Mode of Instruction During the Pandemic: An Analysis

Indiana Department of Education · August 8, 2021

Mode of Instruction During the Pandemic: An Analysis — Indiana Department of Education, August 8, 2021.
Published

August 8, 2021

Event
State agency
Slides
20
Format
Converted from PowerPoint

This deck is an image-based copy of the original slides. Builds and animations are flattened; the slide text is reproduced below for search and screen readers.

Slide text
  1. Mode of Instruction During the Pandemic: An Analysis
  2. 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.
  3. 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)
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Student Participation by Mode of Instruction ELA Mathematics Mode of Instruction Count Percentage Count Percentage In-Person 325,608 66.8% 325,415 66.8% Remote 65,619 13.5% 65,512 13.4% Hybrid 20,828 4.3% 20,816 4.3% Virtual School 4,078 0.8% 4,065 0.8% Missing 70,948 14.6% 71,274 14.6% Information
  7. 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 Missing 37.0% 36 30.8% 26 Information
  8. 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 75.3% 118,642 75.0% 118,735 73.8% 104,192 63.7% 97,186 58.3% 92,548 55.8% Remote 18,696 11.8% 18,760 11.9% 20,717 12.9% 22,944 14.0% 24,733 14.8% 25,281 15.2% Hybrid 657 0.4% 720 0.5% 2,157 1.3% 10,333 6.3% 14,123 8.5% 13,654 8.2% Virtual 1,042 0.7% 998 0.6% 1,179 0.7% 1,349 0.8% 1,686 1.0% 1,889 1.1% School Missing 18,856 11.9% 19,028 12.0% 18,078 11.2% 24,844 15.2% 28,891 17.3% 32,523 19.6% Information
  9. 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 Missing 35.6%/ --- 36.7%/ --- 37.8%/ 37 34.6%/ 34 36.3/ 35 39.9%/ 37 Information
  10. 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 Missing 43.8%/ --- 39.4%/ --- 35.5%/ 25 25.7%/ 21 25.7%/ 27 23.9%/ 29 Information
  11. 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 54.2% 47,421 39.9% 76,559 57.7% 31,037 61.4% 479,750 77.7% Remote 5,946 21.9% 40,593 34.2% 27,016 20.4% 8,100 16.0% 49,176 8.0% Hybrid 2,951 10.9% 5,214 4.4% 6,144 4.6$ 2,680 5.3% 2,680 0.4% Virtual 78 0.3% 1,079 0.9% 708 0.5% 543 1.1% 5,697 0.9% School Missing 3,489 12.8% 24,471 20.6% 22,251 16.8% 8,195 16.2% 80,468 13.0% Information
  12. 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 61.6% 40,215 70.6% 361,765 71.9% Remote 74,093 18.6% 6,964 12.2% 49,460 9.8% Hybrid 15,546 3.9% 2,115 3.7% 23,771 4.7% Virtual School 3,977 1.0% 965 1.7% 3,177 0.6% Missing 59,197 14.9% 6,691 11.7% 64,658 12.9% Information
  13. Student Participation by Mode of Instruction Special Education General Education Mode of Instruction Count Percentage Count Percentage In-Person 101,007 69.1% 546,521 67.3% Remote 18,885 12.9% 111,693 13.8% Hybrid 5,339 3.7% 36,119 4.4% Virtual School 1,545 1.1% 6,576 0.8% Missing 19,495 13.3% 111,260 13.7% Information
  14. 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 63.7% 27,600 53.1% 574,712 68.8% Remote 12,252 17.4% 11,561 22.2% 106,650 12.8% Hybrid 3,470 4.9% 4,375 8.4% 33,597 4.0% Virtual School 121 0.2% 164 0.3% 7,836 0.9% Missing 9,651 13.7% 8,316 16.0% 112,680 13.5% Information
  15. 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.
  16. Summary of School Results
  17. Summary of School Results
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. Thank You