The document discusses blended learning within K-12 education, defining it as the integration of online content and in-person instruction, and explores various models such as flipped classrooms and enriched virtual experiences. It outlines a case study from HD Crull Elementary, detailing the implementation of blended learning, strategies for addressing performance gaps, and the use of data to improve student outcomes. The findings indicate that while average and high performing students benefited from online platforms, lower performing students preferred direct instruction, revealing the complexities of adopting blended learning effectively.

1. What is Blended
Learning?
Tim Hudson, PhD
Sr Director of Curriculum Design
DreamBox Learning

2. Blended Learning Defined
online delivery of
content & instruction
delivery of content &
instruction at school
H. Staker, M. Horn, Classifying K-12 Blended Learning, © 2012

3. Which blended model is better?
FLIPPED-CLASSROOM ENRICHED-VIRTUAL
What is happening with the teacher?
What is happening on the computers?
Blending is a means to what ends?
H. Staker, M. Horn, Classifying K-12 Blended Learning, © 2012

4. Plan Schooling Backwards
“Contemporary school reform efforts…
typically focus too much on various
means: structures, schedules,
programs, PD, curriculum, and
instructional practices (like cooperative
learning)”
[or blended learning]
[or flipped classrooms]
[or iPads, hardware, etc]
p. 234-235, Wiggins & McTighe, © 2007

5. Plan Schooling Backwards
“Certainly such reforms serve
as the fuel for the school
improvement engine, but
they must not be mistaken as
the destination…[which is]
improved learning.”
p. 234-235, Wiggins & McTighe, © 2007

6. Plan “Backwards”
1. Identify desired
results
2. Determine
acceptable
evidence
3. Plan learning
experiences
and instruction
Understanding by Design, Wiggins & McTighe, ©2005

7. Before Blending
1. What do you want students
to accomplish?
2. How will you know they’ve
achieved it?
3. What print and/or digital
resources will you need for
their learning?

8. Time, Place, Path, Pace
“Learning is no longer restricted to the pedagogy used
by the teacher.”
BUT… Learning IS restricted – and limited by – the
pedagogy used by the online teacher, in the online
instruction, or in designs of the learning software.
H. Staker, M. Horn, Classifying K-12 Blended Learning, © 2012

9. Common Experience
From a 5th grade teacher in NY:
“I had a lot of good people teaching me math when I
was a student – earnest and funny and caring. But
the math they taught me wasn’t good math. Every
class was the same for eight years:
‘Get out your homework, go over the
homework, here’s the new set of exercises,
here’s how to do them. Now get started. I’ll
be around.’”
p. 55, Teaching What Matters Most, Strong, Silver, & Perini, ©2001

10. Common Teaching Cycle
Whole
Class or
Small
Group
Instruction
Independent
Practice
Whole
Class
Assessment
Use Data
Formatively
to Plan
Use Data
Summatively

11. Instruction, Content Delivery
Whole
Class or
Small
Group
Instruction
Independent
Practice
Whole
Class
Assessment
Use Data
Formatively
to Plan
Use Data
Summatively

12. Let Me
Show You
How To Do
X
Now You
Go Do
X
Can You
Independently
Do
X?
Maybe You
Need to Be
Shown X
Again
You Know
X
Instruction

13. Let Me
Show You
How To Do
X
Now You
Go Do
X
Can You
Independently
Do
X?
Maybe You
Need to Be
Shown X
Again
You Know
X
Who is doing the thinking?

14. Fullan: Alive in the Swamp
“Technology–enabled innovations have a different
problem, mainly pedagogy and outcomes. Many of
the innovations, particularly those that provide online
content and learning materials, use basic pedagogy –
most often in the form of introducing concepts
by video instruction and following up with a
series of progression exercises and tests.
Other digital innovations are simply tools that
allow teachers to do the same age-old
practices but in a digital format.” (p. 25)
Fullan & Donnelly, Alive in the Swamp: Assessing Digital Innovations in Education, © July 2013, www.nesta.org/uk

15. Data inform
the Adaptive
Engine
Common “Adaptive” Design
Explicit
Input, Video
Lecture,
Textbook
Reading,
Independent
Practice,
“Worksheet”
Problems
Digitized
Quiz/Test
Items
Adaptive
Engine:
Watch or
Read Again

16. School & Home Work
At School:
Explicit
Instruction &
Problem
Solving
At Home:
Practice
Problems
Whole
Class
Assessment
Maybe you
need to be
shown X
again
Use Data
Summatively

17. Meaningful Flip?
At Home:
Explicit
Instructional
Videos & Online
Practice
At School:
Guided
Practice &
Problem
Solving
Whole
Class
Assessment
Maybe You
Need to
Watch the
Video Again
Use Data
Summatively

18. Fullan: Alive in the Swamp
“While these innovations may be an
incremental improvement such that there is
less cost, minor classroom efficiency and
general modernisation, they do not, by
themselves, change the pedagogical
practice of the teachers or the schools [or
the online learning].” (p. 25)
Fullan & Donnelly, Alive in the Swamp: Assessing Digital Innovations in Education, © July 2013, www.nesta.org/uk

19. Plan Curriculum Backwards
1. Identify desired
results
2. Determine
acceptable
evidence
3. Plan learning
experiences
and instruction
Understanding by Design, Wiggins & McTighe, ©2005

20. The Quality of Digital
Learning Experiences
is just as important
as the Quality of
Classroom Learning
Experiences

21. SAMR Model by Dr. Ruben R. Puentedura, www.hippasus.com/rrweblog

23. Learning Principle
“Understandings cannot
be given; they have to be
engineered so that learners
see for themselves the
power of an idea for
making sense of things.”
p. 113, Schooling by Design, Wiggins & McTighe, ©2007

25. Pros & Cons
Benefit of Blended
Learning
Becoming MORE
thoughtful and
strategic about the
use of precious class
time
Danger of Blended
Learning
Becoming LESS
thoughtful and
strategic about how
students understand
and make sense of
things

26. HD Crull
Elementary
School
Implementation of Blended Learning
Christina A. Gibson- Principal
Julie Alley- Title I Instructional Coach

27. HD Crull Who Are We?
● 470 Elementary Students
● Located in Port Huron, MI
● Identified a FOCUS school with
performance gaps in Math and
Writing in 2011
(between high and low achievers)
● Schoolwide Title I
● 89% Free and Reduced Lunch

28. Why? Rationale for Implementation
● Comprehensive Needs Assessment
(Of learning, FOR learning)
o Engaged a School Improvement Team
o Data Analysis using multiple points (NWEA, DIBELS, Attendance,
Discipline, Perception Data Surveys (teacher, student,
community)
o Honored Innovation to address high needs areas
● Low overall academic performance
● Large gaps
● One room school house in 18 classrooms
● Students lacked exposure and engagement

29. Research
● Researched “What Works Clearinghouse”
o http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf
● John Hattie’s research
o Student goal setting
o Student engagement
● Conferences using Title I Funds
o Model Schools Conference
o Technology Conferences- MACUL
o National Reading Recovery
● Multiple Site Visits
o Beating the Odds schools
o Similar Demographics
o Technology Rich

30. Strategies to fit the needs
● Student Goal Setting
● Student Recognition of Achievements
● Students Tracking Data
● Individual and Small Group Instruction at Students Level
● Student Engagement
● Student Questioning and Discussion
● Parent Involvement
● Teacher Capacity
= Blended Learning

31. Year One 2011-2012
● 1 computer per classroom
● 1 computer lab per building
● Checked out all devices to staff
● Instructional Coach Managed

32. Year One Spring 2012
● Technology Flooded the building 200
ipads
● Carts of ipads introduced to students
and staff
● itunes to manage
● NO APPS were added at all
● Innovative and creative teaching

33. 2012-2013 Year Two
● Added ipads and laptops (400 devices)
● All teachers true one-to-one total control
● Volume vouchers for large
● Apple configurator
● Teachers used daily (app sitting)
● Exploring community partnerships
● Pilot kindergarten one to one ipad
classroom
● SMART Boards in every classroom

34. Year Two Teacher Learners
Title I Instructional Coach
● Scheduled push in lessons with
reluctant-to-technology staff members
● Tech lessons aligned to CCSS
● Optional Professional Development to
“dive deeper” into data from online
learning programs

35. Blended Pilot Summer Camp 2013
● Teachers trained in DreamBox and Lexia
Core 5
● 20 minutes every day in a computer lab 4
days per week
● NO direct instruction in math
● Teachers provided follow up support with
DreamBox as the assessment (used flags,
detail reports, etc)
● Served 100 Students ages 4-12
● Targeted bottom 30% of Students

36. Data from Summer Camp 2013
● Used NWEA Spring to Fall to assess growth
● 64 students used in data (omitted pre-k and 6th graders)
● .93 average points of RIT growth in math for students
involved in summer
● -1.54 average points of RIT loss in whole school
population “Summer Slide”(using cohorts omitted pre-k
and 6th graders)

37. Comparison Report for RIT Scores using NWEA
Spring 2013 to Fall 2013
2nd to 3rd removed # of students in summer program non representational/poor sampling (7 students in this group 2 with
invalid NWEA scores in fall.)

38. 2013-2014 Year Three
● One to one classrooms
● 400 devices at Crull
● Embedding literacy and tech coach
● On-line individualized learning
environment
● On-line resources
● All teachers have 5 small group
ipads per class
● Google G-Mail and Calendar for
Teachers

39. School Improvement Plan 2013-14
● Wrote DreamBox into our SIP
o 60 minutes per week for every student
● Wrote Lexia Core 5 into our SIP plan as Tier 2
and Tier 3
● Intervention block with program
● RAZ kids, Overdrive, and Accelerated Reader

40. Year Three Teacher Learners
Title I Instructional Coach
● Pushing in and co-teaching with
reluctant-to-tech teachers
● Introducing innovative lessons from
technology conference- MACUL
● Permission to “try new things”
● Working with “tech savy” classroom
teachers on more challenging ideas
○ Word of mouth success spreads to
other classrooms

41. Implementation of blended learning
School Year 2013/2014
Teachers implemented in both
whole group and small group
● Station Rotation Model
● Whole Group
(2 or 3 times per week for 30 or 20 minutes)
● Project Based
● Extension and Choice Time (morning work, recess, etc)
● After school hours (turned on games after school and on
Fridays)
● All students had accounts for on-line applications
● Some students had G-Mail Accounts Set up

42. Year Three Parent Support
● School Website through Weebly
○ hdcrull.weebly.com
○ Parents able to see video and
pictures of student learning
● Using twitter
○ information and school updates
○ @hdcrull
● “Technology Passports”
○ images of apps
○ websites
○ logins and passwords

43. Data from School Year
● Direct correlation to time in DreamBox and Lexia Core 5
with Improved NWEA scores.
● As intervention, not successful using on-line programs,
more success for mid to high students
(some were exception)
o low students need direct instruction
● Compare 2 second grade classrooms. Teachers follow
same curriculum (math expressions), plan lessons
together and have worked together for 4 years.
● Variable was the AMOUNT of time in a computer based
program. One embraced 60 minutes per week.
One did not.

44. Let me show you what I mean...
This 2nd grade classroom had
● 103.1 Sessions
● covered 15.6 Units
● completed 165.6 Lesson using DreamBox

45. This 2nd grade classroom had
● 66.3 Sessions
● covered 7.2 Units
● completed 74.9 Lesson using DreamBox

46. Teaching Method Comparison
● Classroom #1
● Did not embrace blended learning, teacher lead instruction
dominated
● 3rd Grade
● 43.4 Sessions
● 4.2 Units

47. Classroom #2
● Did embrace blended learning, teacher lead instruction
dominated
● 5th Grade
● 99.6 Sessions
● 9.1 Units

48. Crull compared to National Averages
Student Growth of Crull 5th Graders in one class
VCG Comparison (Virtual Comparison Group)
Proficiency Standard on Michigan Standard Testing
Advanced Proficiency on Michigan Standard Testing

49. Overall Findings of Blended Learning
● Most of the lowest performing students
didn’t respond as well with on-line
platforms, preferred teacher small group
● Average and high performing students
loved using on-line platforms
● Mid to poor performers had MOST
increases
● Easier to shift in math to blended than
reading and writing

50. Variables to improve on School
Performance
● All means all
● Monitor usage
● Address teachers not meeting usage
● Promote teachers trying both models of implementation
and challenge them to come up with other ideas
● Student Choice
● Collect usage data from
DreamBox, Lexia Core 5
and add to NWEA spreadsheet

51. Benefits we didn’t think of...
● Special Education Referrals
● Parent Meetings
● Parent Learning
● Recognition and Awards
● Student Goal Setting- Competition
for learning
● Assessment and Placement
● Teacher Evaluation
● Identified Students with Hearing
Deficits
● Identified Students that did not
learn with auditory and visual
learning.

52. Pitfalls/Room to Grow
● After hours “others” using
DreamBox and Lexia Core 5
● Staff using in whole group,
o One to one meetings were better with
DreamBox
o Small Group better in Reading Block
o Refreshing the screen in whole group
● Staff wanting more PD and
training on fit with Curriculum
● Logistics

53. The Journey Continues Year Four
● Full Implementation of Google
Products
○ Drive, Sites, Classroom
○ Chromebooks for one class
● Enough Devices for building wide
one to one
● Apple TV

54. Things to Consider as You Implement
● Use of digital platforms as “intervention”
● What programs will you use?
o How will you track programs effectiveness
o Will an app get the job done?
o How long will you “stick” with it?
● WHY? Why are you implementing?
o Where is the need of the student (s), school etc.
o What do you hope to accomplish
o How will classroom instruction change to support?
o What can a teacher do BETTER than a program?

55. Reinventing the Learning Experience
Intelligent Adaptive
Learning™ Engine
• Millions of personalized learning
paths
• Tailored to a student’s
unique needs
Motivating Learning
Environment
• Student Directed, Empowering
• Gaming Fundamentals,
Rewards
Rigorous PreK - Grade 8
Mathematics Curriculum
• Reporting Aligned to Common
Core State Standards, Texas
TEKS, Virginia SOL, Canada
WNCP, & Canada Ontario
Curriculum Reports
• Standards for
Mathematical
Practice

56. DreamBox Lessons & Virtual Manipulatives
Intelligently adapt & individualize to:
• Students’ own intuitive strategies
• Kinds of mistakes
• Efficiency of strategy
• Scaffolding needed
• Response time
© DreamBox Learning

57. Robust Reporting
© DreamBox Learning

58. Strong Support for Differentiation
© DreamBox Learning

59. DreamBox supports small group and whole
class instructional resources
Interactive white-board lessons
www.dreambox.com/teachertools
© DreamBox Learning

60. Free School-wide Trial! www.dreambox.com