Puree Perfection Blended Learning can lead to Improved Learner Outcomes

A Literary Review By Abi Woldhuis

With the dramatic rise of technology across the world and the rush for schools to purchase equipment and implement Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) into the curriculum (E. Practice, et al. 2000; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000) with the aim of equipping students with skills necessary for operating in the 21st Century (McKinsey Education, 2009; E. Practice, et al. 2000; ITL research project 2010; Ringstaff,C., & Kelly, L. 2002) the question of which method of implementation has been hotly debated (Ringstaff,C., & Kelly, L. 2002; Dwyer, D. 1994; ITL research project 2010; Horn, M. B., Staker, H 2011; Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006; Taradi SK, Taradi M, Radic K, Pokrajac N., 2005; Gould, T., 2005; B. Means, et al, 2009). Schools are now questioning the radical spending of funds on technology as the perceptions were that technology itself would dramatically impact student outcomes (Ringstaff,C., & Kelly, L. 2002; McKinsey Education, 2009 ). Significant money was being spent on teacher professional development but much of that money was spent on skills based training. The purpose of this review is to illustrate that the focus should be predominately on the development of pedagogy about how we use the technology, not the technology itself (Dwyer, D. 1994; ITL research project 2010; McKinsey Education, 2009; Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000; Garrison D.R., & Vaughan N.D., 2008).

This review will outline the term blended learning and give background to its evolution. It will discuss the results of studies conducted that compare online learning with face to face teaching in relation to student outcomes and the implications as a result of those findings. This review will not delve into the factors associated with adequate access to technology or associated technical issues. Rather it will give a brief overview of how the introduction of technology has brought about blended learning as a result of trying to find the best model by which to raise student outcomes. It will seek to propose some conditions which are central to moving technology from being a focus on the tool to it being one part of many factors that are necessary for effective teaching and learning and thus improve learning outcomes. It will outline literature that attempts to focus on the strategies needed to equip students with the backpack of skills essential for life in a fast paced, digitally saturated world where communication, deep thinking and skills in critical analysis are essential and are keys to improving outcomes, not only in school but in life(Dwyer, D. 1994; ITL research project 2010; McKinsey Education, 2009; Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000; Garrison D.R., & Vaughan N.D., 2008). The use of technologies to improve learning has taken different forms over the years. A common perception is that technology is a tool for distance education, opening opportunities for learners not previously possible (Battye, G.,& Carter,H. 2009; Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000; Horn, M. B., Staker, H 2011). Limitations of teacher skills and undefined purpose for technology implementation has seen computers be used as a tutor and method by which to practice skills (Ringstaff,C., & Kelly, L. 2002; B. Means, et al, 2009, Delialioglu, O., & Yildririm, Z., 2007). Earlier studies investigating whether technology on its own improves learning indicated there was no particular different difference in outcomes (Ehrmann and Russell 1999 as cited in Delialioglu, O., & Yildririm,

Abigail Woldhuis Page 2

Z., 2007). Yet the benefits of well structured online courses (incorporating access to webbased applications, research, visual methods of learning, methods of presentation) were starting to be seen favourably in other studies (B. Means, et al, 2009; Delialioglu, O., & Yildririm, Z., 2007; Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006) It can be argued that the growth of distance education (in the form of online learning) and the refining of the effective transfer for information has given rise to concept of blended learning - incorporating the strengths of online learning with strengths face to face teaching strategies (Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006; Horn, M. B., Staker, H 2011; Delialioglu, O., & Yildririm, Z., 2007). Whilst a multitude of different terms have been suggested to define this combined learning, for the purposes of this review, blended learning can be described as a learning method that incorporates the most effective attributes of online learning with those of traditional classrooms which facilitate worthwhile educational goals and outcomes. The combination reflects a merging of philosophy, practices, information sourcing, synthesis of information across contexts so that learners experience both benefits of the teacher-learner relationship of a face to face classroom and the flexibility and information based access of online learning(Garrison D.R., & Vaughan N.D., 2008; Delialioglu, O., & Yildririm, Z., 2007; Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006). A pattern emerging from a wide variety of literature reinforces that it is not technology that is making the most significant changes in the raising of student outcomes, but rather the changes in instruction as a result of effectively integrating technology into learning in a blended scenario (Delialioglu, O., & Yildririm, Z., 2007; Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006; ITL research project 2010; Dwyer, D. 1994). Thomas Reeves (1998) explains the concepts of learning with rather than learning from computers to make the distinction between using computers as a method to practice skills to one where computers are used as a

Abigail Woldhuis Page 3

resource to develop thinking, ideas and to move from pure information getting to higher level thinking and processing. Finland is an example of a country where student outcomes have been consistently high yet it has a fairly low use of ICT (McKinsey Education. 2009). The emphasis here is on methodology and attention to clear instructional practice. The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow project 10 year project (ACOT) (Dwyer, D. 1994) saw large amounts of technology placed in schools and appropriate professional development to accompany its implementation. Significant gains were made in student outcomes and upon reflection of the project the distinct transformation in learning cultures was seen to be the most significant factor in improving outcomes. These classrooms that saw the most significant advances were those where the teacher attempted to achieve a blend of the appropriate use of direct instruction strategies and collaborative, inquiry-driven knowledgeconstruction strategies (Dwyer, D. 1994. p. 6) Student competencies took a significant shift from instruction based to construction based. Students who participated in the trial regularly displayed inquiry, collaborative, technological and problem solving type skills. These are the very skills that research has deemed essential for high student outcomes in todays digitally saturated world or 21st century citizen(Delialioglu, O., & Yildririm, Z., 2007; Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006; ITL research project 2010; Ringstaff,C., & Kelly, L. 2002) The Innovative Teaching and Learning Research project (2010) also concluded that a significant factor in raising student outcomes in relation to technology use was not the technology itself but more the way in which it was used and the design of tasks and assignments. If a task was set as question/answer format, the students only delivered the basic level of information. Tasks that were more problem based and demanded a higher level of thinking, returned work of a higher standard. Lim, Morris, M & Kupritz (2006) noted in their study of online as opposed to blended learning and its affect on student outcomes that

Abigail Woldhuis Page 4

carefully selected instructional activities and collaboration opportunities enhanced learners emotional engagement and also encouraged them to work harder, explore more deeply and achieve better student outcomes. Delialioglu & Yildririm (2007) found that it was the combination of constructivist and instructivist pedagogies of course design were most appealing and successful. Delialioglu & Yildririm (2007) quote the work of Passerini and Granger (2000) to support this structure as the ideal course paradigm for achieving high student outcomes. They note student motivation as a significant factor in student achievement. The use of technology is not enough to intrinsically motivate students but combining technology with the interpersonal connections and collaboration through a well designed blended course structure are recurring themes which point towards raising student achievement across most literature on this topic (Ringstaff,C., & Kelly, L. 2002); Lim, D., Morris, M., & Kupritz, V.2006; E. Practice, et al. 2000; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000). Ringstaff & Kelly (2002) note that technology can serve as a catalyst for change in schools. Other researchers have referred to this as disrupting learning in that it is challenging the way we traditionally view pedagogy (Horn, M. B., Staker, H 2011). If this change is to occur, change needs to occur in the way schools approach integration of technology. Ringstaff & Kelly (2002)propose constructivism as the philosophy that aligns most closely with learning with technology. A constructivist approach changes the centre of focus from the teacher to the student. Classrooms of a constructivist climate promote inquiry, collaboration, investigation, test quality of information, experimentation, project-based learning and higher order thinking skills (Ringstaff,C., & Kelly, L. 2002). These disruptions were also noted in Dwyers (1994) reflections on the ACOT project. The original purpose was to see how technology affecting teaching and learning yet what resulted was a disruption of the traditional classroom. A marked shift from teacher focussed environments to learner focussed

Abigail Woldhuis Page 5

environments where teachers became facilitators and roles of students shifted. Blended learning was just a part of the everyday. In these studies as well as those of Delialioglu & Yildririm (2007), another major shift was student engagement and enjoyment of learning. All studies noted students worked harder but enjoyed the process more of a blended learning situation. As Delialioglu & Yildririm(2007) point out, there are no commonly accepted standards for blended learning. They propose that a model is needed to help formalise the most important dimensions of blended learning. Whilst their paper outlines the various studies undertaken with the aim of designing a model, they note that the area of blended learning, particularly in the school environment lacks studies into the effectiveness of the learning process. In addition, Ringstaff & Kelly (2002)note that there is a significant lack of effective assessment tools available that effectively measure the very skills that technology enhance, that is, critical thinking, higher order thinking, writing and problem solving. We run the risk, as outlined in Horn & Stakers (2011) paper, of resorting to old school techniques of using technology as a tutor and nice tool for minimal substitution as outlined in the SAMR model for enhancing technology integration(Puentedura, R. 2008) . Blended learning, with a distinct focus on pedagogy has the potential for learners to use technology and make learning transformative. The old adage of practice what you preach rings true. We are becoming experts in defining what constitutes a digital citizen or a 21st century learner yet research shows that many of our schools and classrooms are not reflecting a conducive paradigm in which these skills can grow. It is clear that our focus must be on pedagogy. Research has shown that blended learning can have a positive effect on learner outcomes but the governing factor as to whether this occurs, is pedagogy. Technology has been a disruptor of traditional classrooms. Teachers

Abigail Woldhuis Page 6

now need to decide whether they will ignore the disruption or whether they will shift their beliefs on teaching and learning. Professional development needs to take a marked shift from skills based training to pedagogy shift and planning for deep learning experiences. Clear standards and a methods of assessing the effectiveness of online tools, the blended pedagogy and the change in the nature of the tasks used, need to be developed. Improved learner outcomes are very possible, the question is, will we move enough to allow them to improve?

Abigail Woldhuis Page 7

References and Bibliography

Battye. G., Carter. H., (2009) Report on the review of online and blended learning. University of Canberra Retrieved from http://www.canberra.edu.au/tlc/asd/attachments/pdf3/Online-andBlended-Learning-Review-Final-Report-June-2009.pdf

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (CBASSE). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9853&page=206

Delialioglu, O., & Yildririm, Z. (2007). Students perception on effective dimensions of interactive learning in a blended Learning Environment. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (2), 133-146

Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: What we've learned. Educational Leadership, 53(2). Retrieved from edu-negev.gov.il

Garrison, D.R., Vaughan, N.D. (2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2008. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118269558.fmatter/pdf

Goldberg, H. R., McKhann, G.M. (2000) Student test scores are improved in a virtual learning environment. Adv Physiol Educ; 23( 1):59-66. http://elmu.umm.ac.id/file.php/1/jurnal/A/Advances%20in%20Physiology%20Educat ion/Vol23.Issue1/S59.pdf

Gould. T. (2003). Hybrid classes: maximizing institutional resources and student learning. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ASCUE Conference: Myrtle Beach, SC, June 812, 2003, p.54 59 Retrieved from http://courses.durhamtech.edu/tlc/www/html/learningmatters/hybrid.pdf

Horn, M. B., Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Mountain View, CA: Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://goodwin.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/view/The-Rise-of-K-12Blended-Learning.pdf

Lim, D., Morris, M., Kupritz, V. (2006). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in
Abigail Woldhuis Page 8

instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resources Development International Conference, Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved from http://robinwofford.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/EJ842695.pdf McKinsey Education. (2009). Shaping the Future: How Good Education Systems Can Become Great in the Decade Ahead. Report on the International Education Roundtable (July 7), Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/southeastasia/knowledge/Education_Roundtable. pdf

Means, b., Toyamma, 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. US Department of education office of planning, evaluation and policy development policy and program studies service. Retrieved from http://repository.alt.ac.uk/629/1/US_DepEdu_Final_report_2009.pdf

Microsoft Partners in Learning. (2010). Innovative Teaching and Learning Research Executive summary. October 2010 ITL research Microsoft Retrieved from http://www.elb2011.org/docs/ITL%20Research%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

Puentedura, R. R. (2008)TPCK and SAMR Models for Enhancing Technology Integration. Excerpt from http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/educationmaine. gov.1835411146.01835411149.1835189604?i=2138677147 Retrieved from http://www.msad54.org/sahs/TechInteg/mlti/SAMR.pdf

Reeves, T. (1998). The impact of media and technology in schools. A Research Report prepared for the Bertelsmann Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/ashidele/The_Impact_of_Media_by_Bertelsmann_Fdtn. pdf

Ringstaff, C., &Kelly, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of finding from research, San Fransisco: WestEd. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/learning_return.pdf

Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2000). 2000 Research Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association

Abigail Woldhuis Page 9

Taradi, S.K., Taradi, M., Radic, K., Pokrajac, N. (2005). Blending problem-based learning with web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acidbase physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 2005;29:359. Retrieved from http://advan.physiology.org/content/29/1/35.short

WestEd . (2002) Investing in technology: the Learning return. Technology policy brief. San Fransisco: WestEd. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/po-02-01.pdf

Abigail Woldhuis Page 10