All that to say, I've spent a great deal of my career exploring how digital technologies might augment our teaching, but I'm also well aware of the shortfalls.
The recent pandemic shutdown has driven a lot of teachers and students online, and the framing by our Ministry early on was very elearning focused, but a colleague in our first ever staff video conference said something that resonated with me: this isn't elearning, it isn't business as usual, this is emergency response remote learning - we're not 'going online' we're doing everything we can to keep education alive at a time when it's too easily dismissed. This might sound like an arbitrary distinction, but it isn't. Not everyone needs to go online, and in many cases (as in the 2011 career studies experiment above), we have a sizable portion of our student population who cannot learn effectively in that space. When you also toss in the inequity of online learning, it leaves option looking like a very poor go-to. As educators, whenever we see the system roll out an undifferentiated, blanket response to an issue (like EQAO), we should take a hard pedagogical look at it. Uniform responses that don't honour our student (and teacher's) individual approaches to learning and teaching are, by definition, unresponsive and ineffective.
Since the school closures happened I've been very conscious of the economically disadvantaged students who have been cut off at home. This may very well be a home that isn't safe, isn't providing adequate care and isn't where the student wants to spend their time. The "stay at home" message that started this off is couched in privilege. For many students home isn't a nice word. I've been frustrated by the lack of initiative shown in this crisis, but the digital divide many of our students face was something we could have addressed before, but didn't. Some leaders are now using that lack of equity as an excuse to do nothing, which strikes me as the worst kind of hypocrisy. If we messed it up before, we're messing it up now for even more people because what we didn't do before is an excuse to do nothing now? Wow.
I'm also staggered that there is evidently no one in the largest school system in the country who is responsible for emergency response planning. We seem to be making it up as we go and delivering planning by press conference (evidently this are no communications going to boards before hand to begin preparing), and we've already lost three weeks planning something that should have been in place from the go.
You know what's harder than teaching remotely? Teaching remotely using unclear and constantly changing expectations.
You know what's harder than teaching remotely? Teaching remotely using unclear and constantly changing expectations.
So here we are, in a pandemic situation that people have been warning is coming for years. Our solution is to throw elearning at it, and (so far, 3 weeks in) do nothing to address the fact that thousands of Ontario students don't have the devices at home and/or the internet connectivity to access it - and those are the students who most needed education to support them from the beginning.
There is a reason why we truck in students on diesel fume spewing school buses each day to a face to face learning environment; public education is the great equalizer. More than anything else it helps us find the best in our population and enable them to achieve beyond the socio-economic situation they find themselves in. For wealthy students school can feel like a step down from a life of choice and excess, but for others it is a bastion of reliability; the only time in their day when they're talking to dependable, capable adults. For some it's the only time when they aren't hungry, and our solution in an emergency situation that demands isolation is to ignore them?
 |
| Level 3 means you can take a time and date out of an email and put it in an online calendar, this isn't rocket science. |
Could elearning work? It has in my experience, and I'm seeing some of my very digitally fluent seniors doing outstanding work online now. I've had some very positive elearning teaching experiences where we leveraged technology and created a remote learning environment that was rich and responsive. When it has happened, it was with a digitally focused and experienced teacher and voluntary students who also had the resilience and technical expertise to make it happen.When you teach online it feels like you're looking at your students through a wrong-way-around telescope. I described this recently in terms of bandwidth. When you're face to face with someone you're able to read their body language in fine detail. The tone of their voice isn't a dimensionless thing coming out of a tiny computer speaker, but it doesn't end there. I've had students with obvious (when face to face) hygiene issues that I'm able to notice and subtly address by getting our councillors involved. I'm able to leverage the fantastic food school resources our school offers to get hungry students fed when we're face to face. I'm able to overhear student conversation in class that gives me the context I need to connect with them more effectively. I'm able to present body language and nuance of voice that develops trust and a human relationship. I'm able to differentiate instruction with students quickly and effectively while face to face. I'm able to close the digital divide for all my students when they enter my lab. Doing all this in school means I'm also doing it in a place with social conventions aimed at teaching and learning that define and direct what we're doing - you don't get any of that online. There is a reason we learn best face to face, it has way better bandwidth than any digital option. Even if you and your students are digital ninjas, remote/online learning is always going to be a lower bandwidth, less effective option that face to face learning.
In a perfect world we'd develop our staff and student's digital fluency and engage in augmented 21st Century learning using digital tools and connectivity to enhance our ability to collaborate and communicate (and be ready for bizarre emergencies like this one), but it makes for a poor replacement; educational technology for augmentation is a worthy pedagogical goal. Educational digital technology replacing face to face learning isn't pedagogically motivated, it's usually tied to scalability and the resultant monetization of a platform, usually with an eye to reducing costs and centralizing control. The elearning push by Ontario's current government was entirely focused on this without any thought given to the digital divide, dearth of digital skills and pedagogically reductive nature of remote elearning.
This pandemic has shone a harsh light on the inadequacies of our system in terms of emergency response and digital skills training, as well as highlighting the ongoing digital divide. A good that might come of it is that we begin to address all of these issues and build a more resilient and effective education system that is able to take initiative and respond to an emergency situation without taking a month to think about it. The resultant remote learning will still be inferior to what we can do in school, but as it stands now we've taken too long to do something we're not ready to do anyway. As we limp out of this situation, we need to take a long hard look at how unprepared we were to deal with this.
