The effectiveness of technology to support learning and the value of technology-mediated instruction are critical factors in determining the quality of educator preparation programs. A widely utilized, national measure of teacher readiness and preparation in the USA, edTPA, reports program completers' knowledge and skills in content-specific instructional planning and learner asset differentiation; pedagogical delivery and student engagement; and measures of learning and evaluative feedback to support individual student educational growth. This study leverages these performance scores to measure the equivalency of online teacher candidates' learning outcomes as compared to candidates completing traditional in-person [face-to-face (F2F)] programs. Results suggest candidates who completed the online pathway to teacher licensure were more classroom-ready. Findings challenge notions that traditional methods of teacher preparation are more effective pathways to becoming a teacher and suggest attributes of online learning may be linked to differences in candidate knowledge and skill preparation when equitable curricular opportunities are provided. In light of the global pandemic, the outcomes of this study offer support for the rising need for educators to adapt to the new reality of teaching and learning through technology.
TopIntroduction
In the United States of America (USA), online learning is a popular and prevalent mode of instructional delivery in higher education. Yet, online learning brings a stigma of being lower quality than face-to-face learning, despite research showing otherwise. Over a quarter (28%) of higher education students engage in online learning, with an annual increase of almost 4% (Allen & Seaman, 2016). By 2015, 2.2 million students were taking 3.8 million online courses (Gemin, Pape, Vashaw, & Watson, 2015). In that year alone, three-quarters of these courses were completed by students in grades K-8 (Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin, & Vashaw, 2014). Reports continue to show online enrollment growth in institutions of higher education in the United States with approximately 31.6% of all higher education enrollments in 2016 (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). Furthermore, most students will enroll in online coursework as part of their secondary school or undergraduate experience (Allen & Seaman, 2017). Despite its pervasive use, the abrupt shift to remote teaching resulted in unprepared educators who had insufficient skills in online instruction. The over-reliance on Face-to-Face (F2F) models of teacher preparation and the fact that success in online learning for K–12 students is limited might be an indicator of an inadequate balance in supply and demand. Increased student enrollment in online courses has created a need for teachers with adequate preparation in online teaching (McAllister & Graham, 2016); however, data are limited in documenting online learning outcomes as compared to more traditional course structures. Moreover, faculty continue to react negatively to the idea of online teaching, are reluctant to convert their courses, and report inadequate readiness to deliver online instruction (Darby, 2020; Harris & Martin, 2012; Martin, Budhrani, & Wang, 2019). Research examining graduate online programs juxtaposed with face-to-face (F2F) degrees is even more scant leading to unanswered questions regarding quality programmatic differences (Mollenkopf, Vu, Crow, & Black, 2017). Within teacher education, skepticism exists as colleges of education question the validity and reliability of online programs to prepare teachers in effective professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions as longstanding F2F programs. A few studies offer empirical evidence of similar learning outcomes across modes of delivery for teacher preparation (Heafner & Petty, 2016; Mollenkopf, Vu, Crow, & Black, 2017). Of the existing literature examining online learning, there are articulated concerns about the limits of methodological designs which elevate the difficulty in interpreting results conclusively. This study seeks to fill these gaps and to challenge notions that in person course delivery is the only or best method for training middle and secondary teachers in the USA.