The Christen Science Monitor (Preston Green is quoted about charter school funding)
UConn Hosts Inaugural Frontiers in Playful Learning Conference
After a year of careful planning, the Neag School of Education’s Two Summers Educational Technology program and the UConn School of Fine Art’s Digital Media and Design (DMD) program co-hosted the inaugural Frontiers in Playful Learning conference from June 1 – 3, 2022.
The three-day conference attracted roughly 55 in-person attendees from around the U.S. (Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and more) with additional national and international participation through live-streamed sessions. Most attendees were scholars and graduate students from research universities, but some very dedicated K-12 teachers and industry professionals also took the time to attend.
How it All Started
Organized by Stephen Slota, who has dual faculty appointments in both the UConn Learning Sciences (formerly known as the Cognition, Instruction, & Learning Technology program) and DMD programs, the idea to host Frontiers came about after a series of conversations between playful learning scholars who felt they had fallen out of touch through the pandemic. “Although there are several other events centered on game-based education, we wanted to target game-and play-based teaching and research in higher education, specifically,” said Slota.
“Bringing together a small, tightly-knit group of interdisciplinary experts seemed like a good first step,” remarked Slota.
The UConn Two Summers Educational Technology program (among the Top 15 in the U.S. according to SuccessfulStudent.org) has become a nationally-recognized hub for playful teaching and learning research due in large part to their frequently-cited (2012) Review of Educational Research meta-analysis Our Princess is in Another Castle: A Review of Trends in Serious Gaming for Education and (2017) edited volume Exploding the Castle: Rethinking How Video Games & Game Mechanics Can Shape the Future of Education.
“What’s great about the community is its interdisciplinary nature, which creates points of contact that can’t be achieved with a narrow focus on just one discipline or role.”
— Assistant Professor-in-Residence Stephen Slota
“We recognized that our unique status positioned us to revitalize and organize the field around a set of shared goals by welcoming teachers, researchers, and designers to UConn’s campus as part of our community of practice,” Slota noted.
In addition to reengaging game- and play-based instructors and scholars, Slota and other Frontiers attendees sought to explore means of enhancing their individual and collaborative efforts. For some, that meant finding co-researchers and co-authors; for others, it meant finding complementary skillsets that could facilitate design work.
“What’s great about the community is its interdisciplinary nature, which creates points of contact that can’t be achieved with a narrow focus on just one discipline or role,” said Slota.
What the Presenters and Attendees Thought
Anecdotal feedback indicated that attendees felt Frontiers was a “huge success,” and they seemed “impressed with how smoothly it went, especially since it was the first time hosting the event.”
Slota quickly recognized and credited Juliet Kapsis, the representative contact through UConn’s University Events and Conference Services, for her help. “She went above and beyond to work with various departments, programs, and people during the year it took to bring Frontiers together.”
According to one presenter, Trent Hergenrader, an assistant professor of English at the Rochester Institute of Technology, “What I appreciated about Frontiers is that everyone was interested in the process of teaching through the use of different kinds of games; to leverage deeper learning for our students.”
“In other words, it centered on games as teaching tools for higher education and, specifically, which games offer particular teaching and learning affordances (rather than a narrower focus just on how to use or make learning games),” he added.
Another presenter, Evan Torner, an associate professor of German Studies and Film/Media Studies from the University of Cincinnati, felt the three days he spent at Frontiers in Playful Learning were “some of the most productive [he’s] experienced in [his] career.”
“It was a healthy combination of presentations, discussions, postmortems, ideation, and play,” said Torner.
Tori Wagner ’20 MA, an incoming UConn Learning Sciences doctoral student and former Staples (Connecticut) High School physics teacher, greatly benefited from her connections with established experts and fellow up-and-coming playful learning professionals.
“The conference was a fantastic combination of presentations on cutting-edge research and informal discussions across various disciplines.”
— Incoming Doctoral Student Tori Wagner
“The conference was a fantastic combination of presentations on cutting-edge research and informal discussions across various disciplines,” said Wagner. “It was enlightening to gather perspectives of those outside my standard STEM circle. I’m excited to continue to learn from and work with the talented scholars I met as we contribute to the growing body of games and education research.”
Roger Travis, a UConn associate professor of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages, was also complimentary about Frontiers. “We all know games teach, but conferences like Frontiers are helping us figure out how we can use that limitless power to engage and educate.”
Summing up a widely shared perspective, presenter Wendi Sierra, assistant professor of Game Studies at the Texas Christian University Honors College, observed, “With such a rich and diverse group of people, the conversations were amazing, and I walked away with so many new ideas. As a result, my list of books to read, games to play, and things to try in my classroom is (excitingly) overwhelming.”
Outcomes and Future Plans
Through the unanimously positive feedback, Slota concluded that “there was an agreement we should continue hosting Frontiers in Playful Learning on an annual basis,” and he felt “the most important outcome was networking.”
“That’s what’s wonderful about bringing together so many passionate, hard-working scholars—nerding out about topics we spend all our personal and professional time thinking about,” Slota articulated with a smile. “Not only did we meet face-to-face with folks we’d only ‘seen’ through video conferencing over the last three years, but we cultivated friendships that have already led to new scholarly discourse and publication efforts.”
Many presenters and attendees are already looking forward to another Frontiers, including Torner, who recommends “anyone interested in games and learning consider attending next year!”
Slota acknowledged that limiting attendance to fewer than 100 people allowed them to encourage one-on-one interactions during and between sessions, which proved to be “one of the best decisions we made.”
The organizers are planning for Frontiers in Playful Learning 2023 to run from May 31 – June 2, 2023. They’ll introduce minor changes to the session formats (including a peer-reviewed play track for demoing board, card, roleplaying, and video games). Still, the attendees were “so happy” with the first go-around that the organizers will focus on “simply expanding an already-solid infrastructure.”
Visit the conference website to learn more about Frontiers in Playful Learning, including an archive of photos and session recordings.
Supreme Court Says Religious Schools Can’t Be Singled Out for Exclusion From Public Dollars
Chalkbeat (Preston Green is quoted about charter schools)
“Catching Up” in Secondary Math Education: Areas to Focus Your Efforts
Editor’s Note: Kenya Overton and Andrew Kuck, Neag School of Education doctoral students in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, prepared the following rapid research brief with the Center for Education Policy Analysis, Research, and Evaluation (CEPARE)
Society will be recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for years to come. However, its impact on student learning is particularly consequential. School closures and other changes brought on by the pandemic caused disruptions in our schools, which for many students led to a decrease in standardized mathematics scores (Agostinelli, 2022). One such change may have been a reversion to traditional instructional methods due to the rapid transition schools made to remote learning. Moldavan and colleagues (2021) found that urban secondary math teachers during the pandemic reported not knowing how to effectively integrate technology into their practice. Additional research shows (An et al., 2021) that 65% of teachers surveyed used a teacher-centered approach of video lectures, while only 23% used a student-centered approach of inquiry-based learning when teaching during the pandemic. The negative consequences of these disruptions, exacerbated by economically disadvantaged students’ limited digital access to virtual lessons, may persist for children until they reach adulthood (Agostinelli et al., 2022).
Educators and the public may be tempted to focus primarily on what students cannot do, benchmarks not met as in years past, and aim efforts towards “catching students up.” However, research indicates that “catching students up” – through compressed content, grade retention, and enhanced Response To Intervention (RTI) – is largely ineffective in helping students who are “behind” (Allensworth et al., 2020). Instead, improving students’ mathematics learning involves high-quality instruction – a student-centered approach that is emotionally and cognitively demanding. This suggests that teachers concentrate on what students can do by capitalizing on the assets they bring to the classroom and not dwell excessively on their perceived “learning loss.”
As students shift back to in-person learning, it is essential for educators to shift back to student-centered teaching. This brief offers guidance to facilitate this shift – or shift back – by highlighting secondary math-specific, researched-based pedagogical practices that center students in the classroom.
The Centrality of Student Engagement in Mathematics Learning
Mathematics learning and achievement follow from student engagement, which must be deliberately and strategically fostered (Watt, 2017). Student-centered teaching emphasizes engagement, recognizing that when students are not engaged, content coverage is largely ineffective (Allensworth et al., 2020). Because student engagement is multi-faceted, teaching for engagement must consider the multiple ways students can be engaged. Specifically, high-quality instruction that engages students emotionally and cognitively leads to more student-centered learning (Allensworth et al., 2020).
Figure 1 shows a set of math-specific, secondary-focused strategies for emotional and cognitive engagement. This brief details ways teachers can foster students’ emotional engagement by using Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP). It further outlines how teachers cognitively engage students by using the Standards of Mathematical Practices, formative assessment, rich mathematical tasks, and technology. Although not an exhaustive list of strategies, the following strategies were noted repeatedly in research studies and can be implemented immediately.
Emotional Engagement
Environmental factors that support emotional engagement can help students value academic learning (Watt, 2017). Cultivating an environment that allows students to make mistakes can lead them to find “uncommon methods of solutions that can promote their fluency, flexibility, and originality in mathematics” (Bicer, 2021, p. 270). Research further recommends that teachers encourage students to take intellectual risks and share their mathematical ideas with others to increase cognitive flexibility in problem solving (Sriraman, 2009). Moreover, when students engage in mathematical discussions with their peers, they make new connections to learning. Celebrating growth, in addition to achievement, and providing multiple opportunities and flexible ways to show mastery are additional approaches teachers can implement immediately to create an emotionally engaging environment (Seda et al., 2020).
Emotionally engaging students also involves understanding what assets they bring to school. When teachers recognize the wealth of unique characteristics (i.e., students’ cultural heritage, personal experiences, social interests, etc.) students bring to the classroom, they can leverage those characteristics to the students’ advantage. As Gutierrez (2018) points out, math content is not independent of personal identity. Instead of assuming that mathematics is identity-neutral, teachers can analyze how the mathematics curriculum fails to take into account students’ backgrounds and use Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) to produce students who achieve academic success while affirming their cultural identity and growing their political consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995a). For educators who do not share the same cultural knowledge or experiences of their students, as is common in the state of Connecticut and elsewhere (Blanco, 2021), Seda et al. (2020) suggest the following strategies:
- Honor student identity – when teachers acknowledge the racial and ethnic identities of their students, they are better able to design mathematical tasks that are relevant to students’ experiences.
- Use resources that portray people of diverse backgrounds favorably – omitting the contributions of people of diverse backgrounds in math curricular materials sends the message to students that only people of European descent are successful in mathematics.
- Use active teaching strategies – active instructional strategies that engage students in real life and genuine problems can both motivate students and tap into their cultural experience.
Educators who focus on students’ assets instead of their deficiencies can better emotionally engage students (Goffney et al., 2018), resulting in students who are invested in what they are learning. When students are able to bond with peers in supportive environments to engage in mathematical tasks designed to reflect their lived experiences, they can connect how mathematics can be used to solve problems in their everyday lives. Students perform better when they do not feel pressured to leave their “true selves at the door” (Nordell, 2021).
Cognitive Engagement
Cognitive engagement – students striving to solve intellectual problems (Watt, 2017) – is equally important. Academic challenges are crucial and a reflection of the quality of tasks designed for a lesson. Cognitively engaging students requires the teacher to know what a proficient math student looks like, design appropriate tasks, then assess students to gauge students’ learning and inform further instruction.
The Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMPs) describe behaviors of proficient math students. The daily inclusion of SMPs in the classroom fosters students’ meaningful engagement in learning mathematics (Selling, 2016).
Envisioning a Mathematically Proficient Student: The Standards for Mathematical Practices
Using mathematics involves skillful processes to tackle complex problems; simply knowing math topics does not necessarily equip students to effectively use mathematics. The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) Mathematical Practices (SMPs) describe eight core practical mathematical techniques and skills that mathematicians use.
Developing mathematically proficient students involves tasks that promote students’ engagement with these mathematical practices. Integrating these strategies into classrooms not only enables teachers to foster students’ mathematical creativity, but can also promote mathematical equity by allowing all learners access to cognitively engaging instruction (Bicer, 2021).
Developing mathematically proficient students involves tasks that promote students’ engagement with these mathematical practices. Integrating these strategies into classrooms not only enables teachers to foster students’ mathematical creativity, but can also promote mathematical equity.
Designing Tasks that Nurture Mathematical Creativity
Although creativity is more commonly associated with the arts and humanities, researchers acknowledge its importance in STEM-related disciplines (Neuman, 2007).One way to do this is by designing tasks that nurture mathematical creativity (Boaler, 2015). Mathematical creativity is the student’s ability to generate original mathematical ideas, processes, or products by discerning and using acceptable mathematical patterns and models (Bicer, 2021). Educators can cultivate mathematical creativity in their students by developing students’ cognitive flexibility – the ability to activate and modify his/her thought processes as the demands of a task change (Krems, 1995). This can unlock students’ unique ways of solving open-ended mathematical tasks. Activities that foster mathematical creativity are: problem-solving using open-ended problems, problem-posing, and modeling activities (Bicer, 2021).
Problem solving – engaging tasks for which the solution is unknown (NCTM, 2014) – has a strong correlation with mathematical creativity and is identified as one of its best indicators (Sriraman, 2009). The best problem solving tasks that cultivate creativity are open-ended problems – problems that do not specify clearly what is being asked, thereby providing opportunities for students to explore multiple interpretations for various solutions (Bicer, 2021). Students’ creativity in mathematics can be fostered through culturally relevant open-ended problems that allow students to freely apply their imaginations to find novel mathematical ideas and solutions. When students engage in creative problem-solving tasks, it requires them to apply prior learned mathematical rules and procedures to generate original solutions that strengthen comprehension and the interconnectedness of mathematical ideas (Bicer, 2021). Additionally, open-ended problems cultivate a learning environment that promotes diversity of thought as students hear the mathematical ideas, reasoning, and justifications of others (Hiebert et al., 2000).
Problem-posing – the production or reformulation of mathematical problems (Silver, 1994) – requires reasoning and reflection that enables students to look beyond the surface level of content and deepen their mathematical understanding. Whether structured – generating mathematical problems according to a specific scenario – or free, problem posing should be implemented by teachers before, during, and after the problem-solving process. When teachers give students opportunities to create and answer their own mathematical problems, a level of curiosity and enthusiasm appears in students that encourages them to appreciate math’s beauty and not just see it as a set of memorized rules and procedures.
Mathematical modeling – the process of creating models to solve complex problems in a real-world context (The Common Core State Standards, 2010) – provides opportunities for teachers to elicit students’ creative thinking processes by forcing students to select the appropriate mathematics to investigate. Modeling tasks support students’ ability to create, execute, evaluate, and refine various solution methods of given problems. Since mathematical modeling activities enable students to use their prior knowledge to construct new mathematical knowledge and provide teachers with insights into student thought processes, implementing mathematical modeling activities into classroom instruction has multiple benefits (Bicer, 2021).
In her book Mathematical Mindsets, Boaler (2015) provides the following example to model how activities that foster mathematical creativity appear in practice:
In this task, both the solution and the solution strategy are unknown. Students use their own creativity to investigate possible solutions. While the answer is not entirely subjective, multiple solutions are possible. The problem is therefore open enough to be explored in multiple ways, but rigorous enough to require mathematical justification. This task also provides an interesting opportunity to stimulate further problem-posing. Additionally, because no strategy is suggested, students can be encouraged to develop their own mathematical models for arriving at a solution.
As students engage in the problem-solving process, they will inevitably make mistakes. Recall that a supportive class culture that leverages mistakes into learning opportunities is emotionally engaging and helps to develop students’ cognitive engagement and math proficiency.
Formative Assessments
Formative assessment–the systematic process of gathering evidence about student learning and thinking – is a third strategy that can support cognitive engagement (Lildejahl, 2021; NCTM, 2014) and has been identified as one of the most powerful practices to support student learning (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Hattie, 2012). Designing rich mathematical tasks and nurturing creativity for cognitive engagement require that teachers have an intimate knowledge of their students’ capabilities. One teaching practice recommended by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2014) is to “elicit and use evidence of student thinking” (p. 53). Formative assessment helps, as it has been shown to be more effective in improving student achievement than benchmark assessments (Wiliam, 2011). The data produced help identify students’ current learning level so educators can adapt lessons accordingly, thereby increasing students’ engagement.
Teachers can implement formative assessment successfully in their classrooms and maximize opportunities for gathering data by following its four core elements:
- identify gaps between students’ current learning level and the desired educational goal,
- provide feedback that guides students to improve their learning,
- collaborate with students in developing a shared understanding of what is needed to move learning forward, and
- articulate subgoals for a learning progression toward the ultimate goal (Heritage, 2007).
Additionally, knowing the range of formative assessments techniques enables teachers to align them effectively with instructional goals. Some strategies that teachers can use in daily planning and instruction are; observations, questioning, “show me” activities – students demonstrating what they are learning – and exit tasks (Fennell et al., 2015). Observations, questioning, and “show me” activities are used to guide that day’s lesson, while responses to exit tasks assess progress towards learning goals to influence planning for future lessons. The empirical evidence showing formative assessments’ effectiveness in improving student learning (Black et al., 2010) suggests that teachers recognize them as an inseparable part of the teaching process and a valuable process that yields actionable information about students’ learning – not just “another thing” being externally imposed upon them.
Strategic Use of Technology
Technology is often used to engage students, whether by choice, or – in the case distance learning – out of necessity. To mitigate the impact of missed in-person instruction during the pandemic, teachers and students had to quickly transition from face-to-face instruction to a distance learning model, which was only possible through the use of technology. Therefore, this policy brief would be remiss if it did not provide research-based insight on how technology impacts students’ learning of mathematics. As teachers structure their classrooms to foster emotional and cognitive engagement, it is important to acknowledge that technology can both deepen issues of equity and enhance instructional practices (Moldavan et al., 2021) and should be used strategically.
When technology in the classroom is effective, it usually has a very specific role. For example, Hegedus and colleagues (2015) studied a classroom that used computer software to model algebraic functions. The software was used as a tool to enrich instruction, not replace it. Student performance improved as a result of this qualitatively different learning experience. A result corroborated by a meta-analysis conducted by Li and Ma (2010), who found that computer technology was an effective instructional resource when combined with a constructivist teaching approach.
Too often, unfortunately, technology is not used to aid student problem solving, but to teach the same content through a different medium. When technology is used in this way, there is a danger that students are engaging with the technology, but not with the underlying mathematics. In a study conducted by Perry and Steck (2015), students using an interactive geometry app were rated by themselves and their teachers as more engaged, but they did not actually learn any more geometry. When technology is not used judiciously, students can become superficially engaged, but not emotionally or cognitively engaged. As Parkay (2014) puts it, “technology cannot be grafted onto existing curricula; it must be integrated thoughtfully.”
This raises the question of whether computer software can be used to “catch students up” who are below grade-level due to the pandemic. Programs like Aleks and Edmentum’s Exact Path promise to help students master difficult content, with minimal teacher instruction. While this can be a tempting supplement or alternative to traditional instruction, the research on these programs is mixed. For instance, Edmentum’s Exact Path self-guided curriculum – when used to supplement traditional curriculum in middle school – has been shown to raise student test scores (Randel, 2018). However, the gains reported thus far have been small. In a study of high school students, the self-guided Aleks curriculum also raised student test scores, but only when used as a supplement to teacher instruction (Sun, et al., 2021). When used as a replacement for classroom-based instruction, the Aleks curriculum produced results that were equivalent. These results suggest that such programs may provide a reasonable alternative to classroom-based instruction – if necessary – but that they should not be expected to accelerate students’ learning when used in isolation.
Other studies provide further evidence that software is minimally effective in helping students “catch up”. In a recent meta-analysis, Ran and colleagues (2021) found that educational computerized games and programs that offer continuous practice on a stream of math skills do not increase achievement for low-performing students – even when the computerized programs were adaptive and iterative. Moreover, the same study found that the ability of computer technology to aid low-performing students decreases with grade level, with effects sometimes disappearing in high school – a result that had been previously observed (Li et al., 2010). Ultimately, the most effective technology interventions for raising math achievement are computer technologies used to “design and create advanced and appealing problem-solving activities or learning experiences” (Ran et al, p. 144). Such interventions are difficult to implement without teacher involvement. In other words, emotional and cognitive engagement is difficult to achieve with technology alone; existing technology falls short of this goal and is almost always more effective when supplemented by classroom-based instruction.
By sparking enthusiasm and using CRP, teachers can create classroom environments that emotionally engage students to learn, while using the SMPs, formative assessments, rich mathematical tasks, and technology to cognitively engage them.
Conclusion
The evidence presented outlines a clear approach on how teachers can focus their efforts for math achievement and alleviate the negative impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on math proficiency. By sparking enthusiasm and using CRP, teachers can create classroom environments that emotionally engage students to learn, while using the SMPs, formative assessments, rich mathematical tasks, and technology to cognitively engage them. This student-centered approach to instruction is not new, but is all the more important as we work to re-engage students in mathematics classrooms in the wake of (and ongoing impact of) the pandemic. Student-centered approaches also continue to be supported by research. In the rush to “catch students up,” we often end up leaving those students behind (Allensworth et al., 2020). The recommendations outlined in this brief suggest a less frenetic approach, driven not by time-specific benchmarks but by understanding students and engaging them in authentic mathematics – an approach that is ultimately more effective.
This CEPARE Rapid Research Brief was supported by a grant from the American Educational Research Association. Faculty with relevant expertise advised the author throughout the preparation of this brief and reviewed it in advance of publication.
CEPARE produces high-quality research, evaluation, and policy analysis that informs leaders and policymakers on a range of pressing issues, with a particular focus on enhancing social justice and equity across p-20 educational settings in Connecticut and beyond. CEPARE produced this Rapid Research Brief as part of the SETER Alliance, which aims to strengthen and support learning opportunities in Connecticut’s Alliance districts. Learn more about CEPARE cepare.uconn.edu. Access the PDF VERSION (including all references and appendices).
Kenya Overton is a current doctoral student in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. Having earned her BA and MS in Mathematics from Westfield State College and the University of Mississippi respectively, and 6th Year in Ed Leadership from UConn, Kenya is passionate about ensuring that racially oppressed groups have access to a high quality mathematical education. Prior to pursuing her Ph.D. in Secondary Mathematics Education, Kenya devoted nearly 20 years in public education as an administrator, teacher, and mentor in schools across the country, including states like; Connecticut, Tennessee, New York, and Massachusetts. She has also taught mathematics at the Community College and University levels. Her research interests include: organizational structures in public secondary schools that promote Black math achievement, developing equity-minded math educators, and empowering students in math through Hip-Hop pedagogy.
Andrew Kuck is a doctoral student in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. He earned a BS from Grand Valley State University in Michigan, and an MA in teaching from Valparaiso University in Indiana. Prior to pursuing his Ph.D., Andrew taught secondary math in Indiana, Illinois, and Massachusetts. His research interests include preservice teacher preparation and mathematical writing. He currently lives in Boston with his wife.
UConn Produces An All-Time High 17 Gilman Scholars
UConn Today (Neag School bilingual elementary major Soribel Torres-Jimenez is recognized as a Gilman Scholar)
Understanding Segregation and School Choice
UConn Today (A research brief on segregation in American schools by Casey Cobb is featured)
School Mental Health Resources Critical to Ensuring Safe School Environments
The Conversation (Sandra Chafouleas and Neag School alumna Amy Briesch pen an essay on school mental health resources toensure safe school environments)
Reflecting on the Impact of Conservation Training Partnerships
UConn Today (The Neag School, which is a partner for the Conservation Training Partnerships, is mentioned)
Faculty Emeritus George Sugai One of a Coalition of National Researchers That Has Released a Violence Prevention Plan
The recent mass shootings across the country—and there have been over 214 mass shootings in the first five months of 2022—are another painful reminder of failed efforts to stop the kind of gun violence that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School nearly ten years ago. An interdisciplinary group of scholars who have studied school safety and violence prevention for decades, including Professor Emeritus George Sugai of the Neag School of Education, are calling for immediate government action to initiate scientifically-informed actions to reduce gun violence.
After the 2018 shootings at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, the Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence developed a “Call for Action to Prevent Gun Violence in the United States of America”(link is external) that was endorsed by numerous professional organizations in education, psychology, and allied fields, representing 5 million professionals working in and with schools. The evidence base for that call was published in 2019 (Flannery et al.). There is now even more research evidence in support of the eight points in this plan. According to one of the experts, Professor Pedro Noguera, Dean of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, “Scientifically, we know what to do to reduce gun violence. The question is whether our leaders will do it.”
New research shows that comprehensive background checks are foundational to keeping guns from dangerous individuals, especially when coupled with licenses to purchase handguns. Licensing and bans on large capacity ammunition feeding devices prevent fatal mass shootings. Laws requiring gun owners to lock away their firearms so that they are inaccessible to underage youth prevent deaths to teens from suicides and homicides. Extreme risk protection laws are a promising and practical policy for removing firearms when there are clear threats of potential lethal violence and have been used to thwart plans to commit mass shootings.
“A majority of us wear our seatbelts, give up our dangerous objects when boarding planes, apply for driver’s license, use prescriptions to get our medications, and show proof of our age when we buy alcohol…all for the individual and common good,” says Professor Emeritus George Sugai. “This important statement highlights the existing knowledge, science, and tools to prevent gun and school violence. This statement urgently warns us that we need to act now, and act in ways that are long lasting, preventive, and widespread….for the individual and common good.”
In addition to the updated 8-point plan, the coalition has highlighted some resources for educators, school leaders, and parents in supporting the families and staff they serve:
- Responding to a Mass Casualty Event at a School: General Guidance for the First Stage of Recovery
- Responding to School Violence: Tips for Administrators
- Talking to Children About Violence: Tips for Parents and Teachers
Supporting Quarantined Learning in K-12 Schools
Editor’s Note: Britney Jones, Neag School of Education doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership, prepared the following rapid research brief on supporting quarantined learning with the Center for Education Policy Analysis, Research, and Evaluation (CEPARE).
Schools and districts around the world continue to grapple with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disruptions to schooling are predicted to continue into 2022-23 and beyond, with news outlets forecasting surges this summer and winter (Sarisohn, 2022). During the 2020-2021 school year, there was a significant increase in absences, and even chronic absenteeism, as schools and students shifted between in-person, hybrid, and remote learning options (Chang et al., 2021). After a year of disruption, many districts looked forward to the 2021-2022 school year as a time to recover and return to in-person instruction. Unfortunately, many have found this year to be just as, if not more, challenging as the last.
As the number of cases continues to periodically spike and community outbreaks persist, schools have felt the impact. Mandatory quarantining, school closures, and other continued effects related to COVID-19 have led to a 2.9 percentage point decrease in the student attendance rate for all Connecticut students thus far in the 2021-2022 school year as compared to 2019-2020 and 1.0 percentage point decline from the 2020-2021 school year (Connecticut State Department of Education [CSDE], 2022).
Additionally, the chronic absenteeism rate rose from 12.2% during the 2019-20 school year to 23.8% thus far in 2021-2022 (CSDE, 2022). This reality has left many school and district leaders searching for answers on how to best support students. This brief considers what options are available to schools during this complex time. Drawing on research on best practices to address extended absences generally, as well as research specifically related to the pandemic, this brief offers suggestions for effectively navigating this issue.
Current Response
The reality and persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitate continued quarantining despite the hopefulness expressed in many district re-opening plans. This has caused many schools and districts to pivot to support student learning at home during the 2021-2022 school year. A review of the research and publicly available district re-opening documents reveals a variety of strategies to address instances of continued quarantine or distance learning. One solution has been to send packets home for students. Some schools have decided to post assignments online via virtual platforms. Many districts have opted to employ these fully asynchronous strategies. Other districts attempt to integrate synchronous learning options via virtual learning systems or video conferencing platforms. This has proven challenging, however, as teachers report that simultaneously teaching in person and virtually is not sustainable.
Learning from Exemplary Planning
Some districts started the 2021-2022 school year with what appeared to be a robust plan for quarantined learning. Education Week reports that the Arlington Heights School District 25 in Illinois developed a Quarantine Academy to address absences and the continued need for a remote option (Schwartz, 2021). After speaking with a representative from the district, author Sarah Schwartz shares that they created groups by grade level (early childhood, K-2, 3-5, and 6-8) and then designated one teacher to offer synchronous instruction to each group. One special education teacher supported all of the groups, and special classes; such as physical education, art, and music, occurred asynchronously. The Quarantine Academy option was to be offered year-round, with students opting in as needed. Districts may review available resources and staffing to try and implement some version of a sustained option such as Quarantine Academy.
After a year of disruption, many districts looked forward to the 2021-2022 school year as a time to recover and return to in-person instruction. Unfortunately, many have found this year to be just as, if not more, challenging as the last.
The Groton Public Schools district in Connecticut also appears to have a plan for increased absences due to emergency school closures and whole class quarantining. Their re-opening plan states: “If an entire class is quarantined or emergency school closures, the teacher will move to synchronous remote instruction for the entire class.” They also state: “An assigned building substitute will provide mini-lessons that can be accessed by quarantined remote learners on Zoom (or other live-streaming technology). Students will also receive communications and assignments through the LMS [Learning Management System], supported by their building substitute teacher, a tutor, interventionist, and/or their teacher.” Similar to the plan from the Arlington district, the Groton Public Schools district has designated staff that will focus on and prioritize remote learning. Where applicable and feasible, other districts might consider this option as it alleviates the need for teachers to offer concurrent instruction for students in person and at home. This sort of standing option ensures a consistent response as the number of cases and outbreaks fluctuate.
A New Way Forward: Creating a Permanent Plan
Whether a district can designate staff to attend to quarantined learning or not, the COVID-19 pandemic has signaled the need for a permanent and prepared response to this sort of disruption. Some have even characterized the pandemic as an opportunity to reimagine how schools operate. If this is true, developing strong systems will help provide support for students with extended absences or interrupted schooling unrelated to COVID-19. As district leaders and policymakers move to develop systems to address quarantined learning, they should consider the following five areas:
Standard and Curriculum Prioritization
Are there parts of the curriculum that are well suited for remote learning? Consider which standards, lessons, activities, and objectives lend themselves to learning at home. These topics and resources can then be archived. Such work can be prioritized during times of extended absence for an individual student or a group of quarantined students. For example, in the subject of early literacy, teachers and curriculum developers might designate specific word study activities or lessons well suited for the home environment. They can create step-by-step tutorials for students and parents and leverage this opportunity to quite literally make meaningful connections in the home. For example, a lesson could focus on labeling and comparing household items (Chen & Greenwood, 2021). When creating these plans, it is also important to determine how to be culturally relevant and build on students’ and parents’ funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992). Some educators in the medical field are already beginning to reenvision curriculum for remote learning. For example, at the post-secondary level, educators have begun to create a 14-day “Quarantine Curriculum” (Ross, 2020). The curriculum is designed to cover foundational concepts on one topic, in this case, neuroscience, with a mix of self-study and interactive components. Students have access to instructional recordings, assessments, and opportunities for feedback. As more of these types of resources are created, they may be available across districts, states, and beyond.
The reality and persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitate continued quarantining despite the hopefulness expressed in many district re-opening plans.
Reallocation of Staff
Is it someone’s job to ensure that quarantined students are receiving adequate instruction? When possible, districts should consider designating a staff member or multiple staff members to focus on remote learning or supporting students with extended absences. This might look like one teacher per grade level, content area, or school (depending on staffing constraints). In Connecticut, the Manchester Public School district coupled their 2020-2021 re-opening plan with the creation of a new position, a remote learning coordinator, and facilitated staffing shifts to appoint a former principal in this strategic role. As the effects of COVID-19 persist, so too will the need for new roles and responsibilities such as this one. School and district leaders might also think strategically about pooling quarantined students across schools to provide instruction from designated staff. This may look like a district-wide “Quarantine Academy” or a set of teachers designated by the state to create a “Quarantine Curriculum,” recorded lessons, and offer synchronous learning/feedback.
Accessibility/Availability
Can all students access what schools are able to offer during quarantine? In May 2020, the Connecticut State Department of Education reported that approximately 8% or 40,000 school-aged children in the state did not have access to technology/devices deemed necessary for learning (Connecticut Commission for Educational Technology, 2020). The state addressed this digital divide with the $43.5 million Everybody Learns Initiative, which provided 50,000 laptops, internet access in 60,000 homes, and 200 new public hotspots (the State of Connecticut, Office of Governor Ned Lamont, 2020). Districts should ensure that all students have been able to access these and other ongoing technology supports offered by the state. If technology issues persist, or as maintenance and repair issues arise, districts may consider non-digital options such as paper packets or even public television, as recommended by some state departments (Reich et al., 2020).
Additionally, districts should consider how to deliver content as equitably as possible. That is, the goal is not simply accessibility but also usability and inclusivity (Lowenthal et al., 2020). Lowenthal and colleagues (2020) urge educators to provide auditory content along with visuals, offer transcript access, use text that is accessible for screen-reading technology, and employ multiple means of engagement, assessment, and representation. Importantly, all plans for remote learning should consider the benefits and challenges of remote or quarantined learning for vulnerable populations and frame solutions with equity at the center (Woulfin & Jones, 2022).
Finally, districts should consider students’ non-academic needs that may go unmet when they are quarantining. For example, districts should attend to students’ nutritional and mental health needs, in addition to their learning needs, when drafting quarantined learning plans (Reich et al., 2020). Some districts have attended to food insecurity by offering and coordinating food delivery and pickup options (Martin & Sorenson, 2020). Education research scholars have suggested that educational leaders create a task force charged with developing systems and guidelines to support K-12 students’ social and emotional learning (Varghese & Natsuaki, 2021). They also encourage educators to be intentional about checking in with students regarding feelings of worry or anxiety, particularly around technology usage and remote learning (Morgan, 2020).
Staff Development
How do districts and schools support educators as they navigate this new terrain? Teachers have demonstrated dedication and resilience in the face of unimaginable changes. Many have expressed the desire for increased opportunities to learn about various platforms, instructional strategies, differentiation techniques, and tools for relationship building in a remote context (Akojie, Laroche, & Schumacher, 2022). Teachers need professional development that addresses each of these needs. Administrators should consider training options that encourage teachers to reimagine traditional instruction. For example, offering a session on a strategy such as flipped teaching, where teachers teach in reverse by having students preview content such as study materials and pre-recorded mini-lessons ahead of synchronous in-class time (Tretinjak, 2018). This sort of modification to traditional instruction and planning could help educators and students be more amenable to disruption. Pre-recorded mini-lesson videos from a student’s teacher can be especially helpful as they provide a sense of consistency and familiarity during uncertain times (Anderson, 2020; Morgan, 2020). Teachers also need explicit and sustained instruction on the platform or Learning Management System (LMS) adopted by their district. Pre-pandemic, scholars highlighted the centrality of teachers in the shift towards increased technology in schools. Now more than ever, it is critical that district leaders and policymakers recognize and support teachers in their role as facilitators of educational technology (Rocio, 2021) and use resources and standards provided by organizations such as the International Society for Technology in Education (Morgan, 2020). Teacher preparation programs will also need to address teachers’ readiness for hybrid and remote learning (Cahapay & Anoba, 2020).
Feedback and Data-Analysis Systems
How can districts keep track of absences and get feedback on the state of quarantined learning? Districts should implement systems to gather data related to quarantined learning. They should strategically collect, track, compile and share data on who is missing school. Trends from such analyses might prove helpful as districts seek solutions. The pandemic has disproportionately impacted racially and ethnically minoritized students (Jones, 2021), as well as students from lower-income households, students with disabilities, and English learners (CSDE, 2022). With the increased risk of student absence brought on by COVID-19 and remote or quarantined learning (Chang, 2021), it is critical for districts to develop systems to identify and support their most vulnerable populations. Districts might also consider creating a system to solicit information related to student preferences regarding the usefulness and accessibility of various online tools and practices (Lima et al., 2020). They could also gather information from parents and guardians to gauge their preparedness and satisfaction with quarantined offerings (OECD, 2020).
Additionally, such a system should also allow teachers to give feedback on the state of quarantine learning at their school, with space to share successes and communicate their existing needs. Scholars examining the COVID-19 pandemic from different angles all agree that communication is crucial during this time. Districts could brainstorm how to use feedback systems as a pathway to maintain open communication between schools, students, and families.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated new possibilities and solidified the need for a thoughtful plan for continued student learning in the face of disruption. There is an opportunity to reimagine how schools are organized and how curriculum and instruction are designed. Student absenteeism has always been an issue worth addressing (Koppenhaver, 2006), and perhaps new learning from the COVID-19 pandemic will help the educational community better understand how to serve students who miss school for a variety of reasons. The more districts create and compile content and refine policies, procedures, and new roles for quarantined learning, the more opportunities there will be for interdistrict information sharing, support, and collaboration.
Author Biography
Britney Jones will join Trinity College as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Educational Studies in the fall of 2022. She earned a bachelor’s degree and a Master of Arts in Teaching degree from Brown University. She received her Ph.D. in Educational Leadership: Learning, Leadership, and Education Policy at the University of Connecticut in May 2022. Her dissertation research examines science teachers’ sociopolitical consciousness and how they understand Culturally Relevant Pedagogy/Culturally Relevant Science Teaching. Her most recent journal publications are “Preservice science teachers’ sociopolitical consciousness” and “Within the walls of the classroom: How science teachers’ instruction can develop students’ sociopolitical consciousness,” both in Science Education (2022). She previously taught fourth-grade students for four years in Brooklyn, New York, and served as a teacher leader/curriculum developer.
This CEPARE Rapid Research Brief was supported by a grant from the American Educational Research Association. Faculty with relevant expertise advised the author throughout the preparation of this brief and reviewed it in advance of publication.
CEPARE produces high-quality research, evaluation, and policy analysis that informs leaders and policymakers on a range of pressing issues, with a particular focus on enhancing social justice and equity across p-20 educational settings in Connecticut and beyond. CEPARE produced this Rapid Research Brief as part of the SETER Alliance, which aims to strengthen and support learning opportunities in Connecticut’s Alliance districts. Learn more about CEPARE cepare.uconn.edu. Access the PDF VERSION (including all references and appendices).
Related Stories:
- Superintendent Relationships With School Boards: Collaborating for Student Success
- Grade Retention After COVID-19: Evidence-Based Guidance
- Best Practices in Early Childhood Literacy
- The Payoff of Preschool: Investing in CT’s Youngest Residents
- The Prevalence and Price of Police in Schools
- Reducing Racism in Schools: The Promise of Anti-Racist Policies
