The potential of online learning, according to the Christensen Institute

A new study, by Thomas Arnett of the Christensen Institute, reports on the findings of a survey of teachers from mainstream districts. It contrasts emergency remote learning (my term, not his) with “online learning’s potential benefits for K–12 [that go] well beyond providing stop-gap solutions during school closures [and] offers an opportunity to transform school instruction to better serve the needs of all students.”
 
The report contains quite a bit of information to unpack, which I’ll present in three parts.
 
Part 1: My minor quibble
In the context of the full study this may seem minor, but I wish Arnett (whose work I admire) had made more of a distinction in language between the emergency remote learning of the past year, and online learning as practiced by experienced schools, providers, and teachers. The sub-title, for example, is “COVID-19, the rapid adoption of online learning, and what could be unlocked this year.” To me the concept is solid, but a greater distinction could have been drawn by calling the instruction of the past year emergency remote learning, and contrasting that with the better online learning that has existed for millions of students already, and ideally may expand for many other students in the future. Arnett and other people at Christensen understand this distinction, but I’m not sure that all of their readers do.
 
Is that point minor or critical? Maybe both—minor in the context of this report, critical in the overall shaping of the narratives regarding success and/or failure of online learning during the pandemic.
 
Part 2: The potential of online learning
The heart of the study is based on a survey asking teachers about five components that make up the potential of online learning. These components are:

• Flexible timing

• Flexible pacing

• Flexible learning pathways

• New metrics of progress

• Expanded teacher capacity

The first three on this list are well known to digital learning advocates, so I won’t dig into them here except to note that the report’s details on teachers’ views on these topics is valuable.
 
The final two topics are worth a closer look.
 
“New metrics of progress” refers mostly to mastery-based learning. After characterizing mastery-based learning, Arnett explains that:
 
“The one major hurdle to mastery-based grading, however, is practical feasibility. This approach hits a significant friction point in schools and classrooms that operate on conventional instruction because conventional instruction requires conformity to uniform instruction and pacing, as noted above. Thus, online learning’s ability to unlock flexibility in path and pace is key to making mastery-based grading and progression logistically feasible.”
 
Did pandemic-induced emergency remote learning lead to a significant uptick in mastery-based learning? According to the survey results, not by much:
 
“we sought to gauge teachers’ use of mastery-based grading by asking if they used online resources to facilitate mastery-based learning. Our results…suggest that this practice still has very little uptake among K–12 teachers, with only 9% indicating that they currently use resources that help facilitate this approach.
 
This finding isn’t much of a surprise, for two reasons. First, during the pandemic most mainstream schools and teachers were challenged to figure out remote learning tools, content, etc.; switching to mastery-based learning at the same time was a stretch. Second, in many ways implementing mastery-based learning requires support and/or policy changes at a department, school, or district level.
 
Finally, Arnett looks at “expanded teacher capacity.” In my view, this point is especially interesting because Arnett grounds this examination in online tools and resources being used by students, as opposed to efficiency and productivity tools aimed primarily at teachers.
 
“Arguably, the biggest potential benefit of online learning comes not from how technology supports students’ learning, but from how technology can expand teachers’ capacity. When teachers can rely on online learning resources to provide foundational coverage of course content and basic feedback on students work, they have more time and attention to devote to some of the most important aspects of their jobs: building relationships with students, orchestrating deeper learning experiences (e.g., discussions, projects, experiential learning, etc.), and providing students with individual coaching
and feedback.”
 
Did teachers realize the potential of online learning during pandemic-induced remote learning? The answer is mostly no. From the conclusion:
 
“The survey results suggest that pockets of teachers were able to take advantage of some of the benefits of online learning described above. But, overall, many of these benefits seem largely unrealized in classrooms across the US this past year. In fact, teachers’ answers to the free response section of our survey suggest that most teachers saw this year not as an era of innovation, but as a time of frustration.”
 
Despite that dispiriting finding, the report holds significant value for digital learning researchers and advocates. Part 3 explains why.
 
Part 3: Connecting the dots…
 
The beginning of the report contains this gem:
 
“The foundational tenets of conventional instruction hinge on uniformity and compliance. Schools and classrooms by-and-large need students to conform to a common set of requirements in order for cohort-based learning to work. Unfortunately, nearly all students struggle to one degree or another to fit conventional instruction’s norms." (Emphasis mine just because I love that line.)
 
Transcending “uniformity and compliance” is an excellent summation of the goals of many innovative schools. It’s clear that in most cases, emergency remote learning did not reach this bar—mostly because the goal was to continue instruction as much as possible, not raise the bar on instruction. As Arnett explains:
 
Given their trying experiences, many teachers may see online learning as a flawed mode of instruction. But in reality, last year’s headaches were not the inherent product of online learning, but of the chaos of COVID-19 that led to poorly designed approaches to online learning. When we consider this past year through a lens of institutional change, it’s perfectly understandable why the benefits of online learning were largely unrealized. Unlocking online learning’s power to enable flexible instruction, mastery-based grading, and an expansion of teacher capacity requires more than just plugging technology into schools. It takes foresight, time, and strategic implementation to institute the shifts in practices that unlock the benefits of online learning.
 
As life returns to a degree of normalcy this coming school year, and as schools consider how to use the massive influx of federal funding headed their way, there’s a new opportunity for schools to design instructional models that leverage the benefits of online learning.
 
I agree, and would add—given that the study is based on a survey of teachers—that this opportunity cannot be realized by teachers working alone. It’s going to take excellent teachers working in innovative schools and districts, supported by leaders and policies that allow for invention and risk.