technology in new normal education essay

How technology is reinventing education

Stanford Graduate School of Education Dean Dan Schwartz and other education scholars weigh in on what's next for some of the technology trends taking center stage in the classroom.

Image credit: Claire Scully

New advances in technology are upending education, from the recent debut of new artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT to the growing accessibility of virtual-reality tools that expand the boundaries of the classroom. For educators, at the heart of it all is the hope that every learner gets an equal chance to develop the skills they need to succeed. But that promise is not without its pitfalls.

“Technology is a game-changer for education – it offers the prospect of universal access to high-quality learning experiences, and it creates fundamentally new ways of teaching,” said Dan Schwartz, dean of Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), who is also a professor of educational technology at the GSE and faculty director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning . “But there are a lot of ways we teach that aren’t great, and a big fear with AI in particular is that we just get more efficient at teaching badly. This is a moment to pay attention, to do things differently.”

For K-12 schools, this year also marks the end of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding program, which has provided pandemic recovery funds that many districts used to invest in educational software and systems. With these funds running out in September 2024, schools are trying to determine their best use of technology as they face the prospect of diminishing resources.

Here, Schwartz and other Stanford education scholars weigh in on some of the technology trends taking center stage in the classroom this year.

AI in the classroom

In 2023, the big story in technology and education was generative AI, following the introduction of ChatGPT and other chatbots that produce text seemingly written by a human in response to a question or prompt. Educators immediately worried that students would use the chatbot to cheat by trying to pass its writing off as their own. As schools move to adopt policies around students’ use of the tool, many are also beginning to explore potential opportunities – for example, to generate reading assignments or coach students during the writing process.

AI can also help automate tasks like grading and lesson planning, freeing teachers to do the human work that drew them into the profession in the first place, said Victor Lee, an associate professor at the GSE and faculty lead for the AI + Education initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “I’m heartened to see some movement toward creating AI tools that make teachers’ lives better – not to replace them, but to give them the time to do the work that only teachers are able to do,” he said. “I hope to see more on that front.”

He also emphasized the need to teach students now to begin questioning and critiquing the development and use of AI. “AI is not going away,” said Lee, who is also director of CRAFT (Classroom-Ready Resources about AI for Teaching), which provides free resources to help teach AI literacy to high school students across subject areas. “We need to teach students how to understand and think critically about this technology.”

Immersive environments

The use of immersive technologies like augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality is also expected to surge in the classroom, especially as new high-profile devices integrating these realities hit the marketplace in 2024.

The educational possibilities now go beyond putting on a headset and experiencing life in a distant location. With new technologies, students can create their own local interactive 360-degree scenarios, using just a cell phone or inexpensive camera and simple online tools.

“This is an area that’s really going to explode over the next couple of years,” said Kristen Pilner Blair, director of research for the Digital Learning initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, which runs a program exploring the use of virtual field trips to promote learning. “Students can learn about the effects of climate change, say, by virtually experiencing the impact on a particular environment. But they can also become creators, documenting and sharing immersive media that shows the effects where they live.”

Integrating AI into virtual simulations could also soon take the experience to another level, Schwartz said. “If your VR experience brings me to a redwood tree, you could have a window pop up that allows me to ask questions about the tree, and AI can deliver the answers.”

Gamification

Another trend expected to intensify this year is the gamification of learning activities, often featuring dynamic videos with interactive elements to engage and hold students’ attention.

“Gamification is a good motivator, because one key aspect is reward, which is very powerful,” said Schwartz. The downside? Rewards are specific to the activity at hand, which may not extend to learning more generally. “If I get rewarded for doing math in a space-age video game, it doesn’t mean I’m going to be motivated to do math anywhere else.”

Gamification sometimes tries to make “chocolate-covered broccoli,” Schwartz said, by adding art and rewards to make speeded response tasks involving single-answer, factual questions more fun. He hopes to see more creative play patterns that give students points for rethinking an approach or adapting their strategy, rather than only rewarding them for quickly producing a correct response.

Data-gathering and analysis

The growing use of technology in schools is producing massive amounts of data on students’ activities in the classroom and online. “We’re now able to capture moment-to-moment data, every keystroke a kid makes,” said Schwartz – data that can reveal areas of struggle and different learning opportunities, from solving a math problem to approaching a writing assignment.

But outside of research settings, he said, that type of granular data – now owned by tech companies – is more likely used to refine the design of the software than to provide teachers with actionable information.

The promise of personalized learning is being able to generate content aligned with students’ interests and skill levels, and making lessons more accessible for multilingual learners and students with disabilities. Realizing that promise requires that educators can make sense of the data that’s being collected, said Schwartz – and while advances in AI are making it easier to identify patterns and findings, the data also needs to be in a system and form educators can access and analyze for decision-making. Developing a usable infrastructure for that data, Schwartz said, is an important next step.

With the accumulation of student data comes privacy concerns: How is the data being collected? Are there regulations or guidelines around its use in decision-making? What steps are being taken to prevent unauthorized access? In 2023 K-12 schools experienced a rise in cyberattacks, underscoring the need to implement strong systems to safeguard student data.

Technology is “requiring people to check their assumptions about education,” said Schwartz, noting that AI in particular is very efficient at replicating biases and automating the way things have been done in the past, including poor models of instruction. “But it’s also opening up new possibilities for students producing material, and for being able to identify children who are not average so we can customize toward them. It’s an opportunity to think of entirely new ways of teaching – this is the path I hope to see.”

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 21 December 2020

Transitioning to the “new normal” of learning in unpredictable times: pedagogical practices and learning performance in fully online flipped classrooms

• Khe Foon Hew   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4149-533X 1 ,
• Chengyuan Jia 1 ,
• Donn Emmanuel Gonda 1 &
• Shurui Bai 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  17 , Article number:  57 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

466k Accesses

83 Citations

12 Altmetric

Metrics details

The COVID-19 outbreak has compelled many universities to immediately switch to the online delivery of lessons. Many instructors, however, have found developing effective online lessons in a very short period of time very stressful and difficult. This study describes how we successfully addressed this crisis by transforming two conventional flipped classes into fully online flipped classes with the help of a cloud-based video conferencing app. As in a conventional flipped course, in a fully online flipped course students are encouraged to complete online pre-class work. But unlike in the conventional flipped approach, students do not subsequently meet face-to-face in physical classrooms, but rather online. This study examines the effect of fully online flipped classrooms on student learning performance in two stages. In Stage One, we explain how we drew on the 5E framework to design two conventional flipped classes. The 5E framework consists of five phases—Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. In Stage Two, we describe how we transformed the two conventional flipped classes into fully online flipped classes. Quantitative analyses of students’ final course marks reveal that the participants in the fully online flipped classes performed as effectively as participants in the conventional flipped learning classes. Our qualitative analyses of student and staff reflection data identify seven good practices for videoconferencing - assisted online flipped classrooms.

Introduction

“It’s now painfully clear that schools ought to have had more robust disaster-preparedness plans in place in the event of interruptions in their campus operations. But because many schools did not have such plans in place…online learning is about to get a bad reputation at many campuses, I suspect.” Michael Horn, cited in Lederman ( 2020 ), ‘Inside Higher Ed’.

In early January 2020, scientists identified a new infectious disease caused by a novel coronavirus. Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread disruptions to schools and universities. According to UNESCO, as of April 10, 2020, more than 188 countries had implemented nationwide school and university closures, impacting over 91% of the world’s student population (UNESCO n.d.).

During these school closures, all face-to-face lessons were cancelled, compelling many institutions, including our own university, to immediately transition from face-to-face in-person learning to completely online lessons. The abrupt switch to fully online learning has been particularly stressful for many instructors and students who prefer in-person instruction. Online learning is often stigmatized as a weaker option that provides a lower quality education than in-person face-to-face learning (Hodges et al. 2020 ). Indeed, such negative attitudes to fully online learning were revealed by a large EDUCAUSE survey (Pomerantz and Brooks 2017 ). The survey of 11,141 faculty members from 131 U.S. institutions found that only 9% of faculty prefer to teach a fully online course. In other words, a whopping 91% of faculty do not wish to teach in a completely online environment. Students’ opinions of fully online courses are not much better; a recent student survey by EDUCAUSE of more than 40,000 students across 118 American universities revealed that as many as 70% of the respondents mostly or completely prefer face-to-face learning environments (Gierdowski 2019 ).

Clearly, many faculty members and students do not see the value of fully online learning, despite the fact that online learning has been around for many decades. During the current health crisis, many instructors have had to improvise quick online learning solutions (Hodges et al. 2020 ). For example, in our own university, there are anecdotal reports of a myriad of emergency online methods. Some instructors, for example, merely uploaded their PowerPoint slides or papers onto a learning management system such as Moodle and asked students to read them on their own. Any questions were asked asynchronously on the Moodle forum. Other instructors recorded their own lectures (usually at least one hour long) and asked students to asynchronously watch the video lectures and then ask individual questions later. Still others talked for more than two hours via synchronous video platforms watched by students in their own homes. Although these online methods may be an efficient method of delivering content, they are not particularly effective in promoting active learning and interest (Bates and Galloway 2012 ). As one student remarked, “Sitting in front of my computer to watch a 2-h live lecture without any active learning activities such as group work is pretty boring!” Indeed, without any active learning activities such as peer interaction, a fully online course will feel more like an interactive book than a classroom (Sutterlin 2018 ).

Well-planned active online learning lessons are markedly different from the emergency online teaching offered in response to a crisis (Hodges et al. 2020 ). One promising strategy for promoting online active learning is the fully online flipped classroom pedagogical approach, hereafter referred to as the online flipped classroom approach. An online flipped classroom is a variant of the conventional flipped model. A conventional flipped classroom model consists of online learning of basic concepts before class, followed by face-to-face learning activities (Bishop and Verleger 2013 ). The conventional flipped model has become very popular in recent years due to its association with active learning, which emphasizes students’ active learning (Xiu and Thompson 2020 ). Active learning activities such as peer discussions can help students construct better understandings of the subject material (Deslauriers et al. 2019 ). Recent meta-analyses have provided consistent overall support for the superiority of the conventional flipped classroom approach over traditional learning for enhancing student learning (e.g., Låg and Sæle 2019 ; Lo and Hew 2019 ; Shi et al. 2019 ; van Alten et al. 2019 ).

The online flipped classroom is similar to the conventional flipped classroom model in that students are encouraged to prepare for class by completing some pre-class activities (e.g., watching video lectures, completing quizzes). However, unlike the conventional flipped classroom approach, students in online flipped classrooms do not meet face-to-face, but online (Stohr et al. 2020 ). Although the online flipped classroom appears to be gathering momentum in higher education, very few studies have examined its effectiveness (for an exception, see Stohr et al. 2020 , who compared the online flipped classroom format with a conventional non-flipped teaching format). So far, we are not cognizant of any research that evaluated the efficacy of the fully online flipped classroom relative to the conventional flipped classroom. Establishing the effectiveness of online flipped classrooms is important, as practitioners need to know whether this active learning approach can be used during prolonged school closures.

Against this backdrop, this study compares the effects of online flipped classrooms versus conventional flipped classrooms on student learning outcomes. To this end, two conventional flipped classes in the Faculty of Education are transformed into online flipped classrooms. Students in both the online and flipped classes participated in the online pre-class activity asynchronously using a learning management system. However, students in the online flipped classes joined the online in-class learning synchronously using a video conferencing app whereas their counterparts in the conventional flipped classes attended face-to-face classes. The online flipped courses were designed using the 5E conceptual framework and used a cloud-based video conferencing app. We used the Zoom application after careful consideration of many different videoconferencing platforms. Our reasons for doing so are given in the Section of “Stage Two: Transforming conventional flipped classes into online flipped classes”.

The 5E framework consists of five phases—Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate (Bybee et al. 2006 ).

Engage—The first phase aims to engage students in the learning process. Methods to engage students usually include using a real-world scenario, or problem, asking students questions that allow them to brainstorm or think critically, and helping them to create connections to their past experiences.

Explore—In the exploration phase, the teacher, who works as a facilitator or coach, gives the students time and opportunity to explore the content and construct their own understanding of the topic at hand.

Explain—This phase starts with students attempting to explain specific aspects of the engagement and exploration experiences. Based on these explanations, the teacher introduces terminology in a direct and explicit manner to facilitate concept building.

Elaborate—In this phase, the teacher provided more detailed information about the subject content through the use of mini lectures and/or whole class discussions. Students are also given the opportunity to apply what they have learned and receive feedback from the teacher and their peers.

Evaluate—Formative assessments (e.g., quizzes) can be used to evaluate students’ mastery of the subject material at the beginning and throughout the 5E phases, and teachers can complete a summative assessment after the elaboration phase (e.g., final exams).

We adopted the 5E framework for the following reasons. First, the 5E framework, which is based on various educational theories and models (e.g., Herbart’s instructional model, Dewey’s instructional model, Atkin-Karplus Learning Cycle) (Bybee et al. 2006 ), provides a sound instructional sequence for designing a course and planning activities. The 5E framework can help instructors organize and integrate both the in-class and out-of-class learning activities (Lo 2017 ).

Second, previous research has shown the positive effect of the 5E framework on student achievement. These positive effects were initially established in science education (e.g., Akar 2005 ; Boddy et al. 2003 ). Recently, the 5E model has yielded positive results when applied to various subject areas and when used to design inquiry- and interaction-based learning activities. Mullins ( 2017 ), for example, found that undergraduate students in a 5E-supported class outperformed their peers in a traditional lecture setting. Hew et al. ( 2018 ) designed two postgraduate courses based on the 5E model in order to foster students’ active learning. Ninety-two percent of the participants agreed that the 5E supported courses were more engaging than traditional classroom instruction.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. First, we describe our study design and methodology. This is followed by a description of our two stages of research. In Stage One, we explain how we use the 5E framework to design our two conventional flipped classes; In Stage Two, we describe how we transformed the two conventional flipped classes into fully online flipped classes, using a cloud-based video conferencing app. We describe the various pedagogical practices that Zoom videoconferencing can facilitate before and during online flipped classes. In this paper, we use the term “pedagogical practices” to refer to specific activities that are used to structure teaching and learning. This study is guided by the following two questions.

What effect does the change from a conventional flipped classroom format to an online flipped format have on student learning performance?

What are the good practices for videoconferencing - assisted online flipped classrooms, as perceived by students and/or teaching staff?

This study was conducted in a large public Asian university. Four classes were involved: (a) conventional flipped Course 1, (b) conventional flipped Course 2, (c) online flipped Course 1, and (d) online flipped Course 2. Conventional flipped Courses 1 and 2 were the control group. Online flipped Courses 1 and 2 were the experimental group. To avoid any potential instructor confounding bias, the same professor and teaching assistants (TAs) taught the conventional and online flipped formats of each class. Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Hong Kong and consent forms from all participants in the study were collected.

Data collection and analysis

To reiterate, this study had two purposes: (a) to determine the effect of an online flipped classroom on student learning performance as determined by student final course marks, and (b) to determine good practices for videoconferencing - assisted online flipped classrooms, as perceived by the participants (students and teaching staff). We adopted a mixed methods involving quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a deeper understanding of the research problem (Ivankova et al. 2006 ).

The data collection spanned across two semesters, which corresponded to the aforementioned two stages of the research. The conventional flipped classes were implemented in conventional flipped Courses 1 and 2 during the semester of 2019 Fall before the pandemic (Stage One). Due to the outbreak of Covid-19, all courses were required to be delivered online in our university in the 2020 Spring semester. Therefore, the online flipped classes were conducted in online flipped Courses 1 and 2 during the pandemic in 2020 Spring (Stage Two). Students’ knowledge and skills of the course content were checked at the beginning of the each course. Students final course marks in each course were collected and used as measure of the student learning outcomes at the end of the semester (See Fig.  1 for the research timeline).

Timeline of data collection: 2019 Fall (before the pandemic), 2020 Spring (during the pandemic)

To address the first purpose, we compared the students’ final course marks in the online flipped classrooms and conventional flipped classrooms. Quantitative data from 99 students were collected (see Table 1 ). We used the students’ final course marks to measure performance.

To identify the perceived good practices for videoconferencing - assisted online flipped classrooms, we invited students and the teaching staff to complete a self-reflection exercise based on the following question: “What do you perceive as good practices in a videoconferencing-supported online flipped classroom?” The qualitative data collected from students and instructors were analyzed as follows. The first step was an initial reading of all of the response data to obtain an overall impression. The first author then applied the grounded approach (Strauss and Corbin 1990 ) to the qualitative data to generate relevant codes. Similar codes were organized into themes. In order to increase the consistency of coding, several exemplary quotes that clearly illustrated each constructed theme were identified. We also allowed new themes (if any) to emerge inductively during the coding process. The second author coded the data. There was perfect agreement with the coding. Table 2 summarizes how the data for each research question were collected and analyzed.

Stage one: designing conventional flipped classes using the 5E framework

In this section, we first describe how we use the 5E framework to design our two conventional flipped classes (Course 1: E-Learning Strategies , and Course 2: Engaging Adult Learners ). In the next section, we describe how we transform these two conventional flipped classes into fully online flipped classes. Figure  2 shows the 5E framework that guided our design of the conventional flipped classes. Table 3 shows some of the teaching and learning activities used in each of the 5E phases.

5E framework used to design the two conventional flipped classes

Conventional flipped course 1: E-learning strategies

This course discussed the various e-learning strategies that can be employed to foster six types of learning, including problem-solving, attitude learning, factual learning, concept learning, procedural learning, and principle learning. There were eight sessions in the course. The first seven sessions were flipped—each consisting of an online pre-class learning component and a 3-h face-to-face in-class component. The last session was devoted to students’ presentations. Figure  3 shows an example of how the 5E framework was used in Course 1.

Example of a pre-class activity in Course 1

For instance, in the pre-class phase of Session 2: Instructional Design—Part 1 , we posted a video that posed the question “What do we mean by ‘understand’”. This video engaged students’ curiosity about the importance of writing clear and measurable learning objectives. The instructor in the video highlighted the pitfalls of using vague words such as “know” and “understand” when writing learning objectives. Students then explored and explained their own individual learning objectives using the ABCD model (audience, behavior, condition, degree). Students were able to use a mobile instant messaging (MIM) app such as WeChat to ask questions of their peers or instructor. When a message arrived, a notification appeared on the receiver’s phone screen, encouraging timely feedback and frequent interaction (Rosenfeld et al. 2018 ).

During the face-to-face in-class session, the instructor re-engaged students’ attention by discussing basic instructional design issues such as “How do we write good lesson objectives?” The instructor conducted short debriefing sessions to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of students’ pre-class work. The instructor also facilitated class or small group discussions to build students’ understanding of how to write measurable lesson objectives that help students to achieve specific learning outcomes (e.g., factual learning). These discussions allowed students to elaborate on good lesson objectives practices. To evaluate the students’ understanding, the instructor asked them to work in groups of four on an instructional design scenario (e.g., teaching participants how to deal with angry customers), and then write a learning objective for the lesson in an online forum; their peers then commented on the posted learning objectives (Fig.  4 ).

Example of an in-class activity in Course 1

Conventional flipped course 2: engaging adult learners

This course discussed the key principles of adult learning, as well as strategies used in adult education (e.g., transformational learning theory). There were eight sessions in the course, each session lasted three hours. An example of how the 5E instructional model was used is shown in Fig.  5 .

Example of a pre-class activity in Course 2

For example, in the pre-class session for Session 3: Motivation, we uploaded a four-minute video that briefly described the concepts of reinforcement and punishment. The aim of the video was to engage students’ attention on the focal topic. To help students explore the topic in further, they were asked to respond to the following question: “After watching the video, can you think of other positive reinforcers, negative reinforcers, and punishment methods?” Students posted their opinions ( explained ) on a discussion forum. Students also used the WeChat app to ask questions of their peers or instructor.

During the subsequent face-to-face lesson (Fig.  6 ), the instructor facilitated whole class discussions using relevant questions to elaborate on the topics covered in the pre-class video. An example of a question used was ‘When should we employ positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, or punishment?’ Based on the students’ responses, the instructor was able to provide more in-depth explanation of the subject matter, or correct any student misunderstanding. This will help enhance students’ comprehension of the subject content. The instructor also discussed the notion of intrinsic motivation (e.g., the self-determination theory). In addition to elaborating on the content, the instructor also evaluated the students’ understanding by asking students to complete small group discussion activities. An example of a small group discussion activity was ‘Did you have any experience where you did not like learning a subject or doing an activity? How would you motivate yourself in that situation? Please try to use a mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors.’ Upon completion of the small group activity, students from each group presented their views to the whole class. The instructor, as well as the rest of the classmates provided feedback.

Example of an in-class activity in Course 2

Stage two: transforming conventional flipped classes into online flipped classes

The outbreak of COVID-19 inspired us to transform the two conventional flipped classes discussed above into fully online flipped classes. After careful consideration, the Zoom videoconferencing app was used for the synchronized online meetings (see Table 4 ). The whole transformation process took about one week with the bulk of the time was spent on exploring and testing the features of Zoom.

Zoom is a Web videoconferencing service that allows users to communicate online with individuals in real time via computer, tablet, or mobile device. We chose Zoom because of its ease of use (Kim 2017 ; Sutterlin 2018 ), its lower bandwidth requirements (Sutterlin 2018 ), and its ability to record and store sessions without recourse to third-party software (Archibald et al. 2019 ). More importantly, Zoom was chosen because its functions could easily support the implementation of our online flipped classroom. For instance, it allows instructors to easily create breakout rooms for group discussions. It also makes team-teaching possible by allowing more than one host and giving all of the hosts administrative capabilities such as sharing screens and remote control over shared screens (Johnston 2020 ).

To keep our online meetings secure, we activated the “ only authenticated users can join ” option. Specifically, we only allowed participants using our own university’s email domain to join the online meetings. In addition, we enabled the “ waiting room ” feature so that we could screen all of participants in the “ waiting room ” and admit only students officially enrolled in our classes into the online meeting. After all of the participants had entered, we then locked the meeting using the “ Lock the meeting ” feature. Once we had locked a meeting, no new participants could join.

The same learning materials used in the conventional flipped classes were used in the online flipped classes. Table 4 shows some of the teaching and learning activities. Students in the online flipped classes completed pre-class activities that were similar to those used in the conventional flipped classes, but these were not followed by face-to-face meetings, but by online meetings conducted on the Zoom videoconferencing app.

Online flipped course 1: E-learning strategies

Like the conventional flipped course, the online flipped Course 1 consisted of eight sessions. The first seven sessions were flipped—students were encouraged to complete a set of pre-class sessions asynchronously (similar to Fig.  3 ). Students also used the WeChat MIM app to ask questions of their peers or instructors. However, unlike the conventional flipped approach, the “in-class” session for the online flipped students was conducted completely online through Zoom videoconferencing. In the final session (Session 8), the online flipped students also presented their work on Zoom. Each online “in-class” session lasted three hours—similar in duration to the in-class component of the conventional flipped format.

In the online synchronous “in-class” sessions, the instructor started by reminding students to switch on their webcams and to mute their microphones when not speaking. Next, the instructor lead a short class debriefing session to elaborate on the materials covered in the pre-class session. This was similar to the structure of the conventional flipped class format. For example, the instructor might discuss the students’ completed pre-class work and highlight the overall strengths and weaknesses. The main purpose of these short debriefing sessions was to clarify students’ initial doubts or misconceptions. Following the debriefing sessions, the instructor facilitated class discussions that delved deeper into the subject content. To evaluate students’ understanding of the materials, students were asked to work individually or participate in small group discussions on specific questions similar to those used in the conventional flipped classes. Students then presented their work online to the whole class, and received peer and instructor feedback.

To engage the participants, the instructor used a number of features of the Zoom videoconferencing system. For example, the instructor posed questions during the whole class discussion and used the polling feature to rapidly collect and analyze student responses. The polling feature provided a function similar to a clicker or student response system. Based on the poll results, the instructor then addressed students’ misunderstandings. To enable small group discussions, the instructor used the breakout rooms feature of Zoom . Each student was assigned to one of several groups. Each group consisted of four to five students. Other students could not “drop” into other groups, but the instructor could drop into any group and participate in the discussions. When it was time for the small groups to return to the whole class, students would receive a time indicator reminding them that they were rejoining the whole class. Table 5 shows how the specific features of Zoom helped support the online “in-class” teaching and learning activities. Figure  7 illustrates some of the Zoom features used in the course.

Examples of Zoom features used in Course 1

Online flipped course 2: engaging adult learners

Similar to the conventional flipped course, the online flipped course had eight sessions. The pre-class and in-class activities used in the conventional flipped course were also used in the online flipped course (see Fig.  5 for an example of a pre-class activity). Students also used the WeChat MIM app to ask questions of their peers or instructors. The last three sessions were used for students’ online presentations via videoconferencing. Each online “in-class” session lasted three hours—similar in duration to the in-class component of the conventional flipped class. In the online synchronous “in-class” sessions, the instructor reminded students to switch on their webcams and to mute their microphones when not speaking. The instructor used the features of the Zoom videoconferencing system shown in Table 5 and Fig.  7 .

Results and discussion

Conventional flipped versus online flipped course 1: e-learning strategies.

To address Research Question 1, the learning outcomes of students in the conventional flipped Course 1 and the online flipped Course 1 were measured and compared. The main purpose of both courses was to teach students the skills needed to create an e-learning storyboard and to develop a fully online course based on the 5E framework on Moodle. At the beginning of both the conventional flipped and online flipped classes, students were surveyed if they had any experience creating storyboards or fully online courses. None of the students had any such prior experience. Therefore, we assumed that both groups of students had similar levels of prior knowledge/skill. Next, we used both groups of students’ final course marks as a measure of the student learning outcomes. The maximum final marks in the final assessment was 100.

We first checked the normality of the final course marks data. If there were a significant deviation from normality, the Mann–Whitney U would be the most appropriate test for comparing the groups; otherwise, an independent samples t -test would be appropriate. The results showed that the course marks for both the conventional flipped ( W (23) = 0.920, p  = 0.068) and online flipped classes ( W (26) = 0.964, p  = 0.479) were normally distributed, as assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk’s test. There was also homogeneity in the variances for the course marks, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances ( p  = 0.652). In addition, there were no outliers in the data, as assessed by an inspection of the boxplots (Fig.  8 ).

The boxplots of final marks in Course 1 for conventional flipped class and online flipped class

An independent-samples t -test was therefore conducted to determine if there were differences in the final marks of the conventional flipped and online flipped classes. The results suggested that online flipped participants ( M  = 66.00, SD = 11.63) performed as effectively as participants in the conventional flipped learning format ( M  = 65.04, SD = 11.80), t (47) = 0.285, p  = 0.777.

Conventional flipped versus online flipped course 2: engaging adult learners

The main purpose of both the conventional flipped and online flipped Engaging Adult Learners courses was to introduce students to the key characteristics of adult learners, the key principles of adult learning, and strategies for adult education. First, to test if there were any initial differences in students’ prior knowledge of the course content, a short quiz was administered to both groups at the start of the semester. The Mann–Whitney U test found no significant initial differences between the conventional flipped group ( Mdn  = 0) and the online flipped group ( Mdn  = 0.5), U  = 218.5, p  = 0.06.

Next, we used the students’ final course marks as a measure of the student learning outcomes. The final assessment included individual written reflections on course topics and relevant articles, and a group demonstration of an adult-teaching strategy. The maximum final marks for the final assessment was 100. As in the above analysis, we first checked the normality of the final course mark data. The course marks for both the conventional flipped and online flipped classes were normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro–Wilk’s test: W (25) = 0.963, p  = 0.470 for the conventional flipped course and W (24) = 0.930, p  = 0.096 for the online flipped course. There was also a homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances ( p  = 0.304). In addition, there were no outliers in the data, as assessed by an inspection of the boxplots (Fig.  9 ).

The boxplots of final marks in Course 2 for conventional flipped class and online flipped class

We subsequently carried out an independent-samples t-test to examine if there was any significant difference in the final course marks of the conventional flipped and online flipped classes. The results suggested that online flipped learning participants ( M  = 83.25, SD = 4.56) performed as effectively as participants in the conventional flipped learning classes ( M  = 83.40, SD = 5.51), t (47) = 0.104, p  = 0.918.

What are the good practices for videoconferencing-assisted online flipped classrooms, as perceived by students and/or teaching staff?

The analyses of the participants’ comments identified the following seven good practices for videoconferencing-assisted online flipped classrooms.

Remind participants to mute their microphones when not speaking to eliminate undesirable background noise . According to Gazzillo ( 2018 ), muting participants’ microphones allows the speaker to have center stage while eliminating the distraction of audio feedback. As one teaching staff member said, .

It’s a good practice at the beginning to mute all of the participants by selecting the “Mute All” button at the bottom of the participants panel. This will eliminate all background noise (e.g., television sounds, audio feedback). I will then ask the participants to turn their audio back on if they wish to talk

In terms of Zoom functionality, by pressing and holding the “space bar” allows the participants to temporarily switch on their microphone. We also ask the participants to install an AI-enabled application called “Krisp” to minimize the background noise of the participants.

Remind participants before the online “in-class” session begins to switch on their webcams . Webcams show a person’s face to other people on the video call, which can help to increase online social presence among classmates (Conrad and Donaldson 2011 ). Online social presence is positively correlated with student satisfaction and student perceived learning (Richardson et al. 2017 ). The participants also strongly prefer to see a face during instruction as it is perceived as more educational (Kizilcec et al. 2014 ). Students’ facial expressions are also a valuable source of feedback for the instructor to know whether the students could understand the subject matter (Sathik and Jonathan 2013 ). An instructor can use students’ facial expressions to determine whether to speed up, or slow down, or provide further elaborations. Feedback from the teaching staff included the following comments.

It is important to ask students to turn on their cameras. Students will be more focused and interactive and teaching will be better when teachers can see students’ responses.

As an instructor, I do not feel as if I’m talking to a wall when I can see some actual faces. Students also feel they are talking to someone rather than to an empty black screen. But it’s important to inform the students in advance to switch on their webcams so that they can do their hair properly or put on makeup beforehand—this was what some students actually told me!

During teaching, seeing your students' faces will give you another form of feedback. For example, when they look confused or nod their heads, it allows me to fine-tune the delivery of the content. These reactions give me visual feedback on whether I need further explanations or examples to elaborate on the topic.

Feedback from the students included the following comments.

Showing our faces is really helpful as we can see our classmates’ faces and remember them. Also, it makes the class more alive because we can see their expressions. Showing our faces is very helpful! It can make me feel like I’m in a real class! I enjoy the feeling of having a class with my classmates.

Turning on the camera helps us be more attentive in the online class.

To avoid showing any undesirable background objects (e.g., a messy bedroom) during the video meeting, participants can choose to replace their actual background with a virtual background. The participants can easily do this using the Zoom virtual background feature.

Manage the transition to the online flipped classroom approach for students . Not every student will be familiar with the videoconferencing app or the flipped classroom approach. Therefore, to promote student buy-in of this new pedagogical approach, it is important for the staff to directly address two main issues: (a) the structure and activities of the online flipped course, and (b) the functions of the video conferencing app. Feedback from the students included the following comments.

If teachers would like to use some functions in Zoom, they need to first help students get familiar with it. A brief introduction to Zoom at the beginning of the class is helpful.

First, I informed the students that these two courses would have two components: a pre-class session and an online “in-class” session. This helped students understand the flipped approach better. Next, my teaching assistant and I conducted a short introduction to using Zoom online before the class began. This helped students get familiar with the features we would be using in Zoom.

Constant fine-tuning is also a key element in managing the transition to the online flipped classroom. Asking the students what works and what doesn’t have become our practice every after the lesson. These comments allow us to rethink and re-plan for the next online synchronous session.

Feedback from the teaching staff included the following comments.

Having a technical-related orientation session before the actual class starts helps a lot for students who are not familiar with the videoconferencing tool.

Instructors should use dual monitors to simulate, as close as possible, the look and feel of a face-to-face class—one monitor to view all the participants in “gallery view,” and the other to view the presentation material . It is very useful for instructors and teaching assistants to use the dual-monitor display function, which allows the video layout and screen share content to be presented on two separate monitors. One monitor can be used to view the participants (up to 49) in “gallery view,” and the other to display the presentation materials. In the “gallery view,” the instructor can see thumbnail displays of all of the participants in a grid pattern that expands and contracts automatically as participants join and leave the meeting (Zoom Video Communications 2019 ). The use of a dual monitor feature is also useful for PowerPoint presentations and hiding notes from the participants. Feedback from the teaching staff included:

During the preparation for this course, we would like to simulate, as close as possible, the look and feel of a face-to-face class. This thinking brought us to the dual monitor layout for our Zoom sessions. The first monitor is for the teaching assistant; in this case, it acts as a co-host for the Zoom session. The teaching assistant extends the computer screen to a monitor to show the participants’ faces or the “gallery view.” This monitor acts as a “classroom” in the traditional face-to-face class. During the session, this first monitor also serves as a tool for classroom management. This view is where the “chat” and “raise hand” functions can be seen. The second monitor is where the instructor places the presentation materials. This view acts as the projector in the traditional face-to-face class. Occasionally, we added a third screen, which is an iPad to do real-time annotation. This iPad can is a replacement of the conventional “whiteboard” in a face-to-face class.

Activate and evaluate students’ pre-class learning with a short review. At the beginning of the online “in-class” sessions, instructors should use short formative assessment methods (e.g., a quiz) to activate and evaluate students’ understanding of the pre-class activities. The activation of prior learning enhances student learning because it is the foundation for the new material presented in the classroom (Merrill 2002 ). Indeed, recent meta-analyses have suggested that flipped learning is more effective when formative assessments (e.g., quizzes or reviews) are used before and/or during class time (e.g., Hew and Lo 2018 ; Låg and Sæle 2019 ; Lo et al. 2017 ; van Alten et al. 2019 ). Students in this study reported positive benefits of using short formative assessments such as reviews or quizzes. Examples of student feedback include the following comments.

I find the reviews at the beginning of the “in-class” sessions very helpful! It’s good to start from something we are familiar with, and then go to the new materials. The reviewing of pre-class work is great because we can know what points we do not understand well and how we can improve.

The reviews helped me understand the issue more deeply. I could find out what my misunderstandings of the content are.

I find the teachers’ explanation and review of the pre-class work helpful.

Use an MIM app on mobile phones to foster quicker online response times and to communicate with students during their online breakout sessions . Although students can ask questions via discussion forums or email, the asynchronicity of these apps creates a time lag between postings and replies which can discourage students from communicating with each other (Hew et al. 2018 ). In contrast, MIM apps such as WhatsApp and WeChat allow users to engage in quasi synchronous communications on their mobile phones. When communication needs are urgent, many students may only have their phones available. As soon as an MIM message is sent, a notification automatically shows up on the user’s phone screen, which encourages timely response (Hew et al. 2018 ; Rosenfeld et al. 2018 ). In addition, MIM is more popular than voice calls, emails, and even face-to-face communication among young people (Lenhart et al. 2010 ). As of March 2019, more than 41 million mobile instant messages are sent every minute (Clement 2019 ). Student feedback on using MIM in classrooms included the following comments.

I like using MIM such as WeChat because it allows us to communicate with other people immediately.

I enjoy using WeChat to ask questions and get immediate feedback from my classmates and teaching staff.

Use a variety of presentation media as well as a variety of activities to sustain student interest . No matter how interested a learner is in the topic of a presentation or discussion, that interest will wane in the face of monotony (Driscoll 2000 ). Therefore, it is recommended that instructors sustain student interest by varying the use of presentation media. Instructors, for example, can alternate the use of PowerPoint slides with digital handwriting on an iPad. The instructor in this study made the following comments.

I find continual use of PowerPoint slides to be boring. It’s always the same style: a bullet list of information with some animations or pictures. I find it useful to sustain my students’ attention by writing on an iPad.

Comments from the students were also positive.

I find the instructor writing on an iPad helps to focus my attention better than PowerPoint slides.

Writing on the iPad is like writing on a whiteboard in real face-to-face classrooms. It helps me develop a better understanding of the topic.

Digital writing on an iPad can help learners see the progressive development of the subject content (Hulls 2005 ), and follow the instructor’s cognitive process better than pre-prepared PowerPoint presentations (Lee and Lim 2013 ). Writing on an iPad can also enable an instructor to immediately adjust his or her instruction in response to the students’ needs. Using digital writing can significantly improve students’ understanding of conceptual knowledge when compared to PowerPoint-based presentation lectures (Lee and Lim 2013 ).

In addition to varying the presentation media, an instructor should also use different activities, including guest speakers, during the online class session. Feedback from the students included the following comments.

The use of different functions in Zoom, such as breakout rooms for group activities, voting, and raising hands, is useful because they help us to be involved. It helps increase the learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction, which may be lacking in a fully online class.

During the three-hour online class, we had not only the teacher’s explanations, but also had a guest speaker and online group discussions via breakout rooms, which made the class engaging.

In this study, the instructor invited a United Kingdom-based practicing instructional designer as a guest speaker in the two online flipped courses to talk about her experience in developing e-learning courses and engaging adult learners. Guest speakers enhance students’ educational experience by giving them real-world knowledge (Metrejean and Zarzeski 2001 ). Guest speakers can offer students a different point of view, one that students may better understand. Guest speakers can also alleviate the monotony of listening to a single instructor.

Amidst the burgeoning use of online learning during the unpredictable present, this study evaluates the efficacy of a videoconferencing - supported fully online flipped classroom. It compares student outcomes in four higher education classes: conventional flipped Course 1 versus online flipped Course 1, and conventional flipped Course 2 versus online flipped Course 2. Overall, this study makes three contributions to the literature on flipped classrooms. First, it provides a thick description of the development of the conventional flipped classroom approach based on the 5E framework, and the transformation of the conventional flipped classroom into a fully online flipped classroom. A thick description of the development of the flipped classrooms is provided to encourage replication by other researchers and practitioners. Second, our findings reveal that the online flipped classroom approach can be as effective as the conventional flipped classroom. Third, we identify seven good practices for using videoconferencing to support online flipped classrooms. This set of good practices can provide useful guidelines for other instructors who might be interested in implementing an online flipped approach.

One potential limitation of our study is that it was relatively short in duration (8 weeks). However, according to Fraenkel et al. ( 2014 ), some researchers do collect data within a fairly short time. A short-term data collection period enables researchers to collect and analyze data to see if an intervention is workable before committing to a longer study (Creswell 2015 ). We therefore urge future researchers to examine the use of videoconferencing - supported online flipped classrooms over a longer period of time, such as one year or more, to verify the results of this study.

Another interesting area for future work will be examining how instructors can support learners’ self-regulation during online flipped classroom (Cheng et al. 2019 ), as well as what strategies can best motivate students to complete the pre-class work.

Availability of data and materials

The anonymized datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Akar, E. (2005). Effectiveness of 5e learning cycle model on students’ understanding of acid-base concepts . MS Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bates S, Galloway R. The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: A case study. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/stem-conference/PhysicalSciences/Simon_Bates_Ross_Galloway.pdf (2012)

Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. 120 Am Soc Eng Educ Annu Conf Expo, 30, 1–18.

Google Scholar  

Boddy, N., Watson, K., & Aubusson, P. (2003). A trial of the five e’s: a referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education , 33 , 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023606425452 .

Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic review. Computers & Education . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103819

Bybee, R. W., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effectiveness. Off Sci Educ Natl Inst Health, 2006, 1–80.

Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Etr&D, 67 (4), 793–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7

Clement J. Global number of mobile messaging users 2018–2022. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/483255/number-of-mobile-messaging-usersworldwide/ (2019)

Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2011). Engaging the online learner: activities and resources for creative instruction . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research . Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Deslauriers, L., et al. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116

Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2014). How to design and evaluate research in education . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gazzillo L. Tech tip: muting participants in Zoom. Yale Library IT News . https://campuspress.yale.edu/libraryitnews/2018/01/23/tech-tip-muting-participants-in-zoom/ (2018)

Gierdowski DC. 2019 study of undergraduate students and information technology. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2019/10/2019-study-of-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology (2019)

Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z

Hew, K., et al. (2018). Examining a WeChat-supported 5E-flipped classroom pedagogical approach. Int J Serv Stand, 12, 224–242.

Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, Trust T, Bond, A. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (2020)

Hulls CCW. Using a tablet PC for classroom instruction. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of Frontiers in Education, Indianapolis, Indiana, 19–22 October

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18 (1), 3–20.

Johnston N. Google Hangouts Meet vs. Zoom: Which conferencing tool is better for you? https://www.androidcentral.com/google-hangouts-meet-vs-zoom (2020)

Kim J. Zoom is hot in higher ed. Inside Higher Ed . Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/zoom-hot-higher-ed (2017)

Kizilcec RF, Papadopoulos K, Sritanyaratana L. Showing face in video instruction: Effects on information retention, visual attention, and affect. In Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2095–2102). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (2014)

Låg, T., & Sæle, R. G. (2019). Does the flipped classroom improve student learning and satisfaction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5 (3), 1–17.

Lederman D. Will shift to remote teaching be boon or bane for online learning? Inside Higher Ed . Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-learning (2014)

Lee, H. W., & Lim, K. Y. (2013). Does digital handwriting of instructors using the iPad enhance student learning? Asia-Pacific Educ Res, 22 (3), 241–245.

Lenhart A, et al. Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2010 (2010).

Lo, C. K. (2017). Toward a flipped classroom instructional model for history education: a call for research. Int J Cult Hist, 3 (1), 36–43.

Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2019). The impact of flipped classrooms on student achievement in engineering education: a meta-analysis of 10 years of research. Journal of Engineering Education, 108 (4), 523–546.

Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Chen, G. (2017). Toward a set of design principles for mathematics flipped classrooms: a synthesis of research in mathematics education. Educ Res Rev, 22, 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.002

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educ Technol Res Dev, 50 (3), 43–59.

Metrejean, C., & Zarzeski, M. (2001). Bring the world to the classroom. J Account, 19 (3), 73–76.

Mullins, M. H. (2017). Actively teaching research methods with a process oriented guided inquiry learning approach. J Teach Soc Work, 37 (4), 309–332.

Pomerantz J, Brooks DC. ECAR study of faculty and information technology. Research report . Louisville, CO: ECAR. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2017/10/facultyitstudy2017.pdf (2017)

Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: a meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001

Rosenfeld, A., Sina, S., Sarne, D., Avidov, O., & Kraus, S. (2018). WhatsApp usage patterns and prediction of demographic characteristics without access to message content. Demographic Research , 39 (22), 647–670. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.22 .

Sathik, M., & Jonathan, S. G. (2013). Effect of facial expressions on student’s comprehension recognition in virtual educational environments. SpringerPlus, 2, 455. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-455

Shi, Y., Ma, Y., MacLeod, J., & Yang, H. H. (2019). College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in flipped classroom instruction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. J Comput Educ . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00142-8

Stohr, C., Demaziere, C., & Adawi, T. (2020). The polarizing effect of the online flipped classroom. Computers & Education . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103789

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques . Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Sutterlin J. Learning is social with Zoom videoconferencing in your classroom. eLearn magazine . https://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=3236697 (2018)

UNESCO. (n.d.). COVID-19 educational disruption and response. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-emergencies/coronavirus-school-closures

van Alten, D. C. D., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2019). Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev, 28, 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003

Xiu, Y., & Thompson, P. (2020). Flipped university class: a study of motivation and learning. J Inform Technol Educ, 19, 41–63.

Zoom Video Communications Inc. Displaying participants in gallery view. https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360000005883-Displaying-participants-in-gallery-view (2019)

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong SAR

Khe Foon Hew, Chengyuan Jia, Donn Emmanuel Gonda & Shurui Bai

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KFH conceptualized the study, analysed the data, and wrote the initial draft. CJ analysed the data, and revised the draft. DEG provided critical feedback and edited the manuscript. SB provided Zoom support and critical feedback. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khe Foon Hew .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hew, K.F., Jia, C., Gonda, D.E. et al. Transitioning to the “new normal” of learning in unpredictable times: pedagogical practices and learning performance in fully online flipped classrooms. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 17 , 57 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x

Download citation

Received : 24 June 2020

Accepted : 28 September 2020

Published : 21 December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Online flipped classroom
• Flipped learning
• Good practices

• Join our email list
• Post an article

How can we help you?

Online distance learning: the new normal in education.

Readiness: The Key To ODL In The Time Of Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic is changing our lives and bringing a lot of challenges to our era. Aside from being a health crisis, it also caused economic meltdowns across the globe. Companies closed, many people were laid off and unexpectedly became unemployed. The World Health Organization also mentioned that food shortages became a problem during this global lockdown as closures between borders and trade restrictions limited the movement of food supplies from rural to urban areas. COVID-19 is producing profound devastating conditions in our daily lives including in the individual, cultural, public health, and economic dimensions (Ferreira and Serpa, 2021).

Along with all these, schools in most countries were closed to stem the transmission of the virus. Onyema, Eucheria, Obafemi, Sen, Atonye, Sharma, and Alyased (2020) concluded that the pandemic has adverse effects on educational systems including research, academic programs, staff professional development and jobs in the academic sector, etc. These changes were felt not just by schools but also by teachers, students, and even parents. As lockdowns were implemented everywhere, schools were also closed. Educational institutions abandoned face-to-face classes and on-campus activities were halted for the safety of the population (Filho et al., 2021).

To respond to the challenges posed by COVID cases worldwide, schools offered distance learning (DL) as the available learning method in this time of the pandemic. According to Justin Simon (2021), pre-pandemic there were only 6.6 million students enrolled in distance learning but this figure skyrocketed to 400 million due to the spread of COVID-19. Because schools were closed and not allowed to accommodate students in their classrooms, distance learning was offered. DL has now become the new normal in education.

Distance Learning

Distance learning is any kind of remote learning in which the student is not physically present in the classroom. The student may be anywhere while learning takes place. Distance learning is educating students online. Over the years, DL has become an alternative mode of teaching and learning (Alsoliman, 2015). It has become another venue for education and instruction.

Though opposed by many, the Philippines’ Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) adopted and implemented a flexible model of blended learning. According to CHED (2020), flexible learning is learning interventions and delivery of programs with the consideration of the learner’s unique needs, that may or may not involve the use of technology. In the Philippines, DL is being offered in two forms: online distance learning (ODL) and modular distance learning (MDL). But most parents and students would prefer ODL, considering and hoping that the interaction between students and the teacher can ensure learning.

DL has become the new normal in education in the country. DepEd (2020), without sacrificing the quality of education, came up with the Learning Continuity Plan (LCP) for the school year 2020–2021. This provides learning interventions that teachers can utilize during the pandemic. This was the jumping board for schools as they offered DL to their stakeholders. However, for this article, we are going to focus only on online distance learning.

This kind of DL can either be synchronous or asynchronous learning. Juliana Scheiderer of Ohio State University simply differentiated the two as follows: synchronous learning is learning from a distance by attending a class virtually on a regular schedule, while asynchronous learning is learning at one’s pace and schedule but within a certain timeframe.

Synchronous learners are advised to attend an online class as if having it face-to-face. They are gathered in a virtual classroom where everybody can interact with their fellow students and their teachers/instructors. Asynchronous learning is different from synchronous learning. Students are given access to a portal where they can retrieve their lessons or instructional materials at any given time of the day. This learning method does not include live video discussion, though recorded videos may be viewed by the learners. However, real-time interaction is not possible.

Though DL has been used for many years already in the education system, its implementation in the time of pandemics may be different and challenging. With the emergence of advanced technology, it is acceptable to say that DL is very promising. However, to fully maximize the potential of this modality, it would be best to identify the experiences of the students, teachers, and stakeholders in this setup, the advantages and disadvantages of this modality in the time of the pandemic, and recommendations to improve the DL offerings of schools. Identifying the experiences of those involved in this modality would allow us to gather the pros and cons of DL. This would allow us to modify our recommendations.

Advantages Of Distance Learning

DL offers a lot of advantages as a mode of teaching and learning. Bijeesh (2021) enumerated some practical advantages of DL such as saving money and time. Most often, the fee for online classes is much lower than for the usual on-campus classes. As students save money because of reduced financial obligations, schools also save money because of less expense in maintaining their facilities. Students can also save time because of shorter travel times. There’s no need to be on the road to beat the traffic just to be inside the classrooms. Study materials are available and just need to be downloaded.

Along with the advantages mentioned above, Oxford Learning College (2015) adds flexibility, comfort, and instant updates to the list. Because DL can be student-centered, the learner can control the schedule within the timeframe given by the teachers. Also, one can learn anywhere and at any time. Online learning can be done in any place, at home wearing comfortable clothes, or somewhere in the rural province, as long as there's an internet connection. And because of technology, the updating of materials and other online resources can be instantaneous. Support is available by online means to answer queries from the learners.

Disadvantages Of Distance Learning

On the other hand, Bijeesh (2021) also mentioned the disadvantages of DL. He first mentioned the tendency for high distraction. Because students are not in the classroom and are in the comfort of their homes, distractions can’t be avoided. They may be torn between classes and the desire to listen to music, sleep, or do something else. This can result in poor performance of the students. This challenges teachers to make their lessons engaging, to motivate their students to focus on the lesson. He also mentioned hidden costs and complicated technology. Yes, online classes may save money because of less transportation and materials expenses, but it can't be denied that there might be hidden costs, like buying software and other computer applications to support the online classes. The technology used may also be complicated. Navigating through the applications used in online classes may also be demanding and time-consuming, especially for younger students and their learning coaches.

In her article on eLearning, Gautam (2020) also mentioned the following as the disadvantages of online learning: technology issues, sense of isolation, teacher training, and managing screen time. When she mentioned technology issues, she meant more than just computer or gadget complexity; she also meant poor internet connection. With the pandemic and DL imposed on all students, the quality of internet connections was tested. Sadly, not all students have access to a strong internet connection. Intermittent connectivity may also lead to poor quality of online learning. This may be detrimental to the teaching and learning process.

Gautam continued by mentioning the sense of isolation. Because of DL, interactions are very minimal. We regard human beings as social beings. Teachers are then challenged to open every possible means of communication with their students to preserve the connection and ensure communication. Teacher training is also on the list of disadvantages mentioned by Gautam. The lockdowns were imposed suddenly and classes migrated online abruptly, but teachers may need additional training to teach online so as to be able to guide their students properly. So to ensure quality education, schools must always offer their teachers technological educational advancement through training and online courses.

Lastly, Gautam mentioned managing screen time as one of the disadvantages. Because students are required to attend their classes online and finish their requirements through their computers or other devices, parents are afraid of this hazard for their children. Thus, teachers must also remind the students to be responsible and mindful of the time they spend in front of their screens and to take breaks. Also, because of the synchronous classes and asynchronous tasks, parents, and teachers as well, are challenged to remind their students to consider physical activities in between, to maintain their health and wellness.

The advantages and disadvantages mentioned above were all based on the experiences of both teachers and students. They were satisfied and at the same time frustrated with DL. But with the data and information gathered, there are many opportunities available to improve this modality taking into consideration that technology is flexible and capable of accommodating changes and improvements. We should also mention the eagerness of teachers to develop their skills because of their untiring dedication to their profession.

Bijeesh, Oxford Learning College, and Gautam were able to mention experiences that are significant as we discuss DL as the new normal in education. They were able to list the advantages and disadvantages of DL being experienced at the time of this pandemic.

To address these issues in online distance learning, what is needed is summed up by the word "readiness." Readiness, in terms of eLearning or learning through technology, may be vague or broad because of its never-ending and fast-paced evolution. In 2015, after analyzing a number of models, Demir and Yurdugül proposed three models of readiness for students, teachers, and institutions.

The Readiness Models

The readiness model for students consists of six components: competency of technology usage, self-directed learning, access to technology, confidence in prerequisite skills and in themselves, motivation, and time management. The model implies that the student must have computer and technology skills prior to eLearning, must have good study habits and independent learning skills, and must be motivated in attending online classes.

Demir and Yurdugül’s readiness model for teachers includes eight components: acceptance, access to technology, motivation, time management, institution and policy, content, pedagogical competency, and competency in technology usage. Basically, teachers must first absorb the nature of their setup, that the learning and teaching process will occur online or in a technology-driven environment. They must also be aware of the content of their lessons, as well as the methods and strategies they may be able to utilize as they teach in DL. Having knowledge about the institution and its policies is also helpful in being prepared. This may include rules regarding the school’s online instruction.

With regard to the institution’s readiness, there are seven components: finance, ICT infrastructure, human resources, management and leadership, content, culture, and lastly, competency in technology usage. The capacity of the institution to invest in the right and appropriate technology is the institution’s primary concern when it comes to learning and teaching with technology, as they need to invest in their ICT infrastructures. The institution must also be concerned with its human resources, management, and leadership for training and updating.

With Demir and Yurdugül’s models, we can justify how readiness can help address the seven disadvantages mentioned above: distractions, costly technology and apps, demanding online classes, isolation, lacking teacher training, managing screen time, and poor internet connection. Distraction may be avoided if students with the right motivation are focused on learning. This can also be avoided if teachers are competent pedagogically and technologically. Teachers' well-prepared lessons with enticing activities will decrease students’ boredom in online distance learning. This also proves that teachers are well-trained and prepared to teach online. With all these considerations, the teachers can now help their students manage their screen time and develop study habits. Eventually, students will not find online classes as demanding if they have developed time management skills. More so, access to technology also means access to communication, thus students will not feel isolated if they have open communication with their teachers and classmates. Lastly, students, teachers, and the institution must invest in proper technology. For DL to be successful and fruitful, technology should not be neglected. This will help avoid problems with a poor internet connection, failing devices, and inappropriate learning apps and tools.

To stem the transmission of the Coronavirus or COVID-19, establishments were closed, including schools. Thus, the education system adapted distance learning. Distance learning or DL is a modality wherein the teaching and learning processes are happening remotely. Despite the positive experiences of teachers and stakeholders regarding this setup, we cannot deny its drawbacks. Studies found that in DL students may encounter

• Distractions
• Costly technology and apps
• Demanding online classes
• Teachers who lack training
• Problems managing screen time
• Poor internet connection compromising the quality of education

In conclusion, to be able to avoid these issues in DL, readiness must be ensured. The students, the teachers, and the administration or the institution must be prepared. The closure of schools may have happened abruptly; however, as the schools continue to offer DL they must prepare. Some components in the models presented by Demir and Yurdugül may help address the issues or disadvantages of the online learning setup.

With this conclusion, distance learning can continue as the new normal in education, especially during a pandemic or if a lockdown must be imposed. In spite of the issues mentioned, there were suggested components that can be done differently to avoid such problems. Education can still continue in spite of the fact that it is done remotely.

Recommendations

In our conclusion, we analyzed the seven advantages that were mentioned and we can justify that readiness is the key to all these. And this readiness is the preparation of the students, the teachers, and the institution (the school administration). Thus, orientation for students, training for teachers, and a needs assessment for the institution is recommended, to prepare those who will be involved in distance learning.

First, orientation for the students is an activity that would give the students an idea of how distance learning would happen. They would be aware of the things that they need to prepare for their DL to be successful and fruitful. The institution, through its teachers, would inform the students of the software, applications, and technology tools they would need. Also, this can serve as an opportunity for students to ask questions or for any clarifications about class schedules and the Learning Management System (LMS) that they will use in their online classes.

Second, training for teachers is necessary. The pandemic happened in the middle of the school year. Most teachers were not ready. However, as the pandemic continues and online classes are still utilized, the institution must provide, and ensure that teachers will undergo, training. In-service training seminars were provided even before the pandemic, thus it is not new to teachers. But with the demand for online learning, teachers must be given updated training especially on conducting online classes. These training sessions may include familiarity with hardware and software. This also guarantees that the teachers are capable of assisting their students during the school year.

Lastly, the institution must undertake a needs assessment. Needs assessment is a business tool that allows the organization to determine the gap between their desired output and their current state. This allows the organization to identify what should be prioritized or improved. For schools, this will allow the administration to name certain aspects in the school system that need to be given attention as they offer online classes. The school will then be able to properly orient their students and also train their teachers with the appropriate programs or tools.

References:

• Advantages & Disadvantages Of Distance Learning
• ADOPTION OF THE BASIC EDUCATION LEARNING CONTINUITY PLAN FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2020-2021 IN LIGHT OF THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
• A strategic approach to the implementation of quality distance learning in Saudi Arabia: an embedded case study
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Distance Learning
• Demir, Ö., and H. Yurdugül. 2015. The Exploration of models regarding e-learning readiness: Reference model suggestions. International Journal of Progressive Education , 11 (1).
• COVID-19 and Social Sciences
• Advantages And Disadvantages Of Online Learning
• Needs Assessment: Definition, Overview and Examples
• COVID-19: the impact of a global crisis on sustainable development teaching
• Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic on Education
• What's the Difference Between Asynchronous and Synchronous Learning?
• What is Distance Learning? The Complete Guide (2021)
• Impact of COVID-19 on people's livelihoods, their health and our food systems
• The Differences Between eLearning Αnd Distance Learning
• Distance Learning: The Secret Of Powerful Company Development
• Distance Learning Software To The Rescue: How Can Teachers Use It Effectively?
• The Benefits Of Distance Learning With LMS

Ready or not, AI is in our schools

(We’re not ready.)

By Mack DeGeurin | Published Apr 11, 2024 2:24 PM EDT

Students worldwide are using generative AI tools to write papers and complete assignments. Teachers are using similar tools to grade tests. What exactly is going on here? Where is all of this heading? Can education return to a world before artificial intelligence? 

How many students are using generative AI in school?  

Many high school and college-age students embraced popular generative AI writing tools like OpenAI’s ChatGPT almost as soon as they started gaining international attention in 2022. The incentive was pretty clear. With just a few simple prompts, large language models (LLMs) at the time could scour their vast databases of articles, books, and archives and spit out relatively coherent short-form essay or question responses in seconds. The language wasn’t perfect and the models were prone to fabricating facts , but they were good enough to skirt past some educators, who, at the time, weren’t primed to spot tell-tell signs of AI manipulation .

The trend caught on like wildfire. Around one in five highschool aged teens who’ve heard about ChatGPT say they have already used the tools on classwork, according to a recent Pew Research survey. A separate report from ACT, which creates one of the two most popular standardized exams for college admission, claims nearly half (46%) of high school students have used AI to complete assignments. Similar trends are playing out in higher education. More than a third of US college students (37%) surveyed by the online education magazine Intelligent.com say they’ve used ChatGPT either to generate ideas, write papers, or both.

Those AI tools are finding their way onto graded papers. Turnitin, a prominent plagiarism detection company used by educators, recently told Wired it found evidence of AI manipulation in 22 million college and high school papers submitted through its service last year. Out of 200 million papers submitted in 2023, Turnitin claims 11% had more than 20% of its content allegedly composed using AI-generated material. And even though generative AI usage generally has cooled off among the general public , students aren’t showing signs of letting up. 

Educators turn to imperfect AI detection tools 

Almost immediately after students started using AI writing tools, teachers turned to other AI models to try and stop them . As of writing, dozens of tech firms and startups currently claim to have developed software capable of detecting signs of AI-generated text. Teachers and professors around the country are already relying on these to various degrees. But critics say AI detection tools, even years after ChatGPT became popular, remain far from perfect.

A recent analysis of 18 different AI detection tools in the International Journal for Educational Integrity highlights a lack of comprehensive accuracy. None of the models studied accurately differentiated AI generated material from human writing. Worse still, only five of the models achieved an accuracy above 70%. Detection could get even more difficult as AI writing models improve over time. 

Accuracy issues aren’t the only problem with limiting AI detection tools effectiveness. An overreliance on these still developing detection systems risks punishing students who might use otherwise helpful AI software that, in other contexts, would be permitted. That exact scenario played out recently with a University of North Georgia student named Marley Stevens who claims an AI detection tool interpreted her use of the popular spelling and writing aid Grammarly as cheating . Stevens claims she received a zero on that essay, making her ineligible for a scholarship she was pursuing.

“I talked to the teacher, the department head, and the dean, and [they said] I was ‘unintentionally cheating,’” Stevens alleged in a TikTok post . The University of North Georgia did not immediately respond to PopSci’s request for comment. 

There’s evidence current AI detection tools also mistakenly confuse genuine human writing for AI content. In addition to general false positives, Stanford researchers warn detection tools may disproportionately penalize writing from non-native speakers . More than half (61.2%) of essays written by US-born, non-native speaking eighth graders included in the research were classified as AI generated. 97% of the essays from non-native speakers were flagged as AI generated by at least one of the seven different AI detection tools tested in the research. Widely rolled out detection tools could put more pressure on non-native speakers who are already tasked with overcoming language barriers. 

How are schools responding to the rise in AI?

Educators are scrambling to find a solution to the influx of AI writing. Some major school districts in New York and Los Angeles have opted to ban use of the ChatGPT and related tools entirely. Professors in universities around the country have begun begrudgingly using AI detection software despite recognizing its known accuracy shortcomings. One of those educators, Michigan Technological University Professor of Composition, described these detectors as a “tool that could be beneficial while recognizing it’s flawed and may penalize some students,” during an interview with Inside Higher Ed . 

Others, meanwhile, are taking the opposite approach and leaning into AI education tools with more open arms. In Texas, according to The Texas Tribune , the state’s Education Agency just this week moved to replace several thousand human standardized test grades with an “automated scoring system.” The agency claims its new system, which will score open-ended written responses included in the state’s public exam, could save the state $15-20 million per year. It will also leave an estimated 2,000 temporary graders out of a job. Elsewhere in the state, an elementary school is reportedly experimenting with using AI learning modules to teach children basic core curriculums and then supplementing that with human teachers. 

AI in education: A new normal 

While its possible AI writing detection tools could evolve to increase accuracy and reduce false positives, it’s unlikely they alone will transport education back to a time prior to ChatGPT. Rather than fight the new normal, some scholars argue educators should instead embrace AI tools in classrooms and lecture halls and instruct students how to use them effectively. In a blog post , researchers at MIT Sloan argue professors and teachers can still limit use of certain tools, but note they should do so through clearly written rules explaining their reasoning. Students, they write, should feel comfortable approaching teachers to ask when AI tools are and aren’t appropriate.

Others, like former Elon University professor C.W. Howell argue explicitly and intentionally exposing students to AI generated writing in a classroom setting may actually make them less likely to use it. Asking students to grade an AI-generated essay, Howell writes in Wired , can give students first hand experience noticing the way AI often fabricates sources or hallucinate quotes from an imaginary ether. AI generated essays, when looked at through a new lens, can actually improve education.

“Showing my students just how flawed ChatGPT is helped restore confidence in their own minds and abilities,” Howell writes. 

Then again, if AI does fundamentally alter the economic landscape as some doomsday enthusiasts believe , students could always spend their days learning how to engineer prompts to train AI and contribute to the architecture of their new AI-dominated future.

Like science, tech, and DIY projects?

Sign up to receive Popular Science's emails and get the highlights.

A Year After Coronavirus: An Inclusive ‘New Normal’

Six months into a new decade, 2020 has already been earmarked as ‘the worst’ year in the 21st century. The novel coronavirus has given rise to a global pandemic that has destabilized most institutional settings. While we live in times when humankind possesses the most advanced science and technology, a virus invisible to the naked eye has massively disrupted economies, healthcare, and education systems worldwide. This should serve as a reminder that as we keep making progress in science and research, humanity will continue to face challenges in the future, and it is upon us to prioritize those issues that are most relevant in the 21st century.

Even amidst the pandemic, Space X, an American aerospace manufacturer, managed to become the first private company to send humans to space. While this is a tremendous achievement and prepares humanity for a sustainable future, I feel there is a need to introspect the challenges that we are already facing. On the one hand, we seem to be preparing beyond the 21st century. On the other hand, heightened nationalism, increasing violence against marginalized communities and multidimensional inequalities across all sectors continue to act as barriers to growth for most individuals across the globe. COVID-19 has reinforced these multifaceted economic, social and cultural inequalities wherein those in situations of vulnerability have found it increasingly difficult to get quality medical attention, access to quality education, and have witnessed increased domestic violence while being confined to their homes. 

Given the coronavirus’s current situation, some households have also had time to introspect on gender roles and stereotypes. For instance, women are expected to carry out unpaid care work like cooking, cleaning, and looking after the family. There is no valid reason to believe that women ought to carry out these activities, and men have no role in contributing to household chores. With men having shared household chores during the lockdown period, it gives hope that they will realize the burden that women have been bearing for past decades and will continue sharing responsibilities. However, it would be naïve to believe that gender discrimination could be tackled so easily, and men would give up on their decades' old habits within a couple of months. Thus, during and after the pandemic, there is an urgent need to sensitize households on the importance of gender equality and social cohesion.

Moving forward, developing quality healthcare systems that are affordable and accessible to all should be the primary objective for all governments. This can be done by increasing expenditure towards health and education and simultaneously reducing expenditure on defence equipment where the latter mainly gives rise to an idea that countries need to be prepared for violence. There is substantial evidence that increased investment in health and education is beneficial in the long-term and can potentially build the basic foundation of a country. 

If it can be established that usage of nuclear weapons, violence and war are not solutions to any problem, governments (like, for example, Costa Rica) could move towards disarmament of weapons and do their part in building a more peaceful planet that is sustainable for the future. This would further promote global citizenship wherein nationality, race, gender, caste, and other categories, are just mere variables and they do not become identities of individuals that restrict their thought process. The aim should be to build responsible citizens who play an active role in their society and work collectively in helping develop a planet that is well-governed, inclusive, and environmentally sustainable.

 ‘A year after Coronavirus’ is still an unknown, so I think that our immediate focus should be to tackle the complex problems that have emerged from the pandemic so that we make the year after coronavirus one which highlights recovery and acts as a pathway to fresh beginnings. While there is little to gain from such a fatal cause, it is vital that we also use it to make the ‘new normal’ in favour of the environment and ensure that no one is left behind.   

Related items

• Country page: India
• UNESCO Office in New Delhi
• SDG: SDG 3 - Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

This article is related to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals .

More on this subject

Other recent articles

For the best Oliver Wyman website experience, please upgrade your browser to IE9 or later

• Global (English)
• India (English)
• Middle East (English)
• South Africa (English)
• Brazil (Português)
• China (中文版)
• Japan (日本語)
• Southeast Asia (English)
• Belgium (English)
• France (Français)
• Germany (Deutsch)
• Italy (Italiano)
• Netherlands (English)
• Nordics (English)
• Portugal (Português)
• Spain (Español)
• Switzerland (Deutsch)
• UK And Ireland (English)

Education In The New Normal

This was first published on June 3, 2020

Covid-19 has created numerous and significant challenges to the education system, and education leadership must implement a holistic strategy to mitigate the impact of the pandemic and adapt to the new reality.

In April 2020 we published our first insights on Education Continuity During Covid-19 , which provided an overview of country responses to ensure education continuity and outlined a set of recommendations, targeted at education policymakers and delivery institutions, to build resilience into their education systems and ensure continuity during times of public crisis.

In this, the second installment, we dive deeper into the recommendations and look at core initiatives taken by education leadership in response to the pandemic and provide practical guidance and examples. 

Education Leadership Detailed Response Framework

OUR EXPERTISE  

Industries .

• Communications, Media, And Technology
• Energy And Natural Resources
• Financial Services
• Health And Life Sciences
• Industrial Products
• Private Equity And Principal Investors
• Government And Public Institutions
• Retail And Consumer Goods
• Transportation
• Velocity Podcast

capabilities 

• Climate And Sustainability
• Oliver Wyman Engineers
• People And Organizational Performance
• Performance Transformation
• Pricing, Sales, And Marketing
• Risk Management
• Turnaround And Restructuring

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Jessica Grose

Screens are everywhere in schools. do they actually help kids learn.

By Jessica Grose

Opinion Writer

A few weeks ago, a parent who lives in Texas asked me how much my kids were using screens to do schoolwork in their classrooms. She wasn’t talking about personal devices. (Smartwatches and smartphones are banned in my children’s schools during the school day, which I’m very happy about; I find any argument for allowing these devices in the classroom to be risible.) No, this parent was talking about screens that are school sanctioned, like iPads and Chromebooks issued to children individually for educational activities.

I’m embarrassed to say that I couldn’t answer her question because I had never asked or even thought about asking. Partly because the Covid-19 era made screens imperative in an instant — as one ed-tech executive told my colleague Natasha Singer in 2021, the pandemic “sped the adoption of technology in education by easily five to 10 years.” In the early Covid years, when my older daughter started using a Chromebook to do assignments for second and third grade, I was mostly just relieved that she had great teachers and seemed to be learning what she needed to know. By the time she was in fifth grade and the world was mostly back to normal, I knew she took her laptop to school for in-class assignments, but I never asked for specifics about how devices were being used. I trusted her teachers and her school implicitly.

In New York State, ed tech is often discussed as an equity problem — with good reason: At home, less privileged children might not have access to personal devices and high-speed internet that would allow them to complete digital assignments. But in our learn-to-code society, in which computer skills are seen as a meal ticket and the humanities as a ticket to the unemployment line, there seems to be less chatter about whether there are too many screens in our kids’ day-to-day educational environment beyond the classes that are specifically tech focused. I rarely heard details about what these screens are adding to our children’s literacy, math, science or history skills.

And screens truly are everywhere. For example, according to 2022 data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only about 8 percent of eighth graders in public schools said their math teachers “never or hardly ever” used computers or digital devices to teach math, 37 percent said their math teachers used this technology half or more than half the time, and 44 percent said their math teachers used this technology all or most of the time.

As is often the case with rapid change, “the speed at which new technologies and intervention models are reaching the market has far outpaced the ability of policy researchers to keep up with evaluating them,” according to a dazzlingly thorough review of the research on education technology by Maya Escueta, Andre Joshua Nickow, Philip Oreopoulos and Vincent Quan published in The Journal of Economic Literature in 2020.

Despite the relative paucity of research, particularly on in-class use of tech, Escueta and her co-authors put together “a comprehensive list of all publicly available studies on technology-based education interventions that report findings from studies following either of two research designs, randomized controlled trials or regression discontinuity designs.”

They found that increasing access to devices didn’t always lead to positive academic outcomes. In a couple of cases, it just increased the amount of time kids were spending on devices playing games. They wrote, “We found that simply providing students with access to technology yields largely mixed results. At the K-12 level, much of the experimental evidence suggests that giving a child a computer may have limited impacts on learning outcomes but generally improves computer proficiency and other cognitive outcomes.”

Some of the most promising research is around computer-assisted learning, which the researchers defined as “computer programs and other software applications designed to improve academic skills.” They cited a 2016 randomized study of 2,850 seventh-grade math students in Maine who used an online homework tool. The authors of that study “found that the program improved math scores for treatment students by 0.18 standard deviations. This impact is particularly noteworthy, given that treatment students used the program, on average, for less than 10 minutes per night, three to four nights per week,” according to Escueta and her co-authors.

They also explained that in the classroom, computer programs may help teachers meet the needs of students who are at different levels, since “when confronted with a wide range of student ability, teachers often end up teaching the core curriculum and tailoring instruction to the middle of the class.” A good program, they found, could help provide individual attention and skill building for kids at the bottom and the top, as well. There are computer programs for reading comprehension that have shown similar positive results in the research. Anecdotally: My older daughter practices her Spanish language skills using an app, and she hand-writes Spanish vocabulary words on index cards. The combination seems to be working well for her.

Though their review was published in 2020, before the data was out on our grand remote-learning experiment, Escueta and her co-authors found that fully online remote learning did not work as well as hybrid or in-person school. I called Thomas Dee, a professor at Stanford’s Graduate School of Education, who said that in light of earlier studies “and what we’re coming to understand about the long-lived effects of the pandemic on learning, it underscores for me that there’s a social dimension to learning that we ignore at our peril. And I think technology can often strip that away.”

Still, Dee summarized the entire topic of ed tech to me this way: “I don’t want to be black and white about this. I think there are really positive things coming from technology.” But he said that they are “meaningful supports on the margins, not fundamental changes in the modality of how people learn.”

I’d add that the implementation of any technology also matters a great deal; any educational tool can be great or awful, depending on how it’s used.

I’m neither a tech evangelist nor a Luddite. (Though I haven’t even touched on the potential implications of classroom teaching with artificial intelligence, a technology that, in other contexts, has so much destructive potential .) What I do want is the most effective educational experience for all kids.

Because there’s such a lag in the data and a lack of granularity to the information we do have, I want to hear from my readers: If you’re a teacher or a parent of a current K-12 student, I want to know how you and they are using technology — the good and the bad. Please complete the questionnaire below and let me know. I may reach out to you for further conversation.

Do your children or your students use technology in the classroom?

If you’re a parent, an educator or both, I want to hear from you.

Jessica Grose is an Opinion writer for The Times, covering family, religion, education, culture and the way we live now.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The “new normal” in education

José augusto pacheco.

Research Centre on Education (CIEd), Institute of Education, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal

Effects rippling from the Covid 19 emergency include changes in the personal, social, and economic spheres. Are there continuities as well? Based on a literature review (primarily of UNESCO and OECD publications and their critics), the following question is posed: How can one resist the slide into passive technologization and seize the possibility of achieving a responsive, ethical, humane, and international-transformational approach to education? Technologization, while an ongoing and evidently ever-intensifying tendency, is not without its critics, especially those associated with the humanistic tradition in education. This is more apparent now that curriculum is being conceived as a complicated conversation. In a complex and unequal world, the well-being of students requires diverse and even conflicting visions of the world, its problems, and the forms of knowledge we study to address them.

From the past, we might find our way to a future unforeclosed by the present (Pinar 2019 , p. 12)

Texts regarding this pandemic’s consequences are appearing at an accelerating pace, with constant coverage by news outlets, as well as philosophical, historical, and sociological reflections by public intellectuals worldwide. Ripples from the current emergency have spread into the personal, social, and economic spheres. But are there continuities as well? Is the pandemic creating a “new normal” in education or simply accenting what has already become normal—an accelerating tendency toward technologization? This tendency presents an important challenge for education, requiring a critical vision of post-Covid-19 curriculum. One must pose an additional question: How can one resist the slide into passive technologization and seize the possibility of achieving a responsive, ethical, humane, and international-transformational approach to education?

The ongoing present

Unpredicted except through science fiction, movie scripts, and novels, the Covid-19 pandemic has changed everyday life, caused wide-scale illness and death, and provoked preventive measures like social distancing, confinement, and school closures. It has struck disproportionately at those who provide essential services and those unable to work remotely; in an already precarious marketplace, unemployment is having terrible consequences. The pandemic is now the chief sign of both globalization and deglobalization, as nations close borders and airports sit empty. There are no departures, no delays. Everything has changed, and no one was prepared. The pandemic has disrupted the flow of time and unraveled what was normal. It is the emergence of an event (think of Badiou 2009 ) that restarts time, creates radical ruptures and imbalances, and brings about a contingency that becomes a new necessity (Žižek 2020 ). Such events question the ongoing present.

The pandemic has reshuffled our needs, which are now based on a new order. Whether of short or medium duration, will it end in a return to the “normal” or move us into an unknown future? Žižek contends that “there is no return to normal, the new ‘normal’ will have to be constructed on the ruins of our old lives, or we will find ourselves in a new barbarism whose signs are already clearly discernible” (Žižek 2020 , p. 3).

Despite public health measures, Gil ( 2020 ) observes that the pandemic has so far generated no physical or spiritual upheaval and no universal awareness of the need to change how we live. Techno-capitalism continues to work, though perhaps not as before. Online sales increase and professionals work from home, thereby creating new digital subjectivities and economies. We will not escape the pull of self-preservation, self-regeneration, and the metamorphosis of capitalism, which will continue its permanent revolution (Wells 2020 ). In adapting subjectivities to the recent demands of digital capitalism, the pandemic can catapult us into an even more thoroughly digitalized space, a trend that artificial intelligence will accelerate. These new subjectivities will exhibit increased capacities for voluntary obedience and programmable functioning abilities, leading to a “new normal” benefiting those who are savvy in software-structured social relationships.

The Covid-19 pandemic has submerged us all in the tsunami-like economies of the Cloud. There is an intensification of the allegro rhythm of adaptation to the Internet of Things (Davies, Beauchamp, Davies, and Price 2019 ). For Latour ( 2020 ), the pandemic has become internalized as an ongoing state of emergency preparing us for the next crisis—climate change—for which we will see just how (un)prepared we are. Along with inequality, climate is one of the most pressing issues of our time (OECD 2019a , 2019b ) and therefore its representation in the curriculum is of public, not just private, interest.

Education both reflects what is now and anticipates what is next, recoding private and public responses to crises. Žižek ( 2020 , p. 117) suggests in this regard that “values and beliefs should not be simply ignored: they play an important role and should be treated as a specific mode of assemblage”. As such, education is (post)human and has its (over)determination by beliefs and values, themselves encoded in technology.

Will the pandemic detoxify our addiction to technology, or will it cement that addiction? Pinar ( 2019 , pp. 14–15) suggests that “this idea—that technological advance can overcome cultural, economic, educational crises—has faded into the background. It is our assumption. Our faith prompts the purchase of new technology and assures we can cure climate change”. While waiting for technology to rescue us, we might also remember to look at ourselves. In this way, the pandemic could be a starting point for a more sustainable environment. An intelligent response to climate change, reactivating the humanistic tradition in education, would reaffirm the right to such an education as a global common good (UNESCO 2015a , p. 10):

This approach emphasizes the inclusion of people who are often subject to discrimination – women and girls, indigenous people, persons with disabilities, migrants, the elderly and people living in countries affected by conflict. It requires an open and flexible approach to learning that is both lifelong and life-wide: an approach that provides the opportunity for all to realize their potential for a sustainable future and a life of dignity”.

Pinar ( 2004 , 2009 , 2019 ) concevies of curriculum as a complicated conversation. Central to that complicated conversation is climate change, which drives the need for education for sustainable development and the grooming of new global citizens with sustainable lifestyles and exemplary environmental custodianship (Marope 2017 ).

The new normal

The pandemic ushers in a “new” normal, in which digitization enforces ways of working and learning. It forces education further into technologization, a development already well underway, fueled by commercialism and the reigning market ideology. Daniel ( 2020 , p. 1) notes that “many institutions had plans to make greater use of technology in teaching, but the outbreak of Covid-19 has meant that changes intended to occur over months or years had to be implemented in a few days”.

Is this “new normal” really new or is it a reiteration of the old?

Digital technologies are the visible face of the immediate changes taking place in society—the commercial society—and schools. The immediate solution to the closure of schools is distance learning, with platforms proliferating and knowledge demoted to information to be exchanged (Koopman 2019 ), like a product, a phenomenon predicted decades ago by Lyotard ( 1984 , pp. 4-5):

Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valued in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange. Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its use-value.

Digital technologies and economic rationality based on performance are significant determinants of the commercialization of learning. Moving from physical face-to-face presence to virtual contact (synchronous and asynchronous), the learning space becomes disembodied, virtual not actual, impacting both student learning and the organization of schools, which are no longer buildings but websites. Such change is not only coterminous with the pandemic, as the Education 2030 Agenda (UNESCO 2015b ) testified; preceding that was the Delors Report (Delors 1996 ), which recoded education as lifelong learning that included learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together.

Transnational organizations have specified competences for the 21st century and, in the process, have defined disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge that encourages global citizenship, through “the supra curriculum at the global, regional, or international comparative level” (Marope 2017 , p. 10). According to UNESCO ( 2017 ):

While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability. Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies.

These transnational initiatives have not only acknowledged traditional school subjects but have also shifted the curriculum toward timely topics dedicated to understanding the emergencies of the day (Spiller 2017 ). However, for the OECD ( 2019a ), the “new normal” accentuates two ideas: competence-based education, which includes the knowledges identified in the Delors Report , and a new learning framework structured by digital technologies. The Covid-19 pandemic does not change this logic. Indeed, the interdisciplinary skills framework, content and standardized testing associated with the Programme for International Student Assessment of the OECD has become the most powerful tool for prescribing the curriculum. Educationally, “the universal homogenous ‘state’ exists already. Globalization of standardized testing—the most prominent instance of threatening to restructure schools into technological sites of political socialization, conditioning children for compliance to a universal homogeneous state of mind” (Pinar 2019 , p. 2).

In addition to cognitive and practical skills, this “homogenous state of mind” rests on so-called social and emotional skills in the service of learning to live together, affirming global citizenship, and presumably returning agency to students and teachers (OECD 2019a ). According to Marope ( 2017 , p. 22), “this calls for higher flexibility in curriculum development, and for the need to leave space for curricula interpretation, contextualization, and creativity at the micro level of teachers and classrooms”. Heterogeneity is thus enlisted in the service of both economic homogeneity and disciplinary knowledge. Disciplinary knowledge is presented as universal and endowed with social, moral, and cognitive authority. Operational and effective knowledge becomes central, due to the influence of financial lobbies, thereby ensuring that the logic of the market is brought into the practices of schools. As Pestre ( 2013 , p. 21) observed, “the nature of this knowledge is new: what matters is that it makes hic et nunc the action, its effect and not its understanding”. Its functionality follows (presumably) data and evidence-based management.

A new language is thus imposed on education and the curriculum. Such enforced installation of performative language and Big Data lead to effective and profitable operations in a vast market concerned with competence in operational skills (Lyotard 1984 ). This “new normal” curriculum is said to be more horizontal and less hierarchical and radically polycentric with problem-solving produced through social networks, NGOs, transnational organizations, and think tanks (Pestre 2013 ; Williamson 2013 , 2017 ). Untouched by the pandemic, the “new (old) normal” remains based on disciplinary knowledge and enmeshed in the discourse of standards and accountability in education.

Such enforced commercialism reflects and reinforces economic globalization. Pinar ( 2011 , p. 30) worries that “the globalization of instrumental rationality in education threatens the very existence of education itself”. In his theory, commercialism and the technical instrumentality by which homogenization advances erase education as an embodied experience and the curriculum as a humanistic project. It is a time in which the humanities are devalued as well, as acknowledged by Pinar ( 2019 , p. 19): “In the United States [and in the world] not only does economics replace education—STEM replace the liberal arts as central to the curriculum—there are even politicians who attack the liberal arts as subversive and irrelevant…it can be more precisely characterized as reckless rhetoric of a know-nothing populism”. Replacing in-person dialogical encounters and the educational cultivation of the person (via Bildung and currere ), digital technologies are creating uniformity of learning spaces, in spite of their individualistic tendencies. Of course, education occurs outside schools—and on occasion in schools—but this causal displacement of the centrality of the school implies a devaluation of academic knowledge in the name of diversification of learning spaces.

In society, education, and specifically in the curriculum, the pandemic has brought nothing new but rather has accelerated already existing trends that can be summarized as technologization. Those who can work “remotely” exercise their privilege, since they can exploit an increasingly digital society. They themselves are changed in the process, as their own subjectivities are digitalized, thus predisposing them to a “curriculum of things” (a term coined by Laist ( 2016 ) to describe an object-oriented pedagogical approach), which is organized not around knowledge but information (Koopman 2019 ; Couldry and Mejias 2019 ). This (old) “new normal” was advanced by the OECD, among other international organizations, thus precipitating what some see as “a dynamic and transformative articulation of collective expectations of the purpose, quality, and relevance of education and learning to holistic, inclusive, just, peaceful, and sustainable development, and to the well-being and fulfilment of current and future generations” (Marope 2017 , p. 13). Covid-19, illiberal democracy, economic nationalism, and inaction on climate change, all upend this promise.

Understanding the psychological and cultural complexity of the curriculum is crucial. Without appreciating the infinity of responses students have to what they study, one cannot engage in the complicated conversation that is the curriculum. There must be an affirmation of “not only the individualism of a person’s experience but [of what is] underlining the significance of a person’s response to a course of study that has been designed to ignore individuality in order to buttress nation, religion, ethnicity, family, and gender” (Grumet 2017 , p. 77). Rather than promoting neuroscience as the answer to the problems of curriculum and pedagogy, it is long-past time for rethinking curriculum development and addressing the canonical curriculum question: What knowledge is of most worth from a humanistic perspective that is structured by complicated conversation (UNESCO 2015a ; Pinar 2004 , 2019 )? It promotes respect for diversity and rejection of all forms of (cultural) hegemony, stereotypes, and biases (Pacheco 2009 , 2017 ).

Revisiting the curriculum in the Covid-19 era then expresses the fallacy of the “new normal” but also represents a particular opportunity to promote a different path forward.

Looking to the post-Covid-19 curriculum

Based on the notion of curriculum as a complicated conversation, as proposed by Pinar ( 2004 ), the post-Covid-19 curriculum can seize the possibility of achieving a responsive, ethical, humane education, one which requires a humanistic and internationally aware reconceptualization of curriculum.

While beliefs and values are anchored in social and individual practices (Pinar 2019 , p. 15), education extracts them for critique and reconsideration. For example, freedom and tolerance are not neutral but normative practices, however ideology-free policymakers imagine them to be.

That same sleight-of-hand—value neutrality in the service of a certain normativity—is evident in a digital concept of society as a relationship between humans and non-humans (or posthumans), a relationship not only mediated by but encapsulated within technology: machines interfacing with other machines. This is not merely a technological change, as if it were a quarantined domain severed from society. Technologization is a totalizing digitalization of human experience that includes the structures of society. It is less social than economic, with social bonds now recoded as financial transactions sutured by software. Now that subjectivity is digitalized, the human face has become an exclusively economic one that fabricates the fantasy of rational and free agents—always self-interested—operating in supposedly free markets. Oddly enough, there is no place for a vision of humanistic and internationally aware change. The technological dimension of curriculum is assumed to be the primary area of change, which has been deeply and totally imposed by global standards. The worldwide pandemic supports arguments for imposing forms of control (Žižek 2020 ), including the geolocation of infected people and the suspension—in a state of exception—of civil liberties.

By destroying democracy, the technology of control leads to totalitarianism and barbarism, ending tolerance, difference, and diversity. Remembrance and memory are needed so that historical fascisms (Eley 2020 ) are not repeated, albeit in new disguises (Adorno 2011 ). Technologized education enhances efficiency and ensures uniformity, while presuming objectivity to the detriment of human reflection and singularity. It imposes the running data of the Curriculum of Things and eschews intellectual endeavor, critical attitude, and self-reflexivity.

For those who advocate the primacy of technology and the so-called “free market”, the pandemic represents opportunities not only for profit but also for confirmation of the pervasiveness of human error and proof of the efficiency of the non-human, i.e., the inhuman technology. What may possibly protect children from this inhumanity and their commodification, as human capital, is a humane or humanistic education that contradicts their commodification.

The decontextualized technical vocabulary in use in a market society produces an undifferentiated image in which people are blinded to nuance, distinction, and subtlety. For Pestre, concepts associated with efficiency convey the primacy of economic activity to the exclusion, for instance, of ethics, since those concepts devalue historic (if unrealized) commitments to equality and fraternity by instead emphasizing economic freedom and the autonomy of self-interested individuals. Constructing education as solely economic and technological constitutes a movement toward total efficiency through the installation of uniformity of behavior, devaluing diversity and human creativity.

Erased from the screen is any image of public education as a space of freedom, or as Macdonald ( 1995 , p. 38) holds, any image or concept of “the dignity and integrity of each human”. Instead, what we face is the post-human and the undisputed reign of instrumental reality, where the ends justify the means and human realization is reduced to the consumption of goods and experiences. As Pinar ( 2019 , p. 7) observes: “In the private sphere…. freedom is recast as a choice of consumer goods; in the public sphere, it converts to control and the demand that freedom flourish, so that whatever is profitable can be pursued”. Such “negative” freedom—freedom from constraint—ignores “positive” freedom, which requires us to contemplate—in ethical and spiritual terms—what that freedom is for. To contemplate what freedom is for requires “critical and comprehensive knowledge” (Pestre 2013 , p. 39) not only instrumental and technical knowledge. The humanities and the arts would reoccupy the center of such a curriculum and not be related to its margins (Westbury 2008 ), acknowledging that what is studied within schools is a complicated conversation among those present—including oneself, one’s ancestors, and those yet to be born (Pinar 2004 ).

In an era of unconstrained technologization, the challenge facing the curriculum is coding and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), with technology dislodging those subjects related to the human. This is not a classical curriculum (although it could be) but one focused on the emergencies of the moment–namely, climate change, the pandemic, mass migration, right-wing populism, and economic inequality. These timely topics, which in secondary school could be taught as short courses and at the elementary level as thematic units, would be informed by the traditional school subjects (yes, including STEM). Such a reorganization of the curriculum would allow students to see how academic knowledge enables them to understand what is happening to them and their parents in their own regions and globally. Such a cosmopolitan curriculum would prepare children to become citizens not only of their own nations but of the world. This citizenship would simultaneously be subjective and social, singular and universal (Marope 2020 ). Pinar ( 2019 , p. 5) reminds us that “the division between private and public was first blurred then erased by technology”:

No longer public, let alone sacred, morality becomes a matter of privately held values, sometimes monetized as commodities, statements of personal preference, often ornamental, sometimes self-servingly instrumental. Whatever their function, values were to be confined to the private sphere. The public sphere was no longer the civic square but rather, the marketplace, the site where one purchased whatever one valued.

New technological spaces are the universal center for (in)human values. The civic square is now Amazon, Alibaba, Twitter, WeChat, and other global online corporations. The facts of our human condition—a century-old phrase uncanny in its echoes today—can be studied in schools as an interdisciplinary complicated conversation about public issues that eclipse private ones (Pinar 2019 ), including social injustice, inequality, democracy, climate change, refugees, immigrants, and minority groups. Understood as a responsive, ethical, humane and transformational international educational approach, such a post-Covid-19 curriculum could be a “force for social equity, justice, cohesion, stability, and peace” (Marope 2017 , p. 32). “Unchosen” is certainly the adjective describing our obligations now, as we are surrounded by death and dying and threatened by privation or even starvation, as economies collapse and food-supply chains are broken. The pandemic may not mean deglobalization, but it surely accentuates it, as national borders are closed, international travel is suspended, and international trade is impacted by the accompanying economic crisis. On the other hand, economic globalization could return even stronger, as could the globalization of education systems. The “new normal” in education is the technological order—a passive technologization—and its expansion continues uncontested and even accelerated by the pandemic.

Two Greek concepts, kronos and kairos , allow a discussion of contrasts between the quantitative and the qualitative in education. Echoing the ancient notion of kronos are the technologically structured curriculum values of quantity and performance, which are always assessed by a standardized accountability system enforcing an “ideology of achievement”. “While kronos refers to chronological or sequential time, kairos refers to time that might require waiting patiently for a long time or immediate and rapid action; which course of action one chooses will depend on the particular situation” (Lahtinen 2009 , p. 252).

For Macdonald ( 1995 , p. 51), “the central ideology of the schools is the ideology of achievement …[It] is a quantitative ideology, for even to attempt to assess quality must be quantified under this ideology, and the educational process is perceived as a technically monitored quality control process”.

Self-evaluation subjectively internalizes what is useful and in conformity with the techno-economy and its so-called standards, increasingly enforcing technical (software) forms. If recoded as the Internet of Things, this remains a curriculum in allegiance with “order and control” (Doll 2013 , p. 314) School knowledge is reduced to an instrument for economic success, employing compulsory collaboration to ensure group think and conformity. Intertwined with the Internet of Things, technological subjectivity becomes embedded in software, redesigned for effectiveness, i.e., or use-value (as Lyotard predicted).

The Curriculum of Things dominates the Internet, which is simultaneously an object and a thing (see Heidegger 1967 , 1971 , 1977 ), a powerful “technological tool for the process of knowledge building” (Means 2008 , p. 137). Online learning occupies the subjective zone between the “curriculum-as-planned” and the “curriculum-as-lived” (Pinar 2019 , p. 23). The world of the curriculum-as-lived fades, as the screen shifts and children are enmeshed in an ocularcentric system of accountability and instrumentality.

In contrast to kronos , the Greek concept of kairos implies lived time or even slow time (Koepnick 2014 ), time that is “self-reflective” (Macdonald 1995 , p. 103) and autobiographical (Pinar 2009 , 2004), thus inspiring “curriculum improvisation” (Aoki 2011 , p. 375), while emphasizing “the plurality of subjectivities” (Grumet 2017 , p. 80). Kairos emphasizes singularity and acknowledges particularities; it is skeptical of similarities. For Shew ( 2013 , p. 48), “ kairos is that which opens an originary experience—of the divine, perhaps, but also of life or being. Thought as such, kairos as a formative happening—an opportune moment, crisis, circumstance, event—imposes its own sense of measure on time”. So conceived, curriculum can become a complicated conversation that occurs not in chronological time but in its own time. Such dialogue is not neutral, apolitical, or timeless. It focuses on the present and is intrinsically subjective, even in public space, as Pinar ( 2019 , p. 12) writes: “its site is subjectivity as one attunes oneself to what one is experiencing, yes to its immediacy and specificity but also to its situatedness, relatedness, including to what lies beyond it and not only spatially but temporally”.

Kairos is, then, the uniqueness of time that converts curriculum into a complicated conversation, one that includes the subjective reconstruction of learning as a consciousness of everyday life, encouraging the inner activism of quietude and disquietude. Writing about eternity, as an orientation towards the future, Pinar ( 2019 , p. 2) argues that “the second side [the first is contemplation] of such consciousness is immersion in daily life, the activism of quietude – for example, ethical engagement with others”. We add disquietude now, following the work of the Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa. Disquietude is a moment of eternity: “Sometimes I think I’ll never leave ‘Douradores’ Street. And having written this, it seems to me eternity. Neither pleasure, nor glory, nor power. Freedom, only freedom” (Pesssoa 1991 ).

The disquietude conversation is simultaneously individual and public. It establishes an international space both deglobalized and autonomous, a source of responsive, ethical, and humane encounter. No longer entranced by the distracting dynamic stasis of image-after-image on the screen, the student can face what is his or her emplacement in the physical and natural world, as well as the technological world. The student can become present as a person, here and now, simultaneously historical and timeless.

Conclusions

Slow down and linger should be our motto now. A slogan yes, but it also represents a political, as well as a psychological resistance to the acceleration of time (Berg and Seeber 2016 )—an acceleration that the pandemic has intensified. Covid-19 has moved curriculum online, forcing children physically apart from each other and from their teachers and especially from the in-person dialogical encounters that classrooms can provide. The public space disappears into the pre-designed screen space that software allows, and the machine now becomes the material basis for a curriculum of things, not persons. Like the virus, the pandemic curriculum becomes embedded in devices that technologize our children.

Although one hundred years old, the images created in Modern Times by Charlie Chaplin return, less humorous this time than emblematic of our intensifying subjection to technological necessity. It “would seem to leave us as cogs in the machine, ourselves like moving parts, we keep functioning efficiently, increasing productivity calculating the creative destruction of what is, the human now materialized (de)vices ensnaring us in convenience, connectivity, calculation” (Pinar 2019 , p. 9). Post-human, as many would say.

Technology supports standardized testing and enforces software-designed conformity and never-ending self-evaluation, while all the time erasing lived, embodied experience and intellectual independence. Ignoring the evidence, others are sure that technology can function differently: “Given the potential of information and communication technologies, the teacher should now be a guide who enables learners, from early childhood throughout their learning trajectories, to develop and advance through the constantly expanding maze of knowledge” (UNESCO 2015a , p. 51). Would that it were so.

The canonical question—What knowledge is of most worth?—is open-ended and contentious. In a technologized world, providing for the well-being of children is not obvious, as well-being is embedded in ancient, non-neoliberal visions of the world. “Education is everybody’s business”, Pinar ( 2019 , p. 2) points out, as it fosters “responsible citizenship and solidarity in a global world” (UNESCO 2015a , p. 66), resisting inequality and the exclusion, for example, of migrant groups, refugees, and even those who live below or on the edge of poverty.

In this fast-moving digital world, education needs to be inclusive but not conformist. As the United Nations ( 2015 ) declares, education should ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. “The coming years will be a vital period to save the planet and to achieve sustainable, inclusive human development” (United Nations 2019 , p. 64). Is such sustainable, inclusive human development achievable through technologization? Can technology succeed where religion has failed?

Despite its contradictions and economic emphases, public education has one clear obligation—to create embodied encounters of learning through curriculum conceived as a complicated conversation. Such a conception acknowledges the worldliness of a cosmopolitan curriculum as it affirms the personification of the individual (Pinar 2011 ). As noted by Grumet ( 2017 , p. 89), “as a form of ethics, there is a responsibility to participate in conversation”. Certainly, it is necessary to ask over and over again the canonical curriculum question: What knowledge is of most worth?

If time, technology and teaching are moving images of eternity, curriculum and pedagogy are also, both ‘moving’ and ‘images’ but not an explicit, empirical, or exact representation of eternity…if reality is an endless series of ‘moving images’, the canonical curriculum question—What knowledge is of most worth?—cannot be settled for all time by declaring one set of subjects eternally important” (Pinar 2019 , p. 12).

In a complicated conversation, the curriculum is not a fixed image sliding into a passive technologization. As a “moving image”, the curriculum constitutes a politics of presence, an ongoing expression of subjectivity (Grumet 2017 ) that affirms the infinity of reality: “Shifting one’s attitude from ‘reducing’ complexity to ‘embracing’ what is always already present in relations and interactions may lead to thinking complexly, abiding happily with mystery” (Doll 2012 , p. 172). Describing the dialogical encounter characterizing conceived curriculum, as a complicated conversation, Pinar explains that this moment of dialogue “is not only place-sensitive (perhaps classroom centered) but also within oneself”, because “the educational significance of subject matter is that it enables the student to learn from actual embodied experience, an outcome that cannot always be engineered” (Pinar 2019 , pp. 12–13). Lived experience is not technological. So, “the curriculum of the future is not just a matter of defining content and official knowledge. It is about creating, sculpting, and finessing minds, mentalities, and identities, promoting style of thought about humans, or ‘mashing up’ and ‘making up’ the future of people” (Williamson 2013 , p. 113).

Yes, we need to linger and take time to contemplate the curriculum question. Only in this way will we share what is common and distinctive in our experience of the current pandemic by changing our time and our learning to foreclose on our future. Curriculum conceived as a complicated conversation restarts historical not screen time; it enacts the private and public as distinguishable, not fused in a computer screen. That is the “new normal”.

is full professor in the Department of Curriculum Studies and Educational Technology (Institute of Education, University of Minho, Portugal). His research focuses on curriculum theory, curriculum politics, and teacher training and evaluation. Presently, he is director of the PhD Science Education Program of the University of Minho, member of the Advisory Board of the Organization of Ibero-American Studies, director of the European Journal of Curriculum Studies, and director of the European Association on Curriculum Studies.

My thanks to William F. Pinar. Friendship is another moving image of eternity. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer. This work is financed by national funds through the FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project PTDC / CED-EDG / 30410/2017, Centre for Research in Education, Institute of Education, University of Minho.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Adorno, T. W. (2011). Educação e emancipação [Education and emancipation]. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
• Aoki, T. T. (2011). Sonare and videre: A story, three echoes and a lingering note. In W. F. W. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key. The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 368–376). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Badiou A. Theory of the subject. London: Continuum; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berg M, Seeber B. The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Couldry N, Mejias U. The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel SJ. Education and the Covid-19 pandemic. Prospects. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies D, Beauchamp G, Davies J, Price R. The potential of the ‘Internet of Things’ to enhance inquiry in Singapore schools. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2019 doi: 10.1080/02635143.2019.1629896. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delors J. Learning: The treasure within. Paris: UNESCO; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doll, W. E. (2012). Thinking complexly. In D. Trueit (Ed.), Pragmatism, post-modernism, and complexity theory: The “fascinating imaginative realm” of William E. Doll, Jr. (pp. 172–187). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Doll WE. Curriculum and concepts of control. In: Pinar WF, editor. Curriculum: Toward new identities. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013. pp. 295–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eley G. Conclusion. In: Thomas JA, Eley G, editors. Visualizing fascism: The twentieth-century rise of the global Right. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2020. pp. 284–292. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gil, J. (2020). A pandemia e o capitalismo numérico [The pandemic and numerical capitalism]. Público . https://www.publico.pt/2020/04/12/sociedade/ensaio/pandemia-capitalismo-numerico-1911986 .
• Grumet, M.G. (2017). The politics of presence. In M. A. Doll (Ed.), The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. A Festschrift in honor of William F. Pinar (pp. 76–83). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Heidegger M. What is a thing? South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M. Poetry, language, thought. New York, NY: Harper and Row; 1971. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M. The question concerning technology and other essays. New York, NY: Harper and Row; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koepnick L. On slowness: Toward an aesthetic of the contemporary. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koopman C. How we became our data: A genealogy of the informational person. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lahtinen M. Politics and curriculum. Leiden: Brill; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laist R. A curriculum of things: Exploring an object-oriented pedagogy. The National Teaching & Learning. 2016; 25 (3):1–4. doi: 10.1002/ntlf.30062. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Latour, B. (2020). Is this a dress rehearsal? Critical Inquiry . https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/is-this-a-dress-rehearsal
• Lyotard J. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macdonald BJ. Theory as a prayerful act. New York, NY: Peter Lang; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marope PTM. Reconceptualizing and repositioning curriculum in the 21st century: A global paradigm shift. Geneva: UNESCO IBE; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marope PTM. Preventing violent extremism through universal values in curriculum. Prospects. 2020; 48 (1):1–5. doi: 10.1007/s11125-019-09453-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Means B. Technology’s role in curriculum and instruction. In: Connelly FM, editor. The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008. pp. 123–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . OECD learning compass 2030. Paris: OECD; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Trends shaping education 2019. Paris: OECD; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacheco, J. A. (2009). Whole, bright, deep with understanding: Life story and politics of curriculum studies. In-between William Pinar and Ivor Goodson . Roterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
• Pacheco, J. A. (2017). Pinar’s influence on the consolidation of Portuguese curriculum studies. In M. A. Doll (Ed.), The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. A Festschrift in honor of William F. Pinar (pp. 130–136). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Pestre, D. (2013). Science, technologie et société. La politique des savoirs aujourd’hui [Science, technology, and society: Politics of knowledge today]. Paris: Foundation Calouste Gulbenkian.
• Pesssoa F. The book of disquietude. Manchester: Carcanet Press; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinar WF. What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinar WF. The worldliness of a cosmopolitan education: Passionate lives in public service. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinar, W. F. (2011). “A lingering note”: An introduction to the collected work of Ted T. Aoki. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key. The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 1–85). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Pinar WF. Moving images of eternity: George Grant’s critique of time, teaching, and technology. Ottawa: The University of Ottawa Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shew M. The Kairos philosophy. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy. 2013; 27 (1):47–66. doi: 10.5325/jspecphil.27.1.0047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spiller, P. (2017). Could subjects soon be a thing of the past in Finland? BBC News . https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39889523 .
• UNESCO (2015a). Rethinking education. Towards a global common global? Paris: UNESCO.
• UNESCO (2015b). Education 2030. Framework for action . Paris: UNESCO. https://www.sdg4education2030.org/sdg-education-2030-steering-committee-resources .
• UNESCO (2017). Global citizenship education . Paris: UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced .
• United Nations . The sustainable development goals. New York, NY: United Nations; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations . The sustainable development goals report. New York, NY: United Nations; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wells W. Permanent revolution: Reflections on capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Westbury, I. (2008). Making curricula. Why do states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• Williamson B. The future of the curriculum. School knowledge in the digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in education. The digital future of learning, policy and practice . London: Sage.
• Žižek S. PANDEMIC! Covid-19 shakes the world. New York, NY: Or Books; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]

Off the page, into the water: UC alum and seventh-grade teacher teaches through canoe building

The delhi middle school teacher initiated a special learning program in her middle school classroom..

Emily Hohlefelder knows the importance of digital platforms in today’s learning environments. A seventh-grade teacher at Delhi Middle School, Hohlefelder has experienced the impact of digital connectivity on education both in the classroom and during her own time as a student at the University of Cincinnati.

“There are so many platforms!” says Hohlefelder, pointing to the lasting impact COVID-19 and remote learning had on teaching and learning. “So many different ones, all asking students to present their information in different ways: recording themselves, recording just their voice or having to create some sort of digital image.”

Students in Emily Hohlefelder's seventh-grade class work on the frame of the skin-on frame canoe. Photo/provided

None of this is news to the 2023 graduate of the College of Education, Criminal Justice, Human Services, and Information Technology, who was introduced to future-forward teaching tools during her first year as an undergraduate in the  Middle Childhood Education program . Specifically, it was an educational technology class with School of Education professor Sarah Schroeder that opened Hohlefelder’s eyes to the possibilities of instruction and learning in a hyper-connected, always-on world.

She also honed in on how platforms, especially interfaces for creative student work, can cause anxiety in some students, leading Hohlefelder to complete and submit a project on reducing student anxiety around technology use. Schroeder was impressed with Hohlefelder’s insights and invited the first-year student to present her research at the Ohio Undergraduate Technology conference in Columbus. 

“I was like, ‘Sure, I’ll go with you!’” laughs Hohlefelder, who went on to become dual-licensed in middle childhood and special education with a certificate in digital learning design. “I felt pretty underqualified – I was 19 and in my first year, but she took a chance on me.” Schroeder subsequently helped Hohlefelder publish her work as well, co-authoring a paper titled  “Reducing Student Anxiety About Creative Digital Work”  for publication in  Edutopia , an online outlet for educational news and insight.

“I ended up doing a grant-funded project on reducing student anxiety with technology while I was an undergrad. It fueled a lot of great new information, especially coming out of COVID, on how technology can cause a lot of anxiety when it comes to different methods of learning for students.”     

Building Life Skills (and a Canoe)

Proven expertise with technology and insight into digital platforms might make Hohlefelder an unlikely champion for hands-on, nature-focused learning. But for a person with a lifelong ambition to help all learners reach their potential, she works to stay alert to opportunities that expand her ability to reach pupils – which is how she ended up bringing a canoe-building project into her classroom.

“The director of the program is one of my good friends,” says Hohlefleder. “I had watched him go into schools for the past three years, so why wouldn’t I want to bring this into my own school?” The Urban Wilderness Program , she goes on to explain, is a Cincinnati-based non-profit that delivers wilderness experiences to schools with kids who, demographically, don’t enjoy easy access to outdoor enrichment.

“A lot of my students had not been in a canoe before. They had not been on a body of water.”

Emily Hohlefelder, Seventh-grade teacher at Delhi Middle School

Seventh-grade Delhi Middle School students shape parts for the classroom canoe build. Photo/provided

The STEM-based project saw students construct a skin-on frame canoe as part of their daily classwork, which Hohlefelder was able to tie into traditional areas of study such as math and science, as well as social studies and language arts. “At the same time, they were able to learn teamwork, critical thinking skills and how to work together to pursue a common goal,” she says. “And it always helps students, especially in middle school, when that goal is tangible. So fostering that kind of community was truly the goal we were looking for here at Delhi with the canoe build.”

Another significant benefit of the classroom canoe project? The collaborative build provided a holistic means to reach students who sometimes struggled to engage with learning material. “It was fun to see kids who were usually reserved or not interested in the academic setting of the classroom really come out of their shell when it came to getting to use their hands for something,” explains Hohlefelder. “The build takes about two weeks, so it becomes routine for them. A lot of them really enjoyed it.”

A Risk Worth the Reward

The canoe-build project was, admittedly, a big swing – especially for a teacher so early in their career (this is, in fact, Hohlefelder’s first year teaching at Delhi Middle School). But that same spirit she found during her first year, when she said yes to the conference opportunity in Columbus despite feeling underqualified, spurred her to take the chance.

 “As teachers, we already have a million things going on,” she says. “And trying something for the first time? I’m like, this could fail – this could go very badly. But it’s worth taking the risk if it’s going to benefit the students.”

A student connects planking to one of the ribs on the canoe frame. Photo/provided

The canoe is currently on display (alongside a pair of oars carved as part of the program) in the school, but Hohlefelder envisions this canoe build as an annual seventh-grade project that, in time, populates a nearby pond with a fleet for public use.  And though the students didn’t know it when they initially built the canoe, there is a part two to this project they recently learned about – a May field trip in which they themselves will take the canoe out for some freshwater fun.

“We have to teach them, at the end of the day, that it’s not about the tests,” says Hohlefelder. “It’s not about the data. It’s really about what kind of people we are teaching here. How are we teaching them to serve the community when they’re older?

“Projects like these are the ones that I know they’ll remember past middle school.”

Featured image at top: Emily Hohlefelder stands next to completed skin-on frame canoe built as a seventh-grade classroom project. Photo/provided. 

• Next Lives Here

CECH’s School of Education is highly regarded for preparing the next generation of educators. The program is led by a team of experienced and qualified faculty who are dedicated to teaching students to meet the demands of modern classrooms and address the educational needs of diverse student populations. The program offers a variety of courses and experiences that will help students develop their understanding of child development, instructional methods, and classroom management.

For more information about the School of Education,  please visit the school’s website.

Contact the College of Education, Criminal Justice, Human Services, and Information Technology . 

• School of Education
• Alumni Association
• College of Education, Criminal Justice, & Human Services

Related Stories

April 11, 2024

Emily Hohlefelder, a 7th-grade teacher at Delhi Middle School, applied lessons she learned as a UC education student in the College of Education, Criminal Justice, Human Services, and Information Technology (CECH) to initiate a special learning program in the classroom. The result? A canoe-building project that proved both educational and uniquely engaging.

Amid shift to remote learning, UC students emerge ed tech leaders

July 10, 2020

When area schools scrambled to move instruction online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, UC education students stepped up to help teachers adapt their lesson plans online.

Journal-News: UC education expert weighs in on ‘new normal’ for schools

August 17, 2020

More than 70,000 area K-12 students will soon resume their school lives in Butler County amid a very different school atmosphere, reports the Journal-News. In examining how COVID-19 will affect the lives of Butler County students, it turned to Laura Dell, associate dean for the University of Cincinnati’s School of Education.

Texas Launches AI Grader for Student Essay Tests But Insists It's Not Like ChatGPT

K ids in Texas are taking state-mandated standardized tests this week to measure their proficiency in reading, writing, science, and social studies. But those tests aren’t going to necessarily be graded by human teachers anymore. In fact, the Texas Education Agency will deploy a new “automated scoring engine” for open-ended questions on the tests. And the state hopes to save millions with the new program.

The technology, which has been dubbed an “auto scoring engine” (ASE) by the Texas Education Agency, uses natural language processing to grade student essays, according to the Texas Tribune . After the initial grading by the AI model, roughly 25% of test responses will be sent back to human graders for review, according to the San Antonio Report news outlet.

Texas expects to save somewhere between $15-20 million with the new AI tool, mostly because fewer human graders will need to be hired through a third-party contracting agency. Previously, about 6,000 graders were needed, but that’s being cut down to about 2,000, according to the Texas Tribune.

A presentation published on the Texas Education Agency’s website appears to show that tests of the new system revealed humans and the automated system gave comparable scores to most kids. But a lot of questions remain about how the tech works exactly and what company may have helped the state develop the software. Two education companies, Cambium and Pearson, are mentioned as contractors at the Texas Education Agency’s site but the agency didn’t respond to questions emailed Tuesday.

The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) was first introduced in 2011 but redesigned in 2023 to include more open-ended essay-style questions. Previously, the test contained many more questions in the multiple choice format which, of course, was also graded by computerized tools. The big difference is that scoring a bubble sheet is different from scoring a written response, something computers have more difficulty understanding.

In a sign of potentially just how toxic AI tools have become in mainstream tech discourse, the Texas Education Agency has apparently been quick to shoot down any comparisons to generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT , according to the Texas Tribune. And the PowerPoint presentation on the Texas Education Agency’s site appears to confirm that unease with comparisons to anything like ChatGPT.

“This kind of technology is different from AI in that AI is a computer using progressive learning algorithms to adapt, allowing the data to do the programming and essentially teaching itself,” the presentation explains. “Instead, the automated scoring engine is a closed database with student response data accessible only by TEA and, with strict contractual privacy control, its assessment contractors, Cambium and Pearson.”

Any family who’s upset with their child’s grade can request that a human take another look at the test, according to the San Antonio Report . But it’ll set you back $50.

For the latest news, Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .