Charles Ungerleider,
Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission to
reproduce if authorship is acknowledged]
Natural experiments are
observational studies of the impact of an event conducted during and afterward,
focussing on differences among groups. They differ markedly from true
experiments in which individuals are randomly assigned to an experimental group
and a control group. The experimental group is exposed to some treatment (a new
drug, for example) and the control group is not.
Coincidentally, one of the most
famous natural experiments was conducted after a cholera epidemic by John
Snow (famous at least among epidemiologists). Water to a region in London was
supplied by two different companies. During the cholera epidemic of 1849, the
two companies supplied their water from the same polluted region of the Thames,
producing similar death rates. By the
time cholera returned in 1853, one of the companies had changed its source of
water, creating the condition for a natural experiment. Snow mapped the
outbreaks of cholera in 1853 and traced its recurrence to the water supplied by
the company still obtaining it from the polluted region of the Thames.
The COVID-19 pandemic has produced
a natural experiment in online learning, though not exactly like the cholera
epidemic in London. Online learning during COVID-19 has had a markedly
different impact on different populations. Statistics Canada data show that the
burdens of access to equipment, technology and support fall heaviest upon lower
income households. These households have a disproportionate share of students
who will have the greatest difficulty making up lost
earning time, compounding the existing inequalities.
Students in homes that were
relatively well-equipped with a computer and decent bandwidth were able to
access the educational material. Obviously that material, and the support
teachers were providing, were not available to students in homes with no or
little equipment or internet access.
No one considered the online
experiences as a substitute for face-to-face instruction or contact between
students and teachers. However, one of the unintended but real consequences of online
learning was to exacerbate the inequalities that face-to-face schooling tries
to eliminate.
Even in homes with equipment and
internet there was competition between parents who needed the equipment and
bandwidth for working at home and their children who needed them for school. Families
with the luxury of time were better able to monitor and assist their children. The
differences among all students intensified. Of course, these were not the only differences
in the environments in which students were expected to learn online. Many
students do not have a quiet space at home and/or parents who can help them
when they struggle with a task. There are students who are on their own because
their parents must work outside the home.
Teachers struggled. Many had little
or no experience with online learning, video-conferencing equipment, and the
content management systems that school boards made available but for which
little training was available. Ever resourceful, many resorted to other online
resources for help and one another for support. But most teachers were on their
own in terms of what and how they planned for, and made use of, online ‘learning.’
There are lessons to be learned
from the natural experiment in online learning. It is obvious, the introduction
of any new practice or technology requires significant planning. Of course, no
one anticipated the abrupt shift to online communication (I resist calling it learning).
Those contemplating further use of internet technologies must have a plan for
doing so. The COVID-19 online experience makes me wonder if Ontario will rethink
requiring mandatory online coursework for secondary students.
It is important to ensure that the
conditions for using the technology are favourable. Inequalities in equipment
and bandwidth are not acceptable conditions. Requiring teachers to figure
things out for themselves is unacceptable. They need preparation for using any
new practice or technology.
Teachers should not be preparing on
their own. Most teacher unions have sub-sets of teachers organized by grade
level or subject. These are often called professional specialist groups or
something similar. The membership of these groups is often leaders in the sub-specialty.
These groups should work with teachers who have significant experience working
with technology and distributed learning to prepare the material that will be
used if there is a return to online learning.
If online learning continues, adjustment
would be required to the traditional relationship between teachers and students,
one that is presently based upon a single teacher working with a group of
students (usually grouped by age) based on grade level or subject. This
arrangement places enormous pressure on teachers working in conventional
face-to-face environments. Online environments increase the pressure
exponentially. Online learning (and face-to-face learning) would likely be
enhanced if teachers were encouraged to collaborate with one another and have
collective responsibility for groups of students. Online learning as it is
presently practiced places unreasonable demands upon teachers and poses major
challenges that could affect long-term student development.
COVID-19 is likely to recur in the
fall and perhaps after. There are steps that can be taken to improve on the
largely negative experience. There were many admirable efforts to address
inequalities in access by providing computers and free or relatively inexpensive
internet. But significant inequalities remain that must be diminished. That
will be costly at any time, but they will be an additional burden in the
aftermath of the huge expenditures that governments have made during the first
wave of COVID-19.
The cost of improving the online
experience of students, teachers, and families will need to be weighed against rescheduling
schooling to make up the learning time lost by closing schools. Closing schools during what is likely to be
another COVID-19 wave (declaring them ‘unplanned school holidays’) might be
preferable on several grounds. Rescheduling schooling as often happens in
climates where schools are closed because of weather is much less costly than gearing
up for more and improved online learning.
Because it will be difficult to
‘gear up’ before another wave occurs, the inequalities produced by the first
wave of COVID-19 are very likely to persist and, thus, be worsened by resorting
to the use of internet technologies to address school closures. Rescheduling
face-to-face instruction is likely to be more favourable from an educational
standpoint because it would not aggravate educational inequalities to the same
extent as the hodgepodge that was characteristic of the response to the first
COVID-19 wave.
I belong to the “plan for the worst
and hope for the best” school of public policy. I hope there is not a second
wave of COVID-19. However, planning for school closures in the event of a
second wave of COVID-19 is preferable to repeating the failed natural
experiment in online learning during COVID’s first wave that has worsened the
educational inequalities that schooling tries to eliminate.