This study evaluated the effects of a blended learning instructional experience for sixth-grade students in an English/language arts (ELA) course. Students at two treatment schools participated in a blended learning instructional paradigm, and their ELA test scores were compared to one comparison school that used a face-to-face delivery. Other variables of interest were gender status, disability status, and student reading efficacy. The results of the analysis indicated that no significant changes in reading achievement were found that could be attributed solely to treatment versus comparison, to gender, or to disability status. Perhaps of greater significance to practitioners and researchers is the identification of person and programmatic-level factors that influence adoption and implementation of effective blended instruction. Implications are discussed.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2.
BurdetteP. J.GreerD. L.WoodsK. L. (2013). K-12 online learning and students with disabilities: Perspectives from state special education directors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17, 65–72.
CortiellaC.HorowitzS. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: facts, trends and emerging issues. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
5.
DaneA. V.SchneiderB. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control?Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–45. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3
6.
EnglertC. S.ZhaoY.DunsmoreK.CollingsN. Y.WolbersK. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 9–29. doi:10.2307/30035513
KleinJ. A.WileyH. I.ThurlowM. L. (2006). Uneven transparency: NCLB tests take precedence in public assessment reporting for students with disabilities (Technical Report 43). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved fromhttp://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical43.html
10.
LietzP. (2006). A meta-analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the secondary school level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 317–344. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.10.002
11.
MeansB.ToyamaY.MurphyR.BakiM. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–47.
12.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Technical manual: For use with measures of academic progress and achievement level tests. Portland, Oregon.
StakerH.HornM. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. San Mateo, CA: Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation.
15.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.LevineP. (2006). The academic achievement and functional performance of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2006-3000). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved fromhttp://ncser.ed.gov/pubs
16.
WangY.DeckerJ. R. (2014). Examining digital inequities in Ohio’s K-12 virtual schools: Implications for educational leaders and policymakers (Paper 19). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University, Educational Policy Studies Faculty Publications. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_facpub/19/
WigfieldA.GuthrieJ. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
