Tamara Downey - March, 2011 What has it achieved?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Grampians Virtual School
Virtual, Blended Provision
What has it achieved?
Gary Schultz
March, 2011
Prepared by:
Tamara Downey
INTRODUCTION
The following report outlines the leadership development context for the 2010 Baillieu
Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship winner, Mr. Gary Schultz. It aims to
promote discussion about technology in education and blended learning in schools in
particular. The extension of leadership in rural education and personal professional
growth made possible by the Baillieu Myer 2010 award took place within the field of
blended learning. Blended learning refers to a learning environment mediated by
technology where teachers use a mix of strategies in both synchronous and asynchronous
modes of support and delivery. This report draws on Mr. Schultz’s professional learning
experience during 2010‐2011 – action research, study tour and use of research literature –
to show how the meaningful inclusion of technologies into teaching and learning is
creating new and significant possibilities for rural education. As Moyle (2010:5) states:
“The challenges for educators in the 21st‐century can be summarised as requiring fresh
thinking about what is taught, how it is taught and why it is taught”. A major outcome of
the professional inquiry enabled by the Baillieu Myer Award and presented in this
scholarship report is validation of the idea that blended learning is a viable and meaningful
educational alternative for rural students and their teachers.
Rural schools grappling with the most effective way to provide for students’ needs using
learning technologies are looking for answers to at least three fundamental questions, as
identified by Bosco (2010:4‐5):
• How does fostering innovation and creativity advance from being an abstract goal
to a concrete reality in school programs?
• What is a school? Is it no longer necessarily a place?
• Can school personnel take a full measure of benefit from these [technology‐based]
resources to make our schools work better for our kids?
As a case study of innovation in 21st‐century curriculum provision, the Wimmera Virtual
School – now known as Grampians Virtual School 1 – leads the search in Victoria for
answers to these questions. The following discussion concentrates on the evolution of the
Grampians Virtual School (GVS) in order to share how this model of blended learning is
meeting rural students’ needs effectively; in sharing evidence of this early success, the
discussion also identifies areas for future research and development. The report consists
of three main sections: an introductory section outlining the GVS model of virtual, blended
provision as the professional learning context, an analysis and discussion section
presenting a current picture of teaching and learning in a blended environment and a
conclusion and recommendations section which considers the implications of this picture
for the nature of teaching and learning into the future. Scholarship work during 2010‐11
has concentrated on virtual, blended provision in the senior years of schooling, finding
1 The Wimmera Virtual School was renamed Grampians Virtual School in February 2011 to incorporate
Central and Highlands networks as well as a small number of schools from Barwon South West and Loddon
Mallee regions. The acronym GVS as used throughout this report refers to the operation of the school since
its inception as the Wimmera Virtual School in 2009. http://wimmeravirtualschool.wikispaces.com
that the provision of a differentiated and somewhat self‐paced, self‐directed approach to
teaching and learning in a blended learning environment can better engage students.
Learning with Technologies – The Grampians Virtual School
Over the past two decades, the importance to individuals and societies of including
technologies into education and training at all levels has become clear. Research evidence
shows that these technologies are changing the ways in which students and teachers find,
create, share and gain knowledge (DEECD, 2010). In Australia and overseas, the virtual
provision of education, utilising blended learning approaches, has emerged as a viable way
to provide for learning in rural areas. The Grampians Virtual School has grown to suit the
local situation in north‐west Victoria and is currently a network of 23 schools and 200
students led by Gary Schultz as Virtual Learning Systems Project Officer. Importantly,
however, technology in and of itself cannot transform learning and the GVS offers a model
from which other administrators, educators and communities can learn how to assist
students in the achievement of their chosen pathway in addition to traditional modes of
schooling. Other models of virtual provision visited during the study tour confirm that the
type of learning made possible for students in virtual learning environments represents a
significant move away from traditional teaching and learning:
With developments of teaching in an online environment, I teach the kids in my face-to-
face classes here at school in a more online way now, I don’t stand in front of the class
and ‘teach’ hardly at all anymore. I walk around the room and they are doing the online
work and I give them assistance when they require. They are usually always at different
stages. I provide different levels and types of resources and activities or standards for the
students to work on, they choose that which they want to do, get assistance from me when
required. I try and tailor the programs to suit the needs of the individual students, they
can go as far and fast as they want to go.
– Lynda Walsh-Pascoe, OtagoNet Cluster, New Zealand Virtual Learning Network
In the GVS, this blended model of curriculum delivery is negotiated by teachers and
students to incorporate the best mix of online and face‐to‐face instruction. The mix is
varied across the GVS depending upon personal circumstances, suitable access and subject
requirements. Many definitions of blended learning abound (Watson, 2008), ranging from
incorporation of some use of educational technology (e.g. interactive whiteboard) to a
percentage breakdown of online curriculum and face‐to‐face instruction. Rather than
being wholely and solely about the technology however, blended learning represents a
shift in instructional strategy. “Blended learning should be viewed as a pedagogical
approach that combines the effectiveness and socialisation opportunities of the classroom
with the technologically enhanced active learning possibilities of the online environment,
rather than a ratio of delivery modalities” (Watson, 2008:5). The breadth and diversity of
blended learning approaches means the main feature of this pedagogical approach overall
is its flexibility. The promise of blended learning is that it can be adapted for the type of
subject, learning context and teachers and learners involved. Visiting other schools where
blended learning is successfully occurring has endorsed the educational direction taken by
GVS whereby technology is used by teachers to differentiate learning for students, i.e. that
2 Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Report
the learning drives the use of technology and not vice versa. 2 The mix of learning
technologies used in the GVS is a combination of synchronous and asynchronous elements
as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Components of blended learning in the GVS
In a virtual learning environment such as GVS, teachers have ‘local’ students in front of
them and ‘remote’ students via video‐conferencing. Other technologies such as email,
learning management systems and web conferencing are used to support learning outside
of the virtual synchronous class time. The use of the Moodle™ learning management
system in the GVS model offers students and teachers the capacity to personalise learning
opportunities and to put students in control of the pace of their learning (Moyle, 2010).
Students can access content, revision notes and practice tests from remote locations,
including podcasts, video footage and screencasts recorded by their teacher. Students
learn through videoconferencing with teachers, and often other virtual classmates, in at
least one other location. In 2011, not just point‐to‐point but multi‐point classes are
running where up to four schools are connected at the same time. It is the intention that
when the Ultranet 3 can successfully link students and teachers from different schools, it
will become the primary platform for online and resource sharing, providing further
opportunities for collaboration across Victoria and systemic application of technological
tools.
Consistent with international developments in
virtual provision of education (Cisco, 2010), the
growth of the Grampians Virtual School since 2009
has been driven by the need to provide students
with greater subject choices together with teacher
and student demand and expectations surrounding
the use of learning technologies (Moyle, 2009).
Issues of distance and resourcing which have
previously limited the breadth and quality of the
Figure 2: Numbers of schools successful in curriculum offered to senior students have been
aligning students, teachers and timetables
overcome in the Grampians region by co‐operation
2See Appendix 1. DEECD Grampians Region 2011 Draft Statement – Learning for All … Whatever It Takes
3For more information about the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development’s
Ultranet go to: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/directions/ultranet/default.htm
Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Report 3
between schools to align timetable blockings for VCE subjects. The pattern of growth is
such that more educational pathways are now available to students due to greater subject
choices across the virtual learning network. 4 Figure 2 above, and Figures 3 and 4 below
illustrate the growth of the GVS since 2009, showing the rise in numbers of schools, virtual
classes and student enrolments.
Schools that have traditionally utilised the
Distance Education Centre of Victoria
(DECV) to ‘fill the gaps’ in subject
provision have progressively seen the GVS
model as a more attractive alternative.
Figure 2 shows the number of schools fully
engaged in virtual provision since 2009.
2009 2010 2011 Other schools that have investigated the
possibility, been involved in discussions or
offered subjects virtually but links could
not be made across the network or no
Figure 3: GVS student numbers 200911 student chose this subject are not included.
Due to the growing number of schools in
which blended learning is occurring, increased acceptance and integration on a greater
scale is envisaged. The rise in enrolments in virtual classes is comparative to that seen in
the Florida Virtual School which experiences 40% increase in enrolments each year.
The growth of the GVS is reflective of the
enthusiasm by schools and students to
engage in this style of provision. Such
growth, however, has implications in terms of
guideline development to facilitate fair and
reasonable, cooperative reciprocity and
sharing of resources. This is particularly
important as there is no monetary exchange
in the GVS model. By comparison, Florida
and New Zealand models include structures
Figure 4: Number of GVS classes 200911
of payment or agreed combinations of
sharing and payment. Other factors require further consideration as well. OHS and
workload guidelines that have been developed by GVS to date need further discussion,
clarification and alignment to suit a wider range of school demographics. Good systems
for monitoring and documenting enrolments, student progress, feedback and technical
assistance for students and teachers are necessary. Whilst most of these issues have been
addressed by the GVS to some degree, wider collaboration by stakeholders is required,
with the possible creation of a board of management or similar made up of teachers,
timetablers, Principal class and Regional representation. The learning opportunity
provided by the study tour to compare and contrast different models of virtual, blended
4 See Appendix 2 for graphic representations of the growth of the virtual learning network since 2009.
4 Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Report
provision has confirmed that developments in Victoria are equal to, if not ahead in some
respects of the virtual learning landscape in Florida, Canada and New Zealand.
Examination of the educational, administrative and technological aspects associated with
virtual provision internationally has generated many ideas for continued growth and
improvement. Future possibilities include clustering of schools as in New Zealand
whereby students across the virtual learning network express subject preferences which
are matched to teacher availability rather than stand‐alone schools working out links via
alignment of timetables.
BLENDED LEARNING AND LEARNING OUTCOMES
Student Learning Outcomes
The greater access to educational pathways for senior students made possible by the
establishment of the Grampians Virtual School entails examination of student performance
in this modality. Does blended learning make a difference to student achievement?
Discussion in this section of the report concentrates on the results for senior students to
date using data collected in the course of scholarship work. Two main sets of data are
presented: a comparison of aggregate results for GVS remote students with aggregate
results for GVS local students and secondly, a comparison of results in GVS subjects with
results in home school subjects on an individual student basis. In 2010, as per Figure 3
above, 26 students took GVS subjects from remote locations at Years 11 & 12 level and 65
students across the network were in virtual classes as local students (classes where the
teacher was also teaching remote
students). Figure 5 shows the
performance of 15 of these 26 remote
students in comparison with the
performance of 29 of the 65 local
students in 2010. Data for the entire
number of students in both local and
remote cohorts was unavailable at the
time of writing. Figure 5 shows that
for 53% of remote students, their
virtual subject was in their top three
ranked subjects and for 47% of these Figure 5: Comparison of 2010 subject rankings
students, their virtual subject was in for local and remote students
their bottom three ranked subjects. Students enrolled in one virtual subject only as
remote students; some students were also in a local class which was being provided to
other schools virtually. For students who were in virtual classes during 2010 as local
students, 55% had results in this subject in their top three rankings and for 45% of this
group, the virtual subject ranked as one of their bottom three results. Comparing the
performance of remote students with that of local students in this way indicates that
students are not disadvantaged by taking subjects in a virtual classroom, given that
student performance is roughly equal for both local and remote groups of students.
Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Report 5The finding that there was little difference in the ranking of subjects between students
whose teacher was at a remote location compared to students whose teacher was in front
of them would suggest that for students involved in blended learning, the learning is not
compromised for either group. On an individual student basis, however, how does
performance in GVS subjects compare with regular subjects taken in students’ home
schools? Table 1 compares results for 8 of 15 Year 12 students across the virtual learning
network who had taken one virtual subject each (as remote students) in 2010. Of the 26
remote students in 2010, results for those Year 12 students who had completed six VCE
subjects were sought to look at performance across the broadest possible range of
subjects; 15 students were in this category but data for only 8 of them was available at the
time of writing.
Table 1. Individual VCE Student Performance GVS 2010
Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 Subject 5 Average GVS Subject
Student 1 36 35 31 30 37 33.8 36
Student 2 37 32 32 34 33 33.6 29
Student 3 39 34 34 34 36 35.4 29
Student 4 36 39 37 28 31 34.2 39
Student 5 34 35 35 41 45 38 25
Student 6 25 33 39 29 32 31.6 25
Student 7 31 27 19 30 35 28.4 20
Student 8 34 35 35 41 45 38 25
For students 1 and 4, performance in the GVS subject is equivalent to, if not better than
results in other subjects; for students 2, 3 and 6, GVS results are close to mainstream
subject results and for students 5, 7 and 8 GVS performance is generally below
performance in other subjects. Average results for home school subjects compared with
GVS results are reasonably close in most cases. The data suggests that remote student
results in virtual subjects are generally as good as those in traditional subjects or at least
that blended learning is not having a negative impact on students’ learning. The data
presented in Figure 5 and Table 1 are provided for discussion rather than as conclusive
evidence about the impact of blended learning on student results. A larger study using
more targeted research methods is required to examine the effect of blended learning on
student achievement.
The above data is reported in light of the research literature concerning measurement of
the value of technologies in school education. Studies over the past decade have
highlighted the difficulty in demonstrating a causal link between use of technology and
improved student outcomes (Moyle, 2010) and to date, “… there is no definitive
correlation between increased investments in ICT and better test results” (Cisco, 2008:14).
According to current New Zealand research: “Unfortunately with the tools we used, we
6 Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Reportdidn't actually find significant differences in the growth as a 'learner' of the
'blended/online learners' (which I'm sure does happen when these learners are well
supported) [italics his] compared to students only doing traditional face‐to‐face classes”
(K. Pullar, 2011, personal correspondence). Clearly, further investigation is needed to
fully understand the effects of blended learning. As Moyle (2008:225) states: “Little
research has been undertaken to investigate the complex issue of the value of technologies
in schools, but school leaders are regularly required to make pedagogical, policy,
accountability, financial and infrastructure judgments about the value of teaching and
learning with technologies”. The continued growth of GVS requires a larger evidence‐base
to show how not only access to technology but how the application of technological tools,
resulting in valuable learning, can take place. The identified relationship between
evidence‐informed inquiry and school improvement (Timperley and Parr, 2010)
reinforces the need for evidence‐based decision‐making: “A challenge that remains for
school leaders is to identify and establish mechanisms that enable ongoing, regular easy
access to data that can inform school‐based decisions” (Moyle, 2008:225). It is important
to note – from the experience of Grampians Virtual School and from the literature – that
when technology does not produce improvements in student outcomes, it is often because
the necessary conditions for the effective integration of technology, including clarity
around how technology can best serve educational objectives, have not been met (Cisco,
2008).
Learning Outcomes for Teachers
For GVS teachers, the transition from traditional teaching to the different pedagogical
requirements of blended teaching and learning has seen new levels of support, instruction
and facilitation required of teachers. What have these changes meant for teachers and
how can such achievements be evaluated? Blending physical attendance at school with
online learning has obvious implications in terms of the way schools are organised, new
methods of instruction and assessment, access to and development of (digital) content and
professional learning but perceived barriers such as inadequate technical skills and
insufficient or inferior technology in the school are less important than the teacher’s
fundamental approach to the design and execution of the learning experience. For
example, one GVS teacher has successfully created a learning environment for students
without having the technical skills in all areas herself to complete those tasks required of
students (including tasks set by students for themselves). This teacher however has the
preparedness to be unafraid of the technology, seek technical help when needed,
incorporate changes incrementally, accommodate disruptions that inevitably arise from
using technology and most importantly, approach her teaching in such a way that she is
ready to go with her students where they need to go. John Hattie’s view on what actually
works in schools to improve learning is relevant here:
The message I read from the research is that blended, virtual learning is not the message
– it is what is done using it in the name of teaching. It is all about the teaching. I think
we spend too much energy on the medium and forget the quality of instruction that can be
used using these methods. – Hattie 2011, personal correspondence.
Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Report 7The re‐thinking of teacher practice in a virtual environment as described in the literature – from a “prescriptive” approach to a “connective” approach (Guidara, 2011) – underscores the critical importance of the teaching act first and foremost. The increase in virtual teaching as evidenced by the growth of the GVS – 35 teachers have now taught via video conferencing and use of online tools with 17 new teachers in 2011 running virtual classes – is a strong indicator of teacher perception that this is a viable way to teach. As the extent of virtual teaching ranges from dial‐in by a remote student supported by fax material to student‐teacher communication via Skype® at scheduled times and recording lecture‐style lessons for loading on the GVS Moodle™, teachers are finding new ways (e.g. document camera) to both communicate with and teach their students. When teachers of VCE subjects with low numbers of students can also teach virtually, this will in turn expand the capacity of GVS to meet senior students’ needs. Professional learning required to support such expansion is critical to sustained growth; as Hague and Payton identify, “… time for teachers to engage with changing practices and to connect with other practitioners to share ideas and experiences has been shown to be essential in ensuring lasting change” (2010:54). Interestingly, there has been interest in teacher expertise in the virtual use of technologies from outside the education sector; Telstra as Australia’s premier telecommunications corporation has expressed interest in learning GVS teachers’ views around the optimum conditions for teaching and communication using these technologies. One of the issues raised in the literature is that non‐traditional forms of learning are often seen as being suitable only for students with skills in areas such as self‐motivation and time management. The experience of the GVS would suggest that while self‐directed and self‐paced learning is a reality, students still need direction and to be ‘kept on track’; the importance of synchronicity in guiding, supporting and demonstrating care for students cannot be underestimated. Students too in the learning with technologies research literature testify to the significance of “… high quality teachers who form positive relationships and can construct relevant and engaging learning contexts, with and without technologies” (Moyle, 2009). The observed benefits of blended learning evident from the current inquiry are increased student motivation to learn through self‐directed and interest‐focused work, personalized learning that supports different learning styles, levels and capacities and greater student control of learning. On the spectrum from fully online to fully face‐to‐face teaching, blended learning varies considerably in the breadth and depth to which it is utilised by teachers. The benefits of blended learning discovered through Gary Schultz’s educational leadership of GVS, observed by him here and elsewhere and confirmed in the research literature can be crystallised as follows: That the provision of a differentiated and somewhat self‐paced, self‐directed approach to teaching and learning in a virtual, blended learning environment can better engage students. Twelve months scholarship work in the area concludes with the related proposition that blended learning offers rural schools a huge opportunity to differentiate learning for students. 8 Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Report
CONCLUSION
The learning opportunity afforded by the 2010 Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership
Scholarship has enabled a significant chapter of professional growth for the recipient
which has in turn contributed to the expansion of the Grampians Virtual School and a far
greater understanding and appreciation across the sector of the exciting possibilities
offered by virtual, blended provision for school education and rural school education in
particular. Given the challenges for rural education but also the opportunities that
technology brings to meet these challenges, the opportunity for leadership development in
the field of blended learning has been invaluable. By looking at the evolution of the GVS
model since 2009 and outcomes and issues for GVS students and teachers arising from
blended learning to date, this paper has reported on the continued search for better and
more effective ways to meet the needs of rural students. Discussion concludes by scanning
the horizon, making the following recommendations for ongoing growth in this area. It is
proposed that the extent to which blended learning has the potential to increase access to
education, not just for senior students in the Grampians region but more broadly, is the
extent to which:
• Stakeholders’ understanding of the relationship between equipment ‘needs’ and
processes of learning in virtual, blended provision strikes a successful balance
• The need for those involved in schools to effectively support the growing number of
students and teachers engaged in blended learning is met
• Teacher perception that this is a real alternative for rural students is strengthened
by opportunities to build practitioner knowledge and share professional learning
• Young people in schools are given a voice about how teaching and learning that
includes technologies can occur given that the potential of blended learning is not
just about access to technology
• Further evaluation and research is not only conducted but is aimed at measuring
the effects of the myriad types of learning that combine online and face‐to‐face
delivery.
Because blended learning can vary in many ways, it presents a number of challenges: for
research and policy, for allowing innovation in directions that may not be foreseeable at
this time, for overcoming practical, technical and pedagogical issues based on old methods
of teaching and learning, for the conduct of professional learning in schools. Meeting these
challenges brings with it a necessity, recognised by researchers and practitioners, to
reconsider the assumptions and paradigms upon which teaching and learning with
technologies are based; rather than simply trying to slot technologies into a pre‐existing
curriculum, educators are now afforded a serious opportunity to rethink the ways in
which they carry out their work (Moyle, 2010). According to the Melbourne Declaration on
Educational Goals for Young Australians, “… schooling should offer a range of pathways to
meet the diverse needs and aspirations of all young Australians” (MCEETYA, 2008:12); in
light of the scholarship of Mr. Schultz, it is hard to see how this goal can be achieved
without blended learning.
Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Report 9REFERENCE LIST Bosco, J. (2010) ‘Foreword’. In Moyle, K. (2010) ‘Building Innovation: Learning with Technologies’. Australian Education Review: 56. Available: http://research.acer.edu.au/aer/10 Accessed March 9, 2011. Cisco (2008) Equipping Every Learner for the 21st Century. Available: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/citizenship/socio‐economic/docs/GlobalEdWP.pdf Accessed March 9, 2011. Cisco (2010) The Learning Society. Available: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/citizenship/socioeconomic/docs/LearningSociety_Wh itePaper.pdf Accessed March 9, 2011. DEECD (2010) Study Tour USA and Canada Grampians Region September 6October 13. Internal Document. DEECD (2010) Connecting People: Digital Learning Platforms Research Series Paper No. 2. Available: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/researchinnovation/resources/recentpubl.htm Accessed March 9, 2011. Guidara, S. (2011) Digital Age Education: Why Blended Learning Works. Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Presentation, Melbourne, March 4 2011. Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010) Digital Literacy across the Curriculum. Available: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/digital‐literacy‐handbook Accessed March 9, 2011 Hattie, J.A.C. (2009) Visible Learning. Oxon: Routledge. MCEETYA (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Moyle, K. (2008) What is the value of educational technologies in schools?: Initial findings from the International Research Project ‘Measuring the Value of Educational Technologies in Schools’ Project. International Journal of Learning. 15:9. pp.219‐226. Moyle, K. and Owen, S. (2009) Listening to Students’ and Educators’ Voices: The views of students and early career educators about learning with technologies in Australian education and training Research Findings. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Moyle, K. (2010) ‘Building Innovation: Learning with Technologies’. Australian Education Review: 56. Available: http://research.acer.edu.au/aer/10 Accessed March 9, 2011. Timperley, H. and Parr, J. (eds.) (2010) Weaving Evidence, Inquiry and Standards to Build Better Schools. New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research Press. Watson, J. (2008) Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and FacetoFace Education. North American Council for Online Learning. Available: http://www.inacol.org/research/promisingpractices/NACOL_PP‐BlendedLearning‐lr.pdf Accessed March 9, 2011. 10 Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Report
ACCESS to EXCELLENCE in Education for ALL STUDENTS LEARNING FOR ALL .......... WHATEVER IT TAKES
Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 Report 11Appendix 2
Grampians Virtual School
Class links
12 Baillieu Myer Rural Education Leadership Scholarship 2010 ReportYou can also read
