HYBRID LEARNING

MODELS AND APPLICATIONS

FOR TODAY’S BLENDEDCLASSROOM

ORIGINS

the blending of whole group instruction and independent work stations has been part of classroom procedures for many years, especially at the elementary level

the ‘independent’ portion has evolved from:• individually completing worksheets/exercises to• completing assigned lessons on computer

software to• viewing short videos on computer that present

material in a unique and personalized way

CHRISTENSEN INSTITUTEAND

PA HYBRID LEARNING INSTITUTE (PA HLI)

Christensen Institute – researchers who study how technology can help teachers in providing personalized instruction simultaneously to varying ability levels within one class; since 2010 institute has defined blended learning as combining formal education with online learning, giving student control over time, place, path, and/or pace

• components in learning paths connected to provide integrated learning experience PA HLI – voluntary organization – origins in 2011 – made up of more than 50 PA K-12 school organizations

• provides step-by-step process for schools to plan, launch, and operate new hybrid programs and offers structure to support them by providing training in effective practices,managing the program, and tracking student progress (pahli.org, 2013)

Videos from Christensen Institute:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BK7-U_WvaHg

(blended learning models – Heather Staker of Christensen Institute, 33min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KSVP0wJ9L8&feature=player_embedded

(personalized education – Christensen Institute, 3min)

CHARACTERISTICS OF HYBRID PROGRAMS

PA HLI HAS SET THESE SIX CHARACTERISTICS AS COMPONENTS OF HYBRID LEARNING PILOT SCHOOLS:

a) the blending of digital (CAI) and traditional teaching methodsb) students rotating among differing learning stations within each class

periodc) small group instruction implemented as one rotationd) frequent benchmark assessing to track individual student’s progresse) utilization of student data in order to differentiate instructionf) cost-effective personalized learning provided (pahli.org, 2013)

STRATEGIC GOALS (2012 – 2013)

http://vimeo.com/63745132 (pahli.org – HL in Action – methods – schools in IU13) http://vimeo.com/78871778 (christenseninstitute.org – What is blended learning?)

STRATEGIC GOAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Goal A: Policymakers are satisfied with school performance.

⇛75% of pilot districts reported higher academic achievement in hybrid classes as compared to non-hybrid.

Goal B: Students are motivated to learn. ⇛Over 70% of surveyed students in various schools said they had a positive learning experience with time spent on meaningful activities.

Goal C: Parents are confident in the educational product.

⇛Close to 80% of parents surveyed said their child was interested in school and was being prepared for the next stage in education/life.

Goal D: Educators report a rewarding professional experience.

⇛80% of teachers surveyed said the model was effective and they had the necessary skills for teaching hybrid classes.

Goal E: Taxpayers receive good value for their money.

⇛

Each school received PA HLI consortium discounts; pilots shared $1.2 million assistance for start-up costs. Three to four years are needed for full integration of costs into district’s budget. (pahli.org, 2013)

MODELS AND VARIATIONS

Models and sub-models of hybrid learning:Station Rotation is most widely used – students rotate within the classroom at fixed intervals (direct instruction, independent station, collaborative groups)

christenseninstitute.org, 2013

ADVANTAGES

Wong’s comparison with traditional classrooms:

variety of materials (including online resources)

24/7 access high versatility more options on demand access to resources rapid and detailed feedback automated grading and analysis

(Wong, 2006)

charter school in LA: students able to get back on

track for graduation standarized test scores improved improved teacher-student

relationships larger class sizes possible, less

staff needed students took ownership of their

individual learning plan(Headden, 2013)

COSTS

PA HLI is supported by private companies, higher education, and non-profit educational service agencies, including several PA IU’s IU’s provided the funds to launch PA HLI IU’s continue to pay for program development and administration.

PDE has approved almost $2 million in federal funds for hybrid pilots since 2012 private companies have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars participating school districts pay the balance of implementation costs

(pahli.org, 2013).

TOOLS AND MANAGEMENT

TOOLS MANAGEMENT Schoology – efficient, free, learning

management system and social network for creating and sharing academic content in a secure setting

• used for K-12 and higher education• social media feature – creates

collaboration among classes, groups,or schools

• fees for add on’s: customized branding, report card generator, data integration

• instructors can post assignments, tests, incorporate links, import resources, host discussions, connect and import from Google docs, Blackboard and Moodle

• instructors can manage lessons, homework, and activities (Stear & Mensch, 2012)

Compass Learning – internet-based software that differentiates instruction as it formulates learning paths and enables cooperative learning opportunities

• enables teachers to modify student progress by making some learning paths changes that are suitable for each individual student (Cobb, 2010)

WEBCT, Blackboard, PageOut – provide capacity to make some to all course materials available online, with capability to fulfill course requirements (Wong, 2006)

Camtasia – application enabling users to record their voice and screen (Stear & Mensch, 2012)

EARLY RESULTSAND FEEDBACK

Eight of the pilot school districts implemented hybrid learning in classes where students took standardized assessments to measure academic achievement, such as the Keystone Exams or PA System of School Assessment (PSSA) tests.

88 percent of schools achieved higher academic performance in their hybrid classes compared to non-hybrid (traditional) classes in the same district or statewide benchmarks

75 percent of pilot districts realized higher academic achievement in their hybrid classes and all hybrid learning pilot schools met or exceeded state standards for academic growth.

Lancaster Wheatland Middle School hybrid students scored 86 percent advanced or proficient on the Keystone Algebra Exams, a rate more than two times higher than the state average.

Garden Spot Middle School hybrid students in Eastern Lancaster County School District scored 84 percent proficient or advanced on the 7th Grade PSSA math test and beat growth standards.

(pahli.org, 2013)

REMARKS

STRENGTHS CONCERNS some content not developed enough

to connect with other upcoming topics covered in curriculum

many assignments and activities are not based from challenging textbooks; higher-order tasks are not addressed on a continual basis

some students still demonstrate lack of perseverance in attempting demanding coursework

MUCH emphasis is placed on daily state test prep – time taken away for concept development

increased student engagement, especially for lower-achieving students

improved course grades and improved state test scores

teacher-student relationships improve as more small group and one-on-one contact becomes routine

students take ownership of their individual learning path and progress made

CAI offers effective presentation styles with enhancements

received favorably by parents cost-efficient for districts

SAMPLE HYBRID LESSON

INEQUALITY THEOREM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpSI8g2fOH0&feature=player_detailpage

(musical representation)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7PfLSEpPQns

(geogebra demo)

Use of manipulatives to demonstrate possible ways to construct a triangle, given a 12” perimeter

Follow-up exercises for use in small group and independent work

Extended learning exercises for use in collaborative group

VIEW VIDEOS IN DIRECT OR INDEPENDENT ROTATION:

REFERENCES Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Staker, H. (2013). Is K-12 blended learning disruptive? Clayton Christensen Institute. Retrieved from http://christenseninstitute.org. Cobb, A. (2010). To differentiate or not to differentiate? Using internet-based technology in the classroom. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 11(1), 37-45.

Headden, S. (2013). The promise of personalized learning. Education Next, 13(4), 14-20.

Pennsylvania Hybrid Learning Institute. (2013). Hybrid learning program review: Summary report for academic year 2012-2013. Retrieved from http://pahli.org. Stear, S., & Mensch, S. (2012). Online learning tools for distant education. Global Education Journal, 2012(3), 57-64. Wong, J. J. (2006). Traditional versus hybrid courses. International Journal of Learning, 13(8), 163-170.