Trust…and you shall see….

           For all the information, philosophical discussions, practice and aggregated performance data, there is no guarantee that blended learning, in and of itself, will be the panacea for targeting student potential. Yet, as the blended learning lead, my mantra continues to resonate with the passionate plea for teachers to trust that this paradigm shift, from teacher-directed instruction to student-centered learning, will pave the way for educational optimization.

It is our second year on the paradigm path shift in grades K-5. Having learned, to a great extent, what blended/individualized learning encompasses, how to plan the path of production and actualize its presence in classrooms, as well as how to cultivate productive partnerships between students & digital content, students & teachers and students & project-based learning teams, it would seem that clarity of practices and  definitive results would begin to prevail, yet, the view of the depth and breadth of this paradigm shift continues to broaden and deepen with more questions than answers.

What we knew:

• Students love to learn when the content material contains intellectual and sensorial appeal, along with fun-filled interaction.
•  Teachers want insurance that digitally-delivered content is a reliable & quality means for students’ acquisition of the scope and sequence of subject-related information.
•  Differentiating instruction, according to need, is essential for student learning.
• There are not enough hours in the day, nor teachers available, to provide each and every student with individualized instruction according to his/her needs. 

What we learned:

• Student generated data is a terrific tool for driving instruction, marking goal posts and creating learning paths, also for understanding where a student places in relation to others.
•  Much of the digital content lacks the exciting bells and whistles required for lengthy student engagement.
• Teachers do not fully trust digital content as a means for comprehensive knowledge and skill acquisition.
• Isolating blended learning to math and reading sets an obstacle in the path for obtaining an overall paradigm shift; you can’t develop a mindset, with accompanying methodology for teachers and students alike, when the impending development is halted due to the fact that particular academic content has not been included in the paradigm shift.
•  Finding the time to analyze data, then use the data to provide individualized teacher-directed instruction, is mostly overwhelming for classroom teachers to accomplish on a daily basis.  
•   Learning stations require monitoring for maximum productivity.  

What we hope to learn:

• An efficient way to scrutinize digital lessons for quality content
• How to find and integrate the best combination of digital content and off-line resources for each student’s learning needs.
• How to motivate all students along their learning path.
•  Best practices for managing an individualized student-centered classroom  
•  How to efficiently obtain & use current data
• An authentic way to assess individualized learning paths
• How to determine whether or not learning is being maximized as a direct result of the digital content being delivered.  
• How to secure the best educational staff members for optimization of individualized learning.
• How to facilitate high quality, real world applications in relevant, skill-based projects.
•  How to obtain the time to meet all students’ needs. 

On Your Mark...Get Set...Go!

                              

                                On Your Mark…

            Get Set…

                                 Go!

Year two of personalized “blended learning” is a skip and a jump away. The first year’s training wheels have been removed and staying on course, without losing balance, is the goal. Reflection of this past year’s results has been crucial for smoothing the path in anticipation of year two’s optimal ride.

Trajectory tenets required for balancing, optimizing and accelerating our personalized “Blended Learning” journey:

Overall:

Insure buy-in of the belief, from kindergarteners to head of school, teachers, parents and board members that personalized learning is indispensable for its potential to individualize, advance and enhance learning for all students. 

Teachers:

·      Collect & analyze student data

·      Utilize data-driven class/lesson management

·      Establish and maintain station/rotation flexible groupings

·      Devise the year’s master plan of skill benchmarks and provide a menu of lesson offerings (both digital & teacher directed) that eliminate redundancy in the curriculum, except when needed.

·      Maintain time efficiency to accommodate the learning requirements of each student. 

·      Strategize with colleagues as to best practices for productivity

Student-Teacher Partnerships:

·      Develop strategies that inspire students to become self-directed and motivated learners who take responsibility for maintaining their focus on digital instruction.

·      Increase student comfort with independent work

·      Follow policies and procedures to control social behavior

·      Foster Internalized learning ownership

·      Modify student need for teacher and peer approval

·      Cultivate innate motivation for differentiated learning according to skill levels

·      Promote self-satisfaction and pride as the rewards for personal progress

·      Set skill goals to develop individual education paths

·      Support analysis and reflection upon personal data as a steering tool towards skill mastery.

·      Establish daily pathways for communication between teacher and student

Oh, so easy to write the trajectory tenets of operation before the school year begins. Now, the “how to” begins as teachers convene for pre-service week and brainstorm for successful implementation.

To be continued… 

Environment, Shmironment…First graders shouldn’t have separation barriers, or should they?

Oh yes they should, if you don’t want them to hug each other, chat nonstop, then together, with arms around each other, collaboratively choose right or wrong answers!

In so many ways, the facilitation of a conducive environment, in which blended learning could succeed, eluded the mindset of our first grade teachers by conflicting with their vision and philosophical beliefs of what a first grade, developmentally appropriate classroom, should look like, as well as how a first grader should, ultimately, learn. 

In previous years, (many, many previous years), the first graders were conditioned to collectively engage, in every way, every day. It was a rarity to separate one student from another using walls, then require a six year old to focus on a computer program for 10-15 minutes, without talking.

Perhaps the practice of segregating young children, for the purpose of providing adaptable data driven, differentiated instruction, is developmentally inappropriate. One thing, however, is certain, when children perform in isolation there is a high chance of acquiring authentic results of a student's acquisition, or not, of grade level required skills.

Because the first grade teachers had the most difficulty accepting the nature of isolated, independent workspaces, used over an extended time, their student data results were the least comprehensive of all the grade levels.

Were the first grade teachers correct in their strong beliefs that isolation in cubicles was not developmentally appropriate for first graders? Perhaps. Although, the kindergarten teachers trained their students, from day one, to put up their desk walls and focus on what they needed to do.  Successfully proving that conditioning can produce extremely focused participation in very young children. Was it the best use of the 5 year olds’ learning time? The question still remains.

Will the lack of first grade digitally generated student data be detrimental in the educational development of the first grade students?

Not if the teachers were able to promptly identify individual needs and propel learning at an appropriate pace through differentiated instruction….so much easier said, than done!

Alas, first grade teachers, this is the benefit of blended learning.

Maybe next year, they'll try again!

Rotation/Commotion, Station/Relaxation…What’s going on?

Just when teachers thought the station-rotation model would facilitate learning in a perfectly choreographed pattern of performance, the students had distinct ideas of their own! The movement between stations increasingly became less than graceful, and definitely not harmonious; while the computer station began to look like a rest stop, brain included. So, what was going on, and why?

The described situation was becoming more common, than not, especially in the older grades and required situational examination and immediate behavioral-remediation.

As with anything repetitious, the students were beginning to demonstrate discontentment with mundane routine. Questions arose concerning digital content challenges and teacher facilitation of student engagement, including motivational reinforcement procedures.

The teachers, in whose classes disruption of flow existed, conducted class meetings in which explanations and suggestions were elicited from the students.  

Collectively, the students and teachers examined each element and concluded that in as much as there may have been glitches, within the digital content program, the importance of persevering with maximum effort was paramount. The mere fact that the students’ input was heard, as well as acknowledged as being relevant, produced increasing intrinsic student motivation to succeed.

A reward system was put in place that reinforced transitioning between stations quickly, quietly and efficiently. The teachers also varied the digital content offerings; allowing students to have free choice of digital content programs, after successfully completing the required digital content assignments.  Teachers began to conference with students, individually, empowering them with the view of their learning path, data results and digital lesson plans.

Each changed component contributed to the development of student empowerment for self-directed behavior and ultimately increased the pace of student learning.

           

Data Results…Not the bottom line!

Our teachers are continuing to prepare folders of student work for parent-teacher conferences; however, recently, some of the teachers found themselves in a quandary…the results of the mid-year diagnostic tests revealed regression in skill acquisition for a number of their students. Consequently, the data-driven digital content material, contained within the i-Ready Program, had automatically readjusted the students’ learning paths to provide repetition of lessons, apparently not mastered. The challenge, for many teachers, became how to explain to parents that, although their children previously passed lessons reflecting skill mastery, after taking the diagnostic test, the results proved otherwise…. or did they?

Up to this point, the blended learning lead facilitator (me) had met, with every teacher, individually, once a week to review data within the multitude of data reports. By doing so, the teachers grew steadily in their knowledge and analysis of the data reports as well as confident in their ability to relay the data results to parents.

However, what we all did not anticipate was diagnostic data results indicating skill regression. Why and how this happened, with more than just a few students, across multiple grade levels, required careful analysis and serious scrutiny. The teachers and I reviewed each and every student’s diagnostic results, seeking immediate answers to the following questions:  

1. Did the diagnostic test demonstrate overall advancement?

2. If not, how wide was the score divide?

3. Did any curricula strand show an increase in knowledge?

4. Did the student stay focused?

5. Did the student rush?

6. Is there evidence of learning difficulty?

7. Should the student retake the test?

Firmly believing that numerous students could not have cognitively regressed and consequently, should not be forced to retake previously passed lessons, we dissected the data, conversed with the students and concluded that much of the diagnostic test data resulted from less than optimal test taking conditions and a sincere lack of many students’ best efforts.

Some teachers had allowed students to complete their diagnostic tests, in totality, rather than opting for shorter time frames over a few days. Additionally, many students’ primary goal was the completion of the test, rather than focusing on quality of performance.  Once the students realized that their post diagnostic lessons were directly correlated to the results of their diagnostic test (meaning they were repeating lessons previously passed) the students anxiously opted to retake their tests, take their time and try their best. As a result, all but two improved their scores by 20-40 points. The two outliers are suspected of having learning difficulties, which will be investigated, further.

The lessons learned:

• K-5 students require close monitoring while taking diagnostic tests.
• K-5 students need to be front-loaded with motivational pep talks and goal setting mental strategies before taking their diagnostic tests.
• Developmentally appropriate test-taking time frames must be established and maintained for optimal student performance.
• Each student’s results, and newly correlated prescriptive lessons must be reviewed and possibly teacher adjusted for accurate alignment to students’ authentic skill sets.

The bottom line:  digital data, generated by technologic machinery, still requires human partnering in order to fully meet the needs of our students. 

But, we all knew that!