Factors Shaping, Enhancing, and Thwarting Urban Educators' Instruction in the Virtual Environment

• In Event: Equity for Urban Students: Novice Teachers' Efforts to Virtually Impact Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Objectives
• To explore influences on urban teachers’ ability to impact student learning and development when shifting to remote instruction during the spring 2020 pandemic.
Perspective
Recent educational reforms emphasize the need for teacher educators to be accountable for graduates’ ability to positively impact student learning and development (Cochran-Smith, et al, 2013). To understand our effectiveness at preparing culturally-responsive educators (Sleeter, 2011), each year we gather narratives of graduates’ effectiveness or struggles in supporting urban students’ development (Author, 2019). In light of the closure of schools for on-site instruction in spring 2020, we focused our annual data collection on graduates’ experiences teaching virtually.
Methodology
The context for this study is an urban teacher preparation unit grounded in social justice and equity (Authors, 2016). We used a multi-case study approach (Yin, 2014) bounded by the 2018 and 2019 graduates hired in two urban districts. The 25 participants had completed one to two years of teaching and represented ten areas of certification. Data included descriptions of instructional sequences gathered through an interview protocol based on Critical Incident Technique (Butterfield, et al, 2009). Data were analyzed using a constant-comparative method (a) to describe graduates’ experiences in shifting to virtual instruction and (b) to analyze factors that helped or hindered their success in online instruction.
Results
Graduates’ experiences in moving to virtual instruction varied strongly across the two districts. In district A, system policies discounted the value of online instruction by not counting any work done virtually toward learners’ end of the year grades. Some teachers indicated no more than 15% of the students completed assignments or engaged online. District A also changed policies midstream, initially requiring all teaching to be done asynchronously on the district platform, and then allowing teachers to choose applications. Although schools had issued laptops to all students, some would not allow students on campus to retrieve their computers after the emergency closure occurred. District B’s teachers initially worked long hours tracking student engagement, holding synchronous classes, planning lessons, and contacting parents. Later, groups of teachers rotated responsibility for subjects which lightened the load but removed some of the teachers’ autonomy and ability to base lessons on student need. As found in previous research, none of the graduates indicated their programs had explicitly prepared them for online instruction (Archambault & Larson, 2015); although a number drew on technology-based practices and culturally responsive approaches they used in their programs and in their face-to-face instruction to enhance their virtual lessons. All teachers noted an increase in communication with parents during the pandemic but many expressed difficulties in providing scaffolding or in reading cues visually to understand students’ struggles. Similarly, Rehn et al (2018) found online educators feel under-prepared with strategies to project presence, facilitate interaction, and teach content via the computer.
Significance
This research illustrates how school leadership can remove or create barriers for equitable learning for students in urban contexts. While some pedagogical practices learned in preparation programs proved beneficial, educators were lacking in knowledge and expertise related specifically to virtual instruction.

Authors

• Carla Lynn Tanguay, Georgia State University

• Joyce E. Many, Georgia State University