Considerations for Distance Education in School Psychology

Considerations for

Distance Education in

School Psychology

July 2021

National Association of School Psychologists

Approximately 263 universities offer a school psychology program in the United States

(Gadke et al., 2021), either at the specialist level, doctoral level, or both. This represents an increase

of about 60 institutions offering at least one school psychology program over the past 40+ years,

and a 10% increase since 2006. At this pace, the number of graduate education programs may not

sufficiently meet the demands of the field in light of ongoing shortages (NASP, 2016). As a result,

many in the field have begun to examine the potential of distance education to help increase access

and availability of school psychology graduate preparation.

DISTANCE EDUCATION

Various terms have been used to describe education that occurs at a distance. For the

purposes of this document, the concept of learning that delivers instruction to students who are

separated from the instructor and/or involves online learning, will be referred to as distance education.

The Higher Learning Commission’s definitions of distance education can be located at

https://www.hlcommission.org/General/glossary.html#InstitutionalChange, and they offer the

following:

• Distance-delivered courses are courses in which at least 75% of the instruction and interaction occurs

via electronic communication, correspondence, or equivalent mechanisms, with the faculty and

students physically separated from each other.

• Distance-delivered programs are certificate or degree programs in which 50% or more of the required

courses may be taken as distance-delivered courses.

• Distance education can use one or more of the technologies listed below to support regular and

substantive interaction between the students and the instructor. Distance education can include

synchronously (students/instructors participating at the same time) or asynchronously

(students/instructors have free access to materials and participate with independent schedules)

instruction.

Distance Education technologies may include:

• the Internet;

• one-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave,

broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices;

• audio conferencing; or

• digital video recordings, cloud storage, and videoconferencing, if used in a course in conjunction

with any of the technologies listed above.

The American Psychological Association (2010) defines distance education as a formal

education process wherein the majority of a student’s instruction occurs independent of the same

location of their instructor. The National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP) Program

Accreditation Board defined distance education similarly, as an educational process where

instruction occurred without the learner and the instructor being physically in the same place at the

same time (Harvey, 2015).

The integration of distance education components exists on a continuum at the course and

program levels, ranging from traditional courses to fully online content delivery. The Council for the

Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) has separated programs into categories as

determined by the extent to which they utilize distance learning methodologies in their

programming. These classifications are found in the Appendix A.

EXISTING STANDARDS FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION

While no standards exist specific to distance education for graduate preparation in school

psychology or related professions, considerations for higher education distance education are found

within guidelines in the Higher Learning Commission. The Quality Matters (2017) course standards

and rubric for undergraduate higher education provides eight general standards for course design

and delivery, including learning objectives and assessment, instructional material and course activities

and interaction, learner support, and access and usability (https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-

resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric). However, there is continued concern with the lack of

common metrics to measure the quality of learning outcomes for distance education courses

compared to in-person course delivery (Allen et al., 2016).

DISTANCE EDUCATION IN SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY

Although there is little research to date on the use of distance education in the field of

school psychology (Hendricker et al., 2017), the majority of current programs use some form of

distance education within their courses (Fischer et al., 2020). Some educators have expressed

concerns with offering assessment and clinically oriented courses (e.g., counseling) through distance

education modalities (Hendricker et al., 2017), and are concerned about the ability to successfully

assess professional dispositions and skills. School psychology faculty report barriers of lack of time,

limited resources, insufficient training, and limited technology, all of which inhibit added use of

distance education in the field; however, the greatest barrier is the belief that distance education is

not appropriate for the training of school psychology practitioners (Fischer et al., 2020). Others

noted the benefits of distance education to facilitate the supervision of practicum and internship

experiences (Hendricker et al., 2017), and that it may be appropriate for use in knowledge-based

courses (Fischer et al., 2020).

Currently, the NASP (2020) graduate preparation standards do not describe any unique

criteria for distance education, nor do they preclude any programs utilizing distance education from applying for

or obtaining program approval or accreditation. The standards focus on programs assessing the knowledge

and skills of their candidates as well as obtaining assessment data to ensure candidates achieve

adequate competencies in each domain of practice (NASP, 2020), regardless of delivery method.

Further, regarding supervision, NASP (2020) explains that face-to-face supervision refers to the

physical or electronic presence of all individuals involved in the supervisory relationship and can

occur in an individual or group supervision format. Face-to-face supervision can occur over

videoconferencing or in person.

Aside from standards within the field, other factors may influence the availability and

accessibility of distance education modalities in school psychology. For example, budgets at the

institutional, local, state, and federal levels impact both enrollment (i.e., financial aid) and the ability

to build, fund, and maintain new programs. Institutions also may place demands on programs,

requiring them to adopt new procedures or practices—such as requiring use of multiple adjunct

faculty positions or distance education technologies—that may conflict with accreditation policies or

requirements. Additionally, with the public health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic,

school psychology training programs pivoted their pedagogy to an online format—with many

programs offering distance education options out of necessity. With an ongoing need for distance

education options, school psychology training programs will need to consider the extent to which it

is possible to incorporate that technology into training.

PROGRAM LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS

Programs wishing to start a new distance education program (as opposed to transitioning individual

courses from in-person to distance delivered) will likely need to initiate the process through the

university governance structure. There is no universal way to start an educational program at a

university, though one common theme required is the identification of a champion to spearhead the

efforts and become the go-to person to research the field, develop program materials, present ideas,

and answer questions. Programs interested in starting a distance school psychology program should

reference the NASP technical assistance brief on “Starting a School Psychology Graduate Program”

to gather relevant information and support (Prus & Newell, 2020). Additionally, if a university is

interested in developing a distance education program or if there is pressure from university

administrators to develop a distance education program, there are numerous processes and

procedures required in order to ensure high quality:

• Establish a need in the market using data to support the viability (or lack thereof) for a distance

education program

• Consider the needs of prospective graduate students residing outside the state of the institution,

including whether the program helps them meet their state’s credentialing requirements, and

issues related to state authorization. The National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity

Agreements (NC-SARA; nc-sara.org) was developed to address state authorization, and as of

2021, more than 2,200 institutions in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the

U.S. Virgin Islands voluntarily participate in state authorization reciprocity agreements, though

programs should view the NC-SARA website for more information prior to enrolling students

in a distance education program.

• Examine options for a

Learning Management System

(LMS), which is a software application

for the administration, documentation, tracking, reporting, and delivery of educational courses

or training programs (e.g., Blackboard, Moodle, Canvas). These systems allow for the

organization and disbursement of content, asynchronous communication, and assessment

• Utilize instructional designers that have training in the use of educational techniques within an

online environment. Simply putting existing materials in an online format without respect to

learning theories, especially theories related to online learning, will not produce the desired

results (Bonvillian & Singer, 2013; Clark & Mayer, 2011).

• Provide ongoing faculty training and support, including for adjunct faculty.

• Consider how to evaluate online programs. Popular metrics for online evaluation (e.g., Quality

Matters) tend to focus on the building and design of the online class rather than the quality of

the online instruction (Piña & Bohn, 2014). The inclusion of additional metrics (e.g., faculty

instruction within the course (Piña & Bohn, 2014).

• Ensure support for the students. Within the online environment, students may experience

challenges related to social interaction, lack of practical experience, and technology (Healy et al.,

2014). Both the social interaction and technology needs can be remedied through clear guidance

within the Learning Management System or a responsive help desk.

• Make requirements clear to students, including connectivity (e.g., hardline speed requirements)

and hardware (e.g., webcam, microphone, printer/scanner) expectations before a student is

enrolled in a program. In addition, programs can screen prospective students to assess if

distance education modalities are a good fit (e.g., the learner is self-motivated, comfortable with

technology, etc.).

• Examine avenues to provide access to test kits, protocols, and other materials. Programs may

consider developing a partnership with field sites. Some distance education programs have

developed a library of test kits that are mailed to students to use under supervision during course

work and practicum experience. Attention should be given to ensure that all ethical principles

are met when handling assessment materials.

• Ensure that field experiences meet the same rigor and expectations around vetting supervisors

and sites, and exposure to a comprehensive range of experiences and opportunities.

• Establish expectations to maintain privacy and confidentiality of information being uploaded or

shared about students. Correspondence and discussions should be made within the LMS. Email,

and HIPAA/FERPA compliant videoconference services (e.g., Zoom).

• Consider using aids (e.g., turnitin.com, webcam monitors, lockdown browsers) to ensure

integrity of assignments and tests of the students enrolled in the program.

CONSIDERATIONS AT THE COURSE LEVEL

In addition to considerations at the program level, there are also considerations at the course level:

• Create a sense of community among the cohort of students. Technological applications offer

secure options for discussion. Additionally, distance education programs may consider on-site

training and collaboration opportunities within some courses.

• Maintain engagement through use of video lectures, PowerPoint with voice over, video/audio

announcements, video introducing modules, video/audio feedback on assignments, online

learning module messaging, video conferencing appointments, or traditional e-mail. Other file

sharing platforms like Dropbox or GoogleDocs allow for consistent collaboration and the

creation of ePortfolios by program candidates.

• Maintain a manageable student cohort size. Orellano (2009) concluded that a class size of 16 is

considered optimal in order to achieve the highest level of interaction among and between

students within a distance education course.

• Balance synchronous (i.e., real time, interactive) and asynchronous (i.e., on-demand, discussion

boards, threads, recorded presentations) communication and interaction.

• Consider appropriate methods of student evaluation. Demonstration of applied knowledge can

be easily assessed from assignments, monitored or unmonitored tests, and interactive

discussions. Demonstration of integration, synthesis, and application of knowledge to practical

solutions within the field of school psychology can be provided with case study vignette

applications, capstone papers and video presentations, video practice of skills, or synchronous

feedback opportunities.

• Evaluate professional dispositions by surveying university instructors, field supervisors, and

other staff with whom they work.

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

School psychology may see an increase in the use of distance education to prepare future

professionals due to various influences in higher education (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic, budgets,

market demand) and the field (e.g., school psychology shortages). While learner outcomes and

expectations for distance education should be identical to learner outcomes for the equivalent

campus course, the methods and strategies differ for instructional delivery, interaction between

instructors and students, assessment of demonstrated knowledge and applied skills, and engagement

and sense of community. Effective instruction using distance education requires an established need

and infrastructure for distance education, supports for course development (e.g., instructional

designers, professional development), technical support, effective communication, and the proper

hardware and software (e.g., computer, Internet access, learning management system). Additionally,

institutions pursuing distance education must primarily consider the quality of preparation, and

programs must be invested in maintaining necessary professional standards. Program standards do not

change to accommodate distance education; rather, distance education must be delivered in a manner that ensures high-

quality outcomes to meet professional standards.

Despite the potential benefits of distance education, numerous cautions and limitations

should be acknowledged. Little research to date has focused on the use of distance education in the

field of school psychology (Fischer et al., 2020; Hendricker et al., 2017). Additionally, no common

metrics exist to measure the quality of learning outcomes for distance education courses compared

to face-to-face course delivery. Some educators have also expressed concerns with offering

assessment and clinically oriented courses (e.g., counseling) through distance education modalities

(Hendricker et al., 2017), and are concerned about the ability to successfully assess professional

dispositions and skills. Many faculty members have also not received appropriate training in

delivering instruction through distance education or adequate time and resources to develop content

(Fischer et al., 2020).

This document outlines some considerations before programs or institutions begin offering

distance education. Notably,

this document, and the NASP Board of Directors, does not

endorse or refute the use of distance education in graduate preparation

. Further, nothing in

this report, or any existing NASP standard precludes graduate preparation programs utilizing

distance education methodologies from applying for NASP program approval or accreditation.

Distance Education Task Force Members and contributors to the distance education reports: Jennifer Kitson, Chair;

Rob Dixon, Delegate Representative; Lisa Kelly-Vance, Strategic Liaison; Connie Patterson, Graduate Education

Committee; Natalie Politikos, Program Accreditation; Jamie Chaffin, Rural School Psychology Interest Group and

Shortages Task Force; Eric Rossen, NASP Office Liaison; Melissa Reeves, NASP President.

Originally published in 2017. This document was updated July 2021. Contributors: Brad Bloomfield and Aaron Fischer.

REFERENCES

Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online

education in the United States. Sloan Consortium, 1–4. Retrieved from

http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2010). Implementing Regulation C-27: Distance and electronically

mediated education in doctoral programs. Commission on Accreditation.

Bonvillian, W. B., & Singer, S. R. (2013). The online challenge to higher education. Issues in Science

and Technology, 29(4), 23–30.

Fischer, A. J., Moy, G., Bloomfield, B. S., Whitcomb, S., & Florell, D. (2020). Faculty Perceptions of

Distance Education in School Psychology Training. Trainer’s Forum: Journal of the Trainers of

School Psychologists, 37(1), 34–43.

Gadke, D. L., Valley-Gray, S., & Rossen, E. (2021). NASP Report of Graduate Education in School

Psychology: 2018–2019. NASP Research Reports, 5(1). Retrieved from

https://www.nasponline.org/Documents/Research%20and%20Policy/Research%20Center

/NRR_SP_Grad_Ed_Report_2018-2019.pdf

Harvey, L. (2015). Analytic Quality Glossary. Retrieved from

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/

Healy, S., Block, M., & Judge, J. (2014). Certified Adapted Physical Educators’ Perceptions of

Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Teacher Development. Palaestra, 28(4), 14–16.

Retrieved from http://prx-usa.lirn.net/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/

Hendricker, E., Saeki, E., & Viola, S. (2017). Trends and perceptions of distance learning in school

psychology. Trainers’ Forum: Journal of the Trainers of School Psychologists, 34(2), 36–68.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2020). Standards for graduate preparation of school

psychologists. In The Professional Standards of the National Association of School Psychologists.

Retrieved from https://www.nasponline.org/x55315.xml

National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Addressing shortages in school psychology: Resource

guide. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-

publications/resources/schoolpsychology/shortages-in-school-psychology-resource-guide

Piña, A. A., & Bohn, L. (2014). More than student surveys and design rubrics. The Quarterly Review of

Distance Education, 15(3), 25–34.

Prus, J., & Newell, S. (2020). Starting a School Psychology Graduate Program [Technical assistance brief].

National Association of School Psychologists.

Quality Matters. (2017). Non-annotated standards from the QM higher education rubric, 5th Edition. Retrieved

from: https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric

Rossen, E., & von der Embse, N. (2014). Status of school psychology graduate education in the

United States. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology:

Foundations (pp. 503–512). National Association of School Psychologists

APPENDIX A. GUIDE FOR DEFINITIONS DESCRIBING COURSE AND PROGRAM

LEVELS

The following definitions, adapted from Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut (2016) and

CAEP/NCATE (CAEP, 2015) may be considered to provide common terms.

Types of Graduate Courses

Individual graduate courses utilize distance learning methods to varying degrees along this

continuum:

• Traditional Course: No online technology is used. All course content is delivered through

verbal interaction and with written materials.

• Web-Facilitated Course: Less than 30% of course content is delivered with distance learning

methods; course is mostly face-to-face. A course management system or course webpage may be

utilized. The number of class meetings is reduced only slightly if at all.

• Blended Course: 30–79% of course content is delivered with distance learning methods, with

fewer face-to-face meetings than the preceding types of courses.

• Online Course: 80% or more of content is delivered with distance learning methods. Typically

there are no face-to-face meetings.

These definitions are adapted from Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut (2016). Allen and Seaman (2014)

and are utilized in the annual Sloan Consortium survey of 2,800 institutions’ distance learning

practices.

Types of Graduate Programs

School psychology graduate programs—as opposed to courses—can be categorized by the extent to

which they utilize distance learning methodology as follows:

• Campus Program: Campus-based degree program in which face-to-face instruction and

supervision predominate. Such a program typically provides traditional and Web-facilitated

courses but few, if any, blended or online courses. More than 90% of program content is

delivered—and learning is accomplished through—live, face-to-face, instructor–student

interaction.

• Hybrid Program: Degree program that combines some distance learning with campus-based,

face-to-face instruction and supervision. A hybrid program delivers 50–90% of program content,

exclusive of internship, by live, face-to-face, instructor–student interaction.

• Online Program: Degree program in which less than half of the required program content,

exclusive of internship, is provided by live, face-to-face, instructor–student interaction.

These definitions are adapted from those used by CAEP/NCATE (NCATE, 2008).