Sunday, June 30, 2013

Blended Learning Models

When examining blended learning for its appropriateness for your classroom, building, or district - a goal for the program must first be defined.  What are the goals of your blended program, credit recovery, remediation, enrichment, new course credit...?  After determining your goals a model or models must be selected.  These are fluid models that can be adapted for the specific needs of your students, staff, and district.  The whole idea of this method of teaching is to be fluid and adaptive to the changing needs of the end user.

According to the Innosight Institute, Classifying K-12 Blended Learning, there are four common blended classroom models:

1.  Rotation Model.
2.  Flex Model.
3.  Self-Blend Model.
4.  Enriched Virtual Model.

This blog will define, give real examples for each model, and if available statistical success for each model. Often multiple models are used in the same building based on the needs of the student population that is being served, remember the goal of blended learning ultimately is to better meet the needs of the student - models can be adapted as necessary.

1.  Rotation Model - Within this model students rotate between traditional direct instruction, collaborative
     learning, 1 on 1 or small group tutoring based on student need, online instruction, etc...  The rotation is
     fixed or at the teacher's direction and students take part in each station.

Station Rotation -  individual stations are setup within a classroom and students rotate through each station.  Denver School of Science and Technology uses this model.  DSST has the second highest growth rate in student test scores statewide and 100% of its graduates were accepted to four-year colleges and only 1% of those students needed remedial courses.

Lab Rotation - this model is similar to station rotation but students rotate among areas within a building - one of which is a computer lab.   Rocketship schools,  have had tremendous success in a very short period time  according to the California school report card, the charter schools currently rank 4th,5th,7th, and 10th most successful high poverty schools in the state.  Rocketship schools are composed of 75% free and reduced lunch, 80% minority, and 85% English as a second language.

Flipped Classroom - online delivery of content and instruction is delivered outside of the normal school day as homework, leaving classroom time for guided practice, small group or 1 on 1 tutoring...  This models allows teachers to remediate and enrich within the normal school day.


Individual Rotation - students rotate between stations within a classroom or school but do so based on individually created schedules.  Students may not visit each station.   This is a combination of a station and lab rotation model. Carpe Diem Collegiate High School and Middle School boast an average 85% graduation rate over the past six years compared to the state average of 75% for the state of Arizona and math and reading scores 10% above the state average.

2.  Flex Model - In this model, the computer is the primary method by which content and instruction are
     delivered.  Teachers are available to provide support as needed by each individual learner and the goals
     of the program, intensive data gathered on the individual learners progress is used to guide all aspects of
     the student learning experience.  Immediate interventions are put in place to provide immediate student
     support and prevent student failure.



 3.  Self-Blend Model - this is a student guided model in which students decide to take one or more classes
      online as a supplement to what is received in the traditional school.  These courses may or may not be
      part of the schools defined curriculum and may not be associated with the school the student is attending.
      According to the NCLB reportcard 2012 for Quakertown Community School District is one of the
      highest performing districts in the state of Pennsylvania with an average of 85% of all students scoring
      proficient or above in all tested subjects.


4.  Enriched-Virtual model - This model has evolved from schools that began as fully online to a blended
     classroom - as these schools have found that a blended model of remote online instruction combined with
     an on-site experience works best for students.  In this model students do not attend a school building on a
     daily basis - the amount of on-site attendance is based on the program and student individual needs.  This
     is a whole school model - not a classroom model and is a combination of many of the above defined
     models. eCADEMY, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The models of blended learning defined above are general and broad, the beauty of blended learning is it flexibility.  Blended learning is about flexibility,  providing an opportunity to create the model of learning that best meets the individual needs of the student, program, teacher, and school.  There are always tweaks to be made to make the system better.  The idea is to individualize instruction - to "demassify" it - combinations of these models can be used for greatest effectiveness.


Bibliography


Associated Press. (2013, May 31). Philadelphia School Leaders Approve 'Doomsday' Budget.
(2011, January). Blending Traditional and Online Learning.  National Science Teachers Association Reports!. 8-9.
(2012) California State Report Card:  Rocketship.  http://school-ratings.com/school_details/43104390123281.html
(2012) Carpe Diem:  Seize the Digital Revolution. http://www.educationnation.com/casestudies/carpediem/
Cincinnati Enquirer. (2013, June 4). Cincinnati Public Schools Multimillion Budget Gap.
Dessoff, A. (2009) Reaching Graduation with Credit Recovery. District Administration,    45(9), 43-44.
Eisenberg, M. & Fullerton, S. P.  (2012).  Ed and INFO 2052:  Oh, the places you’ll go!  IOS Press, 32, 103-115.  
Feng L. & Cavanaugh, C (2011).  Success in Online High School Biology:Factors Influencing Student Academic 
Performance. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(1), 37-54.
Hernandez-Ramos, P & De La Paz, S. (2010).  Learning History in Middle School by Designing Multimedia in a Project- 
Based Learning Experience.  Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 42(2), 151-173.
Lincoln, M. (2010).  Information Evaluation and Online Coursework.  Knowledge Quest,  38(3), 28-31.
Nastu, J. (2010).  Blended Learning on the Rise.  Education Today, (6), 22-28.
National Educators Association. (2013). Impact of Sequestration on Federal Education Programs State by-State.
    Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/52610.htm
McLester, S. (2011).  Building a Blended Learning Program.  District Administration, 47(9), 40-53.
(2012) NCLB Report Cards:  Quakertown Community School District.  http://www.qcsd.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=265
Rud, D.  (2010, April).  Effects of the Financial Crisis on American Education.  European School Heads Association. p 
10-14
Schorr, J. & McGriff, D. (2011).  Future Schools:  Blending Face-to-Face and Online Learning.  Education Next, 11(3), 
10-17.
Staker, H. & Horn, M. (2012).  Classifying K-12 Blended Learning.  Innosight Institute, 12(5), 1-22.
Varlas, L. (2011) Getting to Graduation, Can Blended Learning Curtail the Dropout Crisis?  Education Update, 11(8), 2-
5.
(2012). Weathering the Storm: How the Economic Recession Continues to Impact School Districts. American 
Association of School Administrators. 1-20.

Wise, B. & Rothman, R. (2010). The ONLINE LEARNING Imperative: A Solution to Three Looming Crises in 

Education. Alliance For Excellent Education. http://www.all4ed.org/files/OnlineLearning.pdf.

No comments:

Post a Comment