Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
O F
O P P O R T U N I T Y
The
Status
and
D irection
of
Blended
Learning
in
Ohio
t
AUTHORS:
Thomas
Arnett
Andrew
Benson
Brian
Bridges
Katrina
Bushko
Lisa
Duty
Saro
Mohammed
http://www.christenseninstitute.org
http://learningaccelerator.org
http://www.smarterschools.net/obln.html
@ChristensenInst
@LearningAccel
@OHBlendLearning
https://www.facebook.com/ChristensenInstitute
https://www.facebook.com/LearningAccelerator
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ohio-Blended-Learning-
Network/1423227591281072
4.0
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
FOREWORD
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
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
K12;
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
K12)
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.
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
withand/or
investing
inthird 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
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.
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,
http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP-Mirage_2015.pdf
9
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,
http://www.highlanderinstitute.org/wp-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
learningto
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
hypothesisan
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
K12
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.
11
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.
12
Figure
1.
Comparison
of
responding
school
districts
to
all
Ohio
school
districts
on
average
daily
membership
(ADM)
and
per-pupil
spending
*SY201011
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
201011
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.
13
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%).
14
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
dont
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.
15
DETAILED RESULTS
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
K12;
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).
16
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
K12,
than
in
elementary
and
middle
schools.
As
Figure
6
shows,
71%
of
high
schools
and
schools
that
house
grades
K12
participate
in
blended
learning,
compared
to
just
13%
of
elementary
and
middle
schools.
17
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
K12
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.
18
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.
19
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.
20
21
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.
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
K12),
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.
22
Figure
14.
Percentage
of
blended
models
used
in
elementary
schools
Figure
15.
Percentage
of
blended
models
used
in
secondary
grades
(K12
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.
23
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.
24
25
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.
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.
26
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).
27
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%).
28
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.
29
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
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
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
32
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
33
34
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
35
36
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.
37
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.
38
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.
39
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.
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
42
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.
43
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.
44
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.
45
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.
46
APPENDIX A
If
no,
Is
your
district
or
charter
school
currently
discussing
or
planning
to
implement
blended
learning?
<End
Survey>
If
<no>,
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
dont
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
48
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) Dont
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
<Proceed
to
next
question>
b) No
<Proceed
to
Question
21>
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)
49
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
50
25. What
problems
have
you
encountered
as
youve
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?
51
APPENDIX B
52
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
53
APPENDIX C
DIGITAL
CONTENT
Teachers
Know
Best
http://www.teachersknowbest.org
Graphite
https://www.graphite.org
54
EngageNY
https://www.engageny.org
Gooru
http://www.goorulearning.org
OER
Commons
https://www.oercommons.org
The
K-12
OER
Collaborative
http://k12oercollaborative.org
PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
BetterLessons
Blended
Master
Teacher
Project
http://betterlesson.com/blended
iNACOLs
Blended
Learning
Teacher
Competency
Framework
http://learningaccelerator.org/media/e9a8d34d/iNACOL-Blended-Learning-Teacher-Competency-
Framework%20(1).pdf
Relay
Graduate
School
of
Education
Blended
Learning
Modules
https://learn.relay.edu/modules
The
New
Teacher
Projects
(TNTP)
Reimagining
Teaching
in
a
Blended
Classroom
http://learningaccelerator.org/media/3c5be7aa/
TNTP_Blended_Learning_WorkingPaper_2014.pdf
NETWORK/CONNECTIVITY
EducationSuperHighways
Network
Essentials
for
Superintendents
http://www.educationsuperhighway.org/networkessentials/
New
Jersey
Digital
Readiness
for
Learning
Assessment
Project
Broadband
Report
http://www.mresc.k12.nj.us/dynimg/_JHAAA_/docid/0x096206D67ED04A84/54/NJDRLAPa
Broadband%2BReport%2B17JUL15v1.pdf
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
Blended
Learning
Messaging
http://learningaccelerator.org/media/37af016b/BL
percent20Messaging.pdf
Communications Planning for Blended Learning: Step-By-Step Guide
http://learningaccelerator.org/media/06422b04/TLA_CommsPlanningForBL_FIN.pdf
55
HARDWARE
Education
Elements
Hardware
Analysis:
Choosing
the
Right
Hardware
for
Your
District
http://www.edelements.com/download-the-hardware-selection-whitepaper
PROCUREMENT
EdTech
Procurement
in
Houston
ISD
http://learningaccelerator.org/media/fc2ec2cf/EdTechPurchasingSnapshot-FINAL-June2014.pdf
Smart
Series
Guide
to
EdTech
Procurement
http://learningaccelerator.org/media/e84c8453/Procurement-Guide-FINAL.pdf
RESEARCH
Blended
Learning
Measurement
Framework
http://learningaccelerator.org/media/730f78ec/TLA
BL
Measurement
Framework.pdf
Research
Clearinghouse
http://learningaccelerator.org/media/12132951/BL%20Research%20Clearinghouse%201.0-
050715%20(1).pdf
District
Guide
to
Blended
Learning
Measurement
http://learningaccelerator.org/media/ee57b948/DistrictGuidetoBLMsrmnt.pdf
Proof
Points:
Blended
Learning
Success
in
School
Districts
http://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/proof-points/#sthash.F4KAlxZz.dpuf
COMPETENCY
EDUCATION
Implementing
Competency
Education
in
K12
Systems
http://www.competencyworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/iNCL_CWIssueBrief_Implementing_v5_web.pdf
The
Shift
from
Cohorts
to
Competency
http://digitallearningnow.com/site/uploads/2014/05/CB-Paper-Final.pdf
Why
Does
Proficiency
Matter?
http://www.whyproficiencymatters.com
56
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
K12
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
(200405).
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,
Californias
only
conference
solely
focused
on
K12
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,
Californias
other
academic
standards,
and
for
Californias
social
and
legal
compliance
criteria.
He
is
past
president
of
Californias
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
Masters
in
Education
Technology
from
the
University
of
San
Francisco
and
a
Bachelors
in
Theater
Arts,
English,
and
Science
from
San
Francisco
State
University.
57
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
Universitys
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
TLAs
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.
58
59