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.
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 19. Primary decision makers for blended programs
28
WAS THERE A PLANNING PROCESS?
Overall, 64% of respondents indicated that they had planned prior to implementing blended learning (see Figure 21).
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 20. Funding sources for implementing blended programs
Figure 21. Percentage of respondents who planned prior to implementing blended learning
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).
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 22. Blended-‐learning planning “approaches” used by respondents
Figure 23. Percentage of respondents who conducted a communications or community engagement plan around blended learning
30
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 24. How or whether respondents plan to expand their blended programs
Figure 25. Percentage of respondents who partnered with a blended-‐learning consultant, professional service, or technical assistance provider to implement blended learning
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.
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.
Figure 26. Services provided by consultants
32
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%).
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 27. Criteria respondents use to select consultants
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
34
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.
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 30. Providers used for blended-‐learning professional development
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
36
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).
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.”
Figure 34. Percentage of respondents who create the majority of their own digital content
38
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.”