¹Tara Burnham, ²Chris Cale, ³ Sunddip Panesar-Aguilar, ⁴ Michelle McCraney

¹,²,⁴,Walden University, Minneapolis, MN
³Univeristy of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, St. Augustine, FL

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i3-06

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

At the study site school for this research, the online curriculum in the current blended learning program was not promoting the desired student achievement outcomes. It was unknown if and how research-based best practices associated with blended learning were being implemented. This qualitative case study explored which elements of blended learning best practices were currently implemented in the online blended curriculum at one school to understand the factors enhancing or constraining student learning outcomes. A communities of inquiry framework was used to explore which blended learning best practices were currently implemented and which of those elements enhanced and constrained learning based on teacher and student perspectives. Data were collected using a whole population questionnaire, individual student/teacher interviews, and classroom observations. Three students and five teachers participated in the interviews and five classrooms were observed. Data were analyzed using a combination of open coding and a priori codes. Findings indicated that while teacher presence was evident in the blended learning curriculum, the focus on self-paced assignments limited the social and cognitive presence needed in blended learning best practices. Results were used to design a blended learning professional development course to help prepare teachers to implement missing elements of blended learning best practices. This research study can create social change by increasing teachers’ understanding of blended learning and providing student learning data to help educational leaders close the achievement gap at the local site. Increasing student success could lead to lower dropout rates and enhance students’ abilities to become more successful members of society.

KEYWORDS:

Adult learning, blended learning, online learning, online blended curriculum, communities of inquiry, teaching and learning.

REFERENCES

1) Bidarra, J., & Rusman, E. (2017). Towards a pedagogical model for science education: bridging educational contexts through a blended learning approach. Open Learning, 32(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1265442

2) Vaughan, N., & Garrison, R. (2006). A blended faculty Community of Inquiry: Linking leadership, course redesign, and evaluation. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32(2), 67–92. Retrieved from https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/cjuce-rcepu/index.php/cjuce-rcepu/issue/archive

3) Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

4) Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

5) Palmer, E., Lomer, S., & Bashliyska, I. (2017). Overcoming barriers to student engagement with active blended learning. Interim Report, 3(Oct). Retrieved from https://www.northampton.ac.uk/ilt/news/overcoming-abl-barriers/

6) Baghdadi, Z. D. (2011). Best practice in online education: Online instructors, courses, and administrators. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 109–117. Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/

7) Green, R. A., Whitburn, L. Y., Zacharias, A., Byrne, G., & Hughes, D. L. (2017). The relationship between student engagement with online content and achievement in a blended learning anatomy course. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1761

8) Colorado Department of Education. (2017). SchoolView data center. Retrieved from https://edx.cde.state.co.us/SchoolView/DataCenter/reports.jspx?_adf_ctrlstate=pac20phbp_4&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrLoop=8951919890350100&_adf.ctrl-state=362xksj0e_4

9) Donaldson, L., Matthews, A., Walsh, A., Brugha, R., Manda-Taylor, L., Mwapasa, V., & Byrne, E. (2017). Collaborative tools to enhance engagement in a blended learning master’s programme. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 9(1), 2921–2922. Retrieved from http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/index

10) Manwaring, K., Larsen, R., Graham, C., Henrie, C. H., & Halverson, L. R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. Internet & Higher Education, 352, 1- 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.002

11) de Velasco, J. R., & Gonzales, D. (2017). Continuous improvement series: Accountability for alternative schools in California. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE. (Feb) Retrieved from http://edpolicyinca.org/

12) Charbonneau-Gowdy, P., & Cechova, I. (2017). Moving outside the box: Researching e-Learning in disruptive times. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 15(1), 59–69. Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/main.html

13) Stover, S., & Ziswiler, K. (2017). Impacts of active learning environments on communities of inquiry. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 29(3), 458-470. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/

14) Pugliese, R. (2016). Blended learning in GFL lessons in Italy - A real added value? German As A Foreign Language, (2), 124-143. Retrieved from http://www.gfl-journal.de/

15) Cheng, G. C., & Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12243

16) Tsankov, N., & Damyanov, I. (2017). Education majors’ preferences on the functionalities of e-learning platforms in the context of blended learning. International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Learning (IJET), 12(05), pp. 202-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i05.6971

17) Yin, R. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18) Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Los Angeles: SAGE.

19) Stewart, M. (2017). Communities of Inquiry: A heuristic for designing and assessing interactive learning activities in technology-mediated FYC. Computers & Composition, 4(5)67-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.06.004

20) Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

21) Palmer, E., Lomer, S., & Bashliyska, I. (2017). Overcoming barriers to student engagement with active blended learning. Interim Report, 3(Oct). Retrieved from https://www.northampton.ac.uk/ilt/news/overcoming-abl-barriers/

22) Tay, H. Y. (2016). Investigating engagement in a blended learning course. Cogent Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1135772

23) Andrews, D. J. C., & Richmond, G. (2019). Professional development for equity: What constitutes powerful professional learning? Journal of Teacher Education, 5, 408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119875098

24) Foschi, L.C. (2020). Innovative aspects and evaluation methods in a teachers’ continuous professional development training experience. Italian Journal of Educational Technology. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1165

VOlUME 04 ISSUE 03 MARCH 2021