The demands on both teacher and student are so great as to reduce the effectiveness of teaching and learning to far below where it is under Distance Learning. A teacher will have an in-person cohort at the same time he or she has a virtual cohort (and possibly a distance cohort as well). For the teacher to teach synchronously, she will have to monitor both in-person students and virtual ones simultaneously, while also actually teaching the lesson. We have already seen that teaching and monitoring a virtual classroom simultaneously reduces effectiveness: this will all still be in place with the ADDITION of an in-person group (whom the teacher not only has to monitor for academic success, but for medical protocols as well). In this sense, the blended learning environment retains all of the difficulties and problems of the distance learning setup and ADDS not only new academic challenges but unprecedented health challenges as well.
If the argument is made that students who are in virtual attendance do not need to be attending in the same way as the in-person students (i.e., they may attend "asynchronously") then the amount of time each student is receiving live instruction drops dramatically. A move to blended learning that REDUCES live instructional time seems ill-advised. The argument that in-person instruction confers benefits that virtual instruction cannot sounds appealing on the surface, and under ordinary conditions may even be a convincing one. However, consider the circumstances under which this in-person instruction would be given: students would be physically distant from one another, so in-person collaborative learning could not effectively take place (yes, students could collaborate online while in-person, but then the whole point of being in-person is lost. Students meeting in-person in order to collaborate online is such an odd move that even a school district must balk at it). Furthermore, due to social distancing, teachers would be unable to effectively check student work, offer one-on-one assistance, or even handle materials shared by a student. In other words, the students who were present in-person would receive essentially none of the ordinary benefits of being in-person.
Add to this the technological demands placed on staff and students--the same ones that are currently present in distance learning PLUS all the new ones present for the COVID-19 version of in-person teaching. This is not even beginning to address the additional, special problems of accommodating those students who are on Distance Learning, and who would not be in-person at all. In essence, teachers would be doing what they are doing now--conducting Distance Learning--while ALSO conducting in-person learning WHILE ALSO conducting virtual learning for students who are rotating in and out of in-person learning.
There are arguments being made that in-person learning is vital to student social growth, that a return to "normalcy" is necessary. I concur. But the blended learning model is not only "not normal," it is decidedly less normal than distance learning is (or has become.) Students would be returning to a classroom in groups of perhaps a dozen students. That's not normal--they would not see all their friends. They would be masked and mask requirements would be a constant drumbeat from teachers, administrators, and other students. This is also not normal. Students would be required to maintain an awkward six feet of social distance, which would include entry and dismissal from class; they'd be checked at the school gate and asked to provide paperwork verifying their health status. Periodically, students would be denied entrance and sent to "COVID rooms," or would be designated symptomatic while in class and sent away to reduce the risk to others. In-person assemblies, rallies, athletic contests and artistic performances would not exist. Lunch and brunch would cease to exist as social opportunities. Where, then, is the "return to normalcy" in blended learning?
I feel I am an experienced teacher. I feel as if I could, barely, handle the various platforms I'd have to juggle simultaneously. I'd be able to take attendance and get most students engaged, either in person, virtual, or distance, synchronous or asynchronous. I feel I could manage the situation, though with difficulty. But I wouldn't be teaching very well, and therefore, I don't think the students would be learning very well. It'd be a managed classroom, not a place for much learning.
I appreciate that parents want their children to leave their dwellings and physically attend school, even if the educational benefits of so doing are dubious or even nonexistent. However, I've approached this issue from a single standpoint--that of a teacher and his students. I've looked at this from the only angle I know how: what is the best, most effective environment for my students? I realize that other bodies must take into account other factors, such as community political pressure. I am in the advantageous position where I am only able to see this issue through the prism of student success.
Blended learning will not work as well as distance learning. Students will suffer more.
If the argument is made that students who are in virtual attendance do not need to be attending in the same way as the in-person students (i.e., they may attend "asynchronously") then the amount of time each student is receiving live instruction drops dramatically. A move to blended learning that REDUCES live instructional time seems ill-advised. The argument that in-person instruction confers benefits that virtual instruction cannot sounds appealing on the surface, and under ordinary conditions may even be a convincing one. However, consider the circumstances under which this in-person instruction would be given: students would be physically distant from one another, so in-person collaborative learning could not effectively take place (yes, students could collaborate online while in-person, but then the whole point of being in-person is lost. Students meeting in-person in order to collaborate online is such an odd move that even a school district must balk at it). Furthermore, due to social distancing, teachers would be unable to effectively check student work, offer one-on-one assistance, or even handle materials shared by a student. In other words, the students who were present in-person would receive essentially none of the ordinary benefits of being in-person.
Add to this the technological demands placed on staff and students--the same ones that are currently present in distance learning PLUS all the new ones present for the COVID-19 version of in-person teaching. This is not even beginning to address the additional, special problems of accommodating those students who are on Distance Learning, and who would not be in-person at all. In essence, teachers would be doing what they are doing now--conducting Distance Learning--while ALSO conducting in-person learning WHILE ALSO conducting virtual learning for students who are rotating in and out of in-person learning.
There are arguments being made that in-person learning is vital to student social growth, that a return to "normalcy" is necessary. I concur. But the blended learning model is not only "not normal," it is decidedly less normal than distance learning is (or has become.) Students would be returning to a classroom in groups of perhaps a dozen students. That's not normal--they would not see all their friends. They would be masked and mask requirements would be a constant drumbeat from teachers, administrators, and other students. This is also not normal. Students would be required to maintain an awkward six feet of social distance, which would include entry and dismissal from class; they'd be checked at the school gate and asked to provide paperwork verifying their health status. Periodically, students would be denied entrance and sent to "COVID rooms," or would be designated symptomatic while in class and sent away to reduce the risk to others. In-person assemblies, rallies, athletic contests and artistic performances would not exist. Lunch and brunch would cease to exist as social opportunities. Where, then, is the "return to normalcy" in blended learning?
I feel I am an experienced teacher. I feel as if I could, barely, handle the various platforms I'd have to juggle simultaneously. I'd be able to take attendance and get most students engaged, either in person, virtual, or distance, synchronous or asynchronous. I feel I could manage the situation, though with difficulty. But I wouldn't be teaching very well, and therefore, I don't think the students would be learning very well. It'd be a managed classroom, not a place for much learning.
I appreciate that parents want their children to leave their dwellings and physically attend school, even if the educational benefits of so doing are dubious or even nonexistent. However, I've approached this issue from a single standpoint--that of a teacher and his students. I've looked at this from the only angle I know how: what is the best, most effective environment for my students? I realize that other bodies must take into account other factors, such as community political pressure. I am in the advantageous position where I am only able to see this issue through the prism of student success.
Blended learning will not work as well as distance learning. Students will suffer more.
RSS Feed