Running head: BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Using Blended Learning with At-Risk Students in Outreach Schools.

Jennifer Southcombe
Memorial University of Newfoundland

Author Note
Correspondence can be addressed to 4336 148 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6H 5V5. Contact:
jasouthcombe@gmail.com

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Abstract
Outreach schools are alternative programs that provide personalized education to students
choosing not to attend or unable to attend traditional schools. The majority of Outreach
students are considered at-risk and Outreach teachers are always looking for new ways to
improve at-risk student success - be it graduation rates or achievement. A variety of blended
learning models are analyzed for potential use in an Outreach school setting. The Flex Model,
the Enriched Virtual model and variations on these were found to be the most suitable for the
Outreach school setting. Blended learning is found to improve student success more than
traditional face-to-face or online learning alone. Initial blended learning research involving
at-risk students suggests similar results. However, due to the limited nature of this research
on K-12 at-risk students specifically in blended learning environments, more empirical
studies must be performed before robust conclusions can be formed.

Table of Contents

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Abstract

Table of Contents

Introduction

Definition of Blended Learning

Outreach Schools

Blended Learning
Models

8
8

Rotation Model

Flex Model

11

A-La-Carte Model

13

Enriched Virtual Model

13

Variations on the Models

14

Blended Learning Outcomes

16

At-Risk Students

18

Conclusion

22

References

25

Using Blended Learning with At-Risk Students in Outreach Schools.

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

There is much hype, conversation and controversy around blended learning in

Canada and across the United States. Horn and Evans (2013) argue that blended learning will
be the disruptive innovation that transforms the education system from the current one-sizefits-all transmissive model to a student-centric system customized for each students distinct
learning needs and [will] bolster each student's achievement (p. 26). The 2015 K-12
Horizon Report identifies the increased use of blended learning as an important trend that will
drive educational technology adoption over the next 1-2 years (Johnson, Adams Becker,
Estrada & Freeman, 2015). Teachers are always looking for ways to mitigate some of the
disadvantages of the learning environment in which they teach; According to Akkoyunlu and
Soylu (2008), these disadvantages have teachers searching for ways to combine the
advantages of e-learning and traditional learning environments resulting in a new learning
environment known as blended learning. Barbour and LaBonte (2014) explain that blended
learning use in Canada has been increasing and cite the astonishing statistic that from 2011
to 2014 the Ontario Ministry of Education coordinated an initiative to roll out access to
blended learning for all K-12 students, which resulted in almost 240,000 blended learning
enrollments in the provincial learning management system during the 2013-14 school year
(p. 1).
Some school leaders are recognizing the potential for online and blended learning to
provide access to advanced courses, low-incidence courses, courses for credit recovery, and
courses designed for students with special circumstances (Raymond, Smith, Johnson and
Glick, 2015, p.71). Teachers working with diverse student groups, such as in an Outreach
school, could capitalize the on these potential opportunities. As blended learning becomes
more main-stream there is value in understanding whether the blended learning approach
would help improve the instruction at Outreach schools. Moving to blended learning would
entail large investments in computer software and teacher course development time, but has

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

the potential to dramatically improve these student supports. Before large investments are
made by individual Outreach teachers the following research question needs to be answered:
How would a blended learning approach influence at-risk student success in an Outreach
school environment?
Definition of Blended Learning
The definition of blended learning can be quite broad as it contains many models and
variations on the models. According to Graham (2006), blended learning combines face-toface learning with distributed learning systems that rely heavily on technology. Horn and
Evans (2013) describe blended learning as learning that combines online learning with
elements of a brick-and-mortar experience (p. 22). Staker and Horn (2012) extend this
definition by adding that there must be some element of student control over time, place,
path and/or pace (p. 3). Watson (2008) views blended learning as a pedagogical approach
that combines the effectiveness and socialization opportunities of the classroom with the
technologically enhanced active learning possibilities of the online environment, rather than a
ratio of delivery modalities (p.4). Others have also extended the blended learning definition
into the pedagogical realm rather than focussing on the modality; Patrick, Kennedy and
Powell (2013) explain that blended learning involves an explicit shift of the classroom-level
instructional design to optimize student learning and personalize learning and should
provide greater student control and flexibility in pathways for how a student learns, where
and when a student learns and how they demonstrate mastery (p14).
McRae (2015) has voiced valid concerns that the ambiguity of some of these
definitions will allow private companies to come in and define the space in order to sell their
particular product ranging from full suite of eLearning courses to specific educational
courseware. These issues are creating questions about the future role of the teacher and the
appropriate use of technology in education. McRae (2015) believes that technologies should

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

be employed to help students become empowered citizens rather than passive consumers
and encourages teachers to claim the blended learning space (p.26). However, to claim this
space (and the term) from for-profit companies, teachers must understand blended learning.
Blended learning is a trend in education showing up around the world. In Singapore
all teachers are prepared to teach online and in blended learning environments. This training
is emphasised during the one week a year when the school buildings close and all school is
taught online (Dichev, Dicheva, Agre & Angelova, 2013). A handful of US states have even
passed laws that require every K-12 student, before graduation, to experience at least one
online learning course (Kennedy and Archambault, 2015). These directions are beginning to
force a model of blended learning on a large number of students and teachers making an
examination of blended learning research timely.
Outreach Schools
Outreach schools are a current system of alternative education put into place to
prevent [students] leaving before graduation or to facilitate their return if they do leave
prematurely (Housego, 1999, p.85). Typically, Outreach schools are brick-and-mortar
schools that individualize student instruction through the use of print-based distance
education materials and individual student program plans that allow for personalized course
sequencing and pacing, credit recovery options, non-attendance options and face-to-face
tutorial supports. Outreach staff recognize that each student is unique and attempt to give
students what they themselves feel they need instead of focusing on what others decide they
need (Housego, 1999). Students progress at their own rate and the choice to attend is
typically as they wish, with some choosing to attend daily, weekly or only show up to submit
and pick-up new materials. This attempt to meet the needs of a very diverse student body has
led to the educational innovation of the Outreach school (Housego, 1999).

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Even with all this innovation in education, technology and online learning options
have been slow to make their way to most of these alternative schools. Outreach teachers are
still finding what studies by Longhurst and OHara (2003) and Sellen (1997) found, that large
numbers of learners still prefer reading from paper prints. However, this preference for print
has noticeably been changing as of late. Inequitable access to technology by students from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds has also been claimed as a reason to not promote online
courses or online course content in the Outreach school settings (Brown, 2000). However,
every year mobile technologies are becoming more and more available and according to the
Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, in 2013, ownership of at least one cell
phone was reported by 84.9% of households (CWTA, 2013). Other reasons courses may
remain in print format include teacher technology comfort levels and abilities and the time
factor associated with creating online course materials; a typical Outreach may involve one
teacher who is responsible for teaching all the high school social studies courses or even all
of the humanities courses.
Students from a wide variety of educational backgrounds choose to attend Outreach
schools; most are considered at-risk students, meaning they are at risk of not graduating or of
leaving school without an acceptable level of basic skills (Brown, 2000). There are a wide
variety of reasons that students may be at risk, including mental health or behavioral issues,
substance abuse, homelessness, full-time employment, or adolescent pregnancy (LaganaRiordan et al., 2011). Outreach students are a diverse group that have typically experienced
minimal success and many see themselves as misunderstood and unfairly treated (Housego,
1999, p.85). Some students may be attempting to complete high school while working parttime or full-time, or want to work at their own pace while other students prefer to avoid
traditional schools for social reasons (Housego, 1999, p.85). A large percentage of at-risk
students have either a learning or behavioural disability and Lange (1998) suggests that

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

looking for more innovative ways to teach will help address individual student learning
needs. When looking at the variety of circumstances and situations students are coming from,
the measuring of student success in an Outreach school will vary on a student by student case
but could include measurements of course completions, academic achievements, attendance,
engagement and graduation rates. The studies referred to in this paper most commonly use
academic achievement and graduation rates as the measures of student success.
Ferdigs (2010) summary of research on dropout prevention lists individualized
instruction as a promising practice because it provides students with just-in-time support
preventing students from getting lost and giving up (p. 10). Just-in-time support is exactly
what Outreach teachers strive for but tend to rely on the face-to-face environment or the
scaffolding embedded in the print materials for these supports.
To answer the research question, this paper will examine a variety of case studies of
blended learning models for their potential application within the confines of an Outreach
school setting. Then a thorough investigation and analysis of the empirical research on
blended learning and its effect on student success is provided. Lastly, the investigation of the
research will focus in on research that includes at-risk students in blended learning situations.
Blended Learning
Models
There are many different ideas and models of what blended learning looks like. Horn
and Staker (2015) identify and describe four main models while others use a definition of
blended learning to describe whether or not a situation falls within the realm of this type of
learning. These four models of blended learning are Rotation, Flex, A La Carte, and Enriched
Virtual (Horn & Staker, 2015). It is important to note that many variations and combinations
of these models also exist and continue to develop as teacher and school experimentation
with blended learning continues. As the models and case studies are examined, the following

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

questions will be answered: What models or examples of blended learning are being used
with at-risk students? Are any of these successful models applicable to an Outreach school
setting?
Rotation Model. Taking a look through the models, the Rotation Model is the model
that most brick and mortar classroom teachers gravitate towards as it is doable within the
confines of the classroom and the attendance requirements of the education system. The
model includes variations like station rotation, lab rotation, flipped classroom and individual
rotation as sub-types (Horn & Staker, 2015). Typically in the Rotation Model, students rotate
among learning modalities either as directed by a teacher or through the use of personal
algorithms (Horn & Staker, 2015). These stations could include online learning, small-group
instruction, whole-group instruction and pencil-and-paper assignments at student desks, in
labs or other classrooms. Monitors rather than teachers may staff computer labs freeing up
teachers to focus on concept extension and critical thinking skills (Horn & Staker, 2015 p.
41). Studies with low-income students using this model showed success in that a notable
step toward closing the achievement gap in math was made while saving large amounts of
money (Horn & Staker, 2015, p.41). While many variations on this rotation model are
proving successful, the daily attendance requirement and the expectation that facilities can
hold all the students each day, is way above what most Outreach schools can currently offer.
There is no doubt that lessons can be learned from these blended approaches but it is
important to understand the limitations of adopting these models fully in an Outreach school
setting.
The following example is a case study of two schools using the rotation model with
at-risk students. The New Orleans Public School Board has a public charter alternative high
school called the ReNew Accelerated High School that is geared toward at-risk students,
specifically those who are too old for traditional high schools and still need a number of

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

credits to graduate. Each student has a computer and the students attend school alternating
between the online learning and face-to-face learning with a traditional teacher in 4 hour
shifts. What is interesting to note is that the school switched from using online courses from
their initial provider Plato to Compass Learning Odyssey courses because the courses werent
engaging enough and quizzing was too easy. One adult student described an online creditrecovery course in world history requir[ing] next-to-no critical thinking and was allowed to
take the tests as many times as she liked to earn a passing grade (Carr, 2014, p.35). The newer
online course material has tougher quizzing, more engaging content and teachers can make
changes to the material (Carr, 2014). Teachers are also providing face-to-face mini-lessons
on difficult concepts before students begin the online lesson in an attempt to improve
understanding. The incentives and punitive measures in the United States surrounding
graduation rates, credit recovery and academic achievement is beyond the scope of this paper
but point to the value in looking deeper into each model to see if more than the modality
changes but if any pedagogical change has occurred.
The same New Orleans school district next opened the public charter Arthur Ashe
Academy as a blended learning school. The decision to be blended was due to the school
having the highest percentage of special education students of any school in New Orleans
(26%) and they felt that special education students would experience the biggest benefit
from blended learning because of its inherent personalized instruction capabilities (Watson
et. al, 2014, p. 49). During their eight-hour school day, students rotate between small groups,
whole class instruction and the computer lab with adaptive digital content. In 201213, Ashe
saw a 17% growth in math on state assessments over the previous year (Watson et. al, 2014,
p. 49).
It is interesting to note that both the blended learning models described above have a
regularly scheduled attendance requirement. The attendance requirement could potentially

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

reduce the current flexibility observed in Outreach schools but on the other hand, could be
linked to the students success. Specific research on attendance versus nonattendance policies
may be something to consider in the future. This study provides an example of a blended
learning model that improved student achievement. Unfortunately the study does not
specifically look at the at-risk student population separately from the larger student group so
the specific effect on the at-risk student population remains unknown.
Flex Model. The next model, the Flex Model of blended learning, has been used in
alternative education centers in the United States for at-risk students, credit recovery and
summer programming (Horn & Staker, 2015, p.41). In this model, content and instruction are
delivered mainly online with a teacher on-site providing supports on an as-needed basis
through activities such as small-group instruction, group projects, and individual tutoring
(Watson et. al., 2014, p.12). These programs tend to have less rigid attendance requirements
than the Rotation Model, allowing students to show up any time throughout the day to learn
via an individually customized fluid schedule among learning modalities (Horn & Staker,
2015, p.47). Wichita Public School Learning Centers are an example of the Flex Model
directed at at-risk youth and adult students - those that have dropped out or failed courses - in
response to the district's low graduation rate (Mackey, 2010). Their Learning Centers utilise
computer-based instruction under the direction of certified teachers, meaning students may
come and go any time the school is open. Mackey (2010) describes the online content as
advantageous for the following reasons:
Permits students to enroll or finish the program at any time during the year
and not follow a traditional school calendar;
Offers students a wide range of courses and course levels without requiring
a dedicated teacher for each level and subject;
Allows students to learn at their own pace and preferred time;
Enables the use of a mastery-based curriculum that ensures students are
learning as they progress through a course;

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Provides rapid, unbiased feedback that allows teachers to intervene as soon

as students begin struggling with a concept. (p. ii)

According to Mackey (2010) the districts graduation rate has risen eight percentage
points since the program first began in 1999 (p.ii). This is an example of a Flex Model that
most resembles the flexible setting of current Outreach schools.
The use of storefront locations and open-space learning centers where students come
and go according to no set schedule is the typical setting for Outreach schools. The main
differing feature between the Flex Model example above and current Outreach school model
is that the backbone of the Flex Model uses computer-based instruction or online learning
modality to deliver the majority of the course material. Many of the advantages attributed to
the online course material listed above can also be described as attributes of print course
materials except for the last point. Print course materials do not allow for rapid feedback as
the teacher interventions may be delayed days or weeks depending on when the teacher
marks the materials or the student requests help in person. As mentioned in the introduction,
Outreach teachers should strive for the ability to provide rapid feedback and the just in time
supports that can be offered through online course-wares in the hope they prevent students
from struggling and dropping out. Therefore, elements of the Flex Model have the potential
to improve conditions at an Outreach school.
A La Carte Model. The A La Carte Model is where high school students take an
online course while also attending a traditional brick-and-mortar school (Horn & Staker,
2015). This is the most common type of blended learning at the high-school level and
typically results from courses not being offered in a home school or from timetable conflicts.
This model applies mostly to the traditional school setting and may not greatly affect the
Outreach school setting.

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Enriched Virtual Model. Enriched Virtual is the fourth blended learning model and
originated from online schools wanting to enhance their online courses with required face-toface interactions (Horn & Staker, 2015). These online schools created physical learning
spaces for students to come together. Students may be required to meet once a week or daily
on a rotation schedule. Students can work on their courses and have contact with their teacher
onsite or online from home. Barbour and LaBontes (2014) findings point out that in Canada,
many traditional distance programs have modified instructional practices to include
more synchronous, live events and meetings and as part of this approach we are now
seeing many programs shift from being exclusively any time, any place, any pace to
a structured cohort intake enrollment model coupled with required live events and
group work (p.7).

Two Canadian examples that would be considered Enriched Virtual Models of

blended learning are the Argyll Centre Bridges to Achievement program and British
Columbias Navigate Program. Both of these schools originated as distance education
schools delivering online courses and have both moved to develop more blended programs in
recent years. In Edmonton, the Argyll Centre Bridges to Achievement program uses
individualized learning programs to help at-risk students requiring additional supports. The
program is a mixture of onsite weekly sessions, online virtual classroom sessions and homebased instruction (Bridges, n.d.). British Columbias Navigate Program in the
Courtenay/Comox school district also offers many diverse and innovative programs (About,
2016). One such program is the eCademy of New Technology, Engineering and Robotics or
ENTER program. This blended project-based program uses science and technology to deliver
the BC curriculum through three days a week of face-to-face learning and two days a week of
online learning. This is one of the blended programs that lead to Navigate receiving
iNACOLs 2014 Innovative Blended and Online Learning Practice Award of the year
(Barbour & LaBonte, 2014). Unfortunately most available research on these programs does

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

not extend past a description of the programs or general course completion rates for the entire
school district.
The Flex Model and the Enriched Virtual Model can begin to resemble one another as
they evolve. eLearning is the backbone of both models and large investments in online
courseware would be required if either model was to be employed by Outreach schools. Both
models but would suit the Outreach setting and flexible attendance requirements.
Variations on the models. As discussed, the definitions for blended learning can vary
greatly and so to can the various blended learning models; Watson et. al. (2014) describe
blended learning implementations as having infinite permutations, making it extremely
difficult to identify and study (p.4). Horn and Staker (2015) admit that after amending the
descriptions of the blended-learning models many times, there are blended learning programs
that mix and match the models resulting in a combination approach (p.52).
One of these mix and match or combination approaches could explain the New
Albany-Plain Schools (NAPLS) in Ohio which completely redesigned the instructional model
to offer 17 blended courses (Horn & Staker, 2015). These blended courses reduce the
traditional whole class instruction time to 1-2 days per week while providing the coursework
online during the remaining days. These courses are taught through a flexible mixture of the
physical classroom and the digital learning space. Students may complete the online work at
home instead of during the scheduled time. The teachers design their own online content and
determine the face-to-face and online components. These blended courses have shown:
statistically similar outcomes in course grades
80% of students like their blended courses
86% of these same students reported that they had the ability to work at their own pace in
their blended courses
88% of the spring 2014 students report that their blended courses were well organized in the
LMS and this made learning easier (Watson et. al., 2014, p. 47).

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

The NAPLS model above does not necessarily focus on at-risk students but does
reveal that the combination of face-to-face and online components provides students with the
opportunity to work at their own pace even within a synchronous course setting. However,
the idea of flexible pace may vary dramatically between different at-risk students - where one
student may take weeks to complete a course and another may take months - this amount of
flexibility would be difficult to achieve in a synchronous course setting. There are many other
variations on the models that could work or evolve to work in an Outreach setting. Mixing
and matching the best pieces of each of the models would allow Outreach teachers to develop
flexible blended learning situations to meet their students needs.
While not all of the examples of blended learning models discussed have been
examined through empirical research, there is still value in evaluating the various models and
combinations of models that have evolved to support and improve student success. In the
above section, an attempt was made to provide examples of models used with at-risk students
or in environments similar to the current Outreach school setting. As indicated, some of these
models are neither logistically appropriate for an Outreach setting nor appropriate for
Outreach students requiring flexible schedules.
Blended Learning Outcomes
With so many examples and vignettes offered about the different blended learning
models and variations being used it is interesting to find, as Repetto and Spitler s (2014)
review confirms, there is a lack of peer-reviewed, research-based articles on blended learning
within the Canadian context. As Barbour and LaBonte point out in the 2014 State of the
Nation, beyond a small number of descriptive, overview pieces, the British Columbia
Teachers Federation (BCTF) and Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN) have
conducted most of the existing research (p.7). However, much of this research has focussed
on online learning rather than blended learning or to understand what K-12 blended learning

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

means to the role of the teacher. With this apparent shortage of studies within the K-12
Canadian blended learning context, both international and Canadian studies will be examined
in this section. This section will focus on the quantitative research involving experimental
studies looking at student success as opposed to the research presented in the last sections
which focussed mostly on the descriptions and analysis of the various blended learning
models.
Flipped classrooms, a type of blended learning, have become very popular with high
school teachers. An experimental study of Grade 12 biology students, who had studied in a
flipped classroom style of learning -were academically more successful than the students who
studied in the traditional face-to-face learning environment (Kazu & Demirkol, 2014). Kazu
and Demirkol (2014) suggest the results are due to the fact that the students can get access to
information in any place without being limited by boundaries or spaces with blended learning
environment[s] (p. 86). In a different study of flipped learning, Mattis (2015) wanted to
compare flipped classroom instruction versus a traditional classroom and chose to
specifically look at the use of instructional videos versus the traditional textbook instruction.
The study results show that the experimental group receiving flipped instruction
demonstrated higher accuracy on the post-test than the traditional instruction setting,
specifically on items of moderate complexity (Mattis, 2015, p.244). The study also looks at
cognitive load and finds accuracy increased and mental effort decreased with flipped
instruction (Mattis, 2015, p. 231). Results such as these may be used to inform blended
learning instructional design best practices and encourage the use of instructional videos as
online course materials students can access any time.
In Najafi, Evans and Redericos (2014) study of two groups of high school students,
one group, the MOOC (massive online open course) had no face-to-face teacher support and
the second group, the blended-mode, had weekly face-to-face tutorials - found that the

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

blended students stayed more on track and were more persistent in retaking quizzes. These
findings are consistent with the literature findings summarized by Akkoyunlu and Soylu
(2008) that human support is very important for learners and it introduces a personal touch
to help with problems, sustain interest or motivate learners (p. 190).
All of the above 2014 studies corroborate the findings of an earlier important 2013
meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of both purely online and blended versions of
online learning as compared with traditional face-to-face learning. Based on the 45 studies
included in the analysis it finds that purely online learning is equivalent to face-to-face
instruction in effectiveness and that blended learning approaches are more effective than
either instruction offered entirely in face-to-face mode or purely online (Means, Toyama,
Murphy & Baki, 2013). It is also important to note that the study describes the way blended
learning situations provide for additional learning time, instructional resources, and course
elements that encourage interactions among learners (Means et. al., 2013, p.1). These
factors, shaped through the use of blended learning approaches, appear to be key elements in
instruction effectiveness and warrant further exploration in future research.
Not all studies have found blended learning to improve student achievement. One
study looking at grade 11 electrical engineering students in a vocational school found no
significant achievement differences between students learning in the traditional method
versus a blended learning method over a 5 week period. However, they did find significant
differences in the self-assessments scores in that the blended learning experimental group had
higher self-assessment scores than the control group. Chang, Shu, Liang, Tseng, and Hsu
(2014) explain that the blended learning experimental group had more positive perceptions
of cognition and skill because the blended e-learning provides both a traditional learning
and an e-learning environment at the same time, which enables students to review the
material repeatedly and discuss with peers online (p. 225).

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

The blended learning approach, whether flipping a classroom through the use of video
instruction or adding face-to-face elements to purely online MOOCS, improves student
success. Will this student success observed above also be observed in at-risk student
populations? The next section will focus specifically on the research looking at at-risk student
success in blended learning environments.
At-Risk Students
While the above studies do not specifically look at at-risk student achievement in
blended learning environments there is value in exploring the elements of blended learning
that have produced successful results in the general student population. Finding empirical
studies of blended learning within the K-12 context was challenging enough but to find
research that extended to at-risk students proved an even greater challenge. Many researchers
have commented that at-risk students have become a significant percentage of the K-12
online and blended learning student population but there is a great lack of empirical research
in support of this shift (Barbour, 2009; Repetto & Spitler, 2014). It is important to note that
"students identified as at-risk often include students with disabilities" (Repetto & Spitler,
2014, p. 112). Therefore it is relevant to look at research that includes blended learning and
students with disabilities. Since limited studies exist about best practices in blended learning
for at-risk students, research on best practices within traditional or strictly online
environments could also be looked at and extrapolated to the blended learning environment
(Repetto & Spitler, 2014). Repetto, Cavanaugh, Wayer and Liu (2010) describe the factors
affecting completion rates for students with disabilities in terms of virtual high schools and
online education. Repetto and Spitler (2014) feel it is reasonable to assume these same factors
for engaging students with disabilities apply to a blended learning situation as well as
traditional learning.

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Repetto et. al. (2010) describe the importance of the 5C's in improving graduation
rates for students with disabilities. According to Repetto and Spitler (2014) the 5Cs are
"interrelated and influence each other in order to provide a learning environment, be it faceto-face, blended or online, equipped to support all students" (p. 115). The 5Cs as described by
Repetto and Spitler (2014) include:
students need to be able to connect current learning in school to the knowledge and skills they
will need post-school
students need to be provided with a safe and supportive climate for learning
students need to understand and learn how they are in control of their own learning and
behaviours
students need an engaging curriculum grounded in effective instructional strategies and
evidence-based practices to support their learning
students need to be part of a caring community that values them as learners, as well as
individuals. (p. 115)

These five supports (5 Cs) are necessary in improving at-risk student success. Outreach
schools will want to ensure any instructional shift toward blended learning addresses and
strengthens these 5Cs.
One 3-year case study of at-risk high school students working fully online points out
that students appreciate the opportunity to work ahead and study at their own pace but they
find it a challenge to be responsible for their own learning and manage their time (Lewis,
Whiteside & Dikkers, 2014, p.1). Lewis et. al. (2014) suggest that with proper support
structures in place, students who are at-risk for dropping out can overcome challenges and
find success in an online learning environment (p.1). One of the support structures Lewis et.
al. (2014) recommend is an individualized, face-to-face system that will support at-risk
students with project management skills, monitor the learning process and one-on-one
instructor tutoring. This is consistent with the 5Cs specifically the need to help students
understand and learn how they are in control of their own learning which was described
earlier as a key factor in improving at-risk student achievement.

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

The Sunchild E-Learning Community created a blended learning model that aligns
with Lewis et. al.s (2014) recommendations described above. The Sunchild E-Learning
Community program is a blended self-paced approach to providing First Nations students
access to quality education. Sunchild First Nation found that their students faced many
challenges including family and legal situations, time away from class and relocating to new
homes and many students were adults wanting to upgrade and build a better future while
meeting their current schedules and responsibilities (Vaughan, 2012, p.1). Mentors, to help
students with organizing, scheduling, community building and tutorials, are now placed in the
local learning centers to provide face-to-face support. Online teachers provide the same
students with synchronous classes, tutorials and asynchronous content specific supports
through a web-based learning management system and conferencing tools. Vaughan (2012)
describes all of these supports as the key to the academic success of students in the
program (p.12). This blended approach helped First Nations students overcome major
learning challenges such as remote locations, lack of access to digital technologies, high
speed internet access, and quality teachers (Vaughan, 2012, p. 12). The First Nations
students in this study face challenges similar to those faced by many of the students found in
Outreach schools.
The results of this study would also be valuable to Outreach schools in remote areas
or small schools where one or two teachers run the whole show. It is important to pay close
attention to some of the program concerns and recommendations described by Vaughan
(2012): roles and responsibilities of the online teacher in this program can become
overwhelming, the importance of creating a sense of community at the learning centers and
there is a need for solid communication and tight feedback loops between mentors, online
teacher and students (p.12).

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Vaughans recommendation, that face-to-face supports in the blended learning model

allow at-risk students to stay more on track with their learning, are consistent with the 5Cs
and with the findings from Bonds (2012) study on special needs students in a hybrid school
setting. Bonds (2012) study looks at different hybrid and online instructional models and
identifies five keys areas that are associated with high student achievement, these are; the
existence of differentiated instruction, the presence of highly qualified, experienced teachers,
the presence of a system of constant monitoring and accountability, providing students with
opportunities to demonstrate learning in various ways, and opportunities for students to
interact with peers and staff (Bond, 2012, abstract p.1).
Another study that specifically looks at at-risk students provides some warnings.
Turners (2015) small sample study of at-risk digital natives comparing a traditional
classroom environment to an online environment shows that, at-risk students who were
comfortable with technology, preferred face-to-face interaction to an online learning
experience. Turner warns that at-risk digital natives may be experts at using social media
and technologies to function daily, [but] there remains a desire for face-to-face interaction or
the traditional lecture-style delivery. (p. 61). However, he does point out that a preference
for face-to-face instruction delivery does not actually translate into a measurable impact on
learning and this should be an area for further research. It is interesting to note that the at-risk
students preference for face-to-face learning could be mediated through a blended learning
approach.
Conclusion
The Outreach school setting is a unique learning environment that a wonderful variety
of students choose to a take part in. Due to its uniqueness, flexibility and focus on supporting
at-risk student success, Outreach teachers are always looking for new instructional techniques
to engage students. Outreach schools already have in place the flexible attendance practices

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

that would allow a variety of different blended learning models to be set up. However, it is
important to keep in mind that most Outreach schools are small spaces that cannot physically
contain all registered students face-to-face at one time, creating a limit on the attendance
options. As discussed, the Flex Model, the Enriched Virtual or variations on these are most
relevant to the small, flexible Outreach school setting. The various models of blended
learning presented above, whether based out of traditional brick and mortar schools or small
alternative school buildings, provide a snapshot of the possibilities for blended model
variations. These model variations can help inform what a model of blended learning might
look like at an Outreach school. Ferdig, Cavanaugh & Freidhoff (2015) warn that there are
multiple models and that not every model is right for every situation, which only emphasises
the importance of exploring as many models as possible (p. 57).
The accolades and hopes for the future of blended learning have been presented
throughout this paper and as Akkoyunlu and Soylu (2008) advise, blended learning has all the
benefits of e-learning, including cost reductions, time efficiency and location convenience
for the learner as well as the essential one-on-one personal understanding and motivation that
face-to-face instruction presents," (p.184). But most importantly, the research on blended
learning also supports many of these same claims. Research shows that blended learning
improves student success - be it increased graduation rates or student achievement (Watson
et. al, 2014; Mattis, 2015; Kazu & Demirkol, 2014; Means et. al., 2013).
According to Ferdig et. al. (2015), no study can conclude definitively that online and
blended education is always better than brick-and-mortar or vice versa (p.54). However,
they do agree with the majority of studies discussed in this paper that blended education is
as good as and sometimes is better and sometimes worse than face-to-face education
(p.54). The key is to look at the student and to determine if the environment suits them. What
features are in place to help them be successful? The research shows that the face-to-face

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

component provides key supports for all students including the at-risk student (Vaughan,
2012; Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2008; Whiteside & Dikkers, 2014). The marriage of online
formats with the face-to-face has been suggested to serve as a safety net for those at risk for
dropping courses and to fulfill the needs of students with specific delivery preferences
(Kassner, 2013, p. 6).
It is important to note that some researchers have taken research in online education
and extrapolated and applied it to the blended learning environment. Lessons can be learned
from research on online learning but it is important to keep in mind that the blended learning
environment is significantly different and, as noted in the authoritative meta-analysis by
Means et. al. (2013), it is more effective than online learning alone.
The focus of this study was to determine if blended learning could be used to improve
at-risk student success in an Outreach school setting. Some next steps for future research
would be to look deeper into the specific conditions that create the successful blended
learning environments for at-risk students. It was disappointing to see the limited empirical
research available on at-risk students, especially since these students make up a large
proportion of those found in blended learning environments (Barbour, 2009; Repetto &
Spitler, 2014). Due to the limited research on K-12 at-risk students specifically in blended
learning environments, more empirical studies must be performed before robust conclusions
can be formed. Hopefully research in this area will increase, specifically in the K-12
Canadian context.
Overall, the blended learning studies results suggest that a blended learning approach
could likely improve at-risk student achievement in Outreach schools. The recommendations
and suggestions provided by each of the studies are vital to create a successful program and
must play an integral part in any movement to develop a blended learning program in an
Outreach school.

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

References Cited
About Navigate Distributed Learning in BC. (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.navigatenides.com/about/index
Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A study of student's perceptions in a blended learning
environment based on different learning styles. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 11(1), 183-193. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info.qe2aproxy.mun.ca/index.php?http://www.ifets.info.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/abstract.php?
art_id=827
Barbour, M. K. (2009). Todays student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges,
the promise. Journal of Distance Learning, 13, 525. Retrieved from
http://journals.akoaotearoa.ac.nz/index.php/JOFDL/index
Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2014). State of the Nation: K-12 Online Learning in Canada.
Abbreviated edition. Canadian eLearning Network. Retrieved from
http://canelearn.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/StateOfTheNation2014.pdf
Bond, E. C. (2012). Program elements for special needs students in a hybrid school setting.
Retrieved from http://educationnext.org.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/credit-recovery-hitsmainstream/
Bridges to Achievement. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://argyll.epsb.ca/learning supports/bridges-to-achievement
Brown, M. R. (2000). Access, instruction, and barriers technology issues facing students at
risk. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 182-192. doi:
10.1177/074193250002100309
Carr, S. (2014). Credit recover hits the mainstream. Education Next, 14(3), 30-37.
Chang, C. C., Shu, K. M., Liang, C., Tseng, J. S., & Hsu, Y. S. (2014). Is blended e-learning
as measured by an achievement test and self-assessment better than traditional
classroom learning for vocational high school students? The International Review of

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2). Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1030111
CWTA (2013). Facts & Figures. Retrieved June 14, 2015, from http://cwta.ca/facts-figures/
Dichev, C., Dicheva, D., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2013). Current practices, trends and
challenges in K-12 online learning. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 13(3),
91-110.
Ferdig, R. E. (2010). Understanding the role and applicability of K12 online learning
to support student dropout recovery efforts. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual
University. Retrieved October, 18, 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.mivu.org/Portals/0/RPT_RetentionFinal.pdf
Ferdig, R.E., Cavanaugh, C., & Freidhoff, J. R. (2015). Research into K-12 online and
blended learning. In T. Clark & M. Barbour (Eds.), Online, blended and distance
education in schools: Building successful programs, (pp. 52 - 58). Virginia: Stylus
Publishing, LLC.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. CJ Bonk & CR Graham, The
handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer. Retrieved
from http://www.click4it.org/images/a/a8/Graham.pdf
Horn, M. B., & Evans, M. (2013). New schools and innovative delivery. Pathway to
success for Milwaukee schools, 16-27. Retrieved from
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/-hornevans-new-schools-andinnovative-delivery_163046841296.pdf
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools.
John Wiley & Sons.
Housego, B. E. (1999). Outreach schools: An educational innovation. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 45(1), 85. Retrieved from
http://ajer.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/26
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report:
2015 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?
accno=ED559357
Kassner, L. (2013). Mix It Up with Blended Learning in K12 Schools. Retrieved from
http://wp.vcu.edu/merc/files/2013/10/Blended-Learning-Report-9.13.131.pdf
Kazu, I. Y., & Demirkol, M. (2014). Effect of Blended Learning Environment Model on
High School Students' Academic Achievement. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal
of Educational Technology, 13(1). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov.qe2aproxy.mun.ca/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1018177
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2015). Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice in

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

Online Learning. Journal of Online Learning Research, 1(1), 5-7. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/149914/paper_149914.pdf
Lagana-Riordan, C., Aguilar, J. P., Franklin, C., Streeter, C. L., Kim, J. S., Tripodi, S.
J., & Hopson, L. M. (2011). At-risk students perceptions of traditional schools
and a solution-focused public alternative school. Preventing School Failure,
55(3), 105-114. doi:10.1080/10459880903472843
Lewis, S., Whiteside, A., & Dikkers, A. G. (2014). Autonomy and responsibility: Online
learning as a solution for at-risk high school students. Journal of Distance Education
(Online), 29(2), 1. Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca.qe2aproxy.mun.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/883/1543
Longhurst, J. (2003). World History on the World Wide Web: A student satisfaction survey
and a blinding flash of the obvious. History Teacher, 343-356. Retrieved from
http://www.historycooperative.org.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/journals/ht/36.3/
Mackey, K. (2010). Wichita public schools learning centers: Creating a new educational
model to serve dropouts and at-risk students. Innosight Institute, March. Retrieved
from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Wichita-PublicSchools-Learning-Centers.pdf
Mattis, K. V. (2015). Flipped classroom versus traditional textbook instruction: assessing
accuracy and mental effort at different levels of mathematical complexity.
Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(2), 231-248. http://dx.doi.org.qe2aproxy.mun.ca/10.1007/s10758-014-9238-0
McRae, P. (2015). Blended learning: The great new thing or the great new hype. 19-27.
Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answersheet/wp/2015/06/21/blended-learning-the-great-new-thing-or-the-great-newhype/This article was printed in the Summer
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online
and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers
College Record, 115(3), 1-47. Retrieved from
https://www.tcrecord.org/library/Abstract.asp?ContentId=16882
Najafi, H., Evans, R., & Federico, C. (2014). MOOC integration into secondary school
courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
15(5). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045969
O'Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In
Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing
systems (pp. 335-342). ACM.
Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., Powell, A., & International Association for K-12 Online, L. (2013).
Mean What You Say: Defining and Integrating Personalized, Blended and
Competency Education. International Association For K-12 Online Learning

BLENDED LEARNING IN OUTREACH

(iNACOL). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov.qe2aproxy.mun.ca/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED561301

Raymond, M. R., Smith, A., Johnson, K. & Glick, D. (2015). Ensuring equitable access in
online and blended learning. In T. Clark & M. Barbour (Eds.), Online, blended and
distance education in schools: Building successful programs, (pp. 71 - 81). Virginia:
Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Repetto, J., Cavanaugh, C., Wayer, N., & Liu, F. (2010). Virtual high schools: Improving
outcomes for students with disabilities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
11(2), 91. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/854554128?
accountid=12378
Repetto, J. B., & Spitler, C. J. (2014, January). Research on at-risk learners in K-12 online
learning. In R. E. Ferdig & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on K-12
Online and Blended Learning, (pp. 107-134). ETC Press. Retrieved from
http://press.etc.cmu.edu/files/Handbook-Blended-Learning_Ferdig-Kennedyetal_web.pdf
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 Blended Learning. Innosight
Institute. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535180
Turner, M. M. (2015). Technologys impact on the learning experience of at-risk digital
natives. Retrieved from https://dspace.iup.edu/handle/2069/2437
Vaughan, N.D. (2012). A blended approach to Canadian First Nations education: The
Sunchild e-learning community. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/Wellington12/2012/images/custom/vaughan,_nor
man_-_a_blended_approach.pdf
Watson, J. (2008). Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face
Education. Promising Practices in Online Learning. North American Council for
Online Learning. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509636
Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A., Gemin, B., Vashaw, L., & Evergreen Education, G. (2014).
Keeping Pace with K-12 Digital Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and Practice.
Eleventh Edition. Evergreen Education Group, Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?
id=ED558147