Will pandemic changes to education “bend the arc” towards student-centered learning?
A recent post looked at results from a survey sponsored by the Christensen Institute, finding that “room and Zoom” hybrid instruction was common but not popular, and a substantial number of districts plan to continue with some form of online learning.
Where the first two sections of the report are based on survey findings and interview results, the final section is more speculative. To be honest, on my first read I felt it was a bit of a stretch.* As I think about it more, however, I’m intrigued by the case that author Thomas Arnett makes. (The quotes below are out of order compared to the original.)
Arnett starts with a statement that many DLC members and blog readers will agree with:
“Conventional instruction operates on an assumption that effective learning can happen for all students on a uniform schedule: students attend school at the same times on the same days and participate in the same lessons at the same pace as the rest of their classmates. The problem with this one-size-fits-all approach is that it rarely fits individual students’ needs. Even before the pandemic, students arrived in K–12 classrooms with different background knowledge, cultural and linguistic identities, family resources, parent education levels, personality traits, natural aptitudes, interests, developmental challenges, and past trauma. School systems that only make minor accommodations for these variations will inevitably frustrate many and leave some behind. K–12 students deserve schools and instructional models that can better personalize learning experiences to meet their individual learning needs and nurture their unique potential.”
He also points out that parents want new options:
“Fifty-one percent of parents surveyed by the National Parents Union in June 2021 indicated that they think schools should be “rethinking how we educate students, coming up with new ways to teach children moving forward as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.” And although most parents would prefer to have their children learn next year in person on their school’s campus, 19% want their children to learn remotely or online and 22% want hybrid learning options.” (Citations left out here but available in original.)
Based on these observations, he argues that
“Given these realities, the time is ripe for school systems to invest in student-centered learning options.”
By student-centered options, he appears to mean “for all students,” in that his first strategy is
“Empower teachers to make their classrooms more student-centered.”
This is where I became a bit skeptical, for this reason: it feels entirely reasonable to conclude that the pandemic experience has shown that a substantial percentage of students and parents want new options. But it’s also accurate to say that about the same percentage—in fact probably more than half—want schools to be more or less their pre-pandemic selves. Therefore it seems a stretch to suggest that all teachers should be making changes to be more student-centered. Of course, nobody is going to argue that instruction should be less student-centered. But perhaps much instruction was already appropriately student-centered, in the view of many parents, or perhaps changes to be more student-centered would have negative consequences.
In sum, my argument comes down to: the district response should be to offer options to all students, but not necessarily to make changes for all students.
But as mentioned earlier, as I studied Arnett’s argument, I came around to the idea that his strategies may make sense. His points, in summary form:
Teachers learned many new online tools and instructional strategies during the pandemic, and they are ready to use them much more broadly.
Districts invested in online tools and resources broadly during the pandemic, and they can and should continue to be used.
Existing online and hybrid schools, and districts that were using technology to transform learning for all their students, illuminate a path forward.
Learning hubs or pods, combined with online schooling and courses, “could be powerful incubators for student-centered learning.”
There’s a lot to unpack here, more than I can cover in full detail in two blog posts. The entire study is worth a read, and I would love to hear others’ thoughts!
*Given that, as referenced above, I was a commenter on a draft, Arnett could fairly ask me “why didn’t you raise this in the draft version?” I can only say that either 1) I didn’t read it as closely the first time, or 2) my views are inconsistent.