Personalizing Instruction with Blended Learning Bernadette Rowley and

Personalizing Instruction with Blended Learning Bernadette Rowley and Danielle John-Zensky PITTSFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Our Background Bernadette Rowley- multiage teacher Danielle John-Zensky- math interventionist Pittsfield Elementary School 336 students PK-6 Schoolwide Title 1 Participant in the NG 2 grant Competency based district 1: 1 devices are new to Pittsfield Elementary school, below the 5 th grade level. Last year was the first year most classes below 5 th grade had the opportunity to fully implement blending learning.

Discussion Think about one online program or tool that you are currently using in your district…. Consider 1 thing that you feel makes that program an impactful tool to use with students. Turn and talk to a neighbor. . .

Blended Learning is NOT. . . Simply giving out instruction that is technology rich or using multiple gadgets and devices to facilitate learning. It is much more than just technology layering.

Blended learning IS…. .

Online programs we use ● ● ● ● ● PK- 8 math program Gamified environment Standards-based Adaptive to learner’s needs Data is readily available Auto-selects lesson for students based on progress Teacher has the ability to assign up to 2 lessons at a given time Students can access from any online device Fully implemented in grades K-5 at PES Intro video www. dreambox. com

Online programs we use ● ● Fact fluency practice Moves students through a predictable sequence as they master facts Daily score to check progress Data tracking to see progress history xtramath. org

Online programs we use ● ● ● ● ● PK- 5 literacy program Gamified environment Aligns with Common Core Built in scaffolding to support students Pass levels as progress towards mastery is made Students are flagged for intervention when needed Areas of focus include: Phonological Awareness, Phonics, Structural Analysis, Automaticity/Fluency, Vocabulary, Comprehension Students can access from any online device Fully implemented Intro video www. lexialearning. com

Discussion With a neighbor, share 1 thing about these programs that intrigues you or you feel may fit into your instructional time.

Reviewing online data We review the data for a variety of reasons: ● ● ● ● Determining SLO population area of need Responding to SLO population needs Data to create flexible groupings Independent goal-setting Progress monitoring Assigning lessons Determining intervention needs

Data for new flexible groupings Finding commonalities in the data to help group students based on skill needs, such as: ● ● Sight word practice Sentence sequencing Fact practice 1: 1 correspondence for counting

Flexible groupings for math. . . For each unit: 1. All students are preassessed on the competency. 2. Small groups are formed based on preassessment results- about 8 -10 students per larger group. 3. 2 sub groups are formed based on specific preassessment data (4 -5 students per group) 4. Students can move to a different group if they master skills faster or slower than their peers within the group. 5. Reassess at the end of unit. 6. Provide intervention for those not meeting competency.

SLO Population ● ● ● Identify areas of need Target skills practice based on their identified weaknesses ○ Can be online or paper practice Monitor progress of determined areas of need

Typical instruction period Math● ● 1 block per day for 50 minutes ○ 25 minutes direct instruction in small flexible groups ○ 25 minutes on ipad for xtramath and then Dreambox 15 minute academic choice time (intervention opportunity) ○ 1: 1 targeted instruction or small group ○ Students can choose Dreambox or xtramath

Typical instruction period ELA● 2 blocks per day ○ 1 block in classroom of ability/mixed groups for 50 minutes ○ 1 block in targeted skills groups based on ability for 50 minutes ○ 1 Fundations phonics block of 35 minutes ○ 15 minute academic choice time ■ Students can choose Lexia

Assigning lessons We assign lessons for the following reasons: ● ● ● To meet student needs for weaker areas To mirror instruction for extra practice of face-to-face teaching To allow students to practice the standards/skills they have not yet mastered or attempted on their own

Progress monitoring CONSTANTLY looking at the available data to see who is making no progress, who is making slow progress, and who is exceeding expectations. We look for those students whose online progress does not match demonstrated progress within our group instruction. Comparing time on program versus progress to find discrepancies and determine who to improve progress. Using Lexia Skill Builder to maintain skills previously mastered.

Intervention perspective Using the data to provide instruction to the students who have determined areas of weakness: ● ● ● Lexia intervention lessons are provided when a student needs scaffolded support more than 3 times for a particular skill ○ Can be provided by any adult in the school Continually assign a skill in Dreambox when a student needs additional practice ○ Pull student for 1: 1 or small group work in that area Seek alternative ways to practice mastery of skills ○ Home connection

Discussion Think about the last time you set a goal with a student, your own child, or even a co-worker. Share with a neighbor: ● What was the goal? ● What steps did you take to reach it? ● Who or what helped you along the way?

Independent goal-setting ● ● Xtramath ○ Focus on fact fluency ○ Use xtramath. org program for data ○ Students complete weekly goal setting and reflection sheets Dreambox ○ Post weekly class list of top 10 ■ Most minutes on program ■ Most lessons completed ■ Most progression within standards Post Lexia level-ups Student conferences

Data from last year: Dreambox ● Class completed 4, 572 lessons last year ○ average of about 254/student ● 3 students moved onto the 3 rd grade version of the program ○ 1 first grader and 2 second graders ● 2 first graders working on all second grade standards

Data from last year: xtramath ● ● 5 students passed the first program (addition) and moved onto subtraction 2 students passed both addition and subtraction and moved onto multiplication 13 students have gone up at least 30 percentage points since starting goals on 1/3/17, 12 students at least 40 points, 10 students 50 or more points Average score increase was 70 points

Data from last year: Lexia

SLO growth from last year Our goal- By June of 2017, 40% of the students who did not meet their projected growth on the MAP test the previous year will meet or exceed projected growth on the spring MAP test. Our results- 75% of targeted Olympians met the SLO goal. IEP students● 5 identified students improved to being at, or within 4 points, of grade-level benchmark. on Reading MAP test. ● 86% (6/7) identified students met their projected growth.