You are here:

The Adolescent Community of Engagement Framework: A Lens for Research in K-12 Online Learning Environments
PROCEEDINGS

, , , Brigham Young University, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-90-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Abstract

Although K-12 online learning has experienced exceptional growth, research in the field has lagged, possibly in part because of the lack of a comprehensive framework that explicitly addresses the unique student and environmental characteristics of the K-12 online learning environment. The proposed paper presentation will attempt to provide researchers with a theoretical footing to propel a coordinated K-12 online research effort. The Adolescent Community of Engagement (ACE) framework consists of four main constructs that make up a K-12 online learning community. The first three (Student Cognitive Engagement, Teacher Engagement, and Peer Engagement) are based on previously established online frameworks. In addition, the proposed framework recognizes the role of parents in their child’s learning and introduces a fourth construct, Parent Engagement, which is established through two new forms of interaction: learner-parent and parent-instructor interaction.

Citation

Borup, J., West, R. & Graham, C. (2011). The Adolescent Community of Engagement Framework: A Lens for Research in K-12 Online Learning Environments. In C. Ho & M. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2011--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2176-2183). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning. (P. 31). United States of
  2. Becker, H.J., & Epstein, J.L. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices. The Elementary School Journal, 83(2), 85. .
  3. Boston, W., Gibson, A.M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the Community of Inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 67-83.
  4. Burnham, B.R., & Walden, B. (1997). Interactions in distance education: A report from the other side. Annual Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 49-54). Stillwater, Oklahoma.
  5. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 323-346. Doi:10.1007/s11218-0089054-2.
  6. Cavanaugh, C.S., Barbour, M.K., & Clark, T. (2009). 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.
  7. 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 (P. 39). Naperville, Illinois: Learning Point Associates.
  8. Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., & Johnson, C.W. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns (P. 238). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
  9. DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R.E., Black, E.W., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 10-35.
  10. Epstein, J.L. (1995). School/Family/Community Partnerships. Phi Delta Kappen, 76(9). .
  11. Epstein, J.L., & Becker, H.J. (1982). Teachers’ reported practices of parent involvement: Problems and possibilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83(2), 103. .
  12. Epstein, J.L., & Dauber, S.L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 289. .
  13. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology, 13(1), 1-22.
  14. Frid, S., & Soden, R. (2000). Supporting primary students’ on-line learning in a virtual enrichment program. Research in Education, 66, 9-27.
  15. Garrison, D., 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. Doi:10.1016/S10967516(00)00016-6.
  16. Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice (P. 167). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
  17. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. Doi:10.1080/08923640109527071.
  18. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5-9. Elsevier Inc. Doi:10.1016/J.iheduc.2009.10.003.
  19. Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st Century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1), 1-17.
  20. Gunawardena, C.N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International journal of educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147-166.
  21. Hill, N.E., & Tyson, D.F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740-63. .
  22. Hillman, D.C., Willis, D.J., & Cunawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
  23. Holmberg, B. (1999). The conversational approach to distance education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 58-60. Doi:10.1080/0268051990140309.
  24. Jeynes, W.H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237-269. .
  25. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  26. Moore, M.G. (1980). Independent Study. In R.D. Boyd& J. Apps (Eds.), Redefining the Discipline of Adult Education (pp. 16-31). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  27. Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  28. Moore, M.G. (1993). Theory of Transactional Distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (pp. 22-28). New York, NY: Routledge.
  29. Moore, M.G. (2007). A Theory of Transactional Distance. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (2nd ed., pp. 89-105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  30. Picciano, A.G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.
  31. Picciano, A.G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow-up of the Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. (P. 37). Mahwah, NJ.
  32. Pushor, D., & Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Teaching and Learning Research Exchange: Parent Engagement and Leadership (P. 80). Saskatoon, SK.
  33. 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.
  34. Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining Social Presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
  35. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous textbased computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70.
  36. Rovai, A.P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332. Doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00130-6.
  37. Saba, F. (2005). Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States. Distance Education, 26(2), 255-272. Doi:10.1080/01587910500168892.
  38. Swan, K., & Shih, L.F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136.
  39. Tu, C.H., & Corry, M. (2002). Elearning communities. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 207-218.
  40. Tunison, S., & Noonan, B. (2001). On-line learning: Secondary students’ first experience. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(4), 495-511.
  41. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward A New Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law and Today’s Students are Revolutionizing Expectations. Education (P. 68). Washington, D.C.
  42. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Supporting Families and Communities: Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (pp. 1-4).
  43. 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.
  44. Whetten, D.A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495. .

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.