November 19, 2019

Re: Innovation Proposal

Dear Mrs. Brown,

Classrooms are changing quickly! Our methods must grow and change to meet the demands of student’s needs. Students do not learn in the same ways to which many of us have become accustomed. Student’s lives are more digital than ever. The idea that students simply “sit and get” a lesson and ultimately master content is outdated and false. Students need more ownership in their own learning. Students need to become more independent. Allowing the ownership of learning and the skills to be independent will lead to students that are critical thinkers and innovators.

The question becomes, how do we reach every student on every level with every concept. Some might say that it is unrealistic. I disagree. If we transition from a teacher-led classroom to a student-led classroom with a facilitator, we can reach all students on their individual levels and meet individual needs in ways that we have only imagined. But, what does that look like in the 21st Century classroom? How can we provide instruction to multiple levels with the time constraints as they are?  To answer this question, I would like to draw attention to what happens after the 5th-grade math or reading STAAR test. In 5th grade, any student that does not “pass” will have to retest about a month later. Because the state requires the retest, scores for the first round are reported approximately two weeks after the test. That means that the teachers have about two weeks before the second round of testing. 

Our best remediation occurs in the two weeks between when we receive scores and when our students retest. If we have such an increase in success from two weeks of remediation, what is different in that time compared to the previous teaching?

One difference is that we have no new content in those two weeks that has to be introduced and mastered. We, as teachers, are completely available to our kids without the pressure of teaching a new concept. Another difference is that we teach in very small groups focusing on very specific skills and we break them into the smaller components needed. We review and build on past learning. We fill gaps in the foundation. 

If we taught that way all the time, could we perhaps increase the number of students that meet expectations on the first round of testing? I propose that if we were to use a blended learning station rotation model, like that illustrated in Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools (2014), in the classroom, we could accomplish exactly that. This method of learning allows students to really own their learning and allow students to show us their understanding in unique ways. The stations cover all of the same content without the teacher using valuable class time doing a live lesson introducing a concept and creating a reference in an interactive journal. The teacher could video that lesson prior to class and assign it to students to work through independently. This would allow the student the ability to work through the lesson at the student’s pace by allowing them to pause and rewind during the lesson. Students would also work through other stations that focus on a particular concept but allow for unique proof of understanding through open-ended tasks. In her Ted Talk (2014), Monique Markoff goes so far as to suggest that blended learning could potentially eliminate the need for the intense remediations that we currently provide. 

In this model, the teacher is now free to teach more intensely in small groups and really target specific needs. Likewise, the teacher can meet with small groups to extend learning so that the higher level students are never stalled. The teacher is also free to conference with students to help them set goals and plans for meeting those goals. In their book, Horn and Staker (2014) suggest that students will be more engaged and feel more successful when they are able to set weekly goals, develop a plan, and work toward mastery of the goal. The student begins to take ownership of learning and likely will retain more content and be able to apply it in the future. 

Students will receive individualized instruction, take ownership of their learning, and be able to show mastery in individual ways with the blended learning model. We already know what works best, so it is time to implement it in the classroom daily to improve the success of our students. 

Sincerely,

Jennifer Bloodworth

References

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

TEDx Talks. (2014, May 6). Blended learning and the future of education: Monique Markoff at TEDxIthacaCollege. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb2d8E1dZjY&feature=youtu.be

Why will this work? Research supports it!

Blended Learning in the Elementary Classroom

From the first single-room schoolhouses to the advanced cyber-enabled laboratories, students are entering classrooms with diverse needs and from varying backgrounds. For many years, students would arrive at school with the expectation of being taught by teachers, doing paper and pencil work to show understanding, and doing it all again the next day. Students would memorize content, take a test, then often dump the information to make room for the next round of learning. Changes in our world have led educators to look at pedagogy in a new way and begin adapting teaching practices to meet the needs of today’s learners. Today’s learner typically comes to the classroom with significant background knowledge of technology whether it is a video game console, smartphone, or tablet. Student’s lives are surrounded by advanced technology. Homes and cars are controlled by cellular phones. Youtube ™ likely has a video for anything a student wants to learn about. Google ™ and like search engines provide an infinite amount of information in seconds. Technology has provided more efficient ways to accomplish tasks, communicate, and connect on a global scale. It is time for educators to harness the power of technology and redirect that power to improve the classroom experience for students by making the learning environment student-centered, relevant, and open to allowing multiple avenues to prove mastery and ability with any content. Implementing a blended learning model in today’s classroom can enable teachers to provide individualized instruction in a relevant way that will provide an opportunity for students to begin taking ownership of their own learning and exercising some choice in how that looks in the classroom. The immediate goal of this shift in the learning environment is an increase in student achievement. The long term goals include students that become critical thinkers and innovators. This review will reflect current ideas and implementation of blended learning in the elementary classroom. 

Teacher Role Shift

Blended learning allows for a major shift in the role of the teacher from “the sage on stage” (Friesen, 2013) to the role of a facilitator among the students. The availability of the teacher to do instant instruction to address misunderstandings or confusion could potentially reduce or eliminate the need for large scale remediation. Teachers shift from the traditional whole group instruction method and replace it with small group direct instruction specifically targeting skill based on student needs (Benders & Craft, 2016). Clearly, researchers agree that students will benefit from a change in the way students are learning. 

Student Role in Learning

Blended learning utilizes a mixture of online delivery of content and instruction and supervised instruction in a school (Bailey, et al. 2015). Blended learning requires independent learning at individual paces. Elementary students are much like adults in that they learn best when they take an active role in their own education.  Thibodeaux, Harapnuik, and Cummings (2019), in their article Student Perceptions of the Influence of Choice, Ownership, and Voice in Learning and the Learning Environment, found that students were more likely to engage in activities in which they felt they had some choice in product. They coined the “COVA” learning approach that shifts the responsibility of proving mastery to the student. The student is allowed choice, encouraged to take ownership, and convey their unique voice in authentic learning experiences (Thibodeaux et al., 2019). Engaged students make decisions and use metacognitive strategies to discover themselves as learners (Thibodeaux et al., 2019). The ultimate goal of any educator is to facilitate the growth of critical thinking skills. Shifting the control to the students promotes an environment that supports that goal.

Student-Centered Practices

Student achievement is significantly increased when given instruction in a small group setting. Teachers reported a preference for small group instruction because it leads to discussion, relationships and fosters critical thinking (Wyatt & Chapman-DeSousa, 2017). In elementary mathematics, students are expected to meet state standards that include a multitude of varying processes that the student must perform from memory. Given the complexity of the calculations, it stands to reason that students will consistently be at differing levels of comprehension and ability. Students in the same class have a variety of learning styles and certainly differing abilities (Benders & Craft, 2016). Implementation of a blended learning model in the classroom can allow the teacher to provide direct and targeted instruction based on data collected when the students work independently. For example, if a teacher were to create an assignment in which the students watch a short video over a concept, then assign a formative assessment quiz to check for understanding; the data from the quiz would help the teacher plan instruction targeted to specific needs for specific students. The data collections allow for flexible grouping based on academic needs making academic growth far more likely (Benders & Craft, 2016). Because the formative assessments are also digital, the teacher can effectively use class time due to the immediate results instead of disaggregating the data, creating a greater time period between the lesson and the remediation (Mendiburo, Williams, & Hasselbring, 2013). This data helps the teacher plan quickly and efficiently for small group instruction.

The students that show mastery of the concept on the quiz is then able to apply the new knowledge in an authentic and relevant way. The flexible groups designed by the assessments help the teacher to differentiate for these students as well and begin challenging them (Benders & Craft, 2016). Products proving mastery can be open-ended and unique to each student. The student that mastered the concept could then move forward to the next concept rather than being forced to maintain the same speed as a student that needs remediation. This self-pace makes learning relevant to students skills and needs. Students are afforded more “control over time, pace, path, and/or place, allowing for more student-centered learning experiences” (Watson, 2015).

Conclusion

Blended learning models can help educators differentiate learning for all students (Brodersen & Melluzzo, 2017). The implementation of the station rotation blended learning model should yield improvement in student achievement. Test scores will likely improve by allowing students to move at an individually appropriate pace and because direct instruction is specific and targeted based on data and flexible grouping.

Higher-performing students to move at a rate appropriate for themselves, allowing for further enrichment within the content area (Benders & Craft, 2016). They could also become mentors or peer tutors, thus giving them a chance to develop communication and other intrapersonal skills. Students will begin to set learning goals for themselves based on their own data and work toward those goals. They will learn how to measure progress towards goals and how to make adjustments. Ultimately, students gain the confidence to become independent and effective learners. 

References

Bailey, J., Duty, L., Ellis, S., Martin, N., Mohammad, S., Owens, D., … Wolfe, J. (2015). Blended learning implementation guide 3.0. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from http://digitallearningnow.com/site/uploads/2013/09/BLIG-3.0-FINAL.pdf.

Benders, D., & Craft, T. (2016). The effect of flexible small groups on math achievement in first grade. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 18(1).

Brodersen, R. M., & Melluso, D. (2017). Summary of research on online and blended learning pro­grams that offer differentiated learning options (REL 2017–228). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

Friesen, S., Scott, D. (2013) Inquiry-based learning: A review of the research literature. Retrieved from https://galileo.org/inquiry-based-learning-a-review-of-the-research-literature/.

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Mendiburo, M., Williams, L., Segedy, J., Hasselbring, T., (2013). Towards automated support for small-group instruction: Using data from an ITS to automatically group students. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.

Thibodeaux, T., Harapnuik, D., & Cummings, C. (2019). Student perceptions on the influence of choice, ownership, and voice in learning and the learning environment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 31(1), 50-62.

Watson, J. (2015). Blending Learning: The Evolution of Online and Face-to-Face Education from 2008–2015. Blending Learning: The Evolution of Online and Face-to-Face Education from 2008–2015. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/resource/blending-learning-the-evolution-of-online-and-face-to-face-education-from-2008-2015/

Wyatt, T., & Chapman-DeSousa, B. (2017). Teaching as interaction: Challenges in transitioning teachers’ instruction to small groups. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(1), 61-70.

How will this work? I have a plan.

Implementation Outline

If teachers were more available to students during classtime, I believe that student achievement will greatly increase, the need for intense remediations will greatly decrease, and students will become independent and self-sufficient learners. To make the teacher more available for the facilitation of learning, I propose that we implement a blended learning station rotation model that allows the student more control over pacing and evidence of learning. 

1. Creating Lessons– for now, I will continue using stations to practice and spiral content as I have in the past and introduce one new piece at a time. The first change will include a shift from whole group instruction for creating our interactive journal page for our new math concept. This change will add instructional time in the week for small groups instead of doing one large whole group lesson and then several small group mini-lessons to ensure mastery of the content. 
   1. Use my document camera to video a lesson over a concept and put the interactive journal together as I would normally have done live. Students will still receive the benefit of their teacher delivering the content, but will also allow students to replay or pause if needed in order to complete the journal resource or if they simply need to hear it again. 
      1. I will upload the video to my class blog on Kidblog (this is what we use with our kids at school) so that they can ask questions and have discussions about the content with me and each other. 
         1. I will be able to answer questions and have discussions with them even if they are not physically in my class at that moment!
            1. Parents can access this so they feel more confident when helping their children at home. 
2. Shift to small group instruction driven by data. Instead of hosting small groups with every student, every week, over the same concept, my small group instruction will be determined by what each group of student needs based on the data I collect. If a student proves mastery of a concept, they will move to an extension activity (using the choice menu at first) and then to the next concept. Each child will have individualized instruction
   1. I will track data using weekly formative assessments posted in DMAC (data collecting program we use). The students will also graph data from assessments in their data binders to which they always have access. 

3. Choice in showing mastery. 
   1. I will begin with a “Choice Menu” that allows students to choose alternative ways to submit evidence of learning such as a Flipgrid video, a Kidblog post, or the like. 
   2. As students become more confident, I will shift to an open-ended choice (whatever they come up with to prove understanding). 
   3. I will conference with students twice per grading period to review data, help the students set goals for themselves, and reflect on their prior goals. 
4. Timing 
   1. Beginning January 2020
      1. Recorded lessons and small group lessons
      2. Stations continue with spiraled lessons as before
         1. Begin “choice menus” in February to transition to student choice in providing evidence of learning.
   2. March 2020
      1. Student choice for evidence of learning begins. 
   3. April 2020
      1. Complete shift in teaching methods complete
   4. Fall 2021
      1. Begin the new school year with new methods in place for the entire year.