Session Information
16 SES 14 A, Online and Blended Learning
Paper Session
Contribution
Originating from higher education institutions, blended learning has increasingly been permeating the K-12 education system in recent years (Picciano et al., 2012). Blended learning refers to the combination of face-to-face (F2F) instruction with online learning. It combines F2F and distance teaching and learning (Hrastinski, 2019). For K-12 education, specific didactic potentials are anticipated in blended learning. These range from enhanced incorporation of students' home learning and other non-school environments to the reinforcement of adaptive, individualized, and project-based learning, as well as the promotion of cross-disciplinary competencies such as self-regulated learning or computer- and information-related skills (Powell et al., 2014).
Blended learning is more widespread in education systems in which distance learning has long been established due to structural conditions (e.g. low population density, possibility of home schooling) and the digitalization of schools is advanced, such as Australia, Canada or the U.S. (Graham & Halverson, 2022). In contrast, blended learning was initially not widely adopted in schools in many European countries. It was only with the Covid-19 pandemic, which forced a reorientation during phases of complete or partial school closures, that blended learning approaches were developed and tested. Studies on teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic indicate a significant increase in the use of digital media in some European countries, especially with regard to learning platforms and communication tools, as seen in Germany or Austria (Karpiński et al., 2020). Teachers recognized the potential in blended learning formats and expressed in surveys their intention to continue using newly tested teaching methods even after the end of the pandemic (Nalaskowski, 2023).
Studies on implementations, primarily conducted in U.S. K-12 schools, have identified different models of blended learning. Watson (2008) categorizes a total of seven blended learning models on a continuum ranging from traditional face-to-face classroom instruction to instruction that is entirely conducted online and remotely. Staker and Horn (2012) map out a two-dimensional space with the dimensions of location (brick and mortar vs. remote) and course content (offline vs. online), identifying four blended learning models (rotation, flex, self-blend, enriched virtual). This classification has gained widespread recognition and continues to be referenced in numerous studies (e.g., Li & Wang, 2022).
However, models like the ones proposed by Staker and Horn (2012) have limited applicability to the European context, specifically in Germany. For example, three of the four models (flex, self-blend, enriched virtual) are based on a configuration where substantial portions of the curriculum are exclusively or predominantly provided online, a situation that was rare in European schools at least until the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (European Commission, 2022). Also, K-12 educational institutions transitioning from pure online institutions towards face-to-face learning, as described in Staker and Horn’s ‘enriched virtual’ model are relatively uncommon in Europe, rendering this model even less applicable.Finally, early models like the ones of Staker and Horn are criticized for falling short in considering pedagogical aspects (Graham & Halverson, 2022).
The goal of this study is thus to investigate blended learning models within a European school context. More specifically, the study analyses, which blended learning models have emerged from experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic and how these models are being implemented into regular F2F school practice. Addressing criticisms of early modeling, the analysis incorporates not only physical aspects, such as the arrangement of space and time and the integration of online and offline learning but also aspects related to the design of learning tasks and learning situations.
Method
As part of a pilot project, 18 schools in Berlin, Germany, were given the opportunity to break away from traditional face-to-face instruction and, with digital support, create spatially and temporally flexible learning environments. Legal framework conditions, particularly the mandatory attendance for students, were relaxed to provide schools with extensive freedom to develop innovative teaching concepts. At the end of the first project year, 75 structured interviews were conducted with students, teachers, school administrators, and project coordinators at the participating schools. At the end of the second project year, another brief interview was conducted with teachers or project coordinators at 15 out of the 18 schools to gather information about the current status of the newly developed concepts. The interviews at both measurement points were analyzed using the method of qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2015) in an inductive-deductive manner. Location of learning, temporal structure and methodological-didactic focus emerged as key categories to describe and differentiate blended learning concepts. Characteristics of these three categories were binary coded in the next step and then analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward method). Finally, the clusters thus identified were contrasted based on the overall dataset to provide a more comprehensive description of the blended learning concepts.
Expected Outcomes
The project schools, depending on their existing profiles, digital infrastructure, and educational objectives, took different paths for the implementation of blended learning in their school routines. The following four blended learning models were identified: Digitally supported home learning: This cluster is characterized by regular cycles (weekly, monthly) where at least one full school day is designated for digitally supported home learning. Students receive prepared tasks through a learning platform for individualized, usually asynchronous, completion. Teachers offer whole-class video conferences and digital consultation hours. Project learning at external locations: This cluster also involves regularly occurring days that are used for (partly self-guided) field visits in combination with school-based preparation and follow-up. The didactic concept revolves around project-based learning. Digital media are used for documentation, evaluation, and reflection of learning experiences at non-school learning sites as well as consultation between students and teachers, who are overseeing visits to non-school learning sites from a distance. Digitalization of independent work: In this cluster, blended learning takes place in regularly occurring time slots, which are integrated into the school week. Students usually remain at school and use the time for digitally supported individualized independent learning, working on tasks provided through a school learning platform. Teachers are available on-site as learning advisors. The didactic concept aims at differentiated support and assistance in subject-specific learning. Flexibilization of project work in space and time: In this cluster, students work on complex, sometimes interdisciplinary project tasks for limited time periods. Starting from the school as the place of learning, students are given the opportunity to learn at home or to visit locations out of school. Learning times can be freely chosen. Digital media are used for communication among students and between teachers and students. Furthermore, the results of project work are often documented as digital products.
References
European Commission (2022). Teaching and learning in schools in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Graham, C. R., & Halverson, L. R. (2022). Blended Learning Research and Practice. In: Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education (pp. 1-20). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning?. TechTrends, 63(5), 564-569. Karpiński et al. (2020). Digital education action plan 2021-2027. Summary of the open public consultation. Li, S., & Wang, W. (2022). Effect of blended learning on student performance in K‐12 settings: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(5), 1254-1272. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz. Weinheim, 4, 58. Nalaskowski, F. (2023). Covid-19 Aftermath for Educational System in Europe. The positives. Dialogo, 9(2), 59-67. Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The internet and higher education, 15(2), 127-135. Powell, A., Rabbitt, B., & Kennedy, K. (2014). iNACOL blended learning teacher competency framework. International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from: http://192.248.16.117:8080/research/bitstream/70130/5105/1/BLENDED_LEARNING_AND_FEATURES_OF_THE_USE_OF_THE_RO.pdf Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. Promising Practices in Online Learning. North American Council for Online Learning.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.