David Denton (Seattle Pacific University, USA) David Wicks (Seattle Pacific University, USA) Vicki Eveland (Seattle Pacific University, USA) Benjamin Bloom, probably best known for Bloom's Taxonomy, contributed significant research and theory on a wide array of educational topics, including the effects of tutoring on student achievement. In 1984, Bloom wrote an article titled The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Bloom found that one-to-one tutoring improved student performance two standard deviations above the mean on academic measures in comparison to students taught in conventional classrooms. These findings are unsurprising to most educators. However, the critical question derived from Bloom's (1984) research is whether teachers in conventional classrooms can replicate characteristics of one-to-one tutoring. The replication question persists today, regardless of level or subject area. A significant pursuit of all educators is to use the most effective instructional practices available in order to raise student achievement. One way to organize effective practice is through characteristics of teaching and learning that replicate one-to-one tutoring. Examples that qualify this pursuit in current terms include differentiated instruction and adaptive learning systems such as Khan Academy (Office of Educational Technology, 2013). Finding ways to more closely approximate characteristics of one-to-one tutoring in conventional settings inspires educators to experiment with alternative instructional formats. One of these is blended learning, which combines elements of online, classroom, and mobile engagement techniques (Strauss, 2012). However, some have suggested that blended learning is a fad, and subject to the same kind of waning interest as other educational innovations (Strauss, 2012). Implementing and sustaining educational innovation, such as blended learning, depends on the use of effective instructional strategies. Characteristics of one-to-one tutoring provide a set of benchmark activities for identifying and organizing these types of effective practices within the context of blended learning environments. Instructors choose from a wide variety of instructional practices to meet their objectives. However, not all practices have the same effect. Selecting and implementing the most effective strategies is critical, regardless of learning venue. One framework for organizing blended learning methods is through one-to-one tutoring, especially since instructional practices characteristic of tutoring have an enormous effect on student achievement. Presenters in this informational session summarize ways instructors merge characteristics of one-to-one tutoring, along with example strategies to enhance blended learning. Participants integrate preferred methods according to their contexts through discussion and small group collaboration.€ƒ

1. Closing the 2-Sigma Gap
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 2 Sigma Gap

3. Definitions
(Bloom, 1984)

4. Effects
(Bloom, 1984)

5. How can instructors replicate
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 of Instruction
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 of Instruction
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 and Explanations
Informa/on
or
ques/ons
shared
by
instructor
or
students
to
help
scaffold
understanding

11. Improving Cues and Explanations
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
LMS Organization
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 Effective Feedback
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 Mental Processes
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.