Research Statement

I currently have 30 peer-reviewed journal articles, 11 book chapters, and 12 editor-invited articles and reports published or accepted for publication. I have given 51 peer-reviewed presentations and 66 invited presentations or workshops. My research has included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodologies. Except for two sole-authored articles, all of my journal articles have been collaborative including 13 articles with student co-authors. I was the first author on 16 articles and six book chapters. I also have obtained funding ($270,000) from grants, awards, and fellowships that has helped finance my research.

Evaluating Quality of Publications

West and Rich (2012) proposed evaluating journals based on the following framework adopted by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT):

  • Rigor: safeguards that usually result in a low acceptance rate (AR).

  • Impact: the extent publications contribute to the development of research, theory, and practice. A journal’s ISI Impact Factor (IF) can be a helpful evaluation tool, but many quality journals in my field do not have IFs (see West & Borup, 2014).

  • Prestige: the esteem a researcher receives by publishing in a given journal. Prestige indicators include the quality of scholars who serve as editors or editorial board members, size of journal readerships, and affiliated professional organizations.

Brigham Young University’s (BYU) Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology used the framework to rank instructional design and technology journals as either Tier 1, 2, or 3. These rankings were created for internal purposes, but were shared with me as an alumnus of their program. Of my 30 articles, 15 were published in journals classified as Tier 1.

The Rigor, Impact, and Prestige (RIP) framework principles can also be applied to specific articles. An indicator of an article’s impact is how frequently it is cited in other publications. According to Google Scholar, my publications have been cited 994 times with an i10-index (number with at least 10 citations) of 20 and a h-index of 17, indicating that I have 17 publications with at least 17 citations. A more subjective indicator is whether the research makes a theoretical contribution. As a graduate student, I attended a seminar where Dr. David Whetten expanded on his 1989 publication, “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” Whetten likened research to a conversation that is centered around theoretical frameworks. He also acknowledged that existing frameworks have boundaries of generalizability, and some scholars must work to create their own frameworks when their line of inquiry extends beyond those boundaries. My research has attempted to build upon several frameworks developed to examine K-12 technology integration, parental engagement in face-to-face settings, online interactions and community, and learning communities in face-to-face settings. As I will explain later, in two cases my collaborators and I developed new frameworks.

Awards can also be an indicator of an article’s prestige. Six of my articles received awards from AECT’s Division of Distance Learning. Another article received AECT Design and Development Division’s Outstanding Journal Article Award. My body of research as a whole also received the 2018 Early Career Scholar Award by the American Education Research Association (AERA) Technology as an Agent of Change in Teaching and Learning (TACTL), for making “substantial scholarly contributions to the use of technology as an agent of change.”

Research Topics, Frameworks, and Methods

Online learning has grown dramatically despite having attrition rates higher than those in face-to-face courses. While attrition rate causes can be complex, many students fail online courses in part because they feel isolated and lack support. I have addressed this issue at both the higher education and K-12 levels. In higher education, I have conducted research examining asynchronous video communication as a means of improving instructors’ interaction and feedback. At the K-12 level, students especially lack the self-regulation and metacognitive skills required to learn online. As a result, I have researched ways in which online teachers, on-site facilitators, and parents can support students in various K-12 online learning settings.

Asynchronous Video Communication in Higher Education

My research examining online asynchronous video communication has resulted in the publication of two chapters and seven articles published in Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D) (AR=4%, IF=1.42, RIP=Tier 1), Internet and Higher Education (IHE) (AR=8%, IF=2.09, RIP=Tier 1), Distance Education (AR=21-25%, IF=0.95, RIP=Tier 1), The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL) (AR=33%, IF=0.734, RIP=Tier 2), and Sports Management Education Journal (AR=22%, RIP=Tier 2).

Our initial article was published the last year of my doctoral program. The article focused on instructor-facilitated asynchronous video discussions in technology integration courses primarily taught online (Borup, West, & Graham, 2012). We followed up our research with narrative analyses of four of the student interviews to better understand how student backgrounds and characteristics impact their ability to communicate via asynchronous video (Borup, West, & Graham, 2013). We then shifted our focus to instructor-provided feedback using asynchronous video. Specifically, two larger mixed-method studies examined the use of asynchronous video feedback in 12 sections of three blended courses. The articles were based on our analysis of student surveys and 9 instructor and 22 student interviews. The first article focused on how video feedback impacted instructors’ social presence (Borup, West, & Thomas, 2014), and the second article focused on how the use of video changed instructors’ communication and how students received that communication (Borup, West, & Thomas, 2015). After understanding student and instructor perceptions of video feedback, we wrote another article where we coded the actual feedback comments for indicators of social presence (Thomas, West, & Borup, 2017). I also collaborated with researchers at GMU’s School of Recreation, Health and Tourism on an article examining student perceptions of synchronous and asynchronous video feedback in a graduate research and writing course (Atwater, Borup, Baker, & West, 2017). Finally, we published an article that shared practical suggestions to those wishing to integrate asynchronous video communication in their courses (West, Jay, Armstrong, & Borup, 2017).

K-12 Online and Blended Learning

My primary research agenda focuses on how teachers, parents, and facilitators support K-12 students in online and blended environments. An examination of publication trends in K-12 online learning over the last two decades showed that I was the seventh most productive scholar researching this topic (Arnesen, Hveem, Short, West, & Barbour, 2018). My co-authors and I have published eight book chapters and 19 articles published in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (AR=8%, IF=1.836, RIP=Tier 1), American Journal of Distance Education (AR=11-20%, RIP=Tier 1), Journal of Technology and Teacher Education (JTATE) (AR=15%, RIP=Tier 1), Journal of Online Learning Research (JOLR) (AR=13%, RIP=Tier 2), IRRODL, Journal of Research on Technology in Education (JRTE) (AR=13, RIP=Tier 1), Online Learning (OLJ) (AR=25%, RIP=Tier 2), Journal of Online Learning Research (AR=27%, RIP=Tier 2), International Journal of e-Learning (AR=11-20%, RIP=Tier 2).

A successful full-time online charter school served as the setting for my dissertation and most of my subsequent research (11 articles). In the first two articles (Borup, Graham, & Davies, 2013a, b), my co-authors and I used student and parent surveys to measure learning interactions and correlated them with learning outcomes. In the Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning, Lowes (2014) stated that this was “a particularly innovative study” (p. 92). Although innovative, the findings were limited because we did not fully examine the intended purposes of those interactions. Unfortunately, the existing online learning frameworks had been developed in higher education and they did not account for the unique characteristics of adolescent learners. As a result, we developed the Adolescent Community of Engagement (ACE) framework to better describe how parents, teachers, and peers can influence K-12 online student engagement (Borup, West, Graham, & Davies, 2014). In the second edition of the Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning, Lokey-Vega, Jorrín-Abellán, and Pourreau (2018) highlighted the ACE framework as an example of research “moving the field forward” (p. 69). The ACE framework has helped guide nearly all of my subsequent research examining K-12 online learning. More specifically, my co-authors and I have conducted a series of case studies examining perceptions and experiences of various stakeholders (e.g., students, parents, teachers, facilitators) in various models of online learning such as a full-time cyber high school, a large independent study program, and a state-run supplemental online program where students were assigned an on-site facilitator.

Following my dissertation, my co-authors and I conducted three rounds of data collection and analysis at the cyber charter school, each having similar but different purposes. First, we surveyed all of the teachers and conducted 22 one-hour-long interviews with 11 teachers to better understand their perceptions regarding the responsibilities and efforts of teachers, parents, and peers to fully engage students in learning activities (Borup, 2016a, b; Borup, Graham, & Drysdale, 2014; Borup & Stevens, 2014). Second, as part of Dr. Jeffery Drysdale’s dissertation we conducted five 75-minute focus groups with nearly all of the cyber school’s teachers, with follow-up interviews with 10 students and five teachers to better understand the school’s online facilitating program (Drysdale, Graham, & Borup, 2014; 2016). Lastly, we conducted additional interviews with the same 10 students and 19 interviews with nine of their parents. These interviews were similar to our teacher interviews and focused on participants’ perceptions and experiences of support provided to students by the online teacher, peers, and parents (Borup, Stevens, & Hasler Waters, 2015; Borup & Stevens, 2016, 2017). Three of the interviewed parents faced especially challenging situations, and we conducted narrative analyses using their interviews to better understand and share their experiences (Borup, Call Cummings, & Walters, accepted).

My co-authors and I have since shifted our focus to other models of online learning. For instance, as part of Dr. Darin Oviatt’s dissertation research we published two articles examining student support systems—both program-provided and student-curated—at a large independent study program. The first article focused on student perspectives at the start of the semester obtained from survey responses from over 1,000 students (Oviatt, Graham, Borup, & Davies, 2016). The second article reported on our analysis of a similar number of student survey responses and nine student-parent interviews collected at the end of the semester (Oviatt, Graham, Borup, & Davies, 2018). We have most recently been conducting and analyzing online teacher and on-site facilitator interviews and student focus groups to better understand the support that teachers, on-site facilitators, and parents provide students enrolled in a supplemental online program. The findings have highlighted the importance of online students working with an engaged facilitator. This research has resulted in four MVLRI reports, three published or accepted journal articles (Borup, Chambers, & Stimson, accepted; Borup & Stimson, accepted; Freidhoff, Borup, Stimson, & DeBruler, 2015), and an article under review.

Currently my research focus has expanded to include blended teaching and learning. First, my co-authors and I used teacher observations, focus groups, and interviews to examine a large school district’s year-long professional development program that prepared teachers to design and implement blended units (Stevens, Borup, & Barbour, accepted). A challenge the district faced when designing their blended teaching professional development—and that I have also faced when developing courses for my graduate program—was that a framework outlining the required competencies to design and facilitate blended courses did not exist. As a result, a team of researchers and I worked closely with the district to create and validate the Blended Teacher Readiness Instrument, a tool we have made freely available for others to use. A report sharing our findings was published by MVLRI, and an article is currently under review.

Future Research

Now that we have conducted a series of case studies in multiple types of K-12 online learning environments, we are ready to use those findings to revise the ACE framework. Once the ACE framework has been revised, I will work to create and validate instruments that measure the constructs identified in the framework. These instruments would allow researchers to identify specific types of supports that most impact student engagement and hopefully provide insights into strategies that can make meaningful reductions in K-12 online course attrition rates.

Similar to the case studies I conducted in online learning settings, I plan to conduct case studies to better understand blended teaching and learning. For instance, we recently received approval to survey, interview, and observe special education teachers and students who are part of a blended learning initiative at a large school district. In addition, I would like to replicate in K-12 online and blended settings some of the research we conducted regarding asynchronous video communication and feedback in higher education.

Furthermore, we are creating a shorter blended teacher readiness instrument that focuses on four pedagogical strategies. We are also creating an open book aligned to the four strategies that will be free for school districts. We hope the distribution and subsequent use of these resources will allow us to create relationships with school districts across the country that will provide us with additional research opportunities.

References

Arnesen, K. T., Hveem, J., Short, C. R., West, R. E., Young, B., & Barbour, M. K. (2018). K-12 online learning: Trends from two decades of scholarship. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 658–666). Washington, D.C.: AACE.

Lokey-Vega, A, Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., & Pourreau, L. (2018). Theoretical perspectives in K-12 online learning. In K. Kennedy and R. Ferdig (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (2nd ed.). (pp. 65-89).

Lowes, S. (2014). A brief look at the methodologies used in the research on online teaching. In R. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 83-104). ETC Press.

West, R. E., & Rich, P. J. (2012). Rigor, impact and prestige: A proposed framework for evaluating scholarly publications. Innovative Higher Education, 37(5), 359–371.