Article Review #3 - EDU 6250

Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015).  Revising the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework.  Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380-393.

Summary

            This article provided a literature review of blended learning and subsequently proposed a framework for blended learning that incorporates elements of complex adaptive systems theory.  The literature review indicated the effectiveness of blended learning and its positive impact on education.  For example, studies have confirmed that learners transform from passive subject to active participants when engaging in a blended learning environment.  On the other hand, the authors' review of literature suggest that the the vast majoring of studies centered around blended learning are of short duration, conducted just at the course or task level, and focus on just one or a few aspects of blended learning.

          The proposed framework, named the Complex Adaptive Blended Learning System (CABLS), is a six-dimensional framework that explores the relationships within and between each sub-system in a dynamic and non-linear fashion.  The six subsystems include the learner, the teacher, the technology, the content, the learning support, and the institution.  One large difference between CABLS and other blended learning frameworks is the focus on learning support.  Learning support is provided in two different ways:  Academic support that helps learners develop effective learning strategies and technical support that helps learners utilize the required technology.  Furthermore, the authors contend that by "including the institution as a subsystem in the framework elevates blended learning from the course level to the institutional level."  The institution plays a large role in the development and sustainability of a blended learning framework within the institution.

          The review of 87 articles indicated that 95% of articles focus on the learner, 79% focus on the content, and only 54% focus on the technology.  The percentages begin to drop dramatically, with only 32% of articles focusing on the teacher, and 17% and 15% focusing on the institution and on learning support, respectively.  These results indicate that more in-depth research needs to be conducted that focuses on both the institution and learning support, as well as their relationships with the other subsystems in the framework.  

          Even with the gaps in research detailed above, the overall finding suggest that blended learning has great potential to improve both learning outcomes and learners' attitudes.  Most studies indicated that learners are more engaged, independent, and empowered when engaging in a blended learning environment.  The CABLS framework  is able to "promote a systematic and holistic view of blending learning, providing us with a more complete pictures of such learning."  This framework differs from existing models because it not only examines each subsystem on its own, but it allows us to explore the dynamic and non-linear relationships between these subsystems.  

Reflection

            I believe that the authors did a great job reviewing the literature concerning blended learning.  As a result, their research did point to holes in existing frameworks and brought topics to the forefront for additional research.  I do agree that the institution and learning support would be essential elements to a successful blended learning environment.  It is surprising that research regarding the institution is lacking, because I feel that for any learning technology to be implemented at the program level, there must be strong support from the institution.  I am not surprised, however, that learning support is the least represented among all of the subsystems discussed in this article.  The importance of learning support is often underestimated, but can make a large impact on student success -- sometimes even more so than the affect that the teacher and technology can have on the success of the learner.  

          I would be interested for the authors to write another article detailing strategies to successfully implement their framework.  I believe specific tasks, procedures, and implementation strategies would help get me started if I decide to convert one of my courses to the blended learning environment.  There are many roadblocks that would need to be addressed.  Among these roadblocks are time, institutional and divisional support, professional development, and knowledge.  Time wold be the most significant roadblock for me, and obtaining release time to implement a framework like blended learning is most likely not an option for me.  

Article Review #2 - EDU 6250

Spodark, E. (2003).  Five obstacles to technology integration at a small liberal arts university.  T H E Journal, 30(8), 14-18.

Summary

          This article discuses five obstacles to integrating technology at a small university in Virginia.  The first obstacle addressed is the lack of a clear vision, which the author contends is the first obstacle to integrating technology campus wide.  Without a clear vision, faculty members are left to implement technology on their own, which leads to disjointed programs that often put a strain on the available technology support system.

          The second obstacle that the author addresses is the lack of leadership.  This obstacle flows directly from the first -- a lack of a clear vision directly results in a lack of leadership.  If an entire university campus aims to transform into a technology-integrated environment, visible leadership from administrators is critical to achieving this goal.  It will be difficult for faculty members alone to create a cohesive, comprehensive technology-rich programs without the leadership and support from senior administration.

         The third obstacle presented is a lack of critical mass of technology.  Faculty needs to have access to technology that can be incorporated into daily instruction, not just computer labs that can be occasionally reserved during class time.  If technology isn't readily available as a permanent fixture in the classroom, faculty members will have the added stress of securing and setting up the technology, which "adds another layer of work on top of an educator's regular teaching duties."  The author points out that as a result, the majority of instructors will not put forth the extra effort required to integrate technology into their curriculum.

          The fourth obstacle listed is a lack of incentive.  Most faculty members are not financially compensated or encouraged to integrate technology into the curriculum.  Some support is provided via compensation professional development activities, but large incentives are usually not provided for transforming curriculum into one that is technology-centered.  Doing this without compensation can lead to faculty burn out, and most faculty members who do make an effort do so because they find a personal sense in fostering student growth and success.

          Lastly, a lack of faculty participation is an obstacle for technology integration.  This is a direct combination of the first four obstacles listed.  Some faculty are resistant to change and are reluctant to integrate technology into their lessons.  Some faculty members are not comfortable enough working with technology and, as a result, hesitate to include it in their instruction.  Other faculty members simply do not believe that technology-rich instruction will have an impact on student learning and performance.  The author contends that if any of the first four obstacles are present, then faculty participation will be "greatly inhibited".

          

Reflection

          As a faculty member at a very large institution, technology as a permanent fixture in the classroom is probably more realistic for me than it is for the author of this article.  I do believe that the other four obstacles in this article apply to me to some degree.  I personally find a lack of incentive to be a large impediment to my own integration of technology in my classroom.  For me, it is not necessarily the absence of monetary compensation, rather a lack of release time necessary to research, learn, obtain, and implement technologies into my curriculum.  I do agree that a lack of leadership could play a major role in the success of a campus-wide technology integration effort, especially at a smaller university.  My place of work is very large, so it may not be realistic to expect higher administration to actively lead such an effort.

            

Article Review #1 - EDU 6250

Zhang, M., Trussell, R. P., Gallegos, B., & Asam, R. R. (2015).  Using math apps for improving student learning: An exploratory study in an inclusive fourth grade classroom.  TechTrends, 59(2), 32-39.

Summary

            This article examined the effects that the use of three different math apps had on student learning in an inclusive fourth grade classroom.  In the study, each student was supplied with an iPad containing three different math apps focusing on multiplication and decimals.  Students had limited prior experience using iPads in the classroom. Eighteen students from the same classroom participated in this study, including four students with special needs and six at-risk students (students with problematic behaviors or inadequate academic progress).  

            The students used three apps, Splash Math, Motion Math Zoom, and Long Multiplication, in four 80-90 minute class sessions.  The students had been taught the concepts of multiplication and decimals prior to interacting with the apps.  The first 5-10 minutes of each session was spent instructing students how to use the apps.  Paper and pencil assessments were administered to students to measure student performance as a result of using the apps.  In each assessment, students were given a 15-minute pre-test before interacting with the app and then were given 15 minutes to complete the same test after using the apps.  The assessments included questions that were similar, but not identical, to those presented in the apps.  The first assessment included 20 multiple-choice questions on place value in decimals.  The second assessment included 19 multiple-choice questions on comparing and ordering decimals. The third assessment asked students to calculate the product of a two-digit number and a one-digit number.  Additionally, Splash Math tracked student progress and provided a summary for each student.

            The authors conducted paired-sample t-tests that showed a statistically significant improvement in performance across all given assessments.  In Assessment 1, the number of correct answers selected increased from 62% on the pre-test to 85% on the post-test.  In Assessment 2, the number of correct answers selected increased from 56% on the pre-test to 66% on the first post-test and 76% on the second post-test.  In Assessment 3, the number of correct answers selected increased from 51% on the pre-test to 66% on the post-test.  The authors also separated data into a "struggling group", containing the four students with special needs and the six students where were identified as at-risk, and a "typical group".  Although both groups of students improved after using the math apps, the "struggling group" made larger gains in three assessments, thereby reducing the achievement gap between the two groups.

            The authors concluded that the study found "encouraging evidence" on using math apps to improve student learning overall, as well as using math apps to close the achievement gap between typical students and those who struggle.  The authors cited prior research indicating that struggling students benefit from computer-enhanced math intervention.  The authors contend that the very nature of apps, such as self-pacing, immediate feedback, and breaking down tasks into small steps, can be of great benefit to struggling learners.  Furthermore, students were able to repeatedly attempt problems while using the apps, which would be unlikely to occur with paper-and-pencil problem solving.  Students were also more engaged when using the apps and found the apps easy to use.  The authors finally suggest that due to the small sample size and short study duration, these results may not be generalized. Therefore, more studies should be conducted to examine the effectiveness of math apps as a means to improve student learning.

Reflection

            I agree that further studies should be done to truly gauge the effect that math apps have on student success.  I do, however, believe that math apps can have a positive effect on learning and retention, particularly among at-risk students and students with special needs.  I believe that students will be more engaged and interested in the concepts being presented while using an app versus completing problems via the traditional paper-and-pencil model.  I also agree with the authors' prediction that the nature of apps, such as self-pacing, immediate feedback, and breaking down tasks into small steps, has great potential to help all learners (especially those who are at-risk or have special needs).  Students thrive on immediate feedback, and it is nearly impossible to provide immediate feedback using traditional methods.  The fact that math apps can be easy to use and require little up-front operation instruction would make it easier to implement this technology in my classroom, where time is at a premium.  

            In order for math apps to be useful to me personally, I will need to search for apps that include high-level skills.  Since I teach developmental math courses, I believe that apps containing topics that align with my curriculum exist.  One problem I face is the ability to have devices (like iPads) for each of my students.  This is not feasible at my level of instruction.  One way to combat this limitation is to allow students to use their smart phones to access these apps in class.  This would require the existence of free apps that align with concepts taught in my courses.  Of course not every student has a smart phone, but I may be able to access some sort of devices to fill in the holes.

            The study presented in this article was limited in that it only indicated that student performance increased and the achievement gap between different groups of students lessened due to the use of math apps.  This article did not, however, study the impact that math apps have on student learning and retention in comparison to other possible interventions.  I would have been interested in seeing the students split into two groups.  The first group, for example, could be provided with a review lesson from the teacher, followed by traditional problem solving methods.  The second group could be asked to work with the math apps utilized in the study.  I would be interested to see if the app group made significant gains in learning compared to the review lesson group.  This would be a better way to truly gauge the impact that math apps can have on student learning.