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.
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
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
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
Our Research at NRCRES
• Rural Distance Education Survey (RDES)
• survey research
• Enhancing Rural Online Learning (EROL)
• intervention
• Future directions
Rural Distance Education Survey
(RDES)
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
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
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
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
RDES: Descriptive Results
• Course subjects most often provided via distance
education
–
–
–
–
Foreign language (35%)
Algebra (12%)
Psychology/sociology (12%)
Language/composition (11%)
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
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%)
RDES: Barriers Results
• Barriers - least frequent/common:
– Technology barriers
• Lack technology enhanced rooms (15%)
• Technology inadequately maintained (10%)
• Insufficient connectivity (7%)
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
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)
Enhancing Rural Online Learning
(EROL)
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
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)
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)
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
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 (studentreports) & facilitator consultation/professional
development to address
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
EROL: Location of Schools
WA
ME
MT
ND
VT
MN
WI
SD
NY
MI
WY
UT
PA
IA
NE
IL
OH
IN
CO
CA
KS
MO
KY
TN
AZ
OK
NM
AR
MS
GA-8
TX
AK
FL-3
EROL: Intervention Results
• Facilitator Preparation Program reduced dropout
– for students in Year 1
– did not have an impact on student learning
EROL: Year 1 Results
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)
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
Future Directions
Future Directions
• 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