CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Online and Blended LearningSchool Choice and PerformanceEducation during COVID-19 pandemic

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Look Inside Online Educational Settings in High School: Promise and Pitfalls for Improving Educational Opportunities and Outcomes

Heinrich, Carolyn J., Darling-Aduana, Jennifer, Good, Annalee, Cheng, Huiping (Emily)·2019·American Educational Research Journal
DOI 10.3102/0002831219838776
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This research examines online course-taking in high schools, which is increasingly used by students falling behind in progress toward graduation. The study looks inside educational settings to observe how online courses are used and assess whether students gain academically through their use. Drawing on 7 million records of online instructional sessions linked to student records, we find mostly negative associations between online course-taking and math and reading scores, with some gains in credits earned and grade point averages by upperclassmen. Those least prepared academically and with weaker course-taking behaviors fared more poorly and were likely set back by online course-taking. Limited resources constrained the implementation of district-recommended practices and instructional supports, such as live teacher interactions and individualized content assistance.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/0002831219838776

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Archambault L., Diamond D., Coffey M., Foures-Aalbu D., Richardson J., Zygouris-Coe V., . . . Cavanaugh C. (2010). INACOL Research Committee Issues Brief: An exploration of at-risk learners and online education. Vienna, VA: International Association for K–12 Online Learning.
  2. Burch P., Good A. (2014). Equal scrutiny: Privatization and accountability in digital education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  3. 10.3102/0162373715592706 · DOI
  4. Burch P. E., Heinrich C. J. (2015). Mixed methods for policy research and program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Becker H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51), 1–31.
  6. Carr S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39–A41.
  7. 10.1086/444184 · DOI
  8. Cavanaugh C., DiPietro J., Valdes N., White S. (2007). Conditions, processes, and consequences of 1:1 computing initiatives in 11 Florida districts. In Carlsen R., McFerrin K., Price J., Weber R., Willis D. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 1425–1428). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  9. 10.1080/19345747.2017.1300362 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Cole R., Kemple J. J., Segeritz M. D. (2012). Assessing the early impact of School of One: Evidence from three school-wide pilots. New York, NY: Research Alliance for New York City Schools.
  11. Collins A., Halverson R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The Digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  12. 10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2257 · DOI
  13. Darling-Hammond L., Bransford J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
  14. 10.1086/209198 · DOI
  15. DiMaggio P. J., Hargittai E., Celeste C., Shafer S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In Neckerman K. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  16. 10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053354 · DOI
  17. Enyedy N. (2014). Personalized instruction: New interest, old rhetoric, limited results, and the need for a new direction for computer-mediated learning. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
  18. Gemin B., Pape L., Vashaw L., Watson J. (2015). Keeping pace with K–12 digital learning. An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen, CO: Evergreen Education Group.
  19. 10.1080/01587910802395763 · DOI
  20. 10.3102/0002831213486334 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002 · DOI
  22. 10.3102/0162373713504987 · DOI
  23. 10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5 · DOI
  24. Margolin J., Kleidon B., Williams R., Schmidt M. C. (2011). Vermont’s Title II-D enhancing education through technology program: 2010–2011 final report. Los Angeles, CA: American Institute for Research.
  25. Massey D. S. (2007). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  26. Means B., Toyama Y., Murphy R., Bakia M., Jones K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service.
  27. Miles M., Huberman A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  28. 10.1007/BF01897163 · DOI
  29. 10.3102/00346543076004449 · DOI
  30. Osguthorpe R. T., Graham C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 227–233.
  31. Pane J. F. (2018). Strategies for implementing personalized learning while evidence and resources are underdeveloped. Santa Monica CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE314.html · DOI
  32. 10.7249/RR2042 · DOI
  33. Picciano A., Seaman J. (2009). K–12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up survey of the U.S. school district administrators. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
  34. Powell A., Roberts V., Patrick S. (2015). Using online learning for credit recovery: Getting back on track to graduation. Vienna, VA: International Association for K–12 Online Learning.
  35. Queen B., Lewis L. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009–10. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
  36. 10.1177/003172170608800107 · DOI
  37. 10.1177/0091552111416643 · DOI
  38. 10.1080/0268051042000177863 · DOI
  39. 10.1177/0040059914530102 · DOI
  40. Steinley D. (2006). k-Means clustering: A half-century synthesis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 59, 1–34.
  41. Steinley D., Brusco M. J. (2007). Initializing k-means batch clustering: A critical evaluation of several techniques. Journal of Classification, 24, 99–121.
  42. Stevens D., Frazelle S., Bisht B., Hamilton R. (2016). Online credit recovery: Enrollment and passing patterns in Montana Digital Academy courses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest.
  43. U.S. Department of Education. (2008). High school graduation rate non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
  44. Viano S. (2018). Online learning as a remedy for course failure: An assessment of credit recovery as an intervention to earn credits and graduate from high school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Vanderbilt University Electronic Thesis and Dissertations. (URN: etd-05312018-143058)
  45. 10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845 · DOI
  46. 10.3102/0091732X09349791 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x · DOI · Paper page
  48. Zickuhr K., Smith A. (2012). Digital differences. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Heinrich, C. J., Darling-Aduana, J., Good, A., & Cheng, H. (.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
Corresponding author
Heinrich, Carolyn J.
ORCID
Venue
American Educational Research Journal
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
2019-03-27
Volume
56
Issue
6
Pages
2147-2188
ISSN
  • 0002-8312 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1011
DOI
10.3102/0002831219838776
OpenAlex
W2933819607
Cited by
54
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
16.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
American Educational Research Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
william t. grant foundation (185877)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
Keywords
online courses, high school students, academic performance, grade point average, course credits, student preparation, academic underachievement, pedagogical support, teacher interaction, educational technology implementation, school district practices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review