Our latest report, “Innovative staffing to personalize learning: How new teaching roles and blended learning help students succeed,” released this week, documents the findings from this research. Below are brief snippets on three of our most interesting insights.
1. Team teaching increases supportive relationships
The most common theme across the schools we studied was a shift from one teacher per classroom to teams of educators collaborating to support larger-than-normal classes. At one school, classes of 60 students learned together in a large, open space with three team teachers for English language arts and math. At another school, students spent part of their day with co-teachers and part of their day in seven- to 12-person groups supported by a teaching fellow. At a third school, students rotated through in-class stations where they worked part of the time with a teacher and part of the time with a small-group instructor.
The schools found that having many eyes on each student helped keep students from falling through the cracks; increased students’ chances of forming a strong, positive connection with at least one adult; and decreased the odds that a student risked going through a year with just one “really bad fit” teacher.
2. Support staff help schools personalize through small group instruction
At the schools we studied, teaching teams included not only teachers, but also other support staff, such as tutors, teaching fellows, or small-group instructors. These support staff members played a critical role in helping the schools offer their students frequent opportunities for personalized learning in small groups. “That small group is meant to look at each student and identify their personal needs and assist them,” explained one of the teachers. Small groups gave students individualized support and relationships that helped them see success is possible.
How team teaching can impact #blendedlearning
3. Blended learning complements innovative staffing
As schools used new staffing arrangements to personalize their instruction, blended learning gave them increased flexibility in how to best use their educators’ time and talents. By letting online learning provide some instruction, educator teams could focus more on coaching students and addressing their individual needs instead of worrying about covering their course content. Software also gave educator teams data on student progress that allowed them to truly target their planning and interventions. Some schools also used software that recommended student groupings and lesson plans for small-group instruction.
All too often, schools may be trying to personalize learning while treating one of their most crucial assets—human capital—as fixed. But as the findings from this report illustrate, many pioneering schools see personalized learning and teacher quality not as separate strategies, but as complementary levers within their broader efforts to better serve their students. In that light, the findings from this report are a bellwether to the field for showing the alignment between personalized learning and human capital approaches that improve access to quality teaching.
[Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on The Clayten Christensen Institute blog.]