Ubiquitous learning is a concise term to describe what public schools are trying to accomplish with technology and blended learning. Blended learning integrates e-learning tools and technology-enhanced instruction which changes the activities, curriculum, and interpersonal relationships in the learning environment (Boone, 2015; Loh et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2015). Technology-enhanced instruction “incorporates asynchronous learning channels, which often provides scholars with more relevance in their understanding and learning content in a given course” (Alijani et al., 2014, p. 131).

According to Staker and Horn (2012), there are four models of blended learning: rotation, flex, self-blend, and enriched virtual https://www.raiseyourhandtexas.org/blended-learning/understanding-different-models-blended-learning/

The Blended learning taxonomy diagram depicts a taxonomy scheme for the implementation of blended learning in existing education programs that are preparing to integrate technology in instruction and learning. From “Classifying K-12 Blended Learning,” by H. Staker and M. Horn, 2012, p. 2. Copyright 2012 by the Innosight Institute.

Blended models personalize instruction to individual learners and can meet the needs of both advanced and struggling students (Alijani et al., 2014; Dror, 2010). Students can move through the content at their own pace and independent of their peers. Blended learning also offers opportunities for teachers to provide extra support to students who are struggling. The rotation model is often used with elementary students. Learning stations are set-up in the classroom with at least one incorporating technology and another where students receive face-to-face instruction with the teacher. The station rotation model does not typically transcend to the upper grades. Rather, secondary teachers are now experimenting with playlists where students choose activities, and the pace and path in which to complete those activities during a given week (read Using Playlists to Personalize Learninghttps://literacyworldwide.org/blog/literacy-daily/2018/06/08/using-playlists-to-personalize-learning). Students also have the opportunity to meet with teachers during the regularly scheduled class period.

Blended learning is designed for students to learn in part through online delivery and face-to-face instruction in a physical classroom (Staker et al., 2011). However, the face-to-face component has now evolved into a virtual format with online meetings and more transparency using cloud-based activities. Blended learning espouses the concept of student agency, where students have control over their learning, have voice and choice in how they learn, and have some control over where and when they learn (Fassbender & Lucier, 2014; Fulton, 2012). Using playlists in a virtual blended model affords students the opportunity to continue exercising student agency as playlists are easily created in a CMS or LMS and work well for distance/virtual learning environments.

References

Alijani, G. S., Kwun, O., & Yu, Y. (2014). Effectiveness of blended learning in KIPP New Orleans schools. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 18(2), 125-141. Retrieved from https://seu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.seu.idm.oclc.org/docview/1645850304?accountid=43912

Boone, J. (2015). Leading learning organizations through transformational change. The International Journal of Educational Management, 29(3), 275-283. Retrieved from https://seu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-docview/1668209573?accountid=43912

Dror, I. (2010). Technology enhanced learning: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Inside Learning Technologies and Skills, 79-84. Retrieved from http://www.cedma-europe.org

Fassbender, W. J., & Lucier, J. A. (2014). Equalizing the teacher-to-student ratio through technology: A new perspective on the role of blended learning. Voices from the Middle, 22(2), 21-28. Retrieved from https://seu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.seu.idm.oclc.org/docview/1635286461?a...

Fulton, K. (2012). 10 reasons to flip. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 20-24.

Loh, C., Wong, D. H., Quazi, A., & Kingshott, R. P. (2016). Re-examining students' perception of e-learning: An Australian perspective. The International Journal of Educational Management, 30(1), 129-139. Retrieved from https://search-proquest com.seu.idm.oclc.org/docview/1750369088?accountid=43912

Staker, H., Chan, E., Clayton, M., Hernandez, A., Horn, M. B., & Mackey, K. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models [White paper]. Retrieved from Innosight Institute: https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-rise-of-K-12-blended-learning.em...

Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying k-12 blended learning. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535180.pdf

Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380-393. Retrieved from https://seu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.seu.idm.oclc.org/docview/1683511641?a...