COVID HAS PRODUCED BETTER LEARNING? REALLY?

As children and young people in NSW and Victoria – and their parents! - endure yet another long spell of home schooling and remote learning, and their student peers in the USA return to school, many of them for the first time in over a year, University of Kansas School of Education Professor Yong Zhao poses the question, Could the pandemic change education for the better? (in ascd.org , 1 Sep 21).

?Zhao acknowledges that COVID-19 has turned schooling into a universal large-scale experiment. Education systems, schools, and classrooms have had to stop many old practices and invent new ones, he continues, but he cautions against too hastily resuming pre-pandemic ways of functioning. These changes were difficult and undertaken in a period of social crisis, he reminds us, suggesting that instead of getting back to what was normal pre-Covid, perhaps some of what we stopped, like state standardised testing in some cases, should not be returned to, and some of what we built or ramped up, like certain aspects of remote learning, should continue.

?In short, our recent experience has the potential to alter the “one-to-many” model of education, Zhao asserts.

?Changing the Way Learning Happens

Zhao reminds us that remote learning is not new, but what was new was that COVID-19 made it universal, for?all?teachers and?all?students. School systems’ response to the pandemic ultimately provided internet access and digital devices to millions of students who did not have such access at home prior to the?pandemic, Zhao says. That was as true in Australia as it was in the USA, and even now, in both countries, inequities persist in access to technology and quality of instruction.

?Our own experience here in fact attests that not all teachers and students (especially those who were the most vulnerable) have had a great experience with remote learning. It is also true that many parents had to quit their jobs or rearrange their employment commitments to take care of their children at home, which is clearly unsustainable for stable employment and for the nation’s economy. More disturbing still is the fact that students of all ages have missed out on up to a year’s worth of socialising with friends at school, as well as on the out-of-class experiences – in sport, cultural activities and outdoor education, excursions and field trips - that supplement and enrich the students’ experience.

?Yet it is important to note that remote learning also ushered in potentially positive changes to the way schools operate, as Zhao point out. First, the pandemic ignited a one-of-a-kind—worldwide—universal learning experience spurred by technology, he observes. ?He acknowledges that the design of online learning may not have been perfect because of the lack of experience, training, and resources on the part of schools, not to mention the lack of time educators had to discuss, plan, and essentially upend the way instruction was delivered. But it moved educators to action, he says, adding that education technology researchers and advocates have been trying to convince teachers to make greater use of technology in the classroom for decades without much success.

At the very least, remote learning introduced students and teachers to a significantly different learning model, albeit one pieced together through trial and error.

?Second, remote learning greatly expanded the way learning happens, Zhao says, adding, ??having access to online technologies with permission from parents and teachers meant that students could explore online education resources without being interrupted. It showed them that they could pursue their own learning with less teacher direction and more autonomy. Their learning could go way beyond their classes in schools, and extend beyond the regular school day.

?Zhao’s third positive point about remote learning is that it expanded the definition of?learning time. Although learning technically happens all the time, traditional schooling has limited it to in-school seat time and homework time. According to Zhao, remote learning has changed that. Without having to attend school in person and with access to learning materials 24/7, we no longer have to constrain learning to certain times. Instead, learning and life are intertwined. Learning?is?life.

?Fourth, Zhao asserts, the switch to remote learning drastically expanded the definition of?learning place. Yong says that remote learning has shown us that it is no longer true that the classroom, or the school, is the only place for knowledge-building. Students can learn even when they are at home from a diverse set of materials and experts. They can also interact with peers from afar, he suggests.

?These few things could fundamentally change schooling for the better, if properly integrated with in-person learning, Zhao wants us to believe. He accepts that remote learning was instituted as an emergency response—and received some warranted pushback from students, families, and educators alike— but at the same time, Zhao encourages us to examine ways to improve it and make it part of our teaching repertoire going forward. With careful planning, virtual learning can supplement?and?enhance bricks-and-mortar instruction, he states.

?Three Learning Borders

?Zhao discusses how our recent experience with remote learning could help us address one of the biggest problems facing schools today: the one-to-many model of education. There is one set of standards, one curriculum, one teacher, one classroom, one test, and one pathway for all students, he reminds us. Although essentially discredited, this model has been in practice for a long time. It fails to meet the diverse needs of all students and fails to prepare students for a world transformed by technology and globalisation.

?In Zhao’s view, the one-to-many model has created borders that restrictively define the place and time of learning. We know all about slammed-shut borders in Australia in these Covid-dominated times! Zhao’s borders determine what, when, and how learning happens; when and how assessment should be conducted; and when a child or young person is ready to progress in school, eventually to graduate and ultimately to enter society. These borders also define the future and social mobility of learners.

He identifies three especially pernicious borders which need to be redefined: curriculum,?testing, and?classroom borders.

Curriculum Borders All schools operate with some sort of curriculum. The curriculum decides what children should learn in school and how fast the learning should take place. The curriculum is divided into different grades and or stages, conventionally based on age. Every student needs to fit within the curriculum, completing what is prescribed for them.

?Almost by definition, Zhao emphasises, the curriculum creates, but more importantly, it also limits, opportunities for learning. In a sense, he claims, curriculum prescribes what is to be learned, forcing schools (in theory) to offer the same learning opportunities to all students.

?Yet the curriculum is restrictively selective. Teaching some topics automatically excludes the teaching of other topics. Curriculum borders have placed tremendous pressure on students and have caused massive damage to learning, Zhao affirms, adding, students, whether ready or not, interested or not, are asked to study the same content because it is prescribed by an authoritative body that believes the content is meaningful and necessary.

?The popular phrase used today is “university- and career-ready,” Zhao points out. Some specific authoritative body believes that a particular curriculum can prepare students for college and careers, but there is no empirical evidence that the curriculum a school implements does in fact achieve readiness for anything, he argues. As educators, we can all see that the world is changing faster than ever, but how can we be sure that the skills and knowledge we’re teaching today will prepare students for the jobs of tomorrow? We are frequently told today’s kindergarten children will retire from jobs that don’t even exist yet.

?Then there is the pandemic of disengagement besetting particularly our junior high-school-aged students, notably the boys. ?If students are not interested in the prescribed curriculum, they have no other choice but to become disengaged. Only half of adolescents are engaged in school and students’ level of engagement drops with each new grade level. When students are younger, they may just feel bored in school; but when they get older, disengagement can lead to their dropping out.

Borders imposed by standardised testing, NAPLAN and the like In the same way that we limit learning with prescribed curricula, we pigeonhole students with standardised tests. These tests are often seen as a valid and reliable way to assess students and set them up for successful futures. Educational bureaucrats in this country also like to use test data to assess individual school performance. In some schools, principals use standardised test results as part of their staff performance appraisal processes.

?Moreso than here, in the US, when students do not score well, they are placed in remediation or not allowed to advance to the next grade. As Zhao observes, in the US, test scores define a student’s value and their opportunities for learning. For example, many groups advocate for?all?students to be reading on grade level by the end of 3rd grade. The data may indicate that the chances for better outcomes decline if students don’t read well early on. Thus, we should do everything possible to make sure students read proficiently by 3rd grade.

?But this is not the whole story, Zhao continues. The data may be valid from a certain perspective, but the opportunity for a better education and a better life is not necessarily defined by reading proficiency in 3rd grade, he cautions. First, Zhao says, and this perhaps may be the case here in Australia too, the correlation between 3rd grade reading proficiency and future education and life outcomes is more of a reflection of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status than the role of reading abilities. Those who fail to read by 3rd grade are largely from disadvantaged backgrounds. ?

?Perhaps more disturbingly, Zhao notes that the correlation tells us how ineffective our schools are in educating students who are unable to read at grade level. He goes on: It is commonly noted that after 3rd grade, more learning is conducted via reading. But can’t that be changed? he asks. Can’t schools teach students older than 3rd grade effectively without relying exclusively on their ability to read at grade?level?

?Zhao somewhat testily notes that placing a student in remediation or holding them back from other learning opportunities can be tremendously damaging, resulting in a loss of confidence, learned helplessness, and a lack of access to opportunities that may develop that student’s inner talent or passion. I believe, he concludes firmly, remote learning can offer the flexibility and time students need to develop these skills.

Classroom Borders The final way we “border” learning is by organising students into one classroom where they are taught by one adult teacher, Zhao explains. The borders in this case are the physical classroom walls themselves, which limit students’ access to resources outside the classroom. The borders are also what the teacher deems to be legitimate and worthy content and activities. The teacher is typically the only source of instruction for students in this?model.

?Here as well as in the US, there has been a long history of assertions and claims about teacher-to-student ratios; the debate about class size has been a persistent topic in education. Much has also been written about differentiation in the classroom and how difficult it can be to meet the individual needs of students. The real problem, as Zhao ?sees it, is the classroom-border mindset. He continues, if we begin to understand that students can learn from more than teachers and that teachers are not the only source of knowledge, we begin to imagine a much different learning space. Students can learn from and engage with other students, conduct research projects online, and collaboratively participate in explorations online—just as many did during COVID-19!

?The Future of Education

?Remote learning does not automatically make learning better, Zhao concedes, but he goes on to affirm that it does provide and has provided the opportunity for schools to rethink how learning can be structured, organised and delivered. Remote learning, for instance,?can?help remove the borders that constrain students, so it would be a mistake for schools to drop it entirely, Zhao says. As the COVID-19 pandemic wanes, educators must reflect on the role students have in their own learning.

?Schools could start, Zhao suggests, by examining their traditional operations.

?He offers some questions for schools and school systems to consider:

• Do all students need to follow the same curriculum?
• Do all students of the same age need to be taught the same content?
• Do all students need to be in the physical classroom five days a week?
• Do all students need to be taught by local, on-site teachers who are only accessible in real time?
• Do all students need to complete the same examinations?
• Do all students have to complete 12 or 13 ?years of?study?

If schools can thoughtfully but courageously combine remote learning with in-person learning into a new mode of learning, we can truly enable and empower students to?personalise?their learning as owners and partners in educational change, Zhao offers. Students have rarely been considered an active and intentional partner in designing their own learning, he says, noting that government-led reforms over the past few decades have played with almost all the essential elements of education, enumerating them as follows: They changed curriculum. They tweaked assessments. They toyed with teachers and teaching. They held school principals accountable. They experimented with class sizes. ?

But, he says, and it is a big but, they never contemplated involving students in designing their own learning. Students have simply been the recipients of reforms and changes instead of owners and managers of their learning. And the results have not been good.

Zhao details the litany of failed initiatives: The desired outcomes of the reforms have been excellence and equity—excellence being higher levels of achievement by all students, and equity meaning a closure of the achievement gaps between different groups of students. After many decades of reforms, however, we have not achieved either of these aims.

?He takes the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as an example. NAEP is the broad equivalent of our NAPLAN tests. Zhao calls NAEP a test limited in scope, but revealing nonetheless. The 2019 results show that the most basic indicators of educational quality, the assessment of math and reading, have not seen significant improvement since the 1990s. Moreover, the achievement gaps between students of higher and lower socioeconomic backgrounds have failed to close over the past half century.

?Yet, as Zhao points out, in the meantime, a lot has changed. Today’s world looks drastically different from what it looked like in the 1990s when the international-comparison assessments TIMSS and PISA—both highly problematic in my view—first took global measures of students’ performance and national education policies zeroed in on achievement gaps.

?He reminds us too that the internet was just beginning to take hold in the early 1990s, but today, the world could not exist (at least in its current form) without it. Cutting-edge technologies have buried old industries and given life to new ones. No score on a national or international assessment can predict a child’s capability for thriving in an uncertain future.

?Students can no longer be the recipients of a pre-planned education; instead, they need to become active owners of their learning, Zhao affirms. He wants us as educators everywhere to realise and understand that personalised learning – the ultimate way for students to become agents and owners of their own learning - is not done?to?students. It is done?by?students. Educational borders can be broken, and students can engage in a new world of learning which, if not totally enabled by technology, then a new world of learning that is certainly supported by and resourced through technology, which is able to be personally accessed by the student in a just-in-time way that is personally relevant to their immediate need and authentically adopted and owned by them as something of significance to them at their present stage of personal development, knowledge and understanding.

The take-away key learning for us all as educators post-Covid, according to Zhao, is that we must imagine and enable a new learning environment where remote learning is integrated seamlessly with in-person education. In Zhao’s terms, the new learning “normal” post- Covid, the key understanding we all as educators must learn from our own post-Covid experience, is that we can make our students’ learning experience better by making their learning borderless, and by assisting all of our students to become both agents in and owners of their own learning.

?A worthy challenge, that!

?