Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

SITE 2014 - Blended Learning From The Perspective of Parents and Students

596 views

Published on

Siko, J., & Barbour, M. K. (2014, March). Blended learning from the perspective of parents and students. A brief paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Jacksonville, FL.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to like this

SITE 2014 - Blended Learning From The Perspective of Parents and Students

  1. 1. Blended Learning from the Perspective of Parents and Students Jason Siko Assistant Professor of Educational Technology Grand Valley State University Michael Barbour Director of Doctoral Studies Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership Sacred Heart University
  2. 2. Student Perceptions  Generally speaking, students have a positive perception of blended instruction (Chandra & Fisher, 2009; Geçer, 2013; Pratt & Trewern, 2011)  While they enjoyed the experience, did desire more face-to-face communication
  3. 3. Parent Perceptions  Little research done on perceptions of parents  Different role than with college-age online students  They are not the instructor, facilitator, or technical support for the course; however, they often play all of these roles at some point  Parental support is important to the success of virtual student (Black,2009), but they themselves might be uncomfortable/unfamiliar with the learning environment
  4. 4. Research Questions 1.What are the perceptions of students in a blended learning class? 2.What are the perceptions of parents whose students are in a blended learning class?
  5. 5. Setting  AY2011-2012  Large, suburban, Midwestern high school (~1800 students in grades 10-12)  Culturally homogenous; however, diverse with respect to SES  Course: International Baccalaureate Biology – Higher Level (IB Bio-HL)  43 students, grade 10  1st half of course – Face-to-face  2nd half of course - blended
  6. 6. Methods  Administered anonymous survey via Google Forms to parents and students  All students participated (n=47)  Limited parent participation (n=14)  Descriptive statistics for Likert and selected- response questions  Open-ended questions were analyzed for themes using constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1994)
  7. 7.  Liked the independence  Although some struggled with the autonomy (~liked the “pressure” of being in class)  Many admitted to falling behind  Various “favorites”/”dislikes”  Some wanted more communication/had confusion
  8. 8. Parents
  9. 9. Parent comments  Excited with a little apprehension  Some frustration with communication (grades)  Despite access to online grades  “ABLE to get lazy…”  Overall, most seemed glad their student had the experience.
  10. 10. Implications  Emphasize communication in teacher preparation for blended instruction to both parents and students  Look for ways to mitigate organization and self- regulation issues
  11. 11. Questions?
  12. 12. Thanks for coming! Jason P. Siko Assistant Professor of Educational Technology Grand Valley State University Grand Rapids, MI sikojp@gmail.com sikoj@gvsu.edu http://jasonsiko.com @jasonsiko Michael K. Barbour Director of Doctoral Studies, Isabelle Farrington College of Education Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership Sacred Heart University Fairfield, CT mkbarbour@gmail.com http://michaelbarbour.com http://virtualschooling.wordpress.com @mkbshu

×