Yesterday the researchers from the State of the Nation project were alerted to this article by a member of the Canadian eLearning Network.
Majority of Ontario students failed to complete Ford government’s mandatory e-learning requirement, ministry data reveals
70 per cent of students were either exempted from or opted out of the online credit requirementThe very first graduating class subject to the Ford government’s e-learning mandate overwhelmingly rejected it, according to new data obtained by The Trillium through a freedom of information request.
The policy, introduced in 2019 as a leap into the future of digital literacy, states that beginning with the cohort entering Grade 9 in 2020, every Ontario student needs to successfully complete two online credits to earn their diploma.
But according to records tracking the 2023-24 graduates, almost 70 per cent bypassed the requirement entirely.
104,313 were marked as “Not Applicable” due to exemptions or opt-outs, while just 46,092 graduates successfully completed the online credits.
To continue reading visit https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/education-and-training/majority-of-ontario-students-failed-to-complete-ford-governments-mandatory-e-learning-requirement-ministry-data-reveals-12317496
As we did in our commentary on the article “Teachers’ union calls on province to end mandatory e-learning in Ontario schools,” we wanted to examine the veracity of some of the claims being made about e-learning in general.
The first claim that is made is alluded to in the title of the article:
But according to records tracking the 2023-24 graduates, almost 70 per cent bypassed the requirement entirely.
104,313 were marked as “Not Applicable” due to exemptions or opt-outs, while just 46,092 graduates successfully completed the online credits.
As researchers in the field, this finding does not surprise. As the Director of the Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute, Joe Freidhoff, wrote:
In 2006, Michigan became the first state in the United States to adopt an online learning requirement for high school graduation. The policy allowed three ways for a student to fulfill the online learning requirement. One way was for a student to enroll in a fully-online semester- or trimester-length course. The second was to participate in an online experience of at least 20 hours. The third allowed for the requirement to be satisfied if the student engaged in online experiences that were incorporated into a series of courses that were required for graduation.
That third option basically means that a school can identify individual lessons in a series of courses where the students will complete online activities, and that would satisfy the graduation requirement. It shouldn’t shock readers to discover that the vast majority of students in the State of Michigan fulfill their online learning graduation requirement using this third option.
The second claim that is made in the article:
Ontario is an outlier in Canada, and that no other jurisdiction has imposed an e-learning requirement.
Within the Canadian context, this is accurate. There are other jurisdictions that do require one or more online learning courses in order to graduate, but they are all south of the border in the United States. At present, there are six states in the US that have some form of graduation requirement that includes online learning, and there were additional states 10-15 years ago (including Idaho, which also required two online courses). But yes, Ontario is the only Canadian jurisdiction with this requirement.
The third claim that is made in the article:
Some students said that it does offer flexibility and the option to choose different teachers.
As was described in our earlier commentary, there is a long and detailed history in the K-12 distance and online learning literature that suggests flexibility is one of the main benefits and main reasons why students enroll in e-learning courses.
The fourth claim that is made in the article (several times in fact):
But they add it could serve as a shortcut.
“It’s a lot easier overall, like you don’t have to put in that much effort, to be honest,” James said.
In one study of online learning, Farhadi said students used it as a way of “gaming the system.”
“Often they would take it as a response to failing an in-person class, or they would take it in anticipation of an in-person class that they knew would be challenging for them,” Farhadi said.
There are many reasons a student might fail a course. For example, there may be a conflict or personal issue between the student and teacher that is preventing the student from having success in a particular class. There is much research that examines the impact of the teacher’s and students’ gender or ethnicity on their performance (e.g., female students tend to perform better in mathematics when taught by a female teacher, as opposed to a male teacher). Similarly, the fact that the student failed might have more to do with their relationship with other students in that course (e.g., a student who is being bullied at school might not perform well in a course where their bully is also enrolled). There is a growing body of literature that suggests the nature of online learning might assist some students in having success (e.g., removing the distractions from other students, the ability to proceed at their own pace, the ability to focus only on content that they don’t know and not waste time on content they already know, etc.).
The fifth claim that is made in the article:
“Students want to be in school, they want to be in class with their peers, they thrive better when there’s interaction with their teachers and classmates, and hands-on learning and extracurriculars, and just being part of the school community,” said Martha Hradowy, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation.
It is important to note that even if a student enrolls in two online courses over the span of their four year secondary school career, that does not remove them from school. It does not mean that they aren’t engaged in learning with their peers, just that for those two classes, their peers might be geographically located in other communities. A well designed and well taught online course has interactions between the student and their teachers and classmates – in many cases, more interaction because there is no concern with having students talking over each other when asynchronous tools are used. Two online courses over four years does not prevent the student from hands on learning any more than having to take mathematics each year, where they sit in desks and complete problems on paper using a calculator prevents hands on learning. Finally, it does not prevent them from engaging in extracurricular activities or being part of the school community. Each of these statements is simply unwarranted alarmism on the part of the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. These statements have no basis in the research into online learning or in the reality of the online learning being provided in Ontario schools.
The sixth claim that is made in the article:
Hradowy argues the education minister is undermining his own efforts to reduce screen time in schools, as he explores banning cell phones on school properties.
Again, as was mentioned in the previous commentary, while there is data to support limiting screen time and also limiting the use of mobile devices (particularly for younger children), much of that research is based upon perceptions of students, teachers, parents/guardians, and/or the public at large. Additionally, much of that same body of research has found that “interactive and educational screen content may positively influence language development and executive functions when aligned with recommended screen time guidelines.” A well designed and facilitated e-learning class is an example of “interactive and educational screen content.” Finally, it should also be noted that the Ontario guidelines focus on mobile devices, not specifically screen time, and the stated reasons focus on those devices being a source of distraction and the potential negative impact on mental health.
The seventh claim that is made in the article:
“The evidence collected to-date shows no significant difference in student achievement in online and face-to-face classrooms,” she added.
The ministry data showed an overall 90 per cent pass rate and 10 per cent failure rate across online courses completed by graduates, but the province did not provide equivalent data for in-person courses.
This is quite consistent with the existing research. The vast majority of studies comparing student performance in the classroom vs. in online learning have found no significant difference, and those that have found differences were in full-time online learning, where students take ALL of their schooling online.
As has been said many times, in person and online are simply the mediums in which the instruction is provided. The quality of that instruction is solely impacted by how it is designed, delivered, and supported – regardless of medium.