FINAL REFLECTION

Final Reflections on Inquiry-Based, Blended Learning Initiative

Karl McBurnett

Lamar University
FINAL REFLECTION

Introduction
The goal of my innovation plan is to inspire students to become independent, self-

motivated learners with a mastery of 21st-century skills. To do so, my initiative proposes the

introduction of an inquiry-based learning model into science classrooms. Inquiry places the

student in the center of their learning through hands-on, genuinely relevant activities.

Incorporating blended learning elements such as flipped classroom and remote learning

facilitates this model. Not only do students learn to work inventively with technology, but this

technology also allows for more significant differentiation of instruction to learners’ needs and

interests. Together, this program fosters the development of choice, ownership, and voice

through authentic learning opportunities.

What Research Says

Inquiry-based learning produces more in-depth levels of understanding across student

populations. A large meta-analysis of active learning research in college and university STEM

courses found an increase in scores on a concept inventory with an effect size of 0.88. The

average effect size for an educational intervention is .57 (Dweck, 2016), so the results are

significant. One study found that failure rates in classes utilizing active learning were 30% less

than lecture classes (Freeman 2014). My research also shows that blended learning

implementations positively affect students across a wide variety of areas, such as student

attitudes (Bolliger, Supanakorn, & Boggs, 2010), student behavior (Chester, Buntine, Hammond,

& Atkinson, 2011), and student performance (Alpay & Gulati, 2010). Derek Muller (2018) found

that flipped content stimulates cognition and improves performance from pre-tests to post-tests

by addressing student misconceptions of the subject early in their learning. In a study of non-

selective California high schools with higher than average at-risk populations, personalization
FINAL REFLECTION

and choice resulted in increased course completion rates and persistence in college enrollment

after graduation (Friedlander, 2014).

Global Lessons Learned-What Worked

These positive results find themselves in schools of varying sizes, student makeup, and

location, but there were common elements that correlated to success. Schools that changed

pedagogical methods to produce a more learner-centered environment reaped the benefits of the

change. For example, one high school in Israel deliberately adopted technology as a means to

create innovative pedagogy (Venezky & Mulkeen, 2002). Likewise, many schools adjusted

instruction away from lectures and towards project-based, inquiry-based, and other student-

centered learning. Teachers became more akin to guides in the classroom, and schools found that

dynamic led to more meaningful one-on-one teacher/student interactions (Means et al., 2009).

Finally, the consistent presence of technology as part of the learning process allowed for more

differentiation of instruction while improving students’ 21-century skillsets (Freeman et al.,

2014). The great take away for me was that neither inquiry nor technology worked as well on

their own as they did combined. If the medium is the message, then educators are forced to

consider how well the message they deliver fits the various mediums of blended learning. Since

students can interact with so many sources, the pedagogy must be differentiated for each. This

differentiation benefits a wide array of student abilities and preferences.

Global Lessons Learned-What Could Have Been Done Better?

When schools implemented blended learning by only moving in-class activities to an

online substitute, taking quizzes for instance, results were neutral. This fact highlights the need

for pedagogical training for teachers. Indeed, teacher training was the most widely reported

obstacle to implementing blended learning. When one school introduced flipped classrooms,
FINAL REFLECTION

several teachers were unable to do so because they had only a small amount of training in

making and too little time to prepare content for this new model (Gariou-Papalexiou et al., 2017).

Schools found that training and support for staff were needed earlier in the process and over a

more extended period (Zaka 2013). And this same learning curve was also reported for students

in many schools as well (Liu & Tourtellott, 2011). Time to properly plan, train, and roll-out

initiatives were the limiting factor in many cases. This time is necessary to build acceptance

amongst all the stakeholders in a school, administration, teachers, students, and parents by

communicating the project’s goals and the positive results of other initiatives.

Applying These Lessons to My Innovation Plan

In reviewing my own innovation plan, I see that I had adequately accounted for the issue of time

early on. My plan calls for a small pilot class to investigate and test methods after an initial a

school year planning a revised curriculum, followed by another school year to train science

department staff on blended learning before rolling it out to an entire department. While I

recognized the need for staff professional development, the case studies illustrated that the need

for significantly more of it. So, my plan will now have training that is continuous throughout the

school year and available through many different methods (during staff meetings, modeled

lessons, and online modules). Staff will also be trained not only in how the technology works but

also in how to incorporate technology through student-centered activities such as inquiry. A

critical aspect of a successful change plan includes time and resources to reflect and revise as the

project moves along adequately. Change is difficult even in receptive environments, but there are

inevitably unforeseen problems. Having a well-defined process for communicating issues and for

suggesting remedies as they arise will be an essential component of my plan going forward.
FINAL REFLECTION

References (start on a new page)

Alpay, E., & Gulati, S. (2010). Student led podcasting for engineering education. European

Journal of Engineering Education, 35(4), 415–427.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.487557

Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S., & Boggs, C. (2010). Impact of podcasting on student motivation

in the online learning environment. Computers & Education, 55(2), 714–722.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.004

Chester, A., Buntine, A., Hammond, K., & Atkinson, L. (2011). Podcasting in education:

Student  attitudes, behaviour and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Technology &

Society, 14, 236–247

Dweck, C. (2018, June 26). Growth mindset interventions yield impressive results. The

Conversation. https://theconversation.com/growth-mindset-interventions-yield-

impressive-results-97423

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth,

M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and

mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Friedlaender, D., Burns, D., Lewis-Charp, H., Cook-Harvey, C. M., Zheng, X., & Darling-

Hammond, L. (2014). Student-centered schools: Closing the opportunity gap. Stanford,

CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education

FINAL REFLECTION

Gariou-Papalexiou, A., Papadakis, S., Manousou, E., & Georgiadu, I. (2017). Implementing a

flipped classroom: A case study of biology teaching in a greek high school. Turkish

Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(3), n3

Liu, Y. H., & Tourtellott, M. (2011). Blending at small colleges: Challenges and

solutions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(1), 58-67

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-

based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.

Muller, D. A. (2008). Designing effective multimedia for physics education [PhD Dissertation].

Venezky, R., & Mulkeen, A. (2002). ICT in innovative schools: case studies of change and

impacts. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),

Department for Education, Schooling for Tomorrow.

Watson, J. (2008). Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education.

Promising Practices in Online Learning. North American Council for Online Learning.

Zaka, P. (2013). A case study of blended teaching and learning in a New Zealand secondary

school, using an ecological framework. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance

Learning, 17(1), 24-40.