Clayton Christensen |

If you have not yet read Cathy Cavanaugh’s white paper titled Getting Students More Learning Time Online: Distance Education in Support of Expanded Learning Time in K-12 Schools, you must make the time to do so.

Published by the Center for American Progress and funded by the Broad Foundation, the report came out in May. I’ve been meaning to blog about it since but am only getting around to it now.

The report’s initial premise is on how online learning specifically can help to achieve policymakers’ desire to expand learning time to boost student achievement in a flexible, individualized, and affordable way.

What struck me in reading the report was the array of options and flexibility around what “online learning” means or how it is structured. There are so many different paths out there—different hybrid models, different distance models, and so forth—to really allow people to find things that make sense for their circumstance. The concept of moving from the micromanagement of time to macro-management—in which the student spends time where he or she needs it—is well articulated.

All of this hit a chord as what it really points to is that online learning is not a tool per se, but a new platform that allows for far more individualization than the old factory-model school system. This isn’t just a point-based solution inserted into the old classroom. This platform allows for lecturing for those for whom it makes sense; it allows for project-based learning for others in certain circumstances; it allows for robust simulations and games; it allows for work that is online but also—especially in younger grades—work that is offline and in the physical world. The degree of individualization achieved by shifting to an online platform that is flexible and modular is stunning.

The report addresses how an online strategy can help with the quality of teachers and the variety of models out there for teaching in an online world. It also offers snapshots of various models—from Florida Virtual School to the Chicago VOISE Academy. It talks about how this will change practice—from the teaching job to teacher retention to funding models to childcare to school leadership and management to data.

It’s breathtaking in its scope–and well worth the time to read.

I am excited to write today about Innosight Institute’s first published case study. You can read the executive summary here and download the full version here.

Leland Anderson, a visiting research fellow at Innosight Institute, is the primary author of the case, which revolves around Utah’s Alpine School District’s launching of an online school with K12, Inc., to reach nonconsumers in its district—namely home-schooled students. Alpine is one of the 100 largest school districts in the United States.

The case on this school, Alpine Online, sheds light on a number of interesting things around the disruptive phenomenon of online learning and how it works. Some tidbits:

- From the economic perspective, Alpine was able to pick and choose among offerings from K12, Inc. and assemble other district resources in an affordable way so that it could fund the full school with just the allotted per-pupil funds from the state itself (roughly $2,500 per pupil per year!).

- Students only move on to the next objective once they have mastered at least 80 percent of the material in front of them—which means the learning opportunities are more tailored to their individual pace and needs. Interestingly, there is a minimum time requirement—students are still required to spend 990 hours engaged in learning activities per year—although since this is not restricted by course, there is flexibility in a student’s learning activities. Some students take multiple math courses in a given year, for example, if they are able to accelerate. Others can devote more time to just one math course; if the social studies curriculum is easier for them, they could spend less time there, for example.

- Many of the learning activities still occur offline with physical objects and books and so forth—not on the computer. The computer is merely the platform.

- Alpine Online also contracted with the disruptive innovator Rosetta Stone to provide 14 foreign language offerings at a “whopping” $13 per license!

Read the case and let us know what you think. What have they done that makes sense to you? What doesn’t make sense? What have they done that is circumstance-specific and would not apply to your situation? Are there other elements that are more universal?

One of the chief purposes of these case studies is description to gain a clear understanding of the phenomenon. This is a core piece to any body of rigorous research. These case studies will allow us to better understand education disruptions—from their promise to their current shortfalls to how they work in the trenches. We hope that this will give policymakers and other stakeholders a clearer understanding of how these disruptions work and what they actually are.

Stay tuned for our next case study as well about the origins, the policies, and the workings of a state-launched disruption—the Florida Virtual School—which we will publish in early October.

In my last blog, one of the reasons schools cited that they did not offer online courses for their students is that they don’t have the expertise to create online courses. To this point, there is a good article in EducationWeek that talks about the factors involved in building vs. buying online courses for professional development. You can read it here.

Some takeaways are that building high-quality online professional development courses is often quite difficult, so it’s actually more cost effective to buy a ready-made product, the director of EdTech Leaders Online, Barbara Treacy, says. The cases where building one’s own course makes more sense and is indeed cheaper occur generally when the need is so local or customized that an off-the-shelf option just wouldn’t exist. There are more nuances, however, so read the article in full.

In my own travels, I am constantly amazed over how many people want to reinvent the wheel in a way that isn’t really that different and thus there really is no need to do so. Florida Virtual School created its courses at a time when there were really no other content options out there. For online schools and districts seeking online options today, that’s just no longer the case.

There are some notable developments and reports out there currently on online learning that are worth highlighting briefly and providing the information so people can learn more about them. I’ll try to do one a week over the next few weeks.

First, a report from Project Tomorrow and Blackboard, Inc. says that there is a growing divide between the demand among students in 6th through 12th grades for online courses (40 percent have researched or demonstrated an interest in taking an online course it says) and the supply, as only 10 percent have taken an online course through their school.

There are of course vested interests behind this report, but nevertheless, it does call attention to some notable and believable observations including the variety of reasons for the gap between supply and demand (these match in many cases my own observations and research). This mismatch in particular stems from many policy barriers that still exist for schools to open up this option for students. Additionally, according to the report, 14 percent of schools said that one reason they don’t offer online courses for students is that they don’t have the expertise to create online courses. To me, with the number of high-quality online course offerings in existence and improving constantly, why a school would feel the need to reinvent the wheel and create something from scratch is mystifying. This one should not be a barrier, but that it is cited as one is revealing.

Interestingly, this lack of supply for students clashes with the report showing that districts overwhelmingly offer more opportunities for professional development online for teachers than for students—and a third of teachers say they’ve taken an online course, which is a 57-percent increase from 2007 (a positive development). There are some other interesting findings as well so it’s worth reading the whole report—and the comments at the bottom of the eSchool News article are also fascinating.

A new study from the Department of Education, titled Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, examined several studies comparing online learning to face-to-face learning and concluded that, “Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.”

Other studies have reached similar conclusions in recent years, and what is also interesting about this study is that it found that blended learning—in which a course combines elements of online and face-to-face learning—is the most effective. This is significant as blended or hybrid learning appears to be the fastest growing form of online learning out there, which, as we’ve said before, does not surprise us at all.

The study focused mostly at levels above K-12—undergraduate, graduate, military, and so on. The report is available online at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.

This study from the federal government is critical in its validation of the growing disruption of online learning. Online learning has proven itself by allowing people to access quality courses in places where they otherwise would not have had access to them—and in the post-secondary world by making education far more convenient and affordable for many people who otherwise would not be able to access it.

What’s important, however, is not to confuse the medium as the root cause for the results. Just because something is online does not automatically make it as good as or better than face-to-face. The medium and its accompanying new system do shift the platform of learning. This gives us the opportunity to give every student a quality experience and to customize for each individual in the way that he or she learns by making time variable and the learning constant; improving time on task as the report notes; offering students different paths; and so on. By doing this, we address some of the root causes of an individual’s struggles.

What we now need is better online programs that better customize to engage students by being intrinsically motivating and targeting specific needs—and thus take full advantage of this exciting medium.

This past week ISTE hosted the 2009 NECC in Washington, DC. It was a fun event, and I had the honor of participating in two events there—one being the keynote address on Tuesday morning the 30th and the other being at the Online Learning Institute on Wednesday, which was a great event with rich working-group discussions in essence that allowed nearly everyone to take home at least something new from what someone else was doing in the room.

The Tuesday keynote was structured as a debate. My team was selected to argue in support of the resolution: “Bricks-and-mortar schools are detrimental to the future of education.” NPR’s Robert Siegel moderated. Gary Stager was on my team along with Marshall Thompson, a high school debater from my alma mater, Walt Whitman. We faced off against Brad Jupp of the Department of Education, Cheryl Lemke of The Metiri Group, and another high school student, Erik Bakke from Virginia.

The big takeaway? It was something I knew going in, but as is so often the case, the resolution in essence posed the wrong question. It was absurd (purposely I hope)—and almost all of us argued variations of the same side. Cheryl Lemke delivered a wonderful speech that mapped nearly perfectly onto mine; we were in total agreement I think—and I highly recommend her remarks.

It seems obvious to me that for a variety of reasons, roughly 90-plus percent of students (that number is derived from some projections we ran when we were researching the book) could never take part in a fully virtual school program because of family structures and associated economic realities and the like, which is why hybrid-learning of various sorts will ultimately be so important to the future of education. Having a physical place for most students to go will always be important.

I had written several drafts of my remarks; in retrospect I think I wish I had kept one line in which was this: The exciting thing is that online learning is only in its infancy as we still struggle to allow it to escape our old assumptions about where and how learning must occur and to free it up to draw in learning opportunities for students from anywhere anytime.

I’m pretty sure including that would not have swung the debate to our side, however—so congratulations once again to Brad, Cheryl, and Erik!

Educational computer games—video games for learning (a.k.a. serious games or edutainment)—have gained increasing attention over the last several years in academic, education, and gaming circles. In Disrupting Class we referenced a few of the top thinkers on the role games and simulations can play in education—people like Marc Prensky, James Paul Gee, and Chris Dede.

One reason people are so excited about educational games is because of how engaging and motivating games are naturally. Emerging research shows that many students are much more engaged when learning through a game than in more typical learning environments—and high engagement results in higher achievement. It also doesn’t take a whiz to see that many children already spend a ton of time with video games; moving learning to where the students are holds potential.

Yet despite their promise, serious games haven’t had a tremendous impact in formal learning environments to date. There are some limited successes—like Tabula Digita’s math games, for example (this article gives a solid overview)—but for the most part selling to and competing for time within traditional schools and classrooms remain difficult given many of the barriers we articulate in the book among others.

I’ve been left to wonder what would happen if educational gaming companies instead took a disruptive path and targeted nonconsumption rather than trying to penetrate the system by going in head first. “After school” has been one promising place of nonconsumption that has received some attention, but for a variety of reasons, adoption is still spotty although there are some successes.

To me, one natural fit has seemed to be introducing edutainment through the online learning channel. Because of the shift in platform and educational model, online learning is naturally well suited to educational gaming and other virtual simulations. I’ve always figured that offering educational games as a part of or an option in a course for those who would learn best through this path makes eminent sense.

Florida Virtual School is showing that that instinct could be right—and that I may also have underestimated the potential synergies—as FLVS is launching the first complete online game-based course for high school students in the form of a full American history course based on an online game scenario.

It’s called Conspiracy Code and FLVS designed it in partnership with 360Ed Inc., an educational game development company whose CEO, Ben Noel, is a former Electronic Arts employee.

The game has the potential to scale, according to Noel in the eSchool News article, and it is in beta testing right now with 65 students to understand how effective it is and do further research to improve it. Ultimately the University of Central Florida is planning a study on this using fMRI scans and so forth to understand the learning it produces in students.

It’s going to be fun to watch as the experiment evolves—both from a research perspective and from the perspective of where it goes next as FLVS plans future courses with 360Ed.

*    *    *

Also, keep an eye on OnLive as a disruptive service for bringing affordable and easily accessible gaming to the masses. Could it suggest a path forward for education gaming, too?

Clayton Christensen and I have a piece up on the Harvard Business Review blog titled A Solution to School District Budget Cuts. It is about the cuts that the LA Unified School District and others are making to summer school and the like–and how they ought to view budget shortages not as threats but as opportunities to transform the system. In this case, rather than simply cut summer school almost entirely–which might save money in the short run but will in fact create much bigger costs overall–why not offer many of these courses still but online? More detail is in the piece.

Simple and mindless cuts don’t make much sense, and we need people to think more strategically. Creative, disruptive solutions to transform old systems are vital. Business as usual isn’t going to return anytime soon.

A question I am asked frequently about online learning is: “Schools aren’t just responsible for learning. They are responsible for doing a socialization job. Won’t online learning hurt that?”

There are also many answers to this—and, I’d like to add, many other jobs for which schools are held responsible, too, that online learning in its most narrow form may not cover.

First, we should be honest and acknowledge that the socialization in our schools is not always a good thing and is certainly not always good for every student. Many a parent has said to me (paraphrased): “Online learning sounds great. The socialization that actually occurs in schools because of peer influence doesn’t help my child at all; in fact, it’s had a really negative and destructive influence!” Parents may mean different things by the statement, but we see forms of the sentiment all the time. Sometimes children are afraid to ask questions in classrooms; afraid to excel and be deemed “un-cool;” afraid to come to school because of bullying, and on and on. Online learning for many might provide the needed shelter to allow them to excel.

I also think that socialization is one of the dimensions where online learning will continue to improve. The interaction between teacher and student and student to other students in the first versions of online learning was clunky; the best didn’t come close to replicating a high-quality in-class experience. But, just like any technology, thanks to the work of players like Elluminate, this experience is predictably improving. As many have also written, many full-time online schools have added elements to foster student social interaction like field trips and the like (see the Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning report for example). And online interaction is increasingly a part of today’s society; students in online programs can theoretically interact with people from anywhere in the world, not just their locality, which is exciting.

In addition, online learning is increasingly becoming less and less of a distance phenomenon as hybrid- or blended-learning—which has a bricks-and-mortar component to it—is growing faster than the distance side of the equation, according to this Sloan Consortium report. This doesn’t surprise me. Because of the custodial job that schools need to fill for many families to the job of socialization, there are a lot of reasons to suggest that students will still go to facilities of some sort for their education—even if the platform for much of what they will do academically is online.

Finally, a recent survey has come out on the topic that you can read here. The results suggest that typical, mainstream students enrolled in full-time, online public schools are either superior to or not significantly different from students enrolled in traditional public schools with respect to their socialization. There are some reasons for caution on the survey that the authors acknowledge—the design is post-test only and because those in these schools are there by choice it wasn’t possible to “design a random assignment control group experiment”—so drawing a causal inference and saying enrollment in an online school results in better socialization would be dangerous.

But the study is important in one important respect even if it can’t be considered conclusive as it shows that there probably aren’t negative social characteristics or problem behaviors associated with participation in online public schools per se. If the end goal is to have children who are well socialized, that’s an important finding.

New school models are appearing that attempt to personalize learning and push education in a more student-centric direction. Some target drop-out students—a classic group of non-consumers—and therefore appear to have some disruptive elements potentially, whereas others are more conventional, but either way, all are something to pay attention to as we rethink what “schooling” should actually look like.

As Clayton Christensen and Jason Hwang write in The Innovator’s Prescription, when there is no non-consumption in a field, the only way for disruption to occur is for something to come in that is both significantly less expensive and better so that the decision to switch over makes consummate sense. Most chartered schools to this point haven’t hit on one or both of these, which has stymied their ability to scale and have broader impact. The below models may give us some clues as to how that could change.

One model is a new chartered school called the Redmond Proficiency Academy. Operated by Personalized Learning, Inc., the school plans to combine the best from “college-, online- and project-based class learning” to formulate a personalized learning experience for students. The school is also moving away from seat-time metrics and time spent in the conventional classroom and instead focuses on demonstration of “proficiency” or mastery inside and outside the classroom to satisfy state and federal requirements.

Westwood’s Cyber High School is another model to follow. It has two models that it lets students choose between. One is “My School,” which has a virtual and a physical component to it where students come into a school lab a couple times a week. The second is called “Not School” where the experience is entirely online. The concept comes from the “Not School” Program in the United Kingdom, and Westwood’s founders have studied the model to learn from its mistakes and successes. The schools target disaffected or drop-out students by allowing them to work in a proficiency-based model of online project-based learning. And it seems to have hit a niche, as many students are gobbling up the offering from all over Michigan.

One other school model that has some exciting potential is Mavericks in Education. It, too, targets drop-out students, with a model that turns the traditional school day on its head as it offers online learning with on-site mentors in its physical buildings during different times of the day for fewer hours to match each student’s unique circumstances—and all students have 24/7 access to learning from anywhere as well. It also has some neat perks that it has built in to motivate students to learn and accelerate their progress.

Learning from these models could go a long way in helping us transform education into a student-centric experience.

Note: The original post contained an error as it referred to the Redmond Proficiency Academy as the Richmond Proficiency Academy. I have corrected it above and regret the error.