Virtual School Meanderings

January 17, 2022

[REPOST] Report Review – Class, Take Out Your Tablets: The Impact of Technology on Learning and Teaching in Canada

This item was re-posted from https://k12sotn.ca/blog/report-review-class-take-out-your-tablets-the-impact-of-technology-on-learning-and-teaching-in-canada/

Finally, as was suggested in the entry entitled Report Review – Uncharted Waters: A World-class Canadian E-learning Paradigm, we  wanted to examine the other two reports that were published by the Information and Communications Technology Council.  On Wednesday we reviewed 21st Century Digital Skills: Competencies, Innovations and Curriculum in Canada, and today we review the first report related to distance learning in Canada was:

Class, Take Out Your Tablets

The Impact of Technology on Learning and Teaching in Canada

By Maryna Ivus , Nathan Snider , Trevor Quan  March 7, 2020

Abstract

This study evaluates the increased presence and role of technology in the classroom. Assessing benefits, challenges and future opportunities, this study explores emerging educational technologies, highlights how these digital developments can be leveraged to solve problems, and ultimately how they enhance the student learning experience.

Anchored in a series of insights derived from more than sixteen key informant interviews, this research also showcases the attitudes and insights of educators toward the growing adoption of hardware and software in the K-12 Canadian education system. Accessibility, equity, diversity, connectivity, and teacher training and support were recognized as foundational concepts for large scale implementation of technology in the classroom. Collaboration and partnership between academic institutions and industry, and effective procurement policies for digital tools are pathways for the effective implementation of technology.

Given the challenges and complexities of navigating the Canadian K-12 education system, stakeholder engagement will be crucial to ensuring coordinated efforts. Future efforts must involve policymakers, school districts, educators, parents, Indigenous communities, technology providers, and the general public to address the following issues in emerging education technology:

  • training educators in the use of technology
  • effectively integrating technology into the classroom
  • addressing challenges of insufficient broadband connectivity
  • recognizing unique cultural needs for local communities
  • managing technology-related distractions
  • assessing learning outcomes and new skills development
  • ensuring student data privacy protections

Technology is becoming the fabric of our daily lives and the classroom is no exception. New and transformative technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), Augmented Reality/ Virtual Reality (AR/VR), and many others are rapidly changing our economy and providing new opportunities on a global scale. Regardless of the method of administration, the blending of technology and education has been found to help students achieve better educational outcomes while also expanding their interest in subjects such as computer science, interactive digital media, and cultural preservation.

The demand for talent in Canada’s digital economy is expected to reach approximately 305,000 by 2023.1 Critical areas include data science, user experience design, software development and many other technology roles. But the core skills of this demand are agility, teamwork, flexibility, and the need for lifelong learning. Tech-integrated education changes and amplifies student learning by providing the interactions that can shape their future educational journey and encourage new ways of thinking. By developing these foundational concepts from an early age, technology in the classroom is key to equipping students for success in a rapidly expanding digital economy.

Tagged with: Technology, EdTech, Education, Digital Skills

Like the previous entry, as we reviewed the organization and the same three authors in the previous entry, let’s just focus this portion of the review on the methodology and the authors use of the literature.

Examining the Logistics of the Report

The methodology for this report was similar to the first two that were reviewed.

The primary research for this study consisted of a series of sixteen key informant interviews (KIIs) with Canadian educators and education subject matter experts from across the country. KIIs played an important role in gathering insights on trends and needs of K-12 education. Candidates were selected based on their location (urban and rural areas, as well as Indigenous communities), role or responsibility, relationship to technology, administrative leadership and/or influence on teacher training and use of equipment.

A series of structured interview questions were designed to identify the candidates preexisting relationship to technology, student learning, influence on curriculum and policy, current use of education-related technologies and independent views toward technology trends. Qualitative data was extracted in aggregate from these interviews to form the basis for this study.

The secondary research for this study focused on an analysis of literature. A robust literature review was identified and used to highlight or clarify key themes, trends, and emerging realities. (p. 35)

So the same comments and limitations about the content of the report being more about the experiences and opinions of the 16 interviewed individuals – as opposed to truly national trends – still apply.

As the literature review was used a main source of data, an examination of the literature that is used to inform the report is another important tool to determine the understanding that the authors have of the field (as noted in the earlier entries).  Given that the focus of this report is focused on the presence and use of digital technology in the K-12 classroom, a search for that kind of literature – particularly independent research – would be important.  In looking through the 107 endnotes, once again there is a high proportion (potentially even a majority) of sources seem to come from articles published in the popular news media (often Canadian daily newspapers) or from material published on the websites of different government agencies or various companies involved in the e-learning sector.  However, in comparison to the earlier reports that were reviewed, there is also a higher proportion of research studies, particularly those published in peer reviewed journals, that are included in this list of literature.  Further, due to a lack of expertise in things like mobile learning, virtual/augmented reality, or artificial intelligence we can’t speak to the appropriate representation of scholars cited.  However, when it comes to the K-12 distance and online learning scholars that are cited there individuals cited are indeed appropriate for the examples used.

Examining the Content of the Report

Again, this report is focused on the presence and use of digital technology in the K-12 classroom – and K-12 distance, online, and blended learning only makes up a small part of that focus.  So this commentary will focus solely on those portions.  In the executive summary, the authors indicate:

Future efforts must involve policymakers, school districts, educators, parents, Indigenous communities, technology providers, and the general public to address the following issues in emerging education technology:

  • training educators in the use of technology
  • effectively integrating technology into the classroom
  • addressing challenges of insufficient broadband connectivity
  • recognizing unique cultural needs for local communities
  • managing technology-related distractions
  • assessing learning outcomes and new skills development
  • ensuring student data privacy protections (p. 5)

Earlier commentaries were critical of the authors lack of focus on how to use the tools to teach, so it is important to note the second point in the bulleted list – which implies that there is a difference between using the tool (i.e., the first point) and using it to teach (i.e., the second point).  The fact that this was the first of these three reports published makes this omission in the following reports that much more important, as the authors understood this nuanced difference and did indeed ignore it in the subsequent reports.  However, it should also be noted that later in the report, when the discussed the lack of teacher training in greater detail, the authors wrote, “Issues raised included the educators’ level of comfort utilizing digital technologies and a lack of sufficient training opportunities and resources to make this journey smoother” (p. 20).  This statement raises the question of how the authors perceived ‘making that journey smoother’?  Would simply greater knowledge of the tool be sufficient?  Would resources to help them troubleshoot potential student technical issues be enough?  While both would undoubtedly help, nowhere in this sub-section on “Tech Training for Educators” within the larger section on “Educators Speak Out: Challenges or Barriers to Technology Integration in the Classroom” did it reference anything about how to teach with the tool- which is the greater barrier in most instances (at least based on the available research into effective professional development focused on technology integration).

The authors begin a four-page section entitled “Impact on Student Learning: How Tech in the Classroom Trains Students to Think Differently” on page 9.  While not focused on K-12 distance, online, and blended learning, it is important to call out the fact that this whole section is underpinned on the belief in or myth of the digital native.  As we indicated in the previous entry, this myth is a “convenient untruth.”  A reminder that some seventeen years ago, Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) stated “although they are comfortable using technology without an instruction manual, their understanding of the technology or source quality may be shallow” (p. 2.5).  And those that know the research understand and accept this premise.

Moving on to the “E-learning and Blended Learning” sub-section of the “Bringing Digital Learning to Classrooms in Canada: K-12 and Beyond” section and read these statistics, which appear to be taken from our annual report – with no reference, citation, or attribution:

In fact, the number of K-12 students engaged in distance and online learning has remained relatively steady over the past six years, while blended learning activities have shown a sharp increase. Based on enrolment data for 2017-2018, the number of students engaged in K-12 blended learning was around 12.8% of the overall K-12 student population in Canada. Although engagement ranged across provinces, Nova Scotia showed the highest enrolment rate [in blended learning] totalling at 81.7%. (pp. 26-27)

Beyond that oversight, the following Newfoundland and Labrador example was based on research published by faculty from Memorial University of Newfoundland.  The following example of e-learning in Ontario relied heavily upon publications from the Ministry of Education – much of which was not based on the available research, as noted in Barbour and LaBonte (2019).

And that was it for the K-12 distance, online, and blended learning content…

 

References

Barbour, M. K., & LaBonte, R. (2019). Sense of irony or perfect timing: Examining the research supporting proposed e-learning changes in Ontario. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 34(2). http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1137

Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net Gen. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/PDF/pub7101.PDF

This item was re-posted from https://k12sotn.ca/blog/report-review-class-take-out-your-tablets-the-impact-of-technology-on-learning-and-teaching-in-canada/

January 13, 2022

[REPOST] Report Review – 21st Century Digital Skills: Competencies, Innovations and Curriculum in Canada

This item was re-posted from https://k12sotn.ca/blog/report-review-21st-century-digital-skills-competencies-innovations-and-curriculum-in-canada/

As was suggested in the entry entitled Report Review – Uncharted Waters: A World-class Canadian E-learning Paradigm, we wanted to examine the other two reports that were published by the Information and Communications Technology Council.  The second report related to distance learning in Canada was:

21st Century Digital Skills

Competencies, Innovations and Curriculum in Canada

By Maryna Ivus , Nathan Snider , Trevor Quan  April 13, 2021

Abstract

Given this need to take advantage of the opportunities provided by new digital technologies, this paper focuses on the importance of training and support for teachers to ensure that they have the skills and competencies required to integrate technology into an educational setting successfully. While K-12 education has been working in this area for decades, it has adopted the responsibility of ensuring educators are able to teach effectively in both hybrid, and purely digital environments. As technology continues to change the way students learn, it breaks down the physical boundaries of classroom learning, encouraging collaboration, improved interactivity, and allows for greater flexibility for learning needs. ICTC’s primary research identifies the top technical skills required by educators (such as digital literacy, information/media literacy, and LMS fluency and awareness) and the top “human” or soft/transferrable skills (such as digital curiosity, interpersonal communication, and confidence). Similarly, interviewees identified the top technical and academic skills and competencies required by K-12 students for future success (such as digital citizenship, digital fluency, coding, etc.) as well as the top human or transferrable skills needed by students (such as critical thinking, communication, and adaptability, etc.).

The report includes examples of how innovative digital technologies such as 3D printing, AI, VR/AR, Apps, Gamification, and LMS tools are being incorporated into Canadian classrooms to develop future-ready skills and competencies, and which skills and competencies are best developed through their adoption in K-12 schools.

Tagged with: Technology, EdTech, Education, Digital Skills

As we reviewed the organization and the same three authors in the previous entry, let’s just focus this portion of the review on the methodology and the authors use of the literature.

Examining the Logistics of the Report

As for the actual report, the “primary research for this study consisted of a series of 20 key informant interviews (KIIs) with Canadian educators, education subject matter experts, members of educational administration, educational consultants and private industry from across the country” (p. 58).  There is no specific reference to who the 20 interviewees were, other than “Candidates were selected based on their location (urban and rural areas, francophone, as well as Indigenous communities), role or responsibility, relationship to technology, administrative leadership and/or influence on teacher training and use of equipment” (p. 58).  The authors themselves suggest that this represented “a modest sample pool of interviewees… [which] means that these responses must be regarded as insights and cannot necessarily be taken as objective “trends” that represent the Canadian experience” (p. 59).  That is the academic way of saying that the findings are more likely to represent the opinions – informed as they are – of the 20 individuals selected and not necessarily representative of ‘the skills and competencies required to integrate technology into an educational setting successfully.’

The authors also indicated that the secondary research for the study was their literature review.  The authors wrote, “a robust literature review was identified and used to highlight or clarify key themes, trends, and emerging realities” (p. 58).  So let’s look at that literature review…  As was discussed in the earlier entry, an examination of the literature that is used to inform the report is another tool to determine the understanding that the authors have of the field.  In looking through the 144 footnotes, once again the majority of sources seem to come from articles published in the popular news media (often Canadian daily newspapers) or from material published on the websites of different government agencies or various companies involved in the e-learning sector.  The research that is used is primarily from the higher education environment.  While there is some use of K-12 e-learning literature, it is scant and many of the seminal researchers – both within Canada and internationally – are completely absent from the report (e.g., when it comes to K-12 e-learning and teacher education, authors such as Archambault, Kennedy, and Rice would be expected at the very least).  Similarly, nine months earlier we published the  Teacher Education and K-12 Online Learning report, which given the focus of this report “on the importance of training and support for teachers to ensure that they have the skills and competencies required to integrate technology into an educational setting successfully” (p. 10), raises questions with its absence.

Examining the Content of the Report

Let us start by saying that the findings of this report are much more nuanced that the previous one that was reviewed.  For example, the report begins by stating:

The global advance of the COVID-19 pandemic has created uncertainty in education: mass school closures in March 2020, re-openings in September 2020, and various measures to mitigate health risks, including masks for older children and groups, face shields, sanitizer, temperature checks, physical distancing, hybrid or distance education, and altered school-bus services.9 As of April 2021, the trend leans toward in-class schooling or blended learning models where the risk of school closures remains high. However, this situation remains fluid, with schools transitioning back to online learning in various provinces as COVID-19 cases fluctuate. As students continue to learn online given the widespread usage of digital technologies, online education is likely to remain a prominent theme. As a result, the need for a contemporary understanding of digital skills and competencies may never be higher.

From the very first paragraph, the authors situate the need for changes to teacher education within the unique demands that have been placed on educators by the remote teaching during the pandemic.  However, that nuanced perspective gave quickly gave way (in part due to the broader focus of the report on digital skills, which was not the fault of the authors).

While the authors often overstate the amount of online learning at the K-12 level and the amount of usage of digital tools in the schools, the aspect that they overlook the most is the lack of pedagogical training that teachers have on how to teach with these tools.  For example, the authors stated:

Prior to COVID-19, schools often required faculty who were already comfortable with digital systems to manage their online online initiatives and activities—both in class and for the school at large. ICTC’s 2020 study, Class, Take Out Your Tablets: The Impact of Technology on Learning and Teaching in Canada, cites two primary challenges to effective tech adoption by educators:

  • Lack of available support for IT services at the school level, and
  • Lack of training and long-term support provided by vendors for new technologies and equipment.

Undoubtedly, educators who lack support or familiarity with digital systems are bound to see limited success in teaching in the future. (p. 16)

This statement underscores this oversight.  Both of these statements focus on knowledge on how to use the technology or knowledge of how to troubleshoot the technology.  Neither of these statements focus on how to teach with the technology.  Since the 1980s teacher preparation programs have included content, often in the form of standalone “technology in education” courses, that have focused on how to use technology commonly found in education settings.  Too often these courses have not included much content on how to teach using these technologies, which has resulted in multiple generations of teachers that have some facility with the technologies, but simply not enough pedagogical knowledge and – as the authors note – local support to be able to integrate these tools.  The other issue raised by a statement like this is the focus on the vendors being the ones to provide the training and support.  A vendor who is responsible for designing technology is generally not a pedagogical expert.  While they can provide some training on how to use the technology, the chances are that they are ill equipped to provide training on how to teach students of differing abilities and differing ages using these tools.  It also speaks to an abdication of the public responsibility of government (and its agents in the school districts/boards) and teacher education programs (most of which are publicly-funded universities) to prepare teachers. Essentially, it is privatization of this function.

This sentiment (or observation) is further underscored by comments like, “One respondent with 15+ years of teaching experience noted that students are often more familiar with the technologies being leveraged than their instructors” (p. 21).  From a research-based pedagogical standpoint, the myth of the digital native is well established.  However, from a practitioner standpoint this view continues to be a “convenient untruth.”  The reality is that if students were so pedagogically skilled with technology they would be using those tools on their own.  As Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) stated – some seventeen years ago – “although they are comfortable using technology without an instruction manual, their understanding of the technology or source quality may be shallow” (p. 2.5).

Having made these criticism, there is a lot of useful information in this report – particularly in the broader realm of digital skills (i.e., beyond a strict focus on K-12 distance, online, or remote learning).  It was somewhat disappointing to see these skills couched within the framework of 21st century skills.  First because we are 22 years into the 21st century and if we aren’t teaching these skills already, there are bigger problems than the role of technology.  But moreso because if you look at the list of skills that are included in their “21st century” skills (i.e., critical thinking, communication [language/etiquette], adaptability, creativity [troubleshooting], learning autonomy [independence], collaboration, determination, computational thinking, problem solving, empathy, curiosity, confidence, and resilience) they appear to be a list of soft learning skills that I learned in my own K-12 schooling during the 1980s and 1990s, or even a list of skills that my grandfather – a member of the greatest generation – learned in his eight years of formal schools in a small, rural, one-room school during the 1920s and 1930s.  In fact, I’d argue that some of these “21st century” skills – such as critical thinking, adaptability, empathy, and curiosity – were taught better in the 20th century, and all we need to do is look at the increased polarization that is often based on or resulting from a lack of understanding and knowledge of basic facts of the world around you to see evidence of this observation.

Either way, the authors conclusions that “educators will also need stronger digital literacy, updated pedagogical methodologies, continued professional development and support to take advantage of technology developments” (p. 57).  Given my earlier criticisms of the report’s content, it is particularly important that the authors included the phrase ‘updated pedagogical methodologies, continued professional development and support to take advantage of technology developments,’ even if the majority of their report focused the ‘need stronger digital literacy.’

References

Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net Gen. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/PDF/pub7101.PDF

This item was re-posted from https://k12sotn.ca/blog/report-review-21st-century-digital-skills-competencies-innovations-and-curriculum-in-canada/

January 11, 2022

[REPOST] Report Review – Uncharted Waters: A World-class Canadian E-learning Paradigm

This item was re-posted from https://k12sotn.ca/blog/report-review-uncharted-waters-a-world-class-canadian-e-learning-paradigm/

These two news items came across our electronic desk just before the holidays.

Report includes Indigenous lens on remote learning in Canada

Report finds only 17 per cent of households on First Nations had access to broadband internet connectivity
virtual_remote_learning_student_desk_covid
A new report, including experiences of Indigenous youth who are disproportionately impacted by existing distant learning challenges, has been released.

The 56-page report, which is titled Uncharted Waters: Toward A World-Class Canadian E-Learning Paradigm, was released on Dec. 8.

To continue reading, click https://www.timminstoday.com/local-news/report-includes-indigenous-lens-on-remote-learning-in-canada-4878722

Report eyes remote learning through Indigenous lens

As of last year, 17% of households on First Nations had access to broadband internet: Auditor General
pexels-burst-374074
A new report, including experiences of Indigenous youth who are disproportionately impacted by existing distant learning challenges, has been released.

The 56-page report, which is titled Uncharted Waters: Toward A World-Class Canadian E-Learning Paradigm, was released on Dec. 8.

To continue reading, click https://www.midlandtoday.ca/local-news/report-eyes-remote-learning-through-indigenous-lens-4888329

Now the actual report that is being discussed was:

Uncharted Waters

A World-class Canadian E-learning Paradigm

By Maryna Ivus , Nathan Snider , Trevor Quan  December 10, 2021

Abstract

Tagged with: EdTech, Education, eLearning, Distance Learning, Digital Fluency

As this is an organization that is new to the field of K-12 distance, online, and blended learning, it is worth looking at the organization and individuals behind the report.

Examining the Logistics of the Report

According to their website, the “Digital Think Tank by Information and Communications Technology Council (ICTC) is the research and policy arm of the ICTC” and they “provide future-focused research and publications that inform evidence-based policies and forward-looking insights for the digital economy.”  The team listed for ICTC, the vast majority are trained in economics or business, with a fair amount of political science or public policy through in there (even a couple with engineering, medical, or anthropology backgrounds) – although not all indicate their educational backgrounds.  Of the 21 people that are listed, there is only one with any mention of education in their academic background and that one is described as their “academic background stems from Nipissing and Athabasca University’s social science programs, with post-grad explorations in the field of ethics in technology, Indigenous research methodologies and Indigenous education” (whereas most of the profiles that did reference an academic background referred to specific degrees).  This is not to suggest that folks who aren’t trained in the field of education have nothing to offer to the conversation around educational practice or policy.  But it also means that those individuals may not be aware of established understandings in the field that are just known by those in the field (e.g., that there is no research to support individual learning styles as one often used example).

As for the actual report, the “primary research for this study consisted of a series of 20 key informant interviews (KIIs) and were held with a variety of subject matter experts from across Canada” and “a survey on distance learning to understand the perspectives of both students and parents… between February and March of 2021” (p. 49).  There is no specific reference to who the 20 interviewees were, other than “representation from Indigenous populations along with other members who self-identify as being part of Canada’s various communities: Black, and other people of colour (BIPOC). Representation included K–12 educators, higher learning professors, curriculum consultants, e-learning strategists, educational administrators, and educational directors from prominent Canadian teacher colleges” (p. 49). They surveys had 1063 responses from “556 parent respondents, and 507 student respondents primarily from the same families” (p. 49).

Beyond looking at the academic background of the authors and the organization, and how those might impact the quality of the work; as well as the methodology that was used and how that might skewed the findings that were presented, an examination of the literature that is used to inform the report is another tool to determine the understanding that the authors have of the field.  In looking through the 165 footnotes, the majority of sources seem to come from articles published in the popular news media (often Canadian daily newspapers) or from material published on the websites of different government agencies or various companies involved in the e-learning sector.  The research that is used is primarily from the higher education environment.  While there is some use of K-12 e-learning literature, it is scant and many of the seminal researchers – both within Canada and internationally – are completely absent from the report.

Examining the Content of the Report

The findings of the actual report are difficult to argue against in some cases, are obvious in some cases, and represent a misunderstanding of what is happening in other instances.  For example, I suspect that anyone involved in the field of K-12 e-learning would argue against the sentiment that “Canada must prepare for a future where e-learning is not just an emergency response but a common practice” (p. 5)  As we have seen K-12 e-learning grow from less than 1% of students engaged in some form of distance learning to approximately 6% of students in the past 20 years.  What is needed to see that figure grow to 10% or 25% or 50% or 100%?  What do Ministries of Education and/or higher education teacher preparation programs have to do to better equip and prepare educators so that they can accommodate this future?

However, the authors also suggested that “the mass e-learning experiment experienced by millions of Canadian students and parents over the last 18 months of the pandemic has been paradigm changing” (p. 6).  The past two years have not been a mass e-learning experiment.  If it had been an experiment, the experimenters would have established specific conditions or parameters that the e-learning would have been undertaken.  There would have been training provided to the teachers.  A variety of distance learning resource materials to supplement the existing curriculum would have been created.  Policies would have been put in place to accommodate the disruption of learning that occurred from the initial and immediate school closures which students did not recover from.  As we described in the Understanding Pandemic Pedagogy: Differences between Emergency Remote, Remote, and Online Teaching report, what happened in March-April-May 2020 represented emergency remote teaching, where:

Institutions making an all hands on deck movement to remote delivery, often relying on synchronous video, with massive changes in just four weeks. Educators do whatever they can to have some educational presence for all classes online. Commenters have rightly pointed out that students’ and educators’ health and safety are more important than worrying about quality course design or even equitable access. Think of this phase as ‘Put everything [online] and worry about details later.’ (Barbour et al., 2020, p. 3)

As schools and districts moved into the next phase there was more of a focus on quality of instruction and equitable access, there was some additional contingency planning.  However, the reality is that almost all jurisdiction have never gotten past these first two phases.  Phase three of this ‘mass e-learning experiment’ would have been when the system was at a stage where it didn’t matter if the instruction was being provided face-to-face, at a distance, or some combination of the two because both educators and students were adept enough in either environment to handle the toggling between instructional mediums.

To take a step further, the authors of this report state that “Educators in this study were undecided about whether distance learning is better suited to older students at secondary school levels or higher: however, they did express that socialization and classroom routine is more critical in early years” (p. 6).  This is an example of one of these long held beliefs that certain populations of students or certain subject areas are more or less suited for distance learning.  However, within the field we know that this would be akin to suggesting that certain populations of students or certain subject areas are more or less suited for teaching in a face-to-face setting?  Educators across the spectrum understand how assine a question this would be.  Those in the field of K-12 e-learning understand that like we do in the face-to-face environment, different populations of students need their distance learning designed, delivered, and supported in different ways to ensure that they have success.  And as well meaning as the instruction provided over the past two years have been, and the monumental efforts that educators have undertaken, the reality is that – as noted in the previous paragraph – this has not been distance learning or e-learning.  What the students and parents, and even the experts, have experienced over the past two years has been remote learning at best, emergency remote learning at worse.  Of course older students have generally been better suited for what we’ve seen over the past two years, because they are better able to overcome the deficiencies in how these remote offerings have been designed, delivered, and supported!

Overall, this report offers little that hasn’t already been referenced by other organizations in this space.  What is does offer to those involved in K-12 e-learning is muted by the limitations found with others aspects of the report.  With a more informed understanding of the context, the data might have proven to be more useful and those more nuanced findings could have been more impactful.  Interestingly, either in the news items or in the report itself (maybe both), it indicated that this was the third report that the Information and Communications Technology Council had released on distance learning in the country since early 2020.  So naturally, we went looking for the other two – more to come on those reports on Wednesday and Friday.

References

Barbour, M. K., LaBonte, R., Kelly, K., Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, A., & Hill, P. (2020). Understanding pandemic pedagogy: Differences between emergency remote, remote, and online teaching. Canadian eLearning Network. https://k12sotn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/understanding-pandemic-pedagogy.pdf

This item was re-posted from https://k12sotn.ca/blog/report-review-uncharted-waters-a-world-class-canadian-e-learning-paradigm/

Blog at WordPress.com.