Blended Profile Framework – blendedpractice.com

framework3

Download Oliver’s Instructional Frameworks for Blended and Online Instruction

framework1

OLIVER’S FRAMEWORK FOR BLENDED AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION

Introduction

Blended and online learning are increasing at astronomical rates as pedagogies for delivering instruction. When teaching in the blended and online environments there are additional areas of focus to consider beyond the traditional teaching environment. Dynamics of classroom management change. Even basic educational theories are applied differently, such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1970). Implementing the seamless integration of technology, therefore, creates a different dynamic for effective instruction. As a result, traditional practices for instruction and expectations need to be modified.

In national focus groups conducted by Oliver (2013, 2014) reoccurring and consistent themes were present. Teachers felt intense pressure from administrators and educational experts to teach using digital strategies. They also had motivation to use this pedagogy to instruct students. However, since the field is still young in research and practice, teachers found few resources comparable to traditional instruction defining “best practices” in the mediums of blended and online instruction. When they did find solid research, administrators and teachers alike, found professional development resources to be limited.

Simultaneously, as the digital movement progresses, educator accountability intensifies. Understandably, regardless of the benefits for students, teachers are reluctant to try something new, with limited guidance and resources, when their own performance evaluations may be impacted by the results of teaching with a new pedagogy. Administrators openly shared they do not know what ideal practices to observe when completing evaluations. A blended classroom, for example, may look very different than the traditional classroom of the 50’s. They do know, however, that digital technologies engage and motivate students, which equate to increased opportunities for cognitive growth. Oliver’s distinctive Frameworks for Blended and Online Instruction are aligned to national guidelines for identifying and improving blended and online practices.

Oliver’s Frameworks provide guided examples for the instructor or administrator to utilize as a tool for growth and self-awareness. Further, they provide clear metrics within each dimension pertaining to pedagogical proficiency. It should be stated the frameworks place no inherent value on any scoring within the guided examples; Oliver recognizes some courses and grades, by their very nature, may be best taught fully face-to-face, blended or totally online and these decisions are dependent on student and local education agency (LEA) needs as well as local and state policy.

Oliver’s Frameworks for Instruction in the Blended and Online Environments are designed to provide best practices to instructors who are implementing digital technology in the classroom and to give administrators guidance in examining resources and determining expectations. It is essential to note that the frameworks and corresponding guided examples are designed to assess blended and online pedagogy, not necessarily blended and online programs. For example, an online program may require that students work in a computer lab face-to-face (f2f) once weekly. Even if a facilitator is present, the instructor of record is still online and responsible for online pedagogy. In the blended framework, the design is for f2f classrooms, where teachers are integrating technology in a blended format in order to support learning as a form of pedagogy. The frameworks are not intended to evaluate programs for accreditation or recommend for Request For Proposal (RFP) evaluations, for example.

The blended innovation configuration map offers different scenarios for what blended learning should look like, e.g. simulations in classrooms, flipped classroom examples, individualized remediation on the teacher’s website for homework after in class blended lessons. The IC Map is aligned to national professional and student standards that are relevant to blended learning such as ISTE Teacher standards, ISTE student standards, SREB Professional Development Standards, and iNACOL Quality Standards. As well, contextual standards, which are provided in instructional examples that correlate with Oliver’s IC map represent standards from a variety of national organizations to include: Common Core State Standards (CCSSO),National Council of Teachers of Math (NCTM), and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).

For the purposes of this framework, blended is the standard by which a digital classroom should be designed. A classroom in which the teacher replaces an overhead with a boxlight projector is not a blended classroom. It is, rather, a classroom where a teacher integrates technology equipment. In other words, a blended classroom is not one in which the teacher uses a PowerPoint to display notes. A blended classroom is a fully integrated environment, where students are engaged with technology for learning to prepare them for a 21st century global environment.

In reality blended instruction is comprised of similar practices to how Robert Marzano (2001) and Charlotte Danielson (2007) define an excellent traditional classroom. Albeit with pedagogy changes to include modifications for technology integration with allocations for the larger roles for universal design, digital considerations and instructional design in order to prepare global citizens.

Frameworks

Oliver’s Frameworks are divided into six dimensions that are referred to as Domains: Instruction, Professional Responsibilities, Technology, Planning and Preparation, Curriculum, and Instructional Design.

Domains:

DOMAIN 1: Instruction
DOMAIN 2: Professional Responsibilities
DOMAIN 3: Technology
DOMAIN 4:Planning & Preparation
DOMAIN 5: Curriculum
DOMAIN 6: Design

Figure 1.1 Oliver’s Blended Framework

framework2

Within each of the six domains, there are Elements or Indicators. Each Indicator is designed to address a more focused topic. For example, within the Technology domain one would find the “Manages Technical Resources” Indicator (see Table 1.1). Each Indicator provides a measurable Standard and a Value Judgment (see Table 1.1). Each Value Judgment, which is unique to Oliver’s Frameworks and meant to give a qualitative peak into what the standard might look like in an actual classroom, provides a depiction in context of the expectation and may align to a variety of standards. These are representative throughout the Frameworks, both online and blended.

Table 1.1 Example of Technology Indicator with Standard and Value Judgment

Domain: Technology
Indicator D: Manages Technical Resources

III.D.1.

Standard: The instructor manages technical resources.

Value Judgment: Any technical equipment assigned to or present in the classroom is organized so as not to distract learners. In addition to maintaining a current inventory of equipment, the instructor maintains records of learner usage of the equipment. If the instructor is responsible for software updates, all are current. Proper organizational protocols are followed for lost, stolen or damaged equipment.

Corresponding examples are provided that represent four different levels of implementation of the standards in an IC Map. The contextual examples provide four ranges of skillsets indicating how skillsets of how an instructor might implement the standards, ranging from ‘Exemplary,” which is the model value judgment, personalized and challenging, to “Excellent,” then “Expected” and lastly “Emerging,” which represents the minimum standard for the least experienced level of implementation.

Table 1.2 Example of Innovation Configuration Map

III. Technology: III.D. Manages technical resources
III.D. Domain: Indicator: Technology: Integration
III.D.1.
Standard: The instructor manages technical resources.
Value Judgment: Any technical equipment assigned to or present in the classroom is organized so as not to distract learners. In addition to maintaining a current inventory of equipment, the instructor maintains records of learner usage of the equipment. If the instructor is responsible for software updates, all are current. Proper organizational protocols are followed for lost, stolen or damaged equipment.
Exemplary	Excellent	Expected	Emerging
In order to ensure seamless integration of technology into the blended classroom the instructor has an inventory of equipment and a system for assigning equipment to students that allows him to monitor use of software and hardware. Students are oriented to the system early on so that it is a routine part of classroom behavior. For example, students know to review the posted daily procedures to determine which type of technology will be used and/or how to group themselves for the daily activities. The routine includes ending the lesson with enough time for students to shut down, return and store devices properly for the next class. Additionally, the instructor ensures that technical and digital resources in the classroom or computer lab are ready to use for each lesson by maintaining software updates or by contacting the school’s technology staff, if necessary, to install needed software prior to the intended lesson. If space allows, the instructor also arranges the room in such a way that students can work in groups away from the digital equipment but are able to quickly and efficiently gain access to the equipment without disrupting the flow of their work. The teacher has a management system in place such as a class online wiki, electronic signaling system, or a physical signal such as placing red cups on the desk so that students may indicate they need help progressing through the use of the technology without distracting other students from their work while interacting with technical equipment.	In order to ensure seamless integration of technology into the blended classroom the instructor has an inventory of equipment and a system for assigning equipment to students that allows him to monitor use of software and hardware. Students are oriented to the system early on so that it is a routine part of classroom behavior. For example, students know to review the posted daily procedures to determine which type of technology will be used and/or how to group themselves for the daily activities. The routine includes ending the lesson with enough time for students to shut down, return and store devices properly for the next class. Additionally, the instructor ensures that technical and digital resources in the classroom or computer lab are ready to use for each lesson by maintaining software updates or by contacting the school’s technology staff, if necessary, to install needed software prior to the intended lesson. Students may indicate they need help by raising their hands or sending a designated delegate to a neighboring group for advice.	The instructor ensures that technical and digital resources in the classroom or computer lab are ready to use for each lesson by maintaining software updates on any equipment for which she am responsible or by contacting the school’s technology staff if necessary. The instructor has a system for assigning technical equipment to students that allows her to keep an inventory and student use log of all technical equipment. Students are trained to shut down and return devices for the next class.	The instructor has a system for assigning technical equipment to students that allows her to keep an inventory and student use log of all technical equipment.

Domains

Instruction. Instruction is traditionally recognized as a necessary best practice in teacher guidance; however, in the digital realm there are additional key components to identify for excellence beyond what is traditionally studied to prepare for the classroom. Technology allows for teachers to truly facilitate student learning, giving them the opportunity to create a constructivist environment, where students experience learning in an engaging setting. In order to do this a balance between providing a secure environment and confidence in tools and knowledge as new skills and content are acquired must be mastered. Balancing these skills, while taking advantage of the knowledge available from formative and summative data afforded by digital assessments to measure student engagement while still employing traditional measurements is truly an art. Teachers need guidance and the chance to gain expertise as they determine how to create an experiential classroom driven by personalized student learning as they continue to include strategies of traditional instruction that are equally successful for student growth, all while building and maintaining excellent student rapport.

Professional Responsibilities. While both the traditional and digital classrooms require specific professional behaviors that have been outlined in previous frameworks there are additional and shifting responsibilities to consider in a digital environment. Educators have a newly defined sense of ethical behaviors around data awareness and digital security. Educators must take digital security and cyber-bullying into consideration when planning lessons, but this also must become the reality of a safe classroom, whether in person or digital. Student safety extends beyond classroom walls or firewalls. Documentation of student behaviors and expectations expand to include digital means in addition to methods that develop teacher:student rapport, and educators must be savvy in developing these relationships as well as astute and aware of modern technologies to engage students. In addition to academic knowledge educators must remain current on technologies to motivate and prepare students to be ready for a global workforce.

Planning and Preparation. Much like in the traditional environment an immense focus for educators is spent on planning and preparation. However, in the digital space there are additional components to take into consideration. In a traditional English classroom, for example, the teacher must preview all materials for appropriateness. While the digital instructor must do this regarding content, just like the traditional classroom, there are additional areas to investigate that can be modeled for students as digital literacy. For example, is the site from which the material is being viewed trustworthy and relevant? In addition, if there are any activities allowing interaction, what ratings do the simulations have, and are the ratings from credible sources? Are there special considerations that need to be made for students with challenges or is the instructional design of the page laid out in such a way that assistive technologies can access content? What about student privacy? Will the site sell student data if the teacher assigns homework from a specific site? Many of these topics are gaining traction by the day with new rulings and advances in technology, so it is imperative that teachers collaborate and participate in professional development around the medium. Experiential learning in online professional learning communities (PLC) is one way many professionals are staying abreast of the current research. An added convenience of using digital resources is the assessment data that can be available to provide to teachers. While there is a wealth of data available for teachers to use in personalizing learning for students, educators must plan accordingly and understand the implications and applications of the data.

Technology Management. It is essential that the instructor in the digital classroom integrate technical resources efficiently. This includes developing an engaging environment with a continuum of comfort between f2f and online resources. Without appropriate management of both hardware and software, essential components in the digital classroom become more of a distraction than a resource. This adds a layer of instruction to the traditional environment for teachers. Creating a safe and engaging environment, where students are comfortable with the technology, even consideration of the traffic pattern of the classroom, require a new standard for classroom management and teacher:student rapport, not to mention knowledge. In the planning and preparation phase teachers must scaffold in such a way that students are familiar with the technology in order to provide the least distracting environment so that the technology becomes seamless, allowing students to focus on the content and instruction.

Curriculum. Foundations of good instruction and solid learning theory have not changed. Advances in technology, however, have created efficient and personalized resources for engaging learners and individualizing instruction. In the traditional classroom the limitation of time and planning may have precluded teachers from the ability to personalize instruction. Technology, however, has provided tools for teachers that serve as resources to assist in individualized student planning. That being said, when blended and online instruction represent good learning theory and are married with excellent digital resources, educators are afforded the opportunity to facilitate instruction, and students may drive their own learning. In order to do so, curriculum must provide resources for diverse learners. Instructors must be trained to select curriculum that takes advantage of opportunities afforded by the medium. For example, digital curriculum allows educators to engage students in activities that address the learning styles of all learners, and diverse needs of students may be met through assessment styles.

Instructional Design. The instructional design for digital classrooms is essential for a smooth adoption. The design includes a student-centric focus as well as the theory and implementation of integrating authentic activities. However, if the instructional design overlooks how students will acquire resources to accomplish activities that meet these learning goals, students will not be able to meet goals and objectives. For example, if students need a piece of open source software to complete an activity, it should be easily referenced in materials for download. If this is overlooked, then the students’ frustration levels may rise, disrupting the learning process. This flow of understanding and the design of the course significantly impacts the students’ engagement and interest level in the medium. Another key component of instructional design is modeling digital literacy. If students are asked to review a document, it is crucial that the document be credible and cited. Modeling adherence to copyright laws and appropriate documentation reinforces Instruction, Planning and Preparation, and is a required skill of NETS and ISTE standards, for example.

Summary of Domains

By reviewing a summary of the domains the overlap of each in order to provide a seamless blended learning experience for students is obvious. This design is intentional, for one cannot design the Curriculum for a blended or online classroom without taking into consideration guidance for Instructional Design or Instruction, for example. Implementation of such curriculum requires Planning and Preparation, Technology Management and the duties required in Professional Responsibilities. The overlap of all six domains becomes even more evident in concrete examples as presented in the Value Judgments of Oliver’s Frameworks. Thus, the instruction needed for both blended and online learning requires such additional and even divergent measures from the traditional classroom that a new pedagogy emerges. The complexities and skillsets needed to teach in these environments are not “apples to oranges” per say. Rather, the added layers of skills and complexities are “apples plus oranges,” metaphorically speaking.

References

Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison, Wesley Longman.

Bailey, G. D. & Pownell, D. (1998) Technology staff-development and support programs: Applying Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Learning & Leading with Technology 26 (3).

Barbour, M. K., Clark, T., DeBruler, K., & Bruno, J. (2014). Evaluation and Approval Constructs for Online and Blended Courses and Providers. Retrieved from http://media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/eval_constructs.pdf

Carson, E. H. (2012). Self-directed learning and academic achievement in secondary online students. Ed.D Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/35/23/3523738.html Proquest database.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English Language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Filament Games (n.d.). Argument Wars [software]. Retrieved May 24, 2013 from http://www.icivics.org/games

Gagne, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind the theory of multiple intelligences (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses in education. London: Routledge.

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2008). National standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/NACOL_QualityTeaching-lr.pdf

International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2011). National standards for quality online teaching, version2012. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/iNACOL_TeachingStandardsv2.pdf

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). ISTE standards students. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-S_PDF.pdf

International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). NETS-T. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,4(4), 370-396. doi: 10.1037/h0054346

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010) Common Core State Standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington D.C.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

Oliver, W. L. (2010). Investigating Whether a Value-Added Teaching Effectiveness Model Designed for Traditional Classrooms Can Be Used to Measure Online Teaching Quality. Ed.D, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED525804 Proquest database.

Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2006a). Standards for quality online courses. Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T05_Standards_quality_online_courses.pdf

Southern Regional Education Board. (2006b). Standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06T02_Standards_Online_Teaching.pdf

Southern Regional Education Board. (2009). Guidelines for professional development of online teachers. Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2009/09T01_Guide_profdev_online_teach.pdf

Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, 52-91.