BLENDED LEARNING AND FEATURES OF THE USE OF THE ROTATION MODEL IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS

Abstract

The article analyzes of the problem of blended learning in higher education institutions. In particular, the article analyzes the legislative documents about the implementation of information technologies in the educational process, strategies for higher education, the introduction of distance learning, that determine importance of blended learning. The author also analyzes the concept of blended learning based on the definitions that are considered in the scientific and pedagogical literature. That analysis determines the ambiguity and incorrectness of the different definitions. It was proposed author's definition for this term. For order to identify the benefits of blended learning, it was analyzed of the positive and negative aspects of all technologies that are combined in the system of blended learning. Based on the analysis of different learning models, it was determined that the most optimal models is the station rotation model and the flipped classroom. The article provides an example of the use of a combination of these models for learning the topic "Computer Structure" by the students of the direction of training "Informatics". The education session was taking place in several stages and involves changing the five stations. Based on the conducted research was identified the general didactic and methodical principles of organization of blended learning.

Full text

May 2012


By Heather Staker and Michael B. Horn
VISIT WWW.INNOSIGHTINSTITUTE.ORG TO ADD YOUR PROFILEVISIT WWW.INNOSIGHTINSTITUTE.ORG TO ADD YOUR PROFILE

ii | Classifying K–12 Blended Learning
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT

Classifying K-12 Blended Learning | 1
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT

he growth of online learning in the K–12 sector is occurring both remotely through
virtual schools and on campuses through blended learning. In emerging elds, denitions
are important because they create a shared language that enables people to talk about the
new phenomena. e following blended-learning taxonomy and denitions expand upon and rene
our previous work in helping to create a shared language for the K–12 blended-learning sector.
In our report titled, “e rise of K–12 blended learning,” we observed that there were six
main blended-learning models emerging in the sector from the perspective of the student. is
paper introduces a number of changes to that taxonomy based on feedback from the eld and
the need to update the research to keep pace with new innovations that are occurring in blended
learning. Most importantly, the paper eliminates two of the six blended-learning models—Face-
to-Face Driver and Online Lab—because they appear to duplicate other models and make the
categorization scheme too rigid to accommodate the diversity of blended-learning models in
practice. By moving from six to four overarching models, we have created more breathing room
in the denitions. We hope these new models will better describe the majority of programs so
that nearly all blended-learning programs will t comfortably within one of the four. Appendix
A explains the dierences between the new four-model taxonomy and the old six-model
taxonomy in greater detail.
Two design principles governed the process of updating and expanding upon the blended-
learning denitions:
1. Develop exible denitions so that they can still be useful even as the eld
continues to innovate. e denitions are intentionally broad and open, rather
than specic. ey set forth basic patterns that are emerging, but avoid setting tight
parameters about how a model “has to be.”
2. Exclude normative qualiers. is principle is a holdover from the last report. Some
blended programs are high in quality and some are not. Some use dynamic content,
whereas others have more static content. Some are more expensive than the traditional
schooling model; others are less costly. e denitions in this taxonomy leave out such
appraisals. Just as a hybrid car can be either ecient or a clunker and still be a hybrid
car, blended learning can be both good and bad.
In dening blended learning and identifying its emerging models, we looked at examples of
over 80 programs in the K–12 sector. 1 In addition, in November 2011 roughly 100 educators met
during a pre-conference at the International Association for K–12 Online Learning’s (iNACOL)
Virtual School Symposium2 and critiqued the taxonomy.3

2 | Classifying K–12 Blended Learning
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
e taxonomy in Figure 1 depicts a preliminary categorization scheme for the blended-
learning landscape as it currently exists based upon an analysis of programs that either are
preparing to launch or are already in existence. It is important to note that many school operators
have implemented more than one blended-learning model for their students. Accordingly, the
models represent particular programs within a school, not a typology for whole-school design.
Figure 1. Blended-learning taxonomy
BLENDED LEARNING
1
Rotation
model
2
Flex
model
3
Self-Blend
model
4
Enriched-
Virtual
model
Online learningBrick-and-mortar
Station-Rotation model
Lab-Rotation model
Flipped-Classroom model
Individual-Rotation model
Later sections of this paper dene each of the elements in Figure 1 and provide examples. As
stated in the rst report, we continue to believe that these categories will evolve and expand. We
invite others to contribute to this research by oering improvements and additions.

Classifying K-12 Blended Learning | 3
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT

In 2011 Innosight Institute suggested a preliminary denition of blended learning. is paper
introduces a slightly rened denition to incorporate feedback from the eld. Figure 2 depicts
the revised denition.
Figure 2. Denition of blended learning
e rst component of the denition—online delivery of content and instruction with some
element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace—incorporates language from
Evergreen Education Group’s and iNACOL’s denitions of online learning. ey dene online
learning as education where content and instruction are delivered primarily over the Internet.4
e term online learning is used interchangeably with virtual learning, cyberlearning, and
e-learning. We included the phrase “with some element of student control over time, place, path,
and/or pace” to distinguish blended learning from technology-rich instruction (see the denition
of technology-rich instruction and the text box on page 6).
e second component of the denition species that the learning must be “supervised” and
take place “away from home.” is is to distinguish it from students learning full-time online at
a brick-and-mortar location such as a coee shop, public library, or home. Someone associated
with the brick-and-mortar setting provides the supervision, rather than a parent or other adult
who is associated primarily with the student.





and



4 | Classifying K–12 Blended Learning
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
Figure 3 provides an annotated view of the denition to show the changes from the original
denition we proposed in 2011.
Figure 3. Annotated denition of blended learning





and


“content and
instruction” added
to distinguish online
learning from using
only Internet tools
Switched the
online delivery
part before the
brick-and-mortar
part for emphasis
“formal education
program” added to
distinguish blended
learning from informal
online learning, such
as students playing
educational video
games on their own
One common feature of blended learning is that when a course takes place partly online and
partly through other modalities, the various modalities are usually connected. In other words,
what the students learn online informs what they learn face-to-face, and vice versa. Furthermore,
if students have control over their pace, this control often extends to the entire subject that is
blended, not only to the online-learning portion of the coursework. Some researchers believe this
connection between modalities within a course or subject is fundamental to blended learning
and should be included in the denition itself. We believe that there are strong reasons for its
inclusion as well and note it here as an optional addendum.
e denition is from a student’s perspective. Even if the school itself is not oering online or
blended courses, students may still experience blended learning if they are engaged in a formal
online learning program on their own while also attending a brick-and-mortar school. ey are
participating in the combination of both experiences, regardless of whether they initiated the
convergence or their school did.
e language in the blended-learning denition is intended to distinguish the denition from
other common forms of learning that many confuse with blended learning. e confusion arises

Classifying K-12 Blended Learning | 5
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
because certain education practices—such as traditional instruction, technology-rich instruction,
informal online learning, and full-time virtual learning—share some features of blended learning
but dier in key ways that exclude them from tting precisely in the category. Figure 4 depicts
where these practices t in relation to online and blended learning. e text following this gure
provides denitions of each of the highlighted education practices.
Figure 4. Blended learning in relation to other education practices*
BLENDED LEARNING
1
Rotation
model
2
Flex
model
3
Self-Blend
model
4
Enriched-
Virtual
model
Online learningBrick-and-mortar
Station-Rotation model
Lab-Rotation model
Flipped-Classroom model
Individual-Rotation model
Informal
online learning
Full-time
online learning
Traditional
instruction
Technology-rich
instruction
e following are suggested denitions for traditional instruction and technology-rich
instruction. ese practices are not in and of themselves forms of blended learning, but they can
* e education practices highlighted in Figure 4 are neither mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive. For
example, students attending a brick-and-mortar school could be part of a program that has both traditional and
technology-rich elements. Furthermore, their program could center on an entirely dierent education practice,
such as project-based learning, which this gure does not include, as project-based learning could occur in all four
of these categories. e intent of Figure 4 is to situate blended learning among a few other education practices for
the purpose of dierentiation.

6 | Classifying K–12 Blended Learning
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
combine with online learning to create a blended-learning experience for students. For example,
students could rotate between online learning and traditional instruction, or they could attend a
technology-rich classroom for certain subjects and take online courses for others.
• Traditional instruction – a structured education program that focuses on face-
to-face teacher-centered instruction, including teacher-led discussion and teacher
knowledge imparted to students.5 Students are matched by age, and possibly also
ability. Instructional materials are based on textbooks, lectures, and individual
written assignments. All students in the classroom generally receive a single, unied
curriculum. Subjects are often individual and independent instead of integrated and
interdisciplinary, particularly in secondary school.6
• Technology-rich instruction – a structured education program that shares the
features of traditional instruction, but also has digital enhancements such as electronic
whiteboards, broad access to Internet devices, document cameras, digital textbooks,
Internet tools,* and online lesson plans. e Internet, however, does not deliver the
content and instruction, or if it does, the student still lacks control of time, place, path,
and/or pace.
* Internet tools are software applications and programs available on the Internet that provide students with digital
functionality but do not deliver online instruction and content. For example, a student may use an Internet tool
like Google Docs for document creation or Edmodo for social networking. ese tools help accomplish a task, but
do not provide instruction and content as an online course does.
One critical part of the denition of blended learning is that it involves “some element
of student control of time, place, path, and/or pace.” Digital Learning Now! describes
each dimension:
 Learning is no longer restricted to the school day or the school year.
 Learning is no longer restricted to the walls of the classroom.
 Learning is no longer restricted to the pedagogy used by the teacher.
Interactive and adaptive software allows students to learn [in a method that is
customized to their needs].
 Learning is no longer restricted to the pace of an entire classroom of
students.
Source: “Roadmap for Reform,”
http://digitallearningnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Roadmap-for-Reform-.pdf

Classifying K-12 Blended Learning | 7
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
e following are suggested denitions for two types of online learning that are distinct from
blended learning. Like blended learning, these practices use the Internet to deliver content and
instruction and allow students some element of control of time, place, path, and/or pace. But
they fall outside the scope of blended learning in signicant ways.
• Informal online learning – any time a student uses technology to learn outside of
a structured education program. For example, students could play educational video
games or watch online lectures on their own outside of any recognized school program.
• Full-time online learning – a structured education program in which content and
instruction are delivered over the Internet and the students do not attend a supervised
brick-and-mortar location away from home, except on a very limited basis in some
cases, such as for proctored exams, wet labs, or social events.7

8 | Classifying K–12 Blended Learning
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT

e diagram in Figure 5 depicts four models of blended learning that categorize the majority
of blended-learning programs emerging across the K–12 sector today. See Appendix A for the
rationale behind eliminating two of the six models from our previous report, titled “e rise of
K–12 blended learning.”
Figure 5. Blended-learning models
BLENDED LEARNING
1
Rotation
model
2
Flex
model
3
Self-Blend
model
4
Enriched-
Virtual
model
Online learningBrick-and-mortar
Station-Rotation model
Lab-Rotation model
Flipped-Classroom model
Individual-Rotation model
e following are denitions of the models and sub-models from Figure 5, as well as an
example of each model.
1. Rotation model – a program in which within a given course or subject (e.g., math),
students rotate on a xed schedule or at the teacher’s discretion between learning modalities,
at least one of which is online learning. Other modalities might include activities such as
small-group or full-class instruction, group projects, individual tutoring, and pencil-and-
paper assignments.
a. Station Rotation – a Rotation-model implementation in which within a given
course or subject (e.g., math), students rotate on a xed schedule or at the teacher’s
discretion among classroom-based learning modalities. e rotation includes at
least one station for online learning. Other stations might include activities such
as small-group or full-class instruction, group projects, individual tutoring, and
pencil-and-paper assignments. Some implementations involve the entire class

Classifying K-12 Blended Learning | 9
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
alternating among activities together, whereas others divide the class into small-
group or one-by-one rotations. e Station-Rotation model diers from the
Individual-Rotation model because students rotate through all of the stations,
not only those on their custom schedules.
Example: e KIPP LA Empower Academy equips each kindergarten classroom
with 15 computers. roughout the day the teacher rotates students among
online learning, small-group instruction, and individual assignments.8 Figure 6
depicts one of KIPP Empower Academy’s station rotations (the rotations dier
somewhat based on subject; this gure illustrates one example).
. Station-Rotation model, KIPP LA Empower Academy
Figure 6 Station-Rotation model, KIPP LA Empower Academy
Offline learningOnline learning Teacher Paraprofessional
Teacher-led
instruction
Online
instruction
Collaborative
activities and
stations
b. Lab Rotation – a Rotation-model implementation in which within a given
course or subject (e.g., math), students rotate on a xed schedule or at the teacher’s
discretion among locations on the brick-and-mortar campus. At least one of these
spaces is a learning lab for predominantly online learning, while the additional
classroom(s) house other learning modalities. e Lab-Rotation model diers
from the Station-Rotation model because students rotate among locations on
the campus instead of staying in one classroom for the blended course or subject.

10 | Classifying K–12 Blended Learning
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
Example: At Rocketship Education, students rotate out of their classrooms to
a learning lab for two hours each day to further their instruction in math and
reading through online learning.9 Figure 7 illustrates this rotation.
Figure 7. Lab-Rotation model, Rocketship Education
Figure 7 Lab-Rotation model, Rocketship Education
Direct instruction
math/science
Direct instruction
literacy/social studies
Direct instruction
literacy/social studies
Learning lab
reading/math
Offline learningOnline learning Teacher Paraprofessional
c. Flipped Classroom – a Rotation-model implementation in which within a
given course or subject (e.g., math), students rotate on a xed schedule between
face-to-face teacher-guided practice (or projects) on campus during the standard
school day and online delivery of content and instruction of the same subject
from a remote location (often home) after school. e primary delivery of
content and instruction is online, which dierentiates a Flipped Classroom
from students who are merely doing homework practice online at night. e
Flipped-Classroom model accords with the idea that blended learning includes
some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace because
the model allows students to choose the location where they receive content

Classifying K-12 Blended Learning | 11
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
and instruction online and to control the pace at which they move through the
online elements.
Example: At Stillwater Area Public Schools along the St. Croix River in
Minnesota, students in grades 4–6 math classes use Internet-connected
devices after school at the location of their choice to watch 10- to 15-minute
asynchronous instruction videos and complete comprehension questions on
Moodle. At school they practice and apply their learning with a face-to-face
teacher.10 Figure 8 illustrates a Flipped-Classroom rotation.
Figure 8. Flipped-Classroom model, Stillwater Area Public Schools
Offline learningOnline learning Teacher
Practice and projects
School Home
Online instruction
and content
Figure 8 Flipped-Classroom model, Stillwater Area Public Schools
d. Individual Rotation – a Rotation-model implementation in which within a
given course or subject (e.g., math), students rotate on an individually customized,
xed schedule among learning modalities, at least one of which is online learning.
An algorithm or teacher(s) sets individual student schedules. e Individual-
Rotation model diers from the other Rotation models because students do not
necessarily rotate to each available station or modality.
Example: Carpe Diem Collegiate High School and Middle School assigns each
student a specic schedule that rotates them between online learning in the
learning center and oine learning. Each rotation lasts 35 minutes.11 Figure 9
illustrates the Carpe Diem model.

12 | Classifying K–12 Blended Learning
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
Figure 9. Individual-Rotation model, Carpe Diem Collegiate
High School and Middle School
Central learning lab
Figure 9 Individual-Rotation model, Carpe Diem Collegiate High School and Middle School
Intervention
5:1
Seminar
12:1
Group
projects
Personal
trainer
Direct
instruction
15:1
273 students
Offline learningOnline learning Teacher Paraprofessional
2. Flex model – a program in which content and instruction are delivered primarily
by the Internet, students move on an individually customized, uid schedule among
learning modalities, and the teacher-of-record is on-site. e teacher-of-record or other
adults provide face-to-face support on a exible and adaptive as-needed basis through
activities such as small-group instruction, group projects, and individual tutoring. Some
implementations have substantial face-to-face support, while others have minimal
support. For example, some ex models may have face-to-face certied teachers who
supplement the online learning on a daily basis, whereas others may provide little face-to-

Classifying K-12 Blended Learning | 13
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
face enrichment. Still others may have dierent stang combinations. ese variations
are useful modiers to describe a particular Flex model.
Example: At San Francisco Flex Academy, the online-learning provider K12, Inc. delivers
the curriculum and instruction, while face-to-face teachers use a data dashboard to oer
targeted interventions and supplementation throughout the day for core courses. e
teachers-of-record for the core courses are the face-to-face teachers. (Many of the elective
courses have online K12, Inc. teachers who serve as the teachers-of-record instead of
the face-to-face teachers. ese elective courses are part of the Self-Blend model, which
the next section of this paper discusses.)12 Figure 10 illustrates the San Francisco Flex
Academy model.
Figure 10. Flex model, San Francisco Flex Academy
Figure 10 Flex model, San Francisco Flex Public School
Breakout
room
5:1
Breakout
room
12:1
Science lab
Collaboration
rooms
Breakout
room
12:1
Study and collaborative space
Social area
250 students
Offline learningOnline learning Teacher Paraprofessional

14 | Classifying K–12 Blended Learning
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
3. Self-Blend model – describes a scenario in which students choose to take one or more
courses entirely online to supplement their traditional courses and the teacher-of-record
is the online teacher. Students may take the online courses either on the brick-and-mortar
campus or o-site. is diers from full-time online learning and the Enriched-Virtual
model (see the next denition) because it is not a whole-school experience. Students
self-blend some individual online courses and take other courses at a brick-and-mortar
campus with face-to-face teachers.
Example: Quakertown Community School District (QCSD) in Pennsylvania oers
students in grades 6–12 the option of taking one or more online courses. All students
complete a cyber orientation course prior to enrollment. Courses are asynchronous and
students can work on them any time during the day. QCSD has created “cyber lounges”
where students can work on their online courses at school, but they are also free to
complete the courses remotely if they prefer. e teachers-of-record for the courses are
the online teachers, most of whom also teach face-to-face courses for QCSD.13 Figure 11
illustrates the QCSD model.
Figure 11. Self-Blend model, Quakertown Community School District
Figure 11 Self-Blend model, Quakertown Community School District
Online teacherHome
Cyber lounge
School
Offline learningOnline learning Teacher

Classifying K-12 Blended Learning | 15
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT
4. Enriched-Virtual model – a whole-school experience in which within each course (e.g.,
math), students divide their time between attending a brick-and-mortar campus and
learning remotely using online delivery of content and instruction. Many Enriched-
Virtual programs began as full-time online schools and then developed blended programs
to provide students with brick-and-mortar school experiences. e Enriched-Virtual
model diers from the Flipped Classroom because in Enriched-Virtual programs,
students seldom attend the brick-and-mortar campus every weekday. It diers from the
Self-Blend model because it is a whole-school experience, not a course-by-course model.
Example: At the Albuquerque eCADEMY, students in grades 8–12 meet face-to-face
with teachers for their rst course meeting at a brick-and mortar location. ey can
complete the rest of their coursework remotely, if they prefer, as long as they maintain
at least a “C” grade point average in the program.14 Figure 12 illustrates eCADEMY’s
Enriched-Virtual model.
Figure 12. Enriched-Virtual model, Albuquerque eCADEMY
Figure 12 Enriched-Virtual model, Albuquerque eCADEMY
Face-to-face
supplementation
SchoolHome
Online instruction
and content
Offline learningOnline learning Teacher

16 | Classifying K–12 Blended Learning
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT


is paper revises the preliminary blended-learning taxonomy that we introduced in “e rise of
K–12 blended learning,” published in January 2011, and its follow-on report, “e rise of K–12
blended learning: Proles of emerging models,” published in May 2011. Its most notable change
is the condensing of the six blended-learning models to four. Numerous education experts
provided feedback to help us arrive at the four models. e following is a discussion of some of
the rationale behind the changes.
First, we eliminated the Face-to-Face Driver model because it was not substantively dierent
from the Flex and Rotation models, except that the students in Face-to-Face-Driver programs
often engaged with online content for shorter bursts of time. We also eliminated the Online-
Lab model. It was the same as the Self-Blend model, except that it described students who took
courses on campus, whereas the Self-Blend described students who took courses o campus. is
distinction did not work because too often students did a little of both. We combined the two in
Self-Blend to encompass any time students take an online course—either on-site or o-site—to
supplement their face-to-face courses.
Second, we changed the denition of the Flex model to allow it to encompass some elements
of the excised Online-Lab model. e old denitions of Flex and Online Lab tried to distinguish
the two by specifying that Online-Lab implementations involved less face-to-face support for
students. at distinction was problematic because the dividing line between the two was hard
to pinpoint. e new Flex denition is broader and allows for both types of stang models.
Some implementations have substantial face-to-face support, and others have signicantly less.
e broader Flex denition makes clear, however, that in all Flex programs the teacher-of-record
is on-site, even if that teacher provides little face-to-face enrichment of the online coursework.
ird, we subdivided the Rotation model into four common implementations. e other
models will likely develop subcategories also as they mature and researchers deepen their
understanding of the phenomena.
Fourth, we changed the name of the Online-Driver model because it was easily confused with
aspects of the other models or with full-time virtual learning. Instead, we suggested the newly
named “Enriched-Virtual” model, which we think has a more precise and specic denition than
did the Online-Driver model.

Classifying K-12 Blended Learning | 17
NSTITUTE
NNOSIGHT

1 Many organizations have submitted proles of their blended-learning program(s) to Innosight Institute’s database
at http://www.innosightinstitute.org/media-room/publications/blended-learning/. We invite school operators and
others with an eye on blended-learning programs not proled in our report to add their proles to this set of case
studies, which will in turn appear on our website.
2 iNACOL hosts the Virtual School Symposium each year. e 2011 pre-conference session that included a review of
the blended-learning taxonomy was titled, “Blended/Hybrid Learning 101: From Inception to Implementation.”
3 Special thanks also to suggestions from numerous other experts, including leaders from the Alliance for Excellent
Education, California Learning Resource Network, Charter School Growth Fund, Education Elements, Evergreen
Education Group, Foundation for Excellence in Education, Getting Smart, iNACOL, Plato, and Public Impact.
4 See John Watson and Steven Kalmon, “Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A review of state-level policy
and practice,” 2005, Learning Point Associates, http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/tech/Keeping_Pace2.pdf; and
iNACOL, “e Online Learning Denitions Project,” October 2011, http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/
iNACOL_DenitionsProject.pdf.
5
Martha Elaine Needham, “Comparison of standardized test scores from traditional classrooms and those using problem-
based learning,” Dissertation presented to the University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2010, https://mospace.umsystem.
edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/9609/NeedhamComStaTesSco.pdf?sequence=1, accessed April 9, 2012.
6 Wikipedia, “Traditional Education,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_education, accessed Apr 9, 2012.
7 iNACOL does not provide a denition of full-time virtual learning. It does, however, reference Evergreen Education
Group’s useful denition of a full-time online program: “Full-time online schools, also called cyberschools, work
with students who are enrolled primarily (often only) in the online school. Cyberschools typically are responsible
for their students’ scores on state assessments required by No Child Left Behind, which is the primary way in which
student outcomes, and school performance, are measured. In some states most full-time online schools are charter
schools.” See John Watson, Amy Murin, Lauren Vashaw, Butch Gemin, and Chris Rapp, “Keeping pace with K–12
online learning: A review of state-level policy and practice,” Evergreen Education Group, 2010, http://www.kpk12.
com/cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf.
8 A prole of KIPP Empower Academy is available at “Kipp LA,” Innosight Institute, http://www.innosightinstitute.
org/blended-learning-2/blproles-innosight/kipp-la/.
9 A prole of Rocketship Education is available at “Rocketship Education,” Innosight Institute, http://www.
innosightinstitute.org/blended-learning-2/blproles-innosight/rocketship-education/.
10 A prole of this district is available at “Stillwater Area Public Schools,” Innosight Institute, http://www.
innosightinstitute.org/blended-learning-2/blproles-innosight/stillwater-area-public-schools/.
11
A prole of Carpe Diem is available at “Carpe Diem Collegiate High School and Middle School (CDCHS),”
Innosight Institute, http://www.innosightinstitute.org/blended-learning-2/blproles-innosight/carpe-diem-collegiate-
high-school-and-middle-school-cdchs/.
12 A prole of the San Francisco Flex Academy is available at “Flex Public Schools: San Francisco Flex Academy in
partnership with K12, Inc.,” Innosight Institute, http://www.innosightinstitute.org/blended-learning-2/blproles-
innosight/ex-public-schools/.
13 A prole of QCSD is available at “Quakertown Community School District: Innity Cyber Academy,”
Innosight Institute, http://www.innosightinstitute.org/blended-learning-2/blproles-usersubmissions/quakertown-
community-school-district-2/.
14 A prole of the eCADEMY is available at “eCADEMY,” Innosight Institute, http://www.innosightinstitute.org/
blended-learning-2/blproles-innosight/ecademy/.


Innosight Institute, founded in May 2007, is a 501(c)(3) not-for-prot think tank whose mission
is to apply Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen’s theories of disruptive
innovation to develop and promote solutions to the most vexing problems in the social sector.


HEATHER CLAYTON STAKER is a Senior Research Fellow for the
Education Practice at Innosight Institute. Staker graduated magna cum laude
from Harvard College and received an MBA, with distinction, from Harvard
Business School. She has experience as a strategy consultant for McKinsey
& Company and as a member of the California State Board of Education.
MICHAEL B. HORN is co-founder and Executive Director of Education of
Innosight Institute, a non-prot think tank devoted to applying the theories
of disruptive innovation to problems in the social sector. Tech&Learning
magazine named Horn to its list of the 100 most important people in the
creation and advancement of the use of technology in education.

Copyright © 2012 by Innosight Institute, Inc.
All rights reserved.
www.innosightinstitute.org