A model for secondary school blended learning

Dr Andy Mifsud Dr Andew Mifsud Head of Digital Learning

A Abstract

This article summarises the results of a doctoral research project that used culturalhistorical activity theory and ethnographic methods to study a group of students and teachers as they participated in blended learning activities. The study explored how and why a mainstream Australian secondary school implemented a holistic approach to blended learning and how tensions within the activity suggest further development. This article presents a secondary school blended learning model designed to resolve tensions in the existing program. The blended learning program was effective when it promoted a deep integration between online and face-to-face activities and contexts. Results suggest that activities should provide students with choice, challenge, support, and opportunities for online feedback and interaction. Schools need to weigh these benefits against increasing teachers' professional learning and implementation time.

Keywords Blended learning, expansive learning, instructional design, learner control

Expansive learning Expansive learning (Engeström, 2015) identifies the ideal process in which all human activity expands to resolve internal and external contradictions. Researchers view contradictions as essential to activities' growth and development. Studying these tensions makes it possible to offer an alternate, expanded activity that resolves existing contradictions. Engeström (2015) outlines this process in the fifth step of the cycle of expansive learning.

I applied this theory to the study of contradictions in a model of secondary school blended learning implemented at Barker College in 2016 as part of a doctoral research project. The study aimed to examine contradictions in the existing activity and offer recommendations to expand the activity further. The contradictions suggest that the objective of the new activity might develop with changes made to the blended learning model and the way teachers design activities.

Throughout my investigation, it was clear that the school emphasised certain aspects over others. These included supplementing face-to-face (F2F) courses instead of redesigning courses to leverage blended learning fully; the focus on developing independent learning

tasks instead of scaffolded activities; allowing learner control during online sessions instead of offering control throughout the course holistically; providing written or F2F feedback instead of online feedback and tracking; valuing F2F instead of online interactions. Many of these decisions were made to limit the amount of change for teaching staff. This move, however, has trade-offs in the potential loss of a true blend of online and F2F content. The suggested model (Figure 1) provides six structural changes to address these contradictions.

Figure 1: Redesigning secondary school blended learning

Redesigning secondary school blended learning Design for integration Teachers should consider designing courses with deeper integration between F2F and online activities. Students found the most benefit from work relevant to their specific class, meaning online work should be related to F2F study in the way it introduces, reinforces or revises learning. Additionally, students should feel a solid connection to the class and the teacher through online and F2F activities. This connection could occur by designing a sequence of online resources spanning each unit. For example, resources used during F2F lessons are made available through a learning management system (LMS). The teacher can use them for direct instruction or for students working in more independent settings. These

resources would then be uploaded to the LMS and used by teachers and students at multiple points throughout a unit.

An integrated approach to course design would ensure a strong alignment between the course objectives in F2F and online environments (Brusso & Orvis, 2013), supporting students' engagement with blended courses (Artino, 2009a). Like Chen (2016), this study found that students preferred video content created by their teacher over pre-made content. In this study, students could relate to how their teacher presented information. Therefore, where possible, the online resources should be designed by teachers teaching the course and include videos and other content created by these teachers. A redesign or adaptation of existing courses requires a heavy investment of teacher time and professional development in understanding blended learning strategies, technical skills required for construction (Cherry, 2010; Gariou-Papalexiou et al., 2017), and in the planning, preparation, and construction of these courses. While redesigning courses may represent a desirable feature, it also requires a significant investment of time for teachers.

A Activities for engagement Design for engagement guides the types of activities best suited to online or independent work. These activities were most effective when they provided a sense of Kairos, a term used in my research to signify moments when students found work valuable and engaging. The findings suggest that this occurs when students have some element of choice over what they are learning. Similarly, effective tasks were those where the students could exercise control over the pace and place of learning. Tasks that spanned a term were successful because students could see the big picture and break down activities into smaller components. Kairos can also be achieved through choice in the activity used to demonstrate understanding. For example, students might choose from a range of activity types.

Evidence suggested that tasks that allowed students to draw upon personal experiences (Nave, 2015), relevance, or preferences also led to this sense of Kairos. An example occurred when activities required students to make personal connections to the themes studied in their English text. Finally, students experienced Kairos when they felt some cognitive challenge in the activity. Challenge can be created by providing different types of cognitive engagement through various questioning types (Marton & Säljö, 1976). Teachers can guide students to complete work that provides them with enough cognitive engagement to experience a sense of challenge but not enough to feel unable to complete the task.

D Display visible sequences While the previous model called for the design of cohesive activities, the structure only allowed one online activity per fortnight. This time restriction limited the ability to control the pace at which students accessed information and completed activities. Having online resources available across a course allows students to exercise greater learner control of the course's pace (Horn & Staker, 2014). For example, a student who had finished all their work and was ready to move on or required additional challenge would be able to gain access to a degree of flexibility and personalisation (Horn & Staker, 2014). Further, this student need not wait for the teacher to release the next set of online work. The risk here is that these students may experience boredom (Artino, 2009b) at the restricted control of course pace. A fully realised blended course with a visible sequence of online activities

resolves this issue by allowing students to move beyond the confines of the cycle and may result in more positive effects on motivation and effort (Corbalan, Kester & Van Merriënboer, 2008; Hughes et al., 2013). This aspect of blended learning is closely linked to the courses' design. Making pathways available for students requires little additional time or expertise once the courses have been created.

B Build in scaffolds Scaffolds in a blended learning course provide opportunities for all students to move out of their comfort zone into their zone of proximal development (Baker, 2010; Van Laer & Elen, 2017). This is particularly important for students who do not yet possess the ability (Aleven & Koedinger, 2002), confidence (Dweck, 2010) or executive functioning skills required to work independently. Blended learning activities should provide appropriate scaffolds or support. Support should come in the form of scaffolding the approach to the work, time management, worked examples, and exemplars. Studies suggest that students with less-developed executive functioning skills struggle with elements of flexibility and learner control (McGee & Reis, 2012). Without explicit scaffolding and support, these students are potentially at a more significant disadvantage at the commencement of the blended approach. This aspect is vital for ensuring that teachers give all students opportunities to succeed. Scaffolds might involve developing a resource toolkit (Jelfs, Nathan & Barrett, 2004) or allocating time for individual support (Anderson, 2008; Baker, 2010; Kalogeropoulos & Liyanage, 2019). As with the design of integrated blended learning courses, scaffolding requires an investment of teacher time to provide ongoing support.

P Provide online feedback The previous model did not systematically require feedback and tracking student progress using the LMS. Similarly, there was no formal structure to provide an avenue for reflection on a student's progress. Using feedback and reflection (Anseel, Lievens & Schollaert, 2009) in an LMS remedies this issue and may increase learner motivation and connection to work (Ibabe & Jauregizar, 2010). Developing this functionality attracts professional learning costs as teachers must learn how to use the LMS for feedback and reflection.

F Foster online interaction The previous model relied on F2F, not online interaction. The risk of overlooking online interactions may show up in lower satisfaction and engagement levels amongst students (Artino, 2009a) as it misses opportunities to provide ongoing formative feedback (Clark, 2012; McLaren, 2012), personalisation (Horn & Staker, 2014) and moments of connection (Lai, Khaddage & Knezek, 2013). Facilitating online interaction requires an ongoing investment of time on the part of the teacher in scaffolding, checking, and responding to moments of interaction.

Conclusion

The model in Figure 1 demonstrates the opportunities for secondary school blended learning and uncovers teachers' challenges in development and professional learning time. Redesigning a F2F course into a blended learning course requires considerable professional

learning time for teachers to familiarise themselves with blended learning strategies. Additionally, this intervention requires time for teachers to design and construct the blended learning program, collecting and sequencing resources and activities. It is important to note that many contradictions occurred because of the decision to limit the impact on teacher time. The result is that the overall success of the program was compromised. Therefore, any blended learning model must include a strategic focus on allowing professional learning and implementation time.

References

Aleven, VAWMM & Koedinger, KR, 2002,

'An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor' , Cognitive Science, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 147–179, doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00061-7. Anderson, T, 2008, The theory and practice of online learning, 2nd ed., AU Press, Edmonton. Anseel, F, Lievens, F & Schollaert, E, 2009, 'Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 23–35, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.003. Artino, AR, 2009a, 'Online learning: Are subjective perceptions of instructional context related to academic success?', The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 117–125, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.003. Artino, AR, 2009b. 'Think, feel, act: motivational and emotional influences on military students' online academic success', Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 146–166, doi: 10.1007/s12528-009-9020-9. Baker, RM, 2010, 'Examples of scaffolding and chunking in online and blended learning environments' . Available at SSRN 1608133. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=1608133 Brusso, RC & Orvis, KA, 2013, 'The impeding role of initial unrealistic goal-setting on videogame-based training performance: Identifying underpinning processes and a solution', Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1686–1694, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.006. Chen, L-L, 2016, 'Impacts of Flipped Classroom in High School Health Education', Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 411–420, doi: 10.1177/0047239515626371. Cherry, LD, 2010, Blended learning: An examination of online learning's impact on face-to-face instruction in high school classrooms, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Clark, I, 2012, 'Formative Assessment: Assessment Is for Self-regulated Learning', Educational Psychology Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 205–249, doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6. Corbalan, G, Kester, L & van Merriënboer, JJG, 2008, 'Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement', Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 733–756, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.02.003. Dweck, CS, 2010, ‘Mind-sets’. Principal leadership, 10(5), 26-29. Engestrom, Y, 2015, 'Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research', Cambridge University Press, West Nyack, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139814744. 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', The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education TOJDE, pp. 47–47, doi: 10.17718/tojde.328932. Horn, MB & Staker, H, 2014, Blended Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools, Wiley, Hoboken.

Hughes, MG, Day, EA, Wang, X, Schuelke, MJ, Arsenault, ML, Harkrider, LN & Cooper, OD, 2013, 'Learner-Controlled Practice Difficulty in the Training of a Complex Task: Cognitive and Motivational Mechanisms', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 80–98, doi: 10.1037/a0029821. Ibabe, I & Jauregizar, J, 2010, 'Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge', Higher Education, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 243–258, doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9245-6. Jelfs, A, Nathan, R & Barrett, C, 2004, 'Scaffolding students: suggestions on how to equip students with the necessary study skills for studying in a blended learning environment', Journal of Educational Media : the Journal of the Educational Television Association, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 85–96, doi: 10.1080/1358165042000253267. Kalogeropoulos, P & Liyanage, A, 2019, 'Flipped learning: a mathematics experience for Year 9 boys', Mathematical Association of Victoria Annual Conference 2019: Making+Connections. Lai, K-W, Khaddage, F & Knezek, G, 2013, 'Blending student technology experiences in formal and informal learning: Blending student technology experiences', Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 414–425, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12030. Marton, F & Säljö, R, 1976, 'On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process', British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 4–11, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x. McGee, P & Reis, A, 2012, 'Blended course design: a synthesis of best practices', Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks JALN, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 7–. McLaren, SV, 2012, 'Assessment is for learning: supporting feedback', International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 227–245, doi: 10.1007/s10798-011-9195-z. Nave, B, 2015, Student-centered learning : nine classrooms in action, ed. B. Nave, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Van Laer, S & Elen, J, 2017, 'In search of attributes that support self-regulation in blended learning environments', Education and Information Technologies, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1395–1454, doi: 10.1007/s10639-016-9505-x.