning management system (LMS), some

expect that “little teaching is required” (Davis & Rose, 2007, p. 8); however in reality teachers

must provide direct instruction when necessary (Anderson et al., 2001). Ronsisvalle and

Watkins’ (2005) review of the K-12 online literature found that a unique set of study skills needs

to be taught to novice online learners, including online reading skills and computer-based note

taking. Teachers’ ability to respond to these needs depends largely on context. For instance,

Hawkins et al. (2011, 2012) found that teachers’ student loads in a large virtual high school

ranged from 2 to 1,726, with an average teacher-student ratio of 1:233. With little time to

provide personalized instruction, these teachers viewed themselves primarily as graders.

Providing personalized instruction is further complicated by K-12 students’ diversity in levels of

cognitive development (Cavanaugh et al., 2004).

Nurturing is an essential element of teacher engagement, specified by Picciano, Seaman,

and Allen (2010) in the statement that teachers “are incredibly important socializing agents who

nurture and provide social and emotional support” (p. 29). Garrison and Anderson (2003)

explained that “in a highly interactive e-learning environment conflict will inevitably be an issue

that needs to be managed” (p. 88). Online conflict and bullying are especially harmful to younger

learners; thus teachers must recognize and prevent cyber-bullying by maintaining a level of care

and respect (Rice, 2006). Repetto et al. (2010) explained that while all communities require care,

K-12 teachers are held to a higher standard because they act as quasi parents. Unfortunately



8

researchers have identified the physical separation between online teachers and students as a

major barrier to forming close relationships (Hawkins, Barbour, & Graham, 2011, 2012; Murphy

& Manzanares, 2008; Picciano et al., 2010). However, Authors (2012, 2013) studied two online

teachers who overcame this barrier in an interaction-rich online environment, and Nippard and

Murphy (2007) observed teachers who increased their social presence by using audio

communication and discussing with students topics not directly related to course content.

The fifth element, motivating, is affirmed by the CoI framework as important in

facilitating discourse (Anderson et al., 2001). K-12 students tend to have less self-motivation

than adult learners, placing more motivation responsibility on teachers (Weiner, 2003), who are

not present during lessons. On-site facilitators provide motivation in some virtual schools

(Hamas et al., 2006). And even at a distance teachers can use multimedia praise and incentives to

increase student engagement (Cavanaugh et al., 2004; Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2009)

or work with parents to provide more extensive incentives than either could provide alone

(Authors, in review).

Monitoring is the last hypothesized element of teacher engagement. The International

Association for K-12 online Learning (iNACOL, 2011) suggested that teachers monitor students’

management of their time and progress toward mastering learning objectives. However, effective

monitoring of students’ behavior and learning can be difficult at a distance (Murphy &

Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008). Learning management systems (LMS) provide detailed

information regarding student access to course materials and discussion forum activity; however,

online schools have been slow to fully utilize analytic data. Dickson (2005) hypothesized that

teachers’ data-driven decisions would be facilitated if LMS provided dashboards making data

easy to understand.



9

In conclusion, using K-12 literature to build on the CoI concept of teacher presence, this

paper presents the concept of teacher engagement to better guide research on K-12 online teacher

practices. We hypothesized six indicators for teacher engagement: designing and organizing,

facilitating discourse, instructing, nurturing, motivating, and monitoring. Depending on the

context, these roles can involve one or more individuals.

Methods

Research was conducted at the Open High School of Utah (OHSU), an online charter

school in operation since 2009. During the research OHSU employed 21 teachers (15 full time, 4

part time, and 2 adjunct), who taught 381 students grades 9-12, 86% of whom took most or all of

their course work at OHSU. OHSU was selected because it provides students with frequent

instructor interaction and has achieved high course outcomes. The year prior to data collection,

OHSU’s overall pass rate was 80%, exceeding state averages on Utah’s criterion referenced tests

(CRT) for math, science, and English.

We selected 11 teachers to participate in two 60-minute semi-structured interviews, using

purposeful sampling to ensure a maximum variation of teacher practices and perspectives

(Patton, 1980). Two social studies teachers, two math teachers, two language arts teachers, two

science teachers, two elective teachers, and a special education teacher were sampled to obtain

teacher perspectives across disciplines. All were certified teachers, four with advanced degrees.

Nine had previously taught in traditional face-to-face classes, averaging 5.8 years. Four were in

their first year of teaching at OHSU, six in their second, and one in her third. None of them had

K-12 online teaching experience prior to working for OHSU, but one had taught online courses

for eight years at a community college.



10

We analyzed teacher interviews using elements of constant comparison coding (Glaser,

1965). Emerging themes regarding teachers’ roles in online learning were defined and organized

into coding categories. The primary author coded all 22 interviews, remaining sensitive to new

themes, and research team members met bi-weekly to review the coding and identify emerging

themes in each interview to compare with those in interviews previously coded. Researchers also

discussed and resolved all coding disagreements in the review process. Once the coding was

complete, categories were analyzed across cases to identify comparative findings.

Results and Discussion

Findings were organized according to the six proposed indicators of teacher engagement.

With discussion of findings we include their contribution to existing K-12 online research.

Facilitating Discourse

Analysis found that instructors worked to facilitate and maintain discourse with students,

parents, and other teachers (see Tables 1-3). Of the nine teachers who had previously taught face

to face, eight indicated having more opportunities to interact individually with students in online

courses. Rachel explained, “In a public school I learned how to deliver the material. Online I’ve

learned to communicate.” Rachel’s comment highlights the possibility for more one-on-one

interactions online: during online office hours (typically four hour blocks) and via instant

messaging, video communication, phone calls, and text messages. Students’ preferences varied,

as noted by Authors (2012), who found K-12 online students using different media according to

the purpose of inquiry and perceived relationship with the teacher. Murphy, Rodriguez-

Manzanares, and Barbour (2011) found through teacher interviews that online K-12 students

tended to prefer asynchronous text communication to more synchronous audio or video-enabled



11

methods. Similarly, Nippard and Murphy’s (2007) observations of synchronous online classes

found students communicated almost exclusively via text despite available audio formats.

[insert Table 1 approximately here]

Dipietro, Ferdig, Black, and Preston (2008) emphasized that teachers need to proactively

facilitate content and social discourse with students. Ten OHSU teachers commonly did this by

“checking in” with students. Julia’s description was typical of OHSU teachers: “It’s more of a

‘Hey, how are you? What can I help you with?’ facilitating kind of role.” All interviewed

teachers also personally contacted low performing students. However, all teachers expressed

some difficulty in facilitating discourse with reluctant, low performing students who seemed to

“disappear” from their class. Although students can disappear in a face-to-face environment, the

issue appears more pervasive online, as seen in high attrition rates (Rice, 2006).

Facilitating discourse with parents also emerged as a major responsibility (see Table 2).

All but one teacher stated that they personally initiated contact with parents and nine teachers

copied parents to most of their student communication to “keep them in the loop,” as

recommended by Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares’ (2009). Nine teachers found parents

generally more proactive in communicating with teachers than in face-to-face environments.

Stephanie stated, “I am much more involved with the parents here than I ever was in bricks and

mortar.” However, it is unclear if parents’ proactivity resulted from online affordances. Ni and

Rorrer (2012) explained that a parent’s choice of a charter school—face-to-face or online—is

based on involvement in their child’s education; thus they might be similarly proactive in face-

to-face charters. Although teachers found parents generally more involved, seven mentioned that

a few parents were as difficult to contact as their most reluctant students. Stephanie explained,

“Certain parents . . . never call me back [or] respond to a single e-mail.” Hoover-Dempsey and



12

Sandler (2005) suggested parents may be reluctant because of time constraints or low self-

efficacy in their ability to help their child. Additionally research has shown a relationship

between socioeconomic status and parental involvement (Black, 2009; Fan & Chen, 2001).

[Insert Table 2 approximately here]

Although facilitating discourse with other teachers was not originally hypothesized as an

element of teacher engagement, it emerged as a major theme during the interview coding (see

Table 3). This communication was primarily via an “online faculty room” called Highrise.


Teachers found several benefits for these interactions: identifying at-risk students,

coordinating behavior contracts, voicing frustrations, and sharing effective teaching strategies.

Christine explained that Highrise provided “a way for teachers to collaborate and see if [they]

can work out a way together to help students be more successful.” Samantha, a first year

teacher, found this interaction helped her learn job responsibilities and learn new teaching

strategies. Similarly, Espinoza, Dove, Zucker, and Kozma’s (1999) analysis of survey responses

found that reported collaboration decreased in teachers’ second year. Espinoza et al. felt the

decrease might reflect teachers’ heightened need for collaboration during course development.

Anderson (2008) claimed that teacher-teacher interactions can improve professional

development and facilitate a scholarly community of teachers.

Designing and Organizing

OHSU provided instructors with pre-designed content and learning activities, reducing

their designing responsibilities. OHSU did not purchase curriculum from external venders, but

designed their courses in-house. Eight of the interviewed teachers worked as course designers

during summers, some of them later teaching the course they designed (see Table 4). OHSU’s



13

curriculum uses open educational resources (OER), allowing teachers to make modifications for

specific needs of their students. Although these modifications, commonly referred to as

“tweaks,” appeared relatively minor, modifying course curriculum seemed important to teacher

satisfaction. The two teachers who used purchased curriculum found it “frustrating” because

they could not alter content. Similarly, Hawkins et al. (2012) found that K-12 online teachers

felt disconnected from their profession when they were not able to design or modify curriculum.


Many course design modifications were organizational. Weiner (2003) explained that

setting concrete deadlines is critical to organizing an online K-12 course. Accordingly, OHSU

implemented a school-wide deadline policy. Teachers subdivided weekly units into small

sections that could be completed in approximately an hour, as suggested by Cavanaugh (2009).

Nurturing

OHSU teachers created a safe and nurturing learning environment for students (see Table

5). Several teachers mentioned that the counseling office had initiated an anti-cyber-bullying

program. One teacher indicated that physical separation made recognizing bullying more

difficult, but another found it “easily trackable.” Similarly, Rice (2012) indicated that the same

permanence and visibility of cyber bullying that makes it more traumatic than face-to-face

bullying also makes it easier to combat.


Nine teachers also stated that they worked to develop and nurture caring relationships

with students, in part through a school-wide “shepherding” program. Rachel explained,

We’re each assigned 20 students who we’re supposed to contact weekly . . . We really

get to know them—about their weekend, or what they like to do, or if there’s anything



14

fun going on. That way they have at least one teacher who’s really trying to get to know

[them] and show interest beyond just “How’s your math going? Do you understand it?”

Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2008) explained that social interactions are unlikely unless

planned and promoted, as in OHSU’s shepherding program. Hawkins and colleagues’

examination of learner interactions in a large virtual high school confirmed that social

interactions between students and instructors are low if not promoted by the instructor (Hawkins,

Barbour, & Graham, 2011; Hawkins, Graham, Sudweeks, & Barbour, 2013).

Instructing

Teachers with face-to-face teaching experience recalled that in traditional classrooms

much of their instruction was lecture based, presenting “the same thing over and over.” At

OHSU students accessed course content asynchronously and received the majority of instruction

in one-on-one tutoring sessions (see Table 6). Ten teachers also viewed providing students with

“constructive feedback” as part of their instructional responsibilities.


Eight of the teachers expressed feeling somewhat unprepared for responsibilities of

online instruction. For most, technology was the largest “learning curve” and nine teachers

found that students asked them for technological help. Teaching online was challenging for

Megan because her teacher education focused almost exclusively on teaching groups, not on one-

on-one tutoring strategies commonly performed at OHSU. Similarly, Archambault and Crippen

(2009) reported online teachers feeling more comfortable with traditional strategies than with

technology-mediated methods. These findings support previous injunctions to improve

preservice and inservice teacher education to prepare teachers for the specific challenges of

online instruction (Dawley, Rice, & Hinck, 2010; DiPietro, Black, & Dawson, 2009; Ferdig,



15

Cavanaugh et al., 2011), perhaps by providing an online practicum teaching experience.

Unfortunately, such experiences are not currently offered by the large majority of teacher

education programs (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012).

Monitoring

All of the instructors monitored student behavior using analytic data provided by their

LMS, consistent with Dickson’s (2005) claim that analytic data could support teachers’ data-

driven decision making (see Table 7). Lisa found that the LMS allowed her to “track [students]

little footprints through everything they do,” making it easier to hold students accountable and

thus use office hours more efficiently. Ten teachers also indicated that the analytic data helped

them to aid parents’ monitoring. Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2009) added that a

student-tracking program could help teachers identify struggling students, as in Megan’s

experience:

[One student] kept saying, “I am putting in all this time.” I thought, “There is no way.”

Then I started paying better attention to his time spent in the course. . . . He was spending

over an hour in English every day, which [told] me that it really was an aptitude issue.

But Megan might have made this diagnosis faster face to face, with more communication cues

present. Similarly, several teachers found monitoring student learning and behavior more

difficult online because they could not “see their little faces.”


Although analytics can be helpful in monitoring student learning, it did not replace the

teachers’ need to interact with students, and five teachers reported conducting frequent verbal

assessments. Rebecca explained that although her interactions with students were mediated, she

could still “see the light bulb go on.” All teachers regularly monitored student understanding



16

using a variety of traditional and alternative assessment methods. Five teachers also reported a

need to monitor students’ academic honesty. For instance, three teachers reported that audio or

video assessments were effective in discouraging cheating and plagiarism. Watson (2007)

believed that when teachers stay closely involved via frequent interactions, students find

cheating more difficult.

Motivating

Teachers felt they needed to motivate students to engage in learning activities (see Table

8); typically they did so directly after monitoring student progress. For example, realizing that

students “love to get recognized,” all teachers praised students for their academic

accomplishments. Five teachers did so publicly by regularly posting exemplary assignments on a

course page termed the “wow wall,” “strut-your-stuff wall,” or “fabulous finds wall.” Teachers

also commonly provided “cheerleading” support to help students “get on the computer and start

working.” Four teachers found rewards effective for incentivizing student engagement (cf.

Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2009). One teacher would “mail [students] a candy bar” to

reward some kinds of participation. OHSU also implemented a school-wide incentive program

called “Terrific Tuesdays,” when names of students who had successfully completed

assignments would be entered into a drawing for a reward such as an iTunes gift card.


Although Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2009) recommended gentle nudges for

motivating students, Rachel found that at times some students required a “virtual kick in the

pants.” She explained that she knew which students “needed that firmness” and which students

needed a “cheerleader.” Firmness might include behavior contracts and verbal reprimands.

However, some students were “dead set on not doing anything.” Stephanie shared,



17

I had one kid last year that it didn’t matter what I did. All his other teachers had weekly

meetings with him, we talked to him, we asked him questions about concepts, we tried to

push him to do things—and he never ever would.

Although inability to motivate students is not unique to online learning, Stephanie’s

physical separation from her student may have exacerbated the problem. Litke (1998) found that

students could more easily ignore teachers by turning off the computer than by staring away

from face-to-face contact. Online teachers’ motivational strategies can be more effective when

supported by parents’ physical presence (Boulton, 2008; Liu et al., 2010; Murphy & Rodriguez-

Manzanares, 2009; Russell, 2004).

Conclusions and Implications

Analysis of teacher interviews found several reasons for their success in obtaining high

course outcomes. First, teachers were provided with premade curriculum and thus able to spend

more time tutoring and interacting with students. Most of the curriculum was developed in

house, so teachers could make adaptations to meet student needs. Teachers used a variety of

effective strategies to motivate students, including private and public praise, incentives, and

rewards. However, all teachers indicated some difficulty in engaging reluctant students, which

they attributed to physical separation and absence of visual cues.

The concept of teacher engagement was helpful in describing teachers’ current practice.

But during the analysis researchers had difficulty distinguishing between teachers’ monitoring

and motivating behaviors, as teacher monitoring was almost always an antecedent to motivating.

As a result we recommend revising teacher engagement to more clearly define or combine these

indicators. The concept of teacher engagement is not meant to be a comprehensive list of teacher

responsibilities, which would be detrimental and “prevent an understanding of best practice of



18

various roles in online K-12 environments” (Ferdig et al., 2009, p. 496). Researchers who use

the concept of teacher engagement should be sensitive to additional engagement behavior: for

example, instructor-instructor interaction was found to be an important engagement aspect.

Researchers must also recognize the influence of environmental factors on teacher

responsibilities (Ferdig et al., 2009). In some contexts the framework may be too comprehensive.

Two major limitations to this research should be addressed in future work. First, single-

setting research is helpful in understanding the particular, but its scope limits generalization to

other contexts (Merriam, 1998). Research conducted in several settings with varying learning

models and student populations would yield more generalizable results. Second, limitations of

teacher interviews as the only data source could be improved by triangulating teacher

perceptions with parent and student interviews and by analyzing email interactions and

discussion board posts. Quantitative analyses of surveys and analytic data could also be added.

Additionally, future research could go beyond teacher engagement to explore how teachers,

administrators, parents, and students can collaborate to improve course outcomes.

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and

practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 33-60). Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca University

Press.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in

a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., . . . Tahan, K. (2012). The

condition of education 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012045.pdf



19

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance

educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,

9(1), 71–88.

Barbour, M. K. (2007). Principles of effective web-based content for secondary school students:

Teacher and developer perceptions. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 93–114.

Barbour, M, & Reeves, T. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature.

Computers & Education, 52(2), 402-416.

Belair, M. (2012). The investigation of virtual school communications. TechTrends, 56(4), 26-

33.

Black, E. W. (2009). An evaluation of familial involvements’ influence on student achievement in

K-12 virtual schooling. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/304883948?accountid=4488

Boulton, H. (2008). Managing e-learning: What are the real implications for schools? The

Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(1), 11-18.

Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009a). Research and practice in K-12 online

learning: A review of open access literature. International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, 10(1), 1-13.

Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., Brown, R., Diamond, D., Lowes, S., Powell, A., . . . Van der

Molen, J. (2009b). Research committee issues brief: Examining communication and

interaction in online teaching (p. 22). Vienna, VA: iNacol. Retrieved from

http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/NACOL_QualityTeaching-lr.pdf



20

Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of

distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville,IL: Learning

Point Associates. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED489533.pdf

Cavanaugh, C. (2009). Getting students more learning time online. Washington, DC. Retrieved

from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/pdf/distancelearning.pdf

Davis, N., & Rose, R. (2007). Professional development for virtual schooling and online

learning. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from

http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/NACOL_PDforVSandOlnLrng.pdf

Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010). Going virtual! 2010: The status of professional

development and unique needs of K-12 online teachers. Retrieved from

http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual1.pdf

de la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2011). Dual perspectives on the contribution of on-site

facilitators to teaching presence in a blended learning environment. Journal of Distance

Education, 25(3). Retrieved from

http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/viewArticle/751/1285

Dickson, W. P. (2005). Toward a deeper understanding of student performance in virtual high

school courses  : Using quantitative analyses and data visualization to inform decision

making. Michigan Virtual University. Retrieved from

http://www.mivu.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=I5uq2DZ7Y%2BI%3D&tabid=373

Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. (1997). School, family,

and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press, Inc.



21

Epinoza, C., Dove, T., Zucher, A., & Kozma, R. B. (1999). An evaluation of the virtual high

school after two years of operation. SRI International. Retrieved from

http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/evalvhs2yrs.pdf

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-

analysis. Educational Psychology, 13(1), 1-22.

Ferdig, R. E., Cavanaugh, C., DiPietro, M., Black, E., & Dawson, K. (2009). Virtual schooling

standards and best practices for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 17(4), 479-503.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A framework for

research and practice. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher

Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2007). A theory of community of inquiry. In M. G. Moore (Ed.),

The handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 77–88). Place: Routledge.

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems,

12(4), 436–445. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/798843

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). Retrieved from

http://www.cios.org.erl.lib.byu.edu/EJCPUBLIC/016/1/01611.HTML

Hawkins, A., & Barbour, M. K. (2010). U.S. virtual school trial period and course completion

policy study. American Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 5-20.



22

Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K., & Graham, C. R. (2011). Strictly business: Teacher perceptions of

interaction in virtual schooling. The Journal of Distance Education, 25(2).

Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K. & Graham, C. R., (2012). “Everybody is their own island”:

Teacher disconnection in a virtual school. The International Review of Research in Open

and Distance Learning, 13(2).

Hawkins, A., Graham, C. R., Sudweeks, R. R., & Barbour, M. K. (2013). Academic

performance, course completion rates, and student perceptions of the quality and frequency

of interaction in a virtual high school. Distance Education, 34(1). doi:

10.1080/01587919.770430

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2005). Final performance report for OERI grant #

R305T010673: The social context of parental involvement: A path to enhanced achievement

(pp. 1-122). Washington, DC Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/family-

school/Final report/OERIIESfinalreport032205partA.doc

International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) (2011). National standards for

quality online teaching. Vienna, VA. Retrieved from

http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/iNACOL_TeachingStandardsv2.pdf

Keeler, C. G. (2003). Developing and using an instrument to describe instructional design

elements of high school online courses. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon).

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305304857?accountid=4488

Keeler, C. G., & Horney, M. (2007). Online course designs: Are special needs being met?

American Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 61–75.



23

Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in K-12

online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher

Education, 63(3), 185–200. doi:10.1177/0022487111433651

Litke, D. (1998). Virtual schooling at the middle grades: A case study résumé. The Journal of

Distance Education, 13(2), 33-50.

Liu, F., Black, E., Algina, J., Cavanaugh, C., & Dawson, K. (2010). The validation of one

parental involvement measurement in virtual schooling. Journal of Interactive Online

Learning, 9(2), 105-132.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised

and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and

physical high school classroom: A third-generation activity theory perspective. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1061-1072.

Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2009). Teachers’ perspectives on motivation in

high school distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 1-24.

Murphy, E., Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and

synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education

teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583-591.

Ni, Y., & Rorrer, A. K. (2012). Twice considered: Charter schools and student achievement in

Utah. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 835–849.

doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.06.003



24

Nippard, E., & Murphy, E. (2007). Social presence in the web-based sychronous secondary

classroom. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(1). Retrieved from

http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/24/22

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Allen, I. E. (2010). Educational transformation through online

learning: To be or not to be. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 17-35.

Pushor, D., & Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Teaching and learning research exchange: Parent

engagement and leadership. Saskatoon, SK: Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for

Research into Teaching.

Repetto, J., Cavanaugh, C., Wayer, N., & Liu, F. (2010). Virtual high schools: Improving

outcomes for students with disabilities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(2), 91-

104.

Rice, K. (2009). Priorities in K–12 distance education  : A Delphi study examining multiple

perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 163-

177.

Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-449.

Rice, K. (2012). Making the move to K-12 online teaching: Research-based strategies and

practices. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. E. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic

achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.

Ronsisvalle, T., & Watkins, R. (2005). Student success in online K-12 education. Quarterly

Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 117-124.



25

Russell, G. (2004). Virtual schools: A critical view. In C. Cavanaugh (Ed.), Development and

management of virtual schools: Issues and trends (pp. 1-25). Hershey, PA: Information

Science Publishing.

Searson, M., Jones, W. M., & Wold, K. (2011). Reimagining schools: The potential of virtual

education [Editorial]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 363-372.

Slater, H., Davies, N. M., & Burgess, S. (2011). Do teachers matter? Measuring the variation in

teacher effectiveness in England. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00666.x

Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K-12 online

learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Watson, J. F. (2007). A national primer on K-12 online learning. North American Council for

Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/national_report.pdf

Weiner, C. (2003). Key ingredients to online learning: Adolescent students study in cyberspace–

the nature of the study. International Journal on e-Learning, 2(3), 44-50.

Zhang, H., & Almeroth, K. (2010). Moodog: Tracking student activity in online course

management systems. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(3), 407-429.

The Nature of Teacher Engagement at an Online High School

Documents

Transcript of The Nature of Teacher Engagement at an Online High School