Using blended learning to support the Teaching and Learning FrameworkAndy Mifsud Digital Learning Leader

Learning in PracticeVolume 4 Number 1 December 2020

About the Author

Andy Mifsud is Digital Learning Leader and a Music teacher. He is currently researching student perceptions and experiences of secondary school blended learning environments as part of his Doctor of Education studies at The University of Sydney. He has been involved in a number of action research projects based on social learning sites and he has presented his work at national and international education conferences. Andrew is the NSW Secretary of the Australian Society for Music Education and is a past recipient of the ASME Music Educating for Life Award and Outstanding Professional Service Award for his work promoting professional learning in the music education community.

Editors

Dr Matthew Hill Mrs Amanda Eastman Dr Greg Cunningham

Editorial Assistant

Susan Layton

Creative

Barker Communications

Printing

Barker Print Room

Using blended learning to support the Teaching and Learning Framework

Andy Mifsud Digital Learning Leader

AAbbssttrraacctt

A previous article on blended learning in this journal focused on developing a student-centred approach in using technology in the classroom (Stewart et al. 2017). As the article was written prior to the development and implementation of the current Teaching and Learning Framework at Barker, an update is required. In the same way, blended learning has been used to support other key strategic initiatives at Barker College from guided inquiry (Longney and Mifsud 2018) to formative assessment (Mifsud 2019). This paper presents evidence for the use of blended learning strategies to support the new framework.

KKeeyy tteerrmmss BBlleennddeedd lleeaarrnniinngg ‘Blended learning is any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least in part through the Internet with some element of student control over time, place, and/or pace’ (Horn and Staker 2014, p. 34).

SSttuuddeenntt--cceennttrreedd lleeaarrnniinngg A teaching and learning ideology that relies on active and deep learning, where students are directly involved and invested in the discovery of their own knowledge (Anderson 2004).

BBooddyy

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn

Blended learning can be seen as a set of teaching and learning strategies that focus on using technology to provide students with greater control over the time, pace, place and style of learning (Horn and Staker 2014). While the approach has already been utilised by teachers at Barker College (Stewart et al. 2017), the recent development and implementation of the Teaching and Learning Framework (Barker College 2019) provides an opportunity to reshape blended learning to align with this approach.

The framework consists of three domains that describe the setting for learning, as well as the learner. The setting refers to the environment, knowledge and feedback and reflection. The learner is described in accordance with the Barker ‘Thrive’ framework and refers to inquiry, rhetoric, service and gratitude. The aim of blended learning should therefore be seen as a vehicle that supports and upholds these domains. This article addresses the way blended learning can

Barker Institute Learning in Practice • 3

Learning in Practice2020 Vol. 4 (1)

© Barker Institute 2020

Using blended learning to support the Teaching and Learning Framework

Andy Mifsud Digital Learning Leader

AAbbssttrraacctt

A previous article on blended learning in this journal focused on developing a student-centred approach in using technology in the classroom (Stewart et al. 2017). As the article was written prior to the development and implementation of the current Teaching and Learning Framework at Barker, an update is required. In the same way, blended learning has been used to support other key strategic initiatives at Barker College from guided inquiry (Longney and Mifsud 2018) to formative assessment (Mifsud 2019). This paper presents evidence for the use of blended learning strategies to support the new framework.

KKeeyy tteerrmmss BBlleennddeedd lleeaarrnniinngg ‘Blended learning is any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least in part through the Internet with some element of student control over time, place, and/or pace’ (Horn and Staker 2014, p. 34).

SSttuuddeenntt--cceennttrreedd lleeaarrnniinngg A teaching and learning ideology that relies on active and deep learning, where students are directly involved and invested in the discovery of their own knowledge (Anderson 2004).

BBooddyy

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn

Blended learning can be seen as a set of teaching and learning strategies that focus on using technology to provide students with greater control over the time, pace, place and style of learning (Horn and Staker 2014). While the approach has already been utilised by teachers at Barker College (Stewart et al. 2017), the recent development and implementation of the Teaching and Learning Framework (Barker College 2019) provides an opportunity to reshape blended learning to align with this approach.

The framework consists of three domains that describe the setting for learning, as well as the learner. The setting refers to the environment, knowledge and feedback and reflection. The learner is described in accordance with the Barker ‘Thrive’ framework and refers to inquiry, rhetoric, service and gratitude. The aim of blended learning should therefore be seen as a vehicle that supports and upholds these domains. This article addresses the way blended learning can

4 • Barker Institute Learning in Practice 2020

be used to support the creation of the setting in the Teaching and Learning Framework by providing examples from the literature.

EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt

This domain seeks to establish an inclusive, learning-focused environment for students. The domain focuses on building positive relationships between members of the learning community, building high learner expectations and use of learning spaces and technology. Blended learning offers much in the way this environment can be created.

When used effectively, blended learning strategies can be used to provide greater interaction between members of the learning community during face-to-face (F2F) classes. An example of this is through the use of a flipped learning model. Studies of Kindergarten to Year 12 flipped learning environments demonstrate that this approach can drive far more interaction between members of the learning community (Altemueller & Lindquist 2017; Chen 2016; Cukurbasi & Kiyici 2018; Gariou-Papalexiou, Papadakis, Manousou & Georgiadu 2017). In these cases, interaction is increased due to the reallocation of F2F time away from passive learning experience, towards active experiences. This time can be used by teachers to work with students to catch misunderstandings and misconceptions (Altemueller & Lindquist 2017), or to increase interactions and collaborations between students (Foldnes 2016). Using technology to strategically to offload certain teacher-centred activities have been shown to increase opportunities for formative feedback (Altemueller & Lindquist 2017; Chen & Wen 2019; Kalogeropoulos & Liyanage 2019; Kazu & Demirkol 2014), better communication (Cukurbasi and Kiyici 2018) and improved academic results (Foldnes 2016).

Blended learning provides flexibility around the spaces both inside and outside of the physical classroom. Using the analogy of caves, campfires, watering holes and mountain tops (Thornburg 1999) allows teachers to provide flexibility in all learning activities. Using this analogy, students have opportunities for independent work and reflection, collaborative exchanges, direct and expert instruction and moments for sharing and celebrating work. In each case, digital tools can act to fill in the gaps to allow for these personalised moments to occur.

KKnnoowwlleeddggee

The knowledge domain values the development of knowledge at the appropriate level of each learner. This is achieved through the use of differentiation and challenge appropriate to the level of an individual learner. This personalised approach is one that is frequently cited in recent education reports (Gonski et al. 2018), and it can be traced to the Vygotskian theory of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1980), where students learn when they are faced with challenge appropriate to their current level of ability.

The challenge of providing differentiated and personalised learning experience is frequently leveraged through the use of mastery or competency-based blended learning strategies (Horn and Staker 2014). Blended learning gives opportunities to meet this challenge. The use of sequences of online learning resources and activities allows teachers and students to determine activities appropriate to each individual learner (Lea, Stephenson, & Troy 2003; Reigeluth & Garfinkle 1994). Importantly, as with the zone of proximal development, blended learning activities require significant scaffolding (Van Laer & Elen 2017) in order to move an individual learner forward successfully. This scaffolding can be provided and made accessible online. This point leads into the final domain of feedback and reflection.

FFeeeeddbbaacckk && rreefflleeccttiioonn

The aim of the domain is to move the learner forward in their learning by providing rich, targeted and ongoing feedback and by placing the emphasis on student goal setting and reflection. There is strong evidence from the literature on the ability for blended learning to support this domain.

Formative assessment in blended environments is usually supported by a learning management system (LMS) which not only tracks learner progress and presence, but is also used for regular online assessment (Boelens, De Wever, & Voet 2017). Spanjers et al. (2015) argue that these regular assessments provide learners with an understanding of their progress within the course, revision of content and their organisation of their workload, while instructors benefit from being informed about the learning progress of their students, and how well the course is catering to their needs.

Reflection cues can be defined as ‘prompts that aim to activate learners’ purposeful critical analysis of knowledge and experience (before, during and after), in order to achieve deeper meaning and understanding’ (Van Laer & Elen 2017, p. 1410). Blended learning is well-positioned to promote reflection cues as the strategy provides increased access and visibility of feedback and progress markers. Reflection as a vehicle of developing personal meaning has been found to increase learner motivation, particularly when learners find themselves at lower motivation levels (Ibabe & Jauregizar 2010).

CCoonncceeppttuuaall mmooddeell

The ideas represented in this article can be conceptualised using the Blended learning strategic model (see Figure 1). The model shows that the objective of blended learning is to support the Teaching and Learning Framework. This is achieved by providing a visible structure of online materials that offer students flexibility around their pace, place, style and time of learning. The F2F classroom environment supports this flexibility by adapting spaces using the campfire analogy. Finally, there is recognition that blended learning relies on specific tools used by teachers and learners.

Figure 1: The Barker blended learning strategic model

Barker Institute Learning in Practice • 5

be used to support the creation of the setting in the Teaching and Learning Framework by providing examples from the literature.

EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt

This domain seeks to establish an inclusive, learning-focused environment for students. The domain focuses on building positive relationships between members of the learning community, building high learner expectations and use of learning spaces and technology. Blended learning offers much in the way this environment can be created.

When used effectively, blended learning strategies can be used to provide greater interaction between members of the learning community during face-to-face (F2F) classes. An example of this is through the use of a flipped learning model. Studies of Kindergarten to Year 12 flipped learning environments demonstrate that this approach can drive far more interaction between members of the learning community (Altemueller & Lindquist 2017; Chen 2016; Cukurbasi & Kiyici 2018; Gariou-Papalexiou, Papadakis, Manousou & Georgiadu 2017). In these cases, interaction is increased due to the reallocation of F2F time away from passive learning experience, towards active experiences. This time can be used by teachers to work with students to catch misunderstandings and misconceptions (Altemueller & Lindquist 2017), or to increase interactions and collaborations between students (Foldnes 2016). Using technology to strategically to offload certain teacher-centred activities have been shown to increase opportunities for formative feedback (Altemueller & Lindquist 2017; Chen & Wen 2019; Kalogeropoulos & Liyanage 2019; Kazu & Demirkol 2014), better communication (Cukurbasi and Kiyici 2018) and improved academic results (Foldnes 2016).

Blended learning provides flexibility around the spaces both inside and outside of the physical classroom. Using the analogy of caves, campfires, watering holes and mountain tops (Thornburg 1999) allows teachers to provide flexibility in all learning activities. Using this analogy, students have opportunities for independent work and reflection, collaborative exchanges, direct and expert instruction and moments for sharing and celebrating work. In each case, digital tools can act to fill in the gaps to allow for these personalised moments to occur.

KKnnoowwlleeddggee

The knowledge domain values the development of knowledge at the appropriate level of each learner. This is achieved through the use of differentiation and challenge appropriate to the level of an individual learner. This personalised approach is one that is frequently cited in recent education reports (Gonski et al. 2018), and it can be traced to the Vygotskian theory of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1980), where students learn when they are faced with challenge appropriate to their current level of ability.

The challenge of providing differentiated and personalised learning experience is frequently leveraged through the use of mastery or competency-based blended learning strategies (Horn and Staker 2014). Blended learning gives opportunities to meet this challenge. The use of sequences of online learning resources and activities allows teachers and students to determine activities appropriate to each individual learner (Lea, Stephenson, & Troy 2003; Reigeluth & Garfinkle 1994). Importantly, as with the zone of proximal development, blended learning activities require significant scaffolding (Van Laer & Elen 2017) in order to move an individual learner forward successfully. This scaffolding can be provided and made accessible online. This point leads into the final domain of feedback and reflection.

FFeeeeddbbaacckk && rreefflleeccttiioonn

The aim of the domain is to move the learner forward in their learning by providing rich, targeted and ongoing feedback and by placing the emphasis on student goal setting and reflection. There is strong evidence from the literature on the ability for blended learning to support this domain.

Formative assessment in blended environments is usually supported by a learning management system (LMS) which not only tracks learner progress and presence, but is also used for regular online assessment (Boelens, De Wever, & Voet 2017). Spanjers et al. (2015) argue that these regular assessments provide learners with an understanding of their progress within the course, revision of content and their organisation of their workload, while instructors benefit from being informed about the learning progress of their students, and how well the course is catering to their needs.

Reflection cues can be defined as ‘prompts that aim to activate learners’ purposeful critical analysis of knowledge and experience (before, during and after), in order to achieve deeper meaning and understanding’ (Van Laer & Elen 2017, p. 1410). Blended learning is well-positioned to promote reflection cues as the strategy provides increased access and visibility of feedback and progress markers. Reflection as a vehicle of developing personal meaning has been found to increase learner motivation, particularly when learners find themselves at lower motivation levels (Ibabe & Jauregizar 2010).

CCoonncceeppttuuaall mmooddeell

The ideas represented in this article can be conceptualised using the Blended learning strategic model (see Figure 1). The model shows that the objective of blended learning is to support the Teaching and Learning Framework. This is achieved by providing a visible structure of online materials that offer students flexibility around their pace, place, style and time of learning. The F2F classroom environment supports this flexibility by adapting spaces using the campfire analogy. Finally, there is recognition that blended learning relies on specific tools used by teachers and learners.

Figure 1: The Barker blended learning strategic model

6 • Barker Institute Learning in Practice 2020

CCoonncclluussiioonn

This article has shown that the domains of environment, knowledge and feedback and reflection are well-supported by examples from Kindergarten to Year 12 blended learning literature. While blended learning offers a valuable toolkit for educators, it is only through the realisation of these higher motives and objectives, such as those in the Teaching and Learning Framework, where the tools become truly transformative.

RReeffeerreenncceess

Altemueller, L & Lindquist, C 2017, 'Flipped classroom instruction for inclusive learning', British Journal of Special Education, vol. 44, no.3, pp. 341-358.

Anderson, T 2004, 'Towards a theory of online learning', Theory and practice of online learning, vol. 2, pp. 109-119.

Barker College 2019, Teaching and Learning Framework, available online, https://www.barker.college/media/3411/teaching-framework-final.pdf.

Boelens, R, De Wever, B & Voet, M 2017, 'Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review', Educational Research Review, vol. 22, pp. 1-18.

Chen, F & Wen, F 2019, 'Research on Flipped Classroom Teaching Mode of High School Mathematics under the Background of “Internet+”', Paper presented at the 2019 3rd International Conference on Education, Management Science and Economics (ICEMSE 2019).

Chen, LL 2016, 'Impacts of flipped classroom in high school health education', Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 44, no.4, pp. 411-420.

Cukurbasi, B & Kiyici, M 2018, 'High school students' views on the PBL activities supported via flipped classroom and LEGO practices, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 46-61.

Foldnes, N 2016, 'The flipped classroom and cooperative learning: Evidence from a randomised experiment', Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 17, no.1, pp. 39-49.

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', Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, vol. 18, no. 3.

Gonski, D, Arcus, T, Boston, K, Gould, V, Johnson, W, O’Brien, L & Roberts, M 2018, Through growth to achievement: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Horn, MB, & Staker, H 2014, Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools, John Wiley & Sons.

Ibabe, I & Jauregizar, J 2010, 'Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge', Higher Education, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 243-258.

Kalogeropoulos, P & Liyanage, A 2019, 'Flipped learning: a mathematics experience for Year 9 boys', Paper presented at the Mathematical Association of Victoria Annual Conference 2019: Making+ Connections.

Kazu, IY & Demirkol, M 2014, 'Effect of Blended Learning Environment Model on High School Students' Academic Achievement', Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 78-87.

Lea, SJ, Stephenson, D & Troy, J 2003, 'Higher education students' attitudes to student-centred learning: beyond 'educational bulimia'?' Studies in higher education, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 321-334.

Longney, G & Mifsud, A 2018, 'Positioning inquiry: The place for inquiry in years 7-10', Barker Institute: Learning in Practice, vol. 2, no. 1.

Mifsud, A 2019, 'A blended learning approach to formative assessment', Barker Institute: Learning in Practice, vol. 3, no. 1.

Reigeluth, CM & Garfinkle, RJ 1994, Systemic change in education, Educational Technology.

Spanjers, IA, Könings, KD, Leppink, J, Verstegen, DM, de Jong, N, Czabanowska, K & van Merrienboer, JJ 2015, 'The promised land of blended learning: Quizzes as a moderator', Educational Research Review, vol. 15, pp. 59-74.

Stewart, J, Temlett, S, Mifsud, A & Harmon, P 2017, 'Shaping blended learning at Barker', Barker Institute: Learning in Practice, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 19–25.

Thornburg, DD 1999, Campfires in cyberspace, Starsong Publications.

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.

Vygotsky, LS 1980, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press.

Barker Institute Learning in Practice • 7

CCoonncclluussiioonn

This article has shown that the domains of environment, knowledge and feedback and reflection are well-supported by examples from Kindergarten to Year 12 blended learning literature. While blended learning offers a valuable toolkit for educators, it is only through the realisation of these higher motives and objectives, such as those in the Teaching and Learning Framework, where the tools become truly transformative.

RReeffeerreenncceess

Altemueller, L & Lindquist, C 2017, 'Flipped classroom instruction for inclusive learning', British Journal of Special Education, vol. 44, no.3, pp. 341-358.

Anderson, T 2004, 'Towards a theory of online learning', Theory and practice of online learning, vol. 2, pp. 109-119.

Barker College 2019, Teaching and Learning Framework, available online, https://www.barker.college/media/3411/teaching-framework-final.pdf.

Boelens, R, De Wever, B & Voet, M 2017, 'Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review', Educational Research Review, vol. 22, pp. 1-18.

Chen, F & Wen, F 2019, 'Research on Flipped Classroom Teaching Mode of High School Mathematics under the Background of “Internet+”', Paper presented at the 2019 3rd International Conference on Education, Management Science and Economics (ICEMSE 2019).

Chen, LL 2016, 'Impacts of flipped classroom in high school health education', Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 44, no.4, pp. 411-420.

Cukurbasi, B & Kiyici, M 2018, 'High school students' views on the PBL activities supported via flipped classroom and LEGO practices, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 46-61.

Foldnes, N 2016, 'The flipped classroom and cooperative learning: Evidence from a randomised experiment', Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 17, no.1, pp. 39-49.

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', Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, vol. 18, no. 3.

Gonski, D, Arcus, T, Boston, K, Gould, V, Johnson, W, O’Brien, L & Roberts, M 2018, Through growth to achievement: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Horn, MB, & Staker, H 2014, Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools, John Wiley & Sons.

Ibabe, I & Jauregizar, J 2010, 'Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge', Higher Education, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 243-258.

Kalogeropoulos, P & Liyanage, A 2019, 'Flipped learning: a mathematics experience for Year 9 boys', Paper presented at the Mathematical Association of Victoria Annual Conference 2019: Making+ Connections.

Kazu, IY & Demirkol, M 2014, 'Effect of Blended Learning Environment Model on High School Students' Academic Achievement', Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 78-87.

Lea, SJ, Stephenson, D & Troy, J 2003, 'Higher education students' attitudes to student-centred learning: beyond 'educational bulimia'?' Studies in higher education, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 321-334.

Longney, G & Mifsud, A 2018, 'Positioning inquiry: The place for inquiry in years 7-10', Barker Institute: Learning in Practice, vol. 2, no. 1.

Mifsud, A 2019, 'A blended learning approach to formative assessment', Barker Institute: Learning in Practice, vol. 3, no. 1.

Reigeluth, CM & Garfinkle, RJ 1994, Systemic change in education, Educational Technology.

Spanjers, IA, Könings, KD, Leppink, J, Verstegen, DM, de Jong, N, Czabanowska, K & van Merrienboer, JJ 2015, 'The promised land of blended learning: Quizzes as a moderator', Educational Research Review, vol. 15, pp. 59-74.

Stewart, J, Temlett, S, Mifsud, A & Harmon, P 2017, 'Shaping blended learning at Barker', Barker Institute: Learning in Practice, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 19–25.

Thornburg, DD 1999, Campfires in cyberspace, Starsong Publications.

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.

Vygotsky, LS 1980, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press.

@barkerinstitute

facebook.com/barkerinstitute

www.barkerinstitute.com.au