closing the 2-sigma gap: eight strategies to replicate one-to-one tutoring in blended learning
DESCRIPTION
David Denton (Seattle Pacific University, USA) David Wicks (Seattle Pacific University, USA) Vicki Eveland (Seattle Pacific University, USA) Benjamin Bloom, probably best known for Bloom's Taxonomy, contributed significant research and theory on a wide array of educational topics, including the effects of tutoring on student achievement. In 1984, Bloom wrote an article titled The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Bloom found that one-to-one tutoring improved student performance two standard deviations above the mean on academic measures in comparison to students taught in conventional classrooms. These findings are unsurprising to most educators. However, the critical question derived from Bloom's (1984) research is whether teachers in conventional classrooms can replicate characteristics of one-to-one tutoring. The replication question persists today, regardless of level or subject area. A significant pursuit of all educators is to use the most effective instructional practices available in order to raise student achievement. One way to organize effective practice is through characteristics of teaching and learning that replicate one-to-one tutoring. Examples that qualify this pursuit in current terms include differentiated instruction and adaptive learning systems such as Khan Academy (Office of Educational Technology, 2013). Finding ways to more closely approximate characteristics of one-to-one tutoring in conventional settings inspires educators to experiment with alternative instructional formats. One of these is blended learning, which combines elements of online, classroom, and mobile engagement techniques (Strauss, 2012). However, some have suggested that blended learning is a fad, and subject to the same kind of waning interest as other educational innovations (Strauss, 2012). Implementing and sustaining educational innovation, such as blended learning, depends on the use of effective instructional strategies. Characteristics of one-to-one tutoring provide a set of benchmark activities for identifying and organizing these types of effective practices within the context of blended learning environments. Instructors choose from a wide variety of instructional practices to meet their objectives. However, not all practices have the same effect. Selecting and implementing the most effective strategies is critical, regardless of learning venue. One framework for organizing blended learning methods is through one-to-one tutoring, especially since instructional practices characteristic of tutoring have an enormous effect on student achievement. Presenters in this informational session summarize ways instructors merge characteristics of one-to-one tutoring, along with example strategies to enhance blended learning. Participants integrate preferred methods according to their contexts through discussion and small group collaboration.TRANSCRIPT
Closing the 2-Sigma Gap Eight Strategies to Replicate
One-to-One Tutoring in Blended Learning
David W. Denton David A. Wicks Vicki Eveland
Seattle Pacific University
Sloan Consortium Blended Learning Conference, 2013
Closing the 2 Sigma Gap
Definitions
(Bloom, 1984)
Effects
(Bloom, 1984)
How can instructors replicate characteristics of one-to-one tutoring in blended learning courses?
Variables for Consideration Improving instructional materials Enhancing peer interactions Considering student differences Engaging higher mental processes
Eight Strategies Improving instruc/onal materials
1 Quan/ty of Instruc/on 2 Cues and Explana/ons
Enhancing peer interac/ons
3 Coopera/ve Learning 4 Class Environment
Considering student differences
5 Tutorial Instruc/on 6 Feedback
Engaging higher mental processes
7 Metacogni/ve Training 8 Goals
Improving Instructional Materials
1 Quan/ty of instruc/on 2 Cues and explana/ons
1 Quantity of Instruction The amount of guidance, prepara/on, & coaching provided to students in a course
Blended learning offers the opportunity for increased quan/ty of instruc/on
BeOer prac/ces
Concise organiza/on of materials, management
Differen/ate between online and face-‐to-‐face components
Realis/c expecta/ons regarding complexity of content
Accountability, feedback, and reflec/on
Metacogni/ve training
(Abdullah, 2012; Nissen & Tea, 2012)
Improving Quantity of Instruction
Online resources showing what or how
Face /me to coach students through applica/on
Linking students to addi/onal resources
Access to review material for par/cularly challenging content
Providing resources and instruc/on for a student to access at convenience
2 Cues and Explanations
Informa/on or ques/ons shared by instructor or students to help scaffold understanding
Improving Cues and Explanations
Instruc/onal decision-‐making tree Face /me to understand nonverbal expressions Asynchronous discussions to allow /me to reflect prior to responding Web conference to understand nonverbal expressions if face /me isn't available
(Frey & Fisher, 2010)
Enhancing Peer Interactions
3 Coopera/ve learning 4 Class environment
3 Cooperative Learning
Use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each others' learning
(Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991)
Cogni/ve Presence
(Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001)
Collaborate on Deliverable
(Charter, Essay, or Presenta/on)
Complete Deliverable, Reflect on process
Review Collabora/ve
Script Ques/ons
Post to Personal Area, Outline Collabora/ve Response
Post to Personal Area, Outline Collabora/ve Response
Review Collabora/ve
Script Ques/ons
Complete Deliverable, Reflect on process
Collaborate on Deliverable
(Charter, Essay, or Presenta/on)
Improving Cooperative Learning
1. Choose an appropriate small group project 2. Iden/fy suitable collabora/ve tools 3. Incorporate a collabora/ve script 4. Organize the project with phases for major milestones 5. Include specific deadlines for individual and group work 6. Form homogenous or heterogeneous teams 7. Provide training for technology and collabora/on techniques 8. Assess evidence of individual-‐group par/cipa/on acer each phase (process) 9. Request student reflec/on on collabora/ve process acer each phase 10. Assess deliverables or products acer each phase (product)
(Wicks, Lumpe, Denton, 2012)
4 Class Environment
Communica/on Characteris/cs of an Effec/ve LMS
(Elias, 2010; Higgins et al., 2005)
Improving Communication through LMS Organization
Equitable use All content online
Simple and intui/ve
Interface Naviga/on
Tolerance for error Edit posts Resubmission
Instruc/onal climate
Regular email contact Individual consulta/on
Simple and Intuitive
Organize content
Labels
Considering Student Differences
5 Tutorial instruc/on 6 Feedback
5 Tutorial Instruction
Individualized instruc/on that supports regular classroom instruc/on
Improving Tutorial Instruction
Replace or enhance lectures with short, interac/ve online tutorials Provide background material, example problems, problem-‐solving opportuni/es Supply immediate automated feedback Include face-‐to-‐face tutorials using PIM
(Garrison & Vaughan, 2011)
6 Feedback
Informa/on provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding
(Hattie & Timperley 2007)
Characteristics of Effective Feedback
Performance criteria, direc/on for improving Opportunity for correc/ons Efficient, /mely delivery Customized Developed
Improving Feedback
Developed Conversa/onal tone Opening or closing comment Support comments throughout Avoids iden/fying same error Beyond brief comments "good"
(McGrath, Taylor, & Pychyl, 2011)
Engaging Higher Mental Processes
7 Metacogni/ve training 8 Goals
7 Metacognitive Training Metacogni/on -‐ engaging higher mental processes involves metacogni/ve and cogni/ve dimensions
Metacogni/on focuses on the ac/ve par/cipa/on of the individual in his or her thinking process
(Stewart and Landine 1995)
Kinds of Metacogni/ve Knowledge
Strategy
Task
How, when, why, where to apply strategy
Self
Learner awareness of strengths and weaknesses
Improving Metacognitive Training
Students engaging in blended learning struggle with managing /me, priori/zing ac/vi/es, and organizing learning materials so they may need explicit training in all of the areas of metacogni/ve knowledge
(Yang, 2012)
8 Goals
Goal -‐ the end toward which effort is directed
Outcome -‐ something that follows as a result
Objec/ve -‐ an aim, goal, or end of ac/on
Characteristics of Goals
Fact, idea, principle, capability, skill, concept, technique, value, feeling
Specific
Self-‐assess
Evidence
Improving Goals
Reflec/ve Wri/ng 1. Cita/on of goal
2. Presenta/on of evidence 3. Asser/on of evidence-‐competence 4. Summary of what was learned 5. Iden/fica/on of future steps
(Guldberg & Pilkington, 2007)
Eight Strategies Improving instruc/onal materials
1 Quan/ty of Instruc/on 2 Cues and Explana/ons
Enhancing peer interac/ons
3 Coopera/ve Learning 4 Class Environment
Considering student differences
5 Tutorial Instruc/on 6 Feedback
Engaging higher mental processes
7 Metacogni/ve Training 8 Goals
References Abdulla, D. (2012). Aktudes of college students enrolled in 2-‐year health care programs towards online learning. Computers & Educa0on, 59(4), 1215-‐1223. Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruc/on as effec/ve as one-‐to-‐one tutoring. Educa0onal Researcher 13(6), 4-‐16. Cowan, J. E. (2012). Strategies for developing a community of prac/ce: Nine years of lessons learned in a hybrid technology educa/on master's program. Techtrends,
56(1), 12-‐18. Elisa, T. Universal instruc/onal design principles for Moodle. Interna0onal Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 110-‐124. Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Iden/fying instruc/onal moves during guided learning. The Reading Teacher, 64(2) Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2011). Blended Learning in Higher Educa0on: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. Wiley Publishing. Guldberg, K. & Pilkington, R. (2007). Tutor roles in facilita/ng reflec/on on prac/ce through online discussion. Educa0onal Technology and Society 10(1), 61-‐72. Hake, J. & Timperley, N. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educa0onal Research, 77(1), 81-‐112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487 Hew, K., & Cheung, W. (2012). Students' use of asynchronous voice discussion in a blended-‐learning environment: A study of two undergraduate classes. Electronic
Journal of E-‐Learning, 10(4), 360-‐367. Higgins, S., et al. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. The Centre for Learning and Teaching School of Educa/on, Communica/on and
Language Science. University of Newcastle. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1991). Coopera/ve learning: Increasing college faculty instruc/onal produc/vity. ASHE-‐ERIC Report on Higher
Educa0on. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Kim, J. (2012). A study on learners' percep/onal typology and rela/onships among the learner's types, characteris/cs, and academic achievement in a blended e-‐
educa/on environment. Computers & Educa0on, 59(2), 304-‐315. McGrath, A. L., Taylor, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2011). Wri/ng helpful feedback: The influence of feedback type on students’ percep/ons and wri/ng performance.
Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1-‐16. Nissen, E., & Tea, E. (2012). Going blended: New challenges for second genera/on L2 tutors. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 145-‐163. Office of Educa/onal Technology (2013). Expanding evidence approaches for learning in a digital world. United Stated Department of Educa/on. Retrieved from
hOp://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2012/12/Expanding_Evidence_Approaches_DRAFT.pdf Rourke, L., Anderson, T. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-‐based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance
Educa0on, 14(3), 51-‐70. Stewart, J., & Landine, J. (1995). Study skills from a metacogni/ve perspec/ve. Guidance & Counseling, 11(1), 16-‐20. Strauss, V. (September, 2012). Three fears about blended learning. The Washington Post. Wicks, D., Lumpe, A., Denton, D. (2012). Ten Strategies to Enhance Collabora/ve Learning in an Online Course. 18th Annual Sloan-‐C Interna0onal Conference on
Online Learning. Orlando, FL. Wilson, G., & Randall, M. (2012). The implementa/on and evalua/on of a new learning space: A pilot study. Research in Learning Technology, 20(2), 1-‐17. Yang, Y. (2012). Blended learning for college students with English reading difficul/es. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5), 393-‐410.