Mode of Instruction During
the Pandemic: An Analysis
Overview
• The most prominent disruption to education caused by the
pandemic was the interruption of in-person learning for thousands
of students.
• Mode of instruction can be broadly classified as:
• In-person
• Remote or Virtual
• Hybrid (a combination of in-person and remote)
• Questions over the efficacy of education that was not in-person
about.
• This presentation gives some initial insight into the impact of
mode of instruction on student learning.
Data
Data was provided by IDOE including
• ILEARN data in English/language arts and mathematics including
student demographic data
• Mode of Instruction data for students that was merged with ILEARN
data. Mode of instruction indicated three types:
• In-person
• Remote or Virtual
• Hybrid (a combination of in-person and remote)
Analyses on Mode of Instruction
• Student level descriptive statistics associated with ILEARN mode of
instruction including:
• Participation by mode of instruction disaggregated by academic and
demographic student groups.
• Student achievement and growth by Mode of instruction disaggregated by
academic and demographic student groups
• School level descriptive statistics associated with ILEARN mode of
instruction instruction:
• School level participation by mode of instruction
• School level academic impact by mode of instruction
• Identification of schools instructing students remotely who seemed to do a
remarkable job based upon ILEARN results
Summary of Individual Results
• In-person was the predominant mode of instruction followed by remote,
hybrid, and virtual school instruction. In-person and remote instruction
constituted more than 80% of the mode of instruction.
• There is not an insignificant amount of missing mode of instructions data
(approximately 15%). It is unlikely the missing data changes the findings
of the study.
• In-person instruction was, on average, the uniformly best mode of
instruction for students consistently leading to the highest learning rates
for students.
• Growth rates associated with remote instruction were very poor, especially
in mathematics.
• Ethnic minority students were much more likely to receive remote
instruction than white students.
Student Participation by Mode of
Instruction
ELA Mathematics
Mode of
Instruction Count Percentage Count Percentage
In-Person 325,608 78.2% 325,415 78.3%
Remote 65,619 15.8% 65,512 15.7%
Hybrid 20,828 5.0% 20,816 5.0%
Virtual School 4,078 0.9% 4,065 0.9%
Performance by Mode of Instruction
ELA Mathematics
Mode of
Instruction % Prof Median SGP % Prof Median SGP
In-Person 43.1% 42 42.0% 36
Remote 30.1% 33 20.4% 18
Hybrid 45.0% 39 33.7% 27
Virtual School 33.2% 37 19.2% 18
Student Participation by Mode of
Instruction
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Mode of
Instruction
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
In-Person 119,720 85.4% 118,642 85.2% 118,735 83.2% 104,192 75.1% 97,186 70.6% 92,548 69.5%
Remote 18,696 13.4% 18,760 13.5% 20,717 14.5% 22,944 16.5% 24,733 17.9% 25,281 18.9%
Hybrid 657 0.5% 720 0.6% 2,157 1.5% 10,333 7.4% 14,123 10.3% 13,654 10.2%
Virtual 1,042 0.7% 998 0.7% 1,179 0.8% 1,349 0.9% 1,686 1.2% 1,889 1.4%
School
ELA Performance by Mode of Instruction
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Mode of
Instruction % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median
Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP
In-Person 41.3%/ --- 42.3%/ --- 42.0%/ 41 43.0%/ 42 44.1%/ 42 46.9%/ 43
Remote 26.3%/ --- 26.1%/ --- 27.4%/ 28 29.8%/ 31 32.7%/ 34 35.9%/ 36
Hybrid 29.2%/ --- 26.4%/ --- 40.1%/ 34 43.9%/ 37 45.4%/ 39 47.9%/ 41
Virtual 27.9%/ --- 28.5%/ --- 30.3%/ 29 32.5%/ 30 34.6%/ 39 39.7%/ 45
School
Math Performance by Mode of Instruction
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Mode of
Instruction % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median % Prof/ Median
Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP Mean SS SGP
In-Person 52.7%/ --- 47.7%/ --- 42.4%/ 35 38.2%/ 34 34.6%/ 36 32.3%/ 38
Remote 29.2%/ --- 24.5%/ --- 21.1%/ 14 17.4%/ 15 18.3%/ 23 15.1%/ 21
Hybrid 38.1%/ --- 26.9%/ --- 34.9%/ 18 34.8%/ 23 34.7%/ 31 31.8%/ 30
Virtual 38.8%/ --- 26.6%/ --- 19.5%/ 12 16.5%/ 14 16.4%/ 22 12.1%/ 22
School
Student Participation by Mode of
Instruction
Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial White
Mode of
Instruction Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage
In-Person 14,731 62.1% 47,421 50.3% 76,559 69.4% 31,037 73.3% 479,750 89.3%
Remote 5,946 25.1% 40,593 43.1% 27,016 24.5% 8,100 19.1% 49,176 9.2%
Hybrid 2,951 12.5% 5,214 5.5% 6,144 5.5% 2,680 6.3% 2,680 0.5%
Virtual 78 0.3% 1,079 1.1% 708 0.6% 543 1.3% 5,697 1.0%
School
Student Participation by Mode of
Instruction
Free Meals Reduced Price Meals Paid Meals
Mode of
Instruction Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage
In-Person 244,947 72.4% 40,215 80.0% 361,765 82.6%
Remote 74,093 21.9% 6,964 13.8% 49,460 11.3%
Hybrid 15,546 4.6% 2,115 4.2% 23,771 5.4%
Virtual School 3,977 1.2% 965 1.9% 3,177 0.7%
Student Participation by Mode of
Instruction
Special Education General Education
Mode of
Instruction Count Percentage Count Percentage
In-Person 101,007 79.6% 546,521 78.0%
Remote 18,885 14.9% 111,693 16.0%
Hybrid 5,339 4.3% 36,119 5.1%
Virtual School 1,545 1.3% 6,576 0.9%
Student Participation by Mode of
Instruction
Limited English Proficient Fluent English Proficient Not an ELL
Mode of
Instruction Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage
In-Person 44,733 73.9% 27,600 63.2% 574,712 79.5%
Remote 12,252 20.2% 11,561 26.4% 106,650 14.8%
Hybrid 3,470 5.7% 4,375 10.0% 33,597 4.6%
Virtual School 121 0.2% 164 0.4% 7,836 1.0%
Summary of School Results
• As in-person was the predominant mode of instruction, the vast majority
of schools in Indiana were in person.
• Nearly 50% of schools had greater than 90% of students in person
• Nearly 80% of schools had greater than 60% of students in person
• Conversely, there were a small minority of school in Indiana who were
mostly virtual.
• About 5% of schools had greater than 50% of students whose
mode of education was virtual
• As the following charts show, the 5% of schools having greater than
50% of student who mode of education was virtual tended to be larger
schools serving lower achieving students.
Summary of School Results
Summary of School Results
Summary of School Results
• Of the 69 school depicted in the bubble plots (the same 69 shown for
both ELA and mathematics), 120 have academic impact ratings. The
are as follows:
Academic Impact ELA Math
Rating
Modest to None 4 0
Moderate 20 2
Large 36 58
Summary of School Results
• An initial takeaway from these analyses is that the learning of students with remote
instruction is far less than learning of students receiving in-person instruction.
• The first attempt at screening for schools whose primary mode of instruction was
remote, who demonstrated good performance in 2019, and showed resilience in
their performance during the pandemic (i.e., modest to no impact) yielded few
schools
• Unfortunately, using this screener to try and find schools that were primarily
remote, who were good before and showed resilience in their performance during
the pandemic yielded few schools.
• A next approach to screening will investigate schools with a substantial number of
students who received remote instruction, whose remote students performance as
well as or better than in-person students, who demonstrated good performance in
2019, and were resilient in their performance during the pandemic.
About this copy
Mode of Instruction During the Pandemic: An Analysis — Indiana Department of Education, August 8, 2021.
This is an image-based copy of the original PowerPoint slides; builds and animations are flattened.