![Answers: RQ1 Behaviors
āIt [learning] doesnāt have to be
separated from daily lifeā](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dissertation-defense-hasler-waters-draft-2-121006061459-phpapp01/75/Dissertation-defense-Learning-Coaches-26-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byLisa Hasler Waters
Dissertation defense-Learning Coaches
This document summarizes Lisa Hasler Waters' 2012 qualitative case study exploring the experiences of learning coaches in cyber charter schools. The study aimed to understand how learning coaches support their students, perceive their roles, use technology, and face challenges. It used interviews and focus groups with five learning coaches affiliated with the Hawaii Technology Academy. The results identified three important themes: being learner centric, using available resources, and relating learning to real life. The study provided insights into the behaviors, beliefs, technology use and challenges of learning coaches and their important role in virtual schooling.
Educationā¦
More Related Content
Similar to Dissertation defense-Learning Coaches
![Final%2520book%2520report%5b1%5d[1]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/final2520book2520report5b15d1-111121173623-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Dissertation defense-Learning Coaches
- 1. Exploring the Experiencesof Learning Coaches in Cyber Charter Schools A Qualitative Case Study Lisa Hasler Waters October 16, 2012
- 2. Lisa Hasler Waters ETEC, M.Ed. 2001 ETEC, Ph.D. program 2007 United Kingdom, consulting Virginia, consulting
- 3. Acknowledgements Family Friends,Colleagues, ETEC Study participants Committee
- 4. Dissertation Committee Dr. Michael P. Menchaca, Chair Dr. James A. Dator, Member Dr. Ellen S. Hoffman, Member Dr. Michael K. Barbour, Member Dr. Peter Leong, Member
- 5. Agenda I. Why this study II. Problem III. Purpose IV. Research Questions VII. Methods V. Major Previous Findings VIII. Limitations VI. Conceptual Framework IX. Results X. Discussion XI. Summary XII. Implications XIII. Recommendations
- 6. The Story Behindthe Study
- 7. Problem Parents of cyber charter students are central figures supporting their childrenās education Yet, little research has examined their practices
- 8. Problem āThe relatively unregulated operation of virtual schools by private or public entities has caused many professionals to approach the subject of virtual schooling with cautionā 1
- 9. Purpose Statement To discover the beliefs and behaviors of learning coaches
- 10. Research Questions RQ1: Howdo learning coaches support their students? RQ2: How do they perceive their roles? RQ3: How do they use technology to support their students? RQ4: What challenges do they face?
- 11. Major Previous Findings Parental involvement has been linked to positive student outcomes2,3,4 traditional virtual home
- 12. Parental Involvement HDS Modelof Parental Involvement5: Encouraging Reinforcing Motivating Instructing
- 13. Parental Involvement HDS Model of Parental Involvement in virtual schooling: Encouraging Reinforcing Motivating -Instructing?
- 14. What we doknow Tasks associated with learning coaches: Organizing Instructing Motivating Managing
- 15. Conceptual Framework ļ¢ HDS Model of Parental Involvement Ecological Systems Theory6
- 16. Methods Qualitative Exploratory case study Grounded theory āelucidate conceptsā7
- 17. Methods: Settings and Participants Hawaii Technology Academy (HTA) K12 Inc, partner Five learning coaches
- 18. Methods: Data Collection Interviews ļ¼ Focus group Diary logs Survey Secondary resources The multi-layered reality of the virtual realm warrants special consideration
- 19. Methods: Data Analysis General analytic strategy Iterative 4 levels of coding Constant comparison Triangulation
- 20. Limitations Small group Complexities of virtual research Lack of student voices Relationship of researcher : participants
- 21. Results: 3 ImportantThemes Learner centric Resources Real Life
- 22. Learner Centric āI try to mirror them as much as possibleā
- 23. Resources āTeachers are the go-to personā
- 24. Real Life āWe try to relate things they were learning with real life thingsā
- 25. Solving the Questions Learner centric Resources Real Life RQ1: Behaviors RQ2: Roles RQ3: Technology RQ4: Challenges
- 26. Answers: RQ1 Behaviors āIt [learning] doesnāt have to be separated from daily lifeā
- 27. Encouraging āWhen one may have done well on something and the other one is not, we talk about how things are different and everyone has their own strength and so we talk about their strength.ā
- 28. Reinforcing āā¦because we are aware of what they are learning it just comes up through discussions either at the dinner table or when weāre hiking or those kinds of things.ā
- 29. Modeling āWeāre always reading so the children see thatā
- 30. Instructing āSo we might do something where I am listening to her where she feels more responsible for her own work.ā
- 31. Two Additional Behaviors Adapting Leveraging
- 32. Adapting āIt took some adjustment on my part being used to traditional teachingā
- 33. Leverage āā¦first weāll try online searchesā
- 34. Discussion: RQ2 Beliefs āWe do most of the instruction. We have a greater responsibility.ā
- 35. Discussion: RQ3 Technology āI feel very comfortable in this environmentā
- 36. Discussion: RQ4 Challenges āI often feel overwhelmed! ā
- 37. Summary Not a DIY program Technology is central Learner centric has benefits Dichotomy of roles
- 38. Implications Not a do-it- Improve support, yourself program differentiate training, encourage outreach Technology is Teach them how to central leverage technology Learner centric has Use practices to influence benefits automated learning Dichotomy of roles Coordinate shared roles of teachers and parents
- 39. Recommendations Continue investigatingbehaviors and challenges Capture voices of students Evaluate systems to improve support of learning coaches Study implications for automated learning systems Examine deeper the roles and responsibilities of teachers and non teachers
- 40.
- 41. Mahalo ļ« ļ Cheers Lisa Hasler Waters [email protected]
- 42. Citations (1) Glass, G. V., & Welner, K. G. (2011). Online K-12 schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain private ventures in need of public regulation. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/online-ļ½k-ļ½12-ļ½schooling. (2) Cotton, K., & Wikelund, K. R. (1989). Parental involvement in education: The schooling practices that matter most. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.org/archive/sirs/3/cu6.html Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental invovlement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A literature review: Department for Education and Skills. Epstein, J. L. (1991). What we can learn from federal, state, district and school initiatives. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 244-349. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School, family, community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-713. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310-331. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins., A. S., et al. (2005a). Final performance report for OERI Grant #R305T010673: The social context of parental involvement: A path to enhanced achievement: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins., A. S., et al. (2005b). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130. Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins., A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K., V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 85-103. Zellman, G. L., & Waterman, J. M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent school involvement on children's educational outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(6), 370-380. (3) Black, E. W. (2009). An evaluation of familial involvementsā influence on student achievement in Kā12 virtual schooling. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Liu, F., Black, E., Algina, J., Cavanaugh, C., & Dawson, K. (2010). The validation of one parental involvement measurement in virtual schooling. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 105-132. (4) Bauman, K. J. (2001). Home schooling trends in the United States: Trends and characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. Ray, B. D. (2010). Academic achievement and demographic traits of homeschool students: A nationwide study. Academic Leadership, 8(1), Ray, B. D. (2011). 2.04 million homeschool students in the United States in 2010: National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI). Rudner, L. M. (1999). The scholastic achievement and demographic characteristics of home school students in 1998. College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, College of Library and Information Services, University of Maryland. (5) Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310-331. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins., A. S., et al. (2005a). Final performance report for OERI Grant #R305T010673: The social context of parental involvement: A path to enhanced achievement: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins., A. S., et al. (2005b). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130. (6) Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742. Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.) (1994) International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., Vols. 3). Oxford, England: Elsevier. (7) Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.