What is Blended Learning?

Tim Hudson, PhDSr Director of Curriculum Design

DreamBox Learning

Blended Learning Defined

H. Staker, M. Horn, Classifying K-12 Blended Learning, © 2012

online delivery ofcontent & instruction

delivery of content & instruction at school

Which blended model is better?FLIPPED-CLASSROOM ENRICHED-VIRTUAL

Blending is a means to what ends?

What is happening with the teacher?What is happening on the

computers?H. Staker, M. Horn, Classifying K-12 Blended Learning, © 2012

Plan Schooling Backwards

“Contemporary school reform efforts… typically focus too much on various means: structures, schedules, programs, PD, curriculum, and instructional practices (like cooperative learning)”

[or blended learning][or flipped classrooms][or iPads, hardware, etc]

p. 234-235, Wiggins & McTighe, © 2007

Plan Schooling Backwards

“Certainly such reforms serve as the fuel for the school improvement engine, but they must not be mistaken as the destination…[which is] improved learning.”

p. 234-235, Wiggins & McTighe, © 2007

Plan “Backwards”1. Identify desired

results2. Determine

acceptable evidence

3. Plan learning experiences and instruction

Understanding by Design, Wiggins & McTighe, ©2005

Before Blending1. What do you want students to

accomplish?

2. How will you know they’ve achieved it?

3. What print and/or digital resources will you need for their

learning?

Time, Place, Path, Pace

“Learning is no longer restricted to the pedagogy used by the teacher.”

BUT… Learning IS restricted – and limited by – the pedagogy used by the online teacher, in the online instruction, or in designs of the learning software.

H. Staker, M. Horn, Classifying K-12 Blended Learning, © 2012

Common Experience

From a 5th grade teacher in NY:“I had a lot of good people teaching me math when I was a student – earnest and funny and caring. But the math they taught me wasn’t

good math. Every class was the same for eight years:

‘Get out your homework, go over the homework, here’s the new set

of exercises, here’s how to do them. Now get started. I’ll be around.’”

p. 55, Teaching What Matters Most, Strong, Silver, & Perini, ©2001

Common Teaching CycleWhole

Class or Small Group

Instruction

Independent Practice

Whole Class

Assessment

Use Data Formatively to Plan

Use Data Summativel

y

Instruction, Content Delivery

Whole Class or Small Group

Instruction

Independent Practice

Whole Class

Assessment

Use Data Formatively to Plan

Use Data Summativel

y

Let Me Show You How To

DoX

Now You Go Do

X

Can You Independentl

y DoX?

Maybe You Need

to Be Shown X

Again

You KnowX

Instruction

Let Me Show You How To Do

X

Now You Go DoX

Can You Independentl

y DoX?

Maybe You Need to Be

Shown X Again

You KnowX

Who is doing the thinking?

Fullan: Alive in the Swamp

Fullan & Donnelly, Alive in the Swamp: Assessing Digital Innovations in Education, © July 2013, www.nesta.org/uk

“Technology–enabled innovations have a different problem, mainly pedagogy and outcomes. Many of the innovations, particularly those that provide online content and learning materials, use basic pedagogy – most often in the form of introducing concepts by video instruction and following up with a series of progression exercises and tests. Other digital innovations are simply tools that allow teachers to do the same age-old practices but in a digital format.” (p. 25)

Data inform the

Adaptive Engine

Common “Adaptive” Design

Explicit Input, Video Lecture,

Textbook Reading,

Independent Practice,

“Worksheet” Problems

Digitized Quiz/Test

Items

Adaptive Engine: Watch or Read Again

School & Home WorkAt School:Explicit

Instruction &

Problem Solving

At Home:Practice Problems

Whole Class Assessment

Maybe you need to be

shown X again

Use Data Summativel

y

Meaningful Flip?At Home:Explicit

Instructional Videos & Online Practice At

School:Guided Practice

& Problem Solving

Whole Class Assessment

Maybe You Need to Watch the Video Again

Use Data Summativel

y

Fullan: Alive in the Swamp“While these innovations may be an incremental improvement such that there is less cost, minor classroom efficiency and general modernisation, they do not, by themselves, change the pedagogical practice of the teachers or the schools [or the online learning].” (p. 25)

Fullan & Donnelly, Alive in the Swamp: Assessing Digital Innovations in Education, © July 2013, www.nesta.org/uk

Plan Curriculum Backwards

1. Identify desired results

2. Determine acceptable evidence

3. Plan learning experiences and instruction

Understanding by Design, Wiggins & McTighe, ©2005

The Quality of Digital Learning Experiences is

just as important as the Quality of

Classroom Learning

Experiences

SAMR Model by Dr. Ruben R. Puentedura, www.hippasus.com/rrweblog

Learning Principle

“Understandings cannot be given; they have to be engineered so that learners see for themselves the power of an idea for making sense of things.”

p. 113, Schooling by Design, Wiggins & McTighe, ©2007

Pros & Cons

Benefit of Blended Learning

Becoming MORE thoughtful and strategic about

the use of precious class

time

Danger of Blended Learning

Becoming LESS thoughtful and strategic about how students

understand and make sense of

things

HD Crull Elementary SchoolImplementation of Blended LearningChristina A. Gibson- PrincipalJulie Alley- Title I Instructional Coach

HD Crull Who Are We?● 470 Elementary Students● Located in Port Huron, MI● Identified a FOCUS school with

performance gaps in Math and Writing in 2011(between high and low achievers)

● Schoolwide Title I ● 89% Free and Reduced Lunch

Why? Rationale for Implementation

● Comprehensive Needs Assessment (Of learning, FOR learning)o Engaged a School Improvement Teamo Data Analysis using multiple points (NWEA, DIBELS, Attendance,

Discipline, Perception Data Surveys (teacher, student, community)

o Honored Innovation to address high needs areas

● Low overall academic performance ● Large gaps ● One room school house in 18 classrooms ● Students lacked exposure and engagement

● Researched “What Works Clearinghouse”o http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf

● John Hattie’s researcho Student goal settingo Student engagement

● Conferences using Title I Fundso Model Schools Conferenceo Technology Conferences- MACULo National Reading Recovery

● Multiple Site Visits o Beating the Odds schoolso Similar Demographicso Technology Rich

Research

Strategies to fit the needs

● Student Goal Setting● Student Recognition of Achievements● Students Tracking Data● Individual and Small Group Instruction at Students Level● Student Engagement● Student Questioning and Discussion● Parent Involvement● Teacher Capacity

= Blended Learning

● 1 computer per classroom ● 1 computer lab per building● Checked out all devices to staff● Instructional Coach Managed

Year One 2011-2012

● Technology Flooded the building 200 ipads

● Carts of ipads introduced to students and staff

● itunes to manage● NO APPS were added at all● Innovative and creative teaching

Year One Spring 2012

● Added ipads and laptops (400 devices)● All teachers true one-to-one total control● Volume vouchers for large● Apple configurator● Teachers used daily (app sitting)● Exploring community partnerships● Pilot kindergarten one to one ipad

classroom● SMART Boards in every classroom

2012-2013Year Two

Title I Instructional Coach

● Scheduled push in lessons with reluctant-to-technology staff members

● Tech lessons aligned to CCSS● Optional Professional Development to

“dive deeper” into data from online learning programs

Year Two Teacher Learners

Blended Pilot Summer Camp 2013● Teachers trained in DreamBox and Lexia

Core 5● 20 minutes every day in a computer lab 4

days per week● NO direct instruction in math ● Teachers provided follow up support with

DreamBox as the assessment (used flags, detail reports, etc)

● Served 100 Students ages 4-12● Targeted bottom 30% of Students

Data from Summer Camp 2013● Used NWEA Spring to Fall to assess growth● 64 students used in data (omitted pre-k and 6th graders)● .93 average points of RIT growth in math for students

involved in summer● -1.54 average points of RIT loss in whole school

population “Summer Slide”(using cohorts omitted pre-k and 6th graders)

Comparison Report for RIT Scores using NWEASpring 2013 to Fall 2013

2nd to 3rd removed # of students in summer program non representational/poor sampling (7 students in this group 2 with invalid NWEA scores in fall.)

● One to one classrooms● 400 devices at Crull● Embedding literacy and tech coach● On-line individualized learning

environment● On-line resources● All teachers have 5 small group

ipads per class● Google G-Mail and Calendar for

Teachers

2013-2014Year Three

School Improvement Plan 2013-14● Wrote DreamBox into our SIP

o 60 minutes per week for every student● Wrote Lexia Core 5 into our SIP plan as Tier 2

and Tier 3 ● Intervention block with program● RAZ kids, Overdrive, and Accelerated Reader

Title I Instructional Coach● Pushing in and co-teaching with

reluctant-to-tech teachers● Introducing innovative lessons from

technology conference- MACUL● Permission to “try new things”● Working with “tech savy” classroom

teachers on more challenging ideas○ Word of mouth success spreads to

other classrooms

Teacher LearnersYear Three

Implementation of blended learning School Year 2013/2014

Teachers implemented in both whole group and small group● Station Rotation Model● Whole Group

(2 or 3 times per week for 30 or 20 minutes)● Project Based● Extension and Choice Time (morning work, recess, etc)● After school hours (turned on games after school and on

Fridays)● All students had accounts for on-line applications● Some students had G-Mail Accounts Set up

● School Website through Weebly○ hdcrull.weebly.com○ Parents able to see video and

pictures of student learning● Using twitter

○ information and school updates○ @hdcrull

● “Technology Passports” ○ images of apps ○ websites○ logins and passwords

Parent SupportYear Three

Data from School Year● Direct correlation to time in DreamBox and Lexia Core 5

with Improved NWEA scores.● As intervention, not successful using on-line programs,

more success for mid to high students (some were exception)o low students need direct instruction

● Compare 2 second grade classrooms. Teachers follow same curriculum (math expressions), plan lessons together and have worked together for 4 years.

● Variable was the AMOUNT of time in a computer based program. One embraced 60 minutes per week. One did not.

Let me show you what I mean...This 2nd grade classroom had ● 103.1 Sessions● covered 15.6 Units● completed 165.6 Lesson using DreamBox

● 66.3 Sessions● covered 7.2 Units● completed 74.9 Lesson using DreamBox

This 2nd grade classroom had

Teaching Method Comparison

● Classroom #1● Did not embrace blended learning, teacher lead instruction

dominated● 3rd Grade● 43.4 Sessions● 4.2 Units

● Did embrace blended learning, teacher lead instruction dominated

● 5th Grade● 99.6 Sessions● 9.1 Units

Classroom #2

Crull compared to National Averages

Student Growth of Crull 5th Graders in one class

VCG Comparison (Virtual Comparison Group)

Proficiency Standard on Michigan Standard Testing

Advanced Proficiency on Michigan Standard Testing

Overall Findings of Blended Learning

● Most of the lowest performing students didn’t respond as well with on-line platforms, preferred teacher small group

● Average and high performing students loved using on-line platforms

● Mid to poor performers had MOST increases

● Easier to shift in math to blended than reading and writing

Variables to improve on School Performance

● All means all● Monitor usage ● Address teachers not meeting usage● Promote teachers trying both models of implementation

and challenge them to come up with other ideas● Student Choice● Collect usage data from

DreamBox, Lexia Core 5 and add to NWEA spreadsheet

Benefits we didn’t think of...● Special Education Referrals● Parent Meetings● Parent Learning ● Recognition and Awards● Student Goal Setting- Competition

for learning● Assessment and Placement● Teacher Evaluation● Identified Students with Hearing

Deficits

● Identified Students that did not learn with auditory and visual learning.

Pitfalls/Room to Grow

● After hours “others” using DreamBox and Lexia Core 5

● Staff using in whole group, o One to one meetings were better with

DreamBoxo Small Group better in Reading Blocko Refreshing the screen in whole group

● Staff wanting more PD and training on fit with Curriculum

● Logistics

● Full Implementation of Google Products ○ Drive, Sites, Classroom○ Chromebooks for one class

● Enough Devices for building wide one to one

● Apple TV

The Journey ContinuesYear Four

Things to Consider as You Implement

● Use of digital platforms as “intervention”● What programs will you use?

o How will you track programs effectivenesso Will an app get the job done?o How long will you “stick” with it?

● WHY? Why are you implementing? o Where is the need of the student (s), school etc.o What do you hope to accomplisho How will classroom instruction change to support?o What can a teacher do BETTER than a program?

Reinventing the Learning Experience

Intelligent Adaptive Learning™ Engine• Millions of personalized

learning paths• Tailored to a student’s

unique needs

Motivating Learning Environment• Student Directed,

Empowering• Gaming Fundamentals,

Rewards

Rigorous PreK - Grade 8 Mathematics Curriculum• Reporting Aligned to

Common Core State Standards, Texas TEKS, Virginia SOL, Canada WNCP, & Canada Ontario Curriculum Reports

• Standards for Mathematical Practice

DreamBox Lessons & Virtual ManipulativesIntelligently adapt & individualize to:• Students’ own intuitive strategies• Kinds of mistakes• Efficiency of strategy• Scaffolding needed• Response time

© DreamBox Learning

Robust Reporting

© DreamBox Learning

Strong Support for Differentiation

© DreamBox Learning

DreamBox supports small group and whole class instructional resources

Interactive white-board lessonswww.dreambox.com/teachertools

© DreamBox Learning

Free School-wide Trial!www.dreambox.com