Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Analysis of southern California Title I high school student utilization of online courses to fulfill graduation requirements
(USC Thesis Other)
Analysis of southern California Title I high school student utilization of online courses to fulfill graduation requirements
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: ONLINE LEARNING FOR TITLE I STUDENTS 1
ANALYSIS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TITLE I HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT
UTILIZATION OF ONLINE COURSES TO FULFILL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS
by
Daveen Meyers
A Dissertation Presented to the
Faculty of the USC Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
Doctor of Education
May 2019
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 2
In Memory of
my parents
Samuel and Helen Tyras.
Their love and support enabled me
to be the first in my family to obtain a college degree.
My father, a holocaust survivor, helped disadvantaged children
and would be proud that I am dedicated in doing the same.
“Smile, and the world smiles back.”
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 3
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband Mark and my two children, Hannah and
Andy, as they have been amazingly supportive of my endeavor to obtain my doctorate degree.
I am blessed to have a loving marriage and family. I appreciate Mark’s patience with the
extensive time I have applied to this program and am proud that both of my children have
graduated from four-year universities and are pursuing post-graduate degrees. The three of you
inspire me with your wit, commitment to fairness, and desire to make the world a better place.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation chair, for motivating me from the first day of
Leadership class to completing this dissertation and to Dr. David Cash and Dr. John Roach, my
dissertation committee, for their mentoring and guidance throughout this process.
I would like to thank my USC colleagues for their invaluable support during the entire
doctoral program. I want to especially acknowledge and thank Erica Silva and Traci Calhoun for
their continued support and motivation as we progressed together through the doctorate program.
I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends that encouraged my progress as well.
Last, I would like to thank the superintendents that provided permission to conduct
research in their districts and the representatives who took the time to be interviewed and to
garner the data for this study.
This study would not have been possible without all of the support, encouragement, and
advice I received and I am incredibly grateful.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 3
Acknowledgements 4
List of Tables 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 11
Background of the Problem 13
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 19
Research Questions 19
Importance of the Study 19
Limitations of the Study 20
Definition of Terms 20
Organization of the Study 22
Chapter Two: Literature Review 24
History of Online Education 24
Factors Affecting Growth of Online Education 28
Description of Online Education 28
Legislation Related to Online Education 32
Effectiveness of Online Learning 34
Factors Contributing to Student Success 40
Summary 51
Chapter Three: Methodology 52
Purpose of the Study 52
Theoretical Framework 53
Research Design 55
Methodology 55
Population and Sample 56
Instrumentation 57
Data Collection 59
Data Analysis 60
Validity and Reliability 61
Ethical Considerations 61
Summary 62
Chapter Four: Findings 63
Background 63
Demographics of Participating Districts 64
Research Questions 66
Purpose of the Study 67
Coding of Data 67
Findings 67
Research Question 1 68
Research Question 2 100
Research Question 3 109
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 6
Research Question 4 110
Summary 115
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications 117
Purpose of the Study 117
Research Questions 117
Methodology 118
Results and Findings 118
Research Question 1 118
Research Question 2 122
Research Question 3 123
Research Question 4 123
Ancillary Findings 124
Implications of the Study 126
Recommendations for Future Studies 127
Summary 127
References 130
Appendix 141
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 141
Appendix B: Data Collection Form 145
Appendix C: SPSS Data Output 147
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: District Demographics 66
Table 2: Program Components 70
Table 3: Credit Recovery Programs 74
Table 4: Computer and Internet Access 86
Table 5: Type of Courses Offered 89
Table 6: Student Enrollment in Online Courses 101
Table 7: Course Type 104
Table 8: Course Grades 107
Table 9: Seniors Enrolled in Online Courses 110
Table 10: Evaluation Metrics 111
Table 11: Program Goals 112
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 8
ABSTRACT
The US Department of Education (2004) identified the internet as a critical tool to
revolutionize education in the National Education Technology Plan. This study was designed to
unveil how public school districts in southern California have incorporated online learning to
help students from low socioeconomic households meet graduation requirements.
The following research questions were used to guide the study: 1. How are southern
California urban school districts using online courses for Title I high school students to fulfill
graduation requirements? 2. What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in
online courses and socioeconomic group? 3. What is the relationship between socioeconomic
status, online course enrollment and graduation? and 4. How do school districts evaluate the
success of their online programs?
A mixed-method approach was conducted for this study. Qualitative data was garnered
from interviews of district representatives responsible for or engaged in the online programs at
seven districts in southern California and the district representatives provided data for the
quantitative analysis.
All seven districts have incorporated online options into the overall curriculum
representing 8.6% of high school students enrolled in an online course, but the applications
varied. All seven districts relied on online courses as a critical vehicle for credit recovery. In
addition, online offerings were used for continuation schools, enrichment programs, independent
study, and/or virtual or online schools. All online offerings use curriculum provided by outside
vendors with the exception of two enrichment programs; courses are delivered in a blended
format. All seven district respondents felt that access to computers and the internet was
accounted for as students had their own devices, the district offered a check out program or
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 9
devices were widely available in classrooms or the school library. Similarly, respondents felt
students had requisite technology skills due to prior coursework or since social media has
become so prevalent that students could transfer such skills to online navigation. Guidance
counselors were viewed as the stakeholder officially responsible for recommending or assigning
courses, but respondents acknowledged that online options were not recommended consistently
and word-of-mouth from administrators, teachers or students was impactful. Online teachers
were charged with the central role in helping students transition to an online environment,
motivating students and monitoring progress more than providing direct instruction.
To delineate online course participation and outcome, course type and grade were
analyzed. When comparing credit recovery course enrollment, 4.7% and 5.2% of Title I and not
Title I students, respectively, were enrolled. Similarly, 1.7% and 4.2% of Title I and not-Title I
students, respectively, completed an enrichment course. In reviewing academic outcomes, 67.2%
of and 70.4% of Title I and not Title I students, respectively, obtained a college-eligible grade of
A, B, or C. Similarly, Title I students were more likely to not pass or to drop an online course
than non-Title I students as 21.3% and 18.1% of students, respectively, did not earn credits. Each
of these data points demonstrated that a relationship exists between socioeconomic status and
enrolling and succeeding in online courses with a higher percent of students from
socioeconomically advantaged households benefiting from online options. While this
relationship is considered statistically significant, a small effect is attributed to the
socioeconomic status.
Online options supported the district’s broad goals for graduation and college-readiness
rates. The three districts that offered a virtual school specifically identified the qualitative role of
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 10
meeting the needs of each student in their district as the program serves as a safety net for those
students that cannot attend or are not successful in a traditional classroom setting.
This study unveils opportunities to meet the US Department of Education vision of
virtual options impacting public schools and benefitting students from low socioeconomic
households, in particular. First, virtual schools or independent study programs can meet the
needs of students that may not be able to attend or may not be able to be successful in a
traditional environment. These students, in particular, appear to be the most vulnerable to
dropping out, the most vital to support and the most likely to benefit from the flexibility of a
virtual program. Second, enrichment programs that supplement traditional course delivery can
prepare students for higher education and offer education opportunities not otherwise available.
Third, all online options, including credit recovery, should be equally recommended and
promoted to all students to close the participation and outcome gap identified in this study.
Fourth, districts should revisit processes to reduce the high rates of failing or dropped online
courses to improve academic success when students do enroll.
While districts have implemented online programs, opportunities exist to increase options
to benefit all students and particularly those from a socioeconomic disadvantaged background to
meet graduation requirements and prepare for college.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 11
CHAPTER ONE: INRODUCTION
Education is a path to social and economic advancement, but one out of four
economically-disadvantaged teens drops out of high school, perpetuating his or her current
situation (USDOE, 2017). With the advent of the internet, online learning has become a viable
educational platform. In 2004, the US Department of Education presented a National Education
Technology Plan which identified the internet as a critical tool to revolutionize education in
America. Among the seven step plan, the Secretary of Education recommended e-learning and
virtual schools should be supported by providing access to every student (USDOE, 2004). Online
education has grown since the beginning of the century with 75% of school districts offering an
online or hybrid education option and approximately 5% of the total student population
participating in this approach as of school year 2012-13 (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, &
Rapp, 2013). School districts are prioritizing utilization of technology as a tool for instruction
(Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). Virtual school advocates have identified online learning as an
opportunity to provide equitable access to all students for high-quality courses from remedial
levels to Advance Placement courses (Berge & Clark, 2005). However, strategies and programs
focused on applying technology to assist at-risk students in particular have not been clearly
delineated, communicated or analyzed at a local, state or national level. While many states have
approved charters of virtual schools with the explicit mandate of serving disadvantaged students,
many programs, instead are serving the most motivated and talented students (Tucker, 2007).
The opportunity exists to use online learning for education reform particularly to help at-risk
students fulfill graduation requirements and earn a high school diploma, if not also prepare for
college (Berge & Clark, 2005; Tucker, 2007).
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 12
Online options have grown exponentially over the last fifteen years. In the 2002-2003
school year, about one third of school districts had students enrolled in a distance education
course with approximately 328,000 students participating in an online course (Setzer & Lewis,
2005). In the 2005-2006 school year, approximately 58% of school districts offered online
courses with an estimate of 700,00 out of 48 million students taking an online course (Picciano
& Seaman, 2007). As of 2013-14, 75% of school districts were offering an online or hybrid
education option with an estimate of 5% of the total student population participating in this
approach (Watson et al., 2013). The California Department of Education estimated about 56,000
K-12 students were taking at least one online course in 2013-14 or only 1% of total enrollment,
while the California Learning Resource Network reported about one half the enrollment at
24,000 (Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin, & Vashaw, 2014). District administrators support offering
online courses in order to expand course and schedule offerings, meet the needs of specific
groups of students, provide both AP and credit recovery options and respond to facility
limitations (Picciano & Seaman, 2009). Virtual courses have allowed districts to broaden their
course offerings as 62% of districts offer online credit recovery courses, 47% offer courses that
fill both college and high school credit requirements, 29% offer AP courses and 27% offer trade
or vocational courses (USDOE, 2010). However, Watson et al. (2014) concluded that digital
options have expanded, but wide gaps remain based on access to technology, content and tools as
well as limitations in policies. As districts expand their online programs, online settings may be
tailored to retain students and reduce drop outs.
Collins and Halvorson (2010) point out that online learning allows students to progress at
their own pace, feel successful about their learning and build self-esteem instead of a sense of
failure. Students take responsibility for their own learning instead of following the school’s
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 13
requirements. Online tools allow for students to interact with peers and instructors to offer peer
support based on common interests. Also, technology allows students to develop technological
skills that contribute to critical thinking, problem solving and creativity which are valued in the
workplace (Collins & Halvorson, 2010). Rice (2006) summarized the need to help at risk
students in particular to be successful by offering instructional environments that are self-paced,
personalized, based on diverse instructional methods, and facilitated by competent, caring adults.
Rice (2006) further points out these characteristics mirror the factors that have been applauded
with online learning programs. Similarly, Roblyer (2006) identified online options to be part of a
district’s arsenal to be competitive and responsive in the current education environment and
noted that “successful online programs have discovered how to bridge the distance between
students and schools in ways that make learning both accessible and compelling. Many students
have succeeded online who would otherwise have failed and dropped out” (p.36). Tucker (2007)
points out online learning can help districts add rigor to the curriculum with broad course
offerings and access to all students, use virtual learning to help students to prepare for higher
education by developing self-regulation and academic skills required in post-secondary levels,
and use online learning for credit recovery and remediation to improve pass rates and reduce
drop outs.
Background of the Problem
The US Department of Education (2017) reported that 83% of all freshmen in the United
States graduated with a regular diploma in four years from starting 9
th
grade in the 2014-2015
school year. However, a deeper breakdown demonstrates that 88% of white students and 76% of
low income students graduated (USDOE, 2017). These graduation rates are mirrored in the state
of California as 82% of all freshman graduates with 88% of white students and 78% of low
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 14
income students graduating (USDOE, 2017). For the 2017-18 school year, the California
Department of Education reported 83% overall graduation rate with 73% of African American,
81% of Hispanics and 87% of white students earning a diploma. The CDE identified persistent
disparities between ethnic, racial and socioeconomic groups with this report (Festerwald, 2018).
Overall, nearly one out of four students from low income families do not graduate, representing a
12 point and 10 point gap between whites and students from families of low socioeconomic
status nationally and in California, respectively.
This is a problem because education is considered a path to economic mobility; students
from families of low socioeconomic status that do not graduate from high school are likely to
perpetuate their situation. In 2015, adults aged 25-34 that had a college degree earned double the
amount compared to those that did not have a diploma (US DOE, 2017). Similarly, adults aged
25-34 that had a high school diploma earned 22% more than those with no diploma (US DOE,
2017). According to the US. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017), workers age 25 and over that do
not have a high school diploma have the highest unemployment rate. While the 2016
unemployment rate was 4.0%, the rate was nearly double at 7.4% for those without a diploma
compared to 5.2% with a diploma or 2.7% with a Bachelor’s degree.
Students who do not earn a high school diploma are unprepared to enter the work force
and are more likely to need social services and the criminal justice system than high school
graduates (Archambault, Kennedy, & Bender, 2013). Drop outs are costly to the country’s social
and economic systems. Each dropout costs the public an average of $800,000 over the
individual’s life. In addition, those that are truant are more likely than others to be incarcerated,
live in poverty, have poor physical and mental health, work in low paying jobs, use public
assistance and have children with behavior problems (Archambault et al., 2013). Moreover,
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 15
without a diploma or college degree, these students are underqualified for jobs. Peterson,
Woessmann, Hanushek, and Lastra-Anadon (2011) explain that 22% of American businesses
claim they cannot fill jobs with qualified applicants and nearly half of professional jobs in the
coming years will require at least a college degree. Helping students be academically successful,
earn a high school diploma and enroll in and graduate from college can lead at-risk students to a
more rewarding life, reduce social costs and contribute to national economic growth.
The decision to drop out of high school appears to be made based on a gradual process as
a consequence of both a student’s personal situation and environmental factors. According to the
US. Department of Education, students who dropped out in 2012 were behind in school work or
had earned poor grades (73.6%), did not like school (49.4%), were taking care of family
members or financially supporting their family (26.2%), were suspended or expelled (19.1%),
felt they did not need to finish high school to meet their long term goals (16.4%), or had friends
that had dropped out (14.4%) (McFarland, Stark, & Cui, 2016). Further analysis demonstrates a
deeper series of contributing factors. Carpenter and Ramirez (2007) used data from the National
Educational Longitudinal study of 1988 (NELS88) to identify variables to predict if students
would drop out of high school. They found that students who were held back by a grade or
students that were suspended numerous times were more likely to drop out of school. Lan and
Lanthier (2003) analyzed personal attributes as different variables longitudinally from 8
th
grade
to 12
th
grade in the NELS88 study. They looked at academic performance, relationships with
teachers, relationships with peers, perceptions of school, participation in school activities,
motivation for school work, effort expended in school work, self-esteem and locus of control
when students were in eighth, tenth and twelfth grade. They found students who dropped out had
lower self-esteem than students who stayed in school. In addition, looking at the different points
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 16
in time, they found that students who eventually dropped out had scored consistent with the
national average on the contributing factors when these students were in 8
th
grade. By 10
th
grade,
the students that dropped out had scores significantly lower than the national average for
academic performance, relationships with teachers, perceptions of school, and motivation for
school work. Furthermore, by 12
th
grade, scores had significantly declined for academic
performance, relationships with teachers and perceptions of school as well as feeling more
alienated from school activities (Lan & Lanthier, 2003).
To reduce the number of students dropping out, opportunities to reverse these
developments should be considered. Rumberger (2001) suggests that alternative programs that
appear to help at risk students stay in school offer a “non-threatening environment for learning, a
caring and committed staff who accepted a personal responsibility for student success; a school
culture that encourage staff risk-taking, self-governance, and professional collegiality; and a low
student-teacher ratio and a small site to promote student engagement” (p. 27).
One area that could respond to these situations is utilizing technology (Tucker, 2017). In
particular, with the advent of the internet, online learning has become a viable platform for
expanding and improving education and can serve as a vehicle to bridge the graduation gap and
prepare students for higher education. The US Department of Education National Education
Technology Plan released in 2004 touted online learning for providing enriched, individualized
instruction available on a flexible schedule to meet student needs. Collins and Halverson (2010)
suggested that as technology becomes more prevalent in our lives, developments could be used
to find new solutions for the educational and economic challenges in the world. In particular,
they identify technology to customize the learning environment to meet a student’s need and
ability offering individualized learning that allows each student to succeed.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 17
Numerous studies have shown that online learning can generate student outcomes at an
equal if not better level compared to traditional face-to-face environment. Cavanaugh, Gillan,
Kromrey, Hess, and Blomeyer (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of fourteen studies on K-12
internet-based instruction from 1999 to 2004. Another meta-analysis was conducted by
Cavanaugh, Barbour, and Clark (2009) on 51 studies published between 2004 and 2009. The
conclusion in the two meta-analyses was online courses generate equivalent results as a
traditional face-to-face classroom. Shachar and Neumann (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of
125 studies conducted between 1990 and 2009 and concluded that online students outperformed
students in a face-to-face setting in higher education settings. While the majority of studies to
date have covered higher education settings, the results in the limited number of K-12 studies
mirror the claim that academic achievement is at least equivalent in an online environment
compared to a face-to-face classroom (Wallace, 2009; Englert, Zhao, Dunsmore, Collings, &
Wolbers, 2007; and Sun, Lin, and Yu, 2008). This research supports the notion that students can
attain the same or better academic outcomes as a traditional setting and serves as a results-based
rationale for online learning.
Online learning is increasingly viable as more schools and homes have computers and
internet access. The US Census Bureau estimated that 77% of households have a desktop or
laptop computer and 76% of households have a broadband internet subscription as of 2015 (Ryan
& Lewis, 2015). However, households with a lower income and lower educational level of the
head of household have lower technology penetration. Among households with an annual
income less than $50,000, 75.9% and 61.9% of households have a computer and internet
subscription, respectively. This is compared to 95.7% and 89.9% of households with an annual
income of $50,000+ that have a computer and internet subscription, respectively (Ryan & Lewis,
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 18
2015). In homes where the head of household does not have a high school diploma, 62.6% and
48.5% have a computer and internet subscription, respectively, compared to 96.5% and 91.4% of
homes in which the head of household has a college degree (Ryan & Lewis, 2015). This data
quantifies a digital divide with a 20 point and 34 point gap between income and education
groups, respectively.
While students may not have access to a computer or the internet at home, the US
Department of Education reports high penetration of computers and internet access at public
schools. As of 2008, 100% of public schools have computers of which 98% had internet access
and 91% were designated for instructional purposes. Furthermore, the ratio of students to
computers with internet access is 3.1 among all US public schools and 3.2 for schools with 75%
or more of the students qualifying for Free or Reduced Lunch (FRL) (Gray et al., 2010).
Furthermore, 82% of public school administrators perceive technology to be a priority at the
district level and 93% of teachers express interest in using technology in classroom instruction.
However, a difference exists based on poverty concentration regarding the use of technology.
Regarding teacher training in technology usage, 74% of schools with a low poverty
concentration felt teachers are sufficiently trained compared to 62% at schools with a high
poverty concentration (Gray et al., 2010). In order for students of low income households to
utilize online learning options, computer and the internet need to be accessible to students and
faculty need to be adequately trained.
Statement of the Problem
The advent of online learning over the past fifteen years offers a new educational vehicle
that has the potential to help students fulfill graduation requirements and close the achievement
gap. However, evidence demonstrating the implementation of this opportunity is lacking. In
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 19
order to meet this objective, programs and processes need to be analyzed, designed and
implemented to assist students to be successful in online learning. National data quantifies the
growth of online learning and research has shown that online learning has equal effectiveness as
face-to-face learning in student achievement. Evidence has not been provided, however, to
demonstrate the use or impact of online learning for socioeconomically disadvantaged students
as a tool to improve high school graduation rates or contribute to college readiness.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze how the opportunity of online learning is being
utilized in urban southern California school districts to help students from low socioeconomic
households fulfill graduation requirements and earn a diploma.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide this study:
1. How are southern California urban school districts using online courses for Title I high
school students to fulfill graduation requirements?
2. What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in online courses and
socioeconomic group?
3. What is the relationship between socioeconomic status, online course enrollment and
graduation?
4. How do school districts evaluate the success of their online programs?
Importance of the Study
Data demonstrates the increased use of online education in both K-12 education settings
and educators have recommended online education be used as a tool to help student academic
achievement towards graduation. However, research has not been conducted on the
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 20
implementation or effectiveness of online education to help socioeconomic disadvantaged high
school students to graduate. This study is designed to address these critical questions.
Limitations
This study will survey seven urban districts in southern California and will be limited to
the findings of these districts. The results may not be representative of other geographic areas
and may not be representative of the state or country. The study will also be based on the data
provided by the participating districts and is limited to the district’s level of record-keeping and
data availability.
The study will also focus on efforts of utilizing online learning through public school
districts and will not cover the impact or results from charter schools operating independently
from the district that approved their charter. In the state of California, statewide virtual schools
can enroll students in counties contiguous to the county that holds the school’s charter (Watson,
et al, 2013). This allows schools such as California Connections Academy, California Virtual
Academy or Inspire Charter Schools to enroll students throughout the state. These schools and
other virtual or blended charter programs require students to be full-time students in their
program. Their programs will be outside of the scope of this study.
Definition of Terms
Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) is the indicator used by the US Department of
Education to calculate the percentage of public high school students who graduate with a regular
diploma within four years of starting 9
th
grade (McFarland et al., 2016). This indicator is being
used to define the graduation rate and calculate the drop out rate.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 21
Asynchronous Instruction is online instruction that is prepared and delivered at different times.
For example, a teacher records direct instruction and emails or posts the recording which
students can access at a later time.
Blended Learning, which is also referred to as hybrid learning, consists of online learning
components that are combined with some face-to-face instruction.
Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) refers to participation in the National School Lunch Program
(NSLP) that is implemented by the United States Department of Agriculture. The program was
signed into law by President Harry Truman in 1946 and in 2016, approximately 30.4 million
students in the United States participated in the program. NSLP is designed to provide
nutritionally balanced low-cost or no-cost meals to students that qualify. While students may
qualify as a homeless, migrant, runaway or foster child, the majority of students qualify based on
household income and family size. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent
of the federal poverty level are eligible for free meals and children in families with incomes at
130 to 185 percent of the Federal Poverty Level are eligible for reduced price meals of no more
than forty cents (USDA, 2017). NSLP participation is often used as a proxy for defining and
quantifying students living in poverty because school administration has access to data on
whether a student is eligible for it and does not often have access to accurate data on actual
family income. The NCES uses FRL to delineate the poverty level for a school. If a school has
75% or more students eligible for FRL, the school is considered a high poverty school. In
contrast, schools with 25% or less student eligible for FRL are considered low poverty schools.
The NCES reported that in 2012-2013, about 24% of students attended public schools classified
as high poverty schools. Furthermore, 45% of Black and Hispanic students attended high poverty
schools compared to 8% of White students (Snyder & Musu-Gillette, 2015).
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 22
Online Learning is the general name for learning that takes place partially or entirely over the
internet. This excludes print-based correspondence courses, broadcast courses, CD-rom based
courses, or any courses that do not have a significant amount of instruction accessed through the
internet (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009). Watson et al. (2013) delineate Online
Learning as a “teacher-led education that takes place over the Internet, with the teacher and
student separated geographically, using a web-based educational delivery system that includes
software to provide a structured learning environment” (p. 8).
Synchronous Instruction is online instruction delivered in real time when a teacher and students
log into an online meeting room for a session.
Title I refers to the section of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that outlines
provisions for federal financial support to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools that
have high numbers or high percentages of students from low-income families. The funding is
provided to ensure support is available to help these students meet state content standards.
Schools with 40% or more of students from low-income families are considered Title I schools
and can use the funding for school-wide programs. Schools that receive Title I funding but have
less than 40% of students from low-income families receive “targeted assistance”. To qualify for
the funding, schools are required to implement instructional strategies based on research and
parental involvement activities (US DOE, 2017).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 presents an overview of the study including background of the problem,
statement of the problem, purpose of the study, the research questions that will guide the study,
limitations and definition of terms.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 23
Chapter 2 reviews literature to create an understanding of the high school drop out
problem and how online learning can be a solution. In particular, literature has been reviewed on
criteria for students to be successful in the online environment and how online learning has been
demonstrated to be as effective as traditional face-to-face environments.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology of the research to be used in the study including the
research design, population and sampling procedure, instrumentation description, description of
the procedures and methods to collect the data.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study and Chapter 5 summarizes the findings
including a discussion on conclusions and recommendations.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 24
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
Since the turn of the 21
st
century, virtual education has grown from the first online
schools being introduced in 1997 in two states to approximately 75% of public school districts
offering online courses in 2013-14 (Watson et al., 2013). This growth is a result primarily of the
technology revolution with the prevalence of computers, internet access and increased social
media usage (Zhang & Goel, 2011). While online education has the potential to offer equitable
access to high quality courses, students need to be adequately prepared and programs need to be
in place for student success.
This review of literature captures the growth of this segment in the field of education and
describes the studies that demonstrate online schooling is an effective educational vehicle. The
requirements to make online learning impactful are reviewed based on student skills, teacher
involvement, instructional strategies, technology and system necessities.
History of Online Education
Online Education has evolved from a broader platform known as Distance Learning with
instruction delivered via cable television, correspondence courses or interactive television
(Mupinga, 2005). The first online schools in the United States were introduced in 1997. Virtual
High School (VHS) was created through a five year grant funded by the U.S. Department of
Education Technology Innovation Challenge Grant with a goal of creating a consortium of
schools that would offer online high school courses. The program first offered 28 courses with
28 schools participating in 1997 and grew to offering 156 courses with 232 schools participating
in 26 states after three years (Berge & Clark, 2005). Florida Virtual School (FLVS) was created
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 25
through a state budget allocation of $200,000. Within 3 years, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois,
Kentucky and Michigan planned or introduced statewide virtual schools and by 2001, about 14
states were developing virtual schools with projected enrollment of 40,000 – 50,000 students
enrolled in at least one course (Barbour & Reeves, 2009).
Based on anecdotal evidence of online learning growth, the Office of Educational
Technology in the US Department of Education requested the first comprehensive study
regarding online education. In response, the National Center for Educational Statistics surveyed
2,305 public school districts to capture data from the 2002-2003 school year. The resulting study
authored by Carl Setzer and Laurie Lewis provided a baseline for online education prevalence,
delivery mode and rationale. In 2002-2003, about one-third of school districts had students in the
district enrolled in at least one online learning course with over 300,000 enrollments and
representing 9% of schools nationwide. Early adoption of online courses was led by districts in
rural areas as 46% of rural districts offered online courses compared to 27% of urban or
suburban areas. Also, nearly half the districts in the southeast and central parts of the country
offered online learning compared to 21% in the northeast or 32% in the west (Setzer & Lewis,
2005). Districts with high poverty concentrations were among the early adopters of online
courses as well. With 42% of districts with poverty concentrations of 20% or more offering
online courses, over half of these districts allowed students to access the course from home. Of
those students accessing from home, 45% and 50% of districts provided a computer and paid for
internet service, respectively, to some or all participating students (Setzer & Lewis, 2005).
Online courses provided districts with a number of benefits from their inception. District
respondents expressed the importance of offering courses not otherwise available at the school
(91%), to meet the needs of specific groups of students (81%), offer AP or college-level courses
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 26
(69%) or reduce schedule conflicts for students (56%). Half the districts offering online courses
enrolled students in Advanced Placement (AP) or college-level courses which represented 14%
of the courses being taken. In contrast, one-third of respondents identified credit recovery as an
online option. Students that were enrolled in online courses were able to access the courses from
school as 92% of districts reported providing access at school and 60% reported students could
access courses from home. (Setzer & Lewis, 2005).
By 2005-06, approximately 600,000 K-12 students were enrolled in at least one online
course representing an 1100% growth in six years (Picciano & Seaman, 2007). In addition, over
50 charter and public schools were running online programs in 30 states and half the states in the
country had developed policies for virtual schooling (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Utah’s virtual
school served about one third of the state’s high school population by 2007 (Tucker, 2007).
The NCES conducted a second study seven years later based on the 2009-2010 school
year. At this point, 55% of school districts reported having students enrolled in online learning
with an estimate of 1.8 million courses being taken. The preponderance of courses were offered
at the high school level as 96% of participating districts offered courses at the secondary level
compared to 6% and 19% in elementary school and middle school, respectively. While more
districts across the country incorporated online learning options into their curriculum, the
southeast and central parts of the country continued to lead with 78% and 62%, respectively, of
districts using online education compared to 39% and 51% in the northeast and west,
respectively. At this juncture, respondents continued to view online learning as important to
provide courses not otherwise available at school (81%), offering AP and college-level courses
(69%) and reducing schedule conflicts for students (68%). In addition, credit recovery was
viewed as more important as 72% of the districts viewed the opportunity to make up failed
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 27
courses compared to 32% in the prior study. Access continued to be provided primarily at school
with 92% of districts providing access at school but home became more utilized at 78%, an 18
point increase in seven years (Queen & Lewis, 2011). The follow up study, however, did not
survey if districts provided computers or enabled internet access limiting the ability to track
accessibility.
By school year 2013-2014, 75% of districts were projected to be offering online courses
and approximately 5% of the national K-12 population were enrolled in courses. The Florida
Virtual School continued to be the largest online program in the country with over 400,000
enrollments in 2012-13. California emerged as having the most districts and charter schools in
the country with online programs and approximately 40,000 students participating (Watson et al.,
2013).
Higher education institutions were more aggressive in adopting online education. Allen
and Seaman (2014) reported 1.6 million online courses in the fall enrollment of 2002
representing 9.6% of total enrollment. A decade later, 7.1 million enrollments were reported
representing a compounded annual growth rate of 16.1% and capturing 33.5% of total enrollment
(Allen & Seaman, 2014).
In addition to K-12 and colleges and universities incorporating online learning into their
curriculums, companies such as Motorola, Accenture, and Xerox developed online training to
help employees develop needed work skills. Microsoft and Cisco also introduced certifications
through online programs to demonstrate mastery of technical skills for specific occupational
roles. Private learning centers such as Kaplan and Sylvan added online SAT preparatory
programs to broaden their reach (Collins & Halverson, 2010).
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 28
Factors Affecting Growth of Distance Education
The technology revolution in the late 1900s opened the opportunity for real time, active
systems to improve all industries. Internet and wi-fi created opportunities to work in non-
traditional settings. This extended to education as Collins and Halverson (2010) reported,
“People around the world are taking their education out of school and into homes, libraries,
internet cafes and workplaces where they can decide what they want to learn, when they want to
learn and how they want to learn” (p. 18). Zhang and Goel (2011) attributed globalization, the
increase of technological devices and demographics as the impetus for online learning. They
argued that the global reach led to business being conducted throughout the day regardless of
time zone and led to the demand for education as well. With the increase in devices and internet
access, the pervasiveness of technology made education a natural extension. As people at
increasingly younger ages have begun using the internet for social networking, entertainment and
gaming, children were developing the skills needed for online learning (Zhang & Goel, 2011).
Description of Online Education
Online Education Categories
Online courses can be categorized by how they are structured within a district or state and
by delivery method. Watson, Winograd, and Kalmon (2004) summarized six structural options.
Single-district online programs offer online options for students enrolled in their own district.
Blended schools are brick-and-mortar schools where some in person attendance is required and
curriculum is delivered partially face-to-face and partially online. Multi-district fully online
schools provide online options to students who access the courses online without appearing at a
brick-and-mortar school and students can enroll outside of their district of residence. State-
supported supplemental schools include state virtual schools and course choice programs. State
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 29
virtual schools are created by a legislative body and receive state funding in order to offer online
courses to students throughout the given state. Course choice programs offer students throughout
a state the option of taking supplemental courses. Districts combining resources to create one
online option offer consortium online programs. Private and independent schools are non-public
schools that offer online education through tuition, grants, and other funding (Watson et al.,
2004).
Barbour and Reeves (2009) summarized the three methods of delivery as independent,
synchronous, and asynchronous. With the independent method, a student uses the computer and
internet to progress through a course teaching him or herself with little instructor involvement.
This is similar to a correspondence course from which online learning has evolved with the
technology as the delivery system. Asynchronous delivery defines the method where a student
progresses through a course and submits work to a teacher but does not interact in a real time
setting with the teacher. Synchronous delivery occurs when a teacher plays an active role in
guiding a student through the curriculum, assesses student progress, and offers interaction
between the student and teacher and among students (Barbour & Reeves, 2009).
Tucker (2007) also identified Performance Learning Centers in Georgia which are run by
the non-profit organization Communities in Schools and specifically target students that are at
risk of dropping out and offers a personalized and flexible program. In this environment, online
curriculum allows students to progress at his or her own level and have teachers available for
individual tutoring.
Benefits of Online Learning
While superintendents viewed online learning as a way to offer more courses to more
students ranging from AP and college-level to credit recovery as well as reducing schedule and
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 30
resource conflicts, students and families have adopted online learning for a variety of reasons.
Online courses offer access to more students due to flexibility of time and space. Students in
rural environments, hospitalized students, students traveling, and students that have trouble in a
traditional setting can capitalize on online options (Mupinga, 2005; Barbour & Reeves, 2009).
Virtual classes can offer safe and supportive environments compared to a local school (Berge &
Clark, 2005). Tucker (2007) summarized this flexibility quoting the Florida Virtual School motto
of offering courses “Any time, any place, any path, any pace” (p. 2). Berge and Clark (2005)
summarized the opportunity for virtual schools to offer equitable access to high-quality courses
and help K-12 schools improve student skills.
The flexibility extends to students taking control of their own learning (Rice, 2009) and
pacing their studies at a manageable rate as students can take extra time or work ahead (Tucker,
2007). Since instruction can be enlivened through video and multi-media, online courses can
engage and motivate students (Mupinga, 2005). Online courses also provide students with an
opportunity to develop technical skills, focus on undeveloped skills, and provides a curriculum
for homeschooled students (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Fulton (2002) pointed out that students
that have not been successful in a traditional environment due to behavior issues can be
successful in online courses without the distractions of a brick-and-mortar setting. Collins and
Halverson (2010) identified the opportunity for interest-based peer groups that could connect
through the online environment. They concluded that online learning can contribute to improved
student self-efficacy because personalized learning can contribute to a student feeling a sense of
accomplishment instead of failure. “Facilitating intrinsic motivation may help students to access
successful learning opportunities and may surmount the sense of failure that comes when
everyone is supposed to learn the same thing at the same time” (p. 25).
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 31
General Challenges
While a number of benefits have been cited, online learning also faces challenges.
Watson et al. (2004) identified the lack of social interaction and a high dropout rate in online
learning courses. However, Zweig (2003) found that if students developed relationships with
their online teachers, they were less likely to drop out. Berge and Clark (2005) pointed out that
students who don’t have computer skills or access to computers or the internet at home may not
be as successful in online courses as peers that do have technical support. In addition to access to
computers and the internet, highly motivated students with self-regulation skills tend to be
successful in online learning. This finding suggests that students that are academically successful
are more likely to be able to transition to online courses compared to students who are less
successful in a traditional environment (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Tucker (2007) pointed out
variation in quality of curriculum is a factor and teachers need to be trained to be effective in an
online environment. Roblyer (2006) explained that students tend to fail or drop out of virtual
courses at a higher rate than face-to-face courses considering the large and diverse populations
that enroll, as a result of variations in how the dropout rate is calculated and when schools do not
provide technical support to help students get started. Mupinga (2005) attributed lack of success
in online courses to the lack of policies regarding workload and the lack of training students
regarding online navigation if they are not self-directed, motivated and have prerequisite
technical skills. Collins and Halvorson (2010) found the need for operationalizing schooling to
be effective in terms of determining an appropriate workload, grading and creating online
assessments, and clarifying the role of teachers. Fulton (2002) argued that policymakers needed
to ensure online programs offered quality curriculum and universal access.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 32
Legislation Related to Online Education
Initial Legislation
Online learning became a viable education option with the No Child Left Behind Act
which encouraged school choice. Under NCLB, students can transfer to any school that is
defined by the state law as a public elementary or secondary school (USDOE, 2004.)
Initially, virtual options were not well understood by legislators and they attempted to apply
traditional policies (Watson et al., 2004). The North American Council for Online Learning
(NACOL) was created in 2003 with a goal of sharing information about policies and practices in
online education (Watson et al., 2004). NACOL evolved into the International Association for K-
12 Online Learning (iNACOL, 2011) and established and disseminated standards for quality
online courses and teachers. The iNACOL course standards cover content, instructional design,
student assessment, technology, course evaluation and support (iNACOL, 2011). iNACOL
standards for quality online teaching requires teacher knowledge and understanding of the online
environment and technologies; incorporates active learning; sets clear expectations, prompt
responses and regular feedback; models safe use of technology; is cognizant of the diversity of
student needs and incorporates them into the online environment; implements appropriate
assessments; uses data to improve student learning; interacts professionally; and delivers content
to effectively facilitate the transfer of knowledge in the online environment (iNACOL, 2011).
For funding purposes, virtual schools were initially funded similar to brick-and-mortar
schools with an attendance-based model. Florida and Minnesota were exceptions to this
approach as these states adopted a funding model based on successful completion of courses.
Virtual schools were governed by the bodies that created the program while states required the
programs to ensure high quality curriculum that incorporated state content standards and were
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 33
taught by credentialed teachers and students participated in state assessments. Equity and access
have been a consideration since the initial stages of online school development. All states require
online programs to meet non-discrimination laws. Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania also require
cyberschools to provide computers and internet access to ensure equitable access (Watson et al.,
2004). The state of Michigan was among the first to establish a requirement for students to
participate specifically in online learning with the Michigan Merit Curriculum enacted in 2006.
This legislation required all high school students to take an online or blended course as a
graduation requirement (Picciano & Seaman, 2007).
Legislation in California
In California, Assembly Bill 294 (AB294) was passed in 2003 and provided for a three
year pilot of online programs that could be funded based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA),
similar to brick & mortar schools. AB294 required online schools to maintain the same student-
teacher ratio as a brick and mortar school, ensure test integrity, obtain parental consent for a
student to participate in an online course, define the type and frequency of contact between the
teacher and student in an asynchronous course, and ensure computer availability and support.
Online programs emerged in school districts in Los Angeles, Orange County, Poway and Clovis
in addition to charter schools. The California Consortium of Virtual Education (CCOVE) was
created with eight districts working together to develop online education for the state (Watson et
al., 2004). In addition, the University of California College Preparatory Initiative (UCCP) was
initially funded in 1999 with $400,000 from the UC president’s office and received additional
funding from the state legislature with a goal of increasing availability of college preparatory
classes to minority students (Berge & Clark, 2005). In 2002, no tuition was charged and the
program had 4605 registrations among 22 courses and 65% of students taking AP courses passed
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 34
the related AP test (Watson et al., 2004). In 2004, the program shifted to being tuition-based
contributing to a 47% reduction in participation (Watson, 2005). The UCCP was rebranded in
2014 as part of the Student Academic and Educational Partnerships program (SAPEP) with
4,000 enrollments in 20 classes and students from 340 schools in the state (Freeling, 2014). For
the 2015-16 school year, the program had 3,733 enrollments from 317 schools and was
supported with a $2.4 million budget (UC Office of the President, 2016). Funding for online
schools were redefined with AB644 (2009) which outlined terms for calculating Average Daily
Attendance for online schools and is in effect until Jan., 2020 (Watson et al., 2014).
Effectiveness of Online Learning
The Equivalency Theory
Considering the growth of online learning at the beginning of the century, educators and
policy makers questioned the effectiveness of virtual education. Before embracing online
education, Simonson, Schlosser and Hanson (1999) premised the Equivalency Theory suggesting
that if the learning experience for distant learners and face-to-face learners was equivalent, the
educational outcomes would more likely be equivalent. Applying the Equivalency Theory,
numerous studies have demonstrated that academic outcomes of students taking online courses
appear equivalent to outcomes of students in traditional face-to-face environments. More studies
have been conducted applying the Equivalency Theory in higher education than in K12 but
virtually all of the studies have shown similar results supporting equivalency.
Cavanaugh et al. (2004) completed a meta-analysis of student outcomes in fourteen
studies conducted on internet-based instruction to grades 3-12 from 1999 to 2004. This study
considered pacing, duration and number of sessions in the course; frequency and use of online
learning; role of the instructor; timing and types of interactions with the instructor; amount of
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 35
teacher experience and teacher preparation. They concluded that online learning “was as
effective as classroom instruction” (p. 16). Similarly, Means et al. (2009) completed a meta-
analysis of 51 studies published between 2004 and 2009 that focused on web-based instruction,
used a random-assignment or controlled quasi-experimental design, and analyzed results based
on objective outcomes in student learning. The majority of research was based on older learners
either in higher education or career training environments leaving only five studies conducted
with K-12 students. Students in either an online only or a blended environment performed better
on tasks, on average, than students in a face-to-face course. Student outcomes in online learning
were especially effective when students were given opportunities to demonstrate self-reflection
and self-regulate their own studies and the results were consistent across areas of content.
While Cavanaugh et al. (2004) and Cavanaugh et al. (2009) concluded that online courses
generate equivalent results as a traditional setting in their meta-analysis, Shachar and Neumann
(2010) found online students outperformed students in a face-to-face setting in higher education
in their meta-analysis of 125 studies, covering 20,800 students over 19 years, from 1990 – 2009.
They concluded with an expectation that improvements of technology, increased internet access,
and increased legitimacy of online learning at the university and professional level would drive
further improvement in the goal of making education available anytime and anywhere.
Online Learners in a Higher Education Setting
Aragon, Johnson, and Shaik (2002) concluded that online learning can be as effective as
face-to-face learning when they compared an in-person and online graduate instructional design
course for human resource professionals at a large midwestern university. The course had the
same instructor, content, activities and projects. Online students participated in a one hour
synchronous chat session in place of in class discussion. They found that the two groups used
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 36
similar learning and study strategies and had no difference in social or environmental preference.
The face to face students used supporting materials more than online students while online
students used watching, listening and thinking abilities more and were more reflective.
Ashby, Sadera, and Nary (2011) compared test grades in a community college algebra
class between face-to-face, blended and online instruction which demonstrated that online
learning can be equal or better to face-to-face instruction. They noted that more online students
dropped the class as 70% and 76% of blended and online students finished the course,
respectively, compared to 93% completion rate among the face-to-face students. However,
among students who completed the course, online students scored the highest with an average
grade of 78.1% compared to 71.4% for the face-to-face students and 73.1% for the students in a
blended program.
Cavanaugh and Jacquemin (2015) used a dataset of over 5,000 courses taught by over
100 faculty members for over 10 academic terms at a large public university to compare student
learning outcomes measured by end of semester course grades. The analysis showed a negligible
difference in the course grade between face-to-face students and online students, but grades were
influenced by student Grade Point Average. Students with higher Grade Point Averages
performed better in online courses and struggling students performed less well. In a study of a
first year undergraduate math course at the University of the South Pacific, Fonalahi et al. (2014)
identified no statistical significant difference in the pass rate between students taking the course
online versus in a face-to-face setting. While there was a significantly higher attrition rate for
online students, they did not identify a difference in the grade on the final or in all the
assignments. They did point out that the online course included more assignments requiring
online students to be continually engaged and assessed. Also, the online course had different
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 37
types of assessments so the same topic was assessed several times and in different ways which
may have contributed to students developing a better understanding.
Jones and Long (2013) also studied an online math class at a higher education institution
to determine if it generated equitable student achievement results as a traditional face-to-face
course. They studied student achievement in an undergraduate quantitative business analysis
math course for ten semesters in which both an online and onsite course was offered. They
found no significant difference between the mean for onsite and online students’ grades,
suggesting equity in math learning as measured by the final course grade.
Chen, Lambert, and Guidry (2010) analyzed responses to the 2008 National Survey of
Student Engagement (NSSE) using a data set from 17,819 college students from 45 institutions.
They found that racial and ethnic minorities and part-time students were more likely to take
online courses but the reason for that was outside of the scope of the study. They found students
who utilized internet-based technology scored higher than students who used traditional student
engagement methods. Moreover, the students who used web-based learning reported higher
achievement in general education, course competence and personal and social development and
were more likely to use deep approaches of learning such as higher order thinking and reflective
learning.
Osborne, Kriese, and Davis (2013) reviewed effectiveness of online learning by studying
if 21
st
century skills such as intercultural sensitivity, interpersonal skills and critical thinking
skills could be developed through an online course. The researchers taught a university level
course online entitled “Politics and Psychology of Hatred” with themes regarding social justice,
having a voice through voting, condoning hatred through silence, exploring image and
stereotypes, understanding environmental hatred and developing one’s individual role in a
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 38
community. The objective of the course was for students to discover, explore, analyze and learn
about their own personal bias and values. Students were aged 18-58 with a mean age of 26,
resided in the mid-west and south-central parts of the United States, and had an ethnic and racial
breakdown of 70% Caucasian, 20% Hispanic, and 10% African American. Evaluating responses
to three surveys taken during the course, the researchers concluded that the online course
increased critical thinking skills, improved interpersonal skills and increased intercultural
sensitivity among students. These results demonstrate an ability for students to develop
interpersonal, social and communication skills through online learning in addition to traditional
course subject matter.
Richardson & Newby (2005) analyzed strategies and motivations that students were
using in online courses by surveying 121 students in a midwestern post-baccalaureate
engineering program and a large northeastern university online masters’ program in education.
They categorized learning strategies based on deep, surface or achieving levels of motivation.
The surface motive was defined as applying minimal effort needed to pass which was equivalent
to rote learning. Deep motive was used with intrinsic interest in content and the student’s ability
to develop competence and was implemented by interrelating content with prior relevant
knowledge. The achieving motive was led by competition and a student’s personal desire to
obtain the highest grade possible. The researchers found that younger learners were more likely
to use surface strategy. However, students with more online courses transitioned to deep strategy,
making connections between courses and content, and students with online experience developed
more self-regulation skills. They concluded that students with more online course experience use
more achieving strategy which shows an increase in organizing time and using more resources
for a more impactful online experience. These results also demonstrated students were able to
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 39
develop more responsibility for their own learning in on online environment and suggested that
online education has the ability to help students become more effective learners.
Effectiveness of Online Learning in a K-12 Setting
While there are fewer studies of online learning among elementary and secondary
students, results also suggest online learning generates academic outcomes comparable or better
to traditional settings. Wallace (2009) conducted a study with 690 primary and secondary
students aged 5 to 17 in the distance education program at Johns Hopkins University Center for
Talented Youth. Students were enrolled in one out of 54 courses being taught mainly in an
asynchronous mode online in math, writing, science, language arts, or computer science.
Students and parents were asked to complete course evaluations at the end of the course via an
email link. Final course grade served as an indicator of student achievement and the average
mean grade was an A across all age groups. In terms of overall satisfaction and interest in the
content, 74.3% of students recalled enjoying the course usually or always; 61% of students
became more interested in the subject while 3.5% became less interested. In addition, 55.2%
said the level of intellectual challenge was demanding but appropriate. In terms of overall
satisfaction on a 5 point Likert scale (1=very dissatisfied and 5=very satisfied), the mean score
was 4.32 for all students and 4.25 for high school students. This study showed that gifted
primary and secondary students could achieve good grades, feel generally satisfied with the
experience and become more interested in a subject when taking an online course.
Englert et al. (2007) studied the application of online learning with 35 elementary school
students from five urban schools. The students had an average age of 10 ½ and had been
diagnosed with a learning disability. This study focused on using web-based support to help
these students improve writing skills. The study included collecting a baseline sample of writing
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 40
collected two weeks prior to the intervention. Following the intervention, students using the
computer support were more likely to include more categories and were able to organize texts
with an introduction, body and conclusion compared to students that were not exposed to the
online instruction.
Similarly, Sun et al. (2008) compared an in person to an interactive, virtual lab for a
natural science course among fifth graders in Taiwan. Pre- and post-tests and questionnaires
were used to evaluate student achievement. The experimental group that used the virtual lab had
a pre-test mean score of 77.8 and a post-test score of 86.0 compared to the control group score of
78.3 to 82.3. These scores provided a statistically significant difference suggesting that greater
achievement occurred with the web-based group and the virtual lab was an effective method for
elementary students to learn in science. They further analyzed that learning styles were not a
significant factor. In addition, three-fourths of the students expressed interest in continuing use
of web-based labs. The study furthermore showed the benefit of individualized learning and the
advantage of limited supplies or class time to conduct labs.
These numerous studies demonstrate the effectiveness of virtual education by
demonstrating that academic outcomes of students taking online courses appear equivalent to
outcomes of students in traditional face-to-face environments.
Factors Contributing to Success
In addition to determining that virtual education is equivalent to traditional face-to-face
schooling, studies have been conducted to identify the factors that contribute to a student being
successful in this environment. Studies have looked at skills students need to possess, teacher
involvement, and technological structure.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 41
Student Self-Regulation Skills
Roblyer and Marshall (2002) developed the Educational Success Prediction Instrument
(ESPRI) to identify characteristics to predict success in online courses with a purpose of being
able to guide and prepare students that wanted to take online courses. They determined that
students that were able to be academically successful in online courses had organizational and
study skills as well as had general self-efficacy in their own learning. These students were also
responsible regarding their own learning because they were able to complete tasks even when
information was not provided or instructions were not clear. This initial study, however, was
based on a small sample of 135 Virtual High School (VHS) students of which 70% were White.
With the continued growth of online learning, Roblyer, Davis, Mills, Marshall and Pape (2008)
revised ESPRI to delve deeper into the success factors of student characteristics as well as
learning environment factors. They surveyed over 2,100 high school students from over 400
schools that were part of VHS in 28 states and 23 countries. This study reinforced the findings
that a student’s confidence in one’s ability to learn, instructional risk-taking and organization
strategies contributed to being academically successful in an online class as defined by a final
course grade of a C or better. While this study had a larger sample size, 77% of respondents
identified as White, 95% had a computer and internet access at home and 76% of the respondents
self-reported a high GPA of 3.0 or above.
Kerr, Rynearson, and Kerr (2006) developed the Test of Online Learning Success
(TOOLS) to identify student characteristics that would determine success in online courses. In
their three-year study conducted at two universities in Texas, they identified four characteristics
as most important for predicting online student success among undergraduates: reading and
writing skills, independent learning, motivation and computer literacy. Reading and writing skills
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 42
were determined the best predictor of student performance in terms of passing grades which they
explained was due to text serving as the main way to provide information to learners even in the
online environment. Independent learning and motivation included managing time, balancing
multiple tasks, setting goals, having self-discipline, being self-motivated and exhibiting personal
responsibility and was associated with self-esteem and internet self-efficacy. Students with high
independent learning scores had significantly higher course grades than low independent learners
which demonstrated the need for an online student to be an independent learner in order to be
successful in an online environment (Kerr et al., 2006).
Archambault et al. (2013) also identified cognitive measures of self-regulation, self-
motivation, ability to structure one’s own learning, experience with technology, and self-
confidence in academics as contributing factors to student success in an online course. In
addition, they found that having a positive attitude toward the content was a criteria for success
in an online school. Broadbent and Poon (2015) also reviewed the required skill set to be
successful online with a focus on the use of self-regulation learning strategies. In their meta-
analysis, they searched databases from 2004 to 2014 for academic achievement in online higher
education and identified twelve studies that reviewed self-regulation skills among online
learners. They concluded that time management, metacognition, effort, and critical thinking had
a positive correlation with academic outcomes. Falloon (2011) conducted research among twenty
two students in two college courses who were all taking a virtual class for the first time and
demonstrated that students needed assistance to transfer communication and interpersonal skills
to a virtual classroom. The synchronous portion of the course helped develop relationships and
create a sense of community but did not contribute to deeper learning. Students responded
favorably to the asynchronous portion of the course because this component allowed more time
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 43
for reflection and meaningful contributions to discussions. This study, however, was conducted
among a small group of graduate students and may not be reflective of a K-12 setting.
Student Computer Literacy
Muilenburg & Berge (2005) surveyed over 1,000 college students in 2003 to identify
overall factors to contribute to success in an online environment and found technology skills as a
critical contributor. In this study, 67.7% of respondents felt comfortable using email and internet
for personal use but did not feel confident in taking an online course. In addition to the self-
regulation skills needed for success in an online course, Roblyer et al. (2008) found that the
students that were successful in virtual high school courses had competent technology skills.
They found that 80% of students that had earned a C or better in an online course reported
feeling comfortable using a computer in general. Their technology skills included knowing how
to use an internet search engine and email system and being able to locate a document or
program on a computer (Roblyer et al., 2008). In contrast, Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, and Yeh
(2008) studied student satisfaction in online college courses. They emailed a survey to 645
students in 16 different virtual classes at two public universities in Taiwan and obtained a 46%
response rate. They found that students that had anxiety towards their computer skills led to
lower task performance, highlighting the importance to strengthen technical training to prepare
students for online learning (Sun et al., 2008).
Zhang and Goel (2011) surveyed 280 business students in a large southern US university
who had taken a course that used online learning. They found that students that perceived the
course as easy to navigate and had a high level of online technical skill or had a positive attitude
toward technology had high satisfaction with learning outcomes. While students with prior
experience generated higher satisfaction than those that had not taken an online course before,
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 44
students with poor online skills were able to master them and become satisfied with their online
learning experience (Zhang & Goel, 2011).
Kerr et al. (2006) found that first time online students often report low technology skills
and anxiety related to use of technology, but they developed these required skills as the course
progressed if they had high self-esteem, reading and writing proficiency and were able to work
independently. In other words, students were able to develop computer literacy during a class if
they were able to transfer their reading and writing skills to the computer platform and had high
self-efficacy of their own learning. This study, however, was conducted only among college
students. Similarly, Johnson and Galy (2013) surveyed 268 business administration
undergraduates at a south Texas university that served a primarily Hispanic population. They
also concluded that students’ level of self-efficacy regarding computer usage was related to the
students’ ability to achieve a high grade. They further found that students could transfer their
technology experience from using social media or email to e-learning tools. Moreover, being
able to extend this knowledge contributed to building self-confidence in one’s ability to learn
online (Johnson & Galy, 2013). Overall, technology skills are an understandable prerequisite to
online learning success, but students appear to be able to transfer computer skills to an online
course to be successful, particularly when they have self-confidence in their learning abilities and
have mastered writing and reading skills.
Instructor Involvement
A number of studies point to the need for instructors to guide online students through
coursework and to develop relationships with these students as a means to motivate students and
ensure students understand course requirements.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 45
Hawkins, Graham, Sudweeks, and Barbour (2013) examined the relationship between
students’ perceptions of the quality and frequency of interactions with their instructors and
online course completion and academic performance. They surveyed nearly 2,300 virtual high
school students who were primarily Caucasian and English speakers. About 75% of respondents
self-reported successfully completing an online course. Students who completed the course
perceived their interactions with teachers as more positive than students who did not complete
the course. Students that experienced more frequent interaction and higher quality interaction
were more likely to complete the course. The researchers recommended more teacher interaction
especially at the beginning of the course to engage students with general course information,
provide a warm welcome and ensure students understand course navigation. They also pointed
out that teachers needed to be proactive reaching out to engage students (Hawkins et al., 2013).
Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2009) demonstrated the role teachers play in
motivating students in an online environment. They interviewed 42 online teachers in Canada to
identify what teachers do to motivate students and ascertained communication, interaction and
social presence as impactful factors. The researchers acknowledged that in a face-to-face
environment, relationships and communication are important factors to motivate students; in an
online learning environment, these factors continue to be important, but require different vehicles
to establish relationships considering the separation of space and time. Developing a personal
relationship and connection with students was critical to reduce student feelings of isolation.
Teachers reported developing a personal relationship by greeting students individually in
synchronous sessions, injecting humor into the course, demonstrating enthusiasm in the teacher’s
voice, finding an opportunity for a face-to-face meeting, initiating real-time interaction,
responding to student-initiated communications and providing prompt and detailed feedback on
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 46
assignments. Teachers were also instrumental in motivating students by providing both intrinsic
and extrinsic motivators such as a tracking or monitoring system, check-in requirement, and
points opportunity (Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2009). Similarly, Sun et al. (2008)
studied student satisfaction in online college courses and found that teachers influence online
learning similar to a traditional setting. Teachers who were enthusiastic about online learning and
the learning activities led to higher student satisfaction and motivation (Sun et al., 2008).
Instructional Strategies
In addition to identifying the need for technology skills, Muilenburg & Berge (2005)
identified the need for social interactions, administrative and/or instructor issues, time and
support for studies, and learner motivation as factors to online learning success. They suggested
improving social interaction in online learning to create a more effective and enjoyable
experience. Harrington, Oliver and Reeves (2003) recommended incorporating authentic
activities in online learning to increase engagement and add relevance as a means to motivate
students. While Broadbent and Poon (2015) focused on self-regulation skills as a key contributor
to student academic success online, they also identified activities that offered peer learning and
an opportunity to collaborate with other students as a correlation with academic achievement.
Students perceived higher levels of learning when they were participating in a course that created
a sense of community and students felt a sense of connectedness (Sadera, Robertson, Song, &
Midon, 2009). While a positive relationship exists between learning success and sense of
community among adult learners, this study had a low response rate of 11% and has not been
replicated at the K-12 setting.
Dixon (2010) surveyed 186 college students from 38 online courses at six campuses in
the Midwest to identify types of learning activities that helped students think about and be
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 47
interested in the content and contributed to interaction with the instructor and/or with other
students. Students reported a number of active learning activities were perceived as engaging
such as problem solving and case studies, discussion forums, projects, papers and current event
assignments as opposed to passive learning activities such as reading text, taking quizzes or
following powerpoints or videos. Highly engaged students reported participating in discussions,
group work and peer reviews. Students reported using email, lectures, discussions, feedback on
assignments and chat sessions to interact with instructors. Despite the array of activities, no
particular activity, passive or active, engaged students in online classes and the authors
recommended online courses incorporate a variety to contribute to student engagement (Dixon,
2010). Therefore, Dixon recommended active learning assignments to help develop students’
social presence as a means to counteract possible social isolation in an online environment. The
author also recommended instructors use multiple forms of communication to establish a
presence in the course such as announcements on the course home page, emails, discussion
responses, online lectures and chat sessions. Overall, engaging students in online courses is not a
result of a particular learning activity, but is developed by using an array of communication
vehicles to create a student to instructor connection and creating a social presence by the
instructor and between students for student engagement.
Johnson and Galy (2013) surveyed 268 business administration undergraduates at a south
Texas university that served a primarily Hispanic population. They concluded that the virtual
platform posed an opportunity to help students with limited English proficiency in particular. In
their eyes, online learning tools “provide a medium for students with limited English proficiency
to enhance their process of English language assimilation by having asynchronous participation
because videos and visual presentations with sound and animation facilitate auditory skills while
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 48
digitized books present linking possibilities tied to definitions and pronunciation help” (p. 335).
They suggest online learning tools could help English Learners develop essential language arts
skills.
Technology and Course Set Up
Song, Singleton, Hill and Koh (2004) conducted face-to-face interviews among graduate
students at a large university in the southeastern part of the United States. Respondents identified
the most important factor to help them be successful in the online environment was course
design (83%) and comfort with technology (76%) while technical problems were the greatest
barrier (58%). Good instructional design was defined as including clear goals and expectations,
explicit directions, examples, deadlines and a vehicle to ask questions and obtain responses
(Song et al., 2004).
Roblyer (2006) worked with the Southern Regional Educational Board to interview
directors of successful virtual schools and identified common components that successful virtual
schools had incorporated to ensure student success. These components included the following:
1. Teachers were trained specifically to be effective instructing via a web-based medium.
Training included preparing teachers to monitor student progress, provide feedback and build a
sense of community in an online environment. Teachers were also monitored to ensure they
were meeting requirements with timely feedback and logged communication with students. 2.
Curriculum incorporated a high-quality program where learning objectives were clearly
communicated, and activities were interactive and incorporated critical thinking. 3. Technical
assistance was available to students and student work was secure. 4. Students were monitored
during assessments. 5. Students completed orientations to online navigation and received
checklists and self-tests to ensure they were prepared for the virtual setting. Orientations were
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 49
implemented particularly to ensure equitable access among all students. 6. Interactive
instructional strategies incorporated project-based learning and required students to work
together to create opportunities for student interactions. 7. A student-first culture allowed flexible
pacing and monitoring student progress (Roblyer, 2006).
Roblyer et al. (2008) identified learning environment characteristics to predict success in
online courses and found access to technology as the critical driver. They found students needed
to have time at school to complete coursework especially if they did not have a computer at
home. They recommended schools include a study period and location for online courses or
ensure students have an internet ready home computer. They also found that students that were
active in the first few weeks of the course were more likely to be successful at the end of the
course suggesting that school administrators of online programs needed to take extra effort to
ensure students were starting the course on a timely basis at the beginning of the learning period
and could work through the initial learning curve (Roblyer et al., 2008).
Sun et al. (2008) identified course quality as the strongest factor in course satisfaction;
the ease of using the Learning Management System (LMS) and the availability of technical
assistance were also important. Students responded favorably to a variety of learning activities
and different types of assessments. Since students taking online courses seek flexibility, students
sought options in pacing and expected assignments and materials to be properly prepared (Sun et
al., 2008). Similarly, Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2009) recommended learner centered
designs included adjusting timelines of course pacing schedules to assist students. Falloon (2011)
pointed out that the online course needed to be designed to assist students with the technical
knowledge of how to set up equipment, log in and navigate through the course. Somenarain,
Akkaraju, and Gharbaran (2010) compared a medical terminology course delivered in a
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 50
synchronous and asynchronous format to understand student perceptions of their online
experience and learning outcomes. No significant difference in perceptions between synchronous
and asynchronous format were identified and no significant difference in grade was earned
between either of the formats and the control group. In addition, 93% of the students were taking
an online course for the first time and had a very positive feeling about their experience in both
formats (Somenarain et al., 2010). This study suggests that synchronous and asynchronous
formats may contribute to similar academic outcomes.
Zweig (2003) suggested that alternative schools may be a way to reconnect vulnerable
youth to their education. Howard et al. (2015) studied an ‘independent learning center’ (ILC)
located within a campus of a traditional school in urban southern California that had a student
population of 93% Hispanic and 86% free/reduced lunch. Students in the program had dropped
out of school or were significantly behind on credits and were considered at-risk for dropping
out. Students enrolled at the ILC completed core coursework online while being included in
electives and extracurricular activities such as band, clubs, and sports with the regular student
population. The ILC students responded that they were comfortable using computers and the
internet to complete work, and 97% of the participants had a positive perspective of the online
curriculum. In particular, they liked the flexibility of online education because they could
complete coursework anywhere and at any time and liked being able to work at their own pace.
These students felt teachers, tutors and counselors were also important components to their
success.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 51
Summary
This review of literature has explained the growth of online education and the current
legislation guiding the approach. The existing research also demonstrates how online learning
appears to be as effective as traditional face-to-face settings. In order to be effective, students
need to have access to a computer and the internet and have developed technological skills and
self-regulation skills. Online programs need to incorporate an orientation program to ensure
students understand course navigation, have teachers interact to engage and guide students, offer
high level curriculum, design courses to be easy to follow, and offer support and flexibility. The
requirements identified in this literature review provide a blueprint to analyze how school
districts are organized to help at risk students use online learning successfully to meet graduation
requirements.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology and research design of the study. Research
questions to guide the study are presented. The description of the research methodology
addresses the sampling procedure and population, instrumentation and procedures for data
collection and analysis.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to analyze the use of online courses at urban southern
California high schools to help Title I students fill graduation requirements. The following
research questions will guide this study:
1. How are southern California urban school districts using online courses for Title I high
school students to fulfill graduation requirements?
2. What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in online courses and
socioeconomic group?
3. What is the relationship between socioeconomic status, online course enrollment and
graduation?
4. How do school districts evaluate the success of their online programs?
The literature review revealed the following benefits of offering any class to any student
anywhere through online learning which translates to creating access to high-quality courses
which all K-12 students can participate in. In addition, the literature indicated that learning
outcomes are equal if not better in a virtual environment compared to face-to-face settings. In
order to utilize virtual education, the literature pointed out a number of factors to optimize
student potential in this platform. Students need to be properly prepared by having reading and
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 53
writing skills, self-regulation skills in terms of organizational skills and self-motivation, self-
efficacy of their own learning, and computer literacy skills. Instructors need to be trained to
monitor student progress and interact from a distance with students to ensure progress and reduce
student feelings of isolation. Courses need to be designed with clear goals, explicit directions,
examples and deadlines and an opportunity for students to interact through active learning
activities. The literature supported that the administering bodies need to ensure students have
access to an internet-ready computer, provide technical assistance if needed, offer an orientation
regarding online navigation and a method to monitor students during assessments, and provide
flexibility in pacing. Reviewing implementation of these factors will be the basis for evaluating
the utilization of online courses in southern California urban schools to help Title I high school
students fill graduation requirements.
Theoretical Framework
The basis of this study regarding online education is built upon the Educational Equity
Theory (Brookover & Lezotte, 1981), Organizational Restructuring Theory (Bolman & Deal,
2013) and the Equivalency Theory (Simonson et al., 1999).
The potential of online education is based on the Educational Equity Theory. As
Brookover and Lezotte (1981) point out, the national principle of equity for all extends to
guaranteeing equality of education regardless or sex, race, religion or economic circumstance.
This standard can be applied in education based on access, participation and outcomes
(Brookover and Lezotte, 1981). Consideration of access is based on determining if all students
are receiving equal treatment throughout the educational system. The standard of participation
translates into promoting and guaranteeing equal involvement. Similarly, the outcomes standard
is met if all students reach equal outcomes. The Educational Equity Theory applies to online
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 54
learning as the virtual platform has the potential to ensure equity to all students in terms of all
three standards. To meet this expectation, all students within a district would have equal access
and preparation to the virtual options and obtain equivalent learning outcomes.
Incorporating online education into a school district’s portfolio impacts the district’s
organization. Bolman and Deal (2013) explain that every organization is framed in four ways:
structural, human resource, political and symbolic. The structural frame relates to how the body
functions in terms of roles, goals, policies, and technology; the human resource frame references
the use of human resources and skill development; the political frame considers treatment of
internal politics, power, and competition; and the symbolic frame captures the organization’s
culture (Bolman and Deal, 2013). Introducing online education within a traditional brick-and-
mortar environment requires a change in an organization. The structure changes with the
introduction of a new mode of curriculum delivery; human resources are impacted as teachers
need to be hired or trained for this new model; the political frame is impacted based on the
leaders that advocate for and implement the change; and the symbolic frame is impacted as the
new medium can change the school and/or district’s culture.
The Equivalency Theory suggests that educational outcomes will be equivalent between
traditional face-to-face settings and online courses if the learning experiences are equivalent
(Simonson et al., 1999).
This study was designed to determine how districts have incorporated virtual education
into their organization in meeting graduation requirements in terms of access, participation and
outcome.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 55
Research Design
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study and was conducted with district
representatives responsible for online curriculum and analyzing the data they provided.
Qualitative research is used to explore and understand a given issue while quantitative research
tests theories by examining the relationship among variables (Creswell, 2009). The combination
of qualitative and quantitative research into a mixed-method approach offers the opportunity to
develop a more complete understanding of the research issue than either qualitative or
quantitative research alone (Creswell, 2009). An Exploratory Sequential Mixed Method consists
of qualitative data collection which builds onto a quantitative data collection for a resulting
analysis (Creswell, 2009). This study will use the Exploratory Sequential Mixed Method.
Methodology
Data for this research was collected in two phases with interviews during the first phase
and data analysis in the second phase. The first phase of the research was the qualitative portion
which was completed through face-to-face interviews of approximately 45 - 60 minutes each.
The interviews covered research questions 1 and 4 regarding the districts’ online education
programs and how the program is evaluated. The open-ended questions allowed the participants
to provide details to fully explain the context and process of their online offering. This phase also
included an examination of the online courses to evaluate the elements within the program and
observation of one site. The second phase of the research was the quantitative portion. In this
phase, data provided by the participating districts was analyzed to answer research questions 2
and 3. The data was analyzed to identify the relationship among students from low and not-low
socioeconomic households and participation and outcome in online courses. Descriptive statistics
were also completed to explain how online programs are being used.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 56
Population and Sample
The population of the qualitative portion of this study was a representative from seven
districts that had an online offering. Districts were located in southern California and had a total
enrollment over 20,000 students of which 40 – 70% of students qualified for Free and Reduced
Lunch. Purposeful sampling is applicable when a researcher seeks to learn about and gain insight
on an issue and the sample provides such an opportunity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A purposive
sample is used based on knowledge of a population and the purpose of the study and participants
are selected based on a specific characteristic (Fink, 2017). A typical sample, a subset of
purposeful sampling, is appropriate when the researcher seeks to find out what is the normal or
average representation of the issue to be studies (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The sampling was a
typical purposeful sample based on offering some form of an online program, district geographic
location, size and percent of Title I students. In this study, the sample participants from seven
districts were selected among school districts with enrollment over 20,000 K-12 students in
southern California excluding Los Angeles Unified School District. For purpose of this
investigation, the counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San
Diego and Imperial will define southern California. Title I population was identified based on
the California Department of Education Dashboard as of Fall, 2017.
Face-to-face or phone interviews are appropriate when participants can provide historical
information (Creswell, 2014). A semi-structured interview consists primarily of questions that
explore specific areas of the issue and allows the researcher to respond to situations and
emerging responses during the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Permission to interview and
receive data was obtained from the Superintendent of each district and the researcher was
directed with whom to speak to in the district. Individuals were selected because they were
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 57
responsible for the online learning program implementation and were considered the most
knowledgeable in the district. The participants included one Assistant Superintendent of
Alternative Education, three directors and a coordinator at the district level, a principal of a
continuation school and a principal of a virtual school. A teacher participated in one of the
interviews with a district director as well.
The participants provided the data for the quantitative portion of the study. The
population for this data was high school students in the related district and the data was provided
for the Spring 2018 semester.
Instrumentation
Conceptual Framework
The literature review revealed that factors contributing to student success in online
courses were based on student preparedness, teacher performance and the administering bodies
oversight. Student preparedness included having necessary reading and writing skills, self-
regulation skills, computer literacy skills and access to an internet-ready computer. Teachers
needed to also have prerequisite computer skills and be able to monitor student progress and
interact with the enrolled students. The administering body should offer a quality curriculum, an
orientation program, technical assistance, a means to monitor students during assessments and
flexibility in pacing as well as ensure teachers are meeting instructional requirements and
students have access to an internet-ready computer.
Qualitative Methodology
The semi-structured interview was designed to determine how each district is responding
to the success factors in the implementation of their online program. The interview guide was
based on the findings of the conceptual framework and consisted of open-ended questions which
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 58
offered the opportunity for additional in-depth probing. The interview questions also included
two questions for the district designee to share how the district views the success of their
program as a means to evaluate the program as part of the district’s overall goals. The
interviewee was also asked to demonstrate a course or provide access to a log in which would be
equivalent to an observation and offer a means to determine course set up and curriculum
quality.
Quantitative Methodology
The quantitative methodology was completed by analyzing the data provided by the
districts to answer research questions 2 and 3. The following constructs defined attributes:
Socioeconomic Status: The Socioeconomic Status (SES) was defined based on qualification for
Free or Reduced Lunch (FRL). Low SES was signified if a student qualified for Free or Reduced
Lunch. This indicator is consistent with how students are identified as low SES by the California
Department of Education (CDE, 2017).
Academic Outcome: The academic outcome was identified by the course grade on the A-F scale
Number of dropped courses were also provided.
Course Rigor: Course rigor was determined based on level of academic difficulty as either a
credit recovery course or a course for original credit. The courses for original credit were termed
enrichment courses in comparison to credit recovery for purpose of this study.
Graduation: Graduates were identified based on earning the required number of credits to
graduate. The state of California requires students earn 205 credits, but districts may require
more and may determine some variation with the required courses toward the credits (CDE,
2017).
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 59
Research question 2 was designed to determine what difference exists among high
school students’ completion of online courses and was analyzed in three ways. First, students
were compared based on socioeconomic status for having completed or not having completed an
online course. This question unveiled the degree that high school students are taking online
courses and identified the relationship between the socioeconomic groups. For this question, the
independent variable was categorized by qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch or not. The
dependent variable was whether or not they completed an online course. The data was also
analyzed for academic outcome based on rigor of the course taken and final course grade. Rigor
was operationalized by credit recovery and enrichment course. Final course grade was analyzed
by college-eligible A-C grade, D or Fail/drop. For these three analyses, the data was analyzed
with the Chi-square test of Independence to determine if relationships were statistically
significant. The Chi-square test of Independence is appropriate when two nominal variables are
being analyzed to see if an association exists (Laerd, 2018). A Chi-square test of Independence
compares the frequencies that occur in different categories to the frequency expected if no
association between the variables existed (Pallant, 2016).
Research question 3 evaluated the difference among graduation based on having taken an
online course or not. For this question, the sample was fourth year seniors that graduated Spring
2018. The independent variable was Socioeconomic Status. The dependent variable was whether
or not the senior had taken an online course. The analysis used the Chi-square test of
Independence as well.
Data Collection
Superintendents for the seven selected districts were identified from the district’s website
and mailed a formal letter requesting permission to participate in the study. The researcher was
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 60
referred to the appropriate district representative and scheduled a face-to-face interview. The
interview protocol and data collection sheet were emailed in advance, if requested. The
interview was recorded, transcribed and reviewed for coding themes in order to capture key
findings. All participants consented to participating in the study and agreed to the interview
being recorded. Confidentiality and anonymity of all participants were carefully respected and
adhered to (see Appendix A). Designees were also asked to provide the researcher with access to
at least one online course to ascertain course set up.
To complete the quantitative data, each district designee was asked to provide the data to
answer the quantitative questions outlined above (see Appendix B). The data was accumulated
and analyzed using IBM’s Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
Data Analysis
The qualitative and quantitative data collected from the interviews and follow up were
analyzed based on the summary below.
Qualitative and Quantitative Data Analysis Plan
Research Question Instrument Analysis Data
1. How are southern
California urban school
districts using online courses
for Title I high school
students to fulfill graduation
requirements?
Interview Survey
Open-ended
Visual review of online
courses
(Appendix I)
2. What is the relationship
between high school student
enrollment in online courses
and socioeconomic group?
What is the relationship
between high school student
academic outcome in online
courses and socioeconomic
group?
Association:
Chi Square Test for
Independence
Association:
Chi Square Test for
Independence
A. Online course
participation
IV: SES
DV: Took/Didn’t take Course
B. Grade in Course
IV: SES
DV: Grade A-C, D, Fail or
Drop
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 61
What is the relationship
among online course rigor
and socioeconomic group?
Association:
Chi Square Test for
Independence
C. Course Rigor
IV: SES
DV: Credit Recovery or
Enrichment
3. What is the relationship
between socioeconomic
status, online course
enrollment and graduation?
Association:
Chi Square Test for
Independence
IV: SES
DV: Took Course/Didn’t take
course in last semester
4. How do schools evaluate
the success rate of students
taking online courses?
Interview Survey Open-ended
Validity and Reliability
This study used multiple data sources in order to triangulate the data and increase the
accuracy of the analysis for the interviews (Creswell, 2014). The various sources included
conducting several interviews, reviewing online courses and analyzing data. In addition, the
same questions were asked of all respondents and the online courses were reviewed for similar
criteria.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher considered ethical obligations throughout the process of this research.
This study was approved by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB) and complied with all ethical guidelines of conducting research using human subjects. All
of the interviews and statistical data, including field notes, recordings, transcription and all other
data have been secured. Hard evidence has been secured in locked cabinets which only the
researcher has access to. All electronic transcripts and data files have been saved in password-
protected files.
All participants, school districts and school locations in the study are referred to by
pseudonyms to protect the identity and locations of the participants in the study. All participants
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 62
consented to participate in the study and were informed of the purpose and nature of the
research.
Summary
Chapter Three described the methodology used to conduct this study, including the
purpose of the study, research design, qualitative and quantitative methods, sample population,
instrumentation, data collection procedures, data analysis, validity and reliability, and ethical
considerations.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 63
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Background
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected from the study which aimed to
explore how public school districts are utilizing online learning to help students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds meet graduation requirements. The most recent data from the US
Department of Education reported that 5% of the total student population in 75% of districts
were using online learning in the school year 2012-13 (Watson et. al., 2013). While school
administration claimed they were prioritizing the use of technology as a tool for instruction
(Gray et al., 2010) and virtual school advocates have promoted online learning as an opportunity
to provide equitable access to all students for high-quality courses from remedial levels to
Advance Placement courses (Berge & Clark, 2005), strategies and programs focused on applying
technology to assist Title I students in particular have not been analyzed or quantified at the
local, state or national level.
The Education Equity Theory (Brookever & Lezotte, 1981) delineates that the national
principle of equity in all our country’s founding documents extend to guaranteeing equality of
education regardless of sex, race, religion or economic circumstance. Equality of education is
further determined based on equitable access, participation and outcomes. This study addressed
how districts addressed these criteria in online learning options.
Qualitative data was gathered using one-on-one interviews with district representatives
that oversaw the online components of their district’s instructional model at seven districts. The
districts selected were geographically located in southern California, had total enrollment of
20,000 or more K-12 students and served a demographic area in which 40-70% of the students
were identified as living in a low socioeconomic household. For each district, approval to
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 64
participate was obtained from the district’s superintendent and the researcher was referred to the
appropriate district representative to interview and obtain data. The representative for District 1,
3, and 4 were the directors at the district overseeing the online program; for District 6, the
coordinator at the district responded. Principals of the continuation school and virtual school
represented District 5 and 7, respectively. The Assistant Superintendent of Alternative Education
represented District 2. The director in District 1 invited one of the online teachers to participate
in the interview as well. The participants in District 1 and 6 demonstrated their online courses;
the participant in District 7 provided a tour of the virtual school campus.
When conducting this research, a semi-structured approach was used during the
interviews which consisted of approximately 20 questions on the interview protocol. The semi-
structured protocol allowed the researcher the flexibility to probe regarding follow-up questions
based on responses.
Quantitative data was collected from the district representatives following the interview
based on a data collection form. Of the seven district participants, District 5 provided no data.
District 2 did not have a vehicle to delineate if a course was for credit recovery; District 7
grouped final course grades as College Eligible with a grade of A, B, or C; high school credit
with a grade of D, failed or dropped. Data provided covered the Spring 2018 semester and
District 1 and 4 included Summer 2018 because this covered a significant element of their credit
recovery program. Data analysis was adjusted to incorporate the data in the categories as
provided.
Demographics of Participating Districts
Based on California Department of Education records (2018), total enrollment of the
participating districts ranged from approximately 22,600 to 31,000 with a total enrollment of the
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 65
seven districts representing over 180,000 students. Districts 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 were unified school
districts while Districts 1 and 3 represented high school districts. High school enrollment ranged
from 7,900 students to nearly 24,000. The percent of economically disadvantaged students varied
from 40% to 70% for the district and 42% to 74% for the high schools.
Based on the California Department of Education Dashboard (CDE, 2018), graduation
rates varied from 92% to 97.8% with an average for the seven districts at 94.6%. Similarly, the
graduation rate for Title I students ranged from 90.5% to 97.3% with an average of 92.9% for the
seven districts. This represented a gap in graduation rates of 1.7 points between all students and
socioeconomically disadvantaged students with the range between .4 points to 2.0 points.
College and Career Readiness data from the California Department of Education
dashboard was also reviewed for the seven districts. Nearly 49% of students were considered
College and Career Ready for the seven districts with the range from 42.9% to 60.3%. In
contrast, districts ranged from 27% to 46% of Title I students meeting Career and College
Readiness standards. This translated into about 40% of socioeconomically disadvantaged
students in the seven districts meeting the state’s college and career readiness criteria and a 9
point gap compared to all students.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 66
Table 1: District Demographics
Total HS HS
Enroll- Enroll- Low Graduation Rate CCR
ment ment SES All
Low
SES
All
Low
SES
(000's) (000's) % % % % %
District 1 31 20 70% 92.0% 90.5% 44.7% 39.0%
District 2 24 24 62% 93.6% 91.9% 52.2% 45.9%
District 3 28 10 47% 95.5% 93.5% 50.0% 39.4%
District 4 23 8 69% 97.1% 96.7% 41.1% 38.6%
District 5 26 8 48% 94.3% 92.9% 57.8% 46.1%
District 6 26 9 46% 94.7% 97.3% 42.9% 26.7%
District 7 24 8 40% 97.8% 96.6% 60.3% 43.3%
Total 182 87 55% 94.6% 92.9% 48.8% 40.2%
HS = High School
CCR = College & Career Readiness
Research Questions
The findings in this study have been guided by the following research questions:
1. How are southern California urban school districts using online courses for Title I high
school students to fulfill graduation requirements?
2. What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in online courses
and socioeconomic group?
3. What is the relationship between socioeconomic status, online course enrollment
and graduation?
4. How do school districts evaluate the success of their online programs?
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 67
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze how online learning is being utilized in urban
southern California school districts to help students from low socioeconomic households fulfill
graduation requirements and earn a diploma.
Coding of Data
As a means of analyzing the data, the researcher organized and managed data using a
system of coding. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe coding as the method employed to assign
a short descriptive to data to easily retrieve specific elements as needed. The main goal of
qualitative data analysis is identifying themes, categories, patterns and answers to the research
questions (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). After reviewing all of the interview data, the researcher
finalized categories and coded the information, compared the responses from each district, made
connections to the literature review and identified overriding themes and practices. After all the
data was coded, a formal analysis was conducted to create the findings that were directly tied to
the research questions.
Findings
Based on creating the categories and coding the data, the researcher reviewed how the
data was interrelated and contributed to answering each research question. The data analysis that
follows is from the study which aims to identify how public school districts are using online
learning to help students from low socioeconomic backgrounds meet graduation requirements.
The data gathered from the interviews of seven district officials was analyzed in an attempt to
answer the research questions.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 68
Research Question #1: How are southern California urban school districts using online
courses for Title I high school students to fulfill graduation requirements?
The most recent national data reported that 75% of districts were using online learning
and 5% of students were participating in an online course (Watson et. al., 2013). Initially,
districts offered online learning programs in order to meet the needs of specific groups of
students, offer courses not otherwise available at the school, offer Advanced Placement or
college-level courses, permit students to repeat a failed course or reduce scheduling conflicts for
students (Watson et. al., 2013). The literature review captured district administration’s intentions
as well as the elements required to make online learning an impactful educational vehicle. The
interviews conducted to answer the research question focused on if and how districts in southern
California have implemented online learning tools while ensuring its impact. Interview questions
and data collected helped to quantify student participation.
Of the seven districts studied in this research, all seven have established an online
program. However, the strategy and format varied. As such, the responses will be summarized
and compared based on the Education Equity Theory (Brookover & Lezotte, 1981) for access,
participation and outcome. The review covers the districts’ overall program based on the type of
program, method of delivery, courses offered and program management; how access is granted
in terms of program promotion, technology access, and student preparedness; and how students
are supported to be successful in the virtual environment.
District Programs
Bolman and Deals (2013) explains that every organization is framed based on structural,
human resource, political, or symbolic frames and restructuring occurs within these frames for an
organization to implement a change. To incorporate online learning into a traditional public
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 69
school setting, the frames within the school districts changed. For six of the seven districts, the
online program was incorporated within the existing district instruction and curriculum
department while one district (District 2) created an additional assistant superintendency role as
the skeletal change in the structural frame. In this case, the assistant superintendent had served as
the executive director of alternative education within the curriculum department and had been
promoted to the AS level. Regarding the human resource frame, all seven district respondents
referred to staffing courses with current credentialed teachers who found their way to the online
options; one district (District 7) referred to hiring new positions from outside the district for an
online educator. The review of programs will further detail the changes within the structural and
human resource frames.
Picciano and Seaman (2009) reported district administrators offered online courses to
expand course and schedule offerings, meet the needs of specific groups of students, provide
both AP and credit recovery options and respond to facility limitations. All seven districts have
instituted an online program but the approach and purpose varied between using online learning
for credit recovery; in a continuation, alternative education, or independent study program; as an
enrichment program; or as a full-time online or virtual school. All the districts offered online
learning as a critical vehicle for credit recovery. While six of the seven districts had additional
applications, District 4 used online learning strictly as a credit recovery and repair program in a
blended setting. District 2, 5 and 7 used online learning as a curriculum provider in the
continuation school while District 1, 2, and 6 offered online courses as an enrichment program.
District 1 and 2 offer online learning for an alternative education option and District 3 used it for
independent study. Districts 2, 3, and 7 had distinct virtual schools. District 1, 3 and 7 used
online learning in three different ways. Of the various program options, District 2 had the most
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 70
comprehensive online program with five applications: for credit recovery, enrichment,
continuation, alternative education and a virtual school. Each of these programs incorporated a
face-to-face component for a blended delivery.
In comparison to the literature review in which districts reported offering an array of
courses, online learning has evolved from offering courses to becoming distinct programs to
meet specific needs in the district and is primarily delivered in a blended format. As the Assistant
Superintendent of District 2 stated, “We have found our best success is not signing kids up and
letting them go and checking up on them. Regular interaction between student and teacher is
best.” In addition, the variety of configurations within and between districts captures the possible
applications and potential of online learning as summarized by the program director at District 3:
“When you talk about 21
st
century learning, we are doing it. Online learning is one of the best
things that has happened in education. We provide multiple pathways to graduation.”
Table 2: Program Components
District
Credit
Recovery
Continu-
ation
Enrich-
ment
Alterna-
tive Ed
/ Indep
Study
Virtual
School
1
X
X X
2
X X X X X
3
X
X X
4
X
5
X X
6
X
X
7
X X
X
X = District offering
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 71
Types of Programs
Credit Recovery
The USDOE reported in 2010 that 62% of districts offered an online credit recovery
course. In this research study, all seven districts currently offer a credit recovery component
which allows students to repeat a failed course. The US Department of Education identified that
nearly three-fourths (73%) of students who drop out of school had been behind in school work or
had earned poor grades and one fourth (26.2%) were taking care of family members or
financially supporting them (McFarland et al., 2016). Three of the participants responded with
the importance of the credit recovery program as a specific tool to help students who get behind
to make up the class and be able to still graduate, a significant connection to overcoming a
leading cause of dropping out. In fact, the director of District 1 summarized this thought as
“credit recovery provides an essential pathway to graduation.” The assistant superintendent of
District 2 summarized the role of the credit recovery program saying “for kids who are failing or
are getting Ds and not on track for meeting A-G requirements, online learning is a tool to help
them get back on track with the flexibility the program offers. Students can take online, with a
teacher, summer school at school or after school.” The director at District 4 commented the
online approach makes credit recovery possible because “the economies are not ample to have
credentialed teachers for each subject when there might be only a few students that need a
course. I can have students taking different math classes, even different semesters, but just one
math teacher overseeing them.”
While each district offers a credit recovery program, the structure and requirements
varied. The credit recovery programs at all seven districts are blended programs for the most
part; they use an online curriculum provided by an outside vendor, but students are required to
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 72
meet an in person attendance requirement and all districts required online students complete
assessments in person as the minimum. District 4 reported a strict requirement of 75 hours of
‘seat time’ to earn the recovery credits, primarily over the summer. District 3 and 6 required
students to attend two times per week after school or attend during the summer while Districts 5
and 7 require students to take the credit recovery course as 0 or 7
th
period or over the summer. In
comparison, District 1 makes daily attendance optional and District 2 offers credit recovery
classes both as an assigned daily course or after school 2-3 times per week and on a virtual basis
in rare cases. Regardless of the time requirement for the in person component, all seven districts
require students to complete assessments in person so that tests are proctored. Roblyer (2006)
identified in person assessments as a criterion for successful virtual schools to ensure student
academic success. The director at District 1, where daily attendance is optional, pointed out
“Students can complete work at home, but they need to take assessments in person. Also, they
are required to pass to move on to the next unit. The students that show up in person seem to do
better. The students talk and they encourage each other to show up.” District respondents
repeatedly referred to the proctored assessment component as necessary to ensure academic
integrity.
In order to provide additional opportunities for students to pass courses, teachers have the
option of resetting assessments. District 4 pointed out that students are required to complete
remedial work if they don’t pass an assessment two times before they are allowed to approach
the assessment again. All seven districts use an outside curriculum provider with five of the
districts relying on APEX, two using Edmentum and one using Edgenuity. Four of the district
respondents claim that students can take any class in credit recovery, while two districts have a
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 73
list of specific classes and one district offers “all courses except lab science, honors and AP
courses.”
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 74
Table 3: Credit Recovery Programs
District Format
Time
Requirement
Assessments Curriculum
Courses
offered
1 Optional in class time After school
or summer
Taken in person,
required to pass
to move to next
unit
APEX All
2 Blended, Online only
if needed
During or
after school,
summer
In person APEX All
3 Online only or
blended. Blended
meets 2 times/week
for 90 minutes
During or
after school,
summer
In person Edgenuity
or
Edmentum
Specific 15
courses in
ELA, Math
and Social
Science
including
Honors
4 Blended - 75 hours
required 'seat time'
During or
after school,
summer
Can take 2 times
and then required
to do additional
work before
taking again
APEX Specific non-
A-G courses.
A-G courses
in separate
'credit repair'
program
5 Blended 0 or 7th
Period,
summer
In person APEX All
6 Blended, meet 2
times/week after
school
After school In person APEX Specific list of
16 courses in
math, ELA,
and Social
Studies and 13
electives
7 Blended During school
year or 2 5-
week summer
school
sessions
In person Edmentum All except for
lab science,
Honors or AP
classes
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 75
District 4 had a distinct separation of the remediation options by clearly differentiating
between a credit recovery and a credit repair program. The credit recovery program allows
students to retake courses that meet graduation requirements while the credit repair program
allows students to retake courses that specifically meet the UC/CSU admission requirements.
The credit repair program allows students to not only make up the credits for graduation but also
help them meet the California public higher education system’s eligibility and improve their
GPA which makes them more competitive for college admission. The district representative
explained that they have a high graduation rate and are focused on helping students not just
graduate, but meet college eligibility and career readiness. “What drove us to establish an online
program was to help students stay on track for college eligibility. If they got a D one semester,
they would lose eligibility for a UC or CSU. Here, they can take the course over. This ended up
being a really good solution for many students.” They found that separating into a credit
recovery and credit repair program helped to obtain NCAA approval for the credit repair courses
so students could maintain eligibility for collegiate sports participation and scholarships.
Incidentally, District 4 has the lowest graduation rate gap and the lowest college and career
readiness gap of the seven districts analyzed.
Continuation Programs
The literature review did not unveil use of online courses for continuation schools while
this research study unveiled that three districts have a blended program for their continuation
schools. Students qualify for these schools when they are behind in credits toward a timely
graduation. This application may be considered an extension of using online learning as a credit
recovery option. About 450 students attend the continuation school in District 2. Each class has
a set of computers and students work in class to complete assignments online at their own pace.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 76
District 5 offers 12 week trimesters with 6 classes per semester allowing students to complete 90
credits in a year. They offer traditional and online courses and of the 200 students in the school,
about one fourth take courses online. In this case, students attend the school in person and
complete their work online while physically attending in the campus computer lab. District 7
uses a blended program with a variable credit system in which a student can earn credit based on
the amount of work completed; for every twelve productive days completed, a student can earn
one credit for each enrolled class.
Enrichment Courses
Initially, online courses were primarily introduced to offer courses not otherwise
available, meet the needs of specific groups of students, offer AP or college-level courses or
reduce schedule conflicts for students (Setzer & Lewis, 2005). Districts 1, 2 and 6 offer
enrichment programs designed to augment a student’s traditional curriculum and fill the same
purpose as the original objective. The representatives for these districts all expressed that these
programs offer classes not available in the traditional setting and appeal to students that have
impacted schedules primarily due to participation in sports, student government and other
activities. Unlike all other online offerings which use curriculum purchased from outside
vendors, the curriculum for the enrichment courses in District 1 are developed by the teachers
and in District 6, teachers adapt the traditional brick-and-mortar lesson plans and use the district
approved texts.
District 1 offers 19 courses in Business, English, Health, Social Studies, Math and
Journalism including seven AP courses online. Students meet in person once during the
semester. The program was introduced in 2008 based on the goal of offering courses that were
not otherwise available on campus to students for acceleration without aiming only at Honors
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 77
students. For example, neither Psychology nor AP Psychology were being offered on campus
despite student interest in the subject. Some of the classes meet graduation and UC/CSU
requirements but are unique variations. Students can take “Designing the American Dream”
through this program in lieu of a traditional English 11 course on campus. Other courses include
“Film Literacy,” “Myth and the Hero’s Journey”, or “Dystopian Literature.” One of the online
teachers explained that these courses “allow students to explore, try something different.” These
courses are in addition to a student’s schedule; students are expected to log in and complete work
following a weekly schedule and attend weekly synchronous sessions scheduled outside of
school hours.
District 6 offers a similar program as District 1 with 16-20 courses offered in English,
Social Studies, PE, Business and World Language. The courses do not have an in person
component but students attend a weekly required synchronous online session which is scheduled
outside of school hours. For PE, students wear an activity monitor such as a FitBit and complete
and submit a weekly activity log that includes a written reflection. While most of the courses
meet UC/CSU A-G requirements, only one AP course is offered for students at one of the high
schools in the district through this program.
District 2 allows students to take online courses primarily if they have impacted
schedules or an extenuating circumstance such as a transfer or student who had health issues and
needs to fill a graduation requirement. These students are usually viewed as self-motivated but
still have a teacher assigned to monitor their progress. If the student is not passing the class, the
assistant principal of achievement will require the student interact more with the student or
discontinue the online course. The Assistant Superintendent of District 2 stated that any course
can be taken for this purpose through Edgenuity and Apex but overall is used for specific needs.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 78
Alternative Education / Independent Study
District 1 and 2 offer an online alternative education program as a means to offer
flexibility for a student. District 3 offers a program called Alternative Education/Independent
Study.
The program at District 1 is designed to offer a flexible academic schedule in which
students fill district and state graduation requirements. Students meet with a teacher in person
one day per week to review student progress and complete assessments. Foreign language and in
person science labs are not available through the alternative education program, so students
seeking to meet UC/CSU requirements can enroll in those courses at a district campus.
For students who cannot be in class every day, District 2 offers Alternative Studies at
each high school campus. Students work online in one subject at a time and can finish a course in
2-3 weeks. They attend in person one time per week for two hours and 20 minutes which
includes time for in person assessments. District 3 offers an Alternative Education/Independent
study program to allow students to study at their own pace. These students are expected to
complete thirty hours of work each week, primarily at home and meet with their subject or
homeroom teachers at least two times per week to review progress, obtain content support and
complete assessments in a proctored setting. While this is a full-time program with a separate
campus, the students maintain enrollment in their campus based on residence.
Online/Virtual School
District 2, 3 and 7 offer an Online or Virtual High School. While the enrollment at each
of these schools is low with about 100-200 high school students at each, the district personnel
view the program as vital to fill the need of specific students who need flexibility and seek
independence. All three districts are targeting students that are college bound, but can’t attend a
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 79
traditional school due to family or health issues, including anxiety, or desire a flexible schedule
program so that the student can participate in special interest training or employment. All three
districts offer courses to help students meet graduation requirements as well as courses that are
UC/CSU eligible. All three districts reference the flexibility offered to students. District 3
summarizes the program as allowing students to “be able to work any place at any pace based on
individual needs and independent of a classroom setting which may have distractions.”
While being called an Online or Virtual School, each one exists on a campus that has
been re-purposed from a traditional school and students are required to attend in person at least
once a week to review course progress with their monitoring teacher and complete assessments
in a proctored environment. District 2 and 7 function as an independent school with its own
attendance. In this configuration, attendance is granted based on teacher evaluation of equivalent
work product approved at four-week intervals. At District 3, students must be officially enrolled
in one of the high schools in the district and tend to take 1-2 classes on campus during 5
th
and 6
th
period which offers opportunities for socialization. The online high school is a voluntary option
at District 2 for students who seek to work at their own pace primarily in a college preparatory
program. Students attend in person one full day a week and many are enrolled in community
college or Regional Occupation Program (ROP) courses as well. At District 7, students take two
courses over six weeks and complete six courses in the semester. Most of the work is completed
by the student independently at home, but students have a recurring appointment with their
mentor teacher on a weekly basis. Classrooms are set up with large work spaces and computer
banks to create a comfortable environment and enrolled virtual students can work there as
desired in addition to their assigned meeting time. The school principal commented, “There’s
usually 8-20 students here; it’s busy from 10am to 2pm, but our students take advantage of the
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 80
ability to sleep in. It’s pretty quiet at 8:30.” In person science labs are held on campus so students
can fill their UC/CSU science lab requirement. Also, similar to District 3, students can
participate in extra-curricular activities such as sports or band at their home campus while
enrolled in the online program. The District 7 online school principal summarized, “They get the
best of both worlds with this approach.”
Access
Consideration of access as an element of the Educational Equity Theory (Brookover &
Lezote, 1981) is based on determining if all students are receiving equal treatment throughout the
educational system and the standard of participation translates into promoting and guaranteeing
equal involvement. The initial adopters in the early 2000’s embraced Online Learning as an
opportunity to provide equitable access to all students to high quality courses (Berge & Clark,
2005). Access to courses requires knowledge and eligibility for the course to participate and
access to the technology. Students from homes of lower income or lower education levels are
less likely to have computer and internet access (Ryan & Lewis, 2015). The US Department of
Education reports that nearly all schools have computer and internet access (Gray et. al., 2010).
However, the US DOE did not report computer loan or internet rebates for online programs after
2005 (Setzer & Lewis, 2005). Access to online programs for all students was evaluated in this
study based on program promotion, student requisites, and technology access.
Program Promotion and Student Requisites
All seven districts promote the online program across their districts and attribute
successful participation due to influential faculty and administrators. All seven respondents
referred to the official method of promoting the program was through the Guidance Counselors
and identified recommending the program as part of the Guidance Counselors responsibilities.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 81
The Director of District 1 summarized, “If a student doesn’t pass a class, it’s the Guidance
Counselor’s job to enroll the student in a credit recovery class. Unfortunately, it’s not practiced
consistently across all campuses.”
Additional methods of promoting the online options were also being implemented. At
District 1 and District 3, presentations are made by online teachers or administrators. Districts 3,
4, 6, and 7 promote the online options on their district website. District 2 attributed the Assistant
Principal of Academic Achievement at each campus for recommending the program while
District 3 and 6 have a brochure to promote the virtual program and enrichment program,
respectively. District 3 advertises “we are one click away from everything you need to know.”
Teachers can also be influential and were cited as such at District 1 and 4. The director at
District 4 commented, “All the teachers are aware and supportive of students making up a
course.” As the online teacher for District 1 explained, “Enrollment is a function of who is
promoting the program. For the first couple of years, students from affluent areas were dominant
in the program because the teachers were from the school with an affluent student base. But
teachers from one of the non-affluent areas became interested in the program, participated and
started to talk about it. This led to more students from that school to enroll. Counselors are
promoting it, but it is really the teachers that make a difference when they promote it.”
Principals and Assistant Principals also contribute to student participation. While
guidance counselors are expected to recommend and assign online courses at District 2, the
Assistant Principal monitors student engagement and becomes an important participant in
ensuring student success. The director of District 4 pointed out that Principals and Assistant
Principals meet annually to review course offerings and the online options are reviewed. He
stated, “With all the online courses in the mix, people become very aware of what’s available for
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 82
students to take. To the point where I’ll have an administrator call and say they have a student
transferring into the district who needs a course that we don’t offer and they’ll ask for an online
option. We have integrated math and we had a student that needed a geometry class.”
While all districts have implemented processes to promote online options throughout the
campus and across all campuses, respondents pointed out that variations occur based on the
personal philosophies and practices of the guidance counselors, teachers, and administrators. The
coordinator at District 6 noted very low participation in the enrichment program from students in
their Title 1 school and attributed it to Guidance Counselors not promoting it as much as those at
the other campuses. Similarly, the online teacher at District 1 referred to the enrichment program
that “Some principals don’t think their students can handle it. In reality, students are more than
capable and students that may have not done well in a traditional setting may be successful and
feel empowered.” The director at District 1 explained “Our goal is to make sure that students are
on track for graduation but we don’t see that being consistently met throughout the district. The
challenge is having an effective system site by site. Counselors need to know their students and
what they need to remediate. We need to hold our staff accountable. If the kids aren’t doing their
part, that’s on them. But if we aren’t giving them the chance and making the opportunity
available for them, then we have to hold our adults accountable.” These responses suggest that
inconsistent promotion can contribute to lower enrollment of low SES students in online
offerings.
Students, however, were considered the most influential by Districts 3, 6, and 7 as
summarized by the coordinator at District 6, “All courses are in the catalog, we have a brochure
in the counselors’ office at all campuses, we send out announcements, we have a dedicated web
page. But word of mouth between students is the biggest one.”
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 83
Regarding eligibility for taking online courses, all district representatives said there were
no barriers for students to enroll as stated by the Director of District 1. “We don’t have any
qualifications or pre-requisites other than what is required for the course. This program is open
access to everyone.” The online teacher at District 1 further described online learning as an
“equalizer” among all students. He explained that the enrichment courses are offered at 0 or 1
st
period but students are not required to be physically there and are presumed to be completing the
coursework at home. “A lot of my students are from low socio-economic backgrounds and they
have other responsibilities. I had a student that had to drop his younger siblings off at their
schools. He would get here late and in a traditional class, he would get in trouble for being tardy.
For this class, I’m not taking roll and he comes in, gets his computer and starts working. He is
able to meet his everyday family demands and fill his A-G requirements.” One caveat was
presented by the principal at the continuation school in District 5. “The online learning courses
are offered to all our students here. We have had a few instances where the student was reading
significantly below level and we didn’t feel the student could complete the course which required
reading at grade level.” Also, the Coordinator at District 6 pointed out that the enrichment
program does not have pre-requisites but “we do explain to students that they need to be a self-
motivated learner.”
While the districts promote online options across the district and no barriers to enrolling
exists, implementation varies based on the philosophies and daily practices of the staff. The
examples of a principal not believing in students’ online capabilities or guidance counselors not
recommending enrichment programs at a Title I school or not enrolling students in a credit
recovery course are weaknesses in the system and could be an indicator of limiting access to
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 84
Computer/internet Access
Computer and internet usage are required to access an online course and lack of
technology can be a limiting factor for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Setzer
and Lewis (2005) reported that 42% of districts with poverty concentrations over 20% offered
online programs in the 2004-2005 school year and about one fourth of these districts provided a
computer and supported an internet service for online students. Roblyer et. al. (2008) identified
access to technology as a critical driver in student success online as students needed access to
computers if they did not have them at home. In this study, the researcher inquired on how
districts ensured students had both access to computers and the requisite technology skills.
In all seven interviews, respondents did not deem computer or internet access an issue.
Districts 2, 3, 6, and 7 reported official device check out programs where students can obtain a
computer and/or a hot spot for home use, four respondents mentioned internet-ready computers
are available in the campus library and five respondents referred to laptops or desktop computers
available for use in class. Those that provided computer and internet access on campus but did
not have a check out program, did not believe that lack of access at home was an issue for
students to complete online courses.
For District 2, the school board approved a policy to loan laptops and hot spots to any
student but they have found limited use of the policy. “We have a high percent of students that
are low SES, but we have seen that most don’t need a laptop or hot spot from us. The district
made significant expenditures for Chromebooks at all campuses and the alternative education
and continuation programs have laptops, desktops, and Chromebooks available for all students in
all classes,” explained the Assistant Superintendent. “We are at 1:1 devices throughout the
district. It doesn’t mean that a device is checked out to a student, but students have access in
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 85
classes. For alternative education and the continuation program where online learning is the
prime method of instruction, students need a computer.” Similarly, the Director at District 3
reported that a student can check out a computer or hot spot if they need it, but they have few
requests and students use the computers in class. District 6 has a device check out program. Each
school was allocated 10 Chromebooks or HP Strings but the district is prepared to provide more
if needed and they are experiencing greater demand. Hot spots are provided through a grant from
a mobile service provider and students can keep the hot spot after graduation. The district
coordinator said, “We don’t want to turn away any student for not having a computer or internet.
We say on the website that computer and internet access are required, but we try our best to
provide it if they need it. We need to do a better job communicating this, particularly to Title 1
students.” The Principal at District 7 commented that all high school students in the district are
provided a Windows-based laptop. “Some have their own and choose to use it, but we offer this
to every student. We are working on having wi-fi throughout campuses also. Kids are doing a lot
of work online, even if not in our program.”
In contrast, District 1 does not have a formal check out program, but teachers of the
virtual courses open their classes at 7:00am and students can use a Chromebook or they can use
computers at the campus library until 4:00pm after school. The district representatives cited,
“Even the most socio-economically disadvantaged students find that they have enough time and
access is adequate. Their success rate in these classes is high, regardless of access at home.”
Also, while District 4 does not have a formal computer loan program, the director stated “I am
not aware of any student that we have signed up for an online course that has had that issue.
When students enroll, we find out where they can access and we have been able to meet every
student’s need. In fact, computer labs are open beyond the published course time.” The principal
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 86
at District 5 had a similar response as students are directed to access computers after school and
reminded that the library is nearby.
Overall, computer and internet access was not viewed as an obstacle for taking and
completing courses. All districts had a formal computer loan program or respondents felt
students had adequate access in class or at the campus library. Their responses suggest that
technology access is being granted throughout campuses and is not a barrier for any student to
access an online course.
Table 4: Computer and Internet Access
District Check
out
Computer
Lab /
Library
In
Class
1
X X
2
X X X
3
X
X
4
X
5
X X
6
X X
7
X
X=District Offering
Student Technology Skills
In order for students to be successful in online courses, Roblyer et al. (2008) identified
that students needed to have competent technology skills. Sun et al. (2008) found students that
had anxiety towards their computer skills led to lower task performance and Zhang and Goel
(2011) pointed out that students with poor online skills were able to master them and become
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 87
satisfied with their online learning experience in their first exposure. Based on this consideration,
the next area of access considered was surveying districts about ensuring student technology
skills. Similar to hardware and internet access, respondents felt processes were in place to help
students and did not feel this was a barrier. They acknowledged a learning curve for online
courses and moreover, identified helping students develop technology skills throughout the
districts were viewed as a vital competency for career and college readiness.
The Director at District 3 pointed out that first time users may struggle a little. “This is
not an acceptable reason for a student not to do well. We monitor first time users closely and if
there isn’t improvement, we have them come in and work here.” The Assistant Superintendent at
District 2 pointed out that helping students develop technology skills is a district-wide focus.
“College and career readiness is one of our main goals. Technology is one of the skills we want
all student to achieve and we are trying to infuse into all classes because we feel they are
representative of what students need to be successful outside of high school. We don’t want
students to need to wait to take an online class to develop these skills. Online classes should be
an opportunity for our students to build on these skills.” Similarly, the director at District 4 felt
that technology is weaved into the curriculum at the district’s elementary and middle schools.
“Students coming to our high schools from our K-8 schools have had interaction with
technology. This is not an issue.” In contrast, the district is looking at requiring one online course
before students graduate. “Our graduates are coming back and telling us they are experiencing
online requirements at universities. Students do everything online. They upload and download
assignments, get resources, check grades. All online. So, the fact of the matter is, students going
into post-secondary education need online skills.” The Director at District 1 similarly pointed out
the need for high school students to develop online capacity for college preparedness. “Every
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 88
course in college has this component. We are doing a disservice if we don’t introduce our
students to online learning management systems.”
Overall, districts are taking steps to ensure access by promoting the courses, having a
plan for access to computers and the internet, and ensuring students have the requisite
technology skills when they start an online course. However, incidences of disparities in
adoption throughout the district became evident in two districts. In both cases, research
respondents attributed the inconsistency to principals or guidance counselors not embracing
virtual education as a viable option for their students. Being cognizant of the inconsistency, both
viewed the responsibility at the district level to improve training and marketing of the virtual
programs for uniform implementation. Respondents, however, did not deem computer or internet
access an issue. All districts had a formal loan program or identified device and internet access in
classrooms and school libraries as adequate. Moreover, respondents felt students had requisite
technical skills or developed them in the course. They also identified technical skills and online
course experience as critical for transitioning to higher education settings. The next section will
review how district’s ensure student success in terms of student support and learning
management system structure.
Student Participation and Outcomes
Simonson et al. (1999) premised the Equivalency Theory suggesting that if the learning
experience for virtual students was equivalent to that of face-to-face learners, the educational
outcomes would be equivalent. While numerous studies evaluated in the literature review
demonstrated that academic outcomes were considered equivalent at a minimum, distinct
differences in virtual versus a traditional delivery require consideration to ensure an equivalent
learning experience. The International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL)
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 89
developed and disseminated standards to ensure an equivalent learning experience in 2003
(Watson et al., 2004). An equivalent learning experience was reviewed based on curriculum and
actions taken to ensure student success including online factors and teacher involvement.
Curriculum and Navigation
Virtual school advocates identified online learning as a vehicle to provide equitable
access to all students for high-quality courses from remedial levels to Advanced Placement
courses (Berge & Clark, 2005). Among the seven districts in this study, all seven districts offer
credit recovery; five districts offer general education/elective courses and courses that meet the
UC/CSU A-G requirements online; and four districts offer Honors and AP courses online.
Table 5: Type of Courses Offered
Honors/AP A-G GenEd
Credit
Recovery
District 1 X X X X
District 2 X X X X
District 3 X X X X
District 4
X
District 5
X
District 6
X X X
District 7 X X X X
X=District Offering
All seven districts rely on outside vendors to provide the curriculum for all programs with
the exception of the enrichment programs at District 1 and 6. According to respondents in
District 1, 4 and 7, the purchased curriculum is preferred because they are designed to meet the
standards developed by iNACOL and courses are UC/CSU approved. In addition, all the courses
are set up the same way. Once students learn course navigation in one class, they will find
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 90
consistency in all of their classes. The embedded curriculum allows teachers to assign due dates
and can lock assessments which can be unlocked when the student is ready to take it in person.
The outside vendors named were APEX, Edgenuity, and Edmentum. District 7 was the only
district to use the UC Scout program.
For the enrichment programs, teachers develop the curriculum for the District 1 program.
At District 6, teachers use the board approved curriculum and texts and transfer the content to an
online platform. In both, the district participants have developed norms so navigation is the same
for all the courses and online teachers collaborate to ensure norms are maintained. At District 1,
the courses all have similar components and schedule and the teachers meet quarterly for
collaboration and to review student progress. Assignments for the week are opened at midnight
on Sunday night and all the work is due the following Sunday at midnight. Students are expected
to log in daily and are required to attend a synchronous session for a weekly one-hour meeting
and submit a weekly reflection journal.
Roblyer (2006) identified the importance of monitoring students during assessments to
ensure student success. Without exception, districts require students to complete assessments
during in person sessions. All seven respondents referred to this requirement as essential to
ensure academic integrity and a step to ensure adequate student progress. While the tests are
taken on the computer, the proctored environment ensures the test result is a measurement of the
student’s level of achievement.
With each district using outside vendors that meet iNACOL standards, they are taking
critical steps to ensure a quality learning experience in an online environment. Furthermore, by
adapting uniform navigation, students can transition to online courses and find consistent
approaches in subsequent courses.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 91
Ensuring Student Success
Kerr et al. (2006) identified four skills that students needed to be successful in online
programs: reading and writing skills, independent learning, motivation and computer literacy.
Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2009) demonstrated teachers play a critical role in
motivating students in the online environment and students need flexibility in pacing. Roblyer
(2008) identified student engagement in the first two weeks as critical for student success and the
need for an orientation and support through the initial learning curve. Sun et al. (2008) unveiled
course quality and the availability of technical support as significant factors in course satisfaction
and success.
Online Factors
Computer literacy and reading and writing skills have already been addressed; only one
situation was unveiled of a continuation student not having requisite reading and writing skills to
take an online course. District respondents addressed independent learning and motivation
primarily by recognizing that not all students have developed adequate self-regulation skills and
therefore expect teachers to support students in this area.
Students have been successful in online options because of the flexibility (Rice, 2009,
and Tucker, 2007), a safe environment (Berge & Clark, 2005) and reduced distractions (Fulton,
2002). Fulton (2002) pointed out that students that have not been successful in traditional
environments due to behavior issues can be successful in online courses without the distractions
in a brick-and-mortar setting. Rumberger (2001) suggested that alternative programs that appear
to help at risk students stay in school offer a non-threatening environment; a supportive,
dedicated staff; a school culture that encourages self-governance, and a small site. Three of the
districts in this study identified that students in the virtual program perform better than in a
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 92
traditional setting. District 1 participants identified English Learners as beneficiaries of the
virtual approach. “We give them a safe space to articulate their thoughts and they write it down
versus a traditional classroom where the teacher calls on them and they feel reserved speaking
out.” At District 2, the pacing flexibility was a driving force. “While online courses allow
students to go at an accelerated pace, they also help students who need more time. Kids can
progress slower if they need to. Kids can go back through lessons. They can replay or retake
lessons. There’s a benefit to going slower too.” The Director at District 3 noted reduced
distractions for students. “They realize the computer doesn’t care what you have to say. It
doesn’t talk back to you. They just do the work. Once they get going, they know they can do it.
And they can really fly.” The District 4 Director also identified the schedule flexibility as a
driving force to help student succeed. “We found some student are better in this environment.
We have students that are online at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. They are more in charge of their
learning.” These comments mirror benefits of online programs that advocates have suggested.
Rice (2009) pointed out that flexibility in online courses allows students to take control of their
own learning and Tucker (2007) referred to the benefit of helping students find a progress rate
manageable for their own needs. Based on these comments, it appears that the schedule
flexibility and opportunity to take responsibility for their own learning in a non-judgmental
environment contribute to student success in a virtual setting and can enable students to triumph
academically outside of a traditional class.
While students may be more prone to succeed in a virtual setting, three of the district
respondents (District 3, 4, and 7) expressed specific steps taken to determine student readiness
for online courses and ensure success. In District 3, students and parents are required to meet
with the Guidance Counselor to determine if an online program is a good option. Similarly,
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 93
students meet with the Principal or counselor prior to being accepted into the virtual school in
District 7. “We want them to understand the curriculum and requirements to stay in good
standing and make sure this is a good fit.” For District 4, the Director stated, “In every situation
of enrolling a student into an online course, there’s a conversation among the adults that are
working with that student as to whether or not this is a good match or not and it is primarily
determined by the counselor and teacher.”
Orientation
Roblyer (2006) identified orientations particularly to ensure equitable access among all
students. Hawkins et. al. (2013) unveiled that teacher interaction with students, especially at the
beginning of the course, contributed to successful course completion. The practice of an
orientation and teacher follow up in the initial weeks has been implemented in all of the districts
but vary based on the applicable program. Since the programs are primarily blended, orientation
is held in person at the first sessions for the most part. In District 1, students in the credit
recovery courses are required to complete an orientation prior to the start of the course. The first
week of the e-learning program is not in person so the curriculum focuses on teaching students
how to navigate. District 2 requires a one day orientation for first time online users and an
overview for returning students. “There’s a strong learning curve in taking an online course and
if a student doesn’t get through it, they aren’t going to have a good experience with it and are
much less likely to finish the course. At the alternative ed program, all their classes will be
online and they have the time and ability to manage it and they have the teachers who are
experts. At the comprehensive schools where students are taking just one class for enrichment or
remediation, they are less motivated to learn the navigation and be successful.” At District 3, an
in person orientation is required prior to the start of the course where time management,
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 94
expectations, course navigation, academic integrity and timelines are reviewed. District 4
teachers start the credit recovery courses with an orientation and cover expectations during
required seat time. “It’s classroom management. Same thing as what teachers do with a
traditional classroom on the first day of school about what’s acceptable and what is not, but
applied to the online environment.” For the enrichment program at District 6 which does not
have an in person component, an optional in person orientation and parent informational session
is held over the summer. Also, students are required to attend an in person session once the
course begins to provide an opportunity to meet the teacher. Similar to the virtual enrichment
program at District 1, teachers dedicate the first week to introduce online skills. “They include
how to take a screenshot and how to upload an assignment. They go through the online course
and their availability.” At District 7, teachers orient students individually at their first meeting.
“They make sure they can log in and walk them through the course.” The implementation of an
orientation program at each district validates this essential step to ensure all students can be
successful in the online platform. The orientations include ensuring students know how to log in;
understand how to complete lessons, download study materials, and upload assignments; and
know timelines, deadlines and teacher availability, and overall expectations.
Teacher Involvement
With an online curriculum, the role of the teacher is primarily as motivator and problem
solver. All seven district respondents identified the teacher as the first point of contact for
technical issues and the district tech department or the curriculum provider could help as a back
up for complex issues. Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2009) detailed the role teachers play
in motivating students in an online environment. This belief was supported by the teacher
engagement practices in all seven districts in this study as stated by the Assistant Superintendent
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 95
of District 2, “When teachers aren’t monitoring, aren’t encouraging, aren’t supporting and aren’t
keeping students accountable, kids don’t progress. It is very evident to see percent completed and
the grade as best indicator of student progress. When teachers follow up on that, we have some
pretty good success.” Teachers in District 4 and 5 use required seat time for teachers to check
student progress based on a course pacing plan. Districts 1, 6 and 7 specifically cited the
‘remind’ app that allows students to send notices to students via cellphone without releasing
personal contact information. Districts 2, 3, and 7 rely on email including the messaging system
embedded in the online curriculum or the district email system. In District 6, teachers reach out if
a student doesn’t log in for a couple of days. Moreover, District 4 requires teachers maintain a
log of student interaction. Respondents in Districts 3, 4, and 5 felt that teachers need to monitor
student progress as a means to ensure academic integrity in addition to student engagement.
“Students know all the tricks,” pointed out the Director at District 3. Students participate in
weekly discussion boards in the District 1 enrichment program and need to have time to respond
to peers. Teachers routinely send a mid-week reminder to ensure initial posts are completed so
all students can complete the assignment on a timely basis. The coordinator at District 6
summarized the outreach, “Teachers are expected to post announcements via the remind app on a
daily basis, but at least 3-4 times a week. When students feel the teacher’s presence, they are
more likely to be active in the course.” The Principal in District 7 felt that the outreach was a
criteria in determining student online success. “Some students just aren’t going to stay on top of
things naturally, so the follow up is a big part of the teacher’s job. With great people working
with and encouraging our students, this is a good fit and kids like it better than their brick and
mortar school. If we are doing everything we can and the student isn’t producing, we need to
help him move on.”
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 96
Teacher Qualifications
“Teachers are facilitators of learning,” summarized the Director of District 3 regarding
the overall role of the teacher in online programs. All seven districts employ credentialed
teachers for the online programs and the teachers emerge from the brick and mortar facilities;
District 7 was the only district to hire specifically for online positions. The other six cited that
teachers become involved with the online program primarily through the credit recovery program
and the interest to teach after-school or during the summer; teachers express interest for the
enrichment programs at Districts 1 and 6. They all report to the campus principal, with the
exception of the teachers for the District 1 enrichment program who report to the district director.
The teachers of the enrichment program at District 6 report to their campus principal but are in
close communication with the District program coordinator and complete checklists to ensure
standards are maintained.
The respondents identified specific characteristics needed for a teacher to be effective in
an online role with particular consideration to being flexible. The Assistant Superintendent at
District 2 summarized the qualifications, “Some of the attributes for being a good classroom
teacher transfers over to being a good online teacher, but there’s some specific attributes that
exist for an effective online teacher that may not be applicable for a classroom teacher. Besides
being comfortable with the technology, you need a teacher that can work with students on an
individual basis, not just a batch of 35.” The Director of District 3 pointed out the need for
teachers to be flexible. “If a teacher says, ‘no, it is going to be this way,’ they are not a good fit.
You’re dealing with technology, an innovative program, distance, student mentality. Being an
online teacher is an art.”
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 97
One of the ways teachers function differently than a traditional brick and mortar teacher
is in the area of responsiveness. With the digital modes of communicating between teacher and
student, the school day extends outside of normal school hours. The District 1 online teacher felt
he interacted as much if not more with virtual students than brick and mortar students. “I respond
right away. Throughout the day and night. You don’t see this kind of response in a traditional
setting.” The Assistant Superintendent at District 2 reinforced this concept stating, “Our teachers
have iPads and they can do a lot with that. They can work at night, weekends, and holidays.
Some tell students specific times when they are available; some are much more accommodating
than we expect them to be.” Similarly, the Director at District 3 pointed out, “I know some of my
teachers step away at dinner and respond. They want to be there for their students.”
All of the districts rely on the outside curriculum provider to train the online teachers. For
the enrichment programs at District 1 and 6 that develop their own curriculum, District 1
teachers work together and a new teacher is paired with a veteran; the District Coordinator trains
the teachers in District 6. All teachers in District 7 complete Google educator training as part of
the overall technology-driven culture and helps to create a supportive environment for blended
learning, according to the virtual school’s principal.
Respondents indicated the structure for online courses with quality curriculum,
orientations, and teacher involvement motivating students and monitoring their progress
contribute to offering learning experiences equivalent to a brick and mortar environment and
designed to provide equal participation to all students. Moreover, districts cited online learning
as an environment where some students were successful online when they were not so in a
traditional setting.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 98
Summary
The US Department of Education (2010) reported that virtual courses allowed districts to
broaden course offerings with 62% of districts offering credit recovery, 47% offering courses
that fill high school and college credit requirements, 29% offering AP courses, and 27% offering
trade or vocational courses. In comparison, of the seven districts in this study, all seven districts
relied on online courses as the main vehicle for credit recovery and three districts used online
courses in their continuation programs as well. Credit recovery was offered at 0 or 7
th
period,
some during the school day and over the summer in two districts. The credit recovery courses
were primarily blended options as students had to be in a classroom and complete assessments in
person. Three districts offer online courses to fill graduation requirements through supplemental
enrichment programs of which two of these programs include AP courses. Three districts rely on
online courses to offer independent study to students seeking flexibility towards graduation. All
three of these programs require the student meet with the teacher in person 1-2 times each week
to monitor progress. Three districts have re-purposed a campus for a virtual school to offer
flexibility to college-bound students. Students in the virtual school have weekly check-in times,
complete assessments in person, and have access to computer labs designed to have a casual feel.
Enrollment in the virtual schools includes options of taking 1-2 courses at one of the high school
campuses to offer opportunities for socialization, ensure the student can fill in-person science lab
A-G requirements, and benefit from participation in extra-curricular activities. All online
offerings use curriculum provided by outside vendors with the exception of two of the
enrichment programs.
Watson et al. (2014) concluded that digital options have expanded, but wide gaps remain
based on access to technology, content, tools and limitations in policies. All of the district
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 99
respondents states that the course prerequisites, where applicable, were the only requirements for
registering for an online course. Guidance counselors were identified in all seven districts as the
primary referring party for online courses. Three of the districts require an in person meeting
prior to registration in the independent study or virtual school in order to understand the
requirements and determine if it is an appropriate placement. In addition, programs are promoted
on websites and two districts had printed brochures, but word of mouth from teachers or students
were considered influential. The respondents at two of the districts that offer the enrichment
courses pointed out that they were aware that the program was not promoted equally across
campuses throughout their districts. All seven district respondents felt that access to computers
and the internet was not an issue due to the districts check out program or availability of devices
in classrooms or the school library. Four of the districts provide devices or have a check out
program; four have computer labs or campus libraries; five have devices available in classrooms.
Overall, computer and internet access were not deemed an obstacle in completing online courses.
Similarly, regarding student technology skills, respondents did not feel that students
lacked the technology skills to be successful in online classes. While they acknowledged a
learning curve, all respondents felt students had or developed the technology and navigational
skills to be successful in online classes. Moreover, four districts cited online learning as an
environment where some students could be more successful than in a traditional setting and four
district participants viewed experience in an online setting as a college readiness skill.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 100
Research Question #2: What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in
online courses and socioeconomic group?
Consideration of participation and outcomes in addressing the Education Equity Theory
(Brookeover & Lezotte, 1981) was based on analyzing actual enrollment and results of online
learning courses by low SES and not low SES students. As of the 2013-2014 school year, the US
Department of Education estimated that 75% of districts were using online learning for a virtual
or hybrid course option of which about 5% of the total student population was participating in
this approach (Watson et. al., 2013) and the California Department of Education estimated about
1% of students in public schools were taking an online course (Watson et. al., 2014). Moreover,
62% of districts offered a credit recovery program online while 47% and 29% offered college
and high school credit required courses and AP courses, respectively.
To determine the relationship between socioeconomic status and students taking online
courses, total course enrollment, course type defined by enrichment vs. credit recovery, and
course grade were reviewed.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 101
Table 6: Student Enrollment in Online Courses
Title I Not Title I Total
# % # % # %
District 1 Enrichment 460 3.06 264 4.86 724 3.54
Cr Recovery 585 3.89 298 5.49 883 4.32
Total 1045 6.95 562 10.35 1607 7.86
District 2 Enrichment
Cr Recovery
Total 1921 12.94 670 7.52 2591 10.91
District 3 Enrichment 65 1.5 113 2.14 178 1.85
Cr Recovery 27 0.62 33 0.62 60 0.62
Total 92 2.12 146 2.76 238 2.47
District 4 Enrichment
Cr Recovery 330 6.24 165 6.29 495 6.26
Total 330 6.24 165 6.29 495 6.26
District 5 Enrichment
Cr Recovery
Total 0 0 0
District 6 Enrichment 11 0.27 497 10.43 508 5.77
Cr Recovery 128 3.17 455 9.55 583 6.63
Total 139 3.44 952 19.98 1091 12.4
District 7 Enrichment 20 0.6 80 1.7 100 1.25
Cr Recovery 423 12.6 227 4.88 650 8.12
Total 443 13.2 307 6.58 750 9.37
Total Enrichment 556 1.7 954 4.2 1510 6.4
5 Districts Cr Recovery 1493 4.7 1178 5.2 2671 9.4
Total 2049 6.4 2132 9.4 4181 7.6
Total
3970 8.5 2802 8.8 6772 8.6
6 Districts
Total Enrollment
Of the seven districts, six districts provided data of their online course enrollment and
total enrollment was based on the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
(CALPADS, 2018) data representing a total of 78,568 high school students of which 59.7% were
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 102
identified as coming from a low SES household. District 5 did not provide data and is excluded
from this analysis. Among the six districts, 6,772 high school students took an online course,
representing 8.6% of the student enrollment with district participation ranging from 2.5% to
12.5%. Of the 6,772 students that took an online course, 3,970 were from a low SES household.
This represented 8.5% of students from a low SES household with participation ranging from
2.1% to 13.1%. In contrast, 2,802 students that took an online class were not from a low SES
household or 8.8% of students from this demographic group. This ranged from 2.8% to 19.8%.
This is consistent with acknowledgement by District 6 of low participation of their virtual
program at their Title I school. A chi square test for independence (with Yates Continuity
Correction) indicated no significant association between Socioeconomic Status and taking an
online course, x
2
(1,n=78,568) = 2.9, p=.088. phi = -.006 (Appendix C, Table 1).
Course Type
Data was analyzed to determine if a difference exists among Title I and non-Title I
students taking online courses based on type of course taken. District 2 had the largest, most
comprehensive program of the seven districts with 2,591 or 10.9% of students taking an online
course and represented 38% of students taking an online course in this study. District 2 could not
provide data based on type of course between credit recovery and all other courses as they had
no tracking system for this delineation. As a result, District 2 is excluded from this segment of
the analysis.
Among the five districts (District 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7) reporting by type of course taken,
4,189 students completed an online course, representing 7.6% of high school student enrollment.
Of those taking an online course, 2,049 or 6.4% of students were identified as part of a low SES
household while 2,132 students or 9.4% of students were not from a low SES household. A chi
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 103
square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated a significant
association between Socioeconomic Status and taking an online course, x
2
(1, n=54,809) = 162,
p<.001, phi = -.054 (Appendix C, Table 2).
Similar results are found when analyzing both course participation in Credit Recovery
and enrichment courses. Further analyzing the data to determine if there is a significant
difference between Title I and non-Title I students taking a credit recovery course among the five
districts, 2,671, or 4.9%, students completed a credit recovery course online of which 1,493 were
from a low SES household and 1,178 students were not from a low SES household or 4.7% and
5.2%, respectively. A chi square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction)
indicated a significant association between Socioeconomic Status and taking an online course, x
2
(1, n=54,809) = 7.5, p=.006, phi = -.012 (Appendix C, Table 3).
When reviewing participation in enrichment courses, 1,510 students completed a course
online. In this group, 556 students were from a low SES background representing 1.7% of low
SES students, while 954 students were not from a low SES background representing 4.4% of this
demographic. A chi square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated a
significant association between Socioeconomic Status and taking an online course, x
2
(1,
n=54,809) = 299, p<.001, phi = -.074 (Appendix C, Table 4).
The effect size was also reviewed as part of the chi square test for independence analysis.
This is important because with large sample sizes, small differences between groups can become
statistically significant (Pallant, 2016). The effect size was analyzed using Cramer’s V which
ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate a stronger association (Pallant, 2016). In all the tests
for significance, the low numbers indicate a small, if not negligible, association of SES on online
course engagement.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 104
Table 7: Course Type
Enrich-
ment
Course
Credit
Recovery
Total
District 1 Title 1 460 585 1045
Not Title 1 264 298 562
Total 724 883 1607
District 2 Title 1
Not Title 1
Total
District 3 Title 1 65 27 92
Not Title 1 113 33 146
Total 178 60 238
District 4 Title 1
330 330
Not Title 1
165 165
Total
495 495
District 5 Title 1
Not Title 1
Total
District 6 Title 1 11 128 139
Not Title 1 497 455 952
Total 508 583 1091
District 7 Title 1 20 423 443
Not Title 1 80 227 307
Total 100 650 750
Total Title 1 556 1493 2049
Not Title 1 954 1178 2132
Total 1510 2671 4181
Total % Title 1 1.7% 4.7% 6.4%
Not Title 1 4.2% 5.2% 9.4%
Total 2.8% 4.9% 7.6%
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 105
Course Grade
To determine if a difference exists between students of the Socioeconomic Status
grouping, grades were also reviewed. Data from all six districts were provided for this analysis.
While they were not able to provide a delineation of type of course, District 2 provided data by
grades and represented 15,316 or 80.6% of the courses completed. District 7 could not provide
data separated by letter grade, but summed the data in an A-C college eligible grade category. As
a result, grades were grouped as College Eligible with grades of A-C, earned credits with a grade
of D, failed grades (F) or dropped classes. A total of 18,997 courses were taken of which 14,189
courses were taken by Title I students and 4,808 were taken by not Title I students.
In total, 12,920 or 68% of students taking an online course earned a college-eligible grade
of A, B, or C. Among Title I students and non-Title I students taking an online course, 9,534
(67.2%) and 3386 (70.4%) of students from a low SES household and non-low SES household,
respectively, obtained a college-eligible grade of A, B, or C. A chi square test for independence
(with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated a significant association between Socioeconomic
Status and earning a college eligible grade of A, B, or C, x
2
(1, n=18,997) = 17.088, p<.001, phi
= -.030 (Appendix C, Table 5).
Regarding students passing an online class and earning credits to contribute to
graduation, 11.5% of students taking an online course earned a D. This was virtually the same
for both Title I and not Title I students with 11.6% and 11.5%, respectively. A chi square test for
independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated no significant association between
Socioeconomic Status and earning a D grade for credits, x
2
(1, n=18,997) = .021, p=.885, phi =
.001 (Appendix C, Table 6).
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 106
Of all the online courses taken and grades reported, 5.1% of online courses were failed.
5.2% of Title I students and 4.6% of not-Title I students failed their courses. Nearly 3,000
courses were dropped which represented 15.4% of online courses. 16.0% of Title I students and
13.5% of non-Title I students dropped their online course. The combination of students that
didn’t earn credit due to either failing or dropping the course is 20.5%. Comparatively, 21.3%
and 18.1% of Low SES and Non-Low SES students, respectively, did not earn credits. A chi
square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated a significant
association between Socioeconomic Status and not earning credits, x
2
(1, n=18,997) = 21.567,
p<.001, phi = .034 (Appendix C, Table 7).
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 107
Table 8: Course Grades
A-C D F
Dropped Total
District 1 Title 1 467 27 63 2 559
Not Title 1 230 14 18 0 262
Total 697 41 81 2 821
District 2 Title 1 8212 1464 636 2216 12528
Not Title 1 1949 233 122 484 2788
Total 10161 1697 758 2700 15316
District 3 Title 1 52 7 4 0 63
Not Title 1 95 12 6 0 113
Total 147 19 10 0 176
District 4 Title 1 343 27 33 20 423
Not Title 1 190 9 16 4 219
Total 533 36 49 24 642
District 5 Title 1
Not Title 1
Total
District 6 Title 1 110 29 0 38 177
Not Title 1 632 265 55 161 1113
Total 742 294 55 199 1290
District 7 Title 1 350 85 3 1 439
Not Title 1 290 18 4 1 313
Total 640 103 7 2 752
Total Title 1 9534 1639 739 2277 14189
Not Title 1 3386 551 221 650 4808
Total 12920 2190 960 2927 18997
Total % Title 1 67.2% 11.6% 5.2% 16.0% 100.0%
Not Title 1 70.4% 11.5% 4.6% 13.5% 100.0%
Total 68.0% 11.5% 5.1% 15.4% 100.0%
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 108
Overall, approximately 8.6% of students completed an online course among the six
districts that provided data of which 8.5% of students were from a low SES background and
8.8% were not from a low SES background. No statistical significance was identified in total
student enrollment. In the analysis by course rigor among five districts, 7.6% of students
completed an online course of which 6.4% and 9.4% were from a low SES and not-low SES
household, respectively. Similarly, 4.7% and 5.2% of students from a low SES and not-low SES
household, respectively, took Credit Recovery classes; 1.7% and 4.4% of students from low SES
and not-low SES households, respectively, completed an online enrichment course. The
comparisons by course rigor all exhibited a statistically significant association between the SES
groups as more students from not-low SES households participated in online courses. However,
the effect of SES on course enrollment was considered negligible.
Regarding a comparison of grades earned, 68% of high school students earned college-
eligible grades of A, B, or C in their online courses. 67.2% and 70.4% of students from a
socioeconomic disadvantaged and advantaged household, respectively, received college-eligible
grades. Also, 20.5% of students either failed or dropped the online course. 21.3% and 18.1% of
socioeconomic disadvantaged and advantaged students did not earn credits. This demonstrates
that a higher percent of students from socioeconomic advantaged households were successful in
online courses. While a statistically significant association exists, the effect of socioeconomic
status on course outcomes is small, if not negligible. In summary, under 10% of high school
students are enrolling in an online course and a higher percent of students from socioeconomic
advantaged households are enrolling, completing and benefiting from online courses than those
from socioeconomic disadvantaged households.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 109
Research Question #3: What is the relationship between socioeconomic status, online
course enrollment and graduation?
Both Berge & Clark (2005) and Tucker (2007) pointed to online learning as a vehicle for
education reform to help students fulfill graduation requirements and earn a high school diploma,
if not also prepare for college. With enrollment in 1,493 and 1,178 credit recovery courses
completed online by low SES and not-low SES students, respectively, in the five reporting
districts, evidence exists that online courses are contributing to graduation rates. Districts 1, 2, 3,
4, and 6 provided data on seniors taking online courses in Spring Semester. 1,883 seniors or
10.4% were enrolled in an online course; 10.2% and 10.6% were from a socioeconomic
disadvantaged and advantaged household, respectively. A chi square test for independence (with
Yates Continuity Correction) indicated no significant association between graduates from a low
socioeconomic disadvantaged household with those who aren’t from such household and took an
online course, x
2
(1, n=18,147) = .54, p=.46, phi = -.006 (Appendix C, Table 8). This finding
suggests that no statistically significant association exists between Socioeconomic Status and
seniors completing online courses.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 110
Table 9: Seniors Enrolled in Online Courses
Low Not Low
SES SES Total
District 1 272 157 429
District 2 767 268 1035
District 3 62 137 199
District 4 14 7 21
District 5
District 6 6 193 199
District 7
Total 1121 762 1883
10.2% 10.6% 10.4%
Research Question #4: How do schools evaluate the success rate of students taking online
courses?
Graduation rates, enrollment, pass rates, and percent College and Career Ready were the
four metrics reviewed by districts to evaluate the success of their online program. Consistent
with the uniform use of online courses for credit recovery, the overriding goal of the online
programs are to help improve graduation rates. Considering this, participants in the study
evaluate their online programs based on the number of students that enroll in the online courses
and the pass rate as this contributes to the students earning the required credits for a diploma.
Two respondents provided estimates of enrollment: District 2 calculated 25% of current students
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 111
had taken or were currently enrolled in an online course; District 6 estimated 6% of high school
students participated in an online option. Respondents see 80-95% of students pass their credit
recovery class, which is viewed as contributing to meeting graduation requirements. Districts 3,
5 and 7 identified the district’s graduation rate in particular as an evaluation metric. In addition,
Districts 2, 4, and 7 identified the online programs not just as vehicles to boost graduation rates
but also to prepare students for college readiness and look at the percent of students that meet A-
G requirements as a metric.
Table10: Metrics
# of Students
Taking
Courses
Pass Rates % CCR Grad Rate
District 1 X X
District 2 X X X
District 3 X X
X
District 4 X X X
District 5 X X
X
District 6 X X
District 7 X X X X
X = District looks at this metric to evaluate their online program
While districts evaluated the results based on goals and metrics, the director at District 1
pointed out a budgetary guideline. “Our goal is to make sure students are on track for graduation.
We plan for each school to require three teachers to be teaching credit recovery full-time. If this
enrollment goal isn’t met, we need to look at why and implement best practices to improve. If
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 112
the kids aren’t doing their part, that’s on them. If we aren’t giving them the chance and making
the opportunity available for them, that’s on us. We need to hold our adults accountable.”
With the overriding goal of improving graduation rates, three district participants
articulated specific results. The director at District 3 pointed out their graduation rate had
increased 2.5 points over the past couple of years including increases among students identified
as socioeconomically disadvantaged, English Learners and students with disabilities.
Table 11: Program Goals
Help Grad
Rate
College /
Credit
Readiness
Course
Breadth
Schedule
Flexibility
Freshmen
Credit
Sufficiency
Financial
District 1 X X X
X
District 2 X X
X X
District 3 X X
District 4 X X
District 5 X
District 6 X X X
District 7 X X X
X = District views online program for this purpose
District 2 identified Career and College Readiness and pass rates among freshmen as
district-wide initiatives. “Freshmen not passing 3 or more classes have a 50% chance of not
graduating,” pointed out the District’s Assistant Superintendent of Alternative Education. “If we
can lower that number, we can lower our dropout rate and provide opportunities for these
students to escape a life of poverty.” The district’s comprehensive online program is a
component of the district’s efforts to help freshmen. While the district has reduced the number of
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 113
freshmen that are not passing three or more classes, they haven’t seen the related result in
improved graduation rate yet.
District 1 and 6 both identified the goal of the enrichment programs as offering students
an opportunity they wouldn’t have and preparing students for college. They both look at
enrollment in the courses as an evaluation metric and expect all of the enrichment courses to be
full. “We are teaching students to be responsible self-learners and self-advocates who will be
ready for college” stated the District 1 online teacher. District administration is supportive of the
enrichment program enrollment level, but acknowledge the program’s success is based on where
the faculty has promoted it and seek consistency throughout the district. The program
coordinator at District 6 pointed out “This is good experience for college. The trend in
universities is for students to take an online course. Even students at community colleges take an
online course. This helps them prepare.” The District 6 coordinator acknowledged that district
personnel were cognizant that the enrichment program was not being utilized by students from
their Title 1 school as the other district high schools and identified this as a need to improve.
“We aim for access for all that are interested. We are working on improving the communication
of the program, student skills and device availability.”
Two districts stated their programs are growing. The virtual school at District 3 is adding
offerings to elementary students for the first time in 2018-19. At District 7, the virtual school
started with elementary grades and offered it to high school for the first time for the academic
year 2017-18. “The program is growing. We expect to double high school enrollment this year,”
commented the school’s principal.
With a focus on Career and College Readiness, District 4 evaluated the credit recovery
program based on percent of students obtaining a final grade of C or better in order for the
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 114
repeated course to meet college eligibility. With the district vision of having every student meet
A-G college eligibility as the graduation requirement, they hope to phase out the credit recovery
part of their online program and focus on the credit repair element. Moreover, the district
administration seeks a method to incorporate a remediation element into a course in order to help
students master the course during the semester and not have to repeat the entire course at a later
time. Last, while they do not currently offer any online courses other than credit recovery or
credit repair, they are strongly considering adding a program and requiring every student to
complete at least one online course to graduate since they acknowledge this is an essential skill
in higher education.
In the continuation program at District 5, the principal looks at percent of students that
passed all classes and the rate that students are recovering credits. The credit recovery options
are primarily available in the district at the continuation school and are being considered for
expansion throughout the district.
The principal at the virtual school at District 7 summarized that the program is evaluated
on both a quantitative and qualitative level. From a quantitative perspective, they evaluate the
program based on how it contributes to graduation and career and college readiness rate. From a
qualitative perspective, the district wants to see all students in their geographic boundaries
develop academically and socio-emotionally. “We want to provide choice for them. If a student
is happier and doing well, that is a success story for us. We want to serve as many kids where
this is the best fit. We don’t have specific growth targets, but we are increasing enrollment. We
know there is an untapped need and we will continue to promote the program to reach those
students.”
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 115
Overall, district representatives expressed the role of their online program as a tactic to
contribute to their district’s overriding strategic goals of improving graduation rates and helping
students become college and career ready. Online programs also were viewed as increasing
student options with breadth of courses and schedule flexibility as well as overall student choice.
Summary
This chapter reported the findings from interviews at seven school districts and data from
six school districts in southern California regarding the use of online learning to help Title I
students meet graduation requirements.
The Educational Equity Theory (Brookover & Lezote, 1981) summarizes that the
national principle of equity for American founding documents extends to guaranteeing equality
of education. Application of the Educational Equity Theory in regards to online learning was
evaluated based on access, participation and outcome. Regarding access, district participants
reported all students are eligible for online courses. While guidance counselors are responsible
for recommending and assigning courses, not all counselors perform this task equally and word
of mouth by teachers and students influence course enrollment which ultimately impacts equal
participation. District respondents did not view computer or internet access or student technical
skills as an enrollment barrier. Regarding participation, districts had all structured their online
program to ensure all students can be successful with an iNACOL-based curriculum and online
teachers are responsible for motivating students and monitoring student progress to help
overcome low student self-regulation skills. Moreover, districts identified how some students
perform better in a virtual setting compared to a traditional setting due to having a safe space,
pacing flexibility and reduced distractions.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 116
While districts have created the infra-structure for equitable participation and outcomes,
variations occur in actual results. When data from 6 districts are analyzed, overall participation is
8.6% of students in an online course, 8.5% of students from a low SES household and 8.8% of
students not from a low SES household enroll in an online course, which is not a statistically
different rate of enrollment. When participation is analyzed based on course rigor among five
districts, a lower percent of students from a low SES household enroll in both credit recovery
and enrichment programs (6.4% total low SES vs. 9.4% not low SES). Moreover, when
outcomes are reviewed based on course grade, a lower percent of students from a low SES
household earned college eligible grades (67.2%) compared to those from a not low SES
household (70.4%). Also, a higher percent of students from a low SES household failed or
dropped the online course (21.3%) compared to those from a not low SES household (18.1%).
These findings had a statistically significant association between SES and enrollment and course
outcome, but a small, if not negligible effect. This suggests that districts have developed an infra-
structure to provide equitable access and participation to all students, but actual participation and
outcomes appear to not actually be equal.
In chapter five, there will be a discussion of the research, further conclusions and
implications of the research. Finally, recommendations for future research will be reported.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 117
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The US Department of Education (2004) identified the internet as a critical tool to
revolutionize education in the National Education Technology Plan. Virtual school advocates
have supported online learning as a vehicle to provide equitable access to all students for high-
quality courses from remedial levels to Advanced Placement (Berge & Clark, 2005). The U.S.
Department of Education (2017) identified a 12 point and 10 point gap in graduation rates
between white students and students from low socioeconomic households nationally and in
California, respectively. Virtual school advocates have supported online options particularly as a
means to provide an environment for students to be successful when they haven’t been so in
traditional settings (Fulton, 2002; Berge & Clark, 2005).The significance of this study was to
unveil how public school districts in southern California have incorporated online learning
options into their curriculum and the impact online learning has had on helping students from
low socioeconomic households meet graduation requirements.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to analyze the use of online courses at urban southern
California high schools to help students from low socioeconomic households fill graduation
requirements.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. How are southern California urban school districts using online courses for Title I high
school students to fulfill graduation requirements?
2. What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in online courses
and socioeconomic group?
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 118
3. What is the relationship between socioeconomic status, online course enrollment
and graduation?
4. How do school districts evaluate the success of their online programs?
Methodology
A mixed-method approach was conducted for this study. Qualitative data was garnered
from interviews of district representatives responsible for or engaged in the online programs at
seven districts in southern California. A semi-structured approach was used during the interviews
which contained twenty questions on the interview protocol. For the quantitative portion, the
district representative provided data. The seven districts served student populations over 20,000
and had between 40% and 70% of students from low socioeconomic households. All of the data
was interpreted and analyzed using the process of triangulation where various sources of
information were used to support the findings.
Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on the data that was collected and analyzed. This
section will interpret the combined results of the quantitative and qualitative data and connect the
findings back to the literature review.
Research Question #1: How are southern California urban school districts using online
courses for Title I high school students to fulfill graduation requirements?
Online Programs
The US Department of Education (2010) reported that virtual courses allowed districts to
broaden course offerings with 62% of districts offering credit recovery, 47% offering courses
that fill high school and college credit requirements, 29% offering AP courses, and 27% offering
trade or vocational courses. In comparison, of the seven districts in this study, all seven districts
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 119
relied on online courses as a critical vehicle for credit recovery and three districts used online
courses in their continuation programs as well. One district used online learning solely for credit
recovery. Three districts offer online courses to fill graduation requirements through
supplemental enrichment programs of which two of these programs include AP courses. Three
districts rely on online courses to offer independent study to students seeking flexibility towards
graduation and three districts have a virtual school. All online offerings use curriculum provided
by outside vendors with the exception of the two the enrichment programs; all are designed to
meet the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) standards to ensure
quality and navigational ease. The majority of online options are delivered in a blended format;
if students are not required to attend daily, they are required to attend once or twice a week for
check-ins and to complete assessments in a proctored environment. Respondents referred to the
need for this to ensure student progress instead of relying on student ability to progress
independently and to ensure academic integrity. The exceptions to this were the enrichment
programs where students attended weekly synchronous sessions online instead of in person or in
case of extenuating circumstances in one district.
Technology Pervasiveness
Ryan and Lewis (2015) identified a 20 point and 28 point gap in computer ownership and
internet access, respectively, between households above or below an annual income of $50,000.
Gray et al. (2010) calculated that public schools had a penetration of 3 students per device at
districts with 75% or more of students from a low SES household. In contrast, all seven district
respondents felt that access to computers and the internet was not an issue as students had their
own devices, the district offered a check out program or devices were widely available in
classrooms or the school library. Similarly, respondents did not feel that students lacked the
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 120
technology skills to be successful in online classes. Zhang & Goel (2011) found that students
could develop technical skills during an online course; Johnson and Galy (2013) unveiled that
students could transfer technology experience from using social media or email to online courses
to be successful. Similarly, district respondents acknowledged a learning curve, they felt students
had or developed the technology and navigational skills to be successful in online classes. While
technology access and skills could be an obstacle for students taking an online course,
respondents broadly felt mobile devices and social media have become so prevalent that they did
not believe a gap existed in either device access or skill.
Kerr et al. (2006) determined that reading and writing skills, independent learning,
motivation and computer literacy were required for students to be successful in online courses.
Archambault et al. (2013) identified cognitive measures of self-regulation, self-motivation,
ability to structure one’s own learning, technology skills and self-efficacy in academics as factors
contributing to student success. District respondents did not view independent learning,
motivation or self-efficacy as requirements. Instead, they referred to the online teachers as
having a central role in helping students transition to an online environment, motivating students
and monitoring progress. Online teachers were viewed as ‘facilitators’ of learning, needing to be
flexible and responsive and having the ability to work with students on an individual basis.
Hawkins et al. (2013) found that students who experienced more frequent interaction and higher
quality interaction with teachers were more likely to complete an online course. Murphy and
Rodriguez-Manzanares (2009) delineated techniques online teachers use to establish a
relationship with their students such as responding promptly to student-initiated
communications, providing prompt and detailed feedback on assignments, demonstrating
enthusiasm, greeting students and injecting humor in synchronous sessions. Moreover, teachers
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 121
were considered instrumental in motivating students with monitoring systems, check-in
requirements and point opportunities. Participants in this study confirmed these beliefs as they
identified the role of the teacher for online classes is different than in a traditional setting.
Students pace themselves through an embedded digital curriculum instead of relying as much on
direct instruction delivered by a teacher in a classroom. As a result, teachers spend less time on
traditional teaching methodology and more time checking student progress, grading assignments,
motivating students, and responding to student questions. Respondents felt online teachers
needed to be flexible and prepared to work with individual students. In addition, three
respondents expressed the need for math teachers in the computer lab as they felt students
specifically struggled with learning math independently and sought tutoring from the virtual
teachers.
Guidance counselors were viewed as the stakeholder officially responsible for
recommending or assigning courses, but respondents acknowledged that not all counselors
recommended online options equitably among all students and word-of-mouth from teachers or
students was impactful. This combination was viewed to contribute to inequities among
enrollment between socioeconomic groups.
Overall, the US Department of Education (2004) identified the internet as a vehicle to
revolutionize education and recommended e-learning options should be available to every
student. This study demonstrates that districts have incorporated online learning options to a
varying degree and in varying formats in order to respond to remedial needs, provide a viable
path for students who do not desire a traditional setting or schedule, or to supplement student
offerings.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 122
Research Question #2: What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in
online courses and socioeconomic group?
As of the 2013-14 school year, the US Department of Education estimated that 75% of
districts were using online learning for a virtual or hybrid course of which about 5% of the total
student population was participating in online options. Data provided by the districts in this study
showed that 8.5% of high school students enrolled in an online course in the Spring semester of
2018 and no statistical significance was identified by socioeconomic group. The range in the
total percent varied from 2.5% to 12.4% demonstrating a variance in execution of online
offerings.
However, one district was not able to delineate the type of course taken. When this
district was removed from the analysis, 7.6% of students took an online course. 9.4% of students
completed a credit recovery course and 6.4% completed an enrichment course. When comparing
credit recovery course enrollment, 4.7% and 5.2% of Title I and not Title I students, respectively,
were enrolled. Similarly, 1.7% and 4.2% of Title I and not-Title I students, respectively,
completed an enrichment course. In reviewing academic outcomes, 67.2% of and 70.4% of Title
I and not Title I students, respectively, obtained a college-eligible grade of A, B, or C. Similarly,
Title I students were more likely to not pass or to drop an online course than non-Title I students
as 21.3% and 18.1% of students, respectively, did not earn credits. Each of these data points
demonstrates that a relationship exists between socioeconomic status and enrolling and
succeeding in online courses with a higher percent of students from socioeconomically
advantaged households benefiting from online options. This relationship is considered
statistically significant but a small effect is attributed to the socioeconomic status.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 123
While the US Department of Education (2004) identified the internet as a vehicle to
revolutionize education fifteen years ago, this analysis unveils approximately 8.5% of high
school students completing an online course; 6.4% and 9.4% of students completed an
enrichment and credit recovery course, respectively. Overall, this level of participation in online
learning has not met the US Department of Education’s vision of revolutionizing public
education curriculum. In addition, the fail or drop out rate of 20% is high and requires steps to
reduce this level. Moreover, while students from socioeconomic disadvantaged households are
participating in digital offerings, a higher percent of students from socioeconomically
advantaged households are enrolling, completing and benefiting from online options. The
percent difference in participation and successful academic outcome perpetuates academic gaps
between socioeconomic groups instead of contributing to closing them.
Research Question #3: What is the relationship between socioeconomic status, online
course enrollment and graduation?
With 2,671 credit recovery courses completed online in five districts in Spring 2018
semester alone, virtual courses are contributing to helping students meet graduation requirements
through this process alone. Five districts provided data on senior enrollment in online courses.
Among seniors, 10.4% enrolled in an online course in their last semester; 10.2% and 10.4% from
socioeconomic disadvantaged and advantaged households, respectively, enrolled in an online
course. No statistically significant association is evident in this area. This suggests that online
courses contributed to the graduation of one out of ten seniors in their last semester.
Research Question #4: How do school districts evaluate the success of their online
programs?
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 124
Graduation rates, enrollment, pass rates, and College and Career Readiness rates were the
four metrics cited to analyze online programs at the district level. With the strong association of
credit recovery courses to online options, online courses were viewed primarily as a tactic to
contribute to districts’ overriding strategic goal of improving graduation rates. Three districts
also viewed online options as a contributing factor to improving college and career readiness.
Two of the respondents with virtual schools discussed how their programs were supported at the
district level because of the role in meeting unique student needs and both were expanding by
offering to additional grade levels or expected enrollment growth. Two of the respondents with
enrichment programs looked at course enrollment and viewed the programs to offer students an
academic opportunity they wouldn’t have otherwise. Aside from budgetary implications of
filling classrooms and considering teacher-to-student ratios, respondents did not share
measurable goals for the online programs specifically. Overall, online options supported the
district’s broad goals for graduation and college-readiness rates as opposed to having specific,
measurable goals for the online programs. The three districts that offered a virtual school
specifically identified the qualitative role of meeting the needs of each student as the program
serves as a safety net for those students that can’t attend or aren’t successful in a traditional
classroom setting.
Ancillary Findings
In addition to the four research questions that guided the study, the interviews provided
additional information that districts should consider in developing an online program:
1. A Path to Graduation
The US Department of Education identified that students that drop out tended to be credit
deficient or earn low grades, did not like school, or had family responsibilities that interfered
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 125
with attendance or coursework (McFarland et al., 2016). Berge & Clark (2005) pointed out that
online classes can offer safe and supportive environments compared to a local school; Tucker
(2007) suggested students can pace their studies at a manageable rate by taking extra time or
working ahead. Four of the seven participants were particularly supportive of online learning as
a vehicle to help students who were not predisposed to be successful in a traditional classroom.
In particular, students who could not attend school for health or family issues or sought to use the
day to pursue personal advancement in athletics, careers, or the arts were viewed as primary
targets of online programs. Students that had family obligations, difficulty focusing or were self-
conscious, especially due to English language deficiencies, were identified as those that could
succeed in an online format. Consistent with the online advocates included in the literature
review, these examples demonstrate how online learning tailors learning to individual needs and
can be an effective response to the students most vulnerable to dropping out. Based on the
potential to capture these students as a safety net program alone, districts should consider a
virtual option.
2. College Readiness Skills
Allen and Seaman (2014) estimated that one out of three college students will take an
online course. As of 2014, five states required students to complete an online course to graduate
from high school (Watson et al., 2014). Five of the participants in this study identified the
possibility of the district encouraging, if not requiring, students to take an online course as a
graduation requirement. Respondents acknowledged that even if college courses are not taught
online, an online system is used for obtaining and submitting assignments, receiving feedback,
and communicating with professors. Therefore, experience with online platforms can ease
transition in college. With the high usage of online platforms and online courses in higher
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 126
education, online courses in high school can help prepare students to be successful in college and
can be considered a key preparatory step.
3. Blended Models and Opportunities for Socialization
Watson et al. (2004) identified the lack of social interaction as an issue with online
courses. Districts have addressed this as most online courses are incorporated into the brick-and-
mortar schedule, have an in-person component for a blended delivery or are in addition to
traditional classes. In addition, virtual school students can take one or two courses in their school
of residence or are eligible to participate in extracurricular activities, particularly to offer
socialization opportunities. Districts have addressed virtual student socialization needs through
these arrangements. Blended models and opportunities for socialization ensure academic
integrity and student engagement.
Implications of the Study
Virtual school advocates identified online learning as an opportunity to provide equitable
access to all students for high-quality courses from remedial levels to Advance Placement
courses (Berge & Clark, 2005). This study demonstrates that while 100% of participating
districts use online learning, it is foremost a credit recovery vehicle. The overall participation in
online options of 8.5% is underwhelming. Moreover, processes should be re-visited to reduce the
high number of courses (20.5%) that are failed or dropped. In addition, a higher percent of
students from socially advantaged households are enrolling, completing and benefitting from
online options which perpetuates the achievement gap instead of contributing to closing it.
In order to meet the vision at the US Department of Education for online learning,
districts should broaden their offering of online options beyond credit recovery with enrichment
programs similar to the District 1 and 6 program. Districts should offer a virtual option as a
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 127
safety net for vulnerable students similar to the virtual schools at Districts 2, 3 and 7. District
administrators need to take steps to ensure that online options are promoted and recommended
equally to all students. Increased offerings and equitable promotion would help vulnerable
students graduate and help students from low socioeconomic backgrounds prepare for college.
Recommendations for Future Studies
This study covered districts with 30-70% of enrolled students from a socioeconomic
disadvantaged household. Another method to identify the impact of online learning would be to
study districts with a a high percent of students from socioeconomic advantaged households and
compare with these results to see if a difference exists. To further unveil the impact of online
learning, a case study approach can also be completed at districts that have high participation in
online learning.
SUMMARY
This study sought to analyze how public school districts are using online learning to help
socioeconomic disadvantaged students meet graduation requirements. The US Department of
Education identified the internet in 2004 as a tool to impact education and particularly to provide
access to help every student be academically successful (USDOE, 2004). Each school district in
this study has incorporated online courses into the curriculum and developed the infrastructure to
support academic achievement and integrity, contributing to approximately 8.6% of high school
students enrolling in an online course. The leading reason students drop out of high school is
credit deficiency or low grades (McFarland et al., 2016). All seven districts are using online
options for credit recovery which responds to this need and contributes to improving graduation
rates. However, this study unveiled that a higher percent of students from a socioeconomic
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 128
advantaged household enroll in credit recovery courses as 4.7% and 5.2% enroll from a low SES
and not-low SES household, respectively.
Furthermore, online school advocates pointed out the potential for equitable access to all
students for high-quality courses and a breadth of subjects (Berge & Clark, 2005). However,
only approximately 3% of high school students are taking an online course other than for credit
recovery based on this study. Considering that approximately 33% of college students take an
online course (Allen & Seaman, 2014), virtual options at the high school level appear
underutilized and districts miss the opportunity of preparing students for this avenue in higher
education. Moreover, among the two districts that have such a program and provided data, both
had a higher percent of students from a socioeconomic advantaged household enrolled in these
courses with 1.7% and 4.2% from a low SES and not-low SES household, respectively. Students
from socioeconomic advantaged households also have higher academic outcomes in online
courses as 70.4% earn a college-eligible grade compared to 67.2% of students from
socioeconomic disadvantaged households. Similarly, a higher percent of students from
socioeconomic disadvantaged households fail or drop out (21.2%) compared to 18.1% of
students from socioeconomic advantaged households that fail or drop the course. This analysis
shows that students from socioeconomic disadvantaged households are enrolling in online
courses which contributes to graduation requirements, but a higher percent of students from
socioeconomic advantaged households are enrolling and reaching higher academic outcomes. As
a result, online options are helping students from low socioeconomic households, but not
contributing to closing the achievement gap.
In addition, several opportunities have been unveiled in this study which could lead to
meeting the US Department of Education vision of virtual options truly impacting public
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 129
schools. First, enrichment programs that supplement traditional course delivery can prepare
students for higher education and offer education opportunities not otherwise available. Second,
virtual schools or independent study programs can meet the needs of students that may not be
able to attend or may not be able to be successful in a traditional environment. These students, in
particular, appear to be the most vulnerable to dropping out, the most vital to support and the
most likely to benefit from the flexibility of a virtual program. Third, all online options,
including credit recovery, should be equally recommended and promoted to all students to close
the participation and outcome gap identified in this study. Fourth, districts should revisit
processes to reduce the high rates of failing online courses or dropped courses to improve
academic success when students do enroll. While districts have implemented online programs,
opportunities exist to increase options to benefit all students and particularly those from a
socioeconomic disadvantaged background to meet graduation requirements and prepare for
college.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 130
References
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change. Tracking Online Education in the United States.
Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
Aragon., S., Johnson, D., & Shaik, N. (2002). The Influence of Learning Style Preferences on
Student Success in Online Versus Face-to-Face Environments, American Journal of
Distance Education, 16:4, 227-243, DOI: 10.1207/S15389286AJDE1604_3
Ashby, J., Sadera, W., & Nary, S. (2011). Comparing student success between developmental
math courses offered online, blended, and face-to-face. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 10(3) 128-140. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/10.3.2.pdf
Archambault, L., Kennedy, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Cyber-Truancy, Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 46:1, 1-28, doi:10.1080/15391523.2013.10782611
Barbour, M., & Reeves, T. (1009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature.
Computers & Education 52, 402-416. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009
Berge, Z., & Clark, T. (2005). Virtual Schools: Planning for success. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Fourth Edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W., (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in
online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet and Higher
Education 27,1-13. doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. (1981). Educational equity: A democratic principle at a
crossroads. The Urban Review, 13(2), 65-71.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 131
California Department of Education (2018). CALPADS UPC Source File 9-12. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filescupc912.asp
California Department of Education (2018). California Dashboard. Retrieved from
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/#/Home
California Department of Education (2018). DataQuest [All Districts, Total Enrollment].
Retrieved from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/content.asp
Carpenter, D., & Ramirez, A. (2007). More than one gap: Dropout rate gaps between and among
Black, Hispanic, and White students. Journal of advanced academics, 19(1), 32-64.
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of
distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Learning Point
Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).
Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning:
A review of open access literature. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 10(1).
Cavanaugh, J., & Jacquemin, S. (2015). Large sample comparison of grade based student
learning outcomes in online vs. face-to-face courses. Online Learning 19(2).
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i2.454.
Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of
Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education,
54(4), 1222-1232.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: rethinking education in
the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2009.00339.x
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 132
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dixson, M. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: what do students
find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10, (2).
Englert, C., Zhao, Y., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N., & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the writing
of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based
technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(1), 9-29.
Falloon, G. (2011). Exploring the virtual classroom: what students need to know. Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 439-451. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/falloon_1211.pdf
Festerwald., J. (2018, November 28). California’s graduation rate ticks up but, still, one in ten
high school students drop out. EdSource. Retrieved from
https://edsource.org/2018/californias-graduation-rate-ticks-up-but-still-1-in-10-high-
school-students-drops-out/605378
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Freeling, N. (2014). UC’s Scout gives all students access to a college prep curriculum. Retrieved
from https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/online-program-gives-all-students-
access-college-prep-curriculum
Fulton, K. (2002). Preserving Principles of Public Education in an Online World: What
Policymakers Should Be Asking about Virtual Schools (Washington, DC, April 19,
2002).
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 133
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: Fall
2008, NCES.
Harrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online
learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 19(1), 59-71. doi:
10.1038/nature10342
Hawkins, A., Graham, C., Sudweeks, R., & Barbour, M. (2013). Academic performance, course
completion rates, and student perception of the quality and frequency of interaction in a
virtual high school, Distance Education, 34:1, 64-83, DOI:
10.1080/01587919.2013.770430
Howard, K., Curwen, M., Howard, N., & Colon-Muniz, A. (2015). Attitudes toward using social
networking sites in educational settings with underperforming Latino youth: a mixed
methods study. Urban Education, 50(8), 989-1018. doi: 10.1177/0042085914537000
International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2011). National Standards for Quality
Online Courses. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/resource/inacol-national-
standards-for-quality-online-courses-v2/
International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2011). National Standards for Quality
Online Teaching. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/resource/inacol-national-
standards-for-quality-online-teaching-v2/
Johnson, J. & Galy, E. (2013). The Use of E-Learning Tools for Improving Hispanic Students’
Academic Performance. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9(3), 328-340.
retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no3/johnson_0913.pdf
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 134
Jones, S. & Long, V. (2013). Learning equity between online and on-site math courses. Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching 9(1), 1-12. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no1/jones_0313.pdf
Kerr, M. S., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. C. (2006). Student characteristics for online learning
success. Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 91–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.002
Laerd Statistics (2017). Pearson's product-moment correlation using SPSS Statistics. Statistical
tutorials and software guides. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/
Lan, W., & Lanthier, R. (2003). Changes in students' academic performance and perceptions of
school and self before dropping out of schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed
at Risk, 8(3), 309-332.
McFarland, J., Stark, P., & Cui, J. (2016). Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates
in the United States: 2013 (NCES 2016-117). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-
based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
US Department of Education.
Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic
study. Distance education, 26(1), 29-48.
Mupinga, D. (2005). Distance Education in High Schools: Benefits,
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 135
Challenges, and Suggestions, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 78:3, 105-109, DOI: 10.3200/TCHS.78.3.105-109
Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2009). Teachers’ perspectives on motivation in
high-school distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance
Education, 23(3), 1-24.
O’Dwyer, L., Carey, R. & Kleiman, G. (2007). A Study of the Effectiveness of the Louisiana
Algebra I Online Course, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39:3, 289-
306, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2007.10782484
Osborne, R., Kriese, P., and Davis, J. (2013). It Can Be Taught: Explorations into Teaching the
Foundations for Multicultural Effectiveness in an Online Course. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 9(4), 534-545. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no4/osborne_1213.pdf
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual (6th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Peterson, P., Woessmann, L., Hanushek, E., & Lastra-Anadon, C. (2011). Are U.S students ready
to compete? The latest on each state's international standing. Education Next, 11(4).
Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/are-u-s-students-ready-to-compete/
Picciano, A. G. & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A Survey of US School District
Administrators. Sloan Consortium. Newburyport, MA.
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow-Up of the Survey of
US School District Administrators. Sloan Consortium. Newburyport, MA.
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.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 136
Queen, B., & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and
Secondary School Students: 2009–10, National Center of Educational Statistics, report #
NCES 2012008
Rice, K. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K–12 context. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-448.
Rice, K. (2009). Priorities in K-12 distance education: A Delphi study examining multiple
perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 12(3), 163.
Richardson, J., & Newby, T. (2006). The Role of Students' Cognitive Engagement in Online
Learning, American Journal of Distance Education, 20:1, 23-37, DOI:
10.1207/s15389286ajde2001_3
Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Virtually successful: Defeating the dropout problem through online
school programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 30-35.
Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical
procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. The Amer.
Jrnl. of Distance Education, 22(2), 90-109. DOI:10.1080/08923640802039040
Roblyer, M. D., & Marshall, J. C. (2002). Predicting Success of Virtual
High School Students, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 35:2, 241-255,
DOI:10.1080/15391523.2002.10782384
Rumberger, R. W. (2001). Why students drop out of school and what can be done. Retrieved
from https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt58p2c3wp/qt58p2c3wp.pdf
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 137
Ryan, C. & Lewis, J. (2015). Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2015. American
Community Survey Reports, ACS-37, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/acs/acs-37.pdf
Sadera, W. A., Robertson, J., Song, L., & Nichelle Midon, M. (2009). The role of community in
online learning success. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 277. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1497191057?accountid=14749
Setzer, J. C., & Lewis, L. (2005). Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and
Secondary School Students. 2002-Tab. NCES 2005-010. US Department of Education.
Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic performance
differences between traditional and distance learning: summative meta-analysis and trend
exam. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6(2) 318-334. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/shachar_0610.pdf
Simonson, M., Schlosser, C. & Hanson, D. (1999). Theory and distance education: A new
discussion, American Journal of Distance Education, 13:1, 60-75,
DOI:10.1080/08923649909527014
Snyder, T. & Musu-Gillette, L. (2015). Free or reduced price lunch: A proxy for poverty? [Web
log post]. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/free-or-reduced-price-
lunch-a-proxy-for-poverty
Somenarain, L., Akkaraju, S., & Gharbaran, R. (2010). Student perceptions and learning
outcomes in asynchronous and synchronous online learning environments in a biology
course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 353. Retrieved from
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 138
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1497198391?accountid=14749
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student
perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
Sun, K., Lin, Y., and Yu, C. (2008). A study on learning effect among different learning styles in
a Web-based lab of science for elementary school students. Computers & Education 50
(4):1411–22. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.01.003
Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-
Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner
satisfaction. Computers & education, 50(4), 1183-1202
Tucker, B. (2007). Laboratories of reform: Virtual high schools and innovation in public
education. Education Sector Reports, 1-15.
UC Office of the President (2016). SAPEP 2015-16 Program Outcomes. Retrieved from
https://www.ucop.edu/diversity-engagement/_files/sapep-annual-report-full-2017.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Employment Projections: More education: Lower
unemployment, higher earnings. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2017/data-on-display/more-education.htm?view_full
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2017). The National school lunch program fact sheet.
Retrieved from https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/NSLPFactSheet.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning:
A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 139
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Digest of
Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_219.46.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2017). The condition of
education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017144.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How
the internet, law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. National
Education Technology Plan. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED484046.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Title I Purpose. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
Wallace, P. (2009). Distance learning for gifted students: Outcomes for elementary, middle, and
high school aged students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(3), 295-320.
Watson, J. (2005). Keeping Pace with K? 12 Online Learning: A Review of State-Level Policy
and Practice. Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
(NCREL).
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping Pace with K-12
Online & Blended Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and Practice. 10 Year
Anniversary Issue. Evergreen Education Group.
Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A., Gemin, B., & Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K-12
digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 140
Watson, J. F., Winograd, K., & Kalmon, S. (2004). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A
snapshot of state-level policy and practice. Learning Point Associates/North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).
Zhang, P. and Goel, L. (2011). Is e-learning for everyone? An internal / external framework of
E-learning initiatives. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 7(2), 193-205. Retrieved
from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no2/goel_0611.pdf
Zweig, J. M. (2003). Vulnerable Youth: Identifying Their Need for Alternative Educational
Settings.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 141
Appendix A
Dissertation Topic:
Analysis of Southern California Title I High School Student Utilization of Online Courses
To Fulfill Graduation Requirements
Qualitative Instrument
Interview Protocol
Name:
Date Interviewed:
Start Time of Interview:
End Time of Interview:
INTRODUCTION
My name is DeAnn Meyers, and I am a student at the University of Southern California working
on a Doctorate of Education in Educational Leadership. I am conducting a dissertation research
study focused on how school districts are using online learning as a vehicle to help Title I
students meet graduation requirements.
Your participation is completely voluntary. You may withdraw at any point. Your identity, your
district’s identity and your responses will be kept strictly confidential. The interview will take
approximately 30 minutes. Do I have your consent to proceed? I would like to record this
interview in order to accurately capture your responses. Do I have your consent to record this
interview?
INTRODUCE THE STUDY
The interview will cover questions regarding an overview of your district’s online program, how
the program is structured considering offering student computer & internet access, teacher
involvement, curriculum and course set up and navigation and program goals. I would also like
to be able to see one of your courses and to obtain data of your program.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
I. Interview
Introductory questions:
How do high school students learn about the online courses?
What courses are offered online?
What is the pass rate?
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 142
What is the dropout rate?
What percent of high school students take an online course?
What requirements are there for students to qualify or enroll in Online Courses?
How is attendance granted for online courses?
Are courses synchronous, asynchronous, or blended?
Computer/Internet Access:
How do you ensure students have access to an internet-ready computer?
How do you ensure students have the technology skills to complete an online course?
Teacher Involvement:
How do teachers monitor and follow up with students as they progress throughout the semester?
How do teachers interact with students in the course?
Administering Body:
• Curriculum/Course Navigation
What curriculum do you use? Is it provided from an outside source or do teachers develop it
internally?
How are you ensuring the online course is set up for students to follow?
Are you participating in the UC Scout program and if so, in what way?
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 143
What kind of orientation do you offer for students to learn how to find, complete and submit
assignments online?
How do you monitor students during assessments in online courses?
How do you assist students if they have technical difficulties?
Do students have any flexibility as they pace through an online course?
• Teachers
How are teachers assigned to teach online courses?
Are teachers hired specifically for online?
What kind of training do teachers complete to prepare to teach online?
How are online teachers supervised and evaluated?
• Program Development/Goals
When was your online program introduced? Who advocated for it?
How is your superintendent and board updated on the online program?
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 144
Evaluative:
What is the district expectation/goal for online course participation and results?
How has the program met or not met the expectation and goals?
2. Course Check
Course goals and learning objectives posted
Teacher contact information posted
Syllabus posted
Assignments posted
Directions on how to submit assignments are posted
Due Dates provided
Opportunity for student interaction with other students/teacher
Help available
3. Data
Thank you for participating in this study. Your involvement is invaluable in learning the role
online options are contributing to student achievement.
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 145
Appendix B
Data Collection Form
For Spring semester 2017-18
Research Question: What is the relationship among high school student completion rates
of online courses based on socioeconomic groups?
Number of High School Students (grades 9-12) Completed an Online Learning Course
Title I Not Title I
Completed online Course
Did not complete an online course
(Title 1 = qualifies for FRL)
Number of High School Students (grades 9-12) by final course grade for each online course taken
Title I Not Title I
Final Course Grade
90-100%
80-89.9%
70-79.9%
60-69.9%
under 60%
dropped course
Number of High School Students (grades 9-12) completed online course by course type
Title I Not Title I
Honors/AP course, A-G Approved
Non-Honors/AP course, A-G Approved
Gen Ed, non-A-G Approved
Credit Recovery
Research Question: What is the relationship among graduation rates among Title I
students who have or have not taken online courses?
Number of fourth Year Students Completed Online Course and graduation status
Title I Not Title I
Completed online course
205+ credits
under 205 credits
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 146
Did not complete online course
205+ credits
under 205 credits
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 147
Appendix C
Data Output from Chi Square Test for Independence
Table 1: What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in online courses
and socioeconomic group? (6 Districts)
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" *
"Yes" or "No"
78568 100.0% 0 0.0% 78568 100.0%
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" * "Yes" or "No" Crosstabulation
"Yes" or "No"
Total Enrichment Credit Recovery
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" Low SES Count 3970 42921 46891
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
8.5% 91.5% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual -1.9 1.9
Not Low SES Count 2802 28875 31677
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
8.8% 91.2% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual 1.9 -1.9
Total Count 6772 71796 78568
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
8.6% 91.4% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.449
a
1 .063
Continuity Correction
b
3.401 1 .065
Likelihood Ratio 3.441 1 .064
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 148
Fisher's Exact Test
.064 .033
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.449 1 .063
N of Valid Cases 78568
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2730.33.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi -.007 .063
Cramer's V .007 .063
N of Valid Cases 78568
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 149
Table 2: What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in online courses
and socioeconomic group? (5 Districts)
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" *
"Yes" or "No"
54809 100.0% 0 0.0% 54809 100.0%
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" * "Yes" or "No" Crosstabulation
"Yes" or "No"
Total Yes No
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" Low SES Count 2059 29985 32044
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
6.4% 93.6% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual -12.7 12.7
Not Low SES Count 2130 20635 22765
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
9.4% 90.6% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual 12.7 -12.7
Total Count 4189 50620 54809
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
7.6% 92.4% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 161.974
a
1 .000
Continuity Correction
b
161.559 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 159.697 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test
.000 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 161.971 1 .000
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 150
N of Valid Cases 54809
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1739.91.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi -.054 .000
Cramer's V .054 .000
N of Valid Cases 54809
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 151
Table 3: What is the relationship between Socioeconomic Status and taking a credit
recovery course online? (5 Districts)
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" *
"Yes" or "No"
54809 100.0% 0 0.0% 54809 100.0%
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" * "Yes" or "No" Crosstabulation
"Yes" or "No"
Total Yes No
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" Low SES Count 1493 30551 32044
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
4.7% 95.3% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual -2.8 2.8
Not Low SES Count 1178 21587 22765
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
5.2% 94.8% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual 2.8 -2.8
Total Count 2671 52138 54809
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
4.9% 95.1% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.626
a
1 .006
Continuity Correction
b
7.516 1 .006
Likelihood Ratio 7.587 1 .006
Fisher's Exact Test
.006 .003
Linear-by-Linear Association 7.626 1 .006
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 152
N of Valid Cases 54809
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1109.40.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi -.012 .006
Cramer's V .012 .006
N of Valid Cases 54809
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 153
Table 4: What is the relationship between Socioeconomic Status and taking an enrichment
course online? (5 Districts)
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" *
"Yes" or "No"
54809 100.0% 0 0.0% 54809 100.0%
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" * "Yes" or "No" Crosstabulation
"Yes" or "No"
Total Yes No
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" Low SES Count 556 31488 32044
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
1.7% 98.3% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual -17.3 17.3
Not Low SES Count 954 21811 22765
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
4.2% 95.8% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual 17.3 -17.3
Total Count 1510 53299 54809
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
2.8% 97.2% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 299.544
a
1 .000
Continuity Correction
b
298.628 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 294.399 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test
.000 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 299.538 1 .000
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 154
N of Valid Cases 54809
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 627.18.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi -.074 .000
Cramer's V .074 .000
N of Valid Cases 54809
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 155
Table 5: What is the relationship between College Eligible Grades in an Online Course and
Socioeconomic Status (6 Districts)?
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" *
"Yes" or "No"
18997 100.0% 0 0.0% 18997 100.0%
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" * "Yes" or "No" Crosstabulation
"Yes" or "No"
Total Yes No
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" Low SES Count 9534 4655 14189
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
67.2% 32.8% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual -4.2 4.2
Not Low SES Count 3386 1422 4808
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
70.4% 29.6% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual 4.2 -4.2
Total Count 12920 6077 18997
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
68.0% 32.0% 100.0%
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi -.030 .000
Cramer's V .030 .000
N of Valid Cases 18997
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 156
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 17.236
a
1 .000
Continuity Correction
b
17.088 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 17.397 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test
.000 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 17.235 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 18997
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1538.04.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 157
Table 6: What is the relationship in D Grade for Credit in an Online Course and
Socioeconomic Status? (6 Districts)
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" *
"Yes" or "No"
18997 100.0% 0 0.0% 18997 100.0%
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" * "Yes" or "No" Crosstabulation
"Yes" or "No"
Total Yes No
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" Low SES Count 1639 12550 14189
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
11.6% 88.4% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual .2 -.2
Not Low SES Count 551 4257 4808
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
11.5% 88.5% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual -.2 .2
Total Count 2190 16807 18997
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
11.5% 88.5% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .029
a
1 .864
Continuity Correction
b
.021 1 .885
Likelihood Ratio .029 1 .864
Fisher's Exact Test
.874 .442
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 158
Linear-by-Linear Association .029 1 .864
N of Valid Cases 18997
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 554.27.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .001 .864
Cramer's V .001 .864
N of Valid Cases 18997
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 159
Table 7: What is the Relationship in Failed or Dropped Grades in an Online Course and
Socioeconomic Status? (6 Districts)
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" *
"Yes" or "No"
18997 100.0% 0 0.0% 18997 100.0%
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" * "Yes" or "No" Crosstabulation
"Yes" or "No"
Total Yes No
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" Low SES Count 3016 11173 14189
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
21.3% 78.7% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual 4.7 -4.7
Not Low SES Count 871 3937 4808
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
18.1% 81.9% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual -4.7 4.7
Total Count 3887 15110 18997
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
20.5% 79.5% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 21.760
a
1 .000
Continuity Correction
b
21.567 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 22.200 1 .000
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 160
Fisher's Exact Test
.000 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 21.759 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 18997
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 983.77.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .034 .000
Cramer's V .034 .000
N of Valid Cases 18997
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 161
Table 8: What is the relationship between socioeconomic status, online course enrollment
and graduation?
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" *
"Yes" or "No"
18147 100.0% 0 0.0% 18147 100.0%
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" * "Yes" or "No" Crosstabulation
"Yes" or "No"
Total Yes No
"LowSES" or "NotLowSES" Low SES Count 1121 9830 10951
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
10.2% 89.8% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual -.8 .8
Not Low SES Count 762 6434 7196
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
10.6% 89.4% 100.0%
Adjusted Residual .8 -.8
Total Count 1883 16264 18147
% within "LowSES" or
"NotLowSES"
10.4% 89.6% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .581
a
1 .446
Continuity Correction
b
.544 1 .461
Likelihood Ratio .580 1 .446
Fisher's Exact Test
.456 .230
Linear-by-Linear Association .581 1 .446
Utilization of Online Learning by Title I High School Students 162
N of Valid Cases 18147
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 746.68.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi -.006 .446
Cramer's V .006 .446
N of Valid Cases 18147
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The US Department of Education (2004) identified the internet as a critical tool to revolutionize education in the National Education Technology Plan. This study was designed to unveil how public school districts in southern California have incorporated online learning to help students from low socioeconomic households meet graduation requirements. ❧ The following research questions were used to guide the study: 1. How are southern California urban school districts using online courses for Title I high school students to fulfill graduation requirements? 2. What is the relationship between high school student enrollment in online courses and socioeconomic group? 3. What is the relationship between socioeconomic status, online course enrollment and graduation? and 4. How do school districts evaluate the success of their online programs? ❧ A mixed-method approach was conducted for this study. Qualitative data was garnered from interviews of district representatives responsible for or engaged in the online programs at seven districts in southern California and the district representatives provided data for the quantitative analysis. ❧ All seven districts have incorporated online options into the overall curriculum representing 8.6% of high school students enrolled in an online course, but the applications varied. All seven districts relied on online courses as a critical vehicle for credit recovery. In addition, online offerings were used for continuation schools, enrichment programs, independent study, and/or virtual or online schools. All online offerings use curriculum provided by outside vendors with the exception of two enrichment programs
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An examination of the role of high school counselors in assisting college-bound first-generation Latino/a Students in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles
PDF
Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in the Inland Empire
PDF
Strategies used by California high school counselors to help Latino students complete a–g requirements
PDF
The effect of reading proficiency on student success in online credit recovery programs
PDF
Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school
PDF
The impact of cultural capital on advancement via individual determination students from two southern California high schools
PDF
Self-regulation and online course satisfaction in high school
PDF
Examining Hispanic students' access to AP courses in high schools in Orange County
PDF
Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles County
PDF
The allocation of resources for career technical education programs that improve college and career readiness
PDF
Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by Southern California superintendents
PDF
An examination of outsourcing student services for online graduate students
PDF
The role of district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college- and career-ready
PDF
The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment
PDF
A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day
PDF
Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California
PDF
Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect
PDF
Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study
PDF
Middle school GSAs: an analysis of strategies used in Los Angeles County
PDF
Best practices to improve mathematics achievement of middle school Latina/o students
Asset Metadata
Creator
Meyers, Daveen Ann
(author)
Core Title
Analysis of southern California Title I high school student utilization of online courses to fulfill graduation requirements
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/11/2019
Defense Date
12/11/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
college readiness,credit recovery,graduation rate,low socioeconomic status,OAI-PMH Harvest,online,Title I,virtual
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Cash, David (
committee member
), Roach, John (
committee member
)
Creator Email
dmeyers100@live.com,dmeyers101@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-129666
Unique identifier
UC11675715
Identifier
etd-MeyersDave-7141.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-129666 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MeyersDave-7141.pdf
Dmrecord
129666
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Meyers, Daveen Ann
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
college readiness
credit recovery
graduation rate
low socioeconomic status
online
Title I
virtual