Design+Project+Report+3

 Blended Learning in the IB Spanish classroom Students will apply rules of grammar and vocabulary as well as analyze relationships among concepts in order to understand an unfamiliar Spanish text. Students will demonstrate understanding by scoring at least an 80% on the Reading Comprehension Quiz. = Design Report 3 =
 * Project title **
 * Revisions since Design Report 2 **
 * Addendum ** to Objective 6:

Goals Objectives and Task Analysis
See Design Report 2

Plan for one-to-one formative evaluation
===· Purpose === Improve course materials and course fluidity ===· Audience === Primary audience includes current IB Spanish students. Secondary audience includes World Languages faculty, M edia Specialists, and other IB faculty.

===· Issues === ===· Resources === ===· Evidence === Acceptable evidence of proficiency of Unit 3 Spanish material will include: ===· Data-gathering Techniques === ===· Analysis === ===· Reporting === Results will be discussed among the SME-Instructor-Facilitator, the World Languages Department Chairperson, and the Media Specialists. Secondary conversations may take place and include the IB coordinator, other IB Faculty, other World Languages faculty, and the instructor’s peers in her professional realm. Adjustments to the design will be made as needed based on results. Adjustments will affect and benefit future Unit plans and assessments for the same class, and for classes in upcoming school-years.
 * 1) After receiving instruction, will the students correctly form accurate grammar and vocabulary structures?
 * 2) Will students be motivated to contribute to the class //Ning// site during after-school hours?
 * 3) Will student-participants utilize computer-lab classroom time wisely?
 * 4) Do students perceive the technology components to be useful to their Spanish communication skills?
 * 5) How much time will be required between the face-to-face class time and online time to effectively learn the Unit content?
 * 6) Will participants return to the //Ning// site to add quality evaluative commentary once others have had a chance to upload the projects?
 * 7) Do the World Languages Department chairperson and the Media Specialists regard the instructional material as accurate and well designed?
 * 8) Is the SME-Instructor-Facilitator satisfied with students’ learning results?
 * 1) IB Spanish students
 * 2) Teacher-Facilitator, who is also the SME
 * 3) World Languages faculty; Media Specialists; IB faculty and IB Coordinator
 * 4) Advanced Survey website, as one instrument to collect and analyze data
 * 5) Interview Questions for student-participants
 * 6) Computer with internet access at home; internet access in school computer lab
 * 7) Written assessments drawn up by Instructor
 * 8) Copies of IB external and internal assessment rubrics for use by Instructor
 * 1) Sample size consisting of about one/fourth of all learners (seven students)
 * 2) Individual and small focus group success in the following areas:
 * 3) contribution and later study of collaborative exercises on the Wiki
 * 4) written vocabulary assessment
 * 5) script writing of oral presentation
 * 6) Oral Presentation
 * 7) Artifact Creation and later posting to //Ning// website
 * 8) effective contribution to peer commentary on the //Ning// website
 * 9) final “Synthesis” essay
 * 10) Individual student suggestions for future sites, tools, or ideas to be included in the instruction & review processes
 * 11) Participation in a focus group of teachers to review testing contexts
 * 12) Reliability/validity of SME review
 * 1) Observations of small groups utilizing class Web 2.0 tools, such as the Wiki and the //Ning//
 * 2) Written test scores, Oral Presentation scores
 * 3) Overall Unit portfolio to include final “synthesis” essay
 * 4) Questionnaire/Interview
 * 1) Track frequency distributions (number of and type of questions typically answered incorrectly on written assessments; number of quality peer commentaries written on //Ning//)
 * 2) Descriptive statistics, such as percentages, means, and medians on oral assessment and final written assessments
 * 3) List comments made by individual and small group participants in order to later categorize and interpret them
 * 4) SME Review

Results of one-to-one evaluation
The one-to-one evaluation was two-fold. It involved speaking with the learners themselves and with another two instructors in a face-to-face context. After determining the purpose of the evaluation and the target audience for results, I decided that the appropriate evaluation approaches should include decision-oriented studies and objective-based studies. From speaking to learners through their learning process, I observed when instruction was successful and when the students enjoyed it and benefited from it. When taking the objectives into account, and seeing that in one area that student outcome fell short of goals, I realized I needed to make improvements.

Some issues uncovered as part of the evaluation included:

1. Students preferred that the grammar instruction take place in a face-to-face meeting, such as classroom lecture. Students performed poorly on first written grammar Quiz after having independently studied in //Ven// book and //Barrera// book and then the whole class briefly reviewed with the instructor at the end of the segment. Students improved their written assessment scores after teacher did the following: she created “English” version of notes; posted student-teacher written notes on a Powerpoint to the //Ning//; provided Web-based practice opportunity from [|www.studyspanish.com] website; clearly stated where written descriptive notes and practice exercises could be found within the //Ven// and //Barrera// textbooks; and added individual and small-group instructional time for review during class.

2. Instructor has also decided to move the written “application” assessment (grammar Quiz) to take place __after__ the recipe projects (written and oral alternative “application” assessment) to allow for more student practice and preparation of Spanish content.

3. Some changes suggested by the test subjects may not be warranted. Students are 16-years-old, and may not have yet developed good organizational skills or study skills. Students are also in the beginning stages of their overall rigorous IB Programme, and may not yet be astute in their learning practices. Instructor has noticed that students study “to recognize, not memorize” concepts. The current Spanish content is intensive and students must judiciously choose answers to reflect knowledge.

See the Formative Evaluation notes for specific responses to questions posed during the Evaluation Interviews.

Materials and assessments for small group evaluation

 * 1) Student learners
 * 2) Various Spanish course assessment scores (quizzes, tests, orals, and other alternative assessments)
 * 3) // Ning // social network
 * 4) Computers with internet access
 * 5) Instructor-facilitator, World Languages faculty, Media Specialists
 * 6) [[file:Evaluation_student_subjective.doc]] Written Survey

Characteristics of small-group learners
The small-group learners are a sampling of the learners profiled in Design Report 1. The seven students are high school juniors enrolled in a four-semester (2 year) cumulative IB Spanish Standard Level course. These students are required to take this Spanish course to meet the Language B requirement dictated by the IB Diploma Programme. The learners have varying levels of experience of Spanish knowledge. Some students have experience with Web 2.0 tools for academic purposes. All have knowledge of the internet and web exploration. In the sample group, there are five girls and two boys. As for academic background, they have varying degrees of experience in Spanish, and varying levels of pre-requisite Spanish courses here at our high school. They all have access to a working computer and internet access in their homes.

With regards to learner skills, these students are classified as possessing higher, intermediate and lower Spanish communication skills (designated by the classifications Level A, Level B, and Level C, respectively.) Classification is determined by teacher-assessment and observation. The students seem to possess a variety of learning styles, ranging from visual to auditory to kinesthetic. As stated before, m aturity levels and personal motivation seem to dictate the students’ ability to divide personal workload, and levels of procrastination. A ttitude, aspirations, class expectations, personal characteristics, and being a “passive learner vs. an active learner,” are distinct for each individual in the group.

Instruments for small-group evaluation

 * 1) Observations of students during class time (direct) and in online environments (indirect):
 * 2) objective tests
 * 3) constructed-response tests
 * 4) computer lab time when students created artifacts
 * 5) comments/uploads of artifacts on the //Ning// social network
 * 6) Unit comprehensive IB portfolio
 * 7) Written survey (see link in previous section)
 * 8) Interview conducted orally by teacher with group of seven students: teacher observed opinions, interest, and attitude of students
 * 9) Interview conducted orally by teacher with two colleagues

Procedures for small-group evaluation
Instructor facilitator will:

1. Explain purpose of evaluation. 2. Share purpose for participation in small group evaluation. 3. Administer written survey to students. 4. Ask set of questions. 5. Allow for general questions about the course content, the course overall, and instructor efforts.

Small Group participants will: Instructor and two colleagues will also conduct a “debriefing session” using a similar procedure as the small group student evaluation.
 * 1) Review Unit 3 objectives.
 * 2) Review personal participation on the Ning social network.
 * 3) Complete written surveys.
 * 4) During interview, review previous assessments as evidenced by tests and grade spreadsheets, and discuss results with instructor.
 * 5) Answer instructor’s questions and participate in round-table discussion.

Summary of small-group evaluation
The small group evaluation consisted of seven student learners representing three different learner levels. Participants of the evaluation were first introduced to the Unit 3 concepts via the four 48-minute periods per week at school and one session at home, where two to three of the sessions were to be utilized in online environments. The goals of the Unit were presented initially, while the evaluation goals were spoken of at a later date. Next, all students were introduced to new vocabulary and grammar structures and were given opportunities to apply what they learned through projects, technology activities, and later formal written assessments. Students raised questions about the lexical competencies, and together we reviewed the technology tools we were employing this Unit. Further explanation was given about the //Ning// components: posting the project and adding peer commentary about the projects. At the conclusion of the Unit, students are asked to write the comprehensive essay. The instructor disseminated the content early on in the Unit, and then acted as a Facilitator and observer during the (Web 2.0 tool) alternative assessments. After receiving feedback from the students, the instructor re-taught the grammatical content, arranged for small-group tutoring, and retested the grammar. The teacher welcomed general comments and provided one-on-one after-school tutoring sessions as requested by students.

Discussion of small-group data
During informal interview with the seven students, it was determined that the Unit Project was interesting, practical, important, and stimulating. Students expressed that the technology format used in Unit 3 for learning the course material was better than other formats compared to a typical lecture class. When ranking Spanish communication topics, most chose “knowledge of grammar structures” and “speaking (oral) opportunities” as having the highest value to them in their future, which was wonderful from a teacher’s perspective. Students commented that they felt that the Unit presentation lent itself well to help them master vocabulary skills, and thus receive high grades on vocabulary assessments. Some said they like the Wiki as a “back-up” for their personal class notes, and that they appreciate each other’s collaborative effort in maintaining the list. They remarked that it was especially helpful to go over the Wiki list during class (class discussion includes all students and teacher) using the overhead LCD projector and having real-time student-editing happen in front of the class on the screen. Issues did arise when participants expressed a request for “slower-paced” content instruction. The students determined that they were confused about how the grammar is presented in the //Ven// book in Spanish in Unit 4 and also in the //Barrera// book in English in Unit 8. They suggested that the teacher compile a list of Course Competencies in a chart with the corresponding books and chapters to hand out to students. In addition to this, they requested a quarterly review on all the Spanish Verb tenses, with the possibility of the teacher creating a comprehensive chart to pass out to them. Students mentioned that they were not aware that the course truly entailed one-day’s-independent-study at home, perhaps online. The students recalled the details of the Course Expectation Sheet given during the first week of class, but did not truly comprehend or remember the details. Students also expressed frustration that some computer lab computers did not function properly, which led to student anxiety and dissatisfaction. The following table represents written results from survey that took place during the evaluation:
 * **__ Participant __** || **__ Reaction to Using Technology to Enhance Learning in the Spanish Classroom __** || || **__ General Comments __** ||
 * Chris A. (Level A) || dislike somewhat || || --- ||
 * Julie (Level A) || neutral || || I think that this Unit material will come up a lot (in the future.) The cooking oral (presentation) helped me learn how to use the commands correctly. ||
 * Sophie (Level A) || neutral || || I learned the information in a way that I’ll remember it. It seemed like the lesson was rushed—we learned the new words/commands and then did the project. ||
 * Kelsey (Level B) || neutral || || I actually liked the Unit very much. I thought it was fun to work with friends while learning. The Unit seemed easier and better taught than the others. The time was well expanded for this Unit. ||
 * Nick (Level B) || like somewhat || || This Unit was very informative and well organized. It was also enjoyable because of the food project. ||
 * Domenica (Level C) || like somewhat || || I learned from the projects and workbook pages; and [|www.studyspanish.com] helped with commands. ||
 * Amina (Level C) || dislike somewhat || || I thought it was interesting but I am not a big fan of learning by reading. ||

A secondary evaluation was conducted between the Instructor and the two Media Specialists during a “debriefing session” using a similar procedure as the small group student evaluation. Cyndi agreed with the instructor that the students should have to figure out information for themselves by working on individual assignments. These assignments force them to work as individuals and as active participants, responsible for their own learning. Per education courses and Professional Development training, Cyndi agreed that the students should be given the opportunity “to create something new. They should use an assortment of skills, not just demonstrate learning in the bottom two tiers of Bloom’s taxonomy.” She commented that the Spanish tasks sharply differed from other typical teacher technology tasks (for example, an easy fill-in-the-blank Webquest.) Karen recalls that the students needed to create/rephrase things in Spanish, as well as come up with original situations to write about. The Spanish teacher usually gave examples with which to model the work, but then the students were accountable for generating ideas on their own. Karen thought that the Spanish tasks forced the students to think in another language, adding to task complexity.

Revisions for instruction and assessment
In the face-to-face small group evaluation with the learners, some issues arose that the instructor will address:

First, as the students articulated that they are not as comfortable with the written notes in the textbooks, the teacher will create and post grammar notes using Powerpoints to the class //Ning// website. The instructor will also amend the Powerpoints to include the page numbers of related activities in the corresponding textbooks.

Second, the students communicated more need for review tools. The teacher will create a Class Project in the near future where students will collaboratively create the “Super-Verb-Tense Chart” which can eventually be printed on cardstock and/or laminated for individual classroom and at-home use. Teacher also pointed out that the class Wiki was set up as a “Construction of Knowledge and Review” tool on a voluntary collaborative basis. The instructor will have to re-assess if students should be “forced” to edit the Wiki grammar pages by making those assignments mandatory, for a grade (in the same way that the Vocabulary Wiki pages are marked.)

In addition, the pacing of the course may need to be altered, perhaps by revisiting how the course is “blended.” If the instructor were to form more online activities in order to practice the content, it should “loosen” the schedule of in-class activities. The instructor will also emphasize with the students the need to work at home online for 45-minutes per week, to “make-up the missing 5th session,” whether it be as research, study, practice, or assessment activity.

Relevant current references
Hubbard, Julie. (Nov. 2, 2009) More high school students are taking courses online. //Macon// //Telegraph// (GA). Retrieved from Macon.com website: [] Kolowich, Steve. (Oct. 21, 2009) Adios to Spanish 101 Classroom. //Inside Higher Ed.// [|http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/21/spanish]

Landau, Elizabeth. (2009) How to learn a foreign language online. CNN International. [|http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/24/language.training.online/]

Barbara Means, Yukie Toyama, Robert Murphy, Marianne Bakia, Karla Jones. (2009) Center for Technology in Learning. U.S. Department of Education**.** ** Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies **. [] Morrison, Gary, Steven Ross, Jerry Kemp. 2007. //Designing Effective Instruction//. Hoboken: New Jersey. page 338. Stansbury, Meris. (Jul 2009) ED: Blended learning helps boost achievement --  Meta-study concludes students can benefit greatly from online learning -- and blended learning environments appear most effective. //eSchoolNews//. []

Press Release. (Nov. 3, 2009) University of South Carolina's Moore School of Business Launches Global Classroom of the Future Using Cisco TelePresence. Retrieved on Nov. 5, 2009 from [] Webinar: Fortify Your Institutional H1N1 Plan with Lecture Capture: Mediasite at Washington State University. (Nov. 10, 2009) Sonicfoundry. []