1 K-12 shift to remote teaching & learning (Ontario)

Introduction

The shift to remote teaching and learning resulting from the global pandemic was complex. Multiple factors would impact programming and pedagogy such as resources and resource distribution, teacher competencies, as well as overall well-being. Access to technology and the internet were the first major concern. The rollout of tech was slow and access for many students was intermittent at best. The following design case takes place within this timeframe and under these conditions. References to the design team throughout this design case are in relation to a grade team made up of student success workers, subject-specific coaches, and grade teachers.

Background

In 2019, elementary teachers in Ontario were in contract negotiations and had reached an impasse. The first five months of the 2019-2020 school year were fraught with job action, from work-to-rule to strike action. The climate in public schools was tumultuous and riddled with disruption. Job action increased leading to complete work stoppage and school closures. The impacts of these actions were felt by the students in my school, and by staff such as myself, who run various programs to support student engagement and well-being. Contracts were eventually agreed to, and just as we were back into the swing of things, the global pandemic hit. Schools would shut down again, this time causing unprecedented disruption.

Design/Innovation Process 

As soon as we knew the shift to remote learning was happening, the team discussed the next steps. We wanted to have coherence across grades and to collaborate to put our collective knowledge, or precedent, to use. First, we decided on a shared vision of our objectives by asking ourselves what the digital learning environment would look like and what it would offer our students. We discussed types of learning opportunities; the inclusion of information and computing technologies (ICTs); managing our efforts and student needs. We opened a digital calendar and collectively set up weekly check-ins.

The team’s design process made use of precedent (Boiling, 2010), to pull from past practice to build new solutions in a literal volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment (Adamson, 2016). Together, we managed to model, in real-time, the implications of an AGILE learning design model through innovative considerations for VUCA. Agile learning design allowed for our team to collaborate in an adaptive, practical way to meet the changes that were taking place (Bertram, 2013). It was therefore important that we employed instructional design (ID) competencies such as clear and concise oral and written communications and media production competencies (Sugar, 2014). Throughout the design process, we found ourselves working through multiple iterations, in constant assessment and reflection, on what was and was not working and for whom. In our learning design process, we did not have a client to confer with but we had real-time feedback opportunities embedded into pedagogy. We often found ourselves asking the question “is instruction the solution to this problem?” (York & Ertmer, 2016, p.179) in response to the pressure we faced as both instructors in digital spaces, and as designers of digital learning environments. We acknowledged these complexities and attempted to set ourselves up for success by creating a fluid, quick design process with weekly check-ins.

The iterative cycles became the focus of our weekly check-ins. At times, iterations would emphasize the align stage and leave little time for the get set stage which did two things: allowed instructors and students to co-construct content; and give the team a small respite as most of this planning was taking place during the evenings and weekends. The collaboration, flexibility, and quick-thinking of team members were paramount to the success of designing in this VUCA environment. In the weekly check-ins, we noticed morale began to diminish as the weeks continued on. The team had several concerns such as graduation, awards, and high school transitions. These intangibles were beginning to weigh on us, and we found ourselves openly admitting that we were burning the candle at both ends. We decided that the iterations were unsustainable and that we would have to move our check-ins to every two weeks, and that programming for biweekly outcomes would be beneficial to our well-being which in turn would benefit our students.

Flexibility was key to the sustainability of the learning environment. For example, when a resource missed the mark in student relevancy, or a task was unsuccessful in achieving the learning outcomes, it was archived. In these cases, student feedback would inform the next steps, and a meeting to brainstorm new materials or resources to fill the gap would have to take place to assess measurability and necessary alterations.

Evaluation

Discussions extended outside of our school walls, branching out to members of the middle school community, to friends of friends. We collaborated to ensure we had as many minds working together to create meaningful digital learning environments and digital content, and that we were outsourcing relevant and inclusive materials. Firstly, we would continue to use Google Classroom as a modified Learning Management System (LMS) as it had been in use from the start of the year. Discussion of how we would incorporate this LMS into our virtual learning environments extended to a conversation around purpose and value. It was important that we acknowledged the multitude of digital tools available and their inclusivity.

The ideation of a new learning environment began then with laying the foundation for sustainable student success: how would we ensure that students would be engaged and supported? By naming these two critical components, we were able to move along the innovation continuum from in-person learning supplemented by digital tools, to including relevant digital content and digital resources into the new digital learning environment. ICTs were incorporated with intention (Boiling, 2010), and used to support learning outcomes (Table 1).

The results varied from class to class. Although the design team collaborated to create and recreate a unified product, the facilitation of this product was left to the teacher. In this design case, the role of the teacher and teacher capacities (Bates, 2015) would have an impact on student engagement and achievement. We noticed what worked for one teacher in person was no longer working in the virtual classroom, and the changes required to address this need would depend on the teacher. Another note was the degree to which teachers were flexible, for example, confidence and competence when modifying content for a virtual classroom. In the end, the design team acknowledged one piece that was not explicitly accounted for in the design process but became an integral component of the learning environment: mindfulness. We had included mindful talk in every morning attendance check-in and at every lunch attendance, yet failed to include it as a design component.

The entire process of designing in a VUCA was challenging and rewarding. It revealed many affordances that were not apparent when we were in person, such as the importance of well-being. As a result of this design process, I am better equipped with the skills to navigate both in-person and remote learning and have continued to incorporate ICTs into my in-person classroom to ensure a more inclusive and equitable learning environment (Pultoo & Oojorah, 2020).

Table 1 

ICTs Used to Support Learning Outcomes

References:

Adamson, C. (2016). Learning in a VUCA world – How knowledge workers learn to innovate. OEB insights. Retrieved December 9, 2021, from https://oeb.global/oeb-insights/learning-in-a-vuca-world-how-knowledge-workers-learn-to-innovate/

Bates, A. W. (2015). 4.7 ‘Agile’ Design: flexible designs for learning. In Teaching in the digital age. BCcampus.

Bertram, J. (2013). Agile Learning Design for Beginners. New Palestine. IN: Bottom Line Performance

Pultoo, A., & Oojorah, A. (2020). Designing remote education in a vuca world. International Journal of Computers & Technology, 20, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.24297/ijct.v20i.8713

Sugar, W. (2014). Studies of ID practices: A review and synthesis of research on current ID practices. New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03605-2

York, P. D. C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Examining instructional design principles applied by experienced designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.212