Emanant themes of blended learning in K-12 educational environments: Lessons from the Every Student Succeeds Act
Introduction
Given the growing awareness of learner variability in the field of K-12 education, technology-related concepts and models have been developed and utilized in practice to meet the needs of modern learners. Blended learning (BL) is one such instructional design structure that facilitates the benefits of technology, paired with face-to-face instruction, to address the variance in student learning. Generally, BL is recognized as a combination of traditional learning that occurs in a typical learning space (e.g., brick-and-mortar school with teachers) and online learning format (e.g., e-learning platform, digital content; Graham, 2006). These elements combine to offer multiple structures to learning environments as well as guidance on how to maximize instructional and technological support. BL has been globally studied and implemented across all levels of learners, research methods, and levels of blending (Spring & Graham, 2017). For example, a BL study conducted in South Korea investigated how BL in a middle school positively impacted students’ academic achievement (Lee, 2018). In reviewing most-cited BL research reports, Spring and Graham (2017) found commonalities regarding research practice and focus in seven regions including Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, North America, and Oceania.
Though research continues to emerge, BL implementation has not been well established in the literature compared to other research areas of traditional learning or online (or distance) learning (Graham, 2013). Additionally, researchers have utilized varying theories to guide BL research, design, and implementation. However, the Community of Inquiry (COI; Garrison et al., 1999) has emerged as the most comprehensive theory for BL research. The COI theory offers a framework for exploring blended teaching and learning experiences in various educational settings (e.g., K-12, higher education; Garrison et al., 1999). The framework of COI baselines BL environments, emphasizing three dynamic elements of an educational experience: a) social presence, b) teaching presence, and c) cognitive presence. Learning environments built upon these three dimensions could yield better learning outcomes and higher satisfaction levels (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Yang et al., 2016).
Garrison et al. (1999) and Swan et al. (2009) detailed the three COI components. Social presence is the feeling that one could perceive oneself and others (e.g., peers, teachers) as real and connected even in technology-based environments. It can be achieved by active communication, affective expression, and group cohesion. Teaching presence is an aspect that includes cognitive and social processes for supporting students' meaningful learning; it is related to instructional design, organization, and facilitation of learning (courses or activities) as well as thoughtfully delivering content in a constructive way. Cognitive presence represents the degree in which students are able to perform sustainable reflection and discourse to construct and confirm meanings in learning. One's cognitive presence can be stimulated by the social presence and teaching presence. In sum, implementing BL is not only delivering content by blending the modes of instruction but also thoughtfully designing learning environments considering these three elements.
Currently, in K-12 educational systems, four BL models have been suggested by Staker and Horn (2012), which include a) Rotation model, b) Flex model, c) Self-Blend model, and d) Enriched Virtual model (see Table 1). These BL models afford educators options in designing learning environments that differ in the extent of the ratio of face-to-face and online learning and how to structure the learning environments based on student needs. For example, educators have already implemented BL in practice by structuring stations including at least one with learning via digital devices in class; this would be considered as a rotation model, with the introduction of technology in the classroom (Truitt & Ku, 2018).
In the United States, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into law on December 10, 2015. Originally the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), this legislation was established in 1965 as a civil rights law to ensure educational access to students across the country, particularly those falling within disadvantaged populations (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Despite funding, ambitious goals, and accountability, and the challenges marginalized student populations experience persist. ESSA (2015) focuses on challenges of access, equality, and quality instruction for all students, particularly for those falling in marginalized subsets (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016).
To address this barrier, ESSA (2015) encouraged states to develop holistic, detailed, and personalized accountability systems designed to evaluate school success through multiple measures and high standards (Patrick et al., 2016). This shift toward autonomy prompted states to analyze their unique landscapes, populations, and cultural norms. Although state plans were expected to meet specific standards and requirements, they remained malleable to each state's unique needs to create and adopt innovative frameworks to support differentiation and personalized planning. With a continued need to improve student outcomes, and in particular outcomes of students in marginalized groups, states are pressed to support schools in developing competency-based instructional practices that are flexible, evidence-based, and personalized. Such practices may extend beyond the classroom as well, affording personalized pre-service training and professional development (PD) for in-service teachers (Patrick et al., 2016).
With the introduction of BL in ESSA (2015) in the United States, states and districts are provided an operationalized definition of BL and guidance regarding how funding can be secured for implementation of district-wide BL initiatives. Specifically, ESSA (2015) defined BL as “a formal education program that leverages both technology-based and face-to-face instructional approaches—(A) that include an element of online or digital learning, combined with supervised learning time, and student-led learning, in which the elements are connected to provide an integrated learning experience; and (B) in which students are provided some control over time, path, or pace” (20 U.S.C. § 7112.4102 (1)). The ESSA definition highly aligns with the widely used BL definition proposed by Staker and Horn (2012) 1 in the K-12 education system. Both definitions highlight multiple learning modalities, supervised learning, and student control over time, place, path, and/or pace.
In ESSA, BL is mentioned seven times in total, with one reference found in Title II, Part A (Support Effective Instruction) and the remaining six under Title IV, Part A (21st Century Schools; see detailed references to BL in Table 2). As mentioned earlier, BL was explicitly defined as an educational program under Title IV, Part A (Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant). Specifically, under Title IV, Part A, BL was viewed as one type of digital learning instructional practice that encompasses tools for empowering students in technology-enhanced learning.
In addition, ESSA specified that local educational agencies (LEAs) could be funded for improving the use of technology. In detail, the allocated funds can be used to purchase technology-related tools or software (platforms) for BL models and other resources to develop the effective use of technology for managing BL strategies. Further, LEAs may use funds to provide professional learning for teachers, school leaders, and administrators to support the implementation of BL projects. The focus on providing funds to support BL is also reflected in Title II, Part A (Supporting Effective Instruction). Under Title II, Part A, BL was mentioned as an example of a content area for PD to support teachers in adopting technology in teaching practices.
Many researchers posit that BL could benefit student learning because it combines the advantages of online and face-to-face instructional designs (e.g., Means et al., 2010). A meta-analysis of 47 studies found that compared to traditional instruction, blended, hybrid, or web-enhanced learning yielded a positive, small to medium effect on student learning outcomes but a non-significant average effect on student satisfaction (Spanjers et al., 2015). The researchers also found that the incorporation of quizzes in BL, as a moderator variable, had a significant impact on both learning effectiveness and satisfaction (Spanjers et al., 2015). In another meta-analysis, Means and colleagues (2013) reported that, on average, students in BL conditions performed better than those receiving traditional face-to-face instruction or purely online courses. In line with these results, a more recent meta-analysis found a small effect of BL on student learning outcomes (van Alten et al., 2019). It is important to note that all these meta-analyses included studies investigating all levels of education and training, and only a few were conducted with K-12 learners. This leaves unclear effects of BL in K-12 educational settings. Ultimately, Spring and Graham (2017) found limited research was conducted in K-12 educational settings worldwide.
Other benefits of BL such as increasing learner engagement, motivation, and regulation (e.g., Delialioğlu, 2012; Hoxie et al., 2014; Shyr & Chen, 2018; Spring et al., 2019) and enabling competency-based learning (e.g., Horn & Staker, 2015) were frequently investigated in the literature. For example, Hoxie et al. (2014) investigated BL implemented in and across more than 100 K-12 schools as part of the iLearnNYC Program. They found that students became more motivated and self-directed with their learning, and teachers who adopted a BL Rotation approach held more positive perceptions of the effect of BL on students’ engagement, self-regulation, and personalized learning experience than those utilizing the Flex approach (Hoxie et al., 2014). In another study, Delialioğlu (2012) compared student engagement in BL environments with lecture-based versus problem-based instructional approaches and found that the latter BL approach yielded greater student engagement outcomes.
Previous research has shown a positive impact of BL on student educational outcomes; however, several issues emerged from the current literature. First, there is a dearth of empirical studies investigating the impact of BL on K-12 student learning outcomes (Graham et al., 2019; Halverson et al., 2017). Therefore, the claim for BL having transformative potential in education (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Graham & Robison, 2007), especially in K-12 educational settings, needs to be warranted with more evidence. Second, previous research has reported an array of instructional designs of BL perceived to be beneficial for student learning, such as driving self-directed and self-paced learning (e.g., Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003; Yapici & Akbayin, 2012), enhancing interaction (e.g., Garrison & Kanuka, 2004), facilitating the provision of feedback and reflection (e.g., Chandra & Watters, 2012), and supporting multiple modalities in delivering materials and instructional approaches to meet diverse learning needs (e.g., Picciano, 2009). However, the emerging evidence of the effectiveness of BL was not conclusive for which design features and/or practices yielded positive student outcomes (Halverson et al., 2017). When it comes to BL teaching readiness, there is scant empirical research investigating what skills are needed for teaching in BL contexts (Graham et al., 2019; Pulham & Graham, 2018).
Additionally, challenges for student learning in BL contexts have also emerged from the literature (Boelens et al., 2017; Rasheed et al., 2020). A recent literature review indicated that most BL studies reported limited flexibility or learner control over the blend (Boelens et al., 2017). Drawing upon a synthesis of challenges for designing BL online components, Rasheed et al. (2020) found that even if flexibility and autonomy were offered, students often faced challenges with self-regulation, technology use, time management, and/or social isolation. In addition, although previous research indicates that promoting social interaction is an effective BL design, Boelens et al. (2017) found that many studies included in their literature review did not explicitly incorporate support for social interactions or foster a learning community. Given that student autonomy and social interactions are regarded as essential components of BL within the COI framework (Garrison et al., 1999), more research is needed to investigate how to address these design challenges emerging from the literature.
Regarding the importance of implementation of BL in ESSA (2015) as addressed above, exploring how each state ESSA plan is operationalizing BL with their own interpretation and contexts could bring awareness of BL in educational organizations and provide guidance to educational organizations that wish to onboard BL. In this study, the researchers examined how many states mentioned BL and how BL was operationalized in their ESSA plans. Specifically, the researchers identified themes related to the operationalization of BL that emerged from state ESSA plans, utilizing thematic analysis (TA; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Herzog et al., 2019). Two research questions guided this research: (1) How many states included references to BL in their ESSA plans? (2) What themes emerged from the state ESSA plans?
Section snippets
Method
The data for this study were collected from 50 state ESSA plans and the District of Columbia ESSA plan to investigate how each state ESSA plan intends to operationalize BL implementation. The development of the ESSA plan was mandatory for each state to represent how the state plans to meet the regulations of ESSA (2015) within local contexts. Ancillary data, such as organizational reports related to BL were collected to support findings from the scan of 51 ESSA plans. All data were open to the
States referencing BL in the ESSA plans (RQ1)
The results showed that 17 states incorporated BL-related guidance or regulation in their finalized ESSA plan (see Table 1). Only Alaska and Tennessee specified definitions of BL in their ESSA documentations. Alaska defined BL as a practice using two types of learning experiences of online and “in-person” together in teaching students. Tennessee provided a more comprehensive description of BL as an instructional model. This model includes four dimensions: (1) creating opportunity to provide
Discussion
The field of education continues to explore ways and means to provide authentic learning experiences for students from varying backgrounds and with varying educational needs. In many ways, state departments of education are leading this charge as education pivots from the one-size-fits-all model of education to designing learning environments that attempt to meet the needs of all learners regardless of academic ability. The passage of ESSA signified an opportunity to reimagine how meaningful
Conclusion
This study investigated themes related to the operationalization of BL in state ESSA plans. Three major themes of BL implementation emerged from references to BL in 17 state ESSA plans: BL leveraging technology to support learning, BL in PD, and BL as an alternative pathway. Although BL has been broadly defined in education, this loose definition of BL provided more flexibility for educational stakeholders across states to implement BL based on their local contexts. Educational researchers and
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Credit author statement
Sohyun Yang, Conceptualization, Method, Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Richard A. Carter Jr., Conceptualization, Method, Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Ling Zhang, Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Tiffany L. Hunt, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest regarding the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References (50)
- et al.
Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis
Educational Research Review
(2019) - et al.
Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review
Educational Research Review
(2017) - et al.
Re-thinking physics teaching with web-based learning
Computers & Education
(2012) - et al.
Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education
The Internet and Higher Education
(1999) - et al.
Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education
The Internet and Higher Education
(2004) - et al.
A mixed research-based model for pre-service science teachers' digital literacy: Responses to “which beliefs” and “how and why they interact” questions
Computers & Education
(2018) - et al.
The promised land of blended learning: Quizzes as a moderator
Educational Research Review
(2015) - et al.
Effects of online presence on learning performance in a blog-based online course
The Internet and Higher Education
(2016) - et al.
The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks
(2008) - et al.
Integrating computer-based curricula in the classroom: Lessons from a blended learning intervention
Teachers College Record
(2020)
Teacher preparation for K-12 online and blended learning
Experiences with personalized learning in a blended teaching course for preservice teachers
Journal of Online Learning Research
An overview of alternative education
Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Qualitative Research in Psychology
Pathways to new accountability through the Every student Succeeds Act
Student engagement in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches
Educational Technology & Society
Blended learning: Let's get beyond the hype
E-learning
20 U.S.C. § 6301
Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends and future directions
Emerging practice and research in blended learning
K–12 blended teaching readiness: Model and instrument development
Journal of Research on Technology in Education
Realizing the transformational potential of blended learning: Comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher education
Blended learning research in higher education and K-12 settings
Specific learning disability and response to intervention: State-level guidance
Exceptional Children
Cited by (15)
Learner behaviors associated with uses of resources and learning pathways in blended learning scenarios
2022, Computers and EducationCitation Excerpt :Another important issue is the applicability of blended learning practices to different social groups considering variables such as age, race, socioeconomic status and geographic location (Hu et al., 2019; Kundu et al., 2021; Ruthotto et al., 2020). In this perspective, age and education levels or stages are also variables of interest as although several blended learning models for schools have been proposed over the past years, references for empirical research in these settings are still limited (Hu et al., 2019; Spring & Graham, 2017; Yang et al., 2021). The objective of this study is to analyze learner behaviors, uses of resources and learning pathways in blended learning scenarios.
The use of a personalized learning approach to implementing self-regulated online learning
2022, Computers and Education: Artificial IntelligenceCitation Excerpt :Nevertheless, this concept does not dominate the accuracy of learners’ characteristics like one-fit. Still, there is plenty of room for other learning approaches, such as game-based, blended, collaborative, and problem-based learning (Hwang et al., 2012; Nadolny et al., 2020; Troussas et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021). These different approaches allow students to choose appropriate individualized learning content, learning style, or even technology to take control of their learning.
Do socio-cultural differences matter? A study of the learning effects and satisfaction with physical activity from digital learning assimilated into a university dance course
2021, Computers and EducationCitation Excerpt :This finding is consistent with what Akbarov, Gönen, and Aydogan (2018) proposed, which is that there are great advantages of applying a teaching method which integrates online learning and face-to-face teaching. The most significant difference between BL group and the C group is that online learning is performed in an isolated environment without any teacher's on-site help (Staker & Horn, 2012; Yang, Carter, Zhang, & Hunt, 2021), while learning through a teaching platform allows students to watch tutorial videos repeatedly if necessary and to make adjustments based on the feedback from their peers and teacher on the assignment they submitted (Hsia et al., 2016b). This argument is consistent with the feedback obtained through the interviews of this present study.
Blended learning in rural K-12 education: Stakeholder dynamics and recommendations
2024, Journal of Computer Assisted LearningSocial Media in General Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science from 2005-2021
2023, Journal of Scientometric ResearchDetecting and visualizing research trends of blended learning: A bibliometric analysis of studies from 2013-2022
2023, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education