Week 3: What do site design variations say about online schools?

Overall, professionalism and credibility were the focus of most sites. However, there were marked differences in visual appeal, wording and levels of interactivity:

• Some explained course offerings to students, some didn't.
• The language of some were friendlier and appealing to students, while others were more steeped in bureaucratic and legal wording.
• Some sites featured very plain, template-like design, while others had a much more colorful, current and eye-catching look.
• One site hosted a live chat, while other sites didn't present information clearly even in a text-based format.

A few factors most likely determine the dramatic variations in site design.

• Some online schools are new and haven't gotten their web sites past the beginning phase yet. Perhaps with more interaction and feedback from their stakeholders, their site will grow in response.
• Beginning online schools may not have the funding yet to invest in high-end design and site maintenance; more established online schools have a proven track record, and probably have more funding to invest in a more professional, functional site.
• Related to funding is deciding who designs the site. To save money, many school districts may use older web-design software and have an in-house individual or group design and maintain the site. Those districts who have more money to allocate to the site may have either more experienced web designers and/or programmers on staff or can pay to outsource their site's creation and maintenance to a marketing communications agency.

I noticed a few specific examples from the sites that everyone reviewed which support these opinions:

• The NCVPS (North Carolina) had videos, animation, and links out to social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. They have 73,658 enrollments (2009-10). Contrast this to the Texas Virtual School Network site, has just over 8,000 enrollments (Spring 2011), and their site has a very simple site that doesn't present information clearly and seems more targeted to growing the program than to getting more enrollments. The Oregon Virtual Education Center, whose site was described as "pretty ordinary", uses open-source web design software for the site.

• There were varying levels of promotional elements on sites. One site, the Idaho Digital Learning Academy, had a "live chat feature" for anyone with questions to speak with representative about IDLA. That takes a lot of resources, training, and savvy to develop and staff.

• The Florida Virtual School has an organized site that presents information clearly to all stakeholders: students, parents and educators. It links to social media and has current-looking images and graphics. It even sells "FLVS gear" in an online school-spirit store. It is the U.S.'s "first state-wide Internet-based public high school system". With more than ten years of experience, this virtual school pioneer presents a knowledgeable, stable, and successful site.

Is this a chicken-and-egg situation? If a site spends money to have a powerful design, will it attract more enrollments than one that doesn't? If a well-designed site attracts more students compared to a poorly or plainly designed site, then the school with the better site may be more successful. On the other hand, in states where a consortium (possibly a monopoly) runs all online school programs, there may be no impetus to design an engaging site; if this is the students' only choice for online schooling, then investing what can be a lot of money into site design and maintenance may be a waste of precious resources.

Overall, the varying site designs could either reflect the current health of a state's online school system or at what stage in the online schools' development they have reached.