This is the Practicum Presentation for L. Schroeder-Girbino. ESLTECH 7289, Masters in Learning Technologies. The Ohio State University

1. CSCL/BLENDED LEARNING
MITOSIS/MEIOSIS UNIT
FOR EIGHTH GRADE SCIENCE
Lois Schroeder-Girbino
ESLTECH 7289 Practicum July 2018
The Ohio State University

2. ABSTRACTThis presentation reports on the instructional product created for LaurieCampitelli, a seventh and eighth
grade science teacher at AthensCity School District.The learning problems presented by the client
involved three main components: a) lack of student engagement with content; b) a content area gap
between sixth grade standards and eighth grade standards; and c) meeting the needs of all learners.The
design solution included creating a collaborative, computer-supported learning experience utilizing the
client’s existing LMS, Google Classroom, in addition to creating a separate blended-learning website on
Wordpress.The completed unit encompasses four weeks of instructional time and is aligned with both
ODE state standards and 5E instructional pedagogy. In both platforms, science students are given choices
on the sub-topics they will investigate, and inWordpress, they are given final project choices with ample
instructional supports. Odom and Bell (2015) found in their study that “demonstrations provide
insufficient opportunity for students to develop an understanding of the processes of science or to make
use of procedural knowledge in developing conceptual understanding” and that there is “a strong positive
association of attitudes toward science and frequency of student-centered teaching practices with science
achievement" (p. 93).

3. Introduction
The Client: Laurie Campitelli, seventh and eighth grade teacher atAthens City School District.The client
is a highly ranked and veteran teacher, who recently moved from gifted education at the elementary
level to teaching seventh and eighth grade science.
Identifying via S.W.O.T. analysis & phone conference. Strengths included client excels at creating
explorative learning environment but constrained (weakness) by pencil and paper assessment culture;
currently have 1:1 Chromebooks; both client and consultant are experienced educators with over thirty
years of combined classroom practice. Follow-up phone conference further distilled the three main
learning problems.
Learning Problems:
1. Due to the “standardization mentality on instruction” (L. Campitelli, S.W.O.T. communication, May
16, 2018), the client felt constrained by non-differentiable, pre-packaged learning materials that did not
engage her learners.The client wanted a more compelling PBL unit, with CSCL and blended learning
features, which would bridge an existing content-area gap.
2.The identified content knowledge, based on an analysis of ODE sixth-through-eighth grade content
standard statements, indicated inadequate preparation for mitosis/meiosis subject complexity.The
client has observed student frustration as a result.
3.The third and final learning problem was the client’s desire to meet the needs of the diverse learners
in her classroom

4. Instructional Solution & M.O.U.
■ Use Google Classroom for the CSCL and use Wordpress for the problem-based, blended learning experiences.
Both platforms would maximize existing technology, enabling collaboration and user-friendly, student-centered
instruction.This solution was the result of researching other learning management systems, discussing them with
my client, and synthesizing my literature review on CSCL in middle school science.
- Roth, et al., (2006) found “the usefulness of multiple representations of knowledge to promote a broad transfer of
learning in science and in other subject-matter learning” (Ainsworth 1999; Brenner et al. 1997; Stenning 1998;
Wilson, Shulman, and Richert 1987) (p.91).
- -Cheung, Slavin, Lake, and Kim (2017) synthesized quantitative research, finding that “the largest effect sizes came
from…studies of technology approaches integrating video and computer resources with teaching (weighted
ES=+0.42 in 6 studies)” (p.1). Furthermore, they suggested that “the types of programs that make a difference in
student outcomes are those that help teachers teach more effective lessons” including technology that helps
students visualize complex scientific concepts (Cheung, Slavin, Lake, Kim, 2017, p.1)
■ The Memorandum of Understanding primary deliverables:
- A two week mitosis unit and a two week meiosis unit that had CSCL and blended learning features. Each unit would
have the following: two labs, two embedded formatives, one summative, alignment to state standards, use existing
technology, and be gradebook ready.
- Weekly meetings, scheduled each Monday.
- The Classroom account and intellectual property therein would belong to Athens City School District.The
intellectual property onWordpress would be hosted by and belong to myself, L. Schroeder-Girbino. Any revisions to
the project deliverables would not exceed twenty hours in total and would trigger a renegotiation of the
deliverables. The client would provide relevant instructional materials and information and provide content area
expertise for the project. As consultant, I would manage the instructional product development process, meet
project deadlines, and maintain theWordpress account.

5. SYNTHESIS OF
PRODUCTION
PROCESS
Linear WBS became more iterative with UbD framework, 5E alignment

6. • Investigation into learning platform choices. I created multiple accounts in Edmodo, Schoology, Moodle,
Google Classroom, and Wordpress, then presented the pros and cons of each to my client in our first weekly
meeting. Client was most comfortable with her district’s current LMS, Classroom, especially if she needed
tech support from the resource person.
• We discussed the specific flow of the CSCL and blended learning features that she wanted me to
incorporate.The Google Sites component of G Suite for Education is limiting for layout design & nesting of
pages. I suggested that the static nature of PBL instructions for multiple projects lent itself well to archiving
on Wordpress, which my client approved. I set-up a dedicated website, nesting it as a subdomain on my
own website service, Bluehost. The agreed-upon solution became the basis for the M.O.U.
• Two issues became apparent at the beginning of the production cycle: a) I underestimated the time
allocation for the main instructional components (i.e. labs and projects); and b) my client was recuperating
from a hip replacement surgery at the beginning, so she did not share specific instructional preferences
until two weeks into the design cycle. I resolved the first issue readily by spending more time on the
instructional design than originally planned for in myWBS.The alignment to 5E pedagogy and writing
preferences was addressed by researching on my own until my client was mobile enough to access her
resources. “5E” is an instructional method for science content, students experience five tiers of instruction:
engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate.

7. • Weekly meetings supplemented by texting and follow-up phone calls. I found that this was
necessary for getting client approval of deliverable components such as each Classroom
assignment.The learning activities were designed to build off each other, so getting feedback
on each level before designing the next was critical.
• During each meeting, I took detailed notes covering each component we discussed, the
action items, what I would deliver the following week, and what I needed from my client. I
would read the notes to my client at the end of each phone call for confirmation and checked-
off each revision item as I addressed it.
• The majority of the revisions were minor in scope, usually grammar or prompt simplification
based on my client’s knowledge of her students. My client did decide that one summative, to
be taken offline, was preferable to separate mitosis and meiosis tests. Also, my client
retroactively decided that Mendel’s Laws were too complex to make a stand-alone topic, so I
designed a Punnett Square as a meiosis project choice inWordpress instead. In both cases,
the adjustments required little additional time and did not disrupt my workflow.

8. • Overall, I worked backwards on the first sequence of designing, the Classroom Mitosis
Unit, and followed a UbD framework for both Google Classroom units. For instance, I
knew that the final Mitosis knowledge activity (i.e. a FlipGrid) should be differentiable and
extend the learning, and then worked through the activities leading up to it. In UbD, the
learning experiences are based on six facets of understanding, “the capacity to explain,
interpret, shift perspective, empathize, and self-assess” (McTighe,Wiggins, 2018, p.1).
• I saw a strong alignment between the planning process of the UbD framework and the
instructional pedagogy of 5E: designing curriculum backwards from the goal of “teaching
and assessing for understanding and learning transfer” (McTighe,Wiggins, 2018, p.1) &
Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate (5E) (Duran & Duran, 2004).

9. EVALUATION & CLIENT
PRESENTATION
The full video of the client presentation (12 min.) can be accessed at
https://vimeo.com/279661090/7aa4d1c7cf

10. Final Deliverables:
■ Setting up a Google Classroom for both Mitosis and Meiosis.
■ Each Classroom features student co-construction of content knowledge
through collaborative activities, each encompassing a week of
instructional time (approximately 420 instructional minutes total).
■ Two formatives in each Classroom using a variety of media including
writing prompts and video responses.
■ One online, auto-scored mini-summative on mitosis.
■ A dedicated website onWordpress https://8thscience.tech/
with separate mitosis and meiosis sections, each encompassing a week
of instructional time (approximately 420 instructional minutes total).
■ Website hosting facilitated by L. Schroeder-Girbino.
■ A lab in eachWordpress section which provides scaffolding for the
subsequent project choices.
■ Four student-centered project choices in theWordpress mitosis section,
with embedded tutorials (including anchor texts for the writing project),
and separate rubrics for each project.
■ Three student-centered project choices in theWordpress meiosis
section, with embedded tutorials and separate rubrics for each project.
■ One offline final summative on mitosis/meiosis.
■ A dedicatedGoogle Drive folder in the client’s account with all
handouts, answer keys, and instructional resources inWord format (as
per client request for no PDFs).
■ An instructor guide covering online scoring within Classroom and the
kinesthetic, offline, sorting activity.

11. Screencast of Final Product
■ https://vimeo.com/280443261/9ed94bacfa
■ & https://youtu.be/2kDF1h8xF08

12. Evaluation of Final Product
■ “The flow of the design is excellent and the links lead students easily through the
learning clarifications and enhancements. Everything is well thought out and user
friendly. Learners have differentiated material and choice.The technology is
streamlined, and the entire mitosis and meiosis units embody the essence of blended
learning.” (L. Campitelli,Client Feedback Google Doc, July 6, 2018)
■ The Qualtrics survey executed after the client presentation comprised sixteen
questions covering all aspects of the project. In summary, the client used the highest
allowable scores on all metrics, ranging from a hundred point sliding scale to a “highly
satisfied” to “extremely dissatisfied” ranking scale. My client’s final comments
included “Lois Schroeder-Girbino did an exemplary job with this design process…the
design process was detailed and creative” (L. Campitelli, final comments in Qualtrics
survey, July 13, 2018).The full data survey report, generated on July 13, 2018, can be
found in the Appendix of Practicum Paper, Milestone #5 on
https://u.osu.edu/schroedergirbinopracticum/ .

13. FINAL REFLECTION
What worked, what did not, lessons learned

14. • The cross-platform solution of using both Google Classroom andWordpress worked very well in
meeting the mandate of having CSCL and blended learning student experiences. Ideally, the client’s
district would fund more a more customizable LMS than Classroom but working with a format already
familiar with students lessened the scope of instructor-support materials.
• At first, I thought that I would have to pay for a separate hosting service for theWordpress site but
realized that I could set it up as a subdomain within the hosting service I already had for my own
instructional website. I did have to work with Bluehost tech support to get everything set up correctly,
and I paid a nominal fee, seven dollars, for a dedicated domain name. In the future, I would put such
time and cost contingencies into an M.O.U. with future clients.
• The work breakdown structure was a good tool to keep track of all the project components. In the
future, I would turn a WBS into an Excel spreadsheet, so I could enter the time actually spent vs. the
anticipated instructional design time. In my originalWBS, I did not enter specific time frames beyond
the phase gates, but I anticipated spending approximately fourteen hours per week. In reality, I spent
between twenty and twenty-five hours per week, including the time I spent looking up resources on
my phone
• Keeping track of actual hours will facilitate better billable hour/project cost calculations

15. • My client and I maintained a strong rapport and had much in common pedagogically.
• The M.O.U. andWBS processes were new to me but were very helpful in aligning each step
of the project with the identified learning problems my client sought to address.
• The completed mitosis and meiosis unit was a unique combination of both CSCL and
blended learning, which is uncommon for middle school science programs. Due to the
ubiquity of GoogleClassroom in public K-12 education, I hope similar student-centered
learning experiences become the norm rather than the exception.
• Quote from my district technology coordinator relevant to project: “I think GC can really
force multiply our abilities to do more student-centered learning environment, but that has
to be a consequence of the design approach.That is the design thinking process in
education…What do we mean by learning? If we mean ‘the assimilation of content’? If we
mean ‘the coverage of content’? If we mean ‘the assimilation of stuff’ and things contained
within a curriculum? If we are defining that as learning, I think we are missing the boat with
the technology to begin with because the learning…learning isn’t an outcome. Learning isn’t
a performance. Learning is a process.”
(Gowdy, K., Hawley, M., Schroeder-Girbino, 2018, chapter 5 Pressbooks).

16. References
■ Cheung,A., Slavin, R., Lake, C., Kim, E. (2017). Effective secondary science programs: a best-evidence synthesis. Journal of
Research in ScienceTeaching, 54(1), p58-81. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/ (Eric number EJ1122700)
■ Collins, J. (2007). TheCollins writing program: Improving student performance through writing and thinking across the
curriculum.West Newbury, Massachusetts: Collins EducationAssociates. Retrieved from:
http://collinsed.com/PDFs/New%20Site/208-B_Collins_Writing_Program_Sampler.pdf
■ Cheung,A., Slavin, R., Lake, C., Kim, E. (2017). Effective secondary science programs: a best-evidence synthesis. Journal of
Research in ScienceTeaching, 54(1), p58-81. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/ (Eric number EJ1122700)
■ Duran, L., Duran, E. (2004).The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for inquiry-based science teaching. The
Science Education Review, 3(2), 49-58. Retrieved from: Duran, L., Duran, E. (2004).The 5E instructional model: A learning
cycle approach for inquiry-based science teaching. TheScience Education Review, 3(2), 49-58.
■ Gowdy, K., Hawley, M., Schroeder-Girbino, L. (2018). Chapter five: Google classroom and assessment. ESLTECH 6223-2018 E
Book. Retrieved from: https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/6223ebook2018/chapter/chapter-5-lois-schroeder-girbino-melanie-
hawley-kevin-gowdy/
■ McTighe, J.,Wiggins,G. (2012). Understanding by design framework. ACSD. Retrieved from:
http://www.ascd.org/ascd/pdf/siteascd/publications/ubd_whitepaper0312.pdf
■ Odom, A., Bell, C. (2013). Associations of middle school science achievement and attitudes about science with student-
reported frequency of teacher lecture demonstrations and student-centered learning. InternationalJournal of Environmental
&Science Education, 10(1), 87-97. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/ (Eric number EJ1060962)
■ Roth, K., Druker, S., Garnier, H., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka,T.,…Gonzales, P. (2006).Teaching science in five
countries: results from theTIMSS 1999 video study. U.S. Department of Education, 1-234. Retrieved from:
https://eric.ed.gov/ (Eric number ED491193)