LITERATURE REVIEW Blended Learning

by Steve Aiken and Ruth Thomas

Word Count: 3100

Background The term blended learning has been appearing in research literature since the late 1990s (Friesen, 2012) however its definition and pedagogical implications have become more defined in recent literature. Much of the recent research around blended learning in schools has been carried out by Michael Horn and Heather Staker of the Clayton Christensen Institute, which describes itself as “a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank dedicated to improving the world through disruptive innovation” (“About Us,” 2015). Michael Horn is the executive director of the education programme, leading a team focused on disruptive innovation in education (“Michael B. Horn,” 2015). Heather Staker is a Senior Research Fellow at the institute and is considered to be “one of the world’s foremost experts on K­12 blended learning” (“Heather Staker,” 2015, para. 1). There is no research into blended learning at primary school level in New Zealand and limited research available into blended learning at elementary level in American Schools. The literature shows that many of the schools implementing blended learning models in America are using software or programmes statewide that are state or government funded. Purpose Due to a strong personal interest in the concept of blended learning and a desire to explore whether it would be successful in our learning context, this literature review was undertaken to establish; what blended learning is, the benefits and drawbacks of implementing blended learning and the implications for our learning environment. This literature review seeks to fully apprise us of the latest developments with respect to modern research on blended learning at the K­12 school level and in doing so form a platform from which we could then look at how blended learning could be implemented in a New Zealand primary school context to enhance student learning. Definitions of Blended Learning The literature around blended learning shows that the term is used widely, but often incorrectly. A common confusion is referring to technology rich instruction as blended learning (Groff, 2013; Horn

& Staker, 2014; Staker, 2011). Two common ideas emerge among the differing definitions of blended learning. Blended learning involves some element of learning in a building away from home with some face­to­face learning time with a teacher or tutor and it also involves some online learning where the pace and direction can be set and adjusted by the students leading to personalised learning experiences (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Horn & Staker, 2014; Staker, 2011). Some literature also refers to a third element of blended learning being an integrated experience where connections are made between what is being delivered face­to­face and what is being learnt online (Horn & Staker, 2014; “What is blended learning?” 2015). Essentially, blended learning combines some form of traditional learning with some form of self directed online learning. This allows students access to teachers when they need face­to­face instruction with opportunities to learn online at their own pace when this suits them (Watson, 2015). Models of Blended Learning In 2011, six models were generally accepted as defining the terrain of K­12 blended learning environment (Horn & Staker, 2011, p.5). However this was later refined to four models through redefining their parameters. These four models are consistently discussed and referred to in recent literature in relation to K­12 education ­ the Rotation model, the Flex model, the A La Carte model and the Enriched­Virtual model (Christensen, Horn & Staker, 2013). These four models link back to the research of Michael Horn and Heather Staker around blended learning, first appearing in their 2012 article Classifying K­12 Blended Learning (p. 8). All four models have broad parameters due to blended learning still being in the early stages of development and schools experimenting with different blends to find what works best for them and their students (Horn & Staker, 2014). In the Rotation model, students rotate following a set timetable, or at the teacher’s discretion, between subjects or learning modes, with at least one of these modes being online learning. Other modes include more traditional teaching methods, such as whole class and group instruction, paper based activities or group projects (Staker & Horn, 2012). One of the key features of this model is that either the teacher or the clock signals that it is time to move to the next activity and everyone moves at the same time (Horn & Staker, 2014). The Flex model is when course content and instruction is delivered online, with students moving on an individualised, fluid schedule amongst subjects and learning modes with the teacher available onsite to provide face­to­face support as needed (Staker & Horn, 2012). The key feature of this model is that online learning is the predominant style of learning with students being directed to offline learning at times (Horn & Staker, 2014). In the Self­Blend model (later renamed the A La Carte model), students self­blend their learning, taking some courses fully online and other courses face­to­face with teachers at physical campuses (Staker & Horn, 2012). This model is more common at high school level, where students often choose to take online courses in addition to regular face­to­face classes (Horn & Staker, 2014). The Enriched­Virtual model allows students to split their time between attending a physical campus and learning online remotely (Staker & Horn, 2012). Students attend face­to­face learning sessions at set times then work independently online, either on campus or at home (Horn & Staker, 2014). Two of these models have the greatest potential to be implemented in the New Zealand primary school environment ­ the Rotation model, which includes the flipped learning model, and the Flex model. New Zealand teachers are already experimenting with the flipped learning model at both primary at secondary school levels; elements of the Rotation model are often used in New Zealand

classrooms to make effective use of the limited internet capable devices available, although the level of choice for students might not yet be available; the Flex model is already being used in some schools, particularly those schools with open plan modern learning environments where students have greater choice in what they learn when. Online adaptive software is not yet common in New Zealand and with limited school budgets and the responsibility falling back on schools or parents to pay for these, opportunities will be limited for students to access adaptive online learning opportunities. Many schools mix and match elements of models, combining approaches to find a workable model for themselves. Some schools “operate several models and combinations of models at the same time to serve different populations of students in different subjects under the same roof” (Horn & Staker, 2014, p. 52). Benefits and Drawbacks of Blended Learning One of the common themes that emerges out of recent literature is the idea of blended learning leading to improved pedagogical teaching practices. One reason for this is that knowledge can be acquired through online learning, freeing up face­to­face time with the teacher and group learning opportunities for the application of learning, leading to deeper engagement with learning (Horn & Staker, 2014; Watson, 2015). This is also supported by Kaur (2013) who states that blended learning “represents a switch from passive learning to active learning” (p. 616). Blended learning allows teachers to redesign their classroom practice, shifting from more traditional teaching methods to more interactive and learner centred methods, allowing teachers to use their time more efficiently and effectively. One clear benefit identified by Staker & Horn (2012), is that learning is no longer restricted in terms of time, place, path or pace. Students are free to learn at their own pace following the pathway that suits them best, and they are no longer constrained by the physical school buildings or timetable, leading to ubiquitous learning opportunities. Their learning becomes highly personalised, leading to greater success for students (Horn & Staker, 2011; Murphy et al., 2014; Watson, 2015). Not only is the online learning personalised, face­to­face learning can also be personalised and become more responsive to students needs as the teacher is more available to meet with small groups of students as needed, meeting more often with those students requiring extra support. Research shows that blended learning also has benefits in terms of the development of students key competencies such as developing self­reliance as they work through tasks independently, developing time management skills as they are able to adjust their learning schedule to suit their own pace, becoming more responsible for their own learning and developing self­discipline (Harding, Kaczynski & Wood, 2005; Murphy et al., 2014). However, “teachers reported that students’ readiness for self­directed learning may vary by their academic preparation” and they felt that “a student's ability to self­manage and self­direct their learning determined which children would most likely thrive in a blended learning model” (Murphy et al., 2014, p. 7­8). A lack of digital literacy skills could also be a barrier to student success (Murphy et al., 2014, p. 25). Therefore, although blended learning offers students opportunities to develop skills in key competencies, they might not be ready to utilise these opportunities. Compared to purely online learning, blended learning contains a beneficial social element

that is noted to build a learning community and create greater student satisfaction. One of the principal benefits of blended learning is providing a sense of community amongst learners (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Although this is a reference from a higher education standpoint, its importance can be extrapolated to a primary school context where socialisation, collaboration and belonging are of high level importance to the students learning experience. Similarly, Sethy (2008) notes by adding the human interaction to online learning, the educators have considered the human need for socialisation which in turn will help the process of learning. Sugata Mitra who developed the model of self organising learning environments (SOLEs) eventually experimented with adding an elderly person to mix of 3 students. This was solely for the purpose of them offering encouragement or appearing impressed at what the students were doing. This social element created a significant lift in the engagement and achievement of the students (Mitra, 2013). Horn and Staker (2014) also warn of the risks of getting blended learning wrong. They warn of the potential for opportunities to be missed and large sums of money wasted due to “leaders not attempting to organize strategically before attempting to blend” (p. 130). They have also identified a commonly made mistake: “asking classroom teachers to use technology to personalize learning and then expecting them to create a truly transformative learning model on their own” (p. 130). They suggest that carefully chosen leaders drive the implementation of blended learning forward, protecting the disruptive nature of such a shift and ensuring funding and support goes where it is needed for such a shift to be successful (Horn & Staker, 2014, p. 131). This is backed up by the findings of Murphy et al. (2014) who surmised that “Blended learning coordinators played an important role in supporting schools’ adoption of blended learning” (p. 23). It is interesting to note that these leaders were not necessarily classroom teachers but coordinators who researched things like possible online programmes to use, arranging teacher training and negotiating with providers and vendors (p. 23). Implications for our learning environments Horn & Staker (2014) have identified some key questions to help guide schools when making a decision about which model or models to implement. “What problem are you trying to solve? What type of team do you need to solve the problem? What do you want students to control? What do you want the primary role of the teacher to be? What physical space can you use? How many internet enabled devices are available?” (p.240). They suggest taking an existing blended learning model and adapting it to suit, based on the needs of the school, then reworking and refining the model to find the right blend. Research also suggests that having the right school culture is important for blended learning to be successful (Horn & Staker, 2014; Watson, 2015; Murphy et al., 2014). Students need to see the value of self­directed learning and engage in this process for it to be successful. Teachers need to make the shift from teacher in charge to facilitator of learning, differentiating instruction to target students needs. Parents need to be made aware of the value that blended learning can add to learning for their children. Careful consideration needs to be given to equipping students with the independent learning skills required to be successful in a self­directed blended learning environment (Murphy et al., 2014; Horn & Staker, 2011). “Both teachers and students alike need to learn how to develop new habits

of mind, a growth mindset, and to understand what it takes to be successful in a student­centered, personalized learning environment in which their roles are evolving” (Watson, 2014, p. 16). Students need to be supported to develop the self management skills necessary to be successful in a blended learning environment. The taxonomy of blended learning models is still imperfect and will continue to evolve along with the field. But for now it offers a starting point for differentiating between sustaining and disruptive models of blended learning (Christensen, Horn & Staker, 2013). Classifying a model in terms of whether it is a disruptive or hybrid innovation may give us an insight into how the adoption of this model will play out in a given environment. The white paper “Is K­12 Blended learning Disruptive?” (Christensen, Horn & Staker, 2013) looks at disruptive innovations that have historically completely transformed industries and sectors. It then attempts to compare these innovations with the blended learning models to determine which of these are disruptive or hybrid innovations. The conclusion is the Station Rotation, Lab Rotation and Flipped Classroom models are following the pattern of sustaining hybrid innovations. They incorporate the main features of both the traditional classroom and online learning. The Flex, A La Carte, Enriched Virtual and Individual Rotation models, in contrast, are developing more disruptively relative to the traditional system (Christensen, Horn & Staker, 2013). Having now classified these models, an analysis of the K­12 environment with respect to the adoption of disruptive or hybrid educational innovation now allows Christensen, Horn and Staker (2013) to propose how the future will play out. They foresee that the disruptive models of blended learning will replace the classroom as we know it in high schools and, to some extent, middle schools, but not necessarily in elementary schools. They go on to say “the future of elementary schools at this point is likely to be largely, but not exclusively, a sustaining innovation story for the classroom” (p. 35). They base this on the observation that “although many areas of nonconsumption exist at the classroom level, little nonconsumption exists at the school level in U.S. K−12 education. Almost every student has access to a government­funded school of some sort” (p. 27). This access to schooling is parallelled here in NZ education and therefore we can surmise that similarly there will be a lack of nonconsumers to champion the fully disruptive models and the hybrid models of blended learning will be predicted to dominate. Noncomsumers are the people who have no alternative to the new innovation, it’s either that or nothing so to speak. They usually exist on the fringe and in this scenario, would be learners in remote areas, students who have dropped out of formal education, home schooled students and the like. The amount of these people in New Zealand would be so small as to have very little impact on driving a totally disruptive blended learning model forward in primary schooling. Community engagement reflecting Kaupapa Maori and Te Noho Kotahitanga When compared with Te Kotahitanga, a research and professional development programme that identifies the barriers to educational achievement of Māori and proposes classroom solutions (“Māori learners,” 2015, para. 1), many elements of blended learning fit well with the findings and suggested solutions. Māori students learn best when power is shared and students have some control over their learning, learning is interactive and integrated and there is a shared vision working towards excellence (“Māori learners,” 2015).

Blended learning offers students the ability to have more determination over their own learning and therefore plays out well for Māori and the principle of Tino Rangatiratanga, which relates to self­determination, independence and control of their own destiny (“Principles of Kaupapa Māori,” 2015). In terms of the principle of Taonga Tuku, which relates to cultural aspirations and “the centrality and legitimacy of Te Reo Māori, Tīkanga and Mātauranga Māori” (“Principles of Kaupapa Māori,” 2015, para. 3), blended learning also offers some solutions. It creates the ability for students to engage with Te Reo in institutions that do not have fluent Māori language speakers. Using online sources teachers and students can can venture into Te Reo together and share the experience. Pedagogy that is uniquely Māori and learning styles prefered by Māori can be incorporated by teachers who do not have expertise in this field by blending appropriate online sources into the learning experience. Blending online sources also offer Māori access to rich content in remote or economically deprived areas. Students can revisit learning without impediments such as distance, access restricted by finance or peer pressures to not stand out. Blended learning also creates another space in which Māori can connect and build positive learning relationships with Māori. It allows learning communities to form from a uniquely Māori perspective supporting the Hauora of individuals and the group which shares a common purpose and aspirations. Conclusion Therefore with respect to this reviews focus on how blended learning could be implemented in a New Zealand primary school context to enhance student learning, we would be influenced to pay more attention to investigating the hybrid models as those that will gain a stronger foot hold initially in this sector and “offer a “best­of­both­worlds” solution corresponding to the needs of the existing elementary school system” (Christensen, Horn and Staker, 2013). This hybrid domination is noted to be at a school or district level whereas within individual classrooms an engagement with any model is not out of the question. A mix and match of elements to find the best tailored solution for the students is likely to be trialled by teachers, be that from hybrid or disruptive models, as noted previously (Horn & Staker, 2014, p. 52). Now that a consistent definition of what blended learning is and what it looks like has been established, further local research into blended learning and the effects it has on students learning would be beneficial, especially at the primary school level. Consideration also needs to be given to the bicultural and inclusive nature of New Zealand education and the impacts blended learning can have on enhancing learning opportunities for all students in our classrooms.

References About Us. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/our­mission/ Christensen, C., Horn, M. & Staker, H. (2013). Is K­12 Blended Learning Disruptive? An introduction of the theory of hybrids. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp­content/uploads/2013/05/Is­K­12­Blended­Learning­Disruptive.pdf Friesen, N. (2012). Report: Defining Blended Learning. Retrieved from http://learningspaces.org/papers/Defining_Blended_Learning_NF.pdf Garrison, D. R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 7.2, 95–105. Retrieved from http://cecs.anu.edu.au/files/flu_presentation/blended_learning/data/resources/Garrison_2004_The­ Internet­and­Higher­Education.pdf Garrison, D. R. & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles and Guidelines. (1st ed.). San Francisco: CA: Jossey­Bass. Groff, J. (2013). Technology­rich innovative learning environments. Innovative Learning Environments, 1­30. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/Technology­Rich%20Innovative%20Learning%20Environments%20by%20 Jennifer%20Groff.pdf Harding, A., Kaczynski, D. & Wood, L. (2005). Evaluation of blended learning: analysis of qualitative data. UniServe Science Blended Learning Symposium Proceedings, 56­62. Retrieved from http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/IISME/article/viewFile/6436/7085 Heather Staker. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/our­team/heather­staker/ Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2014). blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2011). The Rise of K­12 Blended Learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp­content/uploads/2013/04/The­rise­of­K­12­blended­learning.pdf Kaur, M. (2013). Blended Learning ­ Its Challenges and Future. Procedia ­ Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 612­617. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.248 Māori learners. (2015) Retrieved from http://tekotahitanga.tki.org.nz/About/Professional­Development/Maori­learners Michael B. Horn. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/our­team/michael­b­horn/ Mitra, S. (2013, February). Build a School in the Cloud [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud Murphy, R., Snow, E., Mislevy, J., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A. & Wei, X. (2014). Blended Learning Report. Michael & Susan Dell Foundation. Retrieved from http://5a03f68e230384a218e0­938ec019df699e606c950a5614b999bd.r33.cf2.rackcdn.com/MSDF­ Blended­Learning­Report­May­2014.pdf Principles of Kaupapa Māori. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.rangahau.co.nz/research­idea/27/

Sethy, S. (2008). Distance Education in the Age of globalisation: An Overwhelming Desire towards Blended Learning. Turkish online journal of Distance education, 9 (3). Staker, H. and Horn, M. (2012). Classifying K­12 Blended Learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535180.pdf Watson, J. (2015). Blending learning: The convergence of online and face­to­face education. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/resource/blending­learning­the­evolution­of­online­and­face­to­face­education­from­ 2008­2015/ What is blended learning? (2015). Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/blended­learning/