State of Opportunity - The Learning Accelerator

Oct 15, 2015 - through professional development were the online course delivery system (69%), ... improving the quality of the current blended-‐learning programs, and ... They vet tools and content centrally in a systematic way and reduce the need to ... (accessed October 2, 2015).
3MB Sizes 3 Downloads 59 Views

S T A T E   O F   O P P O R T U N I T Y   The  Status  and  D irection   of  Blended  Learning  in  Ohio    t    

October  15,  2015      


Thomas  Arnett   Andrew  Benson   Brian  Bridges   Katrina  Bushko   Lisa  Duty   Saro  Mohammed    


   JOIN  THE  CONVERSATION #blendedlearning  

@ChristensenInst   @LearningAccel   @OHBlendLearning­‐Blended-­‐Learning-­‐ Network/1423227591281072



   TABLE  OF  CONTENTS   FOREWORD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4   SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5   Key  Findings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5   Who  is  implementing  blended  learning?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5   What  blended-­‐learning  models  are  being  employed?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5   How  are  these  models  being  developed?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6   What  are  the  challenges  to  implementing  blended  learning?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6   Observations  and  Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7   Where  are  the  needs?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7   How  do  we  address  these  needs?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8   Where  is  further  research  needed?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11   ABOUT  THE  SURVEY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12   Area  of  Focus  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12   Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12   Glossary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   15   DETAILED  RESULTS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16   Section  1:  The  Scope  Of  Blended  Learning  In  Ohio   16   Highlights  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16   Corresponding  data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16   Section  2:  How  Ohio  Schools  And  Districts  Are  Using  Blended  Learning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22   Highlights  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22   Corresponding  data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22   Section  3:  Making  The  Shift  To  Blended  Learning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   26   Highlights  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26   Corresponding  data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27   Section  4:  Challenges  And  Lessons  Learned  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39   Highlights  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39   Corresponding  data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40   APPENDIX  A:  OHIO  BLENDED  LEARNING  SURVEY  INSTRUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47   APPENDIX  B:  OHIO  BLENDED  LEARNING  FOLLOW-­‐UP  SURVEY  INSTRUMENT  . . . . . . . . .  52   APPENDIX  C:  BLENDED  LEARNING  RESOURCES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54   AUTHORS  AND  ORGANIZATIONAL  BIOS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57  




  Blended  learning  entails  the  fundamental  redesign  of  learning  models.  Educators  around  the  world  are   adopting  it  to  help  all  students  be  successful  in  realizing  their  full  potential  in  college,  careers,  and  life  thanks   to  its  ability  to  enable  personalized  learning  and  mastery  and  its  potential  to  increase  access  and  equity  and   control  costs.  Educators  want  to  create  a  student-­‐centered  learning  system  for  all  students,  and  blended   learning  is  the  most  promising  way  to  do  so  at  scale.  Schools  are  using  it  to  rethink  how  teaching  and  learning   occurs  and  to  redesign  schooling  structures,  schedules,  staffing,  and  budgets.     Such  is  the  case  for  Ohio,  where  the  appetite  for  blended  learning  is  strong,  but  where  the  endgame  and   outcomes  remain  unknown.  Ohio,  like  most  states,  would  benefit  from  a  more  collaborative  and  systemic   approach  to  creating  new  models  that  prepare  students  for  the  future,  while  decreasing  the  risks  and  costs  of   developing  new  models.       This  report  points  to  opportunities  to  increase  the  likelihood  of  success,  and  it  raises  some  key  questions  that   emerge  beyond  the  face  of  the  data:     • How  is  innovation  emerging  and  being  organized  in  Ohio?         • From  where  are  ideas  coming,  and  how  are  they  being  developed  and  shared  elsewhere?     • Could  cross-­‐network  collaborations  between  schools,  researchers,  model  developers,     entrepreneurs,  and  others  accelerate  the  quality  of  blended-­‐learning  innovation  in  Ohio?     With  tremendous  intellectual  capital,  funding  for  innovation,  and,  as  this  report  makes  plain,  plenty  of   pioneering  districts,  the  buckeye  state  remains  one  to  watch.           Michael  Horn   Lisa  Duty   Co-­‐Founder,  Clayton  Christensen  Institute   Partner,  The  Learning  Accelerator      


   SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS   In  February  and  March  of  2015,  the  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Network,  The  Learning  Accelerator  (TLA),  and  the   Clayton  Christensen  Institute,  in  collaboration  with  eLearning  consultant  Brian  Bridges,  conducted  the  Ohio   Blended  Learning  Survey.  The  purpose  of  the  survey  was  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  blended-­‐learning   environment  in  Ohio  in  general,  and  in  particular,  answer  four  distinct  questions:  Who  is  implementing   blended  learning?  What  blended-­‐learning  models  are  being  employed?  How  are  these  models  being   developed?  What  are  the  challenges  to  and  lessons  learned  from  implementing  blended  learning?     The  initial  survey  was  adapted  from  the  California  eLearning  Census  and  consisted  of  seven  demographic,  15   multiple-­‐choice,  and  five  open-­‐ended  questions  administered  to  all  charter  schools  and  districts  in  Ohio.  A   follow-­‐up  survey,  comprised  of  four  multiple-­‐choice  and  three  open-­‐ended  questions,  was  later  sent  to  the   charter  schools  and  districts  that  indicated  on  the  initial  survey  that  they  are  blending.  Out  of  the  994  charter   schools  and  districts  in  Ohio,  211  responded  to  the  initial  survey,  with  122  indicating  that  they  are  currently     implementing  blended  learning.  Out  of  those  122  respondents,  67  completed  the  follow-­‐up  survey.   This  paper  summarizes  the  survey  results  and  provides  some  brief  observations  and  recommendations  for   schools  in  Ohio  and  beyond.  

Key  Findings   Who  is  implementing  blended  learning?   We  wanted  first  to  understand  the  scope  of  blended  learning  in  Ohio.  Based  on  survey  results,  we  found  that   nearly  three-­‐fifths  (58%)  of  respondents  are  using  some  form  of  blended  learning.  Most  of  this  blended   learning  is  happening  in  high  schools  or  schools  that  house  grades  K–12;  in  contrast,  only  10%  of  elementary   and  middle  schools  are  using  blended  learning.  Of  the  42%  of  respondents  who  are  not  blending,  almost  30%   have  plans  underway  to  begin  implementation.  Most  of  the  respondents  who  are  already  blending  said  they   started  using  blending  learning  because  they  wanted  to  facilitate  more  personalized  student  learning,   provide  more  course  choice  for  students,  and  improve  academic  outcomes.  They  also  said  that  they  defined   student  success  with  blended  learning  as  realizing  greater  student  engagement,  as  well  as  improving   graduation  and  course  completion  rates.  The  respondents  who  are  either  using  or  planning  to  use  blended   learning  do,  however,  have  one  thing  in  common:  most  of  them  are  concentrated  in  and  around  large  cities   such  as  Cincinnati  and  Columbus.     What  blended-­‐learning  models  are  being  employed?   In  total,  about  half  of  all  respondents  reported  using  the  A  La  Carte  and  Rotation  models;  a  third  use  the  Flex   model;  and  a  quarter  use  the  Enriched  Virtual  model.  Importantly,  43%  of  respondents  are  using  more  than   one  blended-­‐learning  model.  Across  grade  levels,  two-­‐thirds  of  elementary  schools  that  are  currently   implementing  blended  learning  use  a  Rotation  model,  whereas  high  schools  (and  schools  that  house  grades   K–12)  more  often  use  the  A  La  Carte  and  Rotation  models.  There  also  is  a  difference  between  school  districts   and  charter  schools:  charters,  by  and  large,  use  the  Flex  model  most  frequently,  but  districts  are  more  likely   to  use  the  A  La  Carte  and  Rotation  models.  


How  are  these  models  being  developed?     The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  also  asked  about  funding,  planning,  hiring  consultants,  selecting  digital   content,  and  providing  professional  development.  In  regards  to  funding,  an  overwhelming  majority  of   respondents  (72%)  use  local  funding  to  support  their  programs,  with  the  remaining  respondents  using  either   a  mix  of  local  funds  and  grant  funding  (17%)  or  grant  funding  exclusively  (11%).  Furthermore,  nearly  two-­‐ thirds  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  planned  before  implementing  blended  learning,  whereas  a  third   said  they  did  not.  Almost  half  of  respondents  reported  that  they  hired  consultants  to  help  them  implement   blended  learning,  with  49%  of  those  who  did  not  use  a  consultant  reporting  that  they  felt  confident  with  their   in-­‐house  expertise.  Respondents  reported  that  they  selected  digital  content  with  a  variety  of  factors  in  mind,   including  cost  savings  (78%),  data  gathering  and  sharing/reporting  capabilities  (61%),  and  alignment  to   content  standards  (58%).  Overall,  90%  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  used  multiple  factors  in  making   their  selections.  Although  the  majority  of  respondents  reported  that  they  had  purchased  their  digital  content,   32%  reported  creating  the  majority  of  their  content—with  the  primary  advantages  of  internally  developed   content  being  control  (28%)  and  customization  (24%),  and  the  primary  disadvantage  being  the  lack  of  time  to   create  and  maintain  the  content  (49%).     A  substantial  portion  of  respondents  (42%)  did  not  provide  professional  development  on  blended  learning  to   their  instructors.  Of  those  who  did  provide  professional  development,  the  top  five  elements  addressed   through  professional  development  were  the  online  course  delivery  system  (69%),  instruction  in  blended-­‐ learning  definitions  and  models  (68%),  tailoring  instruction  to  each  student  (63%),  data  use  (56%),  and   routines  and  culture  (50%).  Much  of  the  professional  development  was  offered  in  person  (73%)  and  provided   by  the  central  office  (28%),  course  software  and  LMS  providers  (28%),  other  teachers  (27%),  or  consultants   (24%).  Much  of  the  professional  development  provided  centered  on  technical,  not  curricular  or  instructional,   components,  with  half  of  all  respondents  providing  12  or  fewer  hours  of  training  to  their  blended  instructors.     What  are  the  challenges  to  implementing  blended  learning?   Blended-­‐learning  implementation  is  not  always  easy,  and  our  survey  found  that  charter  schools  and  districts   using  blended  learning  face  a  variety  of  challenges.  Respondents  indicated  that  their  top  three  challenges   were  finding  high-­‐quality  professional  development  (36%),  getting  staff  buy-­‐in  (34%),  and  funding  blended   learning  (32%).  To  address  these  challenges,  a  third  of  respondents  said  that  they  needed  more  planning  for   blended-­‐learning  implementation  or  networking  with  other  schools  during  the  process,  about  a  quarter  said   they  needed  support  in  finding  high-­‐quality  professional  development  specific  to  blended-­‐learning  programs,   and  a  fifth  said  they  needed  financial  assistance  for  program  implementations.  In  terms  of  additional  budget   and  personnel  resources,  20%  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  needed  more  professional  development   and  17%  said  that  support  was  needed  for  infrastructure  improvements—mostly  in  terms  of  additional   devices.  Looking  back,  33%  of  respondents  wished  they  had  planned  more  thoroughly,  28%  wished  they  had   provided  more  professional  development  to  blended-­‐learning  instructors,  and  21%  were  satisfied  with  their   blended-­‐learning  implementation  and  would  not  do  anything  differently.      


Observations  and  Recommendations   The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  provides  valuable  information  on  the  current  status  of  blended  learning  in   the  state  of  Ohio.  With  70%  of  survey  respondents  indicating  that  they  are  either  implementing  blended   learning  or  planning  to  do  so,  Ohio  may  be  ready  to  move  from  “trying  out”  blended  learning  to  focusing  on   how  to  employ  blended  learning  in  order  to  more  effectively  shift  teaching  and  learning.  Although  a  majority   of  survey  respondents  are  using  blended  learning,  the  survey  results  indicate  that  many  could  improve  how   they  plan  and  implement  blended  learning,  collaborate  with  other  implementers,  and  provide  educators  with   the  skills  they  need  for  taking  on  new  roles  in  blended-­‐learning  programs.     School  and  district  leaders  and  policymakers  can  use  blended  learning  to  achieve  long-­‐awaited  goals,  such  as   increasing  course  access,  improving  student  achievement,  and  shifting  to  new  success  metrics  for  driving   innovation.  It  is  important  to  note,  however,  that  blended  learning  is  not  a  goal  in  and  of  itself.  Policy  and   investment  should  not  necessarily  focus  on  expanding  blended  learning  to  the  48%  of  charter  schools  and   districts  in  the  state  that  are  not  blended.  Rather,  leaders  should  focus  on  supporting  innovations  that  move   the  state  toward  increasing  student  achievement,  improving  the  metrics  used  to  evaluate  blended  learning,   improving  the  quality  of  the  current  blended-­‐learning  programs,  and  expanding  collaboration  among  innovators.   Where  are  the  needs?   Although  many  of  the  charter  schools  and  districts  across  Ohio  are  already  implementing  blended  learning,   there  is  still  a  substantial  need  for  support.  With  33%  of  respondents  reporting  that  they  needed  more   planning  and  networking  opportunities,  24%  reporting  a  desire  for  more  high-­‐quality  professional   development,  and  7%  wanting  advice  on  resources,  there  is  still  a  resource,  coordination,  and  collaboration   gap  to  be  filled.     For  the  respondents  who  are  reportedly  measuring  success,  the  metrics  in  use  seem  to  be  reasonably  well-­‐ aligned  with  intended  implementation  goals  for  beginning  or  “newer”  programs.  Respondents  listed   personalized  learning  (73%),  course  choice  (58%),  and  improved  academic  outcomes  (53%)  as  primary   reasons  for  using  blended  learning,  and  they  currently  measure  the  success  of  blended  learning  by  student   engagement  (61%),  course  completion  (40%),  and  graduation  rates  (40%).  

MEASURING  B LENDED   L EARNING   I NITIATIVES   For  educators  in  the  planning  stages  of  implementation,  TLA’s  Blended  Learning  Research  Clearinghouse  1.0   provides  some  historical  and  current  perspective  on  the  student  outcomes  that  have  been  shown  to  be  affected   by  personalized  and  blended  learning.  For  educators  interested  in  measuring  their  own  implementation,     TLA’s  District  Guide  to  Blended  Learning  Measurement  outlines  five  questions  to  consider  when  developing   your  measurement  plan.  Included  in  this  guide  is  TLA’s  Blended  Learning  Measurement  Framework,  which   suggests  relevant  activities,  outputs,  outcomes,  and  impacts  that  may  be  of  interest  in  a  blended-­‐learning  program.     Four  key  things  that  districts  should  be  careful  to  do  when  measuring  their  blended-­‐learning  initiatives  are:   1. 2. 3. 4.

Align  all  measurements  with  the  initial  objectives  for  implementation Measure  implementation  (e.g.,  activities  or  fidelity),  as  well  as  outcomes Consider  including  a  comparison  group,  even  if  a  randomized  one  is  not  possible Ensure  all  measures  are  reliable  and  valid  for  the  purposes  for  which  you  are  using  them


As  implementation  matures  and  assuming  respondents  are  seeing  positive  trends  in  these  outcomes,   however,  measurement  efforts  can  and  should  grow  to  include  student  scores  from  standardized   assessments,  as  well  as  longer-­‐term  non-­‐academic  outcomes  like  emotional  well-­‐being  and  cognitive  and   behavioral  habits  of  success.  Schools  and  districts  may  also  want  to  consider  how  some  of  their  objectives   (like  personalization)  are  impacting  other  stakeholders  (e.g.,  teachers)  in  order  to  determine  whether  to   include  non-­‐student  outcomes  in  their  success  metrics  as  well.     How  do  we  address  these  needs?   The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  uncovered  many  challenges  that  schools  and  districts  are  facing  when   implementing  blended  learning.  Public  institutions,  nonprofit  organizations,  research  and  support   institutions,  and  private  funders  can  focus  on  a  few  key  issues  in  order  to  overcome  these  challenges  and   continue  developing  blended  learning  in  Ohio:   1. Create  or  identify  an  entity  or  network(s)  to  help  coordinate  blended-­‐learning  efforts.  As  detailed  above, there  is  a  need  for  more  coordination  and  collaboration  across  the  state.  High-quality  blended  learning will  require  a  range  of  competencies,  resources,  and  influence  that  can  only  be  obtained  from  a  broad coalition  of  actors  working  together,  both  inside  and  outside  of  the  system (See Innovation Collaboratives). Each  school  or  district  does not  need  to  reinvent  the  wheel,  and  coordinating organizations,  such  as  the  Highlander  Institute  in Rhode  Island,  the  Friday  Institute  of  North  Carolina, LearnLaunch  in  Massachusetts,  and  the  Colorado Coalition,  may  serve  as  inspiration  in  terms  of collaboratives  that  play  a  valuable  role  in  helping  connect schools  and  districts  to  resources,  startups, policymakers,  investors,  researchers,  and  community  groups across  the  usual  boundaries  that  separate them  from  each  other1.  The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Network  is one such organization that can help to address  this  need.

INNOVATION   C OLLABORATIVES 2 Although  innovation  collaboratives  vary  in  form  and  objectives,  they  share  many  of  the  following  characteristics   and  roles  in  addition  to  exercising  blended-­‐learning  expertise:   • They  collaborate  as  a  way  of  doing  business;  they  put  the  work  ahead  of  self  interest • They  create  a  clear  vision  for  high-quality  blended  learning  and  deliver  clearly  articulated  strategies  to  create high-quality  models • They  model  a  culture  of  innovation  and  lead  with  an  innovation  mindset • They  are  effective  at  running  idea  generation  and  development  processes  to  create  new  offerings,  both  by generating  a  broad  and  diverse  set  of  ideas  and  especially,  by  converting  these  ideas  into  implementable  concepts • They  vet  tools  and  content  centrally  in  a  systematic  way  and  reduce  the  need  to  search  around  for  “what  works” • They  cultivate  a  portfolio  of  professional  service  providers  by  partnering  with—and/or  investing  in—third parties that  can  help  schools  and  districts  transition  to  new  models • They  cultivate  new  models  through  co-working  opportunities  and  intensive  piloting  efforts • They  manage  research  by  creating  feedback  loops  to  learn  how  best  to  reinforce,  redirect,  or  (when  necessary) kill  new  ideas  and  are  effective  at  scaling  the  best  models • They  are  sometimes  quasi-public  entities  that  can  influence  policy  but  operate  autonomously;  they  exist  to challenge  the  current  system


 “Education  Innovation  Clusters,”  U .S.  Department  of  Education  Office  of  Educational  Technology,  (accessed  October  2,  2015).   2  Eric  Almquist,  Mitchell  Leiman,  Darrell  Rigby,  and  Alex  Roth,  “Taking  the  measure  of  your  innovation  performance,”  Bain  &   Company,  May  8,  2013, 8  

2. Train  school  leaders  on  iterative  innovation  processes.  A  third  of  survey  respondents  cited  a  lack  of planning  time  and  a  need  for  more  thorough  planning  as  primary  challenges  with  blended-­‐learning implementation.  Iterative  innovation  processes  are  helpful  in  planning  for  blended  learning  because, even  though  there  are  building  blocks,  there  is  no  “right  formula”  in  implementation.  If  school  leaders understand  how  to  use  iterative  innovation  processes  to  meet  their  specific  goals,  the  planning  and implementation  of  blended-­‐learning  programs  will  be  more  efficient  and  will  move  schools  more  quickly toward  discovering  approaches  that  improve  their  students’  outcomes.

RESOURCES   S UPPORTING   I TERATIVE   I NNOVATION   Blended:  When  launching  something  unfamiliar  and  unpredictable,  for  which  the  ratio  of  knowledge  to   hypotheses  is  low,  educators  need  to  change  the  planning  and  design  process.  In  a  discovery-­‐driven  planning   process,  the  key  is  to  start  with  the  desired  outcome  in  mind.  From  there,  the  crucial  next  step  is  to  list  all  of  the   assumptions  that  must  prove  true  in  order  to  realize  the  desired  outcomes.  W ith  the  assumptions  in  hand,  the   next  step  is  to  implement  a  plan  for  learning—as  a  way  to  test,  as  quickly  and  cheaply  as  possible,  whether  the   critical  assumptions  are  reasonable.     90-­‐Day  Cycle  Handbook:  The  90-­‐Day  Cycle  has  emerged  as  an  invaluable  method  for  rapidly  developing   innovative  approaches  to  support  practice  improvement.  Generally,  90-­‐Day  Cycles  are  a  disciplined  and   structured  form  of  inquiry  designed  to  produce  and  test  knowledge  syntheses  or  prototyped  processes  or   products  in  support  of  improvement  work.     So  You  Think  You  Want  to  Innovate?:  Committed  educators  and  organizational  leaders  at  every  level  are   working  hard  to  design  and  implement  new  approaches  they  believe  can  be  more  effective  for  students  than   those  we  currently  have  in  place.  Through  sheer  force  of  will,  many  of  these  new  ideas  will  have  the  chance  to   be  tested  in  practice—and  some  will  prove  effective.  Each  of  these  ideas,  however,  whether  at  the  state,  district,   or  classroom  level,  inevitably  passes  through  the  context  of  one  or  more  organizations.  How  receptive  an   organization  is  to  new  approaches  will  determine  whether  or  not  they  succeed  and,  more  importantly,  whether   ideas  that  prove  effective  will  have  a  chance  to  spread  to  other  parts  of  the  system.  This  publication  includes  a   framework,  assessment  tool,  and  Innovation  Scorecard  to  support  leaders  at  the  state  and  district  levels  as  they   work  to  create  a  Culture  of  Innovation.

3. Make  high-­‐quality  professional  development  for  blended  learning  more  available  and  easy  to  find.  Almost a  quarter  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  needed  more  high-­‐quality  professional  development,  36% said  finding  high-­‐quality  professional  development  was  a  challenge,  and  28%  said  they  wished  they  had provided  more  professional  development  before  implementing  their  programs.  Professional  development is  crucial  for  helping  teachers  to  successfully  implement  new  programs.  This  is  especially  true  given  that few  teachers  have  been  exposed  to  blended  learning  in  their  practice  or  preparation  programs. High-­‐quality  professional  development  should  be  a  part  of  a  human  capital  system  that  defines   development  in  terms  of  observable,  measurable  progress  toward  an  ambitious  standard  for  teaching   and  learning,  thereby  giving  teachers  a  clear,  deep  understanding  of  their  own  performance  and  progress.3    


 The  Mirage:  Confronting  the  Hard  Truth  About  Our  Quest  for  Teacher  Development,  TNTP,  August  4,  2015,­‐Mirage_2015.pdf 9  

RESOURCES   S UPPORTING   P ROFESSIONAL   D EVELOPMENT   F OR   B LENDED  L EARNING   iNACOL’s  Blended  Learning  Teacher  Competency  Framework:  In  recent  years,  there  has  been  a  dramatic  rise  in   interest  and  early  adoption  of  blended  learning  to  improve  the  educational  experiences  of  students.  A  great  amount   of  work  has  been  done  to  codify  approaches,  with  tools  and  resources  emphasizing  the  structural  components  of   new  models,  such  as  the  configuration  of  physical  learning  space,  use  of  time,  distribution  of  staff,  and   applications  of  technology.  Although  there  is  widespread  recognition  that  great  in-person  teaching  remains   essential  within  these  structures,  there  has  been  less  exploration  of  the  human  factors  and  effective  practices   that  make  them  successful.  Schools  and  districts  are  asking  for  more  support  for  understanding  teachers’  new  roles   and  effectively  supporting  them  in  transitioning  to  new  models  of  teaching  and  learning.  To  respond  to  this  need,   a  national  committee  of  blended-learning  practitioners,  thought-leaders,  and  experts  explored  one  critical   question:  What  are  the  key  characteristics  of  teachers  in  successful  blended-learning  environments?   BetterLesson’s  Blended  Master  Teacher  Project:  BetterLesson  has  chosen  11  of  the  highest  performing  blended   teachers  in  the  United  States  to  capture  and  share  their  effective  practices.  All  the  Blended  Master  Teachers  have   one  thing  in  common:  they  use  technology  in  strategic  and  innovative  ways  to  personalize  the  learning  of  their   students.  The  no-cost,  high-definition  strategy  videos  and  teacher-created  artifacts  represent  a  distinctive  body  of   practice  by  blended-learning  teachers  for  blended-learning  teachers.   Coursera:  This  free  online  course  helps  teachers  learn  more  about  the  basics  of  what  blended  learning  is  and   explore  different  models  for  putting  it  into  action  in  the  classroom.  The  course  not  only  goes  over  the  blendedlearning  model  definitions,  but  it  also  guides  the  learner  through  creating  the  ideal  student  experience;  rethinking   the  role  of  the  teacher;  redesigning  a  school;  making  hardware,  software,  and  space  decisions;  and  prototyping   the  innovative  process.     Relay  Graduate  School  of  Education’s  Blended  Learning  Modules:  Three  teacher  learning  modules  are  available  at   Relay  Learn,  Relay's  new  online-learning  platform,  at  no  cost  to  participants:   BL-101:  Beginning  to  Blend  is  designed  to  introduce  teachers  to  the  what  and  how  of  blended  learning,  including   how  to  apply  concrete  strategies  and  resources  to  start  blending  or  fine-tuning  instruction.   BL-102:  Rolling  Out  Blended  focuses  on  the  “building  blocks”  for  implementing  blended  learning,  including  setting   up  the  learning  space,  creating  routines,  and  building  a  culture  of  buy-in,  collaboration,  and  student  autonomy.   BL-103:  Teaching  Each  Student  is  aimed  at  helping  teachers  leverage  technology  to  address  instructional  challenges   through  the  use  of  data  and  planning.  It  also  includes  ideas  for  how  to  run  a  successful  blended-learning  pilot.  

It  is  important  to  note  that  new  practices  and  new  teacher  roles  may  initially  be  inconsistent  with  the   predominant  structures  and  practices  of  districts  and  schools.  As  a  result,  absent  a  total  redesign,  the   prevailing  system  will  likely  put  some  pressure  on  teachers  to  conform  to  traditional  approaches4.  A   wholesale  shift  to  blended  learning  provides  schools  an  opportunity  to  reallocate  teachers’  time,  talent,   and  energy  in  ways  that  create  increased  impact  on  student  achievement.  Such  a  shift  can  also  capitalize   on  individual  teachers’  strengths  and  preferences  and  provide  opportunities  for  teachers  to  help  shape   new  school  structures  and  cultures.  


School  District  2.0:  Redesigning  Districts  to  Support  Blended  Learning,The  Highlander  Institute,  2015,­‐content/uploads/2015/04/Redesigning-­‐Districts-­‐to-­‐Support-­‐Blended-­‐Learning.pdf 10  

4. Provide  more  resource  support  for  blended-­‐learning  efforts.  Although  19%  of  survey  respondents  said   they  needed  financial  assistance  to  implement  their  blended-­‐learning  programs,  32%  cited  funding  as   one  of  their  top  three  challenges.  Ohio  is  already  doing  a  good  job  providing  funding  for  innovation   through  the  Straight  A  Fund  and  other  funding  sources,  but  what  is  really  lacking  is  resource  support.   Cultivating  a  repository  of  free  and  inexpensive  resources  for  schools  that  target  the  challenges   highlighted  by  this  survey  would  help  alleviate  the  funding  strain  that  school  and  district  leaders  are  feeling.       Where  is  further  research  needed?   Although  the  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  is  a  far-­‐reaching  examination  of  the  state  of  blended  learning  in   Ohio,  we  are  still  left  with  some  questions  that  further  research  should  address.       1. Why  are  schools  not  using  blended  learning?  From  the  survey,  it  is  clear  why  58%  of  Ohio  schools  are   implementing  blended  learning—to  create/facilitate  personalized  learning,  provide  course  choice,  and   improve  academic  outcomes.  We  do  not  have  clear  data,  however,  on  what  is  deterring  the  remaining   30%  of  respondents  who  are  not  planning  to  implement  blended  learning.  Respondents  who  are   implementing  blended  learning  did  not  list  infrastructure  (broadband)  as  an  issue,  but  most  blended   learning  in  Ohio  is  concentrated  in  cities.  Therefore,  infrastructure  may  still  be  a  problem  for  the  schools   that  are  not  blending  or  planning  to  blend.  More  research  is  needed  to  test  this  hypothesis—an   organization  like  EducationSuperHighway  could  help  to  analyze  connectivity  and  implement  solutions.     2. Why  is  there  a  difference  in  the  types  of  models  being  implemented?  Most  districts  offer  blended  learning   through  the  A  La  Carte  (66%)  and  Rotation  (57%)  models.  Charter  schools,  on  the  other  hand,  prefer  the   Flex  model  (69%).  There  also  is  a  difference  in  models  being  used  in  different  grade  levels.  Elementary   schools  overwhelmingly  preferred  the  Rotation  models  (67%)  to  the  other  three  models  (11%  each),   whereas  high  schools  and  schools  that  house  grades  K–12  implemented  one  model  only  slightly  more   than  the  others:  A  La  Carte  (55%),  Rotation  (48%),  Flex  (37%),  and  Enriched  Virtual  (28%).  Further   research  into  why  there  is  such  a  noticeable  difference  between  the  models  being  implemented  in   different  school  types  and  grades  could  uncover  potential  design,  policy  and  funding  opportunities.                                            



The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  was  produced  through  a  collaboration  of  the  Ohio  Blended  Learning   Network,  The  Learning  Accelerator,  and  the  Clayton  Christensen  Institute.  eLearning  consultant  Brian  Bridges,   who  has  extensive  experience  conducting  the  California  eLearning  Census,  administered  the  survey  through  a   contract  with  the  Clayton  Christensen  Institute.  The  survey  was  designed  to  answer  the  following  questions:   Who  is  implementing  blended  learning?  What  blended-­‐learning  models  are  being  employed?  How  are  these   models  being  developed?  What  are  the  challenges  to  implementing  blended  learning  in  Ohio?  

Area  of  Focus   Blended  learning  was  the  instructional  model  of  interest  in  the  Ohio  survey.  Two  questions  included  in  the   survey  asked  respondents,  first,  “Do  students  at  your  charter  school  or  district  participate  in  blended  learning   or  full-­‐time  online  learning?”  and  later,  “Which  blended-­‐learning  models  are  being  utilized  in  your  charter   school  or  district?”  The  first  question  did  not  distinguish  between  blended  learning  and  full-­‐time  online   learning.  The  second  question,  however,  gave  participants  the  opportunity  to  specify  whether  the  model  they   were  implementing  was  one  of  the  four  commonly  recognized  models  of  blended  learning  (definitions   included  in  this  report  and  on  the  survey)  or  another  model,  including  full-­‐time  online  learning.  All  122   respondents  who  responded  “Yes”  to  the  first  question  also  selected  at  least  one  of  the  four  blended  models   in  the  second  question.  In  other  words,  none  of  the  respondents  who  said  that  their  students  participate  in   online  or  blended  learning  described  their  model  as  being  full-­‐time  online  learning.  We  can  assume,   therefore,  that  all  122  respondents  are  in  fact  implementing  blended  models.  

Methods The  Clayton  Christensen  Institute  conducted  the  survey  between  February  1  and  March  20,  2015,  with  a   smaller  follow-­‐up  survey  administered  between  March  20  and  March  27,  2015.  Both  electronic  and  physical   recruitment  letters  and  surveys  were  sent  to  participants,  with  information  about  the  goals  of  the  survey  and   an  acknowledgement  that  even  though  responses  were  not  anonymous,  they  would  be  kept  confidential  and   reported  in  aggregate  (for  quantitative  data)  or  in  a  de-­‐identified  manner  (for  qualitative  data)  only.  Most   survey  responses  were  returned  electronically;  previous  survey  administrations  in  California  suggested  no   differences  in  response  trends  between  electronic  and  paper  responses.     The  initial  question  set  was  adapted  from  the  California  eLearning  Census  and  augmented  to  focus  on  our   research  questions  specific  to  blended  learning  in  Ohio.  The  initial  survey  (included  in  its  entirety  in  Appendix   A) consisted  of  seven  demographic,  15  multiple-­‐choice,  and  five  open-­‐ended  questions.  The  follow-­‐up  survey (Appendix  B),  which  was  administered  only  to  those  respondents  who  indicated  in  the  initial  survey  that  they are  currently  implementing  blended  learning,  included  four  multiple-­‐choice  and  three  open-­‐ended  questions. All  994  Ohio  school  districts  and  charter  schools  were  recruited  for  the  initial  survey,  and  211  of  them   responded  for  a  21%  response  rate.  Once  the  initial  survey  had  closed,  we  sent  a  supplemental  survey  to  the   122  respondents  who  indicated  that  they  are  currently  blending,  and  55%  of  this  smaller  sample  completed   the  follow-­‐up  survey.    




Figure  1.  Comparison  of  responding  school  districts  to  all  Ohio  school  districts  on  average  daily  membership   (ADM)  and  per-­‐pupil  spending   *SY2010–11  data,  ODE  District  Profiles  

The  211  respondents  are  located  in  64  counties  across  the  state,  with  enrollments  ranging  from  21  students   to  more  than  50,000  students.  Although  respondents  may  not  necessarily  reflect  state  demographics,  and   this  introduces  some  limitations  on  whether  the  data  are  representative  of  all  districts,  we  feel  that  the  high-­‐ response  rate  and  the  diversity  of  responders  represent  a  good  approximation.       We  compared  the  responding  school  districts  to  all  Ohio  school  districts  on  key  demographic  characteristics   to  discern  how  representative  the  responses  were  of  all  Ohio  school  districts.  (Similar  data  on  charter  schools   were  not  available.)     Figures  1  and  2  show  the  comparison  of  responding  school  districts  to  all  school  districts  in  Ohio  on  average   daily  membership  (ADM),  percentage  of  enrolled  students  who  identify  as  white,  percentage  of  enrolled   students  in  poverty,  and  per-­‐pupil  spending.  Data  for  all  Ohio  school  districts  are  from  the  2010–11  school  year.     The  school  districts  that  responded  to  the  survey  are,  on  average,  over  a  third  (39%)  larger  than  the  average   school  district  in  Ohio,  spend  about  6%  more,  and  have  fewer  white  students  and  students  in  poverty  than   the  average  Ohio  school  district.  



  As  Figure  3  shows,  the  majority  of  individuals  who  completed  the  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  were   superintendents  (35%),  principals  (17%),  and  curriculum  and  instructional  staff  (17%).  Assistant   superintendents  and  directors  made  up  15%  of  respondents,  and  technology  officers  and  directors  comprised   10%.  The  other  6%  of  respondents  either  filled  other  roles  (4%)  or  did  not  report  their  position  (2%).  


In  addition,  some  respondents  (18%)  were  members  of  the  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Network  (OBLN).  This  also   potentially  biased  some  of  the  responses,  although  we  compared  patterns  of  responses  for  the  sample,   including  OBLN  members  to  the  sample  excluding  OBLN  members,  and  did  not  note  major  differences  in   trends.  The  data  presented  in  this  report  are  from  all  respondents,  including  OBLN  members.     As  noted  earlier,  this  was  an  exploratory  research  design  in  which  descriptive  analyses  were  used  to  note   trends  in  both  the  qualitative  (presented  as  frequencies)  and  quantitative  (presented  as  themes)  responses.      

Glossary   Other  definitions  and  terms  used  in  the  survey  and  this  report  are  as  follows:     Blended  learning  Online  learning  that  typically  takes  place  at  a  physical  school,  where  students  have  some   control  over  time,  place,  path,  or  pace.     Rotation  model  Students  rotate,  on  a  fixed  schedule,  in  a  course,  between  learning  online  and  learning  from   a  face-­‐to-­‐face  teacher.  Rotation  includes  teachers  who  “flip”  their  class.  To  count  the  use  of  supplemental  or   Internet  resources  as  blended,  students  must  rotate  between  them  and  a  classroom  on  a  fixed  schedule   within  an  individual  course.     Flex  model  Students  take  a  majority  of  their  courses  online  at  school  in  an  individually  customized,  fluid   schedule  and  on-­‐site  teachers  or  paraprofessionals  provide  support.     A  La  Carte  model  Students  choose  to  take  one  or  more  online  courses  to  supplement  their  schedules  and  the   teacher  of  record  is  online.     Enriched  Virtual  model  Independent  study  students  take  all  their  online  courses  at  home  but  visit  a  physical   campus  to  meet  with  a  teacher.     Full-­‐time  virtual  school/full-­‐time  online  learning  Students  take  all  their  courses  online  away  from  school,   and  do  not  visit  a  physical  campus,  except  to  take  assessments.     What  is  not  blended  learning?  Participation  in  supplemental  electronic  activities  or  technology-­‐rich  activities   that  don’t  fit  the  previous  definitions.     Synchronous  learning  A  learning  environment  where  all  participants  (instructor  and  students)  are  online  at   the  same  time.     Asynchronous  learning  A  learning  environment  where  instructors  and  students  may  or  may  not  be  online  at   the  same  time.              



Section  1:  The  scope  of  blended  learning  in  Ohio   The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  asked  respondents  whether  they  were  implementing  blended  learning   (see  “About  the  survey”),  where  they  were  using  it,  the  reasons  why  they  had  chosen  to  blend,  and  how  they   defined  student  success.  Their  responses  show  that  many  schools and  districts  in  Ohio  have  embraced   blended  learning,  but  are  still  perhaps  in  the  early  stages  of  realizing  its  potential.  

Highlights   •

Nearly  three-­‐fifths  (58%)  of  respondents  are  using  some  form  of  blended  learning.

Two-­‐thirds  (66%)  of  school  districts  are  blending,  but  less  than  half  (42%)  of  charter  schools  are  using blended  learning.

Most  blended  learning  is  happening  in  high  schools  and  schools  that  house  grades  K–12;  only  one-­‐in-­‐ 10  elementary  and  middle  schools  is  using  blended  learning.

Of  the  42%  of  respondents  who  are  not  using  blended  learning,  almost  three  in  10  have  plans underway  to  implement  it.

Most  respondents  said  they  use  blended  learning  to  facilitate  more  personalized  student  learning, provide  more  course  choices  for  students,  or  improve  academic  outcomes.

Respondents  cited  less  often  these  reasons  for  using  blended  learning:  improve  access  to  content, improve  access  to  technology,  reduce  costs,  support  teachers,  facilitate  competency-­‐based  learning, and  improve  non-­‐academic  outcomes.

Most  respondents  defined  student  success  with  blended  learning  as  realizing  greater  student engagement,  with  slightly  fewer  respondents  citing  improving  graduation  and  course  completion rates  as  evidence  of  success.

Fewer  respondents  defined  success  as  improving  academic  grades  and  test  scores,  and  relatively  few cited  greater  student  autonomy,  greater  student  well-­‐being,  and  cost  savings.

Corresponding  Data   WHO  IS  BLENDING  IN  OHIO?   To  encourage  all  respondents  to  participate  in  the  survey,  our  first  question  simply  asked  if  students  were   participating  in  blended  learning  or  full-­‐time  online  learning,  and  what  models  were  being  offered.  In  all,  58%   of  respondents  reported  offering  one  or  more  of  the  blended-­‐learning  models  (see  Figure  4).  


                            Figure  4.  Percentage  of  respondents  whose  students  are  participating  in  online  or  blended  learning  

  BLENDED-­‐LEARNING  ADOPTION  BY  INSTITUTION  TYPE   Two-­‐thirds  (66%)  of  responding  school  districts  and  42%  of  responding  charter  schools  are  currently   implementing  blending  learning  (see  Figure  5).                                 Figure  5.  Percentage  of  respondents  who  are  implementing  blended  learning  by  institution  type     COMPARING  BLENDED  PARTICIPATION  BETWEEN  ELEMENTARY  AND  HIGH  SCHOOL  RESPONDENTS   In  Ohio,  blended-­‐learning  participation  is  far  greater  in  high  schools  and  schools  that  house  grades  K–12,  than   in  elementary  and  middle  schools.  As  Figure  6  shows,  71%  of  high  schools  and  schools  that  house  grades     K–12  participate  in  blended  learning,  compared  to  just  13%  of  elementary  and  middle  schools.      



                          Figure  6.  Blended-­‐learning  participation  in  elementary  and  high  schools       PLANNING  FOR  BLENDED  LEARNING   If  respondents  said  they  were  not  currently  participating  in  blended  learning,  we  asked  if  they  were  planning   to  implement  blended  learning  in  the  future.  Overall,  12%  said  that  they  were  in  the  planning  stages   (see  Figure  7).    

                          Figure  7.  Percentage  of  respondents  who  plan  to  blend       Only  slightly  more  high  schools  and  schools  that  house  grades  K–12    are  planning  for  blended  learning,   however,  than  elementary  schools.  As  Figure  8  shows,  9%  of  elementary  schools  that  are  not  blending  said   they  are  planning  to  implement  blended  learning,  compared  to  13%  of  high  schools.    



Figure  8.  Percentage  of  elementary  and  high  schools  that  plan  to  blend  

REASONS  FOR  IMPLEMENTING  BLENDED  LEARNING   To  learn  their  reasons  for  implementing  blended  learning,  we  asked  respondents  to  select  up  to  three   statements  from  a  list  of  12,  including  fields  for  “I  don’t  know”  and  “Other.”  The  primary  reasons  cited  were   to  create  or  facilitate  more  personalized  student  learning  (73%),  provide  more  course  choices  for  students   (58%),  improve  student  academic  outcomes  (53%),  and  improve  access  to  content  (30%),  as  is  depicted  in   Figure  9.                                 Figure  9.  Reasons  for  implementing  blended  learning  

    Fewer  respondents  cited  to  improve  students’  and  teachers’  access  to  and  familiarity  with  technology  (26%),   reduce  costs  (15%),  support  teachers  (11%),  facilitate  competency-­‐based  learning  (11%),  or  improve  student   non-­‐academic  outcomes  (9%),  as  Figure  10  shows.        


Figure  10.  Additional  reasons  for  implementing  blended  learning  

Respondents  also  included  comments  on  their  reasons  for  implementing  blending  learning  that  focused   primarily  on  providing  support  to  at-risk  students.   REASONS  FOR  PLANNING  TO  IMPLEMENT  BLENDED  LEARNING     If  respondents  were  planning  to  implement  blended  learning,  we  asked  them  their  reasons  for  wanting  to   implement  blended  learning.  Their  top  three  reasons,  as  depicted  in  Figure  11,  were  similar  to  those  cited  by   the  respondents  who  are  already  implementing  blended  learning.      

Figure  11.  Reasons  for  planning  to  implement  blended  learning  


DEFINING  STUDENT  SUCCESS   In  a  multiple-­‐choice  question,  included  on  the  follow-­‐up  survey,  we  asked  respondents  to  select  up  to  three   options  for  how  they  defined  success  with  blended  learning.  As  Figure  12  illustrates,  61%  of  respondents  said   they  defined  success  with  blended  learning  as  greater  student  engagement,  compared  to  40%  who  said  they   defined  it  as  increased  course  completion  rates  or  improved  graduation  rates.  



Figure  12.  How  respondents  gauge  blended-­‐learning  success  


Section  2:  How  Ohio  schools  and  districts  are  using  blended  learning   The  survey  asked  respondents  to  describe  how  they  were  using  blended  learning,  what  models  were  they   using,  and  in  what  grades  were  they  blending.    

Highlights   •

High  schools  are  using  blended  learning  more  than  elementary  or  middle  schools.  

Based  on  those  who  responded  to  the  survey,  blended-­‐learning  implementation  in  Ohio  is   concentrated  around  cities  (most  districts  and  schools  implementing  or  planning  to  implement   blended  learning  are  clustered  around  Cincinnati  and  Columbus).      

About  half  of  the  respondents  reported  using  the  A  La  Carte  and  Rotation  models.  

Nearly  two-­‐fifths  of  respondents  use  more  than  one  blended-­‐learning  model.  A  third  said  they  use   the  Flex  model,  and  about  a  fourth  responded  that  they  use  the  Enriched  Virtual  model.  

Charter  schools  most  often  use  the  Flex  model,  whereas  districts  most  often  use  the  A  La  Carte  model.  

Elementary  schools  most  often  use  the  Rotation  model,  overwhelmingly  so,  with  67%  indicating  a   preference  for  it.  High  schools  (and  schools  that  house  grades  K–12),  however,  most  often  use  the  A   La  Carte  model  and  Rotation  models.  





Corresponding  Data   BLENDED-­‐LEARNING  MODELS   When  we  asked  which  of  the  four  blended  models  they  were  implementing,  39%  of  respondents  said  they   were  using  more  than  one  model.  The  A  La  Carte  and  Rotation  models  were  used  most  often,  whereas  the   Flex  and  Enriched  Virtual  models  were  used  less  often  (see  Figure  13).     Although  the  A  La  Carte  and  Rotation  models  were  present  in  52%  and  50%  of  the  respondents’  schools,  the   data  play  out  in  very  different  ways  when  we  look  at  it  more  closely.    


Figure  13.  Blended  model  distribution  in  Ohio  


BLENDED-­‐LEARNING  MODELS  BY  GRADE  SPAN   When  separating  elementary  schools  from  high  schools  (and  schools  that  house  grades  K–12),  we  find  that   the  Rotation  model  is  the  predominant  model  in  elementary  schools,  and  that  67%  of  respondents  have   employed  it  (see  Figure  14).  Furthermore,  none  of  the  elementary  schools  is  using  more  than  one   blended  model.     In  schools  with  secondary  grades,  the  leading  blended  model  is  the  A  La  Carte  model,  followed  by  the   Rotation  model.  As  Figure  15  shows,  55%  of  schools  with  secondary  grades  (K–12  and  9–12)  use  the  A  La   Carte  model  and  48%  use  the  Rotation  model.  In  addition,  43%  of  schools  with  secondary  grades  use  more   than  one  model.      


            Figure  14.  Percentage  of  blended  models  used  in  elementary  schools                             Figure  15.  Percentage  of  blended  models  used  in  secondary  grades  (K–12  and  9 –12)       COMPARING  BLENDED  MODELS  IN  CHARTER  SCHOOLS  AND  DISTRICTS   Use  of  blended-­‐learning  models  varies  between  charter  schools  (which  employ  the  Flex  model  at  far  greater   rates)  and  districts  (which  primarily  implement  the  A  La  Carte  and  Rotation  models).  As  Figure  16  shows,  23%   of  charter  schools  use  more  than  one  model,  compared  to  49%  of  districts  that  use  a  single  model.  


Figure  16.  Comparison  of  blended  models  used  at  charter  schools  and  districts  

GRADE  LEVELS     The  majority  of  blended  learning  occurs  in  high  schools,  with  a  91%  participation  rate  among  respondents   in  Ohio.  In  contrast,  43%  of  middle  schools  and  18%  of  elementary  schools  are  blending  (see  Figure  17) .   Additionally,  39%  of  respondents  use  blended  learning  in  more  than  one  grade  span,  and  14%  blend  in all  grades.  

Figure  17.  Students  enrolled  in  a  blended  program  by  grade  span  


LOCATION  OF  STUDENTS  PARTICIPATING  IN  BLENDED  LEARNING   Based  on  survey  data  from  21%  of  respondents,  we  estimated  that  over  40,000  students  are  participating  in   blended  learning  in  Ohio.     Students  benefitting  from  blended  learning,  as  reported  by  survey  respondents,  tend  to  be  clustered  in  the   urban  areas  of  Ohio.  Their  distribution  is  illustrated  in  Figure  18,  with  red  areas  indicating  higher  numbers   and  green  areas  indicating  lower  numbers  of  students  receiving  blended-­‐learning  instruction.  Cities  with  the   greatest  number  of  students  benefitting  from  blended  learning  include  Cincinnati  and  Columbus,  with  a   smaller  cluster  located  near  Cleveland.            


Figure  18.  Geographical  distribution  of  blended  learning  in  Ohio  



Section  3:  Making  the  shift  to  blended  learning   The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  asked  respondents  a  number  of  questions  about  how  they  implemented   blended  learning,  including  questions  on  funding,  planning,  using  consultants,  providing  professional   development,  and  selecting  digital  content.  These  questions  focused  on  the  steps  respondents  did  or  did  not   take  to  implement  blended  learning,  support  its  ongoing  development,  provide  digital  content,  and  make   specific  decisions  about  engaging  professional  development  providers  and  other  consultants.    

Highlights   •

Respondents  more  often  (72%)  use  local  funding  to  support  their  blended-­‐learning  programs,  with  a   much  smaller  portion  (28%)  using  a  mix  of  local  funds  and  grant  funding  or  grant  funding  exclusively.  

Nearly  two-­‐thirds  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  planned  before  implementing  blended  learning,   whereas  a  third  said  they  did  not  plan.    

Most  respondents  who  completed  the  follow-­‐up  survey  indicated  that  they  plan  to  expand  their   blended  programs  into  additional  classrooms  (16%)  and  subjects  (14%)  or  into  multiple  areas  (26%).   Additionally,  26%  said  they  are  not  ready  to  expand  the  use  of  blended  learning  in  their  schools   or  districts.  

Nearly  half  of  respondents  (48%)  reported  that  they  hired  consultants  to  help  them  implement   blended  learning.  Among  those  who  did  not  hire  a  consultant,  49%  reported  that  they  felt  confident   in  their  in-­‐house  expertise  to  implement  blended  learning  in  their  schools.  Most  of  the  consultants   provided  support  for  instruction,  and  they  were  selected  primarily  for  their  expertise  and  evidence  of   success  in  supporting  others.  

Nearly  half  of  respondents  (48%)  provided  professional  development  to  blended-­‐learning   instructors,  compared  to  42%  who  did  not  provide  any  professional  development.  

The  top  five  elements  addressed  in  professional  development  were  the  online  course  delivery   system  (69%),  instruction  in  the  blended-­‐learning  definitions  and  models  (68%),  tailoring  instruction   to  each  student  (63%),  data  use  (56%),  and  routines  and  culture  (50%).  

Professional  development  was  most  often  provided  by  the  central  office  (28%),  course  software  and   LMS  providers  (28%),  other  teachers  (27%),  and  other  consultants  (24%).  By  far,  the  most  popular   method  to  deliver  professional  development  was  in  person,  cited  by  73%  of  respondents  who  offer   blended-­‐learning  professional  development  to  instructors.  

The  primary  factors  in  the  selection  of  digital  content  that  respondents  cited  in  the  follow-­‐up  survey   were  cost  savings  (78%),  data  gathering  and  sharing/reporting  capabilities  (61%),  and  alignment  to   content  standards  (58%).  In  making  their  digital  content  selections,  90%  used  multiple  factors.  










Only  17%  of  respondents  had  teachers  pilot  the  digital  content  prior  to  making  a  purchase,  and  just   5%  engaged  students  in  piloting  initiatives.  

Respondents  who  created  their  own  digital  content  reported  that  the  primary  advantages  were   control  (28%)  and  customization  (24%)  and  the  primary  disadvantage  was  the  lack  of  time  to  create   and  maintain  the  content  (49%).  



Corresponding  Data   PRIMARY  DECISION  MAKERS   As  Figure  19  depicts,  half  of  the  respondents  to  the  follow-­‐up  survey  indicated  that  superintendents  are  the   primary  decision  makers  for  blended  programs.  In  fact,  the  vast  majority  of  decision  makers  are  at  the   district/central  office  level.  A  third  of  all  respondents  listed  multiple  decision  makers,  including  teachers  and   principals.  School  board  members  (3%),  union  representatives  (2%),  and  department  chairs  (2%)  wielded  less   decision-­‐making  power,  according  to  respondents.                                           Figure  19.  Primary  decision  makers  for  blended  programs  

    FUNDING  FOR  BLENDED  PROGRAMS   The  majority  of  respondents  use  local  funding  to  fund  their  blended-­‐learning  programs  (72%),  and  17%  use  a   mix  of  local  funds  with  grant  funds  (see  Figure  20).            


                            Figure  20.  Funding  sources  for  implementing  blended  programs  

    WAS  THERE  A  PLANNING  PROCESS?   Overall,  64%  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  had  planned  prior  to  implementing  blended  learning   (see  Figure  21).                             Figure  21.  Percentage  of  respondents  who  planned  prior  to  implementing  blended  learning         HOW  RESPONDENTS  PLANNED   If  respondents  indicated  that  they  had  planned,  we  asked  them  to  describe  their  planning  processes.   Figure  22  depicts  the  variety  of  responses,  organized  by  theme:  whole  district  planning  (24%);  primarily   top-­‐level  administrators  (19%);  consultant,  consortium,  or  university  assistance  (11%);  primarily  teacher-­‐led   (11%);  and  grant-­‐funded/initiated  (10%).            


                              Figure  22.  Blended-­‐learning  planning  “approaches”  used  by  respondents  

    CONDUCTING  A  COMMUNICATIONS  OR  COMMUNITY  ENGAGEMENT  PLAN   When  we  asked  respondents  whether  they  conducted  a  communications  or  community  engagement  plan   around  blended  learning,  only  23%  indicated  that  they  did  (see  Figure  23).                             Figure  23.  Percentage  of  respondents  who  conducted  a  communications  or  community     engagement  plan  around  blended  learning         SCALING  BLENDED-­‐LEARNING  PROGRAMS   Many  respondents  have  begun  or  are  considering  expanding  their  blended-­‐learning  programs  to  other   classrooms,  grades,  subjects,  or  schools  (see  Figure  24).  In  this  multiple-­‐choice  question,  we  asked  whether   respondents  were  planning  to  expand  their  programs  and,  if  so,  how.  Although  26%  indicated  that  they  are   not  ready  to  expand,  the  vast  majority  plans  to  increase  blended-­‐learning  operations  into  additional   classrooms  (16%),  subjects  (14%),  or  schools  (2%).  Additionally,  26%  plan  to  expand  blended  learning  in   multiple  ways.    


                                  Figure  24.  How  or  whether  respondents  plan  to  expand  their  blended  programs  

    PARTNERING  WITH  CONSULTANTS   We  asked  respondents  whether  they  had  partnered  with  a  consultant,  professional  service,  or  technical   assistance  provider  to  implement  blended  learning.  In  all,  49%  indicated  that  they  had  employed  this   additional  support  or  expertise  (see  Figure  25).                               Figure  25.  Percentage  of  respondents  who  partnered  with  a  blended-­‐learning  consultant,     professional  service,  or  technical  assistance  provider  to  implement  blended  learning                 30  

ELECTING  NOT  TO  WORK  WITH  A  CONSULTANT   If  respondents  did  not  partner  with  a  consultant,  we  inquired  as  to  their  rationale.  Half  of  the  respondents   felt  that  they  had  sufficient  knowledge  and  skills  to  plan  and  implement  their  program;  16%  worked  closely   with  an  online  content  provider;  and  11%  felt  that  they  had  insufficient  funds  to  hire  outside  help.  Overall,   35%  of  respondents  who  are  currently  planning  to  implement  blended  learning  have  hired  a  consultant.       SERVICES  PROVIDED  BY  CONSULTANTS   If  respondents  hired  a  consultant,  we  asked  them  about  the  services  provided  (see  Figure  26).  Of  the  55   who  responded,  71%  received  instructional  support  to  plan  and  implement  professional  development;   58%  received  design  assistance,  likely  in  the  types  of  blended-­‐learning  models  to  implement;  55%  received   implementation  and  measurement  support,  which  could  include  tracking  key  milestones,  providing   district-­‐  and  school-­‐level  support,  tracking  goals,  and  reporting  to  key  stakeholders;  and  slightly  more  than   half  (51%)  received  strategic  assistance  in  defining  blended  learning  for  their  district  or  school,  aligning   key  stakeholders,  and  setting  goals.  To  a  lesser  extent,  but  still  at  47%,  respondents  received  planning   support,  including  help  with  budgeting,  timeline,  key  milestones,  addressing  gaps,  tracking  goals,  and   needed  personnel.                                   Figure  26.  Services  provided  by  consultants  

  Additionally,  67%  of  respondents  who  are  currently  planning  to  implement  blended  learning  are  using   consultants  to  support  instruction,  including  performing  needs  assessments  and  assisting  with  professional   development.  Other  assistance  included  support  with  planning  (44%),  including  help  with  budgeting,   timeline,  key  milestones,  addressing  gaps,  tracking  goals,  and/or  need  personnel;  and  program  design  (44%),   likely  in  the  types  of  blended-­‐learning  models  to  implement.             31  

CRITERIA  FOR  SELECTING  CONSULTANTS   In  a  multiple-­‐choice  question,  we  asked  respondents  to  choose  up  to  three  options  that  best  described  the   criteria  they  used  to  select  consultants.  For  this  question,  we  combined  those  respondents  who  were   planning  to  implement  blended  learning  with  those  who  already  are.  As  Figure  27  shows,  respondents  largely   selected  consultants  on  the  basis  of  expertise  (62%)  and  evidence  of  success  (56%).  To  a  lesser  extent,   respondents  considered  whether  consultants  were  cost  effective  (45%),  if  they  had  a  previous  relationship   with  the  respondent  (33%),  or  if  they  had  received  a  recommendation  from  a  colleague  (19%).                                   Figure  27.  Criteria  respondents  use  to  select  consultants  

    PROVIDING  PROFESSIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  TO  BLENDED-­‐LEARNING  INSTRUCTORS   As  Figure  28  shows,  58%  of  respondents  provide  professional  development  to  blended-­‐learning  instructors,   and  42%  do  not.                               Figure  28.  The  percentage  of  respondents  who  provide  professional  development  to     blended-­‐learning  instructors      


Although  we  did  not  gauge  the  quality  of  the  professional  development  provided  to  blended-­‐learning   instructors  (nor  the  competencies  to  be  achieved),  we  did  ask  about  both  duration  and  content.  The  median   number  of  hours  of  blended-­‐learning  professional  development  was  12.  This  means  that  half  of  all   respondents  provided  12  or  fewer  hours  of  training  to  their  blended-­‐learning  instructors.     As  Figure  29  depicts,  the  training  that  was  most  frequently  provided  to  blended-­‐learning  instructors  was   about  the  online  course  delivery  system  (LMS)  (69%)  or  instruction  in  the  blended-­‐learning  models  and   definitions  (68%).                                                             Figure  29.  Components  of  professional  development  provided  to  blended-­‐learning  instructors  


PROFESSIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  PROVIDERS     As  Figure  30  shows,  respondents  relied  primarily  on  their  central  office  (28%);  the  course,  software,  or  LMS   provider  (28%);  other  teachers  (27%);  or  consultants  (24%)  to  deliver  professional  development  to  blended-­‐ learning  instructors.  Fewer  respondents  accessed  training  from  professional  learning  networks  (14%),   higher  education  institutions  (4%),  regional  educational  service  centers  (4%),  or  the  Ohio  Department  of   Education  or  state-­‐associated  institutions  (1%).  Only  24%  used  more  than  one  provider  for  professional-­‐ development  services.                               Figure  30.  Providers  used  for  blended-­‐learning  professional  development         PROFESSIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  METHODS   If  respondents  provided  professional  development  to  instructors,  we  asked  about  the  modes  they  used  to   conduct  the  training.  As  Figure  31  shows,  the  vast  majority  (73%)  of  professional  development  was   conducted  in  person.                                   Figure  31.  Primary  modes  used  by  respondents  for  professional  development  delivery      


Of  the  79%  of  respondents  who  elected  “in-­‐person”  and/or  “in-­‐classroom  context  coaching”  (24%  selected   both),  we  were  interested  in  seeing  whether  they  delivered  synchronous  or  asynchronous  online  professional   development  in  addition  to  their  face-­‐to-­‐face  professional  development.  As  Figure  32  depicts,  half  of  them   did.  Of  those  who  provided  in-­‐person  professional  development,  34%  also  provided  either  synchronous  or   asynchronous  online  professional  development.  Of  those  who  provided  in-­‐classroom  coaching,  83%  also   provided  online  professional  development.  Of  those  who  provided  both  in-­‐person  and  in-­‐classroom   professional  development,  74%  also  provided  online  professional  development.                                 Figure  32.  Combinations  of  face-­‐to-­‐face  and  online  modes  of  professional  development  delivery  as  indicated  by   respondents  



FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE DIGITAL CONTENT SELECTION As  Figure  33  depicts,  the  primary  digital  content  selection  factors  cited  by  respondents  were  cost/price  (79%)   and  alignment  to  the  content  standards  (57%).  Also  of  great  importance  was  the  resource’s  ease  of  use   (41%).  Only  17%  of  respondents  had  teachers  pilot  the  content  prior  to  purchasing,  and  just  5%  of   respondents  used  a  student  pilot  to  inform  selections.  As  many  as  90%  of  respondents  indicated  that  they   used  multiple  criteria  to  select  digital  content.  

Figure  33.  Factors  that  influence  digital  content  selection  


THE  PROS  AND  CONS  OF  CREATING  YOUR  OWN  DIGITAL  CONTENT   On  the  initial  survey,  32%  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  create  their  own  content  (see  Figure  34).                                   Figure  34.  Percentage  of  respondents  who  create  the  majority  of  their  own  digital  content  

    In  an  open-­‐ended  question  on  the  follow-­‐up  survey,  we  asked  respondents  who  create  the  majority  of  their   own  digital  content  to  describe  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  this  approach.  The  primary  perceived   advantages  that  respondents  cited  to  creating  their  own  digital  content  were  control  (24%)  and   customization  (28%).  Respondents  who  create  their  own  content  feel  that  they  can  personalize  it  to  meet   their  needs  (“The  content  can  be  personalized  to  our  curriculum  versus  a  national  basis”)  and  have  control   over  the  final  product  (“[We]  know  the  content  included  in  the  curriculum,  no  surprises”).  Less  often   reported  as  an  advantage  was  cost  savings  (8%).       The  largest  disadvantage,  reported  by  49%  of  respondents,  was  time.  Respondents  acknowledged  that   content  development  takes  a  great  deal  of  teachers’  time  (“Time  spent  on  creation  versus  use”),  and  several   indicated  that  content  creation  was  a  duplicative  effort  (“Way  too  much  high-­‐quality  material  in  the   marketplace  to  waste  time  creating  your  own”)—again  alluding  to  the  issue  of  time.       Below  is  a  sampling  of  specific  responses,  organized  by  theme,  on  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of   digital  content  creation:     Advantages   Control   • “Ease  of  implementation  tailored  to  our  own  students,  able  to  adjust  easier,  accessing  our   own  experts.”     Cost   • “As  our  teachers  utilize  open  source  materials,  the  cost  for  digital  content  created  in  house  is  very   low  compared  to  the  purchase  of  commercial  materials.”        


Customizable   • “Most  of  our  digital  content  is  created.  We  choose  this  option  because  it  is  always  customizable.   Being  locked  into  a  program,  in  which  nothing  can  be  changed,  can  be  very  frustrating   and  expensive.”   • “We  can  continually  amend  and  change  it.  We  can  use  it  in  every  platform  without  increasing  costs.   We  can  use  our  own  online  classes  as  supplements  to  traditional  courses.”   • “The  advantages  are  rigorous  and  relevant  courses  that  are  more  personalized  to  our  students.  Also,   our  courses  are  blended  in  delivery,  with  strong  interaction  between  face-­‐to-­‐face  and  online   content,  resulting  in  strong  teacher-­‐student  relationships.”     Buy-­‐in   • “If  we  create  it  we  own  it  so  most  likely  there  will  be  more  buy  in.”   • “The  positive  is  the  autonomy  provided  the  teaching  staff.”     Disadvantages   Time   • “Time  to  write  effective  programs  with  limited  staff  and  high  staff  turnover.”   • “Time  consuming  for  teachers,  teachers  are  not  trained  to  be  content  creators.”   • “Course  development  takes  a  great  deal  of  time;  however,  we  do  share  resources  and  content  within   the  district.”     Duplicative  efforts     • “Continually  reinventing  the  wheel.”   • “Way  too  much  high-­‐quality  material  in  the  marketplace  to  waste  time  creating  your  own.”      



Section  4:  Challenges  and  lessons  learned   The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  asked  respondents  to  reflect  on  their  implementation  of  blended  learning   and  identify  challenge  areas,  problems  encountered,  and  supports  that  would  help  them  improve  the  quality   of  their  program.  In  conclusion,  we  asked  respondents  to  share  what  they  would  do  differently  if  they  could   start  over  (lessons  learned)  with  their  blended  learning  program.     Our  approach  deliberately  probed  at  repeated  themes  across  multiple  questions  (both  closed  and  open-­‐ ended)  in  order  to  better  understand  how  respondents  are  perceiving  the  particular  situations  they  are   facing,  and  how  they  are  making  sense  of  the  landscape.Their  responses  provide  rich  and  valuable   information  deserving  further  reflection  at  the  same  time  they  illuminate  an  immediate  need  for  a  wider   variety  of  resources  and  strategies  to  support  high-quality  implementation.    

Highlights •

Respondents  indicated  that  their  top  three  challenges  were  finding  high-­‐quality  professional development  (36%),  getting  staff  buy-­‐in  (34%),  and  funding  blended-­‐learning  programs  (32%). Less  often  cited  as  challenges  were  measuring  implementation  (18%)  and  providing  sufficient  and reliable  Internet  connections  (12%).

Nearly  half  of  respondents  (48%)  indicated  they  encountered  the  problem  of  not  having  enough time  to  shift  to  blended  learning,  while  27%  cited  the  problem  of  getting  staff  buy-­‐in,  and  20%  felt that  professional  development  is  too  expensive.

A  third  of  respondents  who  implemented  blended  learning  identified  a  need  for  support  in  terms  of more  planning  or  networking  with  other  blended  schools.  A  fourth  (24%)  said  they  needed  support  in finding  high-­‐quality  professional  development  specific  to  blended-­‐  learning  programs.  Nineteen percent  cited  a  need  for  financial  assistance.

When  asked  more  specifically  about  additional  budget  and/or  personnel  resources  needed  to support  their  blended-­‐learning  programs,  about  a  fourth  of  respondents  indicated  they  did  not  need additional  budget  and/or  personnel  resources,  20%  cited  that  more  funding  for  professional development  was  needed,  and  17%  said  support  was  needed  for  infrastructure  improvements, mostly  in  terms  of  additional  computer  devices.

In  terms  of  lessons  learned,  a  third  of  respondents  (33%)  wished  they  had  planned  more  thoroughly to  include  more  stakeholders  in  the  planning  process  and  to  take  more  time  to  create  their  blended learning  programs.    About  a  quarter  of  respondents  (28%)  wished  they  had  provided  more professional  development  to  blended-­‐learning  instructors  before  they  implemented  their  programs. Twenty-­‐one  percent  of  respondents  were  satisfied  with  their  blended-­‐learning  implementation  and would  not  do  anything  differently.


Corresponding  Data   NEED  MORE  HIGH-­‐QUALITY  PROFESSIONAL  DEVELOPMENT   When  we  provided  a  list  of  possible  challenges  to  respondents  and  asked  them  to  select  their  top  three,  the   problems  they  most  frequently  cited  were  finding  high-­‐quality  professional  development  for  blended-­‐ learning  instructors  (36%),  getting  buy-­‐in  from  staff  (34%),  and  securing  funding  for  blended-­‐learning   programs  (32%),  as  is  depicted  in  Figure  35.  

Figure 35. Blended-learning implementation challenges faced by respondents 40  

NOT  ENOUGH  TIME  TO  SHIFT  TO  BLENDED   When  we  asked  respondents  what  problems  they  had  encountered  while  implementing  blended  learning,   48%  cited  not  enough  time  to  shift  to  blended,  27%  said  getting  staff  buy-­‐in,  and  20%  cited  expensive   professional  development  (see  Figure  36).  From  the  31  respondents  that  listed  multiple  problems,  three   clusters  emerged.  One  cluster  indicated  that  expensive  professional  development  and  staff  buy-­‐in  were   problematic;  another  cluster  cited  insufficient  time  and  staff  buy-­‐in;  and  the  third  group  selected  expensive   professional  development  and  not  enough  time.  Many  respondents  listed  other  challenges  within  the   comment  field,  including  technology  issues  with  Internet  access  and  bandwidth,  both  at  school  and  at   students’  homes,  getting  students  to  complete  digital  content,  and  responding  to  changes  in  classroom   culture.  “We  didn’t  know  what  we  didn’t  know,  and  we  are  continually  learning  and  changing  our  best   practices,”  wrote  one  respondent.                                   Figure  36.  Problems  encountered  during  blended-­‐learning  implementation  

    NEED  TO  PLAN,  NETWORK,  AND  SHARE  MORE   One  question  posed  to  participants  asked  them  to  identify  any  supports  that  would  help  them  further  the   quality  of  their  blended  learning  program.  As  depicted  in  Figure  37,  33%  of  respondents  requested  support   with  planning  or  networking  with  other  blended  programs;  24%  requested  support  with  high-­‐quality   professional  development  specific  to  blended  learning;  19%  requested  support  with  financial  assistance  for   program  implementation;  and  7%  requested  support  for  additional  time  (specifically,  time  for  planning,   delivering  professional  development,  and  networking).                             41  

Figure  37.  Areas  for  support,  identified  by  respondents,  that  would  advance  the  quality  of  their  blended  programs  

Below  is  a  sampling  of  specific  responses,  organized  by  theme,  on  areas  of  support  requested/identified   by  respondents.   Planning  and  networking  (33%)   • “A  lot  of  resources  seem  to  lean  toward  a  focus  on  starting  a  system  from  the  ground  zero.  I  would like  more  help  in  transforming  an  already  existing  system  into  a  more  blended  model.” • “I  would  love  examples  and  models  from  top-­‐performing  blended  model  schools!  To  hear  what works  for  them  would  be  very  beneficial.” • “Site  visits  to  other  schools  that  are  implementing  at  the  elementary  level.” Professional  development  (24%)   • “Free  teacher  professional  development  through  our  regional  Educational  Service  Center.” • “Professional  development  is  our  biggest  need.  Finding  time  and  resources  for  that  professional development  are  the  biggest  issues.” Financial  assistance  (19%)   • “Easy  to  come  by  grants  to  support  the  start  up  costs  and  PD  associated  with  beginning  in blended  learning.” • “Dollars  to  support  the  implementation  of  blended  learning  into  other  content  areas  besides  math.” Advice  on  resources  (7%)   • “A  comprehensive  list  of  highly  rated  vendors  that  can  offer  one-­‐stop  shopping.  We  want  our curriculum  to  be  comprehensive  and  able  to  be  accessed  anytime  anywhere.  We  want  curriculum for  our  virtual  academy,  resources  for  our  teachers  and  access  to  classes  we  can  put  students  on for  acceleration.”


Time  (7%)   • “A  need  for  ‘release  time’  to  have  all  stakeholders  share  successes  and  challenges  they  have  had.   Taking  the  knowledge  gained  to  restructure  the  educational  settings  to  foster  a  true  blended   learning  environment.  That  restructuring  from  "lesson  learned"  needs  an  expert  to  facilitate   the  discussion.”   • “Time  to  release  staff  to  work  continuously  on  the  development  of  their  blended-­‐learning  course   without  having  to  fit  this  work  around  a  full  teaching  schedule.  Ability  to  replace  staff  for  half  a   teaching  load  for  a  semester  concentration  on  development.”     MANY  OK  ON  SUPPORT,  BUT  PROFESSIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  AND  INFRASTRUCTURE  CITED   Figure  38  depicts  some  of  the  answers  to  the  open-­‐ended  question  on  the  follow-­‐up  survey  asking   respondents  what  additional  resources  they  required  for  implementation  sorted  into  six  categories.                                         Figure  38.  Additional  budget  or  personnel  resources  needed  to  support  blended-­‐learning  goals  and  implementation  

    Professional  development  (20%)     • “Professional  Development  support,  which  would  include  stipends  for  bringing  teachers  in  during  the   summer,  and  trainers.”   • “Professional  Development  time  for  understanding  and  implementation  of,  including  best  practices   and  how  to  make  this  as  beneficial  as  possible  for  students,  while  not  a  burdensome  task   for  educators.”   • “We  are  developing  our  Digital  Learning  Specialists  (formerly  known  and  functioning  as  Media   Specialists  …  now  more  like  Digital  Learning  Coaches)  to  support  the  teachers  over  time   with  implementation.”        


Infrastructure  (17%)   • “Bandwidth  required.” • “Additional  funding  is  required  to  realize  a  1:1  environment  to  provide  personalized  blended-­‐ learning  devices.” • “Funding  to  complete  the  restructuring  of  the  physical  wired  and  wireless  network  to  streamline services  and  reliability.” • “Hardware  and  a  plan  to  support  high  student  volume  on  devices;  professional.” • “We  would  need  additional  monies  to  purchase  digital  frameworks/platforms  to  support blended  learning.” • “We  are  offering  room  redesign  incentives  for  teachers  that  include  additional  furniture and  equipment.” PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR SCHOOL AND SENIOR DISTRICT LEADERSHIP In  another  open-­‐ended  question,  also  on  the  follow-­‐up  survey,  we  hoped  to  discover  whether  leaders,   particularly  those  at  the  district  level,  received  blended-­‐learning  professional  development.  Although  42%   responded  to  the  question,  most  answers  were  fairly  general  about  the  types  of  supports  provided  to  school   and  district  leaders.  In  addition,  the  majority  of  the  comments  referenced  professional  development  that  was   provided  to  instructors,  not  leaders.  From  these  data,  we  found  that  just  under  a  third  (31%)  of  respondents   provided  some  type  of  blended-­‐learning  professional  development  to  school  or  district  leaders,  another  31%   provided  general  professional  development  not  specific  to  blended  learning  to  school  or  district  leaders,  20%   offered  no  support  to  school  or  district  leaders,  and  14%  only  referenced  training  provided  to  instructors.   Below  is  a  sampling  of  specific  responses,  organized  by  theme,  on  blended-­‐learning  leadership   professional  development.   Leadership  professional  development   •

“We  have  consistently  trained  our  principals,  curriculum  director,  and  teachers  on  Next  Generation Learning  Environments,  Blended  Learning,  and  effective  technology  integration.  Several  teachers  are certified  through  the  Quality  Matters  blended-­‐learning  model,  while  others  continue  to  learn  from  a variety  of  resources  available.” “We  provide  a  complete  training  program  for  everyone  from  registrar  to  faculty  to  learning  center coaches.  We  train  all  the  unique  positions  on  the  interaction  between  digital  and  faculty  instruction. Professional  development  is  at  the  start  of  the  school,  throughout  the  year,  as  new  staff  come  on board,  and  refreshers.” “Principals  get  an  overview  of  the  program,  as  well  as  learned  how  to  pull  reports  for  monitoring progress  and  overall  completion  numbers.  Blended-­‐learning  director  gets  the  same  overview  and then  very  in  depth  training  on  adding  and  deleting  staff  and  students,  various  reporting  features, resources  attached  to  the  programming  and  curriculum,  and  options  available  as  an  add  on.  District officials  get  a  demo  and  an  overview.  Board  members  get  a  demo  of  programming  and  updates on  progress.”


Teacher  professional  development   • “Teachers  are  being  provided  training  using  Blended  (Horn  and  Staker)  and  other  resources  provided   by  blended-­‐learning  consultant.”   • “We  had  a  group  from  a  University  come  last  school  year  and  train  our  high  school  staff.  This   summer  our  high  school  staff  will  be  training  our  4–6  staff  as  their  students  will  be  issued  iPads  for   learning  in  the  fall.”     WHAT  WOULD  RESPONDENTS  DO  DIFFERENTLY?  PLAN  MORE   An  open-­‐ended  question  in  the  initial  blended  survey  asked  respondents  what  they  would  do  differently   (lessons  learned)  if  they  could  start  over  with  their  blended  programs.  Repeating  themes  from  throughout   the  survey,  33%  of  respondents  wished  they  had  planned  more  thoroughly,  included  more  stakeholders  in   the  planning  process,  or  taken  more  time  to  create  a  comprehensive  program  (see  Figure  39).  More  than  a   quarter  of  respondents  (28%)  wished  they  had  initially  provided  more  professional  development  to  blended   instructors.  Twenty-­‐one  percent  of  respondents  were  satisfied  with  their  blended  learning  implementation   and  would  do  nothing  differently.                                   Figure  39.  What  respondents  would  do  differently  if  they  had  the  chance  to  start  over  with  their  blended  programs  

    Below  is  a  sampling  of  specific  comments,  organized  by  theme,  on  what  respondents  would  do  differently  if   they  had  the  chance  to  start  over  with  their  blended  programs:     Planning     • “Involve  teachers  sooner  in  the  implementation  of  Blended  Learning.”   • “Make  it  less  on  an  "add  on"  and  more  integral  to  department  and  student  success.”   • “Reach  out  to  the  community  more  about  the  need  and  purpose.”            


Professional  development     • “Help  teachers  organize  students  so  that  they  truly  understand  blended  is  about  individualizing   instruction.  How  can  this  be  truly  successful?”   • “Lead  with  more  professional  development  for  staff.  Provide  more  examples  of  how  blended   learning  looks  and  how  it  works.”   • “I  would  have  teachers  participate  in  an  online  course  to  learn  about  the  ideas  and  concepts  behind   blended  learning  by  doing  it.”   • “More  professional  development  on  what  blended  learning  is  and  less  on  the  creation  of  content  and   use  of  an  LMS.”     Technology     • “With  hindsight,  I  wish  we  had  realized  just  how  much  support  for  the  tech  is  required  in  a   1:1  environment.”   • “Conduct  a  comprehensive  review  of  platforms  and  delivery  models.”   • “Ensure  that  the  infrastructure  was  adequate  to  provide  a  stable  environment  that  would  permit  a   large  number  of  users  simultaneous  access  to  resources.”   • “For  our  blended  learning  to  be  effective,  we  need  to  improve  technology  connections  and  have   enough  computers  to  have  a  computer  lab  classroom.”                                                          



Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  Instrument   The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Survey  is  being  conducted  by  the  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Network,  in   collaboration  with  The  Learning  Accelerator  and  the  Clayton  Christensen  Institute.  We’re  gathering  a  variety   of  data  about  how  and  why  charter  schools  and  districts  are  blending  their  learning  in  order  to  inform   policymakers,  foundations,  and  professional  associations  about  the  best  ways  to  assist  your  work.   Respondents  not  currently  implementing  blended  learning,  or  that  are  in  the  planning  stages,  only  need  to   complete  the  first  eight  questions.   Deadline:  March  20,  2015   Full-­‐time  Virtual  School   • Students  take  all  their  courses  online  away  from  school. • Students  do  not  visit  a  physical  campus,  except  to  take  assessments. Blended  Learning   Blended  learning  typically  takes  place  at  school,  where  students  have  some  control  over  time,  place,  path   and/or  pace.  There  are  four  identified  modes.   • Rotation:  Students  rotate,  on  a  fixed  schedule  in  a  course,  between  learning  online  and  learning from  a  face-­‐to-­‐face  teacher.  Rotation  includes  teachers  who  “Flip”  their  class. • To  count  use  of  supplemental  and/or  Internet  resources  as  blended,  students  must  rotate between  them  and  a  classroom  on  a  fixed  schedule  within  an  individual  course  or  subject. • A-­‐la-­‐carte  (formerly  Self  Blend):  Students  choose  to  take  one  or  more  online  courses  to  supplement their  schedules  and  the  teacher  of  record  is  online. • Enriched  Virtual:  Independent  study  or  other  students  who  take  all  their  online  courses  at  home  but visit  a  physical  campus  to  meet  with  a  teacher. • Flex:  Students  take  a  majority  of  their  courses  online  at  school  in  an  individually  customized,  fluid schedule  and  on-­‐site  teachers  or  paraprofessionals  provide  support.  The  courses  often  direct students  to  offline  activities. What  is  NOT  blended  learning:     Participation  in  supplemental  electronic  activities  or  technology-­‐rich  activities  that  don’t  fit  the   definitions  above.     1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Person  completing  the  survey Your  Title Email  Address County  Name District  or  Charter  Name District  or  charter  school  grade  levels:  (K-­‐5,  K-­‐6,  or  K-­‐8)  (9-­‐12  or  K-­‐12) Are  you  a  charter  school? Do  students  at  your  charter  school  or  district  participate  in  blended  learning  or  full-­‐time online  learning? If  yes,  continue  to  Q9. 47  

If  no,  “Is  your  district  or  charter  school  currently  discussing  or  planning  to  implement  blended   learning?         If  ,  “why  not?”   If  yes,  “Please  list  any  programs  or  models  that  you  are  planning  to  pilot  or  implement.”     9. What  are  your  reasons  for  implementing  blended  learning  (select  up  to  three)?   a) To  provide  more  course  choices   g) To  support  teachers   for  students   h) To  reduce  costs   b) To  create  more  personalized  learning   i) To  improve  (students’  and  teachers’)   c) To  facilitate  more  personalized   access  to  and  familiarity  with  technology   student  learning   j) To  improve  (students’  and  teachers’)   d) To  facilitate  competency-­‐based  learning   access  to  content   e) To  improve  student  academic  outcomes   k) I  don’t  know   f) To  improve  student  non-­‐academic   l) Other  (please  specify)   outcomes     10. Do  you  currently  conduct  a  communications  or  community  engagement  plan  around   blended  learning?        

11. Before  implementing  blended  learning,  did  you  go  through  a  planning  process?   If  yes,  “Please  tell  us  about  your  planning.”   12. Did  you  partner  with  a  blended  learning  consultant,  a  professional  service,  or  a  technical  assistance   provider?  If  no,  proceed  to  Q15  

  13. What  type  of  services  did  your  blended  learning  consultant,  professional  services,  or  technical   assistance  provider  provide?  (Check  all  that  apply)   a) Strategy  (defining  blended  learning  for  your  district/school,  aligning  key  stakeholders   setting  goals)   b) Planning  (budgeting,  timeline,  key  milestones,  how  goals  will  be  tracked,  personnel  needed,  gaps   that  need  to  be  addressed)   c) Design  (what  types  of  blended  learning  models,  etc.)   d) Implementation  support  and  measurement  (tracking  key  milestones,  providing  district  and   school  level  support,  tracking  goals,  reporting  to  key  stakeholders)   e) Instructional  (plan  and  implement/assist  with  implementing  professional  development  based  on   needs  assessment)   f) Other     14. On  what  basis  did  you  select  that  partner?  (Up  to  three)   a) Expertise   d) Cost  effective   b) Previous  relationship   e) Recommendation  of  a  colleague   c) Evidence  of  success  supporting  other   f) Other   schools/districts      


15. Which  blended  learning  models  are  being  utilized  in  your  charter  school  or  district?   (Check  all  that  apply)   a) Rotation:  Students  rotate,  on  a  fixed  schedule  in  a  course,  between  learning  online  and  learning   from  a  face-­‐to-­‐face  teacher.  Rotation  includes  teachers  who  “Flip”  their  class.   To  count  use  of  supplemental  and/or  Internet  resources  as  blended,  students  must  rotate   between  them  and  a  classroom  on  a  fixed  schedule  within  an  individual  course  or  subject.   b) A-­‐la-­‐carte:  Students  choose  to  take  one  or  more  online  courses  to  supplement  their  schedules   and  the  teacher  of  record  is  online.     c) Enriched  Virtual:  Independent  study,  SB316,  or  other  students  who  take  all  their  online  courses   at  home  but  visit  a  physical  campus  to  meet  with  a  teacher.   d) Flex:  Students  take  a  majority  of  their  courses  online  at  school  in  an  individually  customized,   fluid  schedule  and  on-­‐site  teachers  or  paraprofessionals  provide  support.  The  courses  often   direct  students  to  offline  activities.   e) Other  (please  describe):   If  your  blended  learning  model  is  not  described  above,  please  insert  a  brief  description  here.   f) Don’t  know     16. Students  in  which  grade  levels  participate  in  blended  learning?  (Check  all  that  apply)   a) Grades  K-­‐5   b) Grades  6-­‐8   c) Grades  9-­‐12     17. How  many  students  are  participating  in  blended  learning  during  the  2014-­‐2015  school  year?     18. Does  your  charter  school  or  district  provide  professional  development,  specific  to  blended  learning?   a) Yes     b) No       19. How  many  hours  of  professional  development  were  provided  for  teachers  in  the  last  year?     20. What  components  have  been  included  in  teachers’  professional  development  for  blended  learning?   (Select  all  that  apply)   a) Instruction  in  blended  learning  definitions   h) Online  course  delivery  system  (LMS)   and  models   i) In  the  behavioral,  social,  and  when   b) Tailoring  instruction  to  each  Student   necessary,  emotional,  aspects  of  the   c) Competency-­‐based  learning   learning  environment   d) Routines  and  culture   j) Support  and  use  of  a  variety  of   e) Data  use   communication  modes  to  stimulate   f) Mindset   student  engagement  online.   g) Content  selection   k) Other  (Please  specify)            


21. Who  provided  the  majority  of  teacher  professional  development  for  blended  learning?  (Top  three)   a) Course,  software  or  LMS  provider   e) Department  of  Education  or  state-­‐ b) Central  office   associated  institution   c) Consultant,  professional  services  or   f) Regional  education  service  center   technical  assistance  provider   g) Teacher-­‐led   d) Professional  learning  network   h) Higher  Education  institution   i) Other     22. What  delivery  methods  primarily  characterized  teacher  professional  development  for  blended   learning?  (Up  to  three)   a) Online,  synchronous  (everyone  online  at   c) In-­‐person   the  same  time)   d) Professional  learning  network   b) Online,  asynchronous  (participants  and   e) Peer  study/teaming   instructor  not  necessarily  online  at  the   f) In-­‐classroom  context  coaching   same  time)     23. What  are  the  top  three  challenges  areas  you  face  in  your  blended  learning  implementation  efforts?   a) High  quality  professional  development  for  teachers   b) High  quality  professional  development  for  principals   c) High  quality  professional  services/technical  assistance  supporting  model  design   d) High  quality  professional  services/technical  assistance  supporting  implementation   e) Guidance  and/or  support  in  selecting  devices   f) Guidance  and/or  support  in  selecting  content   g) Guidance  and/or  support  in  selecting  LMS   h) Reliable  and  sufficient  Internet  connectivity   i) Network  or  community  of  practice   j) Examples  to  look  to  of  emerging,  successful  models  in  Ohio   k) Buy-­‐in  of  staff   l) Buy-­‐in  of  community   m) Funding  and/or  finance   n) The  right  personnel  and  partners  to  implement  with  high-­‐quality     o) BL  not  being  a  high  priority  in  our  district   p) Measuring  implementation  and  progress  to  your  goals   q) Other     24. How  is  your  blended  learning  program  funded?   a) Local  funds   b) Short  term  grant   c) Long  term  grant   d) Mix  of  local  funds  with  grant  funding   e) Other            


25. What  problems  have  you  encountered  as  you’ve  implemented  blended  learning?   a) Professional  development  too  expensive   b) Hard  to  get  staff  buy  in   c) Cost  of  technology   d) Can't  find  technical  assistance   e) Not  enough  time  to  shift  to  blended   f) Other     26. What  (if  any)  kinds  of  support  would  help  you  further  a  high  quality  blended  learning  program?     27. What  would  you  do  differently  if  you  could  start  over  with  your  blended  program?                                                                      





Ohio  Blended  Learning  Follow-­‐up  Survey  Instrument   1. Who  in  your  charter  or  district  is  primarily  making  key  decisions  regarding  your  blended  learning   implementation?   a) Superintendent   b) Chief  Academic  Officer   c) Assistant  Superintendent(s)   d) Principal(s)   e) Blended  Learning  Director   f) Teacher(s)   g) Chief  Technology  Officer   h) Director  of  Technology   i) Department  Chair(s)   j) Director  of  Curriculum  and  Instruction   k) School  Board  Member(s)   l) Union  Representative(s)   m) Other     2. What  additional  budget  and/or  personnel  resources  are  needed  to  support  your  initiative's  current   goals  and  implementation?  Answer  "NONE"  if  no  additional  personnel  or  budget  resources  are  needed.     3. What  training,  guidance  or  professional  development  is  provided  to  the  following  kinds  of  staff  and/or   leadership?  Principals,  Blended  Learning  Director  or  Coach(s),  Senior  District  Officials  and/or  Board   Members     4. How  do  you  define  student  success  with  blended  learning?   a) Improved  course  completion  rates   b) Improved  graduation  rates   c) Improved  academic  grades   d) Improved  academic  test  scores   e) Improved  social/emotional  learning   f) Improved  student  well  being   g) Improved  student  time  on  task   h) Improved  student  conduct/behavior   i) Greater  student  engagement   j) Greater  student  autonomy   k) Uncertain   l) None   m) Other        


5. What  factors  influence  your  choice  of  digital  content?  Select  NO  MORE  than  Three.   a) Cost/Price   b) Open  Educational  Resources  (OER)   c) Vendor  demonstration   d) Data  illustrating  effectiveness,  supplied  by  curriculum  provider  illustrating  effectiveness   e) Data  illustrating  effectiveness,  supplied  by  another  source   f) Ease  of  use   g) Data  gathering  and  sharing/reporting  capabilities   h) Visual  appeal   i) Alignment  to  content  standards   j) Data  gathering  and  sharing/reporting  capabilities   k) Colleague  recommendation   l) Teacher  pilot   m) Teacher  recommendation   n) Student  pilot   o) None   p) Other     6. IF  you  create  the  MAJORITY  of  your  own  digital  content,  what  are  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of   this  approach?     7. If  you  plan  to  expand  blended  learning  within  your  charter  or  district,  which  best  describes  your   approach  to  scale?  If  you  DON'T  currently  plan  to  expand,  we  have  that  answer  too.   a) Not  ready  to  expand   b) Expanding  the  number  of  classrooms  blending  learning   c) Expanding  the  number  of  subjects  blending  learning   d) Expanding  the  number  of  grade  levels  blending  learning   e) Expanding  the  number  of  schools  blending  learning   f) Some  combination  of  b,  c,  d,  and/or  e   g) Other                                



Blended  Learning  Resources   PLANNING   Blended:  Using  Disruptive  Innovation  to  Improve  Schools­‐Disruptive-­‐Innovation-­‐Improve-­‐Schools/dp/1118955153   Blended  and  Personalized  Learning  101­‐content/ssf-­‐cci   Blended  Learning  Implementation  Guide  3.0­‐3.0-­‐FINAL.pdf   Clayton  Christensen  Institute  Blended  Learning  Universe  (BLU)   Is  K–12  blended  learning  disruptive?  An  introduction  to  the  theory  of  hybrids.   So  You  Think  You  Want  to  Innovate?  percent20Culture  percent20of   percent20Innovation_2Rev-­‐TLA__10.9_final.pdf   The  Learning  Accelerator’s  Framework  for  Cultivating  High-­‐Quality  Blended  Learning  at  the  State  Level  SFWa V1_080514_fin.pdf   90-Day Cycle Handbook­‐content/uploads/2014/09/90DC_Handbook_external_10_8.pdf  

DIGITAL  CONTENT   Teachers  Know  Best   Graphite  



EngageNY   Gooru   OER  Commons   The  K-­‐12  OER  Collaborative  

PROFESSIONAL  DEVELOPMENT   BetterLesson’s  Blended  Master  Teacher  Project   iNACOL’s  Blended  Learning  Teacher  Competency  Framework­‐Blended-­‐Learning-­‐Teacher-­‐Competency-­‐ Framework%20(1).pdf   Relay  Graduate  School  of  Education  Blended  Learning  Modules     The  New  Teacher  Project’s  (TNTP)  Reimagining  Teaching  in  a  Blended  Classroom TNTP_Blended_Learning_WorkingPaper_2014.pdf  

NETWORK/CONNECTIVITY   EducationSuperHighway’s  Network  Essentials  for  Superintendents   New  Jersey  Digital  Readiness  for  Learning  Assessment  Project  Broadband  Report Broadband%2BReport%2B17JUL15v1.pdf  

STAKEHOLDER  ENGAGEMENT   Blended  Learning  Messaging  percent20Messaging.pdf   Communications Planning for Blended Learning: Step-By-Step Guide  


HARDWARE   Education  Element’s  Hardware  Analysis:  Choosing  the  Right  Hardware  for  Your  District­‐the-­‐hardware-­‐selection-­‐whitepaper  

PROCUREMENT   EdTech  Procurement  in  Houston  ISD­‐FINAL-­‐June2014.pdf   Smart  Series  Guide  to  EdTech  Procurement­‐Guide-­‐FINAL.pdf  

RESEARCH   Blended  Learning  Measurement  Framework  BL  Measurement  Framework.pdf   Research  Clearinghouse­‐ 050715%20(1).pdf   District  Guide  to  Blended  Learning  Measurement   Proof  Points:  Blended  Learning  Success  in  School  Districts­‐points/#sthash.F4KAlxZz.dpuf  

COMPETENCY  EDUCATION   Implementing  Competency  Education  in  K–12  Systems­‐ content/uploads/2015/06/iNCL_CWIssueBrief_Implementing_v5_web.pdf   The  Shift  from  Cohorts  to  Competency­‐Paper-­‐Final.pdf   Why  Does  Proficiency  Matter?  




  Thomas  Arnett   Thomas  Arnett  is  a  Research  Fellow  in  Education  at  the  Clayton  Christensen  Institute.  Thomas’  research   focuses  on  the  changing  roles  of  teachers  in  blended  learning  environments  and  other  innovative  educational   models.  He  also  studies  how  teacher  education  and  professional  development  are  shifting  to  support  the   evolving  needs  of  teachers  and  school  systems.  Additionally,  he  examines  policies  and  innovations  affecting   technology  access  and  infrastructure.  Thomas  previously  worked  as  an  Education  Pioneers  Fellow  with  the   Achievement  First  Public  Charter  Schools,  where  he  designed  and  piloted  a  blended-­‐learning  summer  school   program.  He  also  taught  middle  school  math  and  experimented  with  blended-­‐learning  models  as  a  Teach  For   America  corps  member  in  the  Kansas  City  Missouri  School  District.  Thomas  received  a  BS  in  Economics  from   Brigham  Young  University.  He  also  earned  an  MBA  from  the  Tepper  School  of  Business  at  Carnegie  Mellon   University,  where  he  was  a  William  G.  McGowan  Fellow.     Andrew  Benson   Andrew  Benson  founded  Smarter  Schools  in  2013  after  nearly  two  decades  working  on  education  reform,  and   he  created  the  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Network  in  2014,  which  includes  60  Ohio  schools  and  districts   representing  more  than  275,000  students.  He  was  most  recently  Vice  President  of  KnowledgeWorks  and   Executive  Director  of  Ohio  Education  Matters,  the  Ohio  subsidiary  for  KnowledgeWorks.  At  KnowledgeWorks,   Andrew  spearheaded  the  Ohio  Smart  Schools  effort  to  improve  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  K–12   education  in  the  state,  and  he  has  supported  the  state  over  the  past  10  years  on  numerous  reform  efforts,   including  the  Ohio  Race  to  the  Top  grant  proposal  (2010),  the  Governor's  Institute  on  Creativity  and   Innovation  in  Education  (2009),  the  Governor's  Transition  Committee  for  Higher  Education  (2006)  and  the   State  Board's  High  School  Task  Force  (2004–05).  Andrew  was  previously  the  founding  President  of  the  New   Ohio  Institute,  a  statewide  think  tank  studying  education,  economic  development,  and  community   development.  Prior  to  that,  he  was  a  journalist  in  Cleveland,  Houston  and  several  other  cities.  He  holds  a   Master's  in  Public  Administration  from  the  John  F.  Kennedy  School  of  Government  at  Harvard  University,  a   Master's  in  Journalism  from  the  Ohio  State  University,  and  a  Bachelor's  in  Journalism  from  Ohio  University.     Brian  Bridges   Brian  Bridges  is  an  eLearning  consultant  based  in  California  and  organizes  the  eLearning  Strategies   Symposium,  California’s  only  conference  solely  focused  on  K–12  online  and  blended  learning.  He  also   conducts  the  annual  California  eLearning  Census.  Brian  recently  retired  as  the  director  of  the  California   Learning  Resource  Network,  a  state-­‐funded  program  that  reviews  online  courses,  electronic  learning   resources,  and  open  educational  resources  to  verity  their  connection  to  the  Common  Core  State  Standards,   California’s  other  academic  standards,  and  for  California’s  social  and  legal  compliance  criteria.  He  is  past   president  of  California’s  Computer  Using  Educators  (CUE),  an  organization  of  4,000  educators,  and  writes  a   regular  column  for  their  newsletter.  Before  that,  Brian  was  a  junior  high  school  teacher  for  20  years  and   taught  English,  drama,  and  computers.  He  holds  a  Master’s  in  Education  Technology  from  the  University  of   San  Francisco  and  a  Bachelor’s  in  Theater  Arts,  English,  and  Science  from  San  Francisco  State  University.          


Katrina  Bushko   Katrina  is  a  research  assistant  for  the  Clayton  Christensen  Institute.  As  an  integral  member  of  the  education   team  she  provides  research  and  writing  support  to  the  Institute's  fellows.  Katrina's  work  focuses  primarily  on   teacher  certification,  professional  development  in  education,  and  student  social  capital.  She  also  keeps  the   Institute  apprised  of  national  and  statewide  policy  developments  in  blended  learning  and  education   technology.  Katrina  has  a  BA  in  political  philosophy  from  Princeton  University.     Lisa  Duty   Lisa  Duty  is  a  Partner  at  The  Learning  Accelerator  where  she  directs  state  strategy,  partnerships,  and   investments.  Lisa  has  over  15  years  experience  in  education  strategy,  policy,  and  school  design  with  deep   expertise  in  future  trends  in  teaching  and  learning.  Her  current  work  supports  state  actors  in  reimagining   their  roles,  missions,  and  the  ways  education  systems  can  be  rebuilt  for  innovation  and  high   performance.  Prior  to  joining  TLA,  Lisa  was  Senior  Director  of  Innovation  at  KnowledgeWorks  where  she  led   the  design  of  a  new  blended  education  model  and  authored  numerous  pieces  of  legislation  related  to  digital   and  blended  learning  in  Ohio.  Lisa  spent  several  years  as  a  consultant  for  the  Ohio  Department  of  Education   leading  work  on  multi-­‐district  programs  supporting  secondary  school  transformation  and  urban  redesign.  She   was  also  a  lecturer  and  adjunct  faculty  member  at  the  Ohio  State  University’s  College  of  Education  and   Human  Ecology  and  was  a  high  school  teacher  for  several  years  early  in  her  career.  Lisa  received  a  PhD  in   Global  Education  from  The  Ohio  State  University.     Saro  Mohammed   Saro  Mohammed  is  a  Partner  at  The  Learning  Accelerator.  She  has  a  decade  of  experience  in  education   research  and  external  evaluations  of  programs  implemented  in  public,  private,  and  non-­‐profit   settings.  Saro  leads  TLA’s  work  on  measuring  impact  and  evaluating  implementation  of  blended  learning   initiatives.  Prior  to  joining  TLA,  Saro  was  assistant  director  of  two  research  units  in  the  College  of  Education  at   The  University  of  Texas  at  Austin.  Since  2008,  she  has  worked  directly  with  more  than  20  school  districts,   either  in  a  research  or  program  evaluation  context;  and  one-­‐on-­‐one  with  more  than  10  states  in  a  technical   assistance/capacity  building  role.  Saro  also  volunteers  at  the  United  Way  for  Greater  Austin,  serving  on  their   Target  Graduation  Strategic  Advisory  Council  and  their  research  working  group.  She  holds  a  PhD  in   educational  psychology  from  The  University  of  Texas  at  Austin  and  a  Bachelor  of  Science  in  brain  and   cognitive  sciences  from  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology.                                


The  Clayton  Christensen  Institute   The  Clayton  Christensen  Institute  is  a  nonprofit,  nonpartisan  think  tank  dedicated  to  improving  the  world   through  disruptive  innovation.  Founded  on  the  theories  of  Harvard  professor  Clayton  M.  Christensen,  the   Institute  offers  a  unique  framework  for  understanding  many  of  society’s  most  pressing  problems.  Our   mission  is  ambitious  but  clear:  work  to  shape  and  elevate  the  conversation  surrounding  these  issues  through   rigorous  research  and  public  outreach.  With  an  initial  focus  on  education  and  health  care,  the  Christensen   Institute  is  redefining  the  way  policymakers,  community  leaders,  and  innovators  address  the  problems  of  our   day  by  distilling  and  promoting  the  transformational  power  of  disruptive  innovation.   The  Learning  Accelerator   The  Learning  Accelerator  is  the  catalyst  to  transform  American  K-­‐12  education  through  blended  learning  on  a   national  scale.  We  envision  a  future  in  which  every  school  in  the  country  implements  high-­‐quality  blended   learning  and  all  students  receive  an  outstanding  education,  enabling  them  to  reach  their  potential.  Our  role   as  a  catalyst  involves  being  both  an  architect  and  an  investor:  we  cultivate  solutions  to  overcome  the  barriers   to  implementing  blended  learning  in  schools  and  work  directly  with  districts  and  states  to  develop   implementation  strategies  that  can  be  scaled  and  shared  with  school  districts  nationwide.     Ohio  Blended  Learning  Network   The  Ohio  Blended  Learning  Network  is  an  affiliation  of  60  Ohio  schools,  districts  and  support  organizations,   representing  more  than  275,000  students,  that  want  to  implement  high-­‐quality  blended  learning  in  their   classrooms.  The  Network  is  chaired  by  Matthew  Miller,  Superintendent  of  Mentor  Public  Schools,  and  it  is   sponsored  by  Smarter  Schools.