Blended Learning for Grades 7-10 Design Project ETEC 510 65D Submitted by: Danielle Boyd Brenda

a Courey Sharon Korpan Camille McFarlane

Submitted to: Diane Janes April 3, 2011

Key Frameworks Before considering the adoption of a blended learning model, educators must embrace the redesign of the learning environment that is required for successful integration of technology and content. At the same time, a paradigm shift in the role of the teacher is needed to ensure students experience a different way of learning that still meets their needs. So often, traditional teaching methods are imposed on technology, which impedes the potential for the learners to become builders of their own knowledge. A different approach is necessary in order to ensure that todays students can be successful in tomorrows networked world. Blended learning extends teaching and learning beyond the classroom walls, developing critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration and global awareness (Pape, 2010). These 21st century skills are a requirement for success and it is essential for educators to choose the best teaching methods to address these needs. Blended learning, when implemented in a collaborative, connected environment can develop these 21st century skills. An environment combining faceto-face and online learning provides the opportunity for students to develop competitive skills. A growing body of research indicates students are more productive and enjoy a greater level of satisfaction when face-to-face instruction is combined with online instruction (U.S. Department of Education, 2010; Adam & Nel, 2009). We recognize that the adolescent learner requires face-to-face contact combined with the meaningful integration of technology in their learning environments, enabling students to experience interaction with both adults and

peers. Therefore we believe educators should integrate blended learning into their K-12 schools ensuring student fulfillment and success. Blended learning is grounded in the theoretical approaches of Vygotsky and Piaget and the learning philosophies of constructivism and connectivism. Blended environments scaffold student learning needs and helps facilitate instruction to meet multiple learning styles. Teachers and peers are able to support a students zone of proximal development (Miller, 2002) through interaction both in the physical classroom and on-line. Driscoll (2005) described five constructivist principles necessary for learning: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Embed Learning in complex, realistic, and relevant environments. Provide for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. Encourage ownership in learning. Nurture self-awareness of the knowledge construction process (p. 393-394).

These five learning conditions can be amplified when a blended environment is used, especially as students build their own knowledge in connected networks. The affordances of a learning management system, asynchronous and synchronous discussions and Web 2.0 tools can supplement a students learning both in and outside the boundaries of a physical classroom. Connectivism builds on the constructivist ideals and the affordances of technology. Siemens (2005) describes how learning occurs through connections between multiple information sources, exploring a diversity of opinions, making connections between ideas by choosing what to learn, and realizing that learning may reside in non-human forms. Combined, the ideas of connectivism and constructivism support a blended learning model in

which the most beneficial aspects of traditional and on-line learning environments are capitalized upon. Constructivist approaches using technology are often criticized because:

They are costly to develop due to the time required for preparation by designers. Teachers struggle with creating meaningful and authentic tasks as well as assessing those tasks completed by the students as solutions may be more varied than in traditional instruction (Tam, 2000). Students often lack the skills needed for independent online task completion, especially if they have had little previous experience with this format. There may not always be a strong focus on content, which can cause some teachers to resist this format (Tam, 2000). Some research suggests no actual improvement in learning when comparing online learning to face-to-face interaction (Johnson et al, 2000).

The use of computers as a key learning tool is often criticized for its depersonalizing learning (Wang et al, 200, p.204). Students in fully online courses report a lack of personal interaction and social cues that they rely on when learning face-to-face (Slagter von Tryon, 2009). Educators must be aware of these criticisms and ensure the learning of curriculum is the primary focus of any activity. The integration of technology is used in a secondary capacity to enhance the constructivist learning environment for todays digital learners. Learners today are digital natives (Prensky, 2001a) and therefore are comfortable utilizing most technological tools: the internet, games, social media sites, Web 2.0 tools and hand-held devices. Blended learning allows for the integration of multiple educational activities and media. Digital natives require the use of multiple educational tools which can be used in a blended environment: audio and visual supplementation, Web 2.0 presentation and collaboration tools, current educational and research information and synchronous and asynchronous communication tools.

These types of educational media support the constructivist education activities of critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, creativity, communication, differentiation and inquiry. At the same time, however, students still benefit from the guidance and feedback from face-to-face interactions with adults. By combining faceto-face instruction with technological tools, educators can provide adolescent learners with an engaging and innovative learning environment. Our design project focuses on how educators (administrators, principals and teachers) can best implement blended learning strategies within a theoretical framework. We present multiple blended learning models for the adolescent learner addressing cost, learner readiness, teacher preparedness, student expectations, as well as the pressures for student achievement and assessment. Bates and Pooles (2003) framework for designing learning environments is used as a guideline for educators to implement a blended-learning environment: focus on students, teacher efficacy, technology, cost, instructional approaches, interactivity, organizational issues, novelty and speed of course creation. Intentions and Positions Adolescent learners present challenges for educators as these students begin their transition from childhood to adulthood. The 1989 Carnegie Turning Points report states that there has traditionally been a mismatch between the schools organizational structure and curriculum and the intellectual, social, physical, and emotional needs of adolescents and an unfounded assumption that middle school students are not capable of critical, complex thinking (Turning Points, 1989, 2). Students at this age often view their school experiences as disconnected from their

lives outside the school and feel that teachers are not changing their traditional practices to meet student learning needs. Our design project aims to provide the professional development needed for teachers to understand how to change their traditional practices to better suit their students needs through blended learning. In recognition of current teaching challenges, we describe how educational design for adolescents must provide a structure in which students can participate in knowledge building and skill development to prepare them for the future (Scardamalia, 1994). In highlighting examples of blended learning models for grades 7-10, we address student learning needs by providing examples of how it is possible for students to collaboratively build knowledge in an online format, while maintaining the advantages of face-to-face interactions with teachers that adolescents still require. The blended environment supports and extends face-to-face instruction. Walken and Sharp (2000) propose that the most effective learning system will be hybrids, using conventional settings with a mixture of virtual features (Gouveia, 2001, p. 300). Proponents of blended learning argue that face-to-face is also important as the teacher gives the direction, the orientation and rhythm in class and offers appropriate feedback. The work of the teachers will remain the same, but distributed in a different way (Gouveia, 2001, p. 301). Often teacher professional development for technology and in our case, blending learning environments, is viewed as the neglected stepchild when weighed against other district priorities (Moersch, 2002). For teachers in blended learning

environments, professional development needs to shift teacher pedagogy focusing on instructional design, complex learning, and action research where technology is

integrated. A collective vision for blended learning that focuses on instruction, assessment and curriculum design rather than on computer applications or peripherals is key to success (Moersch, 2002). Vrasidas and Glass (as cited in Herrington, Herrington, Hoban & Reid, 2009) point out that not only do students learn best when they actively engage, collaborate, exchange ideas, reflect critically, and are intrinsically motivated, but teachers do, too. In our design, we ensured that we adhere to the principles of constructivism, thereby providing meaningful learning opportunities for both teachers and students. Reynard (2008) suggests that using technology within a constructivist design results in a format that delivers content, but just as importantly, develops needed skills. Designers are reminded by Wang et al (2001) that learning experiences need to be generated around problem-based, meaningful, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and extended investigations. Web-based tools can support learners constructivist, problem-based collaborative learning (p. 204). By providing a professional learning opportunity through our Blended Learning Wiki, we are demonstrating for teachers how to effectively integrate technological tools into their classroom. We recognize that teacher professional development in areas of technology integration is often lacking (Alexander & Henderson-Rosser, 2010) but necessary to ensure successful technological implementation (Martin et al., 2010). It is essential to provide an opportunity for educators to learn about the benefits of blended learning and how to implement it in the classroom. As a result of busy schedules, teachers request quick, interesting, and beneficial professional development (Herrington et al., 2009). Our Blended Learning Wiki is designed to offer this type of learning

experience, while still providing an effective learning environment built on constructivist principles. The lack of access to equipment in the school setting and the resulting high cost of purchasing and maintaining technology is often used as a reason for resisting a blended learning model. Opponents point out that teachers will not be able to fully meet the needs of their learners because they are, as described by Prensky (2001b), digital immigrants, and therefore incapable of using new technologies in their classrooms because even if they try to use technologies, teachers are hampered by their non-digital cultural heritage (Motteram & Sharma, 2009 p.83). Ultimately, publicly funded school districts are deemed successful based on graduation rates. Blended learning implemented effectively into curriculum could serve to be a positive factor affecting student attendance and student engagement representing greater student success. Students will be prepared and empowered to be effective communicators, collaborators, and contributors to society. It is essential for districts, schools and teachers to provide professional development opportunities for teachers who are digital immigrants and natives alike, in order to experience the benefits of blended learning. Key Concepts The Net Generation (individuals born in the 1980s or later) of students have different expectations, abilities, and interests than those generations before them. In addition, they think and process information fundamentally differently than their predecessors because they are the first generation to have grown up with digital and cyber technologies (Barnes, Marateo, and Ferris, 2007, Prensky, 2001a). As noted in

Bonamici (2005), by the age of 21, the average member of the Net Generation would have spent 10,000 hours playing video games, 200,000 hours on e-mail, 20,000 hours watching the television, 10,000 hours on cell phones, and under 5,000 hours reading books. Therefore these students also have varied ways and desires for learning. Literature suggests that todays students demand educational settings that facilitate engagement among their peers, are more hands-on and inquiry-based, and are rooted in authentic learning experiences. Such students require varied forms of communication and become bored easily when approached with traditional learning methods. These students prefer graphics over text, tend to multitask among various technological applications, and create some of their best work when networked (Oblinger & Hagner, 2005, Prensky, 2001a, Tapscott,1998). These digital natives (Prensky, 2001a) are the leaders of tomorrow therefore educators must be cognizant of the generation divide and how their teaching methods will be affected. We propose that the most effective 21st century model of teaching and learning incorporates solid educational theory and face-to-face practices with technologies that encourage collaboration, communication, and a community of inquiry. This requires a reconceptualization and reorganization of former practices so that teaching methodologies evolve to fit the needs of 21st century students as well as enhance the context of learning (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Blended learning facilitates a shift from transmissive learning whereby students are empty vessels, provided with facts and information by way of their

teacher and textbooks, to collaborative learning whereby students are provided with a starting point to their journey and an array of tools to aid them along their adventure (Hyo-Jeong & Brush, 2008). What differentiates the two types of learning is the varied routes and relationships created along the way. Blended learning enhances collaborative learning strategies so that students have the opportunity to experience multiple perspectives on a global scale. In doing so, students are able to develop their critical and analytical skills by way of evaluating varied points of view. In addition, a paradigm shift in teaching occurs from a teacher-centered model to an individualized, student-centered model. The role of an educator is that of a facilitator, coach, or mentor rather than a repository of information and knowledge. Students on the other hand, by way of collaboration, exploration, and communication develop new meaning and knowledge and expand their critical thinking skills. In such learning contexts, technologies such as the Internet, Web 2.0, and other various hardware and software applications can support students in developing understandings, appeal to adolescents and provide greater authenticity, realism, and connections to the real world. Blended learning, if incorporated effectively and efficiently, has the potential to revolutionize the learning experience of students and how we as educators teach. Such environments incorporate a mix of in-class instruction with that of technologyenhanced learning such as educational games on Web 2.0 platforms, virtual environments, adaptive curriculum, and engaging lessons. This student-centric

10

model of teaching and learning leads to dynamic individualized pedagogy that ultimately scaffolds multiple learning styles and appeals to 21st century students. When developing a blended learning environment it is advantageous to use Bates and Pooles (2003) SECTIONS model to determine if in fact the selected technology will enhance the learning environment. In doing so the following characteristics must be assessed: How will the technology fit with the current or prospective students? Is the technology easy to use and manipulate for both teachers and students? What are the costs associated with the technology? How will the technology aid in the teaching and learning process? How will the technology enable interaction among members of the learning environment? What are the requirements or limitations of the organization? How new is the technology? At what speed can the technology be implemented? (Bates and Poole, 2003). Interactivities Our interactivities are showcased using a wiki, ETEC510-Blended Learning at http://etec510-blendedlearning.wikispaces.com/. We chose to provide this professional learning opportunity in a wiki format because it is one of the most accessible platforms that could be used for blended learning. This space may serve as a reference tool for educators, teachers or administrators, wishing to implement blended learning in a variety of learning environments. Information and research is showcased utilizing Web 2.0 tools which serve multiple purposes. The use of Web 2.0 tools provides a sample of the tool in an authentic learning environment for

11

educator professional development. Each of the tools could be effectively integrated into the grade 7-10 classroom. In exponential times, we recognize that educational Web 2.0 tools change rapidly. We are aware that our wiki is not an exhaustive resource but rather serves as a working document. We have attempted to provide authentic samples of various tools that would both appeal to adolescent learners and enrich constructivist learning environments. Within our design group, we did question the issue of restricting wiki editing rights. In order for a space to be truly collaborative in nature, it should facilitate the sharing of ideas and materials. It was decided that because this project was originally designed as a course requirement, we would in fact limit such rights until the project was evaluated. Blended learning conversations from wiki visitors are encouraged in the discussion areas. It is important to note, however, that a reduction in editing restrictions could make the space more effective and authentic, but also would bring about a need for constant monitoring of appropriate and valid content. Verification Because the key stakeholders within our project are in fact educators, we thought that it would be useful to include a number of feedback opportunities within the wikispace platform. Educators can use the wiki to gain a knowledge base of how to establish an effective blended learning environment. Within all pages of the wiki, participants have the ability to leave discussion posts on a variety of topics. This feedback can serve as a gauge of the value and benefit of information to the viewer.

12

As instructional designers we would use this feedback to improve and alter the wiki learning environment to best suit the needs of our learners. A survey tool, based on Bates and Pooles (2003) framework, is also embedded within the wiki to allow for educators to assess whether the current or potential blended learning activities fit current educational frameworks for effective integration of technology within learning. Survey participants can answer the outlined questions and review their results based on a scale of effectiveness and preparedness. It is our goal to share our wiki with fellow colleagues, educators, and students within the UBC MET program. Because the platform chosen is in fact web-based, our wikispace is also available on the worldwide web and can be found using a basic Google search of blended learning.

13

Group Reflection Our project was created in order to provide educators with the information necessary to implement Blended Learning. We have done significant research on blended learning and its benefits to students. Following our proposal feedback, we found it necessary to ask for further clarification, which helped us determine how we could improve. Every member of the group was very eager to revise the work according to the feedback. We continued our research and commented on how the subsequent readings were very applicable to our design plan. As a result, we definitely found the SECTIONS model to be very helpful and this provided the focus we needed for our design interactivities. The design project process required negotiation; both within the group and our personal understandings of learning design and blended learning. Through this process, we had regular Skype meetings in which we asked ourselves, what educators would most like to learn about blended learning. We realized that we needed to provide information on how to implement blended learning and the cost/benefit of implementation. This led us to altering the direction of the wiki. We removed some of the planned theory and examples, and placed more emphasis on Bates and Pooles design framework. We hope educators will be able to assess their learning environment and implement the blended learning approach that works for them. The group proved to be successful in light of busy personal and professional lives. We believe this is due to several factors: effective communication skills, group 14

cohesion, and individual accountability or responsibility. Individual strengths and interests were respected. Group members demonstrated flexible thinking and problem-solving. Constructive feedback and ideas flowed freely. Passion for the subject matter was evident. As in other group projects in which we have participated, we thoroughly enjoyed working with fellow group partners. They were knowledgeable, responsible, and considerate of each members time, work and family commitments. We were very flexible in setting the times for our meetings and supported each other with technology issues whenever needed. Each member brought different technological competencies and experiences to the project. It is group projects such as this where the power of professional learning communities of practice is reinforced. Learning is a journey and this project exemplified that process of inquiry and revision. We can honestly say that this has been one of the most effective working group experiences throughout our MET journey. The design activity provided us with the opportunity to link theory to practice. We, as both educators and learners, were able to build on our previous understanding of 21st century pedagogy and create new meaning and develop a well-rounded knowledge base surrounding constructivism, connectivism, communities of learners, and creating lessons and activities that are engaging, technology-integrated, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and studentcentered. We were also provided sufficient time and resources to gather, use, and manipulate an array of technologies that could be used by both educators and students at various grade levels. Learning was maximized because of the real-life 15

application of theory; a great deal of time and effort was put towards hands-on experiences, troubleshooting and problem-solving through various technologies. Our intent was to provide an online space to assist educators in the implementation of blended learning. As a result, we have created a space which exemplifies a balance between research, theory, and practical applications.

16

References Adam, S., & Nel, D. (2009). Blended and online learning: student perceptions and performance.. Interactice Technology and Smart Education, 6(3), 140-155. Alexander, S. & Henderson-Rosser, A. (2010). Do-it yourself professional development. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37(8), 24-27. Retrieved from http://www.learningandleading-digital.com/learningandleading Barnes, K., Marateo, R., & Ferris, S. (2007). Teaching and learning with the net generation. Innovate, 3(4). Retrieved January 14, 2011, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=382 Bates, T., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Driscoll, M. (2005). Effective teaching with technology. Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3. ed., internet. ed., pp. 384-407). Toronto, ON: Pearson A and B. Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95105. Gouveia, L. (2001). Is there any room for face-to-face teaching in a digital world? . Educational Media International, 38(4), 299-305. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. Herrington, A., Herrington, J., Hoban, G., & Reid, D. (2009). Transfer of online professional learning to teachers classroom practice. Journal of Interactive

17

Learning Research, 20(2), 189-213. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/jilr/default.htm Johnson, S., Shaik, N., Aragon, S., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 2949. Kelly, M. (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., & Culp, K. (2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 43(1), 53-74. Retrieved from www.iste.org Miller, P. H. (2002). Vygotsky's sociocultural approach. Theories of Developmental Psychology (pp. 367-396). New York: W.H. Freeman.. (Original work published 4) Moersch, C. (2002). Beyond hardware: using existing technology to promote higherlevel thinking. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Motteram, G., & Sharma, P. (2009). Blending learning in a Web 2.0 world. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society , 7(2), 83-96. Oblinger, D., & Hanger, P. (n.d.). Seminar on educating the Net Generation. What is EDUCAUSE? | EDUCAUSE. Retrieved January 29, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu

18

Pape, L. (2010). Blended teaching and learning. School Administrator, 67, 16-21. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministrator.aspx Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 2-6. Prensky, M. (2001b). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13. Retrieved January 19, 2011, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx Reynard, R. (n.d.). Changing designs of online learning: The evolution of digital learning systems through customization -- THE Journal. THE Journal: Technological Horizons in Education -- THE Journal . Retrieved January 16, 2011, from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2008/07/16/Changing-Designs-ofOnline-Learning-The-Evolution-of-Digital-Learning-Systems-ThroughCustomization.aspx?Page=1 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Siemans, G. (n.d.). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearn space. Everything elearning. Retrieved January 19, 2011, from http://www.elearnspace.org Tan, M. (2001). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 5060.

19

Tapscott, D. (n.d.). Don Tapscott in conversation about the Net Generation. Page Don Tapscott : Don Tapscott. Retrieved January 19, 2011, from http://dontapscott.com/media

Home

Transforming Middle Schools. (n.d.). Turning Points - Transforming Middle Schools . Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://www.turningpts.org U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Evaluation of Evidence-based Practices in Online learning: A meta-anaylsis and Review of Online Learning Studies . Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov Wang, M., Poole, M., Harris, B., & Wangemann, P. (2001). Promoting online collaborative learning experiences for teenagers. Education Media International, 38(4), 203-215.

20