Download - Sample ~ Malone, 2009 Literature Review

Disruptive Innovation 1

Running head: DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION

Disruptive Innovation: A Review of the Literature

Regarding a Superintendent’s Response to Online Learning

Washington State University

Glenn E. Malone

April, 2009


Introduction

In their recent book Disrupting Class, Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008) project that

by the year 2013, ten percent of all instruction in our nation’s high schools will take place online

and within 10 years, they predicts more than half of all instruction will be delivered online. They

make these bold claims based on research in the business world. They studied the patterns of

new and innovative business development that regularly emerges parallel to traditional business

models. Usually these models fill a missing gap in the market without initially causing much of

threat or disruption to the traditional systems. The new models provide an innovation that

improves the traditional service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by being

designed for a different set of customers. Likewise, K-12 online learning vendors are similarly a

threat to public school systems; they are successfully competing for and gaining students at an

shocking rate. This disruptive attack on the traditional system was unanticipated and has

blindsided most school districts from an unexpected direction. Christensen et al. (2008) caution

that schools had better get into the online learning market or risk losing a significant number of

students to other for-profit providers. This review of the literature will explore the most recent

thoughts on the impact of online learning on American K-12 education and the superintendent’s

role in leading a school district during this time of “disruptive innovation”.

The research questions embedded in this review ask: How do Washington State

superintendents currently respond to the current trend of student migration out of their districts to

private online options? How do Washington State superintendents currently spend their limited

resources to contend with this competition? What characteristics associated with online learning

do Washington State superintendents believe impede or facilitate it being used as a viable public

high school alternative to the traditional high school classroom? Themes have emerged from the


reading and will form the framework for this examination. These themes include K-12 online

learning effectiveness as compared to traditional classroom instruction, superintendent

technology leadership, and the disruptive innovation theory.


Organization of the Review

In this review, I describe findings from the most prevalent areas of research literature

essential to investigating the topic of K-12 online learning and a superintendent’s response. The

body of research is growing and includes much on the effectiveness of K-12 online programs but

very little research has been done on a superintendent’s leadership in technology and less still

regarding a superintendent’s response to K-12 online education.

In Section 1 I provide a brief historical context on K-12 online learning with a focus on

Washington State including helpful definitions of key terms found in the literature.

In Section 2 I review the theoretical framework of disruptive innovation initially provided

by Christensen (1997). I specifically look at this theory in relation to K-12 online learning

juxtaposed with the need for superintendent leadership in this area.

In Section 3 I summarize the research from major studies in the K-12 online arena,

including a meta-analysis of the comparative distance education literature between 1985 and

2002 comparing distance education with classroom instruction (Bernard et al., 2004). Moreover,

I examine one of the most often cited studies in K-12 online learning; a meta-analysis on the

effects of distance education on K-12 outcomes (Cavanaugh et al., 2004). In addition, I examine

a synthesis of eight more research projects on K-12 online learning submitted to the North

Central Regional Education Laboratory which is focused specifically on the issues of online

challenges, school change and educational reform (Smith, Clark, & Blomeyer, 2005). Finally, I

review the “no significant difference” phenomena research by Russell (2002) and the “oversold

and underused” claims of Cuban (1986, 2001).

In Section 4 I examine the role of superintendent in the K-12 online learning

environment. Specially, I review a qualitative study on superintendent conceptions of


institutional conditions that impact teacher technology integration (Shuldman, 2004) and a study

of Appalachian Ohio public school district superintendents and high school principals and their

perceptions of and experiences with online courses (Robison, 2007). In addition, I review the

work of Augustine-Shaw (2001) and her dissertation on online learning environments in Kansas’

K-12 public schools. This work provides insight into leadership perspectives and policy issues

for a superintendent.

In Section 5 I provide a summary with reflection including specific recommendations for

superintendents and further research.


Section 1: Online Learning in the K-12 Context

Distance learning is not a new phenomenon in K-12 systems. In fact, elementary and

secondary students have learned through the use of electronic distance learning systems since the

1930’s. It is the development of the online, Internet method that is new and has caused this

recent stir.

To better understand the online vernacular, let us examine the definition of online

learning and differentiate it from distance learning or distance education. Distance education is

most commonly defined in the literature as formal study in which the teacher and the learner are

separate in time or space (Smith et al., 2005). Distance education includes classrooms using the

radio, television, and even the postal service for instruction. Correspondence courses are a form

of distance education. With this definition you can see that distance education has been used for

quite some time, while online learning on the other hand is unique and relatively new to

education. Online learning is a form of distance education in which instruction and content are

delivered primarily via the Internet. Online learning is sometimes referred to as Web-based

distance learning in the literature.

The recent explosion of online learning in K-12 education is a direct result of what

Friedman (2005) calls the perfect storm; the triple convergence of key factors. The creation of

the Internet led to our current global, web-enabled environment that allows for multiple forms of

collaboration. This setting further promotes the sharing of knowledge and work, without regard

to distance, geography, or even language. With this, new opportunities were created for

individuals to compete against anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world. The rise of online

technologies allowed innovative entrepreneurs worldwide to participate in a global marketplace

and K-12 online learning entrepreneurs were no exception.


K-12 online learning is big business and financially profitable, Microsoft billionaire Paul

Allen joined the K-12 online learning business in 1997 when he founded Apex Learning, an

online learning provider that originally began offering test preparation and advanced placement

courses online to high school students. Apex Learning has expanded to offer over 100 courses

worldwide today. Since its inception Apex Learning has provided over 1 million students

courses in over 4,000 school districts. Likewise, in 2000 former United States Secretary of

Education William Bennett started his own K-12 online learning business by founding K12 Inc.;

currently our country’s largest K-12 online learning provider with a total revenue in 2007 of over

140 million dollars. K12 Inc. reported that operating income for the first nine months of fiscal

year 2008 grew 54 percent to $13.7 million, compared with $8.9 million for the first nine months

of fiscal year 2007. Based in Virginia, K12 Inc. came to Washington State in 2005 as the parent

company for the Steilacoom School District’s Washington Virtual Academy (WAVA) which

currently attracts over 40 students from my school district along with the $200,000 in revenue

those students generate.

Washington’s online programs vary greatly in their structure and services. Some are

developed and run by district employees themselves while others are operated by nonprofits. The

largest are run by publicly traded companies. In addition to K12 Inc. mentioned earlier, Arizona-

based Apollo Group Inc. has partnered with the Quillayute Valley School District to provide

Insight School of Washington while Illinois-based DeVry Inc. has partnered with the Marysville

School District to offer Advanced Academic online curriculum. All are heavily, professionally

marketed at strategic times throughout the year and as a result are growing at breakneck speed.

In Washington State, legislation in 2005 paved the way for our state’s rapid online

expansion by giving online vendors the same per-pupil funding as traditional schools. This


legislation created the nation’s least regulated K-12 online system of all 50 states. The

consequence has hit Washington public school districts hard, with the loss of revenue for each

student to the tune of $5,000 per student per year. The problem is so severe that superintendents

are scrambling to add online programs to their offerings at a time where most other programs are

being eliminated or reduced due to the most drastic, K-12 financial reductions our state has ever

seen; while competition for children and the dollars that come with them is the fiercest it has

ever been. K-12 online learning providers have seized a profitable opportunity in Washington to

meet a need that most school districts have left unmet.

The combined effect has led to concerns about quality, accountability, rapid growth and

the lack of oversight and has prompted the re-examination that has led to senate bill 5410 which

is currently awaiting the governor’s signature. Senate bill 5410 establishes a newly created

Office of Online Learning under the supervision of our state’s Superintendent of Public

Instruction. 1.3 million dollars was recently added to the state budget, and is awaiting final

approval to fund this newly created office and the recommendations of senate bill 5410. The

hope and yet to be seen intention of this legislation and this new office is to provide much

needed oversight. This wild, wild, west landscape is in desperate need of a trusted sheriff and

many have pinned the badge of hope on the promises of senate bill 5410. All the while

superintendents are faced with a significant quandary; particularly in light of an uncertain

economic future, looming teacher layoffs, and education cuts statewide in the billions of dollars

(Burwell, 2008).

Washington’s K-12 online learning providers have yet to solidly prove their

effectiveness. I could find no literature specific to Washington State’s K-12 online learning

success. On the contrary, 2008 data shows below-average scores on the WASL (Washington


Assessment of Student Learning) and a low WASL participation rate at the state’s two largest

online programs. Moreover, controversy in this rapidly developing, lucrative market has

provoked negative media attention and much deserved public scrutiny. In particular, two state

legislators and a district superintendent resigned from public service to take paid positions with

online-learning companies since the new legislation in 2005. In 2008, another concern among

the unregulated K-12 online vendors surfaced when a K-12 online school was sold in the middle

of the school year without the district superintendent’s knowledge. These issues provoke many

superintendents to scratch their heads and wonder the appropriate response to the K-12 online

learning dilemma (Burwell, 2008).

Despite the concerns and lack of evidence to support success, the numbers of children

these programs are attracting is staggering and growing exponentially. As public school entities

they offer their product free, some offer laptops and even money to help pay for internet

connection fees. The attraction for many is irresistible. Nationally, online enrollments in the

United States have grown from an estimated 45,000 in 2000 to more that a million in 2008

(Picciano, 2009). In my district, we have seen a 40% increase in the students leaving our district

to attend K-12 online learning options offered by other school districts resulting in a revenue loss

approaching a quarter of a million dollars. A report by the North American Council for Online

Learning (NACOL) states, as of September 2007, 42 states had significant supplemental online

learning programs (Watson & Ryan, 2007).

In contrast, Russo (2001) reports:

According to its most ardent proponents, online learning is the elixir that can help address

all sorts of problems facing school systems today: teacher shortage, limited course

offerings, too many dropouts, the flight to home-schooling, lack of Advanced Placement


classes in some places, the need for individualized learning, charter school competition,

poor teacher quality and lack of physical space. (p.8)

Superintendents today must wrangle with these new complex issues and make fiscally

responsible, instructionally sound decisions in areas where many are ill-equipped.


Section 2: Disruptive Innovation Theory

Christensen (1997) introduced the disruptive innovation theory to explain the phenomena

where a new innovation comes along that completely changes the marketplace, knocking the old

market leaders from their perch and giving rise to new ones. As stated in the introduction, his

theoretical model is based on research in the business world but Christensen et al. (2008) have

made recent applications to education that apply directly to the K-12 online learning field.

Theoretically, disruptive innovation can occur where there are people who want to do something

but cannot access the available offering.

Apple, for instance, successfully introduced its personal computer as a toy for children,

thus not directly competing with DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) and other

established makers of mainframe and minicomputers. Its market was “non-consumers”:

people not being served by the big manufacturers, and for whom the alternative was

nothing. In so doing, Apple did not provoke the opposition of the big boys, and personal

computers soon flourished (Chubb, 2009, p.6).

The Christensen et al. (2008) theory suggests online learning will triumph in public education in

the same way. K-12 online schools can offer advanced placement biology, remedial reading,

Mandarin Chinese or whatever the local districts are not offering. They can cater to students

who are gifted, live in rural or inner city areas or need extra credits for graduation thereby better

meeting the needs of the underserved. In so doing, K-12 online schools can compete against

nothing. As a result of budget constraints and parent-student demand; districts and states will

welcome these new vendors and will not see them as threats to be snuffed out (Christensen et al.,

2008).


In a recent interview, Larry Cuban is skeptical of Christensen et al. (2008) claims. Cuban

asserts that technologies have repeatedly promised much but delivered little besides the hype

(Chubb, 2009). Christensen (2008) cites Cuban’s work extensively in his latest book and

obviously agrees with his claims, pointing to the very heart of Cuban’s argument as the impetus

of the recent boon in K-12 online learning and the ensuing tide of disruptive innovation.

Christensen et al. (2008) theory supports a new opportunity for an educational technology like

online learning to now have a transformational impact on the K-12 landscape. Christensen claims

that most of the change from technology will not come in our traditional classroom at all, so

there is no real disagreement here with Cuban. Instead, the work of Christensen et al. (2008)

suggests the change will come in a new organizational model, one outside of the traditional

classroom and even outside of public education. The disruptive innovation theory is a perfect

lens in which to view this recent phenomenon in our public schools and it provides excellent

fodder for superintendents to consider when faced with the ominous task of determining a plan

of response.


Section 3: K-12 Online Learning Effectiveness Research: No Significant Difference

Bernard et al. (2004) provide a meta-analysis of the empirical literature comparing

distance education with classroom instruction. This meta-analysis looked at 232 comparative

studies between 1985 and 2002. The authors specifically looked at studies addressing the issues

of student achievement, attitude and retention. The researchers found a mean average effect size

across all outcomes that indicated no significant difference across all effects. Online learners

slightly outperformed the traditional classroom on achievement measures, while holding similar

attitudes about courses, but they were also likely to have lower course retention rates. On the

other hand, videoconferencing students were outperformed by conventional students and had less

positive attitudes than conventional students. The retention rate was similar to conventional

students and higher than that of online students. In the end, the conclusions reached suggest no

significant difference between distance education and traditional education.

Cavanaugh et al. (2004) examined the effects of online education on the academic

outcomes of students across a range of K-12 grade levels. It is one of the only meta-analysis

specifically designed to answer the question of K-12 online learning effectiveness in terms of

academic achievement. In this study, Cavanaugh et al. identify 14 studies completed between

1999 and 2004 that met their rigid inclusion criteria. Student achievement measures served as an

outcome variable. The weighed mean effect size was negative but near zero; yet another major

study indicating no significant difference in the effectiveness of online over conventional

learning.

These two meta-analysis studies tend to confirm the findings of extensive compilations,

such as Russell’s (1999) annotated bibliography of 355 studies, ranging from Crump (1928)

through studies published in 1999. They support the conclusion that distance education is as


effective as conventional education in terms of academic outcomes, rather than more or less

effective. In other words, research findings suggest there is no significant difference between K-

12 online and traditional methods of learning. In the literature this is referred to as the “no

significant difference phenomena”.

The no significant difference literature can be further interpreted in two ways. First, the

no significant difference findings demonstrate that delivering education at a distance does no

harm. Students who select distance delivery are not immediately put into a compromised position

simply because they are not receiving their education in a traditional format. Second, the no

significant difference findings indicate that simply converting a face to face course into a

technology-mediated distance delivery course does not help improve student outcomes. To

achieve gains in student outcomes, we must do more than just deliver the course through a

different medium (Russell, 1999).

Smith et al. (2005) provide a synthesis of eight quantitative research projects with field

based, experimental and quasi-experimental studies with the intent to provide two-group, fully

randomized experimental educational experiments. Smith et al. (2005) found “the increasing use

of online learning has been both welcomed and rebuffed because it requires new ways of

thinking that challenge traditionally accepted educational constructs and redefines the notions of

place and time that historically have been linked to participation in formal education” (p. 53).

Smith et al. (2005) did provided hope that online learning “when implemented judiciously and

with attention to evidenced-based practices, apparently can improve student academic

performance” (p. 56).


Section 4: Superintendent’s Role in Online Learning

Given this climate of looming disruptive innovation, the research question remains; how

should the superintendent respond? Very little is found in the literature on the topic of the

superintendent’s leadership through this lens. In fact, the element of leadership and its impact on

the growth and success of K-12 online learning in the literature is meager at best (Beaudoin,

2003). Also missing is a theoretical framework to guide understanding of K-12 online learning

management practices. The focus of the literature has been on pedagogical issues rather than

administrative matters.

Although not focused specifically on K-12 online education, Shuldman (2004) offers this

powerful reminder of the importance of the role of the superintendent from his qualitative work:

There is a growing consensus that administrative support and leadership are crucial to

successful implementation of instructional technologies, and that the importance of this

administrative support is often understated. It has been suggested that administrators do

not appear prepared for their emerging role in technology, and their lack of understanding

and resources sometimes creates barriers to change and improvement. It has been

observed that in many districts, superintendents have remained withdrawn from the

technology discussions, leaving to staff the leadership roles of planning and

implementing technology. This remoteness can have consequences of its own, especially

if technology decisions are left to those with more of an interest and expertise in the

technology. The results of such disregard are often costly, and could result in the loss of

control of technology decisions to those parts of the system that do not hold a curricular

outlook. Although there is the occasional study that focuses the spotlight on


superintendent thinking, behavior, and leadership, there is, overall, little research on the

superintendency and less still on superintendents and technology. (p. 321)

Superintendents can play a leadership role in distance education without being an expert

in the field. Many superintendents have avoided online learning because of its limitations

including learner isolation, technical glitches, lower than average completion rates, lack of

evaluative data and objections from teachers’ unions. In addition, there are equity issues. Not all

students have access to a computer outside of school, and parents are not equally able to provide

additional academic support that online learning can require (Beaudoin, 2003).

Augustine-Shaw (2001) surveyed 263 Kansas superintendents with an 87% response rate

regarding virtual school environments in Kansas K-12 public schools. She highlights many of the

issues as well as potential benefits of online learning. Her research found a number of concerns

about online learning among school superintendents, including lack of familiarity, staff

resistance, inadequate state funding, lost accountability and the belief that some districts were

using online programs to recoup revenue losses from declining attendance. She quoted many

superintendents on their apprehensions and skepticisms. Surprisingly, several superintendents

recommended districts not implement virtual schools at all; and one, showing his concern about

the development of K-12 online learning in other districts, expressed his desire to be asked

permission before other districts drive their “virtual school bus” onto his turf. While another

candidly pointed to funding as the only reason for beginning an online learning program.

More recently Robison (2007) modified the Lickert-type survey of Augustine-Shaw

(2001) and collected quantitative data from all district superintendents (N=99) within the

Appalachian Counties of Ohio. In that study, superintendents reported that online courses should

only be used as an alternative and not a replacement for the traditional classroom. In fact,


responding superintendents showed strong reservations toward using online learning for anything

except and alternative to the traditional classroom. They cited lack of student motivation and

lack of social interaction as particular problems with online courses. There was strong sentiment

that the traditional classroom is the best place for students.

Overall the literature shows a need for greater superintendent preparation in the benefits

and cautions of online learning. Many superintendents have led school systems for decades and

this is a very real and new threat to the business as usual mentality. Fortunately, there is a new

breed of technologically equipped superintendents taking the reigns. There numbers are few, but

their impact and discussions of their successful leadership in this arena are mentioned regularly

in the literature (Bearden, 2008; Bushweller, 2008; Dougherty, 2008; Kruger, 2008; Snider,

2004).


Section 6: Reflections

I could find no bold claims in the literature that K-12 online learning is any better that

traditional brick and mortar learning. However, the research is unambiguous that online learning

does no more harm and is generally equally successful to conventional approaches. Make no

mistake, the data unequivocally shows more and more parents are selecting the online options of

the world over the customary options of the K-12 system in their neighborhood. Given the

unique needs of each child in our K-12 system, online learning appears to meet a need for many.

In addition, the data indisputably shows that this massive exodus has hit school district budgets

hard, leaving many superintendents wondering whether to embrace this disruption or prepare to

fend it off. Time will tell, but current trends support the notion that the disruptive innovation

theory claims of Christensen et al. (2008) appear to be on their way to fulfillment.

In Washington State the new Office of Online Learning has a tall order to fill.

Superintendents are hopeful that the office will provide the proper oversight to help mitigate the

huge hit many budgets are taking as a result of past policy. Advanced Academics using teachers

in Oklahoma will be providing an online learning option to the students in my school district for

the first time this fall. Our hope is to retrieve the over 200 students that have left our system but

still live in our district. Initially we were fiscally motivated; the financial disruption caused us to

respond to the unmet needs of our students. This review points to other motivations that could

and should drive a districts choice to take the first step into this unexplored territory. As a result

of this review of the literature, I am convinced and evidence supports that my superintendent

made the right decision to pursue this option.

My research questions ask: How do Washington State superintendents currently respond

to the current trend of student migration out of their districts to private online options? How do


Washington State superintendents currently spend their limited resources to contend with this

competition? What characteristics associated with online learning do Washington State

superintendents believe impede or facilitate it being used as a viable public high school

alternative to the traditional high school classroom? Other questions were prompted by this

review: What motivations and beliefs guide superintendent decision making in this regard?

What preparation does a superintendent need to respond to this challenge? The research supports

the need for superintendents to be particularly aware and involved in this critical decision; much

remains to be seen and learned. Successful superintendents will heed the warning of Christensen

et al. (2008) and be proactive in developing a response to this disruptive innovation that appears

to have a strong foothold and is gaining traction.


References

Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning.

Hunter College and Graduate Center of the City University of New York, Olin and

Babson Colleges. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from

http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp

Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008

Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from


Augustine-Shaw, D. (2001). Virtual school learning environments in Kansas’ K-12 public

schools: Leadership perspectives and policy issues. Dissertation Abstracts International,

62 (09A), 2929.

Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban

right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(5 1).

Bearden, D.L. (2008). Cyberschool finance: A study of equity and adequacy. (Doctoral

dissertation, Capella University, 2008). Retrieved March 24, 2009 from

http://dbbearden.googlepages.com/links

Beaudoin, M. F. (2003). Distance education leadership for the new century. Online Journal of

Distance Learning Administration, Volume VI, Number II, Summer 2003. State

University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer62/beaudoin62.html .

Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallett, P.A.,

Fiset, M. and Huang, B. How does distance education compare with classroom

instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research.

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer62/beaudoin62.html

http://dbbearden.googlepages.com/links




Fall 2004, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 379–439. Retrieved on March 30, 2008 from Sage Journals

Online.

Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn't technology disrupted academics' teaching practices?

Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers &

Education, 50(2), 475-90.

Burwell, K. (2008). Washington state online learning policies and programs. Senate Early

Learning & K-12 Education Committee. Olympia, WA.

Bushweller, K. (2008). From CIO to schools chief. Education week, 1(3), 5.

Bushweller, K. (2007). Moving up. Education Week, 1(1), 6.

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

distance education on K-12 student outcomes: a meta-analysis. Learning Point

Associations. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from

http://www.ncrel.org/tech/distance/index.html

Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to

fail, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C., Horn, M & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will

change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill

Chubb, J., Moe, T., and Cuban, L. (2009). Virtual schools. Education next, 9(1). Retrieved

March 15, 2009 from http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/34686764.html

Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: trends and issues. A study of virtual schools in the United

States. Phoenix, AZ: Distance learning resource network at WestEd. Retrieved March

18, 2008, from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf

http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/34686764.html

http://www.ncrel.org/tech/distance/index.html


Crump, R. E. (1928). Correspondence and Class Extension Work in Oklahoma. Doctoral

Dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technology in high

school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research

Journal, 38(4), 813-834.

Dougherty, M. (2008). Abdication of responsibility isn't an option. School Administrator, 65(9),

8.

Friedman, T (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., and Smythe, T. (2009). The 2009 horizon report: K-12

edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Krueger, K. (2008). The superintendent as chief technology modeler. School Administrator,

65(10), 8.

Picciano, A. G. and Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: a survey of U.S. school district

administrators. Hunter College and Graduate Center of the City University of New York,

Olin and Babson Colleges. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved April 10, 2009 from

http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/K-12_06.asp.

Robison, S. A. (2007). Online course in Appalachian Ohio high schools perceptions and

experiences of superintendents and principals. (Doctoral


dissertation, Ohio University, 2008). Retrieved March 24, 2009 from

http://tinyurl.com/chpfyv

Russell, T. (2002). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated

bibliography on technology for distance education. Raleigh, : North Carolina State

University.

Russo, A. (2001). E-learning everywhere. School Administrator, 58(9), 6-13.

Shuldman, Mitchell. (2004). Superintendent conceptions of institutional conditions that impact

teacher technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1),

319-343.

Smith, R., Clark, T., and Blomeyer, R. (2005). A synthesis of new research about online

learning. Learning Point Associates. Retrieved March 23, 2009 from

http://www.ncrel.org/tech/synthesis/

Solomon, G. (2005). Setting up an e-learning system: Time for your district to get into the e-

learning game? One superintendent found that careful investigation and planning are key.

Technology & Learning, 25(11), 44.

Watson, J.F. and Ryan, J. (2007). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning. Evergreen

Consulting Associates. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from

http://www.nacol.org/docs/KeepingPace07-color.pdf

http://www.nacol.org/docs/KeepingPace07-color.pdf

http://www.ncrel.org/tech/synthesis/

Download - Sample ~ Malone, 2009 Literature Review

Top Related