Professional Specialization for Educators Emerging from Next Generation Models

Online and blended programs are changing the learner experience by flipping, flexing, and rotating the classroom experience around online/individualized learning. Educators in these programs are adapting professional practices to support the new models, sometimes figuring it out as they go. Some of the more innovative school models are abandoning typical features of schools, such as schedules, grade levels, and classrooms, in order to optimize a learner-centric design. Some models also recognize the need for new professional roles to support the different uses of time, physical space, and modes of learning.

One example is the model used by Cornerstone Charter Health High School in Detroit. The school, a Next Generation Learning Challenges grantee, recognized the need for professional specialization to support individual student learning absent of grade levels and class schedules. Instead of one-size-fits-all classroom teachers, Cornerstone has specialists:

• Relationship Managers ensure students set and meet their daily, monthly, and yearly goals. Similar to a traditional guidance counselor, relationship managers follow a student from enrollment to graduation, helping students craft their individual learning plans and use student data and feedback to ensure students stay on track toward their goals. Relationship managers are the primary contact for parents and guardians. 
• Relevance Managers provide direct instruction and support students in the design and evaluation of real-world projects and internships. 
• Rigor Managers oversee online coursework, providing support and setting standards for mastery. 
• Success Coaches work to help students make the transition to college and career, providing practical advice as students consider life after graduation. 

It is too early to tell whether this is an effective model of professional specialization for the student-centric model, since the school just started in 2011. Other organizations are piloting other models in hopes of optimizing the use of human resources for optimized student learning. Some universities offering scaled online courses have teams of instructional designers, licensing managers, counselors, staff trainers, adjunct professors, and process managers to ensure fidelity of implementation when different students will take the same course with different professors at different times.

This shift to learner-centric models and new educator roles raises questions about educator preparation and certification for these emerging roles.

Innovations in Education Culture Needed to Scale Blended Learning Adoption

This has been a breakthrough year for blended learning models.   Innovation in supporting technologies, policies, and economic/market change agents have pushed the virtual/blended agenda.  With all of the investment and innovation around blended learning, one might expect wider adoption.

A recent comment posted on Tom Vander Ark’s Education Week blog about adoption of blended learning got my attention:

“We implemented a rotation style blended learning program this year at our high school. The biggest challenge that we are overcoming right now is that students aren't ready for taking ownership of their own learning. We didn't realize how conditioned they are to sit, listen, and regurgitate facts back.”

(emphasis added, accessed on 15 November 2012 from:  http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_innovation/2012/11/why_havent_districts_adopted_blended_learning_faster.html)

This rings true with my observations in schools/classrooms implementing several different blended learning models.  The biggest challenges have to do with changes in practice, both personally for students and teachers, and organizationally. 

When blended learning pilots fail to gain traction or fail to deliver the expected outcomes, it is easy to look to imperfections with the virtual technology, with the methodologies being used, or teacher preparation as the root causes. However, these are often only the scapegoat for a deeper root cause, i.e. resistance to change.  When individuals and organizations try to adopt new practices and encounter challenges, they have a proclivity to revert to more familiar patterns of behavior.  

Vander Ark’s blog listed some of the challenges that have slowed district adoption of blended learning including weaknesses in platforms, models, staffing and development, and district capacity.  These more visible factors create the “friction” for the organizational behavioral changes needed for people to put blended learning into practice.

I used the term “cultural inertia” in a session I co-presented at the National School Boards Association annual conference in 2009 to describe this phenomenon in education organizations. “Culture” can be thought of as shared habits of believing and behaving.  Habits are difficult enough to change in individuals…How is your 2012 New Year’s resolution working out?  Changing the culture of a school or district requires changes in the habits of many people.

Change is Worse than Pain

In another blog post I opined on how the education profession is like the medical profession of the early 19^th century, when after the invention of anesthesia it took over 40 years for surgeons to see past preconceived notions about pain.  It took more than 40 years for them to accept that pain was not necessarily a good thing.  It is well known that the way things are done in schools is not working for many students, but many educators, students, and parents cannot image it working any other way.  As the 19^th century surgeons demonstrated, sometimes having the right technology and knowing how to use it is not enough.  It takes something more for people to embrace a new professional practice.  It takes a change in what the professional and professional community believes about themselves and their professional purpose as it relates to the innovation. 

I cannot help but wonder what might have accelerated the timeline for anesthesia adoption by the 19^th century surgeons.  Moreover, I wonder what “soft innovations” might accelerate professional adoption of blended learning practices.

Blended Learning is an Out-of-Comfort-Zone Experience for Most People…at first.

I have had the opportunity to observe at the classroom level and at different stages of adoption for a couple of different blended learning models.  It was apparent that there were some students and teachers that were energized by the change to more individualized learning, some that felt uncomfortable, and some that had a real struggle with the changed model.  In the models I observed, teachers needed to change from being “sage on the stage” to being “guide on the side.”  Students also need to take on a more active role in their own learning.   Teachers often felt less in control when first implementing the new model and student self-efficacy was challenged.

In spite of the very human nature to resist change I've been able to observe some successful educators and students that have worked within the blended learning model long enough to reach an “aha moment”, realizing that teaching and learning under the blended model is better than the old way of doing things, and adopting new habits of behavior.  However, there are many more who have started down the path to blended learning adoption but who have never make it to the “aha moment”.  There are many schools in which one or two teachers embrace the new model, while the rest of the school continues with the status-quo.

Innovations in Education Culture

I see a great opportunity to accelerate adoption of blended learning models by addressing the human aspects of adopting.  Innovations that matter most are often not the technological innovations.  We need better understand of the human and organizational behavior aspects of blended learning models, the “soft” innovations that catalyze changes in organizational culture and professional practice.

Just by paying attention to this aspect of the problem uncovers some potential solutions.  A while ago, I was chatting with a teacher implementing a blended model.  She was telling me about issues faced in her classroom and some solutions that work.  She talked about the blended model requiring her to make a significant change in professional practice, and that took time.  By enduring frustrations, daily problem solving, and coaching she made the transition.  While we were talking, she reflected on struggles that some students had with the new model.  It occurred to her that students also must adopt new practices and that some of the challenges could have been avoided if more time were spent up front preparing students for the new role.

Thanks to the Innosight Institute  and others, in 2012 we understand at a high-level HOW various blended learning models work.   In 2013, I hope to see organizations take a deeper dive into the processes and human interactions contained within each model and the evidence of learner outcomes, i.e. WHY the model works or does not work.   I also hope to see a deeper dive into the organizational change and professional practice models, and discoveries of soft innovations that catalyze accelerated adoption.    

"Big Data" Synergy Across Key Initiatives

This week I had the privileged of presenting on CEDS at the SETDA Leadership Summit along with champions of other key initiatives, SLC, LRMI, Learning Registry, and My Student Download.  The theme was "big data" to support teaching and learning. 

I think there is a bigger story than what any of these initiative is accomplishing on its own. And the session provided a great opportunity to talk about how, from the perspective of an educator or student, the separate initiatives fit together and support the kind of metadata and paradata for optimizing and personalized learning.  The following video is my version of that story prepared for the SEDTA meeting.  The PDF here (http://goo.gl/1qgn5) is a printable "storyboard" of the same.

...the SETDA session and presenters:

Leveraging "Big Data" to Support Digital Age Learning - Roosevelt Room While states have been focusing on building robust longitudinal data systems for accountability and data-based decision making, a number of public-private efforts have recently launched that have the potential to leverage state, local and educator/student-generated education data in new and exciting ways for teaching and learning. These efforts include those focused on solving K-12 interoperability challenges, improving search and discovery of education resources, sharing of intelligence about the use of education resources, increasing transparency and opening access to education data, and personalizing learning. Participants will get an overview of the work underway in this area, share information about their state's priorities, assess gaps and opportunities, and - in so doing - contribute to the production of a summary white paper for states and policymakers.

Facilitators: Neill Kimrey, Division Director, Division of Instructional Technology, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Lan Neugent, Assistant Superintendent for Technology, Career, and Adult Education and Chief Information Officer, Virginia Department of Education Resource Specialists: Jim Goodell, Senior Education Analyst at Quality Information Partners Henry Hipps, Senior Program Officer, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Michael Jay, President of Educational Systemics Steve Midgley, Consulting Adviser, US Department of Education Lyndsay Pinkus, Director, National and Federal Policy Initiatives, Data Quality Campaign

Flipped Accreditation?

Is it time to consider “flipping” the accreditation process? I have some specific ideas about what it means to “flip” accreditation, and how an alternative accreditation process will support innovation, but first I will opine on why the flip is needed.

At an event in Washington DC this week participants were asked, “How are accreditors being a roadblock to innovation?” I’d argue that accreditors can’t help but be a roadblock. The organizational culture and operational process of today’s accreditation agencies is at odds with innovative learning models of education and competency-based credentialing.

Current accreditation processes are self-described using terms like "self-reflection" and "peer review". It is employees of traditional institutions reviewing their own organization and others like it.  They exist as a self-serving barrier to entry keeping out the ‘Riff Raff.’ To their credit, accreditors have served a valuable function in separating legitimate institutions of learning from diploma mills. Unfortunately, for students and employers though the culture and process of accreditation is a barrier to competition. Innovative new institutions that might offer better models for education don’t fit the mold for which the accreditation process was designed, and with which peer reviewers are comfortable.

One aspect of a flipped accreditation process would be a more granular understanding of what learning takes place at an institution. In the U.S., accreditation generally is to the institution. Many non-U.S. accreditation processes take it to the next level, the course of study. I think we can do better than that. I think we can identify the specific sets of competencies that are important for a particular credential and then evaluate whether or not the institution is teaching those competencies, and if there is evidence that students who receive the credential have leaned those competencies.

What is Flipped Accreditation?

I envision flipped accreditation as a market-driven process.  Rather than an accreditation system designed by academia for academia, let the future employees of an institution’s graduates also have a say. Industry groups or specific employers can say what competencies (skills, knowledge, methods of inquiry, habits of practice) are most important to them, and the accreditation process can measure the extent to which institutions graduate individuals with that minimum set of competencies. The minimum set of competencies would also include general competencies needed to be productive citizens regardless of industry/degree.

This market-driven perspective need not constrain the breadth and variety of academic programs in non-industrial-related areas of study. Stakeholders that will be the intended beneficiaries of the graduate’s future productivity, regardless of field or profession, might give input into what should be learned for the related degree or certificate. For example, for a fine art degree, why not let the best artists, designers, museum curators, art collectors, dealers, and art educators all provide input on what is important for an artist to learn and develop. There could even be multiple accreditations validating the same degree based on values of each group’s perspective.

 I envision new entities taking on the role of flipped accreditation providers, supported by key industries, while the traditional accreditors continue to accredit traditional institutions.  Market demand will eventually drive traditional institutions toward competency-based design of degree programs and seeking the additional accreditation based on the flipped model.

Rather than self-reflection and peer review, let the evaluation be based on evidence that the program of study prepares students with the competencies valued by the job market that they will enter. Rather than a labor-intensive peer review of the institution, evaluate if the program is teaching what is important and if students that graduate have learned what is important. Let the data validate if the certificate or degree is aligned with market priorities.

Design Patterns for Learning

A common mistake in education reform is to focus on what seems innovative about a new platform, solution, or content, rather than on the learning process used and how results vary based on use. I was reminded of this when reading a blog post by John Merrow that gives Khan Academy as an example of 'blended learning' (bit.ly/Pl58Ji). I am an advocate of Khan Academy; it's a great platform, a game changer; my kids use it daily as a key part blended learning model adopted by their school. However, the platform is not in itself 'blended learning.' Blended learning is the learner-centric process that includes a blend of interactions between the learner, technology platforms(s), and the teacher in a classroom setting.

Yes, Khan Academy is an enabling technology platform with a critical mass of content that can support a range of blended learning methodologies. However, it also can support NON-blended, online only, learning. The 'blend' can happen, when students and educational "coaches" (including classroom teachers) interact with the system and with each other via the system.  The details of the blended model used, and even decisions/actions made by and for students using Khan Academy, can result in very successful or very disappointing results.

I suspect this tendency to focus on the platform is largely because we don't know what we don't know. Well-established disciplines such as architecture and software have matured to a point in which they recognize "design patterns," engineering approaches that are proven effective to meet reoccurring challenges. Unlike design patterns for software that are implemented as code, design patterns for learning would describe learner experiences, which may or may not involve technology. We don't yet have a catalog of "design patterns" for learning to support emerging innovations.

It would be fair to say that there are well established instructor-centric 'design patterns' that are recognized in the field of curriculum development. Moreover, there are pedagogical 'patterns' applied in the field of instruction. There are also higher-level models defined, like the classification of blended learning models by the Innosight Institute.  However, the kinds of interactions now available for individualized and blended learning call for a new discipline that looks at interactions on a deeper level, and beyond the constraints of the traditional classroom-only, teacher-student, fixed-time interactions.

Learning happens based on the right mix of interactions for each learner, which may include a blend of technology and human interactions. We know from cognitive science what conditions lead to learning, and even what it takes for a person to become becoming an expert in an area of cognitive development. For example, we know that new learning builds on background knowledge and works when the new concept or skill is within a zone of proximal development. We also know the value of feedback loops, scaffolding, and practice over time.

The next breakthrough in  in education may be to establish/mature a professional specialty in the area of  "learning interactions engineering," in development of design patterns for learning interactions, and in optimizing the application of those patterns for individual learners.

Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) Version 3 Standardizing Data to Support Formative Assessment Processes

Last week at STATS-DC I was joined by Nancy Burke, Grafton Public School District (North Dakota), Lee Rabbitt, Newport Public Schools (Rhode Island), and David Weinberger, Yonkers Public Schools (New York) for this presentation about Standardizing Data to Support Formative Assessment Process Use in Schools.  My three co-presenters are members of the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) Stakeholders Group and have been an important part of the CEDS version 3 focus on teaching and leaning.


One thing interesting about this presentation was that we used PowerPoint as our "sandbox" for the development work, so the presentation content developed long before we knew it would be a presentation at STATS-DC.  We started by developing a model of the human processes, and had that fully defined before working on defining the data elements needed to support those processes.  We avoided the risk of thinking about formative assessment as a thing, a "kind of test", and focused on the process of teaching and learning.  


Formative assessment is a process by which teachers and students use data to inform:
– where they need to go,
– where they are, and
– how to close the gap.


Formative assessment content specialists Margaret Heritage and Susan M. Brookhart help us refine the process model based on research finding and promising practices.  Organizations like the Innosight Institute helped us check assumptions about formative data needed to support various blended learning models. We worked with projects such as the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI), Open Badges, Race to the Top Assessment consortia (RTTA), SLC, EdFi, and the Learning Registry (LR) to ensure these implementation-oriented projects will have compatibility with the common vocabulary for education data that will be defined in CEDS v3.

See the slides here.

The Bridge Between Data Standards and Learning Standards—Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Common Education Data Standards (CEDS)

Last week I co-presented at STATS-DC about the work that is being done to bridge gaps between data standards and learning standards.  Maureen Wentworth of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and Greg Grossmeier of Creative Commons joined me to discuss the collaboration between many initiatives including the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative led by CCSSO and the National Governors Association (NGA), Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) led by  IES/NCES under the U.S. Department of Education, and Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI) led by the Association of Education Publishers (AEP) and Creative Commons.


The presentation slides are here.