Lessons from COVID-19: Four Reasons School Communities Should Embrace K-12 Online Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID pandemic afforded educators an opportunity to learn how traditional K-12 learning communities can deliver instruction online. This collective case study utilized semi-structured interviews of seven students, six parents, five teachers, and four administrators, as well as school-wide surveys, to explore realities of remote online learning in one suburban high school learning community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Theoretically, the study relied on the Community of Inquiry (COI) Theoretical Framework and the CIPP Evaluation Model for data collection and analysis. Data collection began with their initial experiences with emergency remote teaching (ERT) in the 4th quarter of the 2019-2020 school year, until the end of the first semester of the 2020-2021 school year. The survey and interviews sought to understand their perspectives of learning online during their experiences with ERT. Though important issues still need to be addressed in K-12 online environments, this research found the learning community perceived that 1) many students were able to learn in online environments, 2) their experiences suggest numerous strategies that can help improve K-12 online learning opportunities, 3) it was still possible to support students and parents with diverse needs in online environments, and 4) the majority of the learning community was interested in more online opportunities even when school might return to normal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".