Rotation Model

This first model of blended learning, the Rotation Model, fits most closely with the traditional classroom models. For me, it conjures up memories of elementary school days where I went from the reading station to the math station, and then finally to the science station. I didn’t have any choice or empowerment about when I rotated and in most cases, each station had me working on the one path with one set of pacing expectations and goals. Today, students rotate among computer stations, small group work, collaborative projects, and other instructional areas. Rotation happens either inside the classroom or between the classroom and a learning lab. But, where is the student empowerment? Too often, we still control the students’ place, path, pace expectations and time-on-task. This model offers the lowest level of student empowerment. In many ways, it also presents the highest risk for us to merely “put technology into use” instead of truly implementing blended learning.

Flex Model

More common in secondary schools, the Flex Model often includes 1:1 technology access instead of a controlled rotation to available workstations or devices. The students still spend the bulk of their time in a brick-and-mortar building, but they are not held back or pushed forward based on a rigid schedule. This is my favorite model because it seems to champion the use of competency-based progression without giving up the necessary teacher support for struggling students. Teachers easily augment online learning with small group work, projects and/or individual tutoring and coaching. Students feel empowered to control their pace, path, and progress as well as to reach out for immediate assistance to the onsite teacher. This amount and type of support is flexible and opens up a wonderful opportunity for teachers and students to become true partners in learning. The Flex Model also gives districts the greatest opportunity to implement innovative staffing and scheduling.

Enriched Virtual Model

Some of the blended learning publications list the Enriched Virtual Model last, putting it after the Self-Blend Model. I prefer putting it third on the spectrum of student empowerment since the students divide their time between a brick-and-mortar campus and working at a location of their choice. Seen as a whole-school experience, an Enriched Virtual implementation may have minimal on-campus requirements and those may only be “check-point” meetings or required tutoring sessions if the students fall behind in pace. Yet, at the same time, the student often decides where they study, how fast they move through the assignments, and what products they will produce to prove mastery.

Self-Blend Model

As mentioned above, I move the Self-Blend Model to the end of the student empowerment. Here, the student chooses to take one or more courses entirely online. They totally control the location and pace, and many times, the instructional path. Districts that allow students to take fully-online courses are allowing them to self-blend, or self-select one or more courses. All parts of the courses are asynchronous and no onsite sessions or check-points are required. While using the Self-Blend Model fully empowers the students, it also presents the greatest risk for learners who have yet to master personal motivation and self-management.

Today’s Challenge:

In planning your blended learning implementation, what level of control are you willing to give the students? In what areas will you empower them to take ownership and make decisions about their own learning activities? If you are wondering about how to make those decisions and their impact to your instructional programs, please feel free to drop me a note or post a comment/question. I’d love to hear from you.