Data from the Christensen Institute reveals pandemic hybrid learning trends
We have reported that much of the hybrid learning that has taken place during the pandemic was of the “room and Zoom” variety, in which a teacher instructed students both in the physical classroom, and online, at the same time. Our sources have been the districts and other organizations that we work with, and consistent media reports (see here and here, for example.) We have been confident that our view is likely accurate, but it’s still valuable to see a study that digs further into these issues using a survey of teachers and district administrators.
CARPE DIEM: Convert pandemic struggles into student-centered learning does just that. Researchers and author Thomas Arnett of the Christensen Institute surveyed 872 administrators and 1042 teachers, and conducted a handful of follow-up interviews. (Disclosure: I reviewed and commented on a draft version of the report, and both the Digital Learning Collaborative and many of our members are mentioned. Also, the graphics below include the figure number from the original study to allow readers to find them more easily.)
Key findings include:
1. Teachers experiences during the pandemic varied widely. As the study reports, “most teachers experienced in-person, remote, and hybrid arrangements, all within the course of the school year. Furthermore, many were teaching in multiple arrangements simultaneously…” The figures below, copied from the report, shows the data in two graphs:
2. “Room and Zoom” was indeed the most common hybrid arrangement—by far. “Concurrent instruction, in which in-person and remote students participate in the same live lessons…was by far the most popular approach to hybrid learning. Close to 80% of hybrid teachers reported using this arrangement, compared to just 15% who used a split modality arrangement and 13% who used a split schedule arrangement…” In the chart below, “split modality” means that remote students received independent learning activities, and split schedule means that teachers instructed students onsite during part of their day, and separately instructed remote students at another time.
3. This version of hybrid learning was not popular among teachers. Room and zoom does not appear to work well. Quotes from teachers interviewed include:
“I can deal with in-person learning, I can deal with remote learning, but hybrid learning is the absolute worst. It is two jobs at the same time and it meets no one’s needs.”
“Teaching in-person and remote simultaneously is not ideal for students or teachers. I have made it work, but the amount of effort that is required is very draining day to day.”
“I couldn’t really design lessons that were good for online learning or in-person learning. I just had to figure out lessons that could happen for both. So I felt like I was failing everyone all the time.”
4. Despite—or perhaps because of—these experiences, a substantial number of leaders are implementing long-term online learning.
A good graphic is worth a thousand words:
The final portion of the study argues that pandemic-related experiences can, and should, allow districts to put increased “student-centered learning” into place. Arnett makes a nuanced argument that deserves its own analysis, which will be the topic of an upcoming post.