0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

an advanced standing test to receive credit for the introductory course.

Students successfully completing the 75-hour CyberTech I course are eligible to participate in the 75-hour SummerTech VB.net programming course, which builds on concepts learned in CyberTech I. Upon completion of the summer programming course, students have the opportunity to attend Weekend Academy, an adventure game programming seminar that meets once per month throughout the student’s junior year of high school. Finally, students are encouraged to take AP computer science in their senior year, and the grant pays all testing fees.

During the first offering of CyberTech I, we made all course materials available to students using the Blackboard deliveryoption.We selected Blackboard as thedelivery vehicleforCyberTechI since all K-12 schools in the state use Blackboard for online courses, and the students and teachers are likely very familiar with the look and feel of the system. The county managing the Blackboard licenses required us to pay a per-student fee for usage of the service, and the NSF grant covered all costs. In the second and subsequent semester offerings of CyberTech I, we moved to Moodle, an open source alternative, saving approximately $20,000 per semester over the costs associated with using Blackboard. We developed online training for students using Moodle and offered an in-person training session for all high school teachers assisting in the CyberTech I classroom.

Assignmentsweredividedintounits,witheach unit encompassing a chapter or similar grouping of material. Within every unit, we integrated ethics components. We included a substantial number of video clips, hands-on activities, and Web exercises to stimulate students. Each unit further included interactive discussion boards for critical evaluation of issues relevant to the students. Discussion board topics included subjects such as software piracy, reliability of information on the Web, software licensing and patents, careers in computing, and Grace Hopper’s impact

on computing. We particularly recommend the inclusion of topics highlighting the contributions to IT of underrepresented groups, such as women and minorities.

Basedonfeedbackfromteachersandstudents, we designed a student agreement after the initial offering of CyberTechI.Thisagreementspecified studentexpectations and outlined rules of conduct for the class. Specifically, the students agreed to the following:

•To complete unit assignments in a timely manner, by 11:45 pm on the date specified, and to inform the instructors promptly if I am unable to complete the work in a timely manner.

•To stay in close contact with the teacher at my school, the CyberTech I instructor, and the TA.

•To submit only work that is my own, and not to share my work with anyone else, although I understand that I may work together on homework and laboratory assignments.

•To regularly visit the course site for updates and assignments, checking at least every 3 business days.

•To interact with classmates and the course instructors in a professional and mature manner.

•To follow the instructions for assignments carefully, making sure to answer the questions posed.

•To spell-check and proofread all discussion board postings, laboratory exercises, and e-mail messages before submitting them.

•To submit assignments in the appropriate manner and format as specified online.

•Tocontactmyteacher,theCyberTechIinstructor, or my TA with problems or questions.

•To keep my e-mail address updated and to check and respond to e-mail regularly, at least every 3 business days.

•Tospendapproximately10-14hoursperweek on in-class and out-of-class activities.

We provided the students with a copy of the syllabus and the student agreement on the first day of class. They had to sign the agreement and have a parent/guardian sign as well and return the form the next day. Students, site facilitators, and parents all reported significantlylessconfusiononcewedevelopeda student agreement, and we would recommend that others embarking on a similar project develop comparable guidelines.

schools

Before submitting a grant proposal to NSF, we secured multiple letters of support for the CyberTech I program from schools in the surrounding areas. When we received funding and began to implement the program, we believed we wouldencounterlittledifficultygettingschoolsto participate. After all, we were offering teachers the option of facilitating a class with no grading requirements and no lesson plan development. Further, we were offering the schools funding to cover all books and miscellaneous fees and the potential ability to expand their curriculum to offer a course not typically offered. Although we thought schools would be excited to participate in the program, we ran into a few problems. Before even considering whether to implement the CyberTech I program, the schools wanted to ensure that the curriculum met state guidelines for IT courses. Therefore, we mapped all course learning outcomes to corresponding objectives in IT 11.412, IT Foundations. After one of the largest school districts in the state approved the online course as meeting the requirements for IT 11.412, all other districts approved the course as well.

Further, we found that school participation was contingent upon securing additional support from administrative levels as high in the hierarchy as possible. In school districts where the superintendent was supportive and excited about the program, we found principals and teachers correspondingly supportive. We also

learned that it was essential to get the full support of principals, counselors, teachers, parents, and students at each school. The more support we received, the better the student participation in the program. To secure support at all levels, a project manager/director visited school district offices, local schools, and individual teachers, counselors, and principals on a regular basis. We found that it was important to keep the level of excitement high, and personal contact with the project manager/director was necessary to sustain this passion for the program.

course scheduling

Once we received support from the school systems,wethenhadtofindawaytogetCyberTech I on the school schedule. Unfortunately, we ran into several problems in this regard. High school schedules are often created a year or more in advance. NSF funding for our proposal, however, was not awarded until October. That made it challenging to schedule the course the following January, a mere three months to get the course on the schedule and the online materials in place. For the initial offering of CyberTech I, we developed several workarounds to compensate for the schedule timing issues.

First, we offered students the option of taking the CyberTech I course before or after school, as an additional class to the load they were already taking. Second, we offered students the opportunity to take the course at their homes, on their own computers. Both of these options presented problems.

The withdrawal process for high school students is different than the process normally encountered in universities. High school students arenotallowedtowithdrawfromclassesthatmeet during the day. However, for additional classes students take beyond the school day, they can withdraw almost until the end of the semester. Since CyberTech I was an additional course, high school students had the option to drop the course.

Several of the high schools with which we dealt had very lenient drop dates almost at the end of the semester, which caused us to lose a number of students. It is very important to establish clear guidelinesforwithdrawalthatdonotconflictwith individual high school policies.

Inaddition,itwasdifficulttokeepthestudents motivated when they only met an afternoon or two a week in a lab, or when they worked from home. We also found it quite hard to maintain contact with the students—whose e-mail ad- dresseswereofteninvalid—anddifficulttokeep these students involved, engaged, and interested in the CyberTech I class.

As a second option, we put CyberTech I students in other computer classrooms that had extra capacity. So while one class was being taught, the CyberTech I students could access their assignments on a computer in a regular classroom. The obvious drawbacks to this situation are that teachers do not have time to assist the CyberTech I students, and the CyberTech I students found it difficult to concentrate when another class was being taught.

After offering alternative scheduling arrangements out of necessity the first semester, we learned that students in the regularly scheduled classes that met every day in the classroom with a teacher did much better than students who workedbeforeorafterschool,inotherclassrooms, or at home. We would highly recommend that others undertaking similar endeavors schedule CyberTech I as part of the school day to achieve greater levels of success.

The rules for changing grades also differ in the highschoolsanduniversities.Highschoolstudents can appeal grades more than a year after the class is completed. In some cases, they can request withdrawal from a course well after the class has been completed. High school teachers—and sometimescounselors—havemuchmoreflexibil- ity in changing grades than do professors in most university settings. Establishing clear guidelines for grade appeals is also necessary before starting any curriculum endeavor in the high schools.

cybertech i instructor

The CyberTech I instructor selected for this program had years of experience teaching the introductory course material with excellent student evaluations of performance. Further, the instructor had several years of experience coordinating many sections of the course at two different universities. We found that it is critical to select an instructor who works well with students at all levels and promptly responds to student inquiries. Inparticular,wesuggestthatthechoseninstructor has a passion for working with young students, since the high school students have a different maturity level than their college counterparts. Instructorswithexperienceteachingcollege-level freshmen and lower-level courses might be most capable of teaching these adolescents. Moreover, we recommend that others undertaking similar programs avoid the temptation to assign adjunct or new faculty to this endeavor. The chosen instructor needs experience teaching the course, excellent organizational skills, the ability to juggleconflictingneedsseamlessly,andsuperior supervision skills to monitor the performance of the teaching assistants.

site facilitators

After choosing the faculty member to oversee the course, we then worked with the participating school systems to select the high school teachers. Selecting the site facilitators presented challenges significantly different from the selection of the

CyberTech I instructor. While we had total control of instructor selection, we had only limited input into the selection of a site facilitator. The school principals assigned the site facilitators, often selecting volunteer teachers, who may or may not have had the necessary background. In fact, we learned that if a volunteer did not come forward to facilitate CyberTech I, the principal would simply force a teacher to take the responsibility, leading to potential resentment. We found that giving the

principaladvancenoticeoftheneedforinstructors helped in the assignment of a site facilitator with the necessary skills. Ideal site facilitators would have extensive experience teaching advanced IT courses, a passion to teach AP courses, and excellent teaching skills. Moreover, the site facilitator needs to be organized and able to work well in online environments. Since we learned that some site facilitators were unfamiliarwithonline teaching environments, we recommend requiring that all site facilitators complete a special training course in the online learning management system to ensure that they can provide basic assistance to students when needed. Previous studies have notedtheimportanceofallocatingsufficienttraining time to teachers (Donlevy, 2003).

We found that principals were more likely to assign excellent site facilitators when: 1) they receivedampleadvancenotice,2)theyunderstood the goals of the program, and 3) they understood the importance of teacher involvement on student success in the CyberTech I classroom. This program targets underrepresented groups, including minorities,women,disabled,andfirst-generation college students. Since these students typically may not perform well on state-mandated tests, standards upon which the principal is graded, we used anticipated improved student performance as another selling point. If we can convince the principal that the program is going to help these students perform better in the classroom, we are more likely to receive assistance in the selection of an excellent site facilitator.

Wealsofounditverydifficulttomotivatethe site facilitators to perform well in the classroom, even though we stressed to them the benefits of participatingintheprogram.Specifically,weprovided all lesson plans, completed all grading, and answered student questions. The site facilitator only had to answer questions for which students might need immediate help; for example, assistance with logging into the learning management systems (i.e., Blackboard or Moodle). The site facilitators received their regular pay for teaching

the CyberTech I course, although they did not have to put together lesson plans, grade assignments, or calculate final grades. If teachers were not teaching the CyberTech I course during this time period, they would receive their regular pay—but no stipend—to teach another course, including developing lesson plans, grading all assignments, and assigning final grades. We also gave all site facilitatorsamodeststipendof$400butstillfound itdifficulttomotivatetheteachers.Sincewehad no input into the teachers’ evaluations, we could not motivate them to perform better or worse.

We were unable to find a suitable workaround for the problem of teacher motivation. Indeed, K-12 administrators face a constant struggle of motivating teachers, and we simply experienced one small part of the problem.

students

To recruit students for the program, we offered several information sessions in the evenings, where parents could learn about the program and ask questions. We learned that it was important to secure the support and excitement of at least one teacher or school counselor to ensure that a large number of participants attended the information sessions. To that end, we involved counselors and principals early and often. In particular, school counselors have enormous influence on which courses students will take, so we made sure that the project manager/director for the CyberTech I project met with all counselors on a regular basis, stressing the benefits of the program.

In addition to open recruiting presentations, we solicited input from teachers and counselors to select appropriate students. Rather than simply selecting students who were on the noncollegepreparation track, we asked teachers and counselors to identify potentially high-performing students, particularly students from our targeted groups.

Once students were identified—either from the information sessions or through teacher

identification—wetheninterviewedthestudents.

We set grade-point average (GPA) guidelines, setting a cutoff level of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale. In our case, a grade of A received 4 points, a grade of B received 3 points, a grade of C received 2 points, a grade of D received 1 point, and a grade of F received 0 points. To earn an A, a student had to have an average of 90% or higher for the course; for a B, an average of 80% or higher; for a C, an average of 70% or higher; for a D, an average of 60% or higher; and for an F, any average grade below 60%. We further considered additional desired traits such as good attendance records. In some cases, based on teacher and/or counselor recommendations, we selected students whose GPA might have been a little lower than desired, but who had excellent attendance and great potential in the classroom. We also learned that it is important for students to be excited about the program so that they will talk positively to their peers who might be eligible for the program the following year. Word of mouth advertising was an inexpensive method to recruit students as the project continued.

teaching assistants

Teaching assistants were critical to the program’s success, since they were the first line of contact for the students. We have a Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS) program at our institution, so we had a ready group of qualified graduate students who could serve the high school students well. The NSF grant allowed us the opportunity to reward well-qualified students with tuition remission and a small stipend. Like the instructor and the site facilitators, it is critical to select teaching assistants who are organized, fast to respond to student questions, and able to work well in an online environment. Since the TAs are oftenthefirstlineofcontactforthestudents,their ability to handle problems in a tactful manner is of paramount importance. Moreover, their communication skills, both written and verbal, must

be superlative. They need to work well with the CyberTech I instructor and the site facilitators. Finally, previous teaching or training experience ishighlyvalued,andifcertifiedteachersareavailable, they should receive priority consideration.

We completed a competitive application process for the TA positions, which were highly desired by the MSIS students. The CyberTech I faculty member interviewed each potential TA after reviewing the application and resume. In addition, we relied on faculty input to make the best choices. We believe it is critical to form a supportivegroupoffacultymemberswhocanprovide input into the selection process. In addition, if a school undertakes a similar project, and does not haveagraduateprogramfromwhichtoselectTAs, we recommend establishing a partnership with a nearbyuniversitytorecruitqualifiedandcapable

TAs. We cannot overstate the importance of good TAs for a successful classroom experience.

Before hiring the TAs, we estimated the optimal student load that each TA could handle. In initial semesters, one TA could handle about 25-30 students. That time includes grading approximately one discussion board posting and one laboratory assignment per week for each student. Weekly quizzes, the midterm, and the final exam were all graded automatically. In subsequent semesters working in CyberTech I, the same previously trained TAs could handle up to 50 students each. We generally kept the TAstudent ratio at about 1:25 and found that the TAs, students, teachers, and faculty members were all satisfied with performance at those levels.

Once a TA was hired, we began an extensive preparatory program. TAs went through the same exercises that students would complete, as well as an online training course. In addition, TAs were required to submit weekly status reports detailing the accomplishments of the week. In the status report, the TA had to include names of students who were not making satisfactory progress and steps taken to improve student performance. In addition,theTAsreportedwhichspecificassign-

ments had been graded and which assignments were pending. We believe it is critically important for the CyberTech I faculty member to stay current with TA performance so that problems can be resolved quickly.

We did learn early in the program that TAs should not be the first line of contact for parents.

Unlike the college environment, high school teachers often have to deal with irate parents who demand immediate answers. When the parents contacted the TAs directly, the TAs were always told to forward that information to the CyberTech I Instructor. In addition, although the TAs graded all student work submitted, the CyberTech I Instructor, in consultation with the site facilitators, assigned final grades.

Further, we learned that the K-12 calendar does not correspond to many college calendars.

Specifically,thecollegefallsemesterbeginsafter many of the K-12 schools have been in session for some time, and the college spring semester ends before K-12 schools complete their year. In addition,springbreaksandotherholidaysmaynot match. Therefore, we recommend hiring at least one teaching assistant who is available to work during breaks. We hired this TA as a temporary employee, and the position was renewable for a 1-year time period.

We also learned that the TA could serve an increasingly important role if one of the high schoolteacherswasnotcertifiedtoteachIT-related courses. In that case, we recommend finding a

TA who is able to travel to the school and provide help sessions about once or twice per month. We further recommend that the TA who has to travel off-sitetohelpthestudentsshouldbecompensated with a reduced teaching load (10-15 students as opposed to 25-30 typical for other TAs).

advisory board

The advisory board provides the final piece for our team of players needed for a successful outcome. Advisory board members should include

representatives from university personnel, K-12 employees experienced in administration, publishers and authors of textbooks appropriate for use in the program, graders for the AP computer scienceexam,andpeoplefamiliarwithassessment strategiesforlarge-scale,longitudinalprojects.We recommendmeetingwiththeadvisoryboardonce or twice a year and updating them on strategies usedintheproject.WiththeinputoftheCyberTech I advisory board, we were able to develop meaningful assessment instruments and appropriate curriculum for the high school level.

assessMent

Formative evaluation of each student’s progress was conducted through daily quizzes and weekly assessment of work products by the CyberTech I instructor and teaching assistants. In addition to feedback from instructors and TAs, students received guidance from a site facilitator at their local high school. Moreover, students were required to complete an initial evaluation before enrolling to determine their suitability for taking an online course. We used a test from one of the county systems that was given to all high school students who were considering enrollment in online learning. If the answers indicated that the student might not perform well in an online course, the student was given online advice and encouraged to visit the school counselor and/or talkwiththeinstructorforfurtherinformation.We stronglyrecommendthatuniversitiesundertaking similar projects use a test to identify whether a student has the focus and initiative to succeed in an online course.

We completed several assessment measures to determine the success of CyberTech I. First, we measured the number of students who enrolled in CyberTech I and the number of students who successfully completed the course. Over three semesters and with approximately 250 enrollees, students posted a successful completion rate (de-

finedasearninganA,B,C,orD)of78%.Considering that we were dealing with at-risk, transient, and underrepresented groups, we feel that this success rate was excellent. We would encourage others completing similar projects to measure and report success rates for thoughtful comparison purposes and to establish a benchmark.

Second, we asked all students to take a preassessment test. This test was a 45-item mul- tiple-choice exam matched to the stated goals and objectives of the course. We compared the student’s preassessment score to the score on a similarly-matched 45-item multiple-choice final examtodetermineiflearningoccurredthroughout the semester. Our results showed statistically significantdifferences(p<0.05)betweenthepretest and the final exam scores, which we used as an indication that learning had occurred.

Wealsoconductedattitudinalsurveystogauge student satisfaction with the course. Our initial results indicated that students were generally satisfied with the CyberTech I course. However, we learned that high school students need a significant amount of interaction and activities to accomplish their online course assignments, more so than their university student counterparts. Therefore, we plan to include more online activities in future endeavors and recommend that others do the same.

Our study did face a number of challenges in regards to gathering data. Since high school students are not old enough to sign a contract, they cannot agree to complete surveys. Therefore, we had to secure parent permission for student participation in assessment activities. We learned that we should give the permission forms to the students on the first day of class and have them take the forms home and return them promptly.

futuRe ReseaRch

Although the CyberTech I program discussed in this chapter received funding from an external

agency, clearly similar endeavors may need to find alternate funding sources. Corporate sponsors may provide another option for universities that are not fortunate enough to receive some of the available limited funding. Before beginning the CyberTech I program, we offered a similar summer session that taught high school students how to program in a nonthreatening, enriching environment. We acquired corporate funding for these initiatives, along with support from the participating high schools, and we would encourage other universities to seek funding from multiple sources.

University-high school partnerships have only recently emerged as a viable option for students, teachers,andadministrators.Muchmoreresearch is needed to determine what types of online learning are most effective in different situations, with different age levels, and in countries outside of the U.S. Will the proliferation of virtual high schools across the U.S. provide better options for joint online delivery of courses at the high school and university levels? As infrastructure improves around the world, will international partnerships between universities and high schools in different countries be offered? If so, what impact does culturehaveonthe success of onlinecourse delivery? Researchers could analyze whether international partnershipsofferstudentsamoreenrichinglearning experience than partnerships offered in one country only. In addition, researchers may study whether factors such as different time zones and languages affect the learning experience.

Although our study found that students did not use instant messaging or chat options very frequently, future research should determine the applicability of such tools in university-high school partnerships. Since instant messaging and chat have recentlybecome mainstream communication alternatives, perhaps future research will find more student use of these options.

Future research could also examine how to educate students on the appropriate methods of using e-mail, instant messaging, and chat. Since

e-mail, instant messaging, and chat by their very nature lead to informal communication methods, teachers may need to use different strategies to help students realize how to use communication methods in professional and appropriate ways.

conclusion

Properplanningandeffectiveprojectmanagement are essential to the success of university-high school partnerships to deliver online courses. In this chapter, we presented details of an asynchronous online learning class delivered by university faculty and teaching assistants to high school stu-

dents. Some of the lessons learned may be applied tosimilaruniversity-highschoolpartnershipsorto large, introductory online college classrooms that may have many teaching assistants. In addition, we presented essential considerations to improve the chances of successfully completing a major endeavor. In particular, we discussed challenges and key lessons learned for the project manager/ director, curriculum and delivery, schools, course scheduling, CyberTech I instructor, site facilitators, students, teaching assistants, and advisory board, as shown in Table 1.

We recommend that anyone who is considering a similar endeavor should ensure that an appropriate team is formed, including all of the

components discussed in this chapter and summarized in Table 1. In addition to the CyberTech I instructor, we enlisted the assistance of a full-time project manager/director who served as a liaison to all of the high schools. The high school principals and counselors appreciated the presence of a single point of contact they could call with questions. Ultimately, we learned that a synergistic team including university faculty, teaching assistants, site facilitators, principals, counselors, project managers, and, especially, the high school students themselves, worked together to make the university-high school partnership a success.

RefeRences

Anastasiades, P. S. (2003). Distance learning in elementary schools in Cyprus: The evaluation methodology and results. Computers & Education, 40, 17-40.

Dale, N., & Lewis, J. (2003). Computer science illuminated (2nd ed.). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Donlevy, J. (2003). Teachers, technology and training. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(2), 117-121.

Grandell,L.(2005).Highschoolstudentslearning university level computer science on the Web: A case study of the DASK-model. Journal of Information Technology Education, 4, 207-218.

Harvey,S.(2004).Bridgingthedigitaldivide:How technology can change higher education delivery

for high school students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 73-74.

Meyer, R. M. (2003). Explorations in computer science: A guide to discovery. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Mupinga, D. M. (2005, January-February). Distance education in high schools. The Clearing House, 78(3), 105-108.

additional Readings

Carswell, L., Thomas, P., Petre, M., Price, B., & Richards, M. (2000). Distance education via the Internet: The student experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 29-46.

Gal-Ezer, J., & Lupo, D. (2002). Integrating Internet tools into traditional CS distance education: Students’ attitudes. Computers & Education, 38, 319-329.

Inman, E., Kerwin, M., & Mayes, L. (1999). Instructor and student attitudes toward distance learning.CommunityCollegeJournalofResearch and Practice, 23, 581-591.

Katz, Y. J. (2002). Attitudes affecting college students’ preferences for distance learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 2-9.

Ponzurick, T. G., France, K. R., & Logar, C. M. (2000). Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance education. Journal of Marketing Education,

22(3), 180-187.