Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byDavid Wicks
Closing the 2-Sigma Gap: Eight Strategies to Replicate One-to-One Tutoring in Blended Learning
This document discusses strategies for replicating one-to-one tutoring in blended learning environments, highlighting eight key strategies: improving instructional materials, enhancing peer interactions, and engaging higher mental processes. It emphasizes the importance of individualized instruction, cooperative learning, and the effective use of feedback and metacognitive training. The strategies aim to address student differences and improve overall learning outcomes in blended learning courses.
More Related Content
Similar to Closing the 2-Sigma Gap: Eight Strategies to Replicate One-to-One Tutoring in Blended Learning
Closing the 2-Sigma Gap: Eight Strategies to Replicate One-to-One Tutoring in Blended Learning
- 1. Closing the 2-SigmaGap 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
- 2. Closing the 2Sigma Gap
- 3.
- 4.
- 5. How can instructorsreplicate 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
- 6. 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
- 7. Improving Instructional Materials 1 Quan/ty of instruc/on 2 Cues and explana/ons
- 8. 1 Quantity ofInstruction 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)
- 9. Improving Quantity ofInstruction 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
- 10. 2 Cues andExplanations Informa/on or ques/ons shared by instructor or students to help scaffold understanding
- 11. Improving Cues andExplanations 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)
- 12. Enhancing Peer Interactions 3 Coopera/ve learning 4 Class environment
- 13. 3 Cooperative Learning Use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each others' learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991)
- 14. 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)
- 15. 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)
- 16. 4 Class Environment Communica/on Characteris/cs of an Effec/ve LMS (Elias, 2010; Higgins et al., 2005)
- 17. Improving Communication through LMSOrganization 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
- 18. Simple and Intuitive Organize content Labels
- 19. Considering Student Differences 5 Tutorial instruc/on 6 Feedback
- 20. 5 Tutorial Instruction Individualized instruc/on that supports regular classroom instruc/on
- 22. 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)
- 23. 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)
- 24. Characteristics of EffectiveFeedback Performance criteria, direc/on for improving Opportunity for correc/ons Efficient, /mely delivery Customized Developed
- 25. 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)
- 26. Engaging Higher MentalProcesses 7 Metacogni/ve training 8 Goals
- 27. 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)
- 28. Kinds of Metacogni/ve Knowledge Strategy Task How, when, why, where to apply strategy Self Learner awareness of strengths and weaknesses
- 29. 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)
- 30. 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
- 31. Characteristics of Goals Fact, idea, principle, capability, skill, concept, technique, value, feeling Specific Self-‐assess Evidence
- 32. 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)
- 33. 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
- 34. 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.