Interactive Technology and Smart Education

Different strokes for different folks: scaling a blended model of teacher professional learning
Deirdre Butler, Margaret Leahy, Michael Hallissy, Mark Brown,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Deirdre Butler, Margaret Leahy, Michael Hallissy, Mark Brown, "Different strokes for different folks: scaling a blended model
of teacher professional learning", Interactive Technology and Smart Education, https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-01-2017-0011
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-01-2017-0011
Downloaded on: 01 August 2017, At: 18:08 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Different strokes for different folks: scaling a blended model of
teacher professional learning

Deirdre Butler

Margaret Leahy

Michael Hallissy

Mark Brown
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

1. INTRODUCTION
Todays world is rapidly changing. We live in a period of major social and technological change where a
number of grand challenges such as climate change, unsustainable population growth and the future of work
require critical thinking, complex problem-solving and creative solutions. More than ever, we need to ensure
that all students have the knowledge, skills, abilities and competencies to be successful, active and
contributing members of society in the 21st century. A range of 21st century skills (often referred to as
Key Skills or Key Competencies, (e.g. ETA, 2010; OECD, 2005a; World Economic Forum, 2015), have
been identified as necessary to prepare students to live, work and thrive in a digital society. Although these
key competencies vary depending on the futures perspective, they generally include skills such as critical
thinking and problem-solving, communication, collaboration, self-regulation and information management
(e.g. Binkley et al., 2012). Moreover, the ability to use digital technology effectively and reflectively is a
common feature in these initiatives, each of which stresses the potential of technology to transform the
learning experiences of students by helping them become engaged thinkers, global citizens, and active
learners in collaborative, social learning environments (Butler & Leahy, 2015).
Teachers in todays classroom must not only be prepared to use technology; they must also know how and
when to use (and not to use) technology to support student learning. According to UNESCO (2008), these
have become integral skills in every teachers professional repertoire (p.1). The importance of developing
these skills cannot be emphasised enough, especially when we consider that teacher quality, not funding, has
been found to be the determinant factor among conditions that support the performance of the worlds best
education systems (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). How then do we go about ensuring that teachers have these
skills? We know that teaching and learning is complex. Therefore, it should not be a surprise that efforts to
integrate new digital technologies add to this complexity. In addition, we know that the introduction of new
technology into a learning environment does not by itself lead to changes in learning outcomes (Dynarski et
al., 2007). Nor does it mean that educators will meaningfully integrate technology into teaching and learning
(e.g. Russell et al., 2003) or develop innovative teaching practices (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). Instead,
past experience has taught us that new tools can easily be used to reinforce or perpetuate traditional teaching
methods (e.g. Law & Chow, 2008). Put another way, there is a tendency for teachers to merely tame new
technology based on traditional practices rather than embrace transformative models of exploiting the
pedagogical affordances of new educational technologies (Brown, 2015). The key point is that what the
research tells us is that how technology is used determines whether or not its use affects learning outcomes
(e.g. Higgins et al., 2012).

There is growing consensus among education leaders, researchers and policy-makers worldwide that both
teaching and learning need to change to help students develop the skills they need to succeed in the complex,
globally connected world of the 21st century (e.g. Ananiadou & Claro, 2009). Specific goals for 21st century
teaching and learning are now commonplace and while these goals vary across countries, common themes
 include problem-solving, persistence, teamwork, and the use of technology to support more impactful life-
long learning. Despite this, teachers rarely have access to specific guidance or support on how to make 21st
century goals come to fruition in the classroom (OECD, 2015b). There is a significant gap or disconnection
between the goals for 21st century teaching and learning and well-designed teacher professional learning
programmes to develop these skills. Faced with this reality, the challenge is to design professional learning
experiences for teachers that enable them, in turn, to design learning activities that enable their students
develop the dispositions, skills and competencies required to live and thrive in the 21st century.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF A TEACHER PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

SCALABLE MODEL
In this paper and against this backdrop, we report the development of a scalable model of teacher
professional learning in the Republic of Ireland, which has been developed and has matured across three
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

phases, over nearly a decade. We begin by outlining how this approach was developed in a single secondary
school engaged in a global project in Phase 1 (20072010) and then how building on the success of Phase 1,
the initiative expanded to district level in Phase 2 to include eight more schools (2009-2013). Across both
phases, the programme of professional learning developed was school-focused, job-embedded and directly
related to the teachers' experiences along with their stated needs and interests. In response to an expressed
desire among school leaders and teachers alike, it was also directly linked to a university postgraduate
accreditation process (Butler & Leahy, 2010; 2011; 2015). Finally, Phase 3 concerned the design and
development of what we describe as a 4th wave model of online or blended professional learning through a
MOOC which has the capacity to engage teachers globally (2014-to date).

2.1 Phase 1 - Designing a Teacher Professional Learning Framework

The Innovative Schools Programme (ISP) was a Microsoft Partners in Learning initiative that sought to
support teachers around the world as they transformed traditional schools into providers of innovative
learning experiences designed to prepare students for the 21st century. This initiative was implemented in
different ways across 12 pilot schools worldwide, as each school was encouraged to select reform goals that
were appropriate for its local and national educational context. In Ireland, the focus was placed on the
integration of digital technologies into teaching and learning in the secondary sector. The main objective was
to design a framework for the professional learning of teachers relevant to the challenges of teaching in a
secondary school. This approach was considered particularly important in Ireland because rigid state
standards and a traditional exam-based system of education at secondary level is widely perceived to
constrain teachers ability to change their instructional practices. It leaves them with little time or flexibility
to introduce new ideas or practices. The school, the ISP programme manager in Ireland and the national
evaluators (Butler & Leahy, 2010; 2011; 2015) saw the ISP as a means to make a very rigid system more
flexible through the use of digital tools.

Prior to the ISP, training had been provided to teachers in the school in the use of a variety of applications
and a range of hardware. There was also a strong culture of peer support within the school. However, the
training tended to be technocentric as the focus was on the technology and the acquisition of skills and
the development of products for teaching rather than critical reflection on possible new pedagogical
practices.
The ISP National Evaluators (Butler and Leahy) identified the need not only to work closely with teachers
and school management to shift this focus but also to concentrate on the teachers beliefs and values as the
starting point. This recognition was because research evidence has repeatedly identified a teachers
pedagogical orientation as a crucial factor in how they use technology in their classroom (e.g.; Law et al.,
2008; Shear et al., 2011; Ertmer, 2012). For example, a critical finding from SITES 2006 (Law et al., 2008)
was that ICT adoption per se did not determine or change pedagogical orientation in education systems. It is
also accepted that teachers understanding of 21st century skill requirements influence the ways in which
 they use ICT (Plomp et al. 2009; Shear et al., 2010; Shear et al., 2011). When teachers pedagogical
orientations are driven by understandings of 21st century learning, they take on a more facilitative role,
provide student-centered guidance and feedback, and engage more frequently in exploratory and team-
building activities with students. According to UNESCO (2008, 2011), this is a knowledge deepening
approach and implies teachers make use of ICT in ways that support an enquiry process and enable their
students to work on solving complex real-world problems. The approach emphasizes depth of understanding
while also providing opportunities to engage in collaborative project-based learning activities that go beyond
the classroom. There is also a weight of research evidence that demonstrates professional development
programmes are most effective when they are embedded into teachers' professional lives and communities
within the school (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009), are focused explicitly on local goals for student learning
(e.g. Darling-Hammond, 1993), and grounded in collective discussions of classroom practice (Warren Little,
2003). To this end, a key feature of the professional learning programme was that it was both directly related
to the teachers stated needs and experiences and anchored in the meaningful context of their own classroom
practices. Previous experience in developing a model of professional learning had led to the realisation that in
order to change classroom practice teachers need to ask questions about their existing classroom practices
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

(Butler, 2004). To do this, it was critical that the teachers in the school were challenged to question their
practice. The Learning Activity/Student Work (LASW) framework developed by Stanford Research Institute
as part of the ISP (Shear et al., 2009) provided this context (See Table 1). The framework enabled the
teachers to design learning activities in which they embedded 21st century learning principles, develop the
meta-language used to describe such learning environments as well as reflect on their teaching and the
assignments they set their students (Butler & Leahy, 2010; 2011; 2015). Finally, as originally conceptualised
the programme was directly linked to a university postgraduate accreditation process.

Table 1. Learning Activity and Student Work Dimensions

Learning Activity Dimensions Student Activity Dimensions

Collaboration: Are students required to share Collaboration: Did the student share responsibility?
responsibility and make substantive decisions with Did the student make substantive decisions with
other people other people?

Knowledge Building: Are students required to build Knowledge Building: Did the student build
knowledge? Is that knowledge interdisciplinary? knowledge? Was that knowledge conceptually
accurate and interdisciplinary?

Use of ICT for Learning: Do students use ICT to Use of ICT for Learning: Were students passive
support knowledge building? Is ICT necessary to that consumers, active users, or designers of ICT
knowledge building?

Self-Regulation: Is the learning activity long-term? Skilled Communication: Did the student produce
Do students plan and assess their own work extended communication? Was the communication
well-developed and organized around a thesis?

Real-World Problem-Solving and Innovation: Real-World Problem-Solving and Innovation: Did

Does the learning activity require solving authentic, the student develop a successful solution to a real-
real-world problems? Are students solutions world problem? Did the student implement the
implemented in the real world? solution in the real world?

2.2 Phase 2 - Evolution of the Peer Coaching Model

Observing the changing nature and more innovative practices during Phase 1 that occurred as a result of
engagement in the professional learning programme, management requested that the programme be expanded
to district level. In consultation with Butler & Leahy, the district management decided to invest funding into
 the professional learning of a group of teachers in schools across the district. It was perceived that these
teachers would become peer coaches and promote the creative integration and use of digital technologies in
teaching and learning among teachers at their schools.

A peer coaching approach was adopted as it is accepted that a key factor to changing classroom practices is
to provide teachers with opportunities for collaboration which promote ongoing discussion and reflection
(e.g. Darling-Hammond, 1995, 1996; Garet et al., 2001; Hargreaves and Fullan, 1992; Little, 1993; Loucks-
Horsley, Stiles, & Hewson, 1996; Richardson, 1994; Sparks and Loucks-Horsley, 1989; Joyce & Showers,
2002; Veenman and Denessen, 2001). It is also accepted that teachers need time to see new strategies
modelled and be provided with opportunities to use new skills in developing and implementing learning
activities (Garet, et al., 2001; Joyce and Showers 1996, 2002; Rodriguez and Knuth, 2000). Of equal
importance is that teachers are provided with ongoing support as they grapple with new content and
methodologies so that they will integrate them into their practice (Corcoran, 1995). We believed that school-
based peer coaching could provide the structure to enable teachers to adopt and implement new teaching and
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

learning practices with digital technologies as it encourages professional collaboration. It can promote
teacher learning by offering teachers opportunities to become involved in meaningful discussions and
planning, observing others, being observed, and receiving feedback (Carey and Frechtling, 1997; Darling-
Hammond, 1997; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998). In addition, Peer Coaching provides ongoing support and
just-in-time support that teachers value (Brush et al., 2003). It is well reported that teachers rely heavily on
technical support when using digital technologies initially in their classrooms. However, as they begin to use
technology to support project based learning or interdisciplinary learning they also need pedagogical support
(White, Ringstaff, & Kelley, 2002). Peer coaching can provide the type of support teachers need as they
begin to integrate technology with these types of classroom activities that actively engage students in
learning (Ike, 1997; Miller, 1998; Norton and Gonzales, 1998; Yocam, 1996).

The target group identified to become peer coaches were the ICT coordinators from schools across the
district. Traditionally, the role of ICT coordinator was associated with ensuring that hardware was in working
order or at best supporting the development of teachers technical skills. However, in agreement with district
management, this role was redefined whereby ICT coordinators were now expected to support innovative and
emerging new pedagogies and technologies to facilitate student learning and the development of 21st century
skills. The newly defined role was challenging. Not only did the ICT coordinators now need be digitally
fluent with a range of digital tools but they also needed an in-depth understanding of learning. In addition,
they needed to be able to communicate these understandings to their peers so that they, in turn, could make
changes in their classroom practice. For these reasons, we needed to design a learning environment which not
only developed these skills but also challenged the peer coaches to question their existing traditional
pedagogies and classroom practices. Otherwise, although they could help support other teachers to embed the
use of a range of digital technologies into their classrooms, they could not fundamentally change the
teachers classroom practices or the learning experiences of the students. The resultant accredited Digital
Learning Peer Coaching (DLPC) programme was subsequently designed with three discrete but interrelated
elements: understandings of learning, digital fluency and communication/collaboration skills. Importantly,
the management team also requested that formal accreditation would continue to be a feature of the
programme. In response, the Digital Learning Peer Coaching (DLPC) programme was developed with 12
teachers participating over two school years (2009-2011).

2.3 Impact of the Professional Learning Model

Across Phase 1 and 2, teachers, school leaders and management initially tended to view digital technologies
as tools to support traditional practice. However, through participation in the programme, their understanding
shifted and they began to perceive digital technologies as tools that facilitate more progressive classroom
practices and the development of their students 21st century skills. Evidence of this change and enhanced
quality of education is found in the national evaluation reports of the ISP (Butler & Leahy, 2008, 2009) as
well as through analysis of the coursework and final dissertations produced by teachers participating in the
 postgraduate diploma (Butler & Leahy, 2015). Together, these two sources of evidence demonstrate that the
overriding impact of the programme was to move teachers out of their comfort zones (Butler & Leahy,
2015). Traditional assumptions, beliefs and classroom practices of all the participating teachers, coaches and
coaching partners were challenged and they began to focus on more innovative approaches to student
learning with increased integration of digital technology in the classroom. This was evident by the emergence
of the following trends in classroom practices:

Student-centered learning
Project based learning rather than discrete lesson plans
Students working collaboratively in groups rather than individual learning
Focus on learning not on subject content
Awareness of / designing lessons with opportunities for students to develop 21st century skills
Increase in teacher confidence to use a greater range of pedagogical strategies / digital technologies
Collaboration across and between subject departments / ripple effect
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

The shift in pedagogical orientation along with increased use of digital technologies in learning and teaching
had a positive impact on student learning, resulting in learners:

taking control of their own learning

having greater ownership of the learning activities
demonstrating more engagement / participation
increased collaboration
being active rather than passive in their learning
taking on new leadership roles

This change is encapsulated by a peer coach as follows:

I really believe that during this process we have analysed these 21st century skills, probed
how we can bring them to the fore in our learners and prove that they possess these skills
while using ICT to make learning more interactive, exciting, independent and engaging.
(Butler & Leahy, 2015, p.335)

From this evidence, it is apparent that the model of professional learning resulted in a shift in the pedagogical
orientation of the teachers who were involved in the programme. It enabled the participating teachers to
design learning environments which were more student-led and characterised by the use of a range of digital
technologies supporting an enquiry process that demanded the use of essential skills such as knowledge
construction, problem-solving and innovation, self-regulation, skilled communication and collaboration. The
peer coaching model was central to this process of redefining pedagogical orientation which is effectively
capture in this description of the process by one of the peer coaches:
To successfully integrate technology and 21st century learning skills teachers will have to
rethink their pedagogy, motivate and stimulate their students with genuine inquiry and
challenging tasks. .A peer coaching model would provide the framework to manage
the change of teachers attempting to redesign learning activities for their students and
also for the integration of digital technologies into classroom practices.it is a means
of collective support as teachers take risks when introducing new technologies and ways
of working into their classrooms and encourage teachers to share their knowledge and
continually improve their professional practice. (Butler & Leahy, 2015, p.339)

This change is a significant move away from the narrow exam driven focus towards a knowledge deepening
approach (UNESCO, 2008, 2011). To borrow from the words of Perkins (1992), there was a significant mind-
set shift away from training memories to educating minds. The
The peer coaching model provided the framework to manage the change of teachers attempting to redesign
learning activities for their students and also for the integration of digital technologies into classroom
 practices. It is a means of enabling collective support as teachers take risks when introducing new
technologies and ways of working into their classrooms and encourage teachers to share their knowledge and
continually improve their professional practice

2.4 Problems of Scalability

Although the developments and findings outlined above were encouraging, the issue of scalability has become
increasingly problematic. Policy decisions in relation to the development of a range of 21st century skills
(NCCA, 2009) as well as the ability and the need to use digital technology effectively and reflectively in Irish
schools, has led to ongoing demands to extend the model of professional development. In particular, the high
profile launch by the Minister of Education of the Digital Strategy for Schools (DES, 2015) identifies a need
to ensure that ALL teachers are equipped with the knowledge, skills and confidence to integrate ICT into their
practice (p. 7). There has also been ongoing international demand beyond Ireland to facilitate workshops,
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

many of which could not be sustained (e.g. Finnish Board of Education, Microsofts Global Educator events,
Jordans Teachers Institute). As a way of addressing this problem of scalability, the potential of a MOOC
was considered in the wider context of the emergence of a 4th wave of online learning (Picciano, 2014) which
builds on the principles and foundations of blended learning. A basic assumption of this so-called 4th wave is
that a one-size model of online professional learning will not fit all and that different strokes will be needed
for different folks depending on the educational context (Picciano, 2014).

2.5 Phase 3 Scaling the Model of Professional Learning

The research literature to date suggests that MOOCs are most popular for those learners who already hold an
undergraduate college degree or higher (e.g. Ebben & Murphy, 2014). While MOOC completion rates are
low, prior level of schooling is considered a predictor of achievement (Greene, Oswald, and Pomerantz,
2015); thus suggesting that teachers completing a MOOC for professional development might be more likely
to complete it rather than other participants (Hodges et. al., 2016). Although this observation remains
speculative, a recent MIT Harvard report reflecting on four years of online courses (2012-2016) found that
teachers makeup a third of all those participating in MOOCs (Chuang & Dean Ho, 2016). Moreover,
Lauillard (2016) considers the use a MOOC as a medium for the continuing professional development of
teachers as a perfect fit (p. 7). Therefore, coupled with the growing number of open solutions targeting
schools (e.g. ICEF Monitor, 2016; Vivian et. al, 2014), it was a logical step to investigate the use of a MOOC,
that most importantly, was framed from the outset around the principles of blended learning, to scale the
model of teacher professional learning we had developed to date.

3. WHY A MOOC?
Although a number of issues around completion and accreditation have yet to be resolved, MOOCs are now
recognised as a valid and valued form of professional learning in a number of professions. They have the
potential when designed well to attract large numbers of learners, particularly highly qualified professionals
to participate in free education programmes (Laurillard, 2016). While there is still considerable debate over
the future of the MOOC (Sherrock, 2015), arguably they have shown the potential of using new online
platforms for teaching and reaching large groups of learners.
Although MOOCs can take many forms, they can be defined as typically involving structured and
sequenced teacher-led activities (e.g. videos, readings, problem-sets) coupled with online assessments and
usually some space for student interactions such as a discussion forum (Greene et al., 2015, p.927).
Participants can thus interact with the content at their own pace and place over a period of time (Jobe,
Ostlund and Svensson, 2014). When accessed in this way, MOOCS are referred to as xMOOCs. In contrast,
MOOCs which place more emphasis on connecting with learners through blogs and forums rather than on
structured resources are referred to cMOOCs (McGreal et al., 2013 in Jobe, Ostlund and Svensson, 2014).
 They are designed so that learners can learn through practice (construction and responding to feedback),
discussion (comments and conversations) and production (negotiating an output for evaluation by others),
making it a complex and valuable learning process (Laurillard, 2016; p. 16). As already mentioned, there is
a growing interest in how MOOCs can support teacher professional learning (e.g. Hodges, Lowenthal and
Grant, 2016). In this regard, the xMOOC format may work well at scale by providing a mix of presentations
such as videos and digital resources, automated assessment, peer-assessed assignments and peer discussions
(Conole, 2013 in Laurillard, 2016). Thus, a big part of developing an xMOOC is the design and development
of such assets (i.e. video, presentations, discussion topics etc.), as ultimately participants will interact with
these during the course. However, the likelihood is that these assets may not provide sufficient opportunities
for teachers to interact in a meaningful way with the content or with other learners. The challenge is
therefore to design learning experiences that support large numbers of teachers to engage in a model of co-
learning which as stated by Avalos, 2011 involves:

networking and interchanges among schools and situations and is strengthened in formalised
experiences such as courses and workshops that introduce peer coaching or support
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

collaboration and joint projects ...the lesson learned is that teachers naturally talk to each other,
and that such talk can take on an educational purpose. (Laurillard, 2016; p.3)

Cognisant of the research and taking into consideration our experiences in Phase 1 and 2, we strove to design
a MOOC that could reach large numbers but also provide opportunities for teachers to learn through practice,
discussion and production (Laurillard, 2016). In this sense, we wanted teachers both to try out ideas in their
classrooms and report back on their experience. Thus, the intention was to design a hybrid of our previous
face-to-face model of professional learning combined with the features of a MOOC to promote critical
reflection and discussion as well as providing opportunities for teachers to share ideas and resources. Akin to
a blended learning approach, we believed that incorporating these elements would help in scaling the model
of teacher professional learning we had developed to date, that is, contextualised, meaningfully rooted in
classroom practice and designed to challenge pre-existing teachers beliefs. We are critically aware that that a
community of practice needs to be built up around a MOOC, as opposed to individuals just working through
content on their own.

3.1 Towards Building a MOOC

After a period of research and negotiation, funding was secured from Microsoft to design a MOOC. The aim
of the MOOC, which we entitled the 21CLD MOOC, was to scale the model of professional learning
developed in Phase 1 and 2. It would thus enable teachers to examine and change their own classroom
practices, as they relate to innovative uses of digital technologies to support their own and their students
learning and the development of 21st century skills. Working with partners from the wider university and in
the SME sector, we accordingly began the design process.

In keeping with Phase 1 and 2, a central feature underpinning the MOOC design was the tenet that
when teachers pedagogical orientations are driven by understandings of 21st century learning, they take on a
more facilitative role, provide learner-centred guidance and feedback, and engage more frequently in
exploratory and team-building activities with students (Shear et al., 2011). Findings in Phase 1 and 2 were
that the changes observed in the teachers pedagogical orientation and the emergence of a culture of self-
evaluation among the teachers was directly attributed to the use of the Learning Activity/Student Work
(LASW) framework (Shear et al., 2009) which was introduced as part of the coursework. Comprising of a set
of rubrics that describe key dimensions for innovative teaching and learning: knowledge construction,
collaboration, problem solving and innovation, self-regulation, skilled communication and the use of ICT for
learning; the LASW framework enabled the participating teachers to design learning environments which
were more student led and characterised by the use of a range of digital technologies supporting an enquiry
process. Teachers claimed the framework had both increased their understandings of the principles
underpinning 21st Century learning and also led them to reflect on their own understandings and assumptions
about the learning environments they designed for their students.
 I look at the assignments I give the students in a different way. My objectives are now to
improve student engagement and understanding. I want the students both to exercise logical and
creative thinking and at the same time gain 21st century skills such as problem-solving,
collaboration and self-evaluation. (Butler & Leahy, 2015, p. 341)
Now I can see...that its not just a matter of using computers in the class...but broadening
our understanding of all the tools that are available...and how they can impact on the
teacher, the student and on the learning. (Butler & Leahy, 2015, p. 346)
The process has encouraged me to design lessons which stimulate more in-depth active
learning strategies. This in turn I feel will help students understand the desired
concept better, or encourage strategies which will ask students to think more logically and
creatively in their subject areas. (Butler & Leahy, 2015, p. 347)

To this end, rooted in the LASW Framework (now called 21CLD), we designed an eight-module, self-
directed course to be a core component of the MOOC design. These modules explore what learning looks
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

like in the 21st century and how innovative teaching practices can support student learning to develop the key
21st skills of collaboration, knowledge construction, self-regulation, problem-solving and innovation, skilled
communication, and the use of ICT for learning. As well as defining, explaining and illustrating each of the
skills, an integral part of each module is an in action video in which teachers from across the world
showcase how they have embedded a specific skill in their classrooms. Each of eight teachers from countries
such as Finland, Canada, South Africa and Australia designed extended learning units for their students
which focus on the development of 21st century skills while also embedding the use of a range of digital
technologies. As well as illustrating a particular skill in action, these videos are also intended to be the focus
of discussions in which participant teachers analyse and reflect on the learning observed in each classroom.
Teachers are also asked to share ideas as to how they could design learning activities for their own
classrooms, which incorporate the development of 21st century skills.

While the modules we developed provide the content for a MOOC that could support the process of self-
reflection on classroom practice, we face two key challenges in the implementation of the 21CLD MOOC.
First, we are concerned about how to maintain focus on the job-embedded, needs driven nature of the original
model of professional learning. Cognisant of the reality of what works in one school does not necessarily
work in another, in Phase 1 & 2 we had provided opportunities for teachers to debate and contextualise how
to design learning activities for students which embedded the use of digital technologies as well as the
development of 21st century skills.

But, to get people to think about assignments, project based learningto open peoples minds,
and the reason why it was so good from the professional learning point of view was because all
the different subject areas had something different to bring to the table people realised that
although they see themselves as teachers of a particular subject, theyre not really. That were all
part of the one group, and that were all basically should be aiming towards this 21st Century
education providing that for our students, as opposed to just teaching English, Irish, Maths or
whatever it happens to be. (Butler & Leahy,2015, p.330)
We had also provided the structure to enable strong collaboration:
It afforded me the opportunity to engage with my peers in a very meaningful way. We had never
engaged in deep discussion on the teaching and learning of our subject content or on the pressing
need to update our methodologies and perceptions. (Butler & Leahy, 2015, p.342)

The second challenge we face in the implementation of the 21CLD MOOC, is therefore how to recreate the
collaborative nature of peer-coaching and develop the communities of practice that can sustain the culture of
self-evaluation which occurred in Phase 1 & 2. In an effort to address these challenges, we have built into the
design of each module some opportunities for more collaborative and constructivist engagement with
teachers (Laurillard, 2016, p.3). For example, with the use of forums, rather than the typical MOOC forum
format which tend to be used for question-and-answer (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014), we have framed focused
 questions related to the design of learning activities to promote what Laurillard (2016) refers to as co-
learning. However, for this co-learning to be meaningful we are aware that the forum discussions will need
to be moderated and supported by other means such as synchronous live sessions as well as working online
asynchronously. We envisage these live sessions should enable teachers to engage in critical discussions
around their understandings and classroom experiences of 21CLD in action. We know from Phase 1 and 2
that such discussions are a key element of the job embedded professional learning model and can be
supported through face-to-face interactions. However, we are unsure if such deep discussions can be
facilitated through the use of synchronous online learning tools, such as Adobe Connect or Blackboard
Collaborate as all too often such live sessions are overly teacher directed (Hallissy, 2014). In addition, and in
keeping with the cMOOCs focus on community building, social interaction [and] peer review (Jobe et al.,
2014, p.1581), we want participants to be able to work in peer groups, sharing experiences, ideas and
expertise. This also aligns with our job embedded approach that recognises the value of the experience and
expertise that teachers can offer each other (Butler & Leahy, 2015).

Finally, the notion of a MOOC is constantly evolving. Although there is no consensus in the literature, a key
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

principle underpinning many MOOCs designed as a form of continuing professional learning is the
importance of offering a certificate/digital badge to clearly recognize and validate the accomplishments of a
learner. The value of such certificates has yet to be truly established and although not mutually exclusive, we
would argue that a preferred design element in a massive course are pathways that contribute to a recognised
university accreditation (Jobe et al., 2014, p.1583). Ultimately such a pathway would help to address the
issue regarding the acceptance of the professional learning and related accomplishments by employers.
Some proponents of MOOCs (see Bang et al, 2016) are proposing that layers be built on top of existing
courses so that different audiences can have different experiences. Again, building on our own experiences
of designing the professional learning model described in Phases 1 & 2, and the premise of needing different
strokes for different folks, we have envisioned a framework for how a series of layers could be built around
the 21CLD MOOC assets (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Possible ways that the 21CLD MOOC can be developed

Constructing a series of layers in accordance with a 4th wave approach to online learning is likely to ensure
that teachers can interact with the MOOC assets in a variety of ways, ranging from self-study to a blended
accredited model. Having said that, the particular pathway will very much depend on what type of
 professional learning experience teachers wish to have. To this end, we are currently working with several
potential partners to build a range of social structures and supports to ensure the scalability of the 21CLD
MOOC model by embedding it within the existing structures across the education landscape in Ireland. In
addition, discussions are already advanced within the university to extend the previously accredited face to
face model to the 21CLD MOOC structure.

4. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has described an innovative model of teacher professional learning that continues to evolve.
Currently, any teacher can access the MOOC assets developed in Phase 3 of the initiative for the eight
modules of the 21CLD course on the Microsoft Educator Platform. In the five months since its launch in
February 2016 over 10,500 have participated in the modules and it is consistently in the top 10 courses on the
Microsoft Educator Platform. However, the content has not, as yet, been designed or hosted on a MOOC
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

platform which lends itself to a more blended model of professional learning. The next phase of
development is to take these assets and to relocate them on a MOOC platform where we can build learner
experiences that relate to the layers outlined in Figure 1. Ultimately, we want to design a MOOC learning
experience that resembles the deep professional learning experiences observed in Phase 1 and 2, so that we
create equitable, dynamic, accountable and sustainable learner-centred digital learning ecosystems
(Incheon Declaration Education 2030, 2015). Among the greatest challenges going forward will be to design
the social supports within the MOOC structure to sustain the collaboration, dialogue and ongoing reflection
that is necessary for the changes in pedagogical orientation and classroom practices (which were observed
across phases 1 and 2). In this sense, although the 21CLD resources are now available to a world-wide
audience, we have still to develop ways that the school-embedded, job-focused model of teacher professional
learning can be scaled effectively so that the teacher professional learning experience is contextualised and
rooted in classroom practice. Possible ways of doing this include the identification of cohorts of teachers at
local and regional levels that would be capable of supporting others, recreating the collaborative nature of
peer coaching and developing communities of practices that would sustain a culture of self-evaluation similar
to that which occurred in Phase1 and 2. We propose to trial this approach in Ireland in 2017 by working with
the national network of teacher education centres. This network is a key provider of professional learning
opportunities for teachers in the region and have indicated an interest in a blended form of the 21CLD model.
The need for transformation from simple resources (or artefacts) into a dynamic community of practice is
the greatest challenge we face to scale this blended model of teacher professional learning.

5. REFERENCES
Ananiadou, K. & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and competences for New Millennium learners in OECD countries. Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development. EDU Working paper no. 41.
Avalos, B. (2011) Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years, Teaching and Teacher
Education, vol. 27, pp. 1020 in Laurillard, D. (2016). The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: professional
development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning Technology.
Bang, J., Dalsgaard, C., Kjaer, A., & ODonovan, M. (2015). Building OOC layers on top of existing courses. Paper presented at the
HOME Conference, MOOCs in Europe Rome.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best-performing schools systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills.
In P. Griffin, B. McGaw and E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17-66). Springer Netherlands.
Brown, M. (2016). MOOCs as social practice: a kaleidoscope of perspectives. Emerging models of learning and teaching in higher
education: From books to MOOCs.
Brown, M. (2015). Looking over the horizon: New learning platforms, old technology debates (pp. 40-48). In B Mooney (ed.), Education
matters: Shaping Irelands education landscape. Galway, Ireland: Education Matters.
Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C. Van-Nest, M.H., Stock, L., & Sutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology
in a field-based teacher training program. Available at: http://pt3.ed.asu.edu/docs/5101-05.pdf
 Butler, D. (2004). Self-determined Teacher Learning in a Digital Context: Fundamental Change in Thinking and Practice. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, Dublin City University.
Butler, D. and Leahy, M (2009) Microsoft Innovative Schools Program Evaluation: Year Two Report Ireland, in collaboration with
Stanford Research Institute on behalf of Microsoft.
Butler, D. and Leahy, M (2008) Microsoft Innovative Schools Program Evaluation: Year One Report Ireland, in collaboration with
Stanford Research Institute on behalf of Microsoft.
Butler, D. & Leahy, M. (2010). Moving Towards Innovation: The development of a sustainable framework for teacher professional
development. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2010 (pp. 3985-3992). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Available at: http://www.editlib.org/p/34003.
Butler, D. & Leahy, M. (2011). Sharing Classroom Practices: A Scalable, Sustainable Model of Teacher Professional Development for
Learning in the 21st Century. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
2011 (pp. 1788-1794). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Butler, D. & Leahy, M. (2015). Moving towards innovation: The development of a sustainable framework for teacher professional
learning in Shaping the Future: How technology can lead to educational transformation.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

Carey, N., & Frechtling, J. (1997). Best practices in action: Follow-up survey on teacher enhancement programs. Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation.
Chuang, I., & Dean Ho, A. (2016). HarvardX and MITx: Four years of open online courses Fall 2012 Summer 2016. December 23,
2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2889436 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2889436
Conole, G. (2013) MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs, Revista de
Educacion a Distancia, vol. 39, [online] Available at: http://www.um.es/ead/red/39/ in Laurillard, D. (2016). The educational
problem that MOOCs could solve: professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning.
Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Helping teachers teach well: transforming professional development. Policy Briefs. Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: Developing capacity for school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan,
74(12), 752-61.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Changing conceptions of teaching and teacher development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(4), 926.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership, 53 (6). 4-10
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning
profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.
Declaration, I. (2015, May). Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. In World
Education Forum.
Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., Means, B., Murphy, R., Penuel, W., Javitz, H., Emery,
D. & Sussex, W. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings form the first student cohort: Report
to Congress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
DES (2015). Digital Strategy for Schools - 2015-2020. Available at: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-
Reports/Digital-Strategy-for-Schools-2015-2020.pdf
Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media
and Technology, 39(3), 328-345.
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).Teacher beliefs and technology integration
practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59, 423-435.
ETA (European Training Agency). (2010). Key Competences. [Online].
Fullan, M., Langworthy, M., & Barber, M. (2014). A rich seam. Pearson
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a
national sample of teachers. American, Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915945
Greene, J. A., Oswald, C. A., & Pomerantz, J. (2015). Predictors of retention and achievement in a massive open online
course. American Educational Research Journal, 0002831215584621.
Hargreaves. A. & Fullan, M., (Eds) (1992). Understanding teacher development, New York: Teachers College.
Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endowment
foundation. Durham, UK: Education Endowment Foundation and Durham University.
Hollands, F. & Tirthali, D. (2014) MOOCs: Expectations and Reality, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Hodges, C., Lowenthal, P., & Grant, M. (2016). Teacher Professional Development in the Digital Age: Design Considerations for
MOOCs for Teachers. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2089-2096).
 ICEF Monitor. (2016). MOOC enrolment surpassed 35 million in 2015. Available at: http://monitor.icef.com/2016/01/mooc-
enrolment-surpassed-35-million-in-2015/
Jobe, W., stlund, C., & Svensson, L. (2014). MOOCs for professional teacher development. In Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference, Mar 17, 2014 in Jacksonville, Florida, United States (pp. 1580-1586). AACE.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 1216.
Joyce, B, & Showers, B. (Eds.), (2002) Designing training and peer coaching: Our need for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Laurillard, D. (2016). The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: professional development for teachers of disadvantaged
students. Research in Learning Technology. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.29369
Law, N., & Chow, A. (2008). Pedagogical orientation in mathematics and science and the use of ICT. In Law, N., Pelgrum, J. &
Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong:
The Comparative Education Research Centre.
Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 15(2), 129151.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 18:08 01 August 2017 (PT)

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., & Hewson, P. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science
education: A synthesis of standards. NISE Brief, 1(1). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin at Madison, National Institute for
Science Education.
NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment). (2009). Senior cycle key skills framework. Dublin:
National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (1996). Teachers take charge of learning: Transferring professional
development for student success. Available at: http://www.nfi.org/report/section1.htm
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005a). The definition and selection of key competencies. Paris:
Author. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_2669073_1_1_1_1,00.html
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2015b). Students, computers and learning: Making the
connection. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at http://www.oecd.org/publications/students-computers-and-
learning-9789264239555-en.htm
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. NewYork:TheFreePress.
Picciano, A. (2014). Online education policy and practice: The past, present and future of the digital university. London:
Routledge.
Plomp, T., Law, N. & Pelgrum, J. (Eds.) (2009). Cross-national information and communication technology. Policies and
practices in education. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.
Richardson, V. (Ed.) (1994). Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Rodriquez, G., & Knuth, R. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. Pathways to School
Improvement. Available at: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htm
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and
inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education,54(4), 297-310
Shear, L., Means, B., Gorges, T., Toyama, Y., Gallagher, L., Estrella, G., & Lundh, P. (2009). The Microsoft Innovative Schools
Program Year 1 evaluation report. Seattle: Microsoft.
Shear, L., Gallagher, L., & Patel, D. (2011). ITL Research: Evolving educational ecosystems. Redmond, WA: Microsoft.
Sharrock, G. (2015). Making sense of the MOOCs debate. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37, (5),
pp. 597-609.
UNESCO (2008). ICT competency standards for teachers: Policy framework. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2011). ICT competency standards for teachers: Policy framework. Paris: UNESCO
Veenman, S. & Denessen, E. (2001). The coaching of teachers: Results of five training studies. Educational Research and Evaluation,
7(4) 385417
Vivian, R., Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. (2014). Addressing the challenges of a new digital technologies curriculum: MOOCs as a scalable
solution for teacher professional development. Research in Learning Technology, 22.
Warren Little, J. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), pp. 913-
945.
White, N. Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). Getting the most from technology in schools Available at:
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/kn-02-01.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2015). New vision for education: Unlocking the potential of technology. Switzerland: World Economic Forum
in collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group. Available at
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_NewVisionforEducation_Report2015.pdf