Wearable Technology : Facilitating or Complexing Education ?

 Abstract—The application of wearable technology in education is an expanding area of interest to both educators and researchers in this field. Fundamental factors like students’ interactivity and engagement with their learning have found to be easily achieved when effectively utilizing this emerging technology by academic institutions. This paper focuses on investigating recent applications of this evolving technology in the education field (within the last three years), and highlighting the limitations and obstacles accompanying these applications. The paper discussed the affordances of wearable technology in education and the negative aftereffects in order to judge how effective its employment is in enhancing students’ learning and achievement in their studies. The paper concluded that there is a considerable number of restrictions that educators, and producers of this technology, should take into account before proposing further implementation of wearable devices in learning and teaching.

I. INTRODUCTION
The application of wearable technology in education is rapidly increasing over the past few years. Recent research demonstrated that wearable computing can be utilized by educators to improve the quality of, and facilitate, their delivery, while it could also be used by students to enhance the way they receive course syllabus, and their interaction and engagement with the curriculum. By using this technology, educators aim at improving students' achievement in their studies and their learning experience. "The increased use of mobiles has created an opening for other sorts of devices to enter the classroom" [1].
Statistics on the production of wearable devices shows that around 13 million wearable devices were shipped to consumers in 2013, and that this number is anticipated to rise to 170 million by 2018 [2]. "Forrester Research reports that more than 20% of Internet-connected adults regularly use a wearable device" [1]. Such a tremendous growth reinforces the fact that educators, amongst other specialists, should consider the impacts of this technology on education/higher education and the learning experience of students.
Alongside a number of advantages, the employment of wearable technology in education is accompanied by a number of limitations and disadvantages. This research paper investigates the different factors associated with the application of this technology in the education field.

II. THE APPLICATION OF WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY IN LEARNING AND TEACHING
"Wearable technology is a kind of technology that is worn by a user which is used in obtaining specific information" [3]. This emerging technology provides students with a different information sharing experience related to the way the course material videos and audios are presented [3]. The wearable devices, which are believed to have educational use are: Google Glass, Muse, Virtual Reality and GoPro cameras [2]. The majority of references which provided definitions of wearable technology, focused on the aspect of information capturing and sharing. "Wearable technologies can be defined as wearable digital devices that often incorporate wireless connectivity for the purposes of seamlessly accessing and exchanging contextually relevant information" [4].
Wearable Computing is a hands-free technology. This aspect is very important for students, as freeing-up their hands while remaining connected to the device's functionality enables freedom to move in the educational space and interaction with the real environment [5]. In addition, the hands-free access to information and knowledge supported by wearable devices inspires a new era of mobile learning design [6].
Innovations in wearable technology renovated the learning and teaching process, where students deal with their studies in a more constructive, active, and self-directed way. Wearable technology enables opportunities for students to understand more quickly and access information with less mental input or actions. It is important to consider that utilizing wearable technology in education is totally different from the traditional learning methods, where students must attend classes at a fixed time and location. However, educators need to learn how to effectively employ wearable computing in an educational environment [7].
Reference [4] investigated the feasibility of applying wearable technologies in tertiary education contexts. Their study involved 202 university educators and concluded that there is usefulness in utilizing wearable computing for learning and teaching. However, the participants were not very enthusiastic about the feasibility of using four different wearable devices suggested by the researchers in their classes. "Importantly, participants on average provided a significantly lower feasibility rating as compared to utility for the four use cases that were deemed to be of most value" [4].
The new generation of pedagogical theories and curriculum design for mobile education presents teachers with new opportunities and combinations of educational possibilities for wearable technologies [8]. The reference clarified that there are many researchers investigating the application and development of wearable devices in a number of fields other than education, while there is much less literature into the application of this technology in education. Yet, they indicated a number of examples on the use of wearable devices in higher education, such as the University of South Wales uses virtual reality (VR) head-mounted displays in engineering, and the University of Western Australia uses Fitbits in their Self eHealth Challenge. They confirmed that employing this technology in higher education resulted in "students feeling a deeper connection with events and people…, deeper student analysis and understanding of scenario-based practices…, and seamless integration into student learning workflows" [8].
Devices such as 'Google Glass', which is considered "the most important tool utilized in education", enable remote students to watch and listen to the lecture in the university without physical presence, e.g. students of the medical field watching a surgeon lecturer doing a surgery in real time [3]. Google Glass also enables students to receive text messages and alerts related to different aspects of their studies, e.g. assessment deadlines and notifications by their lecturer. It also "provides quantitative data relating to attention and focus", and "answer/translate questions in a foreign language" [2]. This wearable device also allows educators and students to stay connected to an interactive environment, where teachers can benefit from the facial recognition facility to generate a 'Student Information System' and take attendance [9]. Just by looking at individual students, teachers will get access to their records with details on their academic and non-academic performance and attendance rate. Such information could also be used to generate students' reports, class timings, and schedules for students [9].
Virtual reality, such as Oculus Rift, has other noticeable impacts in education. It allows learners to experience learning differently and without the risk involved. It provides live scenarios for students and takes them to places that are either difficult, or sometimes impossible, to access in real-life, e.g. space studies, archeology courses, medical education, chemical engineering and aviation training. The utilization of virtual reality wearables in education enables hands-on, engaged and interactive participation of students in their learning process compared to the passive way of reading/watching lessons in a traditional classroom [10]. Oculus Rift is a wearable Head Mounted Display (HMD), which is a comfortable to wear, and light-weighted, stereoscopic display with ultra wide field of view (100 degree) that creates the immersion needed to experience virtual reality. It is also provided on affordable prices [10].
Google Expeditions is another virtual reality wearable device that is used in education. It provides a unique classroom experience via enabling educators to accompany their students on guided virtual field trips. The device provides more than 200 different expeditions to places like museums, underwater and outer space, where students immerse in a 360-degree experience that enables them to explore some incredible locations [11]. "Expeditions are collections of linked virtual reality (VR) content and supporting materials that can be used alongside existing curriculum" [12]. Both 'Augmented Reality' and 'Virtual Reality' present persuasive applications for higher education, as their devices are designed to transfer learners to "any imaginable location across the known universe and transforming the delivery of knowledge and empowering students to engage in deep learning" [1].
The wearable device that is utilized to record a lecture or students' performance on a tasks is GoPro camera. This device facilitates, and documents, lecturers' observation of the learning environment and their evaluation of students' performance. "GoPro camera is a wearable digital camera that can record action experiences and provide possibilities to capture embodied, sensory, kinesthetic and emotional knowledge and skills" [13].
Muse is a brain sensing headband that measures brain activity, and generating data which is sent to a tablet or a smartphone using an embedded wireless connection. It is used to support the learning process of students by determining what keeps them focused [2]. "The Muse headset incorporates EEG sensors into a headband to monitor cognitive states of focus and distraction as an aid to meditation" [5]. Educators could obtain valuable data on their students using this wearable device during the lesson via monitoring level of engagement and cognitive focus.
Other wearable devices applied in education are smart jewelry/watches, which for example, are able to send notifications to both lecturers and students if situations in a laboratory become dangerous. A smart bracelet could be utilized to measure hydration levels, distance walked (in steps) and heart and breathing rates. The data is transferred by the bracelet to a tablet (or a smart phone), where the lecturer can monitor students' physical activities and ensure that they achieve their targets while remaining safe [2]. The smart watch is considered the most precise information displaying device in education, and it has "an extremely simple and a wonderful system that lets the students send messages to their teachers if they are too shy to ask out loud" [14]. Smart watches are increasingly becoming popular amongst people being more productive and convenient alternatives to smartphones [1].
Wearable technology could be utilized to help students with illness, disabilities and/or learning difficulties, e.g. to monitor autistic students and send alerts when certain situations happen, which increases their safety within academic settings [2]. Another example is diabetic students, who "can utilize wearable technology to better manage their medical condition so missed class time is reduced" [2]. Research showed that disabled students benefit hugely from the many advantages that the application of wearable technology brings to their education, as it makes their learning process easier and enables them to compensate their handicap. "Students with vision or attention issues are able to participate in class undisturbed, or using bone conduction together with smart glass device could help students with hearing loss" [15].

III. LIMITATIONS OF WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 8, No. 6, June 2018 An important limitation to the use of wearable computing in education is overreliance on technology [6]. Some educators believe that the continuous use of wearable devices by students make them dependent on this technology, hence obstructing independent thinking. Students might become reliant on wearable devices to give them answers and/or decisions on what to do next, which reduces their ability to think critically [6].
In discussing the restrictions associated with utilizing Google Glass for educational purposes, the lecturer is required to wear the Glass throughout the lecture time, and upload the course material alongside the recording of the session to the internet [3]. Although the students can directly access the online material submitted by their lecturer, who will interact with them online, this process requires continuous and stable access to the internet at all times (for the type of material shared), and also demands a certain level of computing skills by both the lecturer and students to achieve this. Another limitation is possible distraction to students, which is considered much higher than that caused by using smart phones, in addition to certain invasion of privacy issues [9]. Moreover, "prolonged usage of Google Glass can cause health issues mainly damaging eyesight", and the excessive use of on-the-go social media applications may harm the user's personal life [9]. In the same regard, many educators believe that wearable technologies negatively impact the quality of learning acquired by students due to the distraction the wearable devices cause and the facility they provide for students to view non-subject related material at any time, resulting in not being engaged in their learning [6]. This makes it harder for educators to monitor and manage students' attitude towards their learning.
With regards to the ability to share/transfer information, wearable devices' capacity to instantly transmit and receive data presents a number of concerns related to privacy, social, and ethical issues [16]. Moreover, the ICT infrastructure must be addressed, as it plays a vital role in ensuring an uninterrupted and widespread internet that is needed for an effective running of wearable devices in educational institutions. These issues, alongside possible students' distraction while using wearable devices especially in large overcrowded classrooms, raise a significant concern regarding the feasibility of using this technology in the education sector [16].
In addition to the above, wearable devices are rather small and light, and they do not usually have their own wireless internet connection; instead, they need a smart phone or a computer to connect to the internet [17]. Therefore, "the wearable is, with some exceptions, essentially useless without a smart phone connection" [17]. This could be an obstacle facing an effective application of this technology in education, as although the majority of today's students carry their smart mobile phones with them at all times, not every student's smart phone will have the type and quality of internet service required for the above highlighted information sharing. In addition, students running various wearable applications on their smart phones are expected to drain their batteries very quickly. Also, certain wearable devices will demand their own larger battery capacity to cope with heavy use, e.g. a full-day use of Google Glass requires re-charging of the Glass in mid-day [17]. Many educators felt that using wearable devices in education is likely to be accompanied with technical problems, which limits their usage, e.g. network connectivity and battery life [6].
One of the reasons behind the under-utilization of wearable technology by educators in tertiary education is they do not believe that the application of this technology in learning and teaching has sufficient pedagogical value [4]. The other possible reason, the reference added, is that educators consider the implementation of wearable computing in their classes as not feasible. Other obstacles highlighted by the reference were: technological issues, the cost of wearable devices, possible distraction to students, privacy concerns and resistance to change. It is crucial for educators to first develop a good understanding of the affordances of wearable technologies in education in order for them to utilize their pedagogical opportunities for an effective implementation in learning and teaching [6].
In the same regard, there are three challenges related to addressing pedagogical practice and theories when using virtual reality wearable devices in education. These are: cost, usability and fear of technology [10]. Another important factor associated with the use of virtual reality in education is students' attitude towards this technology and their readiness to incorporate it in their learning. The reference added that in some HMD devices, such as Google Cardboard, which incorporate a smartphone, the head tracking is achieved using the built-in accelerometer of the phone, which causes lag, motion sickness and/or headaches for many users.
Leading companies in the wearable computing industry, e.g. Google, Samsung, and Apple are producing different wearable devices that could have a noticeable impact in education; however, there are some valid reasons behind people not being very enthusiastic to buy them just yet. Such reasons could be the cost, a not eye-catching design, battery lifetime, and the overheating issue. Moreover, wearable devices are almost non-functional without the smart phone being close to them at all times. "Wearable devices from Google, Motorola, and even apple have already been criticized for poor battery life for reason other than GPS support. Recording video would drain Google glass battery pretty quickly" [18]. A number of researchers and educators criticized the high cost of wearable devices. This aspect forms a practical issue, as the prices of wearable devices are much higher than those of smart phones, which makes these devices inaccessible to many students [6]. This is an obstacle facing educational institutions when thinking to consider integrating this technology in learning and teaching activities.
Reference [19] indicated further apprehensions that "the proliferation of wearable devices may also increase concerns about privacy and security of data, dependence on outside vendors for storage and analysis of big data, and access by students of all socioeconomic levels". By using these devices, students are capable of taking photos sneakily and recording videos without permission [6]. There might be some legal issues/consequences involved in the use of wearable technologies in education, e.g. recording informal interactions with the lecturer during the recording of the session then using this recording when issuing a complaint.
This requires educators and/or academic institutions to have a firm policy to control this [6].
The screen size of wearable devices is another issue facing the extended use of this technology in education. A small display can limit the amount of information shared between educators and their students at any given time. This issue forms an area of concern to many educators and academic organizations. "Wearable display size is small, which may create issues for users to adopt it. 12% believed that display/interface dimensions are not enough, because it may be hard for the users to read a text from such a small display" [20].
In addition to the above, the possibility of cheating during exams has risen with the introduction of wearable computing in education. Sharing of information, which is greatly facilitated by different wearable devices, some of which could be quite small and/or difficult to recognize, have made exam invigilation harder. Some educators believe that one of the serious negative impacts of wearable technologies in education is their possible use by students to cheat on exams, e.g. recording an online test and sharing it with others [6]. "Recently, some UK universities banned student from wearing watches during examination… The reason that some student can use smart watches to cheat" [18].

IV. CONCLUSION
Similar to other technologies, the application of wearable computing in education has a number of advantages, but also accompanied by a number of restrictions. Although the degree of individual limitation depends mainly on the type of wearable device and the educational scenario it is applied in, there is a considerable number of different situations, where the application of wearable technologies in learning and teaching results in negative aftereffects.
The various examples contained within this paper could be used efficiently by educators and/or educational institutions to develop the way they implement wearable devices in the education of their students.


Virtual School Startups: Founder Processes in American K-12 Public Virtual Schools

Traditional school districts do not have a lot of experience with virtual schools and have lost students to state and charter virtual schools. To retain students and offer alternative learning opportunities, more public districts are starting their own virtual schools. This study was an examination of foundational processes at three California virtual schools in traditional school districts. An analysis of the findings revealed that sites perceived the establishing founder, preliminary research, district support, teacher and staff selection, financial evaluation, and curriculum decisions as keys to the founding process. The analysis also led to surprising conclusions, including the need for virtual schools to constantly change and adapt and the focus in this study of organizations over technology. The findings have implications for traditional districts starting virtual schools. The study also indicates that changes in policy could reduce the need for organizational adaptation among virtual schools in traditional school districts.

Résumé de l'article
Traditional school districts do not have a lot of experience with virtual schools and have lost students to state and charter virtual schools. To retain students and offer alternative learning opportunities, more public districts are starting their own virtual schools. This study was an examination of foundational processes at three California virtual schools in traditional school districts. An analysis of the findings revealed that sites perceived the establishing founder, preliminary research, district support, teacher and staff selection, financial evaluation, and curriculum decisions as keys to the founding process. The analysis also led to surprising conclusions, including the need for virtual schools to constantly change and adapt and the focus in this study of organizations over technology. The findings have implications for traditional districts starting virtual schools. The study also indicates that changes in policy could reduce the need for organizational adaptation among virtual schools in traditional school districts.

Introduction
Schools where all or most teaching and learning happens online are a specific category of called virtual schools (Watson, Murin, Vasha, Gemin, & Rapp, 2011). These schools use the advantages of online learning to create holistic school organizations (Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin, & Vashaw, 2015). They differ from traditional schools, referred to as brick and mortar since students do not meet with teachers and other 313 students in a physical space; most teaching, learning, and interaction occurs in an online space (Clark & Berge, 2005;Moore & Kearsley, 2012). Some virtual schools allow students to take all of their schooling through the online organization, a primarily North American phenomenon (Barbour, 2009).
Many of the earliest virtual schools in the United States were systems run independently by a state government, or were charter schools, run by independent organizations under special charter law.
Statewide systems were run by state educational organizations, often receiving heavy funding from the state (Watson et al., 2011). Laws governing charter schools were developed to create flexibility for innovation not granted to traditional public schools. These governing laws allow charter schools to deliver curriculum more freely, escaping parts of stringent state and federal accountability (Ahn, 2011). Because traditional school districts were not granted the funding of statewide virtual schools or the flexibility of charter schools, they were late in starting their own virtual schools (Watson et al., 2011).
Many charter online schools are run by non-profit or for-profit organizations receiving public funds (Watson et al., 2011). Part of the purpose of the charter and school choice movement was to increase diversity competition with public schools and improve overall education (Lubienski, 2003). But in the case of virtual schools, there was little initial traditional school district competition (Watson, Winograd, & Kalmon, 2004).
Additionally, virtual charter schools were even more successful in diminishing traditional public school populations than other charters, partially because virtual schools are free of the physical constrictions and boundaries of other schools (Waters, 2011). Because of this threat, traditional districts have moved to create their own virtual schools in order to keep students in their districts (Watson et al., 2011). This allows school districts to capture their own students and maintain the funding these students create for their district.
Virtual schools also create an opportunity for traditional districts to be part of school choice recruitment and compete for students outside of their own district boundaries (Moore & Kearsley, 2012).
Many traditional school districts are attempting to quickly start new virtual schools, but they may be unaware of the issues that influence founding an online school (Watson et al., 2011). Additionally, the average traditional school district is largely unprepared to deal with the unique circumstances of virtual schools (Ahn, 2011). Most online schools have been independent of district control or part of an independent online school district (Watson et al., 2011). Traditional school districts must navigate their relationship with dependent online schools differently than they do with their other schools and differently from other types of online schools.
A successful brick-and-mortar school organizational structure differs greatly from a successful virtual school organizational structure, yet many traditional districts founding new virtual schools often attempt attempting to function under a brick-and-mortar organizational model and encounter challenges (Archambault & Crippen, 2009;McFarlane, 2011a;Reid, Aqui, & Putney, 2009;Vrasidas, 2003). School districts attempting to start their own online schools need to understand how to adapt their organizational structure to create successful online schools to compete with other online school providers to effectively offer this alternative educational opportunity to students.

314
The purpose of this study was to examine how traditional school districts create online schools. This study adds to the body of research on virtual schools by examining specifically the processes that American K-12 traditional public school districts start their own virtual schools.

Description of Methodology
This study used a multiple case study approach to analyze virtual school startup processes. Multiple case studies examine several similar or contrasting cases (Stake, 1995). The cases studied were three virtual schools within traditional public school districts. The selected criteria for this study's case selection were dependent virtual schools, or virtual schools governed by a traditional school district. The researcher selected dependent virtual schools in traditional school districts in California that were at least in their second operating year. This ensured that the school had enough time after opening to encounter and adapt to contingencies. Virtual schools selected also were schools that have offered a fully online option since their inception and had been created in the district using district teachers, not outsourced to outside online providers. Thus, this sample was selected from schools in the state that met the criteria established by these parameters of the study.
Data were collected through document analysis, interviews, and observations. The data collection followed specific protocol pertaining to three phases of each school's history: the foundational phase, the adaptation phase, and the current phase. Data were analyzed through a double coding cycle utilizing descriptive and pattern coding. The findings were validated through triangulation and member checking. Pseudonyms were used to protect the anonymity of the school, related locations, and human participants.

Cases
To help provide a context for the study, each case is described here; this allows the readers to develop a sense of the schools and their organizational cultures. All of the school sites and study participants are identified by pseudonyms.
Manchester. Manchester is a K-12 virtual school in southern California. Manchester District began their online school because they had seen research showing schools in other states were losing students to charter virtual schools. Additionally, the superintendent was very interested in starting a virtual program. The district began developing supplemental classes connected to the high schools. These courses were designed with original curriculum written and taught by district high school teachers working parttime on the supplemental program. The district coordinator who developed these programs was reluctantly directed by the superintendent to begin a full-time online school and serve as principal. The school began a year after the district had employed supplemental online programs and hired successful teachers from the part-time program full-time. The school started at a former elementary school and consisted of a staff of one principal, one administrative assistant, one technology coordinator, and one full-time teacher. After the first year, the school was transferred to a campus that housed three other alternative education programs and the principal was made the director of the entire alternative education campus. The school shared administrative and facility resources at this campus. After two years, the virtual school adopted a middle school program. After five years, the virtual school added an elementary component to create a 1-12 program, although the high school, middle school, and elementary programs all function differently. The school is in its sixth year of operation. The founding principal moved to the district office at the beginning of the year of the study as an assistant superintendent and then later left the district. A new principal was brought in from out of the district and had worked at the site for three months before this study began.
Branford. Branford is a virtual charter school in central California and is in its fourth year of operation. The Branford School began when a district media specialist who had been working with an online credit recovery program pushed the district to start a virtual charter school. The school initially began with high school teachers from the district who worked part-time and who created their own on-line curriculum and content. The school grew to nearly 100 students. After two years and some difficulties, the founding principal retired. Another director was hired who also oversaw the adult school and other alternative education programs. The district gave him a mandate to improve the virtual school or risk its closure. Another administrator who had been working with online content in an alternative education setting was hired to specifically oversee the virtual program. The new administration adopted a vendorbased curriculum they had used in the alternative education setting and started to hire full-time teachers.
At first they hired one, added another, and hired part-time teachers as necessary. By 2014, in its fourth year in existence, the school had risen to 20 full-time teachers, three counselors, and an enrollment of 500 students.
Field Haven. Field Haven is a virtual school in northern California that at the time of the study was in in its fourth year. Three district office co-directors, the district director of curriculum and professional development, the district director of communications, and another district coordinator were the initial administrative founders of Field Haven. The first two elementary teachers worked at the district curriculum office with the district curriculum department to launch the school. Field Haven adopted a vendor curriculum platform and began with two programs, a K-8 program that used full-time teachers and a high school program that used part-time teachers. After the first year of start-up, the school was turned over to an administrator and a small administrative staff who also ran the alternative independent school on a separate site. The new administrator evaluated the school's data and concluded that the high school program had insurmountable enrollment and financial issues. After the second year, the administrator recommended to the district board that the high school program be discontinued and the board agreed.
The K-8 program maintained three teachers and moved into two rooms on the campus of another elementary school, which allowed students the opportunity to receive face-to-face teaching as well. The school has enjoyed a small but steady enrollment over the past few years.

Findings and Discussion
Evaluating the multiple cases revealed common themes among foundational processes. This section relates those findings and further examines their meaning. Stakeholder quotes and narratives are included to give a context for the findings and to drive discussion about the perception of foundational processes.
Additionally, surprising conclusions are revealed and implications of the findings and potential areas of further study are shared.

Foundational Processes
The data revealed a varied list of foundational processes, which particpants at the sites identified as important for start-up and success (see Figure 1). From this data emerged some important findings from each process.

Figure 1. Identified foundational processes.
Establishing founder. Each school had an individual who led the process, but the source of initiation for each school differed greatly. Field Haven was initially a district creation, with three different district founders driving the foundational process and working with teachers in the first year before the school was handed off to a site administrator. These founders included the District Director of Curriculum and Professional Learning and the District Director of Communications, and another District Officer. Kelly, a founding teacher at Field Haven, explained: The district wanted to start the program and it was the curriculum department that was kind of overseeing everything at the beginning, who did all the hiring, who sorted everything out. So we worked with the district office on the people that were on those departments or the people that were kind of our administrators.
Field Haven was the school most heavily driven by a district push, although the district involvement decreased significantly after the school's leadership moved to a separate administrator.
Branford's founding principal, Howard, was the source of the initial push for a virtual school in the district.
Because of his interest in technology, he talked with district administrators for years until they allowed him to present some data to justify the need for a virtual school. Howard acknowledged that he often felt alone in the process and lacked the district support identified at the other two schools. He felt the district supported the virtual school, but no one at the district level had the expertise to work with him on the school's needs. He explained: The support systems from the district for the overall program really were dependent on me and not on anyone else. They didn't know how to support the school. They used traditional measures to see if we were being successful. You know, grades, the attendance, and those things that were traditionally [measured]. The statistics that nobody ever looked at was how many kids didn't drop out of school because of the online school? Those statistics were hard to [obtain]. I felt supported by the school board and the administrators as much as they could.
Manchester also had a strong founding principal, Patrick, but the initial push for the virtual school came from other district leadership. Patrick had built the supplementary program that allowed for high school students in the entire district to take online courses and remain at comprehensive schools. The district superintendent wanted him to move towards a completely virtual school and the founding principal initially resisted, then agreed. Patrick explained: She kept on trying to pressure me to do it. I kept on saying, "I'm not interested. I don't want to do that." We finally came to an agreement that as long as we were going to maintain the activity on the supplemental side, and it was going to be a part of the work at the full-time site, that I would go ahead and do the full-time site, but [they] had to stay connected to each other.
While some district leadership wanted a virtual school, the founding principal and his staff did the actual work.
All sites had one founder who took the reins of the school. Because the districts were focused in many directions, a founder was seen as key to focusing effort on the virtual schools and pushing the school forward. Because of the unique nature of the virtual schools, a strong founder was key to the process.
Districts starting virtual schools should identify a strong founder who can gain the expertise needed to focus efforts on the virtual school. While district support was identified as helpful, sites saw the need for a strong founder to establish and lead virtual schools.
District support and commitment. Both Branford and Manchester identified their district's support of the virtual school as a key factor to survival and success. The initial support was noted as especially important as the schools were in an experimental development phase. Manchester teachers expressed that they could try new things because the district supported their efforts. John, the Branford learning director, explained that in the beginning it was important to have district support because there were not any data to support that what the virtual school was doing was working. The district supported the school and showed faith in the process before the data demonstrated student success. Branford administrators and teachers also revealed that the district support increased as schools were able to demonstrate success. Once the school began showing real success in increased enrollment and improved student achievement, the district was ready to offer even more support. I heard the word pioneer like 17 times in meetings, and the superintendent would come and sit with us, and say, "You're blazing the trail. No one's ever done this. Of course, it's going to be difficult." There was a lot of support. We weren't pressured to figure it out, necessarily. It was always OK to fail. We were allowed to explore, and try new things. In many ways, that was freedom most of us hadn't had before. We did a lot of good work.

Patrick, Founding Manchester Director
There had to be a district commitment to walking forward a program that had no students with the belief that students were going to come, if you billed that they will come. We absolutely had the commitment. The district has been consistently supportive of the online program, in terms of dedicating dollars from the general fund to support it.

David, Branford Director
Once we proved ourselves, once they saw that we were serious about running the school, putting our guts into the school, and that we were serious about and we were passionate about, and once the numbers stayed, they gave us whatever we asked for. "You need more rooms? Take more rooms." Once they saw the things are moving forward tremendously, they have been absolutely incredibly supportive.

John, Branford Learning Director
Our district said, " [John] we're going to support you." Then I started making money. Then they really support you.
Participants defined support as district confidence and trust, monetary support, facilities, and staffing. The monetary support was frequently identified when administrators talked about the economic downturn that affected California school budgets over the preceding several years. Administrators emphasized that the district support to continue to fund their virtual schools when many viewed the programs as supplementary or excessive was important to the schools' survival.
Preliminary research. All three districts were involved in some research that either helped them determine the need for a virtual school or helped them determine the goals and direction of their virtual school. Howard, Branford's founding principal, reported that when the superintendent requested data to show the need for a virtual school, the district found that 500 students were leaving the district a year from expulsions and other reasons. Once these data surfaced, the founder had more district support in starting the virtual charter.
Manchester also reported data that revealed the potential loss of district average daily attendance (ADA), which determines district funding in the state of California. However, the data Manchester reviewed were not from their district but from other states where online schools had grown over the years. The data 319 reviewed from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Kentucky that revealed districts in these states were losing ADA student enrollment to outside virtual schools. While these data were never supported at Manchester, they did motivate the beginning of the virtual school.
In addition to reviewing the data from other states to determine the need for a virtual school, Manchester also looked to other states that had already embarked on virtual schools to identify best practices. District and school administrators went to Florida, Ohio, and Kentucky to learn from others' successes and mistakes. This initial research helped administrators make decisions about how to launch the new virtual school.
Field Haven's research process focused more closely on the community. The district launched fishbowl observations with community stakeholders including parents and teachers to guide its decision-making process. These observations helped the district identify what parents were looking for in a virtual school and how teachers and a vendor system could meet these needs. District directors were heavily involved with parent and community meetings throughout the launch process and Field Haven founding teachers talked to the researcher about the launch period as a time when they felt closely connected both to the district and to the community.
While the sites each undertook different forms of preliminary research, they all used research to make foundational decisions. The importance of some of this foundational research can be questioned since some of the sites eventually changed their direction. In other cases the research did not bear true, as was the case with Manchester's research of other states losing ADA. Even when initial data did not drive the virtual schools past their foundational stages, the fact that the sites conducted and analyzed research did prove important to their future adaptation. The culture of research they developed allowed them to continue to identify needs and change course when necessary.
Teacher and staff selection. All sites identified the ability to freely hire teachers and staff as important. During the hiring process, all three districts gave their sites freedom to select teachers, instead of placing teachers mandatorily. All three sites had a strong process for hiring teachers internally.
Manchester built their hiring from teachers who had shown success in the supplemental online program.
These teachers were chosen from a group who had undergone a voluntary pilot training program. Branford hired their first full-time teachers from teachers who had been successful in their independent study program. Field Haven created a hiring process to ensure dedicated teachers would lead the program.
The strongest support of the teachers at the sites can be found in the words of their administrators. Paul, the Field Haven administrator, expressed, "What I can guarantee you with our program is that our teachers are highly qualified. The students are going to receive the best curricular expert possible." John, the Branford learning director, shared, "You walk through those rooms back there. They've [the teachers] got the same passion I've got." The administrators demonstrated confidence in their teachers' abilities and they said that being able to select the teachers from their program made a huge difference in the quality of their school.
Teacher motivation can be an issue if teachers are placed at a site instead of selecting to be there, but that might especially be true when the site requires a new skill set like virtual schools do. Additionally, the sites 320 identified processes for training and evaluating online teachers before hiring them. This allowed the sites to evaluate teachers for online teaching skill set before hiring them. Districts starting virtual schools need to allow virtual schools to hire new staff who want to be at the site and who are identified as having a skill set valuable to online teaching.
Financial evaluation. Financial evaluations at the sites analyzed how the districts could financially support the schools. Sites were supported even in the wake of district budget cuts. Virtual schools in traditional school districts need to receive sufficient financial support. If virtual schools are seen as "extra" programs unworthy of the same financial support as traditional brick and mortar schools or as ways to generate ADA or save districts money, the virtual schools will not receive sufficient support for success. While the virtual school funding structure differs from traditional brick and mortar schools, virtual schools still require a great deal of funding to be successful.
Curriculum decisions. While this was identified as an important foundational process, the nature of the curriculum mattered less than the site's confidence in it. Of the three sites, one used a vendor curriculum, one used a self-created curriculum, and one had switched from a self-created curriculum to a vendor curriculum. Many online curriculums have been successfully adopted. Sites and districts can focus a lot of time and energy trying to find the right one. But at the sites studied, the success of the curriculum depended as much on the implementation of the curriculum as anything. Some of the sites changed the way the curriculum was delivered during the lifetime of the school, so adaptation features discussed below may be as important as the initial implementation. Manchester created their own curriculum and it was a critical part of the school. Table 2 shows cascading quotes from several Manchester staff members about developing curriculum as a foundational process. We decided with the same book, the same curriculum, and the same pay scale at that point because we were all on district pacing at that point. That's kind of what they started. We looked at vendor products. We created some courses. We would try and break them up, arrange them to meet our pacing, our textbooks and so on. A lot of the courses were either created by the teachers or modified by the teachers to meet those district needs. There's very few vendor-created products that worked for that. We couldn't find any English classes that met our needs. We took the best of whatever we could and tried to cobble together.

Patrick, Manchester Founding Principal
Because we wanted to change teaching and learning, we didn't buy a canned curriculum. We built our curriculum to match the pacing. Integrated the same teachers, same textbooks, same assessments, that we were really trying to create a digital version of our particular curricular program 321 here in the district. Because we did it that way, it was a completely scalable solution.

Surprising Conclusions
In conducting this study, the focus was examining the foundational processes school identified. In analyzing these findings, some conclusions developed that were contrary to some of the expected outcomes.
This section presents these conclusions and includes discussion of why these unexpected conclusions exist and what they mean to the context of the study.
Site-district relationships. The relationship between the district and the school sites was an identified contingency and area of adaptation but not to the degree expected. For the most part, the virtual schools reviewed here were self-sustaining entities. They received funding and resources through the district as did other schools, but in some ways they functioned more independently than the other schools.
One possible reason for this difference is that the districts were built to serve traditional brick and mortar school sites. Expertise at the district level was generally not suited to meet the needs of the virtual schools.
The virtual schools held the expertise; thus, the districts allowed them to act more independently than the other school sites. Each of the sites identified a district ally, someone with power in the district office who believed in the program and wanted it to succeed. Whether this was the superintendent or a director, in almost all cases the support was not at a decision-making level. The district-level leaders deferred to the sites on most decisions. The exception to this rule was Field Haven in the foundational stages and first year in operation when a district-level position was making decisions for the school. But even her expertise limitations were discovered in the area of the high school and she eventually deferred to a site administrator.
Participants indicated that financial support, resources, and staffing were the most desired types of support they sought from the district-level leaders. All three sites identified their support from the district. The strongest identification for support came from the site that had received the most direct administrative and counseling staffing, Branford. But all three sites identified the need for more support. The feeling that the districts did not fully understand the virtual schools was also prevalent, and several participants argued that the calculations the district used to determine staffing and resources were based on the needs of traditional brick and mortar schools and that these districts did not understand the calculations did not apply to the needs of the virtual schools.
The structure of traditional school district calls for adaptation unique to virtual schools. The resources of a traditional school district can allow for support not being offered to independent virtual schools, but based on the findings from this study, there is also the danger that virtual schools will be forgotten, ignored, or misunderstood. In addition, the data from this study revealed the perceived need for districts to fully fund new virtual schools. The virtual schools cannot be seen as a money-saving measure and if anything, the 322 findings revealed that virtual schools could be more costly than traditional schools. Additionally, virtual school officials have to communicate their needs to districts through leaders who can articulate the unique circumstances of virtual schools and educate district officials on the advantages and trials of such schools.
District administrators that hope to start virtual schools or who have recently started virtual schools need to ensure that expertise is developed not only at the site level but also at the district level so that appropriate support can be provided.
Need for change and adaptation. Each of the sites changed and adapted their organizational structures had changed and adapted as the school developed. Additionally, many of their goals and outcomes also changed. Change is a necessary part of any organization and any school, but the necessity for change seemed accelerated at these sites. The rate of change for these virtual schools was incredibly high for schools that had been in existence between four and six years. For example, Branford changed their entire curriculum, staffing, and leadership model after two years and Field Haven dropped their high school program after two years. Because virtual schools are a relatively new phenomenon and because each of these sites was a new undertaking for these traditional school districts, change, and adaptation were prevalent. Site leaders were learning how to implement new systems as laws and resources changed around them.
In the initial stages of this study, I anticipated that perhaps the findings might lead to a common list of methods and techniques that could help virtual schools adapt to the difficulties they would face or a best practices list because of the common context of virtual schools in traditional school districts. While these findings were manifest, the level of specificity of these techniques is not as high as originally expected.
Instead, the sites studied revealed different ways of adapting to various issues. More important than the specific strategies employed was the ability of each site to adapt and change as needed in response to its specific context and experiences. Whether these techniques included a strictly structure organizational hierarchy as in the case of Branford, or a more open organizational system like Manchester, the actual structure used was less important than whether the structure allowed for adaptation and change.
Each of the sites studied demonstrated the ability to make large structural and procedural changes.
Branford changed its entire curriculum, staffing structure, and administrative leadership after the first two years. Field Haven dropped half of its program. Manchester moved campuses, adapted to an alternative school structure, and added multiple grade levels. This level of structural change in such a short time is uncommon at most traditional brick and mortar schools, but among virtual schools this ability appears to be a necessity to adapt to an ever-changing system and to bridge the gap between the virtual site and the traditional school district.
Using mandated structures to advantage. Because virtual schools are part of a larger school district that must make decisions for the entire system, some systems were forced upon the case sites. This frequently happened with campus space, administrative staff, and office staff and resources. However, although these new structures were an identified contingency, sites found a way to use these structures to their advantage. Additionally, when sites were forced to take on other programs like the supplemental program at Manchester or the credit recovery program at Branford, they bolstered their virtual schools by using the resources of these added programs.
Organizations over context. McFarlane (2011a;2011b) theorized that online schools require a unique organizational structure from brick and mortar schools. Because of these findings, I expected that the findings of this study would reveal adaptation strategies unique to virtual schools. While the study revealed accelerated change process for the virtual schools studied, most of the findings revealed successful adaptation techniques evident in many traditional schools, and even in many other types of organizations.
In other words, organizational strategies that work for virtual schools can work for all organizations and strategies that work for all organizations can work for virtual schools. This is an important finding because data revealed that district officials felt they could take shortcuts or invest less in virtual schools. This study revealed that the kind of organizational features that would create success in any school are equally necessary in virtual schools. The context shifts the make-up of what these features look like at virtual schools, but features such as district support, direct administrative leadership structures, and strong teachers can be credited as positive to any school site. Districts need to recognize that building a virtual school will take the same amount of effort and resources as sustaining a brick and mortar site, if not more.
The other surprise with this study was the lack of focus on technology. Because the topic involved virtual schools, it was reasonable to assume that technology would be a major focus of the initiative to develop a virtual school. But as shared by Roger, the principal at Manchester, the people and organizational processes are more important than the technological processes. "I think the technology part is probably the least interesting.
[That] aspect is really not the hard part." Roger's observation demonstrates what might be the most surprising and important finding of this study.
The findings suggest that the most important features of these virtual schools were a strong organizational structure, effective leadership, and support from the district, while participants identified anything pertaining to technology or the online platform as secondary in importance. These findings suggest that the term virtual school needs to have a greater emphasis on the school side than the online side. Online is a system of educational delivery, however, the features of what makes a good school were more about organizational systems than technological platforms at these virtual schools.

Implications
Because virtual schools are a unique context for traditional districts, districts must develop structures that address this context. The findings indicated that these contextual processes were well defined, though not yet streamlined to the circumstances of virtual schools. Districts must study their local accreditation, enrollment, and funding processes and structures.
The findings also revealed that virtual schools that had strong systems planning, management, and leadership dealt with fewer problems and obstacles than other schools who identified as struggling in those areas. In other words, systems planning, management, and leadership are strong indicators of initial and long-term stability in a virtual schools. Therefore, districts that are starting virtual schools need to create direct and defined leadership at sites, financially support the virtual schools, and hire dedicated full-time teacher leaders to avoid some of the setbacks that some of the sites studied encountered.
Another finding suggested that virtual schools studied needed to be adaptable in the process of operation.
In other words, while a well-developed plan was helpful, the need to abandon parts of that plan and move 324 in a different direction was identified as necessary to adapt to unforeseen contingencies, especially in the changing landscape on virtual school policy. These identified strategies could benefit traditional virtual schools in adapting to the unforeseen contingencies they will encounter. Additionally, a focus on these features could be beneficial to any schools or organizations facing unforeseen obstacles.
The findings of this study inform traditional school districts that creating and operating a virtual school requires a strong organizational structure, effective leadership, and support from the district. In the three cases studied, the organizational structure, leadership, and district support were more important to the success of the schools than anything pertaining to technology or the online platform. Because virtual schools use a unique online platform and require technology, these tend to be areas of focus by administrators and researchers. However, the findings from this study imply that more focus needs to be devoted to the organizational features of a virtual school in order to ensure success. Districts starting virtual schools need to ensure that these organizational factors are addressed instead of getting lost in the online and technological delivery systems.
While this study identified unique features in this process that pertain to virtual schools, this formula for success is not limited to virtual school. As traditional districts strive to design successful school, the virtual school must be seen as a unique but equal organization. Though the techniques may differ, the principles that will ultimately define success are similar to the traditional brick and mortar school. There cannot be short cuts.
Aside from informing leaders of traditional districts and virtual schools, the findings of this study are also relevant to policy makers. The study found that data relating to successful virtual school startup had less to do with the technology or curriculum of virtual school than it did with state policy and accreditation processes which not been adapted to the context of virtual schools. These issues could be eliminated or at least made easier to navigate if the legislators in California would acknowledge the difference in enrollment and attendance structures between virtual schools and brick and mortar schools. Legislators could design policy unique to virtual schools that accepted these structures instead of punishing virtual schools for adopting them. Additionally, accreditation boards could design processes that acknowledge the unique structures in virtual schools and utilize advisories with experienced virtual educators. The accreditation process would then educate the virtual schools, instead of the schools under review having to educate the advisory team.

Areas for Further Study
The cases selected were sufficient for the purposes of this study and the data did begin to saturate after the third school data was collected. However, examining additional cases with differing circumstances (rural environment, blended environment, etc.) could have revealed processes not identified in this study. Also,

325
The cases selected for this study were all California virtual schools. While this yielded sufficient data on startup processes in California virtual schools, study of additional sites outside of the state could reveal additional strategies and obstacles. Additional studies could examine context inherent contingencies in other states. These studies could prove beneficial to identifying state policy that is most conducive for traditional school districts creating virtual schools and could have an impact on policy throughout the country.
All of the three schools studied moved away during their history from a fully online model to a blended model, one that allowed for some online interaction between teachers and students and some face-to-face interaction between teachers and students. Manchester moved toward face-to-face the most of the three sites, but all of the sites could be identified somewhere on the spectrum of blended learning. Online learning is moving more toward blended models and more research is needed to identify the impact of this new learning, as well as what are the features of successful blended models.
Additionally, one of the findings from this study that was not explored in depth was the lack of impact that technology had on the organizational structure at the sites studied. There exists research on the impact of technology on the curriculum of virtual schools, but further research on technology and virtual school structures. Such research could help answer why a correlation was not identified in this study and could also reveal untapped technological features that have not been used at the sites studied.


THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT BASED LEARNING TO PROMOTE STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION IN EFL WRITING CLASS

(Bell, 2010; Educational Technology Division, 2006). In completing their project the students will take a part in gathering data, analyzing data, and selecting information based on their need. Project based learning offers some benefits in teaching and learning process which include giving contextual and meaningful learning for students, creating optimal environment to practice speaking English, engaging students actively in project learning, enhancing the students’ interest, motivation, engagement, an enjoyment, promoting social learning that can enhance collaborative skills, and giving an optimal opportunity to improve students’ language skill (Bell, 2010; Fragoulis, 2009). In addition, through project based learning the students are allow to decide the theme and the outcome for the project by themselves so they can be more inter ested and actively engaged in the learning process (Maulany, 2013).

INTRODUCTION
One of the challenging parts in teaching writing is how to help the students feel motivated and supported to write. Most of the students think that they need only to write an essay to complete a test or assignment without further thinking that their writing will give some benefits. In the view of this, project based learning can be a new way to promote the students' motivation in writing.

Project
Based Learning accommodates the students to design, plan, and carry out a product through a project (Fragoulis, 2009;Patton, 2012). Project based learning fits to teaching requirement in 21 st century which should be students' centered, work collaboratively, and enhance students' critical thinking (Bell, 2010;Educational Technology Division, 2006). In completing their project the students will take a part in gathering data, analyzing data, and selecting information based on their need.
Project based learning offers some benefits in teaching and learning process which include giving contextual and meaningful learning for students, creating optimal environment to practice speaking English, engaging students actively in project learning, enhancing the students' interest, motivation, engagement, an enjoyment, promoting social learning that can enhance collaborative skills, and giving an optimal opportunity to improve students' language skill (Bell, 2010;Fragoulis, 2009). In addition, through project based learning the students are allow to decide the theme and the outcome for the project by themselves so they can be more inter ested and actively engaged in the learning process (Maulany, 2013). This research is aimed to explore how project based learning is implemented steps by steps and if it is able promote students' motivation writing. This research is relevant for teacher who tries to find a new way not only in teaching writing but also in assessing students' writing.
This research employed case study research design. There were 23 university students from the second semester took part in this research. The project's theme has been decided in the beginning of writing class. The project's outcome deals with narrative story. The students and the lecture decided to create a book which focuses on the story for children. The story can be a fable, a legend, folklore, a fairytale and others. They did the project in a group which consists of two or three members. This data were collected during 8 meetings. After completing the project, ten students were selected randomly and interviewed to investigate if the project can promote their motivation in writing.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
There were two points that will be highlighted in the findings. First, dealing with the implementation of project based learning in writing class. Second, if any contribution of project based learning to promote students' motivation in writing. Based on the teaching program there are three main parts in implementing project based learning which consist of planning, processing, and evaluating. Each part has different steps.

Planning
In this part, there were three steps conducted in this research. First step, students and teacher agree on a theme for a project. At this step, the teacher and students agreed that the theme is narrative text writing (This is the Story). Second, students and teacher determined the final outcome of the project. The final outcome of the project is, the students agreed to write a story book for young learners in a group of two or three. Last, students and teacher structured the project. The students agreed that the story can be any types of narrative (i.e. fable, myth, legend, folklore, fairytale). However, the story should be origin from Indonesia which has positive value (positive moral value, educate young learners and build their positive characters).

Processing
The second part deals with doing the project. There were three steps accomplished in this part. First, teacher prepared students for the demands of information gathering. The teacher asked the students to prepare any information that will be needed to do the project. Second, students gather information. Student gathered information based on the story that they selected previously. They tried to complete the information for the story line. Then, teacher prepared students to compile and analyze data and information to make sure that the students have had enough information for their project. Last, teacher prepared students for the language demands of the final activity. At this step, the students have had a final draft for their story book. The draft were discussed with the teacher and students from others groups. Then, they needed to revise their draft based on the feedback.

Evaluating
As the last part, there were to steps completed. First, the students presented the final product. They presented their story book which involved comment, feedback, compliment, or question from others groups. Second, students evaluate the project. They needed to give a reflection whether the project fits to the theme and condition that have been discussed in the beginning.
Some example of the students' work can be seen as follows: According to the analysis of interview results all of the students enjoyed completing their project. They mentioned that the project was not easy but they think that it was a new way of learning. They could discuss a lot with friends and teacher about the project. They also got a lot of new information through gathering the data.
Low achievers used to feel depressed when dealing with writing but they showed more attentive learning in this project. Most high achievers were used to paper-and-pen tests all the time, and they were reluctant to work with others. However, through this project, almost every student showed excitement about that writing became more interesting and meaningful. The challenge of this project is only that some of the students were not able to draw illustrations for the story book.
As explained by Patton (2012), there are three main parts of project based learning in general. However, the steps in each part can be adjusted by the teacher based on the need of the project. In this research there were three steps in the planning part. The steps guided the students and the teacher to determine the outcome of project. The second part, processing was consist of three steps to lead the students to finish their project. The last was evaluating, in which the students present and evaluate their project.
As mentioned by Bell (2010), in 21 st century, teaching and learning process need to adapt the situation that help the students to build their critical thinking and creativity. In this research, the project that accomplished by the students is also able to promote their motivation in writing.

CONCLUSION
There are some benefits of implementing project based learning. One of them, based on this research, is able to promote students' motivation in writing.
All of the students prefer this project than written test. They thought that this project is more meaningful and beneficial for them. In addition, this project also develops their creativity in arranging a story and designing the illustration.